The Prophesy of Zechariah.

The Prophesy of Zechariah....

http://www.myspace.com/shifty_shafi/blog/292938323

(1st posted on MySpace 28/7/7). 

The Prophesy of Zechariah

"Tell the daughter of Zion: Here is your King, who comes to you in gentleness riding on an ass, riding on the foal of a beast of burden." Gospel of Mark.

"Rejoice, rejoice daughter of Zion,

shout alound, daughter of Jerusalem;

for see, your king is coming to you,

his cause won, his victory gained.

Humble and mounted on an ass,

on a foal, the young of a she-ass.

He shall banish chariots from Ephraim,

and war-horses from Jerusalem;

the warriors bow shall be banished.

He shall speak peaceably to every nation,

and his rule shall extend from sea to sea,

From the river to the ends of the Earth."

Book of the Prophet Zechariah, son of Berachiah.

Jesus (as) is said according to the Christians to have fulfilled this prophesy by entering Jerusalem on the back of a colt, on which no one had yet ridden. However much of the rest of this prophesy has been unfulfilled by Jesus (as)…

An Unfullfilled Prophesy:

The…

·         banishing of chariots, which is a clear reference to Rome…

·         peace and rule extending from sea to sea…

·         from the river to the ends of the Earth…

Remained Unfulfilled…

When Jesus (as) came the Jews were under siege from Roman Rule.  They were expectantly awaiting the coming of a Prophet who would deliver them from this ordeal, who would fight for them and remove the yoke of Roman rule from them. They delved deep into prophesies and knew that a prophet would come from the wilderness. Hence, the community at Qumrun for whom we have to thank the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were a puritanical hermitic community that sought to purify themselves to ready themselves for the coming of that Prophet.

A whole melee of Jewish Reformers sought to ready the Jewish Nation for this occurence. And when Jesus (as) appeared they denied his claim to Prophethood, denied that his coming was the inception of the Kingdom of God and sought to kill him.

A Prophet in the Depths of Wilderness:

Some 600 years later…. A man appeared in Mecca, in the depths of the dessert and wilderness, and started to call his people to the worship of the One True God… Allah t'ala (which means the most high). The God of Abraham, of Moses and of Jesus (as).

He claimed nothing more than Prophethood, he denied Kingship and his people sought to kill him. After years of conflict and war, he conquered them in Peace and forgave them. When he died, according to the lore and traditions of the Muslims, he was given a choice between seeing the extent of his authority in this world coming to fruition and the next. GOD promised him through three visions seen whilst the whole of Arabia sought to destroy his city, Persia, Syria and Yemen.
But, he (saw) choose the latter; to die. 

That man was Muhammad (saw= peace and blessings be upon him). 

He was and is one of the greatest proofs to the existence of a merciful God.

The Successors of Muhammad (saw= peace and blessings be upon him).

When he died he left behind a community of believers. He was succeeded by Abu Bakr (ra= may God be pleased with him). Abu Bakr (ra) used the title Khalifatul RasulAllah which means the Successor of the Messenger of God. And in sending communications to his commanders and to the sovereigns of other powers he retained and used the signet ring of Muhammad (saw). This signet ring was used as a stamp of authority and said "Muhammad RasulAllah" (Muhammad the Messenger of God). With it Abu Bakr (ra) carried the political authority of Muhammad (saw).

The second of the Khilafah Rashidun (the rightly guided Khalifs)was Umar (ra). He called himself Khalifatul Khalifatul Rasul Allah, the Successor of Abu Bakr (ra), the Successor of the Successor of Muhammad (saw). He retained the signet ring of the Prophet and used it on his communications to communicate his political authority. His title became cumbersome and someone suggested that it be changed to Amir ul Mumineen (the leader of the Believers), since otherwise his successor would be…Khalifatul …. Etc..

Umar (ra) effected the change in title.

During the authority of the third of the Khalifah Rashidun being Uthman bin Affan (ra) the signet ring was lost in the well of Aris. The Muslims searched for it for 3 days and could find it no more.

The important thing to note in all of the following is that it is quite clear that up until the time of Umar (ra), the authority of Muhammad (saw) was retained by the Khalifah (the leaders of the Muslims) both in terms of the title used and in terms of the signing of documents and communications. They were his successors and carried his authority. After that time our leaders became the leaders of the believers (amirul Mumineen).

Muhammad (saw) was shown the extent of his authority. 

And that authority was fulfilled during the time of Umar (ra), whereby the Muslim community witnessed it's greatest expansion.

Getting back to the unfulfilled prophesy….and the proof of HISTORY

And now let us relook at the Prophesy of Zachariah… and the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem.

A succession of battles took place between the Muslims and Persia and Rome. Contrary to popular thought these battles were of a denfensive character vis a vis the Muslims. The Muslim state was continually threatened with anilation both by tribal elements within Arabia and later by both Persia and Rome. During the time of Abu Bakr (ra) the Arabian problem was dealt with, and during the time of Umar (ra) the Muslims fought against both Persia and Rome.

After clearly defeating the Persian Empire, the Muslims were set upon by Heraclius the Emperor of Rome. He ordered a noted general of his, to muster his troops at Ajnadain. Amr bin Al-As (ra) defeated him in battle and he fled to Jerusalem. All places around Jerusalem fell to the Muslims.

The Christians were left with no alternative but to sue for peace, which they knew the Muslims would be ready to accept. It was the character of the Muslims to give easy terms which included the freedom to pass into another territory not held by the Muslims with peace, the freedom to accept Islam or to hold onto your original belief so long as you paid a tax called Jizya. The jizya was no different to what any other conquerer would ask, except that it entitled the payer to protection and the right of law. The Muslims were always found to be trustworthy and fulfill their obligations. And they always gave easy terms, for them the issue was protection and peace for everybody. To the extent that even after that had taken Damascus peaceably, the commanders of their different armies were forced to re-concentrate and regroup to counter the attack of Heraclius at another famous battle, the commanders decided to give back the Jizya tax that they had taken because they could no longer offer the resident population protection against Roman oppression. So the Christians of Jerusalem were predisposed to the signing of a peace treaty.

An Unusal Request.

However, the Christians did something unusal. They wanted the actual Caliph of Islam to visit Jerusalem to ratify the peace document himself.

Instead of the Muslim Generals' refusing their wishes outright, as any realist would naturally do, they sent this information to Umar (ra) in Medina a full 3-4 days journey away by the fastest route. This is an unusal action by any standards.

Umar (ra) convened his council of advisors. Some argued that the request should be flatly denied and rejected and that this would humiliate the Christians still more. Others, notably Ali (ra), the cousin of Muhammad (saw), argued for the Caliph going to Jerusalem. Umar (ra) consented to go to Jerusalem.

This is a most unusal decision, and one that cannot be disputed because of it's complete unnaturalness. That the leader of the conquering army, and in fact the whole Muslim empire, be forced to go to Jerusalem to capitulate on it's peace terms. After having conquered the Empires of Persia and having put to fright the Romans?

Umar (ra) goes to Jerusalem.

So Umar (ra), the leader of the Muslims, the Successor of the Successor of Muhammad (saw) made his way to Jerusalem. The manner of his way is told by the Muslims…

He travelled accompanied by only his servant. He came on a camel… a beast of burden, not a beast of war.

Contrary to the popular imagery of Lawrence of Arabia… Arabs, at least at that time, during war had recourse to normal horse cavalry. 


After the Muhammad (saw) lost the battle of Uhud, he sent a scout to observe the behaviour of the Quraish, his enemies, and he said: "If they mount horses, then they will go and ransack Medina (his city) and if they mount camels then they are leaving back for Mecca (the Quraish's home)." I have not seen anywhere a report of the nature of the mount that Umar (ra) took precisely because the Muslims have never claimed the fullfillment of this prophesy. However, Umar (ra) was a big man being over 6ft tall, and so it is unlikely that he mounted a small camel. It is narrated in a separate incident that Muhammad (saw) wanted to give a present to a man and he (saw) said that he would give him the young of a she-camel. The man got upset because he wanted one that would carry him, and Muhammad (saw) laughed and said is not every camel the young of a she-camel?

Umar (ra) and his servant took turns to ride the mount. On one day he himself would ride and on the following day his servant would ride.

His clothes were patched, and when the commanders of the Muslims knew of his approach they went out to meet him. He rebuked them for their finery and silk (for which it is forbidden for any Muslim male to wear except in times of war… where silk can help extract the plunge of a blade), and they assured him, by showing him their swords under their garments, of their not leaving the path of truth.

The Part Fullfillment of the Prophesy.

This is the way that Umar (ra) entered Jerusalem…. Not as a conqueror, nor a defiler, nor a king… but with humility. He established peace, threw off Roman rule. And between the seas of the Meditterean and the Persian Gulf there was peace and security. Where once there had been the two great Empires of Persia and Rome constantly at arms with one another, now there was only Islam.

The:

Chariots of Rome were banished from Jerusalem...

and Peace reigned from the seas of the Meditterean to the Persain Gulf and beyond...

For me the Prophesy of Zachariah speaks of both Jesus and Muhammad (saw), and his deputy being Umar (ra).

I will later post a translation of the peace document signed on that historic occassion and the behaviour of Umar (ra) in Jerusalem when he met the Christians.. Insha-Allah..

For Muslims do believe in Jesus (as (abbrev: alayhi salam= peace be upon him)):

·         In his virgin birth…

·         In his miracles of curing the leper and blind, and bringing some people back from the dead…

·         In his removing of spirits (which we call Djinn)…

·         In his return..

What they dispute about with the Christians is..:

·         The claim that he called himself the Son of God. Muslims believe that he called himself the Son of Man and believe in his humanity, and believe him to be one of the 5 greatest Prophets and Messengers sent from God.

·         His supposed death on the Cross. Muslims say that he did not die, was not crucified and that God changed the likeness of another to appear that he died on the cross.

According to Muslim Lore (held in the traditions and sayings of Muhammad (saw)), Jesus (as) told his disciples that the comforter, the promised one could not come until he himself had gone. Jesus (as) fate is tied to Muhammad (saw). To such an extent that in the last days he will come as a verifier of the truth of Muhammad, as a follower of Muhammad (saw). And at that time he will bring war. Muslims are duty bound to offer Jizya and give protection and safety to all that ask for it, Jesus (as) will not. And PEACE will reign from the River to the ends of the Earth.

This Prophesy is fulfilled by Muhammad (saw)… by his deputy.. Umar (ra) and by the one who announced his coming and will come again to verify his truth: Jesus (as)….

This is an original work…. All Glory Belongs to the ONE True God… Allah t'ala… the God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad… And all faults belong to me… May Allah t'ala forgive me.  Ameen.

Shafi

Hadith about Love of Rasul Allah and Poverty

Hadith about Love of Rasul Allah and Poverty (1st posted MySpace 25/6/07)

http://www.myspace.com/shifty_shafi/blog/280034512

Asalamu Alaykum..

I am no Scholar, and I don't care to be one.... 

But even then my religion (deen) is ACCESSIBLE to me........ is valuable to me................... forms me, informs me.....

Today I was listening to a Nasheed CD praising the Prophet of Allah (the One true GOD, the GOD of Noah, Abraham, Ishmeal, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph.... Moses and Jesus (as)) -Muhammad (saw) the last Prophet of God. 

And I heard a hadith.. a saying of our Prophet (saw)... Muslims down the ages have always tried their damnest to keep the sayings of Rasul Allah (saw) 100% true and correct. He (saw) always emphasized the need for objectivity in reporting his saying. In his (saw) last sermon at the farwell Hajj, he said tell those who are not present, perchance they may understand it better than those present.

We are not present.. perchance God may grace us to understand it better!

Paraphrasing... which is not what a good Scholar does (but I am no Scholar)...

"A man came to the Prophet of God (Muhammad bin (son of) Abdullah (saw)) and said "Truely I love you O Messenger of God", he repeated this three times by way of emphasis. Muhammad (saw) replied: "If you truely love me then prepare for poverty!".

MashAllah (Glory be to God- how perfect a response). However lets try and get our teeth into this one... try and analyse it.

Whenever there is a statement always ask yourself "Is it general or is it specific?" 

If it can be general then take it as general, if it cannot be general then take it as specific. 

Generality should always take precedence over specificity. And most people interpret this hadith generally- that if you love the Prophet of God- Muhammad (saw)- then you needs must expect poverty.

This cannot be general, for there are msany examples of people who loved Muammad (saw) who are/ nor were poor. One example that springs to mind in Abu Hanifa (rm), another Uthman bin Afffan (ra).

So if we take it as a statement specific to this companion of Muhammad (saw) what light can it throw on his nature? 

It is well known through other hadith that Muhammad (saw) was a man of his time, knew his companions well and had the ability to fortell their fortunes... their lives and deaths etc...

So it is highly likely that when this man came to the Prophet (saw) he knew him, knew his state, knew his capability and realised that this man would be poor, and probably die poor. 

So he (saw) told him to prepare for poverty.

How magnanimous of him, how incredible of him, how loving of him? 

The man when he attained poverty, would, instead of complaining to God, take it as proof of his love of Rasul Allah. Muhammad (saw) saved him from complaining to God about his lack of means... confirmed his belief....and blessed him with much.

Indeed Allah t'ala (God) has blessed and enriched us with the most abundant life to have ever lived... with the life of Muhammad (saw). May God reward him enummerably, magnanimously....and send our salutations and peace upon him.

Shafi     

Unacceptable & Acceptable Islamic Scholarship: Towards a Prescriptive Kuhnian Model

Unacceptable & Acceptable Islamic Scholarship:

Towards a Prescriptive Kuhnian Model.

Preamble.

Recently I attended "Living Islam Camp 2011". Showcased were the arguments from a selection of Islamic Scholars, including the renowned Imam Zaid Shakir, of the Zeytuna Institute, USA. It was interesting to note his construction of acceptable arguments and then to juxtapositions that with the construction of unacceptable arguments. A keynote seminar asked, or rather implied, that we Muslims are "... intellectually stagnant."

The Age of Science & Technology.

If we suppose that Islamic Scholarship is stagnant, then do we also suppose that the way out of that box is the creation of new knowledge?

We live in an age of Scientific and Technological innovation, which quite correctly premises that the measure of any knowledge is how useful it is.

Within that field Science Theorists, post Kuhn, have recognised that Science as an activity is in the "business" of falsifying given or accepted knowledge. Within those boundaries scientific endeavour is both progressive and generative. Indeed the measure of the success of a scientific discipline is given by how many journals are devoted to its endeavours, and concurrently how much money is spent doing it. And a scientific postulate only becomes a theory when it provides both testability and falsibility (note: not its fallibility, but its ability to be falsified), that both guarantee an avenue for further work and therefore further spending. If a postulate remains "ill-defined" within those terms then the community of scientists will never progress the idea to the level of theory.

That the Qur'an mentions both that type of activity as a means of providing proof of its authenticity, "if you are able then produce a like thereof" (s2 v23-24), and the scientific implication of a movement towards future and greater scientific truths,* "WE will show them our proofs", is interesting. An furthermore it is interesting to note that the first refers to what Science Theorists now term eliminative proof (or proof by contradiction) which they are generally agreed is the greatest of the types of proof.

For what we call Islamic knowledge is quite unlike scientific knowledge.

Most definitely all knowledge is Holy.

But whilst the Qur'an summons us to examine and scrutinise our World, it likewise summons us to use that pursuit to strengthen and verify our belief in immutable and subtle truths. And whilst scientific knowledge is both necessarily testable and falsifiable, those truths are not.

Unchangeable Truths.

The Qur'an at core declares that Muhammad (saw) was both the personification of the perfect man, "in him you will find the best of examples to follow", and one who knew best the Qur'an.

The truths that Muhammad (saw) saw in the Qur'an are immutable. Throughout history Muslims are agreed on the fact that Muhammad (saw) perception of the Qur'an transcended both his environment (the Arab nation) and his time (7th Century CE).

If we believe that those truths espoused by the Qur'an are unchangeable then how can we compare any endeavour related to it with the scientific endeavour.

Contrary to the position occupied by the panel discussing Islamic intellectual "development or the lack of it", at the camp, I do not believe that a measure of the successfulness of Islamic Scholarship should include how many institutes, journals and money is spent doing it.

Indeed when we examine the past of Islamic Scholarship we find the contrary held. The Muslim Scholars that we remember well were often poor, and though famous, were never funded, even to the extent of refusing patronage from the ruling classes.

Islamic Scholarship.

Should, then, Islamic Scholarship be modernised so that it plays to the tune of contemporary Scientific Scholarship?

And then if Islamic Scholarship cannot concern itself with the creation of new knowledge, what can it perform of usefulness to the wider population?

Within this context it becomes obvious that Islamic Scholarship should be about the re-invention, or re-discoverisation, of things you already know. The strengthening of connections already made. And the focusing of sight on those things in a new light and from another contemporary view.

Even if we believe, as in this instance, that there is no new knowledge does that necessitate passivity?

No it does not because whilst we might agree that Muhammad (saw) best understood the Qur'an and hence that the truths expressed in the Qur'an are immutable and unchangeable, we might also realise that he (saw) purposely left a lot of that understanding unexpressed.

Taweel & Tafsir.

For whilst Muhammad (saw) was encouraged and therefore commanded to tell all;

 وَمَا هُوَ عَلَى الْغَيْبِ بِضَنِينٍ

"And he (Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) withholds not a knowledge of the unseen." (81:24);

it is worthy to note that the command relates to the unseen that he witnessed, and so the prior verse informs the latter in that it relates to Angel Jibrael (as) in his visible and true nature. And not therefore everything that the Prophet (saw) knew in regard to the revelation of the Qur'an and its taweel (explanation). We know of several verses that were explained by the companions of Rasulallah (saw), and where strikingly that explanation was not confirmed by Rasulallah. And one instance where a companion (as) wrongly interpreted a specific verse and which was later corrected by the Prophet (saw).

It is as if the Prophet (saw) had intended and indeed encouraged for the door to taweel (the interpretation of the Qur’an) to remain open.

And then we might notice that the Qur'an as a source and guide book is replete with questions not just explicit, but more importantly those implicit ones, just waiting to be asked.

My understanding of this issue has been covered in these previous blogs.

A Worldly Knowledge.

And so the doors of taweel in regard to the Qur'an remained an open source of endeavour, which is in itself generative. Because it is in the nature of relevant questions in regard to the Qur'an to generate yet more questions in regard to our World, not just a present contemporary World, but furthermore a distant past and a looming future.

And so for a Muslim a study of the Qur'an is just as generative, in terms of both questions and endeavours, as the business of doing science whilst at the same time not in the job of falsifying truths but embellishing and verifying them. And thus if the measure of a knowledge be its usefulness then the Qur'an is shown to be at the very least on a par with Science, and at the very best in regards to the believers far excelling Science. And then in that regard it transpires that the Scientific endeavour is but one branch of the greatest and first of Islamic Sciences; Tafsir ul Qur'an, investigations into the meaning of the Qur'an.

Generative & Progressive.

And so we come full circle, having I hope shown that whilst Islamic Scholarship might not invent anything new, and is concerned with the embellishment of given truths, it nevertheless is generative. Furthermore it is progressive even whilst we agree that the understanding that Muhammad (saw) held of the Qur'an transcended both his time and his social context, precisely because it is a timeless revelation sent for all generations and nations of people that would follow.

When we admit that then the Qur'an becomes relevant in any and all contexts that we might throw at it. It speaks to all of us in whatever language we might wish to consult it in.

The Process of Knowledge Creation.

But then therein lies the rub, that both acceptable and non-acceptable "new" knowledge creation works by removing a text from its original context and placing it in another. What distinguishes acceptable and unacceptable knowledge creation is not how it is done, but rather the context through which we view it.

To give you an example of acceptable knowledge creation Imam Zaid Shakir at the conference played with the context of a given text from the Hadith of Rasullah (saw).

Muhammad (saw) said that a believer leaves alone the business of that which does not concern him. As a standalone recommendation for godly behaviour it is clearly concerned with social interaction, put simply mind your own business and do not concern yourself with the business of others.

Imam Zaid Shakir removed it from its social context and said that the business of a believer is imaan (faith). And then he extended the argument to say that thus Muslims should only concern themselves with things that help increase their faith.

It was a novel use of the first phrase that led to a collective eureka moment. What made the argument acceptable was that he was talking to Muslims who were concerned with increasing their faith.

Off course I can easily contrast this example with the many examples of poor contextualisations from the Sufi order or other field of the religion. But my point is to show that acceptable knowledge creation works by the same process.

And indeed if we were to take Imam Zaid Shakir’s innovation to its logical end, it would mean that vast areas of pure mathematics that have benefited humanity manifold would never have been. Precisely because the developers never thought or believed that their work would have such an incredible impact on our lives. Is it then that we should premise that knowledge for which we have no current need is not holy? Then what of the similitude of the gnat mentioned in the Qur'an? (s2:26)

So then if acceptable and unacceptable knowledge cannot be differentiated in its method of generation, nor in its contextual implication (since it would typically verify what you chose already to be given and true), how then can we proceed towards a semblance of Truth.

Checks, Balances & further generatives.

Maybe our checks and balances should include not just attempts at being free from contradiction by examining arguments through taking them through to their logical conclusion (as I did with Imam Zaid Shakirs argument), but also actively seeking out seeming contradictions in the vast corpus of tradition which is our religion. And by that I mean not in the religion per se, but in our contemporary understanding of it and its ongoing development.

And then it is that that study of those seeming contradictions can become a further engine for generative thought.

And so I hope to have shown you full circle that the generation of Islamic knowledge does have a semblance of scientific endeavour to it, most especially when we consider it in Kuhnian terms. That it can be both generative and useful and that it appeals to its consumers who are none but ourselves.

Towards a Kuhnian theory of Islamic Scholarship.

And I have prescribed a methodology for the generation of new Islamic knowledge as being centred on Tafsir ul Qur'an and it's Hikmah (being that which was sent down upon Muhammad (saw) other than the Qur'an), in the style of Tabaree whereby contextual questions within the framework and body of Islamic Knowledge are not frowned upon, but in fact lead the way towards the embellishment of still greater truths. 

Where seeming contradictions lead to further investigative work. 

Where this work is not done in institutes far removed from the experience of everyday Muslims. After all Islam is a religion that is lived and not held in books, save obviously the one book which states of it itself that is a guide book for all those who believe.

Shafi, written in haste :-)

The fallacy of disbelief(polytheism, agnosticism, atheism etc).

The fallacy of Shirk (Disbelief= polytheism, atheism, agnosticism).

By this I do not mean that Shirk doesn't exist, or that there is nothing wrong with it. 

The GOD of all things

Contrarily, Polytheism and not recognizing the transcendence of GOD (that GOD is High, above all things) is the root cause of all that is base in this World.  Precisely because the ultimate principle that underlies the whole of being is Creation, and then Nourishment.

To recognize ONE Creator is to do justice to that principle of the Oneness of Origin and Sustenance for all.

To fail to recognize HIM is to do injustice to all that is. And that is the source of all imbalance, and all injustice. 

Polytheism

And even when polytheism tries to take the mantle of an ethic, of a type, it gets the balance wrong and confuses justice and mercy.

This because essentially you choose to serve whichever god you wish, a self serving choice, from the wish to identify with a particular group to the wishes for prosperity. For whatever reason that choice is always taken without principle.

Atheism & Agnosticism

And the like argument applies to those who deny GOD, their lives are subsumed by an irresolvable conflict of interests, of passions and of tin-pan ethics. Because they deny the greatest of principles, they are without principle. 

Their ethics have been shown to be contradictory for whilst they often-times would claim for it to be universal and then in the same breadth their actions would deny it’s universality to some, on the false basis that they are undeserved. Time and time again, this is their politics and their ethics; two faced, spurious, driven by lust and money even whilst they deny. 

Thank GOD, I have been born in a Nation that has a long history of principled behaviour. That I can see with my two eyes the wavering fools who cast themselves as the leaders of this World. 

Now, look at me, I started on an vein and then been caught on another, never would I make a successful gold-digger. 

Is Islam any better?

But since we are here, I must press on with the manifold implications of this stance. What then, I hear you ask, of the non-believers living under the duress of Islam?

Freedom of conscience

The first thing to realize is that the concept of freedom of conscience that Europe holds so dear, it learnt from Muslims. For long before the laws of equality of humanity ever broached the shores of Europe, European Jews and Nestorian Christians, and other Christian sects, were flying to the Muslim lands so that they would have the freedom to practice their religion without fear of persecution.

Liberalism is Islam without GOD

But that does not mean that Liberalism is Islamic, contrarily the universal justice of Islam when taken out of the context of a unitary source of nourishment and origin, leads to just that but without the boundaries that define true justice.

This because the primary function of justice should be the prevention of injustice, and not the seeking of redress.

A universal Justice?

Islam provides for such boundaries whereby everybody's rights are balanced, and it does this through setting law firmly within an ethic surrounded by on the one hand gratitude and generosity and on the other through a real emotive fear not just of a punishment, but more importantly of Godly displeasure, couched in the wonderful words of a literary masterpiece- the Qur'an. For if a man displeases GOD, who is both his creator and nourisher, whom then can he turn to?

Whereas, the justice of liberalism will always be too late. And it's redress can never be enough, because it is not framed by an absolute source but by the vagaries of man's thought. And then it always fails in it's universality, being dependent on individual men, their judgments, whims and fancies. 

A universal freedom?

And furthermore Liberalism can not free man from the narrowness of his arrogance, but only confirm him in it.

I should not need to draw examples from the American bill of rights which extends to the rich few, whilst they rape the World of its people and resource. Nor of the European universal human rights which does not extend to the Palestinian children living under occupation. Two faced, giving the lie to all they espouse. 

Justice and Freedom in Islam

Returning to the question of a non-believer living under the law of Islam. He would never worry over recourse to justice, primarily because our law of protection would extend fully to him. Many a time the Qur'an recalls to us that GOD loves the justice-doers, and that is irrespective of belief or nationality. As happened previously in our history, the people of the Book would be judged according to their own law. And those who have no principle would have the safety of knowledge that in regards to their beliefs they would be free to do as they liked, but in regards to social and family law they would be bound by our law.

Rights and Obligations

And so in the Muslim society, the individual has rights but not so long as it is detrimental to the family, and families have rights but not so long as they impinge on the rights of society, and none can overstep the boundaries established by GOD as being His rights over us, and then our rights over each other. 

The body of text which is Islam speaks in dept on these rights. 

And it is instructive to note the depth of meaning that can be ascribed to the Basmallah. 

The Basmallah

For most these are the words of dedication to GOD, made whenever you perform any act, but they are most often used when beginning to eat most often translated as "In the name of Allah (God), most gracious, most merciful.". 

However the import of these words was understood by the first Caliph, Abu Bakr as Sidique (ra), to be far greater than that. For after the passing of Muhammad (saw), whilst Arabia rocked under successive rebellions, and the Romans threatened from the North, causing him to send of the Muslim army to meet them, which was headed by a young novice of a captain, he advised the young captain on the rules of war and it's etiquettes beginning with "Do not eat food, but that you mention the Basmallah over it..."

Some might argue that to emphasize the small, is to emphasize the whole edifice of the religion. Indeed when you are in the thrall of great deeds, it is the small rituals and habits that keep you sane and grounded. 

But at the same time the Basmallah carries within it's potency a rendering of the rights of all things, no matter how small the morsel. That you partake of it in and by GOD's leave. And that by not doing so, you do an injustice to both it and yourself.

That it has a right, and that you can only subsume that right through taking leave and the name of the One who created and nourished it in the first instance. 

That is the Basmallah, and whilst it is the smallest of our religion, it is potentially the greatest. 

And it is that saying of those words in that circumstance that marks Islam to be "The Modern Religion". That all things have a right over you, and that those rights are balanced through the belief in the One Merciful God who continually nourishes us all, believers and non-believers alike.

A belief that guarantees a universal justice.

A reality, both past and future, that no liberalism could ever replicate. 

The fallacy of Shirk part 2 to follow.

And we send our peace and blessings on the noble Messenger, Muhammad (saw), may ALLAH t’ala reward him abundantly for we never would have been Muslim save for him. And I bear witness that there is no GOD, save ALLAH t’ala (GOD, most High) and Muhammad (saw) is His last and final Messenger. And I bear witness that Muhammad (saw), by GOD’s mighty grace, has completed his task, that which was entrusted him by GOD, and we are the recipients of the message down through the ages. Ameen.