Darling Memories

Darling, a poem for my wife on her birthday:

Sweet times combine
Splashes of mime
Your smile enticing
From the very first time.

We met
I crossed legged
Sat on a bed.
You crossed my heart.
Let of a dart.

Even sweetness can kill.
Then you made me king.
And you became my Queen.
When we knitted our destinies together in rhyme.

Marriage is the antidote
To the poison of love.
Rote in hot blood.
Cooed by paired doves.

Every memory
Sweetened by time
Serenaded by your smile
Makes me love you more and more
Time after time.

By GOD's great favour.
We found one another.

Better together
Made for one another.
This and the next
Will be ours forever.

InshaAllah.

Shafees


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:Heart Central

The Placid Extremist

The Placid Extremist.

The thinking Muslim's experience is always want to be either one, or the other, extreme even when extremism is not their outlook.

Take the furore over the twelve or eight degree ruling in regards to the start of the fast. Or even the twenty or eight rakah taraweh?

But the extremism I talk of here is not of the type that "I am right and you, therefore, must be wrong". Nor is it of the zealousness that some might impart to those words. But it is an extremism of logic dictating what must be.

I had an illuminating conversation with a brother where it crystallised into the fact that you had to set yourself a rule and then be true to it.

So for example if you were a twelve degree person in regards to Sehri then you must wait for the twelve degrees in regards to Isha and then the Taraweh times. To chop and change was a definite no-no.

The same argument is used by the madhabees, those people who insist that you must follow one or the other madhab and to not do so is to be a type of a hypocrite. Picking and changing as is your want, is to them, a hypocrisy. And so in all likelihood the extremism that I talk of here originated with their outlook no matter how placid they might be.

Whilst this hypocrisy is true from a purely semantic and logical view, must it be true when we talk about life?

And whilst it is true that logic helps us to uncover the hidden depths within our religion, is it not also true that overmuch logic can tip the balance out of right?

I read a beautiful exposition of the madhabee position on Facebook, but it was not balanced. And whilst it is important to argue to a point it is also important to stay true to our legacy of selfless enquiry and debate. That legacy stipulated that you argue to the best of your opponents position;

1-that you take their best interpretations and
2- do not interpret them in ways that they would be loathe to, and
3- that you do not use as evidence those that can also be used as evidence against your position, unless that is that the opposition has brought it first and you only do so to right the imbalance.

The opposite methodology is used by the one wanting to thwart and hide truth. It is the one expounded in the European schools of thought as rhetoric. It is the one used by Orientalists, past and present, to cast doubt on the sublime.

But it is not our way.

TAQLEED
That Madhabee paper argued that Taqleed was a practice at or just after the Prophetic era, and therefore part of the tradition of the Muslims.

What the paper failed to do is to recognise the very real destructive partisanship that followed on from the classification of practise into the five schools of thought. We all know that that saw four minbars and four congregational prayers for each of the Fardh prayers in the Holy Mosque. A sectarianism that must not be revisited. And the term Taqleed was defined in that atmosphere, and it is in that atmosphere that it must be understood.

The first point in such a definition would be to admit that Taqleed was and is real.

The second point would be to contrast and compare it with the Prophetic era and the era of his companions.

And not the reverse as that paper had done, which if it were the case would have seen partisanship in belief destroy the Muslim potential that altered the course of World History.

When we sincerely do it in the right order then there is no doubt that the Madhabs that are present now, were not present then, and therefore the Taqleed that is a consequence of the Madhabs was also an unknown force in the lives of the companions.

To ask those in the know, a Quranic injunction, therefore has nothing to do with Taqleed. Taqleed thus must then stem from the belief that the Madhabs brought consistency to Muslim practice, and that consistency was a thing to be sought after and valued.

After all before the Madhabs Muslims were Muslims, and after them Muslims remained Muslims.

The only claim that the Madhabs brought was that an overarching understanding of the religion should guide practice and lend to it a consistency that previously might not have been there.

But, can any Madhab really claim to be whole, consistent and free from logical errors? Isn't that an honour that we should reserve for that which claimed of itself such: the holy Quran?

And even if a Madhab were free from logical inconsistencies would that really reflect life?

We know that the Qur'an declares itself to be free from those inconsistencies and contradictions, and that ALLAH t'ala in His abundant wisdom revealed both it and the wisdom.

But can the application of the divine lay a likewise claim?
Can it claim to be free from contradiction and even then reflect and direct life?

These questions hint at the necessity of abrogation and what it means.

That was the need for the Prophetic example to explain, reflect and then direct the lives of the Muslims in that light of divine inspiration.

ALCOHOL
So we see the first revelation in regards to the use of alcohol as "being of some benefit but of greater harm" and later the recommendation to "not approach the prayers in the state of intoxication" which preceded a complete banning.

Whilst it might be argued that one abrogated the other preceding injunctions, when we look it at from a dispassionate linguistic position there is no contradiction or abrogation between any of those passages.

This is because the first is phrased as an argument that Muhammad (saw) was to put to the people. And abrogation is between injunctions or rulings and not between an argument and injunctions. Indeed we see that he himself abstained from it from the first in the Hadith that relates regarding Israa:

Hadith Anas:
"I entered the mosque and prayed two rak'ahs in it, and then came out and Gabriel brought me a vessel of wine and a vessel of milk. I chose the milk, and Gabriel said: You have chosen the natural thing."

Or similarly that "God has guided you to the natural way".

There we see reference to a second type of guidance, or inspiration, given to Muhammad (saw) and encoded in his Sunnah.

And so the Sunnah was in accordance with the revelation even prior to banning being enacted.
The interesting question that stems from this is how did Gabriel (as) know what the Fitra was, after all he is an angel and would have no internal experience or understanding of human Fitra, nor would he have bern able to imagine it. And then if he (as) knew of it, why did he offer both wine and milk.

The Sunnah preceded revelation on many occurrences and revelation confirmed the Sunnah on many occasions.

This is logically difficult for people who prefer a linear methodology. After all logic dictates premise and then conclusion, a linear movement towards right and away from wrong.

The miracle of Islam is that it was very often other than that.

And then to have tried to squeeze it into that linear and logical box, that the Madhabs have sought to do, even after the Prophet (saw) left us, is plain wrong.

MUADH (as)
After all when the Prophet (saw) instructed Muadh ibn Jabal (ra) on how he would judge, the Prophet (saw) confirmed his opinion.

Muadh (as) said that after he had exhausted what he knew of the Qur'an and Sunnah without knowing any better what to do, he would revert back to his own opinion.

Does holding an opinion really mean allowing logic to dictate what must be done in order to maintain consistency?

Even when the Prophet (saw) informed us that the true leaders of a people are those that help them, and do good to them?

Sometimes overmuch logic can be over bearing. I for one have been told that, and know it from primary experience.

Maslahah is but one legal method that is much overlooked and in accordance with the prophetic words asks for us to base our decisions, when there are no clear injunctions, on the public benefit or good.

And in that lies the answer to our placid extremists.


Shafeesthoughts

















- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:London, UK

Bricks and Mortar

My hearts bleeds,
Not when I see the destruction that is visited upon my people.

But when I see my people destroyed by that destruction-
When they forget to care for their own.

Then they, our enemies, would have won.
When we no longer care to feed or look after the one who has no other,
The one who is left alone in the darkness
Because the criminals have taken their family.

Then YA BASIT, YA ALLAH
Expand the hearts of the Muslims,
Remove from them the narrowness of this day,
And of the next day, and those to follow.

And replace it with the vastness of the next life.
So that even when they have nothing
Not a thing.
They still care.

And look after the one who has less than them
Left destitute without family.
Let them become one family.

Indeed this religion has the greatest of institutions
Not those of bricks and mortar
But far greater.

Men who might take heed
Of the words of the glorious
Qur'aan.

Take care my people
Of your people
And then GOD will take care of you. :)



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:Gaza, Syria, Iraq ...

Thrives

Thrives....

What makes him thrive?
Reach for the sky.

What impetus pushes him to rock climb?

Nappy clad,
and yet he mounts that which is over his head.

Visit the centre of parks.
Amidst that quiet serene,
There emits shrieks, bangs, whistles and screech.

The iconic noise of the swing.
The cacophony of oneupmanship
That I cannot see being driven by another

Simply, he does because he can
He pushes because he can
Not driven by sordid competition.

This be not a wild world.
No matter how bitter Materialisms pill,
That does not make it any more true.

Astonishingly that cacophony
Descends not into a mire of disorder.

But our World is driven by possibility.
I can and therefore I will.
A purpose that causes even those immature selves
To order and consideration.

Consider in all that disorder
Why is there no more hurt and pain
In those childhood years.

Thrives.

A coming into existence of possibility.
A movement towards fulfilment
Not what they would want you to believe.

Until education and socialisation
Adds fear to the mixture
And into the bowl. cruelty

Materialism's bitter pill.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:Kelsey Park Playground

The Prophesy of Zacharia

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:

1-The banishing of chariots, which is a clear reference to Rome…

2-peace and rule extending from sea to sea…

3-· from the river to the ends of the Earth…

All remain unfulfilled…

Context

When Jesus (as) came the Jews were subjugated under 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 World. 

Even before that GOD had promised him through three visions seen whilst the whole of Arabia sought to destroy his city, Persia, Syria and Yemen. (This occurred at the battle of the trench). 

But, he (saw) choose the latter; to accept to the call to the next life. 

When the Angel of Death came to him, the Angel asked permission to take him, and he gave it. 

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)

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 for the political authority of the Messenger (saw) on this Earth, and it read "Muhammad RasulAllah" (Muhammad the Messenger of God). 

With it Abu Bakr (ra) carried the whole political authority of the Messenger. 

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), (literally 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.

During the authority of the third of the Khalifah Rashidun being Uthman bin Affan (ra) the triplicate title khalifatul khalifatul khalifatul RasulAllah became cumbersome and someone suggested that it be changed to Amir ul Mumineen (the leader of the Believers), Uthman conceded and the title change was effected. 

The signet ring that held the political authority of the Messenger (saw) 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 formal 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.

Unfulfilled Zahariah’s Prophesy

Whilst the prior heavenly books: the Torah and Injeel (gospel) concern themselves with prophesies of the future, the Quran does not. The Quran prophesies two main events, one of which occurred within the lifetime of our Messenger. 

Indeed the title of Prophet in the Quran is Nabi- someone who is the bringer of news- whilst a Messenger is a Rasul, literally someone who brings a letter or a Message from God.

The main concern of the Quran is the creation of a just and equal society. And in the helping of people towards God consciousness. 

That the prophesy of Zachariah may have been inadvertently fulfilled by the community of Muslim believers, is of no concern to the Muslims, other than as a means of educating the former Nations in the truth of what Muhammed (saw) brought. 

Indeed the Jews still await the fulfillment of the prophesy of Zachariah. Whilst the Christians ignore it, forgetting that Jesus (as) began its enactment as a means of reminding them and preparing them for one foretold who would come. 

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.*1

Contrary to the popular imagery of Lawrence of Arabia… Arabs, at least at that time, during war had recourse to normal horse cavalry. *2

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:

1- Chariots of Rome were banished from Jerusalem...

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

Jesus (as) and Muhammed (saw). 

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. It is reputed that Judas had a similar likeness to Jesus, and it could be that it was he that was crucified instead of Jesus. And that would account for the words on the cross “O Lord, why have you abandoned me”. After all Judas believed that he was being a dutiful Jew, dutiful to his faith. The God of the Quran calls those that sought to murder Jesus unbelievers, because even whilst affirming God they denied Jesus. 

In a like manner, any who denies the truth of Muhammed (saw) after coming to know it’s undeniably, will be classed as an Unbeliever even whilst they profess to believe in God. 

The Last Portion of the Prophesy 

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). 

Peace to the End of the World

The middle part of the Prophesy speaks as such:

He shall speak peaceably to every nation

And this finds expression in the first chapter of the Quran that determines what a Muslim society should look like:

“And thus We have made you a justly balanced Nation, so that you might bear witness to the truth before all mankind, and that the Messenger might bear witness to it before you.” Al-Baqara 143

This contrary to what is popularly believed is an instruction on how the Muslim Nation is to behave in relation to other Nations and communities: calling to truth and standing up for both truth and justice. 

Not a conquering Nation, but a Nation that wishes for Peace. 

END

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.

Shafees

NOTES

*1  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?

*2 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)."

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Druken Sober

Drunken Stupor.

I have the unusual privilege of reflecting on my poor behaviour this night.

I went out for a meal with my work colleagues to wish one of them a safe onward journey to greener pastures.

I failed in my duty to myself and I became one amongst the crowd. And it was as if I was in a druken stupor even whilst alcohol remained alien to me. Stupor is the right word for even though my senses did not dim, I continuously failed to see my foolishness until the evening had done.

Maybe it was because of the unusual setting for me, or maybe because the purport remained clouded within a catch all "have a good time". Just maybe whenever anybody goes for a good time, they cannot bear, like me, to listen to defening silence and then in order to fill that void- talk vain. They put their colleagues and friends down, poke fun, reveal confidences and then call it banter or a tease.

It was interesting to observe that whilst my colleagues work well as a team in our organisation. But that when it came to relatively unstructured meal together the weak became easy game whilst the strong, and vocal, carried the day. Like as if we were on the battlefields of Golding's Lord of the Flies.

Now I know what it means by the fact that vain talk will become obsolete in Jannah. First that it is something disgusting and lowly that brings out the worst in us. Second that in Jannah every second will be a SubhanAllah and every thought and act a purposeful conduit.

I would that that Jannah were here for me nor.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Bitter Me

Bitter Me.

Mine not to feel hate,
Nor retribute crime.
Though at my approach the guilty do flee, me.

Not mine to just __ be,
Nor ever still, as lake on a spring mourn.
Or as last even's dusk before the dread of night.

But If you were to meet
All people
For just a moment- span-
Then I would you and you would me.

Neither staying long enough to acquaint.
But ever the bringer of a pivotal moment.

For destined are we,
Though you often forget.
In a given land and at a given time, you will meet me.

Mine to rip and sear,
To take you from a place you call home and your own.
To the one you forgot,
Whereby be your return.

When I come upon you
Then you will see me
And know that your time has come.

Until then my friend,
Remember.

That though we be destined.
How you choose to live,
Is how we will meet.
And then I will show you your place.

And do not pity me.
For by HIS grace
I will be freed and death will take me.

But not before
I take thee.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone