Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
| opinion... |
|---|
| Kashif |
| 11/08/00 at 19:46:10 |
| Re: opinion... |
|---|
| Sara |
| 11/08/00 at 20:13:58 |
| Assalam, Am I missing something here? Kashif did you post something here??If so what???? |
| Re: opinion... |
|---|
| Saleema |
| 11/09/00 at 08:41:18 |
| Assalamoalykum, I agree with you Nazia. wassalam |
| Re: opinion... |
|---|
| Kashif |
| 11/09/00 at 09:06:40 |
| I don't think there is an excuse for people to miss prayer. Compare the Muslims of today to the known hypocrites at the time of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam: at least the hypocrites prayed. Food for thought. Kashif Wa Salaam |
| NS |
| Crime & Punishment in Islam |
|---|
| AbuKhaled |
| 11/09/00 at 16:11:43 |
| Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem. Assalam alaikum wa rahmatullah. The issue of why we do an action, and the punishment for an action are two distinct topics in Islam. Definitely when we pray, we should do it for the right reason, but, this Deen did not just come for the individualistic aspect of our lives. It also came to regulate our affairs on the level of family, community, society and State. As such, there exist punishments, laid down by the Shar'iah, which are enforced, by a *legitimate authority.* Those punishments are of various kinds, and before we suggest that they are pointless if ineffective, we should know what they are, for such a statement has implications. Firstly, no society on earth exists without a Penal System, which serves to protect that society. And likewise Islam has a Nidham al-Uqoobat [Punishment/Penal System]. Else it is pointless having laws, if they cannot be enforced. This is an axiomatic truth. However, enforcement and rehabilitation are two separate matters. Moreover, the subjugation to a punishment in this world acts as a kaffara [compensation] from having to undergo punishment in the akhira for that same crime. And indeed the punishment of this world is tame by comparison. Ideally, the Islamic society functions according to the barometer of taqwa, which ensures Muslims abide by the awamir [commands] and nawahy [prohibitions] that Al-Shaari' [The Lawgiver] laid down. And on a side note, it may be apt to mention that many fuqaha (if not all) deemed the leaving of salat a capital offence after a period of time (e.g. three days) if one did not repent and change their ways. If there existed a Khilafah today, many many Muslims under it's jurisdiction might not be around for long, if it became established to the degree required by shar'a that such a person didn't pray at all, wallahu a'lam. Of course there may be mitigating circumstances, like the Sister I knew of whose husband likes to beat her black and blue whenever she prays, a'uzubillah. Or the instance of one who has only just embraced Islam and lives somewhere where there are no other Muslims (which is an example I am currenbly dealing with, lest anyone shrug it off as an improbable likelihood) and hence has no access to knowledge about the Deen (thought the internet makes the world into a village). Now, what needs to be appreciated here is that there are *some* crimes for which Allah (swt) has determined that the punishment *must* be implemented (again though I stress, under a legitimate authority, namely, a Khilafah). The punishment system is divided into four broad categories: The first consists of the Hudood, which are essentially the *rights of Allah (swt),* and *no one can forgive.* Areas covered include qadhf [false accusation], adultery, rida' [apostasy], homosexuality, and some more. Next comes Al-Ginyaat, which are those punishments where Allah (swt) has deemed that a right of forgiveness exists. Examples include homicide and manslaughter, though there are others too. Third is Al-Ta'zir, which are the rights that Allah (swt) has given to the community, and relates to those matters which affects the society at large, for example, litter, excessive noise, etc., wallahu a'lam. Finally you have what is known as Al-Mukhalafat, which cover the rights of the State. Included within this would be areas like traffic laws. Now, with the Hudood, they are a type of punishment which *must* be enforced, even if the person repents, for they are of the rights which belong to Allah (swt). This is why we live in such an abnormal reality, because no other century was without the authority of Islam as a system (despite it's shortcomings throughout the ages). Because of the novelty of our times, certain unprecedented realties unique to our time, may require a new ijtihad, wallahu a'lam, but here is not the place to get bogged down in such details. So when we talk about the unnecessary nature of a punishment, if it is ineffective, the broad brushstroke of such a generality needs to be qualified by knowing that there are certain uqoobaat [punishments] which cannot just be overlooked, no matter how ineffective. Theft being an example. The punishment for theft (assuming the conditions are met) where one loses one's hand, may not deter the perpetrator, and s/he might, say, stop for a while, and then restart, and never get caught (in this life). But since it is a hudood punishment it *has to be carried out.* However, maybe a point to chew over, would be that only *after* the implementation of a punishment can it be known if it is ineffective. Unlike this society where experience is a yardstick and precedent can form a rule, in Islam, tashri' [legislation] is not according to such flimsy foundations. So, for instance, where in this society it might be contended that jail doesn't prevent burglars from re-offending, and they take some statistics based on there be a high constant percentage of re-offenders, to change the punishment, in Islam it doesn't work this way, for you are not debating with man-made law. And which Muslim could dare to suggest that the Shar'iah could be ineffective, without being granted access to the Divine Hikmah [wisdom]? Having said that, Islam is not a Deen of vigilantism, so we need to bear in mind that these punishments are not such that we can each become Qudaa [judges] and punish everyone who forsakes salat. Nonetheless, if you turn to our Classical Ulema, definitely many- if not all (and I only make the exception out of caution due to my unlearnedness)- deemed, based on the Islamic usul [bases, for extracting law], that not praying was a capital offence, which is obviously more than what this Imam is advocating. The issue then is not about why we pray, but the consequences of not doing so *in this world*. And if it is the fear of punishment in the Dunya which is the motivating factor- a factor by the way we don't feel the fear of, due to living under kufr law- then whilst the act may not benefit the self, it will not upset the balance of the Islamic society. And let us not forget that what the State doesn't know, Allah (swt) does. We need to remember- as it is so easy to forget- that Islam regulates our behaviour in society as well as in our personal lives. It is only because such an aspect is absent today that we don't appreciate it's existence as part of the Deen, wallahu a'lam. The same Allah (swt) who will punish or forgive us in the hereafter has legislated a Shar'iah whereby we can be subject to punishment in *this* life for transgressing certain rules. And He (awj) too revealed a System in which we have Qadi's [Judges] who judge on crimes, so this notion that Muslims cannot be judged by other than Allah (swt) is not quite accurate. It needs to be better contextualised. What these Qadi's do is not judge *your Islam* and whether you are going to heaven/hell, but your deeds, according to the role Allah (swt) has made for them in His (awj) System to govern our life. And it is He (awj) who legislated this role for them, and that they should be appointed within The Judicial System, which is one of the many Systems which together make up the Islamic System as a whole. Wallahu a'lam. May He (swt) forgive me for anything I said that was wrong. Abu Khaled |
| Re: opinion... |
|---|
| humble_muslim |
| 11/10/00 at 14:23:40 |
| According to Imam Ahmad bin Hambal, the one who does not in an Islaimc state should be executed. |
| Subhan'Allah! |
|---|
| AbuKhaled |
| 11/10/00 at 15:16:59 |
| Subhan'Allah. Wa-alaikum assalam wa rahmatullah Sister Nazia. You've deleted most of your original response! I've just spent close to two hours addressing what you wrote! Only to return here in anticipation of posting it, and you've changed all of it to this small paragraph! :-( Lol! Well, since I copied your original post into Word, I could still paste my reply with your words quoted where appropriate, but I assume you removed it for some reason, so instead, since I don't wish to do something which could be a cause for your upset, if you let me know, I can send to you via email the comments I made on your *original* response, if you wish to see it. It's quite detailed, as I addressed your reply point by point. Boy, I feel all deflated! Lol! :-) Okay, so now I'll *quickly* compose a reply to your amended response. And this time I hope that when I return you haven't changed it again! Aaarrgghh...! (I'm joking) :-) Abu Khaled |
| Re: opinion... |
|---|
| Saleema |
| 11/10/00 at 15:32:51 |
| Assalamoalykum, Brother Abu Kahlid, you put the wrong smilies up!! :) wassalam |
| Re: opinion... |
|---|
| Kashif |
| 11/10/00 at 15:33:13 |
| [quote]According to Imam Ahmad bin Hambal, the one who does not in an Islaimc state should be executed.[/quote] assalaamu alaikum This has to be taken in context. In the era of the Imams we _had_ an Islamic State. To take that statement and apply it to today where there is no Islamic State, and where the Muslims who are most free to practise their religion are those that live in the lands of the kufaar, is incorrect i think. Kashif Wa Salaam |
| NS |
| Second time around! |
|---|
| AbuKhaled |
| 11/10/00 at 16:03:00 |
| Wa-alaikum assalam wa rahmatullah Sister Nazia. < Does the Shari'ah specifically state the a person should be jailed if they continuously miss prayer? Or does it state that not praying is a crime that should in some way be punished?> Though I am not an Alim I am quite confident in saying that there is nowhere where it is explicitly specified in the Shar'iah that jail is a punishment for one who doesn't pray. For two reasons. One because this was not a form of punishment at the time of the wahy [revelation]. And two because, as I referred to before, most, if not all the Classical Fuqaha, considered it a capital offence. This second reason also leads one to answer your second question. Wallahu a'lam. As for the hujja [proof], I don't have it to hand, sorry. However, that does not mean it cannot be. For if an offence falls under the area which I previously mentioned as Al-Ta'zir, then the punishment is according to the discretion of the Qadi [Judge]. I mention that just so you know that a particular punishment need not be mentioned in the naql [text] for it to be warranted as a punitive measure, if the scope is that of Al-Ta'zir. It might be of further interest, just for your own edification, based on the way you've worded your questions, that something need not be *explicitly* articulated in the naql [text] for it to exist as a hukm. With respect to the nusus [texts] there are two aspects relevant to our discussion. One is mantuq, the other is mafhoum. Mantuq is the explicit meaning carried by the text. Mafhoum is that which is implied by it. One example should suffice, insha'Allah to illustrate. No doubt you're familiar with the ayat in Al-Qur'an Al-Kareem where Allah ta'ala tells us not to say "uff" to our parents, yes? Well, the Ulema have understood the uff as being the mantuq, and therefore that which is greater as being the mafhoum. So in other words, they understood it to mean [my words:] "look, you can't even say uff to your parents, so what then about something greater than that?! No way!" You see, insha'Allah? So sometimes the intended meaning of Al-Shaari' [The Lawgiver] is hidden within the explicit meaning. Kind of like if someone says "I hate you!" They never said they disliked you, which rationally is less than hate, but it is implied by that which is greater (i.e. hate), by virtue of being contained within it. Now, me mentioning this does not mean it is relevant here, rather, I only did so in case you thought that something needed to be mentioned explicitly for it to be a hukm [law]. My apologies if this was not enough. My ignorance extends far beyond what little I know, bi'ithnillah. Abu Khaled PS: Sister Saleema, I don't know about all this smilies business. I'm a duffer when it comes to all that. I just put them in my post and was surprised to see them looking like a jaundiced Sister in hijab! I haven't got a clue how to fiddle about with all this stuff! |
| Point by point |
|---|
| AbuKhaled |
| 11/10/00 at 16:19:08 |
| Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem. Wa-alaikum assalam wa rahmatullah Sister Nazia, Jazakallahukhairun for your considered response. Please forgive me for the technical nature in parts of my reply to you, but it was necessary for the purposes of explanation. To address some of your questions: "…my question is this. If someone forces me to pray, and imprisons me until I repent, once I repent, I will be free, right? Well, after I am free, will I teach my children to pray? Will they teach their children to pray?" There are three points to note about your very valid question above. 1. It is a hypothetical, because to my meagre knowledge no faqih [jurist] or mufti ever has advocated imprisonment as a punishment for one who doesn't pray. Rather, it has tended to be treated as a capital offence, so your question, whilst understandable, is really addressing a hypothetical precedent. 2. It is a subjective rhetorical question you are asking. For it is equally as plausible that the punishment might have the opposite effect. In other words, no one can answer it except the individual in question. 3. If you are asking by way of suggesting that the ineffectiveness of the punishment should be the benchmark for it's implementation, then this is not how tashri' [legislation] is made in Islam. Because what you are addressing is the hikmah [intended effect/result] of the punishment, yet the effect is not the illah [reason] upon which the punishment hinges. To cite a parallel example: In the Qur'an, Allah (swt) enjoins upon us siyam [fasting] in Ramadhan, so that me might acquire taqwa. Now, when we observe our own siyam, many of us find that we don't attain taqwa when we fast. In fact we might experience a month of heightened piety, but soon after we revert back to our normal habitual state, which we know is not something to be satisfied with. The taqwa which is referred to as a product of of siyam is known in usul al-fiqh nomenclature as a hikmah [intended effect]. Not an illah [reason]. Meaning that the reason for the rule (of siyam) is not to acquire taqwa, rather, taqwa is the intended outcome. You may be puzzled as to the difference. It is thus. That the hukm with an illah exists *because* of that illah. Meaning that that illah is the reason behind that rule. Whereas the hikmah is the intended/desired effect/outcome of that rule. And as such it may or may not come into being. Perhaps one of the most famous examples of a hukm with an illah would be when Allah (swt) forbids khamr, because it intoxicates. Thus this then is- according to the fuqaha- the illah behind the rule. So, now we know that anything which intoxicates is haram. Do you see? Whereas a hukm with a hikmah attached may or may not result in that hikmah occuring. How is this related to our discussion? Well, not every hukm has an illah or hikmah. But, for those that do, the illah is what *effects* (not affects) the hukm. So, let us say there is a glass with some reddish-brown liquid in it. It could be whisky, or it could be apple juice. As soon as we establish that it is whisky, about which we know it has the quality of intoxication, the hukm of hirma [prohibition] comes into play. But, if that illah does not exist- e.g. if we learn it is apple juice- then neither does that hukm. However, for a hukm with a hikmah, if that hikmah doesn't result, the hukm *still* exists. So, regarding the earlier example of siyam, *even if* our fasting doesn't lead us to a state of taqwa, it is *still* fard. Confused? Lol. :-) Okay, let me now frame all this within the parameters of our discussion. The above point you are making is directed towards the *effect* of the punishment, which may or may not exist. Punishments exist for many reasons, of which rehabilitation is only one. Others might (and I say might because to know for sure, one would need a better intimacy with this area of Islam than my scant understanding) include deterrence, compensation, penance and punitiveness. Without knowing the type of punishment a particular punishment is, we are unable to questions whether it is warranted. Like I mentioned in the last post, if it is of the nature of hudood, then it matters not if the punishment has no effect, for it is a right which belongs to Allah (awj), and thus such a punishment *must* be enforced (under the remit of the requisite authority). However, if we take the example of ta'zir, which is discretionary according the the Qadi, then it perhaps could be questionable whether a particular punishment was indeed effective, and Allah (swt) has legislated that such a punishment is discretionary, so there is no problem with it being changed according to the judgement of the Qadi of what is appropriate, wallahu a'lam. To give you one very sad example from our history concerning one of our foremost Ulema: " The caliph Abu Ja`far al-Mansur had forbidden [Imam] Malik to narrate the hadith: "The divorce of the coerced does not take effect" (laysa `ala mustakrahin / li mukrahin talâq). Then a spy came to Malik and asked him about the issue, whereupon Malik narrated the hadith in front of everyone. He was seized and lashed until his shoulder was dislocated and he passed out. When he came to, he said: "He [al-Mansur] is absolved of my lashing." When asked why he had absolved him, Malik replied: "I feared to meet the Prophet after being the cause for the perdition of one of his relatives." Ibrahim ibn Hammad said he saw Malik being carried up and walking away, carrying one of his hands with the other. Then they shaved his face and he was mounted on a camel and paraded. He was ordered to deprecate himself aloud, whereupon he said: "Whoever knows me, knows me; whoever does not know me, my name is Malik ibn Anas, and I say: The divorce of the coerced is null and void!" When news of this reached Ja`far ibn Sulayman (d. 175) the governor of Madina and cousin of al-Mansur, he said: "Bring him down, let him go." (taken from Dr Haddad's Biographical Notice on Imam Malik (ra). Subhan'Allah). This is an (tear inducing, if you know anything at all about whom we are writing about, i.e. Imam Malik (ra)) example of a ta'zir punishment. So, my point is, whether you benefit from imprisonment for your non-observance of salat or not, then, assuming this punishment is based on some valid daleel (i.e. imprisonment), then that is not a justification for changing the punishment, or indeed not implementing it at all. For it is an aqli [rational] argument, not a naqli (i.e. shari'i) one. I hope that rather overlong clarification sufficed, though please let me know if it didn't. "If I feel that I have served more than my due punishment, more than likely, my feelings towards prayer won't have changed." Would I be correct in concluding that hear you are taking your own possible reaction as a yardstick for a generalisation about how others might too react? Because if the above is true it would indeed herald the realisation of a more deep-rooted problem with regard to the one who felt in such a way. Namely, the dissatisfaction with the hukm of Allah (awj). For what is important to bear in mind is that such rules emanate from Islamic bases, not human intellect. So to say that you "feel that I have served more than my due punishment" is to presume that you are capable of determining what a "due punishment "is, yet this alone is the domain of our Lord (awj). Punishments are not rationalised. We don' judge or try to qualify the punishment that Allah (swt) has legislated, even when it is ta'zir, because ta'zir exists as an area which Allah (swt) Himself (awj) defined, wherein He (swt) left the punishment to the discretion of the Qadi. So any notion of excess towards the punishment is in fact a questioning of the Divine tashri'. And that is no small matter. Of course I'm not here directing this to you, as I am focussing on the point you've raised. So please don't feel as though I am implying you by these words, astaghfirullah. :-) So, it becomes therefore pertinent to ask, how is one determining the suitability of the punishment? According to what criterion? The aql [mind] or the naql [text]? It is a severe implication if it be the former. "However, if I pass my warped ideology onto my children, and they then pass it on to theirs,will this not then upset the balance of society?" Masha'Allah an excellent point. Which, if you might bear with me, I will address by first digressing briefly. In (kufr) Economics there are two prevalent concepts. *Positive* economics and *normative* economics. One of the leading Economist of the non-Muslim world, Milton Friedman, explains these two notions thusly: "Positive economics has to do with "what is," while normative economics has to do with "what ought to be."" Now, if we use this in a wider context, we can say, for the purposes of simplification only, that Islam is all about us moving from the positive to the normative, on every level of life; from individual to State, yes? If we examine our dialogue you will notice that I am arguing from a normative perspective, whilst you are coming from the positive angle. Would you agree? Meaning, you are starting from the point of *how society is* according to your personal observations and perceptions, whilst I am approaching the same discussion from *how it should be.* Because I am talking about the ideal, the theory, whereas you are focussing on how it is right now. Am I way off the mark, or not? So, in order to reach some kind of closure, we both need to be on the same page. Because the Shar'iah is normative, whereas life is positive. Which is why it takes a lifetime for us to embody the Prophetic udhwa [model]. Because it is an ideal we are trying so hard to aspire towards. So, the point is, that the type of aqli [rational] reasoning you have employed above to raise a question about such punishment is invalid (with respect, not arrogance!). Why? Because the Shari'ah did not come for just the individual realm, which is the domain from where you are trying to argue. Yet this whole discussion is not about how one person would react, but how Islam preserves and maintains the societal order. The balance we are referring to here is not by way of the effect of the punishment alone, which is the aspect you have confined yourself to. Rather, it also lies in the actual implementation of the punishment itself. Because the rehabilitation is not the only factor. Even in the punishment itself there is a kaffara [compensation]. Else you run the risk of being punished in the akhira. This dimension needs to be borne in mind too, and significant it is too! " I really do not know what happened in the time of the Prophet to those who did not pray. *If* it is shown that offenders were jailed, then I will definitely retract my opinion" Insha'Allah by appreciating concepts like that of Al-Ta'zir, you will acknowledge that the precedent did not have to be laid in the time of Rasul'Allah (saw), for he (saw) laid the blueprint for a System in which there is an area where the punishment is discretionary. However, with respect to salat, to my knowledge, it is considered a capital offence, except where there could be a shar'a excuse. So I too would be interested to know where the idea of imprisonment comes from, though maybe for a different reason to you, because for me it is not an issue of it needing to be rooted necessarily by what happened in the time of the Messenger of Allah (saw). If this too is a point of contention, then it requires opening up the subject of usul al-fiqh. Because it needs from us to know upon what exactly is fiqh based, i.e., how are rules derived, and what are the sources. For someone to say Qur'an and Sunnah is naïve, for the Ulema took many other sources too, all of which were rooted in these two primary sources. Additionally there is the vast area of Shar'iah qawaid [legal principles]. So really, if we think that it had to have a precedent in the time of the Prophetic generation, we would be discounting both the Qur'an and Sunnah, which directed us (i.e. the Ulema, not me!) to other usul [sources] by it's sanction. Wallahu ta'ala a'lam. " I feel that jailing offenders *would* upset this balance, it *would* create fitnah, and it *may not* serve its purpose." I understand your point and why you say it. But with respect to ahkam [laws/rules], which is the umbrella under which punishments come, fitnah is not a shar'a daleel or hujja [proof] for a particular hukm. Nor is purpose, in that the hukm is not justified by it's purpose. Meaning that neither fitnah nor purpose is an asl [source] for Islamic law. "we are not under the rule of a Khalifa, therefore the punishment, I am guessing, has to be somewhat different??" Actually no. The existence of a Khilafah is a condition for the implementation of the Shar'iah, of which the Nidham al-Uqoobat is one system. Wallahu a'lam. The absence of a Khilafah does not cause the ahkam to change. " The key, however, seems to be finding something that aims to reform the offender while at the same time maintains this all important balance in society." Yes, you have hit the nail on the head! :-) But maybe not in the sense you mean it. From what preceded your words, I sense you here allude to a punishment which can do both, and that is not what I concur upon. Because when you say "finding something," it again dredges up an idea in my mind that you think this is *our* responsibility. It isn't. Because what you are alluding to is tashri' [legislation], and that is the sole prerogative of Allah (swt). Ours is to *yusalimu tasleema*[submit without resistance]. These are Divine ahkam we are talking about here. They are not up for question. For even this notion of imprisonment, to be valid, it must be built upon an Islamic asl [source] of law. " But if it is simply stated that not praying should be punished, then I agree, and simply think we should find a way to punish offenders without turning them away from the beauty of Islam." The notion of punishment in this world is something which the wahy [revelation] brought. This punishment is not contrary to the beauty of Islam, rather it reinforces it, because it is from Allah (awj). Punishments are a manifestation of His (awj) utter Rahma [mercy] on his slaves, for He (swt) is giving you a way out from punishment in the akhira. The beauty of Islam does not lie in us shying away from the fact that punishments exist, for we don't judge Islam according to our own preconceptions, rather, our preconceptions should emanate from Islam. That is why it is said that most of the punishments in the history of the Islamic State were confessional (without coercion). Wallahu a'lam. It should be remembered that many of the things disobedient Muslims get away with these days is because we live under Dar al-Kufr [the land of kufr]. All those brothers walking around with cans of beer, openly flouting the laws of Allah (awj), they only can continue to do that because this is not Dar al-Islam. We'd get arrested for non-Islamic (I mean non-Islamic as in according to their law) offences like carrying a firearm, but carrying pornography is fine, here. We shouldn't forget that the perpetuation of such disobedience to Allah (awj) is not because no punishment exists in Islam, but because no Islamic authority exists over us to enforce it. Sometimes the absence of this can make us marginalise this major area of the Deen. And in fact, the majority of ahkam in the Qur'an are related not to ibadaat, but mu'amalaat [transactions], the latter occurring usually in the public domain through our societal interaction. Islam is a *complete* way of life. That is why us referring to it as a religion really does it an injustice, for psychologically it strips away so much of Islam, because religion is much narrower that what Deen is. And this Deen brought laws regulating our individual affairs, and laws dealing with our societal interaction. Private life and public life. I hope that allayed some of your contentions, bi-ithnillah. If anything I wrote offended you, please know it was accidental, not intentional. Only the mistakes were mine. Astaghfirullah. Abu Khaled |
| Re: opinion... |
|---|
| Saleema |
| 11/10/00 at 22:27:05 |
| Assalamoalykum, Thank you for that highly informative reply Abu Kalid. May Allah increase you in knowledge and wisdom and grant you and your family janat al-Fardos. Ameen. Clearly you have changed my mind now. Even though my mind is still screaming to stand by my earlier opinion, which had such a weak base as I can see now, but I will not give in inshallah. Gosh, how little do I know! I was waiting for your response so that I could go back and answer to the questions that were raised about my stance on the taliban. Although I understood what you were saying, I still find this weird, may Allah forgive me for it. Its so hard to change your mind after you have been thinking this way for so long and were taught to think this way by the society that we live in. It saddens me that I have still so much to learn and so much to repent for. I wonder when will I reach that stage? Or even live long enough to reach that stage? Death can come knocking on your door any moment. Two years ago I thought that government and religion should be separate. That religion was something that should be kept to the home and the masjid and that was it. Then I realized how foolish I was. You would think that that would make me realize that Islam is a complete way of life and should be implemented in every area of a person's life. But no, I still had this hazy idea about Islam. Then I realized that a khalifa state is the solution to our problems. Still I was looking at Islam through a narrow vision. When I took an interest in journalism, I thought that stories should be written from a secular perspective. When I started working for an Islamic magazine, I used to get angry at seeing how every story, every editorial was written with Allah and Islam in mind. I thought it was unprofessional to start each story, article, editorial with the bismillah in the beginning. And at the same time I was having problems with my friends who thought that I was becoming too religious. I would start most things with the bismillah thinking in my mind that it is an order from Allah that we should start everything with the bismillah. But for some reason it did not occur to me that I should do the same when writing. (I honestly believe that Big Brother had conditioned me to think this way and taught me double speak.) Really, I'm not joking. You would think that at my age I would know better, but I didn't. Then I thought that History should not be looked at with Allah in mind. I was proven wrong once again. Anyway, I think I said too much. By the way Abu Khalid, : - ) will give you a sister in hijab and a : ) will give you a regular smily face. To get a picture of a brother in a Kufi type: ; - ) wassalam |
Individual posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Jannah.org, Islam, or all Muslims. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster and may not be used without consent of the author.The rest © Jannah.Org |