Category Archives: Theology

THE BLACK KISWAH OF KA’ABA

Posted on by
Reply

To read full article please visit my page at: https://independent.academia.edu/MirzaAshraf

THE BLACK KISWAH OF KA’ABA

ABSTRACT: Psychologists believe, black means power and control. Black is the absorption of all colors. It is the absence of light. Black hides, while white brings to light. What black covers, white uncovers. Black is also the end; but the end always implies a new beginning. The color black relates to the hidden, the secretive and the unknown, and as a result it creates an air of mystery. It keeps things bottled up inside, hidden from the world. Black absorbs negative energy. In color psychology this color gives protection from external emotional stress. It creates a barrier between itself and the outside world, providing comfort, protecting emotions and feelings, hiding vulnerabilities, insecurities and lack of self confidence. Black is unapproachable because of the power it exudes. It does not display any other color, is unitary, and prevents dual communication as opposed to the white which can display many colors. However, when the light appears, black disappears and becomes white, the color of new beginnings. Overall, The color black represents mystery, because  black is the unknown. It is secretive, keeping a lot buried inside, unwilling to show its real feelings.Black is power and control of the self and others. It creates fear and intimidation. It is related that people appearing before the Ka’aba are often struck by awe at the very first sight of Ka’aba’s majesty in its black robe. Many over whelmed with emotions, start crying, shedding tears, and begin to recite Takbir invoking the Majesty of Almighty Allah.

— MIRZA ASHRAF

 

Muslims Of Early America By PETER MANSEAU

Posted on by
Reply

IT was not the imam’s first time at the rodeo.

Scheduled to deliver an invocation at the Fort Worth Stock Show and Rodeo last week, Moujahed Bakhach of the local Islamic Association of Tarrant County canceled his appearancebecause of the backlash brought on by a prayer he had offered a few days before. The imam had been asked to confer a blessing on horses, riders and members of the military. He was met with gasps from the audience and social media complaints: “Outraged at a Muslim prayer at an all American event!” “Cowboys don’t want it!”

Vocal anti-Islamic sentiment is undergoing a revival. Four days before the imam’s canceled benediction, protesters at the State Capitol in Austin shouted down Muslim speakers, 

claiming Texas in the name of Jesus alone. In North Carolina two weeks earlier, Duke University’s plan to broadcast a Muslim call to prayer was abandoned amid threats of violence. Meanwhile Gov. Bobby Jindal, Republican of Louisiana claimed that if American Muslims “want to set up their own culture and values, that’s not immigration, that’s really invasion.”

No matter how anxious people may be about Islam, the notion of a Muslim invasion of this majority Christian country has no basis in fact. Moreover, there is an inconvenient footnote to the assertion that Islam is anti-American: Muslims arrived here before the founding of the United States — not just a few, but thousands.

They have been largely overlooked because they were not free to practice their faith. They were not free themselves and so they were for the most part unable to leave records of their beliefs. They left just enough to confirm that Islam in America is not an immigrant religion lately making itself known, but a tradition with deep roots here, despite being among the most suppressed in the nation’s history.

In 1528, a Moroccan slave called Estevanico was shipwrecked along with a band of Spanish explorers near the future city of Galveston, Tex. The city of Azemmour, in which he was raised, had been a Muslim stronghold against European invasion until it fell during his youth. While given a Christian name after his enslavement, he eventually escaped his Christian captors and set off on his own through much of the Southwest.

Two hundred years later, plantation owners in Louisiana made it a point to add enslaved Muslims to their labor force, relying on their experience with the cultivation of indigo and rice. Scholars have noted Muslim names and Islamic religious titles in the colony’s slave inventories and death records.

The best known Muslim to pass through the port at New Orleans was Abdul-Rahman Ibrahim ibn Sori, a prince in his homeland whose plight drew wide attention. As one newspaper account noted, he had read the Bible and admired its precepts, but added, “His principal objections are that Christians do not follow them.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/opinion/the-founding-muslims.html?action=click&contentCollection=Europe&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

Posted By F. Sheikh

Blasphemy In Islam-The Quran does not prescribe punishment for abusing the Prophet

Posted on by
Reply

By Maulana Wahiddudin Khan

In Islam, blasphemy is a subject of intellectual discussion rather than a subject of physical punishment. This concept is very clear in the Quran. The Quran tells us that since ancient times God has sent prophets in succession to every town and every community. It says, moreover, that the contemporaries of all of these prophets adopted a negative attitude towards them. There are more than 200 verses in the Quran, which reveal that the contemporaries of the prophets repeatedly perpetrated the same act, which is now called 'blasphemy or abuse of the Prophet' or 'using abusive language about the Prophet'. Prophets, down the ages, have been mocked and abused by their contemporaries (36:30); some of the epithets cited in the Quran include "a liar" (40:24), "possessed" (15:6), "a fabricator" (16:101), "a foolish man" (7:66). The Quran mentions these words of abuse used by prophets' contemporaries but nowhere does the Quran prescribe the punishment of lashes, or death, or any other physical punishment. This clearly shows that 'abuse of the Prophet' is not a subject of punishment, but is rather a subject of peaceful admonishment. That is, one who is guilty of abusing the Prophet should not have corporal punishment meted out to him: he should rather be given sound arguments in order to address his mind. In other words, peaceful persuasion should be used to reform the person concerned rather than trying to punish him. Those who adopt a negative stance towards the Prophet will be judged by God, who knows the innermost recesses of their hearts. The responsibility of the believers is to observe the policy of avoidance and, wishing well, convey the message of God to them in such a manner that their minds might be properly addressed. Another important aspect of this matter is that at no point in the Quran is it stated that anyone who uses abusive language about the Prophet should be stopped from doing so, and that in case he continues to do so he should be awarded severe punishment. On the contrary, the Quran commands the believer not to use abusive language directed against opponents: "But do not revile those [beings] whom they invoke instead of God, lest they, in their hostility, revile God and out of ignorance" (6:108). This verse of the Quran makes it plain that it is not the task of the believers to establish "media watch" offices and hunt for anyone involved in acts of defamation of the Prophet, and then plan for their killing, whatever the cost. On the contrary, the Quran enjoins believers to sedulously refrain from indulging in such acts as may provoke people to retaliate by abusing Islam and the Prophet. This injunction of the Quran makes it clear that this responsibility devolves upon the believers, rather than holding others responsible and demanding that they be punished. Looked at from this angle, the stance of present-day Muslims goes totally against the teachings of the Quran. Whenever anyone - in their judgment - commits an act of 'abuse of the Prophet', in speech or in writing, they instantly get provoked and respond by leading processions through the streets, which often turn violent. And then they demand that all those who insult the Prophet be beheaded. Muslims generally advocate the theory that freedom of expression is good, but that no one has the right to hurt the religious sentiments of others. This theory is quite illogical. Freedom is not a self-acquired right. It is God, who, because of His scheme of putting man to the test, has given man total freedom. Then the modern secular concept of freedom is that everyone is free provided he does not inflict physical harm upon others. In such a situation, the above kind of demand is tantamount to abo-lishing two things: firstly, to abolishing the divine scheme, and secondly, to abolishing the modern secular norm. Neither goal is achievable. So the hue and cry against the so-called abuse of the Prophet is simply untenable. By adopting this policy, Muslims can make themselves permanently negative but they cannot change the system of the world. There is a relevant Hadith in which the Prophet of Islam has said: ''Min husn Islam al-mar tarkahu ma la yanih'' (A good Muslim is one who refrains from indulging in a practice that is not going to yield any positive result). This Hadith applies very aptly to the present situation of Muslims. They have been making noise for a very long time against blasphemy, but it has been in vain. Muslims must know that they are not in a position to change the world, so they must change themselves. There will be two instant advantages of adopting this policy: they will save themselves from becoming victim of negative sentiments and will be able to devote their energies to constructive work. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/edit-page/Blasphemy-in-Islam-The-Quran-does-not-prescribe-punishment-for-abusing-the-Prophet/articleshow/16631496.cms  Posted By F. Sheikh