Featured Post

قرآن آخری کتاب Quran : The Last Book

Don't Discard Quran: Quran is the Only Last, Complete, Protected Divine Book of Guidance, without any doubt, all other books are h...

Showing posts with label Interfaith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Interfaith. Show all posts

4.8.16

Muslim Christian Relations

Christianity, Islam and Judaism are often known as Abrahamic religions because of their common origin through Abraham. Christians and Muslims consider Ishmael (Ismā'īl), to be the "Father of the Arabs" and Isaac (Isḥāq) the "Father of the Hebrews". The story of Abraham and his sons is told in the Book of Genesis and the Qur'an but with certain differences, with Muslims emphasizing Ishmael as the older son of Abraham, with Christians (and Jews) emphasizing Isaac as the favorite son of Abraham.
Muslims commonly refer to Christians and Jews as "People of the Book", people who follow the same general teachings in relation to the worship of the One God (Tawhid) as known by Abraham. Christians differ in their opinions on the nearness of the relationship, with some considering the relationship close while others consider it distant compared to that between Christianity and Judaism, non-existent, or in opposition to God.
Christianity and Islam share a historical and traditional connection, with some stark theological differences. The two faiths share a common origin in the Middle East, consider themselves to be monotheistic, and are Abrahamic religions.
Muslims have a range of views on Christianity, often considering Christians and Jews to be People of the Book or as hereticsChristian views on Islam are diverse and range from considering Islam a fellow Abrahamic religion worshipping the same God, to believing Islam to be heresy or an unrelated cult. Christianity and Islam both consider Jesus to have been sent by God. Christians generally consider Jesus to be the Son of God, while Muslims consider the Trinity to be a division of God's Oneness and a grave sin (shirk).
Christianity and Islam have different scriptures, with Islam using the Quran and Christianity the Bible. Both texts offer an account of the life and works of Jesus. Belief in Jesus is an important part of Islamic theology, and Muslims view the Christian Gospels as altered, while Christians consider Gospels to be authoritative and the Quran to be a later, apocryphal work. Both religions believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, but the Biblical and Quranic accounts differ.
Historically, Christianity and Islam have both peacefully co-existed and engaged in extended periods of warfare. Western (secular and Christian) and Islamic histories offer differing accounts of both periods of tolerance and violence.

God of Christians and Muslims

 Muslim Christian Relations, The Good, The Bad

 Jesus Peace Be Upon Him, in the Holy Quran

 Does the Bible Forbid Christians from Marrying Muslims

 How Jesus Christ described the Glory of the Prophet Muhammad 

 More in Common than you think

 Answers to Questions on the Bible asked by Christians

 The Word Allah in Arabic Bible

 Islamic Beliefs and Practices - Glimpses in the Bible 

 Islam in the Bible

 Christianity in the Bible

 What Jesus said about Fasting

 Gospel of Barnabas

 Gospels of Barnabas -2

 Jesus was never crucified according to the Gospel of Barnabas

 The Dead Sea Scrolls

 Who are the real followers of Jesus

 Pophet Muhammad's Charter of Priviledges to Christians 

 Prayer in the Bible

 Christian Head-Veiling Resource Page


-----------------------------------
Open letter to Muslims and Scholars:

Presently the society is in a state of ideological confusion and degradation. Materialism, terrorism, ignorance and intolerance has threatened the humanity, peace and religion. These circumstances demand special response from the learned men of religion. Objective is to draw your attention towards pressing issues which need urgent resolution. With little  attention and effort we can make an endeavour to take the society out of this quagmire. Keep reading >>> http://goo.gl/xNolSV

مسلم وعلماء کے نام کھلا خط 
آج کے حالات میں مسلم معاشرہ نظریاتی  ابتری اور انحطاط کا شکار ہے. مادہ پرستی، دہشت گردی، عدم برداشت، اور جہالت انسانیت، امن اور مذھب کے لیے خطرہ بن چکے ہیں. ان حالات میں صاحب علم و ذی فہم حضرات سے ممکنہ حل کی توقع کی جا سکتی ہے. ہمارا مقصد ہے کہ آپ کی توجہ ضروری حل پذیر مسائل کی طرف مبذول کرنا ہے تاکہ جلد حل تلاش کیا جا سکے. آپ کی توجہ اور مدد سے ہم کوشش کر سکتے ہیں کہ معاشرہ کو اس  گہری دلدل سے نکال سکیں. مکمل خط اس لنک پر پڑھیں : http://goo.gl/y2VWNE
Also Related:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Humanity, ReligionCultureSciencePeace
 A Project of 
SalaamOne.Com
Peace Forum Network Mags
BooksArticles, BlogsMagazines,  VideosSocial Media
Millions of visits/hits

7.1.16

Muslims and Dialogue

 Image result for dialogue
  
Dialogue between people of different faiths is a pressing necessity. Yet, relatively few dialogue initiatives have been launched by Muslims. This is because Muslims, generally speaking, don’t believe in building bridges with non-Muslims in religious matters. They believe in converting them. And there is a deep-seated sense of superiority over people belonging to other faiths. Therefore, by and large, they don’t like to enter into bridge-building religious dialogues.

Many traditional ulema or religious scholars don’t think dialogue with non-Muslims is the way out. Some of them believe in either conquering non-Muslim lands through Jihad as the solution to the problem or preaching to convert them. They do, however, agree that no one is to be forced to accept Islam.

The fact is that our ulema do not consider speaking to non-Muslims with a view to coming close to them as a priority. Moreover, few of our religious scholars have any social contact with non-Muslims. And of these few people, hardly any might genuinely wish to learn about their religions so as to understand their point of view sympathetically. Lamentably, a feeling of superiority, which leads to looking down on others, is the most significant factor in causing this lack of enthusiasm in Muslims coming closer to non-Muslims.

In this regard, I’d like to suggest some changes in conventional Muslim perceptions of others. Firstly, a genuine study of the Qur’anic verses and Hadith reports, which will help in creating true respect for non-Muslims—there are many such verses and reports that stress genuine respect for others. Alongside this, an earnest attempt should be made to clarify the era-specific context-specific nature of Quranic verses and Hadith reports that might seem to give an impression that non-Muslims are not worthy of respect. Also, other religions must be taught in madrasas, where the ulema are trained, to open the minds of the students to have a more accommodating attitude towards non-Muslims. Yet another step that would help in building bridges would be to invite non-Muslim scholars to teach courses on their respective faiths in madrasas.

In the name of dialogue, some Muslim groups seek to rebut and criticize other religions and point out the errors in their scriptures and belief systems. Some try to prove other religions as inferior and mock them.They see this as one of the purposes of dialogue. The question is: Is this compatible with the spirit of dialogue? Can this be called dialogue at all or is it simply inter-religious polemics?

In my opinion, the purpose of dialogue should be to present positively one’s own view with arguments and clarify one’s position in response to questions and criticisms raised by others. Whether one’s faith is superior or not should be left to individuals to infer from the presentation. There is no need to directly target the views of others. That is what I think the Qur’anic expectation in this verse demands: “Invite towards the path of your Lord with wisdom, pleasant instructions, and debate with them in a good manner.” (16:125)

I think clarifying one’s faith in response to questions raised by people belonging to other faiths is natural. However, it needs to be done in a decent, academic way. If differences are not discussed in an academic way, the impact it has on people of other faiths is indeed negative. They feel insulted, and rightly so. An insulting rebuttal to the faith of a believer is very unlikely to bring him closer to the views of the one who is rebutting his beliefs. It doesn’t truly help in promoting better relations between Muslims and others.

It is not just in the field of interfaith or inter-religious dialogue that Muslims are, by and large, quite inactive. There are hardly any efforts among Muslims to promote dialogue among themselves, too—between different sects and schools of thought among Muslims, even though the Qur’an gives great stress to the unity of believers. This has happened because even though the Qur’an is the most frequently read book for Muslims, it is not studied in a way that it is given the status of the text that enjoys ultimate religious authority. Sectarian literature of scholars and ahadith that support the views of one sect or another enjoy a higher status than the Qur’an in practical life for the traditional Muslims.

This situation has occurred because Muslims believe that the Qur’an is too difficult to be understood directly and therefore they need the support of their scholars and hadith reports to understand it. Unless Muslim scholars and intelligent non-scholars decide that the Qur’an has to be the ultimate criterion for them in all religious matters, it will not be possible for Muslims to relate properly with fellow Muslims and with non-Muslims.

That said, in the present atmosphere, when Islam and Muslims are much demonized because of ongoing violence involving Muslims and others, often wrongly in the name of Islam, it is very heartening to note that some Muslims have become more aware of the need to engage in dialogue. I think the situation is ripe for Muslims to wake up and undergo a process of reformation in their religious thinking.

I can see three trends in the Muslim intelligentsia at the moment: a worrying movement away from religion; an equally worrying trend towards religious extremism; and a realization that Islam needs to be understood properly. The third possibility is likely to be effective only if a critical mass of Muslim intelligentsia lends their full support to the efforts undertaken by some scholars who are inviting Muslims to understand Islam on the basis of the Qur’an.
By Dr,Khallid Zaheer: http://blog.khalidzaheer.com/216/muslims-dialogue/216

Related:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Humanity, ReligionCultureSciencePeace
 A Project of 
Peace Forum Network
Peace Forum Network Mags
BooksArticles, BlogsMagazines,  VideosSocial Media
Overall 2 Million visits/hits

9.2.15

Similarities with Non Muslims

مذاہبِ باطلہ کے ساتھ تَشَبُّہ
مفتی منیب الرزحمان
سب سے پہلے چند احادیثِ مبارَکہ ملاحظہ کیجئے:

(1):حضرت جابر رضی اللہ عنہ بیان کرتے ہیں کہ حضرت عمر رضی اللہ عنہ رسول اللہ ﷺ کی خدمت میں حاضر ہوئے اور عرض کی:''بے شک ہم لوگ یہود سے کچھ ایسی باتیں سنتے ہیں، جو ہمیں اچھی لگتی ہیں، کیا آپ مناسب سمجھتے ہیں کہ ہم اُن میں سے کچھ لکھ لیا کریں؟‘‘ آپ ﷺ نے بہ طور زَجر وانکار فرمایا:کیا تم لوگ دینِ اسلام کے بارے میں حیرت میں ہو جیسا کہ یہود ونصاریٰ اس کیفیت میں مبتلاہوگئے تھے، حالانکہ میں تمہارے پاس ایک پاکیزہ روشن دین وملّت لے کر آیا ہوںاور اگر موسیٰ علیہ السلام زندہ ہوتے تو ان کے لئے(بھی) میری پیروی کے سوا کوئی چارہ نہ ہوتا،(مسنداحمد:387/3)‘‘۔ (2): رسول اللہ ﷺ نے فرمایا:''جس نے مذاہبِ غیر کے ساتھ تَشَبُّہ اختیار کیا وہ ہم میں سے نہیں ، یہودونصاریٰ سے مشابہت اختیار نہ کرو، کیونکہ یہود کا سلام انگلیوں سے اشارہ کرناہے اور نصاریٰ کا سلام ہتھیلیوں سے اشارہ کرنا ہے،(سنن ترمذی:2695)‘‘۔

(3):حضرت جابررضی اللہ عنہ بیان کرتے ہیں کہ رسول اللہ ﷺ نے فرمایا:'' دین میں کسی بات کی بابت اہلِ کتاب سے نہ پوچھو، کیونکہ وہ تمہیں ہدایت ہرگز نہیں دینگے، جب کہ وہ خود گمراہ ہوچکے ہیں ، کیونکہ (دین کے بارے میںاُن سے مشابہت کرکے)یا تو تم باطل کی تصدیق کرو گے یا حق کو جھٹلاؤ گے ، کیونکہ اگر موسیٰ علیہ السلام (آج ) تمہارے درمیان زندہ ہوتے ، تو اُن پر بھی میری اتباع لازم ہوتی ، (مسنداحمد:14631)‘‘۔ (4):''مشرکین کی مخالفت کرو،(بخاری:5892)‘‘۔(5):''مجوس کی مخالفت کرو،(مسلم:260)‘‘۔ (6):''اور جس نے کسی ملت ِ باطلہ کے ساتھ مشابہت اختیار کی تو اس کا شمار اُنہی میں سے ہوگا،(سنن ابو داؤد :4028)‘‘۔

علامہ زین الدین ابن نُجیم حنفی لکھتے ہیں:''یادرکھو! کہ ہر بات میں اہلِ کتاب کے ساتھ تشبیہ مکرو ہ نہیں ہے، کیونکہ ہم بھی ان کی طرح کھاتے پیتے ہیں، صرف مذموم بات اور ایسی چیز میںجس میںتَشَبُّہ حرام ہے ان کے مذہب کے ساتھ مشابہت کا ارادہ کیا جائے ،(البحرالرائق ، جلد:2، ص:18)‘‘۔ امام احمد رضاقادری ،ملا علی قاری کے حوالے سے لکھتے ہیں:''ہمیں کافروں اورمنکَر بدعات کے مرتکب لوگوں کے شِعار میں مشابہت اختیار کرنے سے منع کیا گیا ہے،وہ بدعت جو مباح کا درجہ رکھتی ہو اس سے نہیں روکا گیا ، خواہ وہ اہلسنت کے افعال ہوں یا کفار اور اہلِ بدعت کے، لہٰذا حرمت کا مدار مذہبی شِعار ہونے پر ہے،( منح الروض الازہرعلی الفقہ الاکبر،ص:185)‘‘۔

نیزامام احمد رضا قادری لکھتے ہیں:''تَشَبُّہ دو وجہ سے ہوتی ہے ، التزامی ولزومی ۔ التزامی یہ ہے کہ کوئی شخص کسی قوم کی خاص وضع کو اس نیت سے اختیار کرے کہ ان کی سی صورت بنائے اور ان کے ساتھ مشابہت اختیار کرے ، حقیقی تَشَبُّہ اسی کا نام ہے۔ التزامی میں قصد کی تین صورتیں ہیں:اوّل:اس قوم کو پسندیدہ سمجھ کران سے مشابہت اختیار کرے، یہ بات اگر اہلِ بدعت کے ساتھ ہوتوبدعت اور معاذ اللہ! کفار کے ساتھ ہوتو کفر۔ دوم :کسی غرضِ مقبول (جیسے دشمن کی جاسوسی کرنا) کی ضرورت کے تحت اسے اختیار کرے، وہاں اس وضع کی شَناعت (خرابیاں)اور اس غرض کی ضرورت کا موازنہ ہوگا، اگر ضرورت غالب ہو تو ضرورت کی حدتک تَشَبُّہ، کفر تودور کی بات، ممنوع بھی نہیںہوگا۔ سوم: نہ تو انہیں اچھا جانتا ہے ، نہ کوئی شرعی ضرورت اس کی داعی ہے، بلکہ کسی دنیوی نفع کے لئے یا یونہی بطورِ ہَزل واستہزاء (یعنی غیر سنجیدہ انداز میںیا مذاق کے طور پر) اس کا مرتکب ہوا، تو حرام وممنوع ہونے میں شک نہیں ۔اور اگر وہ وضع ان کفار کا مذہبی و دینی شِعار ہے ، جیسے زُنّار، قَشقہ ، چُٹیایا چلیپا اور گلے میں صلیب لٹکانا، توعلماء نے حکمِ کفر قرار دیا ہے۔ لزومی یہ کہ اس کا قصد تو مشابہت کا نہیں ہے ، مگر وہ وضع غیرمسلم قوم کا شِعار ہے کہ خواہی نخواہی مشابہت پیدا ہوگی،اس سے بچنا بھی واجب ہے ۔اسی وجہ سے علماء نے فسّاق کی وضع کے کپڑے پہننے سے منع فرمایا ہے، (ماخوذ ازفتاویٰ رضویہ ،جلد:24،ص:530-532)‘‘۔

شِعار کا واحدشَعِیرَہ یا شِعَارَہ ہے ،شِعَارَہ اور مَشْعَرہ کے معنی ہیں : ''خاص نشانی‘‘ ۔ اسی معنی میں خاص علامت کے حامل قربانی کے جانوروں کو اور صفاومروہ کو بھی قرآن میں ''شعائراللہ ‘‘کہا گیا ہے اور شعائراللہ کی تعظیم کو دلوں کا تقویٰ قرار دیا گیا ہے۔ اسی معنی میں بعض مقامات مثلاًکعبۃ اللہ ، میدانِ عرفات ، مُزدلِفہ ، جمارِثلاثہ اور مقامِ ابراہیم ہمارے دینی شعائرہیں ، اسی طرح زمانے کے بعض مخصوص اوقات ، جیسے رمضان، اَشہُرِحُرُم، عیدالفطر، عیدالاضحی، جمعہ ، ایامِ تشریق وغیرہ ہمارے دینی شعائر ہیں۔ اور بعض افعال جیسے اذان، اقامت ، نمازِ باجماعت، نمازِ جمعہ ، نمازِ عیدین اور ختنہ وغیرہ بھی ہمارے دینی شعائر ہیں،(تفسیر فتح العزیز ، ص:369)‘‘۔

الغرض یہود ونصاریٰ ، ہنوداور دیگر باطل ملّتوں کی وہ علامات جو اُن کا مذہبی شِعار ہیںاور جن پر نظر پڑتے ہی اُن کے مذہب کا تصور ذہن میں آتا ہے، ایسے اُمور میں اُن مذاہبِ باطلہ کے ساتھ مشابہت اختیار کرنا حرام وممنوع ہے اور بعض صورتوں میں کفر بھی ہے۔ اسی طرح وہ افعال جو غیر مسلم قوم بطورِ مذہب انجام نہ دیتے ہوں بلکہ وہ ان کی طرزِ معاشرت ہو اور اسی قوم کے ساتھ خاص ہوں توان کو شِعار قومی کہا جاتاہے اور ان سے بچنا بھی لازم ہے۔ اس کے علاوہ ایسے امور میں اہلِ باطل کے ساتھ مشابہت ، جو ان کا مذہبی یا قومی شِعار نہیں ہے، حرام وممنوع نہیں ہے۔ چنانچہ امام احمد رضاقادری سے پوچھا گیا کہ: ''ایک خاص انداز میں باندھی جانے والی دھوتی کو ایک صاحب ہندو کاشِعار قرار دے کراس پر حُرمت کا فتویٰ لگا رہے ہیں‘‘۔ آپ لکھتے ہیں:''دھوتی باندھنے والے مسلمانوں کا یہ قصد تو ہر گز نہیں ہوتا کہ وہ کافروں کی سی صورت بنائیں اور فی نفسہٖ دھوتی کی حالت کو دیکھا جائے تو اس کی اپنی ذات میں کوئی حرج بھی نہیں ، بلکہ یہ ایک ایسا لباس ہے کہ جس سے سترِ عورت کا مقصدِ شرعی پورا ہورہا ہے، اصلِ سنت ولباس ِ پاک عرب یعنی تہبند سے صرف لٹکتا چھوڑنے اور پیچھے گُھرس لینے (اُڑس لینے)کا فرق رکھتی ہے، اس میں کسی امرِ شرع کا خلاف نہیں ، تو ممانعت کی دونوں وجہیں قطعاً نہیں پائی جاتیں۔رہا خاص شِعار کفار ہونا ، وہ بھی باطل ہوگا ۔ بنگالہ وغیرہ پورب (مشرقی ہند )کے عام شہروں میں ہند کے تمام رہنے والوں ،مسلمانوں اور ہندوؤں کا یہی لباس ہے۔ اسی طرح سب اضلاعِ ہند کے دیہات میں مسلمان اور ہندو یہی وضع رکھتے ہیں، حتّٰی کہ شہروں میں بھی بعض اہلِ حِرفت کام کے وقت یہی لباس پہنتے ہیں، ہاںیہاں کئی معزز شہریوں میں اس کا رواج نہیں ہے، مگر وہ صرف اس غرض سے کہ اپنی تہذیب کے خلاف سمجھتے ہیں ، نہ یہ کہ باندھنے والے کو کفر یا حرام کا مرتکب سمجھتے ہیں، تو زیادہ سے زیادہ باوقار اور معاشرے میں ذی وجاہت لوگوں کو گھر سے باہر اس کے پہننے سے احتراز کرنا چاہئے،(ماخوذ ازفتاویٰ رضویہ ، جلد:24، ص:534-35)‘‘۔

آج کل کوٹ ، پینٹ اور ٹائی عام لباس کی صورت اختیار کرگئے ہیں، جسے مسلم اور غیر مسلم سب پہنتے ہیں اور کوئی بھی اسے عیسائیت یا یہودیت کا مذہبی اورقومی شِعار نہیں سمجھتا، پس کفار کے ساتھ محض مشابہت ممنوع نہیں ہے، البتہ اگر کسی لباس سے سترِ عورت کا شرعی مقصد پورا نہ ہوتاہو، تو وہ اس اعتبار سے معیوب وممنوع سمجھا جائے گا۔ علامہ غلام رسول سعید ی لکھتے ہیں:''خلاصہ یہ ہے کہ کفار کے ساتھ تَشَبُّہ ان اُمور میں ممنوع ہے ، جو اُمور کفار کے عقائدِفاسدہ اور اعمالِ باطلہ کے ساتھ مخصوص ہوں یا جو امور کتاب وسنت کی تصریحات کے خلاف ہوں۔ اور جو امور ہمارے اور کفار کے درمیان مشترک ہوں یا جنہیں اختیار کرنا نفع مند ہو ، اُن میں اگر کفار کے ساتھ تَشَبُّہ واقع ہوجائے تو اُس میں کوئی حرج نہیں، بلکہ احادیث میں اس قسم کے امور کو اختیار کرنے کی بکثرت مثالیں ہیں ، جیسے شہر کے دفاع کے لئے خندق کھودنا کفارِ عجم کا طریقہ تھا، لیکن جب حضرت سلمان فارسی نے غزوۂ احزاب کے موقع پر مدینہ منورہ کے گرد خندق کھودنے کا مشورہ دیا تو نبی ﷺ نے اس مشورے کو قبول کرلیا، (تبیان القرآن ، جلد:9،ص:368)‘‘۔

اسی طرح انگریزی دنوں اور مہینوں کے نام ، جن کے پیچھے کوئی یونانی دیو مالائی تصورات ہیں ، اب انگریزی زبان میں ان دنوں اور مہینوں کا نام لینے والے عام آدمی کے ذہن میں وہ پسِ منظر قطعًا نہیں ہوتا اور نہ ہی یہ نام اس زمانے میں کسی باطل مذہب کا مذہبی یا قومی شِعار ہیں، لہٰذا اُن پر بھی مشابہت ِصُوری یا ظاہری کے اعتبار سے حرمت کا فتویٰ لگا نا درست نہیں ہے اور یہ دین میں بلاضرورت عُسر(تنگی) پیدا کرنا ہے، جو شارع علیہ السلام کو پسند نہیں ہے اور اس سے کوئی مقصدِشرعی باطل نہیں ہوتا۔ کسی کی یاد منانے کے لئے موم بتی جلانا یہ مسلمانوں کا شِعار نہیں ہے اوراِسراف ہونے کی وجہ سے ناپسندیدہ امر ہے۔
Dunya.com.pk

18.5.14

Apostasy & Islam

Sudan: A misconception of apostasy

Sudan's recent apostasy death sentence is a manifestation of the wrongful use of religion in politics.

Apostasy - a term one would normally associate with times past - has recently seen a surge in its use and application.
Sudan has had its fair share of controversies over the past years from "trousergate" to the "blasphemous teddy bear", but the latest case has upped the ante. A Sudanese court found Mariam Yahia Ibrahim, a pregnant Christian mother, guilty of apostasy and adultery and sentenced her to lashings and death, unless she renounces Christianity and reverts back to Islam.
Mariam was born to a Christian Orthodox mother and a Muslim father, who abandoned the family when she was six years old, whereon Mariam was brought up by her mother as a Christian. Three years ago she married a fellow Christian man. They have an 18-months-old son together, but their marriage has been deemed illegal under Sudanese law. The eight-months-pregnant medical doctor was sentenced last week in a Khartoum court to 100 lashings for committing adultery and death by hanging for marrying a non-Muslim, but was given a four-day grace period in which to recant her faith, repent and potentially be saved from death. That grace period ended and Mariam refused to repent.
The outcry over the case has naturally been ferocious, with both local and international rights groups and movements, governments and the media condemning the sentence and calling for the immediate release of Mariam. Amnesty International stated that Mariam is a "prisoner of conscience" and that "Adultery and apostasy are acts which should not be considered crimes at all. It is flagrant breach of international human rights law." The Sudanese youth movement Sudan Change Now issued a statement denouncing the case as a violation of her human and civil rights, an invasion of her privacy and reflects the ruling regime's continuing "crimes of social discrimination against women, social groups, and [the] religious sects to which Mariam belongs."

Governments like that of Omar al-Bashir's love to use religion to legitimise their authority and call themselves and believe to be Islamists. It appears that whatever directive is taken, be it legal, social or military, it uses religion as the underlying justification and legitimisation for it. But as with all like-minded, undemocratic governments, such rulings are based on twisted truths and the bending of religious teachings to suit political needs.
In his "Islam, Saudi and apostasy" article, Mohamed Ghilan notes that it's a "commonly held belief that Islamic law dictates the death penalty as an absolute punishment for apostasy." He points out that this perception restricts the role of the Prophet to that of a religious figure issuing decrees. Furthermore, the Hadith that this belief is based on is sahih ("authentic") but it seemingly contradicts verses in the Quran guaranteeing freedom of belief. Other similar verses in the Quran state that the Prophet Mohamed should "remind" people of religion, not force them into it: "Therefore, you remind (them), for you are only a reminder; you are not a watcher over them (88:21-22)."
At the heart of Mariam's case is an important issue: Can any entity, whether a state, a religious institution or a social group, dictate what an individual should or should not believe in? Religion is a highly private matter and it should stay such. Regardless of the fact that Mariam's father is Muslim (Sudanese law states that children must follow their father's religion), she herself identifies as a Chrisian woman and it is her decision to make. When asked by the presiding judge why she was insistent on abandoning Islam and embracing Christianity, Mariam replied: "I am Christian and I never committed apostasy."
Article 126 of Sudan's Criminal Code states that "(1) Whoever propagates the renunciation of Islam or publicly renounces it by explicit words or an act of definitive indication is said to commit the offence of Riddah (apostasy)." Yet, Article 38 of the Freedom of Creed and Worship in Sudan's Bill of Rights overrides it: "Every person shall have the right to the freedom of religious creed and worship, and to declare his/her religion or creed and manifest the same, by way of worship, education, practice or performance of rites or ceremonies, subject to requirements of law and public order; no person shall be coerced to adopt such faith, that he/she does not believe in, nor to practice rites or services to which he/she does not voluntarily consent."
So besides the fact that Sudan's constitution "protects" one's right to choose faith, in Mariam's case she did not renounce Islam simply because she never was a Muslim. Presumably she never lived her life as a Muslim, never declared she was one, nor that she was leaving her faith and finding solace in another. Mariam is a Christian and definitely not a "former Muslim".
Sudan's ruling regime prides itself in a constitution that "preserves the rights of non-Muslims", but Mariam's case completely goes against that claim. In addition, Sudan is a signatory to a number of African and international treaties that "protect privacy and absolutely prohibit corporal punishment and the use of the death penalty in these contexts". The fact that the Sudanese regime does not acknowledge its international commitments is not surprising. After all, al-Bashir's government is responsible for continuous rights violations and atrocities against the Sudanese people in general, since seizing power back in 1989.
There has been talk that the case of Mariam and the clampdown and arrests of students and activists is another tactic by the government to divert attention from the high profile case of officials' embezzlementand corruption. As a result, a pregnant mother is now facing death because of a political situation that she never should have been involved in. The government has ruled that individuals can no longer choose nor decide for themselves; only the government can judge and decide for the Sudanese citizens. Government officials seem to have forgotten that  Islam teaches that only God can judge.
Dallia M Abdelmoniem is a Sudanese journalist who has covered both Egypt and Sudan. Her work has appeared in various publications such as Your Middle East, Africa Review, The Citizen and Analysis Africa.
Follow her on Twitter: @dalliasd

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Humanity, Religion, Culture, Ethics, Science, Spirituality & Peace
Peace Forum Network
Over 1,000,000 Visits
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

27.11.13

کیا اسلام سرحدون کو تسلیم نہیں کرتا؟ Muslims and international borders

If the Hudabia peace treaty is analysed critically, the concept of borders clearly emerges.
The 2nd Caliph Omar Khattab, desired a wall between his state and Iran, so that no one could cross it. He wanted to avoid war, later he had to go for it.
Normal friendly relations with peaceful non Muslims are allowed by Quran.
http://dunya.com.pk/index.php/author/muhammad-izhar-ul-haq/2013-11-26/5134/97602424#.UpWvt9LPWgg
Related:
Free-eBooks: http://goo.gl/2xpiv
Peace-Forum Video Channel: http://goo.gl/GLh75

12.11.13

Muslim-Non Muslim Relations: Friendship & Alliance



Taking one verse [Ayah] of Quran to use it to support some point of view is unfair. One should take all Ayas of Quran on particular subject then derive complete meaning, more over translation of Arabic with multiple meanings be kept in view.



NOW AS REGARDS TO RELATIONS WITH NON MUSLIMS INCLUDING JEWS AND CHRISTIANS THERE ARE OTHER VERSES:

لَتَجِدَنَّ أَشَدَّ النَّاسِ عَدَاوَةً لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُوا ۖ وَلَتَجِدَنَّ أَقْرَبَهُم مَّوَدَّةً لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الَّذِينَ قَالُوا إِنَّا نَصَارَىٰ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّ مِنْهُمْ قِسِّيسِينَ وَرُهْبَانًا وَأَنَّهُمْ لَا يَسْتَكْبِرُونَ ﴿٨٢﴾

یقیناً آپ ایمان والوں کا سب سے زیاده دشمن یہودیوں اور مشرکوں کو پائیں گے اور ایمان والوں     سے سب سے زیاده دوستی کے قریب آپ یقیناً انہیں پائی
گے جو اپنے آپ کو نصاریٰ کہتے ہیں، یہ اس لئے کہ ان میں علما اور عبادت کے لئے گوشہ نشین افراد پائے جاتے ہیں اور اس وجہ سے کہ وه تکبر نہیں کرتے
(82 ) 5:82سورة المائدة

عَسَى اللَّـهُ أَن يَجْعَلَ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَ الَّذِينَ عَادَيْتُم مِّنْهُم مَّوَدَّةً ۚ وَاللَّـهُ قَدِيرٌ ۚ وَاللَّـهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ ﴿٧﴾ لَّا يَنْهَاكُمُ اللَّـهُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَلَمْ يُخْرِجُوكُم مِّن دِيَارِكُمْ أَن تَبَرُّوهُمْ وَتُقْسِطُوا إِلَيْهِمْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ ﴿٨﴾ إِنَّمَا يَنْهَاكُمُ اللَّـهُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ قَاتَلُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَأَخْرَجُوكُم مِّن دِيَارِكُمْ وَظَاهَرُوا عَلَىٰ إِخْرَاجِكُمْ أَن تَوَلَّوْهُمْ ۚ وَمَن يَتَوَلَّهُمْ فَأُولَـٰئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ ﴿٩﴾

Quran 60:7-9

بعید نہیں کہ اللہ کبھی تمہارے اور اُن لوگوں کے درمیان محبت ڈال دے جن سے آج تم نے دشمنی مول لی ہے اللہ بڑی قدرت رکھتا ہے اور وہ غفور و رحیم ہے (7) اللہ تمیں اس بات سے نہیں روکتا کہ تم ان لوگوں کے ساتھ نیکی اور انصاف کا برتاؤ کرو جنہوں نے دین کے معاملہ میں تم سے جنگ نہیں کی ہے اور تمہیں تمہارے گھروں سے نہیں نکالا ہے اللہ انصاف کرنے والوں کو پسند کرتا ہے (8) وہ تمہیں جس بات سے روکتا ہے وہ تو یہ ہے کہ تم اُن لوگوں سے دوستی کرو جنہوں نے تم سے دین کے معاملہ میں جنگ کی ہے اور تمہیں تمہارے گھروں سے نکالا ہے اور تمہارے اخراج میں ایک دوسرے کی مدد کی ہے اُن سے جو لوگ دوستی کریں وہی ظالم ہیں (9

“Allah only forbids you to make friendship with those who fought you on account of your faith and drove you out of your homes and backed up others in your expulsion. Those who will take them for friends are indeed the wrongdoers”. (Qur’an;60:9).

Some translators have mixed up the meanings of Arabic verb waliya (from which the noun wali, pl. awliya‘, is derived) which need to be understood. It signifies, primarily, the nearness or closeness of one thing to another: Although the term wali, when applied to God, as well as to the relationship between one created being and another, is often used in the Qur’an in the sense of “helper”, “friend”, “protector”, “guardian“, etc., none of these secondary meanings can properly – i.e., without offending against the reverence due to God – describe man’s attitude to, or relationship with, Him. Thus, God is spoken of in the Qur’an (2:257 and 3:68) as being “near unto (wali) those who believe” Consequently, reference to the believers as awliya’ of God is best rendered as “they who are close to God”, in the sense of their being always conscious of Him. Mostly in the context of non Muslims ‘wali’ is to be understood to mean ‘protector friend’ or ‘guardian’, how some one opposed to your faith can be taken as protector or guardian?

Muslims have been cautioned against intrigue of enemies, because initially the hypocrites of Medina and Jews living around Medina, were playing double game of deception, some verses considered as discriminatory against non believers not to take them as wali, in each verse their negative behaviors is cited as the reason, which is fully understandable:

“O ye who believe! Choose not My enemy and your enemy Awliyaa [protector, friends] Do ye give them friendship when they disbelieve in that truth which hath come unto you, driving out the messenger and you because ye believe in Allah, your Lord? .”[Qur’an; 60:1]

“Let not the believers make unbelievers their awliyaa‘ [protectors, allies, friends] rather than the believers; anyone who does so will have nothing to hope for from Allah – except if you do so as a precaution to protect yourselves against their tyranny in this way. But God warns you to beware of Him: for with God is all journeys’ end.”[Qur’an; 3:28]

“Have you not seen the ones who have befriended those people who are under the wrath of Allah? They are neither on your side nor yet on theirs and they knowingly swear to falsehood.”(Qur’an;58:14).

“O you who have attained to faith! Do not take for your friends such as mock at your, faith and make a jest of it -be they from among those who have been vouchsafed revelation before your time, or [from among] those who deny the truth [of revelation as such] – but remain conscious of God, if you are [truly] believers: for, when you call to prayer, they mock at it and make a jest of it – simply because they are people who do not use their reason.” .”[Qur’an; 5:57-58]

The Faith is a fundamental matter in the lives of Muslims, their associations and friendships will naturally be with those who share their Faith. More than anything else, it obviously alludes to a “moral alliance” with the deniers of the truth: that is to say, to an adoption of their way of life in preference to the way of life of the believers, in the hope of being “honored”, or accepted as equals, by the former. Since an imitation of the way of life of confirmed unbelievers must obviously conflict with the moral principles demanded by true faith, it unavoidably leads to a gradual abandonment of those principles. In ordinary every-day affairs of business, Muslims are asked to seek the help of Believers rather than Unbelievers. Only in this way can the community be strong and united. But where there is no question of preference, or where in self-defence they have to take the assistance of those not belonging to their Faith, that is permissible.

“O believers! Take neither Jews nor Christians as your protecting friends: they are only protecting friends of one another. Whoever of you disobeys this commandment will be counted as one of them. Surely Allah does not guide the wrongdoers.” [Qur’an; 5:51].

According to most of the commentators (e.g., Tabari), this means that each of these two communities extends genuine friendship only to its own adherents – i.e., the Jews to the Jews, and the Christians to the Christians – and cannot, therefore, be expected to be really friendly towards the followers of the Qur’an. This prohibition of a “moral alliance” with non-Muslims does not constitute an injunction against normal, friendly relations with such of them as are well-disposed towards Muslims. It should be borne in mind that the term wali has several shades of meaning: “ally”, “friend”, “helper”, “protector”, etc. The particular choice depends upon context. It is gets more clear:

“It may well be that Allah will put love between you and those with whom you are now at odds because of the order which is given to you, for Allah is All-Powerful, and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Allah does not forbid you to be kind and equitable to those who had neither fought against your faith nor driven you out of your homes. In fact Allah loves the equitable.” [Qur’an; 60:7-8].

“nearest in affection to the believers are those who say: “We are Christians.” That is because among them there are men that are priests and monks, who do not behave arrogantly.” [Qur’an; 5:82].

Muslims are cautioned to take non believers as protectors, [Wali] due to the negative and hostile behaviour of most of non believers. However normal friendship and working relationship with those with affable attitude is not forbidden. While forming any opinion, especially the non Muslims are requested to keep all the verses of Qur’an on the subject in view, there is no abrogation:

“The Words of your Lord have been completed with credibility and justice; there is no way to change His Words. He is the Hearer, the Knower”[Qur’an;6:115].

ALLIANCE WITH NON MUSLIMS:

After the conquest of Mecca, the Muslims stayed in the city for two weeks when a news soon broke out that a big army had been mobilized in the valley of Hunain to attack Mecca and to undo the victory of the Muslims. This time Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) assembled a force of twelve thousand warriors, which included two thousand Meccans [some consider they converted to Islam, while other opine as not]. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was forced to make necessary preparations for defence. He felt the necessity of borrowing money for provisions and war supplies, therefore, according to "Masnad" (Cairo, 1895, 4th vol., p. 36) by Ahmad bin Hanbal (d. 241/855), "He took a loan of 30,000 dhirams from Abdullah bin Rabiah, a step-brother of Abu Jahl, who was very rich." He also wanted from Safwan bin Umayyah, who had not yet accepted Islam, to lend him the weapons of war. Safwan offered one hundred coats of mail together with their accessories. On 6th Shawal, 8/January 27, 630,Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) marched to Hunain to crush the powers of the four savage tribes, viz. Thaqif, Hawazin, Sa'd and Jasam .....

Messaq-e-Medina: 
It included non Muslims, pagans, Christians & Jews as citizens of city state of Mediana, within the fold of one community—the Ummah. The non-Muslims included in the ummah had the following rights:
1.The security of God is equal for all groups,
2. Non-Muslim members have equal political and cultural rights as Muslims. They will have autonomy and freedom of religion.
3. Non-Muslims will take up arms against the enemy of the Ummah and share the cost of war. There is to be no treachery between the two.
4. Non-Muslims will not be obliged to take part in religious wars of the Muslims.
Please comment or verify ......

I AM JUST A STUDENT OF QURAN AND ISLAM ... ALLAH MAY GUIDE US TO UNDERSTAND TRUE FULL MESSAGE OF QURAN AND FORGIVE OUR FAULTS..
ONLY ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST..

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1146kl_do-muslims-hate-christians-and-non-muslims_webcam

Free-eBooks: http://goo.gl/2xpiv
Peace-Forum Video Channel: http://goo.gl/GLh75