Racial Fluency and Ancient Egypt

Queen Tiye–said to be the mother of King Tut

When the issue of “race” comes up, I need to make the necessary disclaimers:

• I am NOT claiming that American notions of “race” are universal
• I am NOT claiming that American notions of race are logically consistent or “valid”

• I am NOT claiming that people who lived in the Nile Valley 4,500 years ago had American notions of “race.”

• I am not claiming that modern Egyptians have American notions of “race”

• I am not intending to glorify Ancient Egyptian civilization; I am not not claiming that African-Americans are direct descendants of the Pharaohs; I am not claiming that “blacks” are a master race… and so on….
  
  

The objective here is to help Muslims navigate through the quagmire of race and identity AS IT IS UNDERSTOOD IN THE USA (and much of the Western world). Without “racial-fluency” (racial-fluency: the ability to understand and talk about race (in America) in a coherent fashion—and to expose its plot holes), many Muslims place themselves at a serious handicap when addressing the issue of racism. This causes many Muslims to suffer from self-esteem issues (especially, those who thought themselves to be “white”–and then rudely finding out that they are not “white” in America… in reality—despite what the Census may say). Also the lack of racial-fluency is a MAJOR IMPEDIMENT when it comes to giving effective da`wah in the US (and many other places). So, with that said, let us, bi’idhnillah, let us unravel this mess.

BACKSTORY

Periodically, I address the issue of the “Race of the Ancient Egyptians”–typically, because you find two opposing camps: those “Eurocentrists,” who laugh at the notion that the Ancient Egyptians were “black.” And then you have the Afrocentrists insisting the Ancient Egyptians were all black (but they often fail to clarify that people living more than four millennia ago did not have Jim Crow era notions of identity). I have some background on this subject since my black nationalist days in college and did a lot of reading about Ancient Egypt and its cultural ties with other parts of Africa.

Most recently, the controversy about the race of the Ancient Egyptians came up over the Netflix docu-drama about Cleopatra. (I have not seen the program—but it does appear to be the standard Leftist, feminist, racialist propaganda that Netflix is notorious for.) This show is controversial because the woman playing the role of Cleopatra is a woman of European descent with African ancestry. For the record, I am NOT claiming that Cleopatra was African or “black.” From what is widely accepted, she was a descendant of the Greeks from the era of Alexander (of Macedonia). (Nonetheless, there is some recent evidence that has led some to argue that one of Cleopatra’s sister was of “African descent.”)

Now one, needs to keep in mind that when one speaks of the Ancient Egyptian dynasties—according to what is regarded as mainstream, orthodox Egyptology, both Lower and Upper Egypt (remember: the Nile flows from the south to the north—the people of the southern half of Egypt until today have dark skin and many have Afros) were united by a south Egyptian ruler circa 3,000 BCE—meaning, about FIVE THOUSAND years ago (that’s TWENTY TIMES longer than the existence of the USA). By the time Alexander, the Greek, invaded Egypt, the country had already been occupied by other ethnic groups from outside of Africa—namely, the Persians, Assyrians, and the Hyksos. After Cleopatra, the Romans and Byzantines ruled in Egypt, then the Arabs. Egypt was even ruled by European slaves for 250 years (i.e., the Mamelukes). The Turks ruled after the Mamelukes until the British eventually took over in the 1800’s. Northern Egypt, especially, has been a very cosmopolitan, melting pot of nations, ethnicities, and “races.” With that said, it is not “delusional Afrocentric propaganda” for one to say that Ancient Egypt of four or five thousand years ago had a substantial “black” population (especially, given that there are millions of “black” Egyptians in the southern half of the country).

THE PROBLEM WITH “BLACKNESS”

One of the problems that arises when people deny that the Ancient Egyptians were “black” is defining what is meant by “black.” For the racist-Eurocentrists (and those who follow them), they concoct the rule that for one to be regarded as “black” IN Africa, one has to have the phenotype of a Wesley Snipes or a Julius Randle. Anyone who does not look like them is not a “genuine ‘black’ African” …according to the Narrative. However we know BY AMERICAN STANDARDS (which are the standards that the racist-Eurocentrists usually apply at least in the West), a person is “black” if they have dark skin, afro-textured, hair, and are of African descent—or even partially of African descent. Hence, a person like Barrack Obama is labeled as America’s first “black” (not biracial) President (although, J.A. Rogers would have disputed the claim that Obama was the first).

One can readily think of a long list of prominent people who are regarded–without hesitation–as being “black” in America (again, regarded as “black” not just by African-Americans, but by the SAME people who would claim that the Ancient Egyptians—or the Egyptians from the southern half of the modern country—are something other than “black”) In the USA, Aisha Curry, Jasmine Guy, Rick Fox, Ice-T, Mariah Carey, Terrence Howard, Beyonce, and on and on… are all regarded as “black.” Nonetheless, according to the Eurocentric Narrative, the people from the central region of Egypt are “not black”–despite the fact that they look like this:

Now, if those on the Eurocentric-Narrative want to say: “Those people (in the image) are a “distinct race of people”–then it is clear that they don’t understand what happens when relatively fair-skinned people mix with “black” people. A person who is part Syrian Kurd and part Nigerian Fulani isn’t (usually) going to look like a full-blooded West African. Furthermore, those people (in the image from Luxor) live within proximity of those who are EXTREMELY dark skinned… many with Afros, and with even more “black African” features. The problem for those on the Eurocentric-Narrative is that they are projecting their racist, Jim Crow view of the world on to Africa and the Nile Valley. Once one removes the distorted lens of racism, the situation is very easy to explain:

“Black” people (in Africa) don’t have a single phenotype. Xhosas from South Africa don’t look like Nilotes from South Sudan, and Nilotes don’t look like Mandinkas from Senegal.”

People traveled; people migrated, people had wars and populations were dispersed… before Western Europeans went around the world allegedly “discovering” people and cramming them into racial categories. The various peoples who have settled into the Nile Valley over MILLENNIA mixed and intermarried… and by the standards that the Eurocentric racists innovated, such people have to be regarded as “black.” That’s THEIR rule—i didn’t say it was my rule.

OLYMPIC LEVELS OF MENTAL GYMNASTICS

In-shaa’ Allah, later we will get to WHY the Eurocentric racists had to separate Egypt from “black Africa.” For now, we will just look at the intellectual contortions they have to engage in to keep the Eurocentric-Narrative afloat. Henry Breasted (America’s premier Egyptologist of the early 1900’s) said: “The Great White Race inhabits Africa down to the 20^th parallel. ” The problem for Harry is that the 20^th parallel is IN SUDAN. “Sudan” literally means in Arabic: “THE LAND OF THE BLACKS!!!”

Now tell us, where in the USA in the early 1900’s would people who look like the folks in the above image have been regarded as part of the “Great White Race” (as Harry says)?

Jacques-Joseph Champollion-Figeac, the older brother of Jean Francois Champollion (the man who deciphered the Rosetta Stone) said: The two physical traits of black skin and woolly hair are not enough to stamp a race as negro.” Soooooo… having dark skin, having an Afro… and being born in Africa… to native Africans… who have been in Africa for eons isn’t enough to get classified as a “negro” …but Jacques-Joseph’s biracial country man, Alexadre Dumas (author of The Three Musketeers), who was born to French “nobility” was still discriminated against and faced racism because of his African ancestry.

Help. It. Make. Sense!!!

In the course of a recent discussion about the Cleopatra Netflix docudrama, several people kept saying: “Having dark skin doesn’t make one ‘black.’” I’m okay with that—folks in Sri Lanka and the Dravidians in southern India aren’t typically considered “black” (at least by contemporary American standards of “race”)… but when, again, you have a dark skinned person… with an Afro… LIVING IN AFRICA… it is reasonable to call such a person “black”–unless you are willing to totally dismantle 300 years of American racial identity and categorization.

Even the notorious Zahwi Nawwas—former head of Egyptian Antiquities—says in the video: “The shape of the skull looks like it could be—looks like—African.” He also says of the Ancient Egyptians: “They were dark skinned—but they were not black. They’re not Negroes.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arz4az52WDs&ab_channel=Mr.Imhotep)

Face Palm.

I mean, let’s get real. Why is it soooooo hard for these people to say: “Yes, by American notions of race, indeed, these people living in the southern half of Egypt—and a large part of the general population of early Ancient Egypt would have been regarded as ‘black’–at least by American standards.” We are giving them a way out by saying: “By American standards”–but they can’t even accept that concession, because for them, they have to divorce Ancient Egypt from the rest of the African continent… at all cost. And this is done so that the Eurocentric and racist worldview can even pretend to be somewhat coherent.

Even more telling is the hypocrisy of the Eurocentric racists regarding their objection to Adele James playing the role of Cleopatra. Those Eurocentric racists refer to Adele James—someone who was born to a British and Welsh woman—as being “black” (she has a father of “Afro-Caribbean descent”–and he may very likely not be of “pure African” ancestry… which would make Adele James more European than African) …but she can only be regarded as “black” if one adheres to what is known as hypodescent—that is, the “One Drop Rule.”

Why is a person who is of no more than half (“black”) African descent regarded as “black?” Why can’t Adele James be a white European with some black African ancestry? I mean, if she isn’t “white”–despite her “white” European heritage, then how by any standard of consistency can she be regarded as “black?” Why is it that being a “white person” with an admixture “black” is regarded as impossible… but being a “black person” with an admixture of “white” is perfectly fine? I mean, if “whites” don’t want to claim those with African ancestry as “one of their own,” then why would it be assumed that “blacks” “want to claim someone” who is of European ancestry as one of their own? The answer is clear: those who accept the Eurocentric—or just general prevailing American—notion of “race” do not regard people who are part “black” and part “white” as being “white.” They are regarded as “black.” So, if that rule applies in the US (and much of the West), then why doesn’t it apply in Africa—in particular those connected to the Nile Valley?

The Eurocentric-Narrative simply doesn’t add up: dark skinned people in Africa (many with Afro-textured hair) aren’t “black” …but if someone has one grandparent of “black” African descent (or even less), then they are incontrovertibly “black” in America. Again, there is an agenda behind all of this—which we will get to, God-willing, in Part 2.

“Edumucation” and Marriage

First, a couple of points of clarification.

Much of what passes today as “education” (and what is intended by the feminists/secularists using the term) is largely job training and indoctrination to be useful tools for the corporate consumer Dajallian System. Even in the West–at least in theory–the objective of “education” historically involved the cultivation of moral sensibilities and the ability to think critically. The former can be said to be absolutely absent from modern secular indoctrination, and of the latter, “critical thinking” is only applied to a limited extent–in an attempt to attack traditional values (and even in that regard its pretty useless against the Muslim who has learned the basics of the Deen and how to defend them).

There have been a good number of responses from what i surmise are largely upper middle class, uncovered, Religiously ignorant, haughty, and insolent Pakistani females. I don’t know much about that culture, and i don’t want to turn it into a diatribe against a particular ethnic group. My concern is the attitude and the ideology (of feminism) that affects their attitude–and this is NOT limited to the above socio-ethnic group.

One of the things that becomes immediately apparent is that although these women are soooooo proud of their edumucations, they are completely incapable of logically countering any criticism of it (meaning, the nature of their secular dogma indoctrination). Most of the responses are cliches and snarky ad-hominem remarks. The responses have no substance because:

1) Their ignorance of the Deen makes it impossible for them to structure their arguments within a Religious framework. (Their responses about marriage, are to say that the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) married a business woman who was much older than he… they leave out the issue of polygyny, the marriage of Lady `A’isha, and other pertinent matters that would completely undermine their failed Narrative.

2. Their suffering from SEVERE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE–which results from trying to reconcile secular mythology with Divine Revelation–and using secular mythology as their standard (instead of Divine Revelation) causes them to think and say things that aren’t remotely consistent.

One of the takeaways from this interaction is that it is clearer to me that feminism produces a dissociative disorder in the mind of the feminist. Her worldview is predicated on notions that run contrary to reality–to the point that it is really not mentally healthy for them (or the people who would associate with them). Basic facts of biology, the marriage market, and human nature are ignored, rejected and condemned–because you cannot square the aforementioned REALITIES with the dogma of feminist THEORIES.

REGARDING BIOLOGY: the woman’s window for having children is much narrower than that of the man. Hence, it is prudent for the woman to seek to marry while younger, for if she waits too late, it will (typically) become more difficult for her to have healthy babies. If she is chasing degrees and trying to get established in a career in her late teens and through her twenties, then she has lost her prime time for making babies.

REGARDING THE MARRIAGE MARKET: Men aren’t impressed by the number of degrees that a woman has. He’s not impressed by the money she makes (he’s not going to be getting any of her money–she’s going to be spending HIS money… even if she has a job!). The MMV of a woman decreases rapidly with age–and she has to compete with younger women of a higher MMV. The more degrees the woman has, the “higher” her standards become.

There is nothing wrong with having higher standards per se–but the person has to be aware of their value in the marriage market, and they have to understand that having higher standards has a cost. For one, women seek to marry up the social order. They seek to marry men who are “better” than they are: taller, stronger, more fit, more courageous, and have GREATER EARNING POTENTIAL (and for the Muslimah, presumably she would also want to marry a Muslim man who has at least a competent level of Religious knowledge and is Religiously observant). If women are 50% or more of the workforce (and demanding higher paying, higher status jobs)–and 60% or more of the people enrolled in college, then common sense would tell a person that the “better” men are a MINORITY of men. If someone is relatively rare and in high demand, then they can be selective.

The high-value man didn’t become so by being a simp or a fool. He would make wise decisions in his life–and he definitely would make wise decisions in the wives he takes. That being so, why would a high-value Muslim man seek to marry a Religiously ignorant, insolent, secularly brainwashed woman? What’s in it for him? Nonetheless, these women deem that they DESERVE “a baller” (or whatever is equivalent given the cultural context). Such thinking is not good for the mental health.

HUMAN NATURE: As was said, women seek to marry up the social order. They seek men who have resources and a high social status. High (social) status women don’t marry ditch diggers or migrant farmers. Nonetheless, it is not unheard of that a man of high MMV marries his secretary or the young cashier.

Again, the men of a high MMV are FAR FEWER than the women who seek them. Men (at baseline) seek youth and beauty (while piety is what ultimately matters for the devout Muslim man–youth and beauty can’t be ignored). There are always plenty of women of youth and beauty coming on to the marriage market (who seek men of high MMV)–with whom these older degreed feminists have to compete with (as for piety, the feminists don’t have piety and aren’t oriented toward piety–hence, in that regard, they are “equal” to the non-pious young and attractive woman… but NOT equal to them in youth and beauty… and DEFINITELY not equal to the young, beautiful and pious Muslimah).

Feminism–at least the version these women subscribe to, for they have not yet gone full-blown feminist-atheist… which is where feminism ultimately leads–disconnects them from the reality of demographics and biology and human nature. You can’t warp reality to fit some inane (and hypocritical) theory. Rather, the Muslim understands that Allah knows about us better than we know ourselves, and the the Deen itself is the source of our guidance and how we should conduct our affairs.

Exposing the Mythology of the Secularists

One of the primary talking points of secular mythology is that of “rights.” So let us examine THEIR notion of rights. We will take the “T” from LBGTQism as an example.

Fifty years ago, transgenderism was not regarded as a “human right.” To the contrary, it was regarded as a mental illness–and by many an abomination. So that means that at some point within the past 50 years transgenderism BECAME a human right (allegedly). So….

1. In what year did transgenderism become a human right (allegedly)?

2. Who was the person who discovered that transgenderism is a human right (allegedly)?

3. How was he (or she) able to determine that transgenderism is a newly discovered human right (allegedly)?

4. Where did he (or she) discover that it is a human right (allegedly)? Was he in the jungles of Borneo, on an expedition to the polar ice cap, climbing Mount Kilimanjaro? Again, where was this (alleged) right discovered?

5. How many other (alleged) human rights are there that haven’t been discovered, yet? And what is the projected timeline for their discovery?

6. Is it possible that some current (alleged) human rights could cease being (alleged) human rights–like, for instance, is it possible that the (alleged) human right of being free from forced medical treatment can cease being a right?

7. If some (alleged) human rights can be terminated, then where would they go? Can those cancelled (alleged) human rights potentially become human rights once again sometime in the future?

8. Above all, WHAT’S THE PROOF–where’s the daleel–that these (alleged) human rights are genuinely the rights of humans? Simply because *you* say they are so doesn’t make them so. The burden of proof is upon the one who makes the claim. The one who claims that “X” is a human right has to demonstrate that it is so. I’ve never seen anyone demonstrate that transgenderism is a human “right.” (Again, simply repeating a matter in the media doesn’t make a thing true.)

If the secularist invokes democracy as the source of (alleged) human rights, then when did we have an open, public, vigorous discussion–which is suppose to be at the heart of a healthy democracy–about whether or not transgenderism should be made (allegedly) a human right? When was humanity allowed to vote on this matter? I seemed to have missed the referendum.

Now if a few people are allowed to declare what are (alleged) human rights for everyone, then what gives them that privilege? Why can’t everyone declare their own (alleged) human rights? Some may declare their human right to be millionaires, others, to play in the NBA, others to be mayor or governor, others to be rock stars, others to be free from having to follow any law… and on, and on, and on….

Islamically, the Muslim understands that there are rights. There are rights that the human being has–and there are the rights of the Creator. There is One, Perfect, Eternal, Incomparable Creator. The Creator deserves to be glorified, loved, and obeyed. The Creator has the right to be worshiped. The Creator–Who knows about us better than we know ourselves–knows what will benefit the human beings not only in this temporary world, but what we are to do in this life to benefit ourselves in the everlasting existence of the Hereafter. The wise seek to sincerely obey the One Who has created us. As for secular mythology, once you pull down the veils of its pseudo-supremacist propaganda, you see that it’s all a myth–it has no proof or substance–but can only thrive by way of indoctrination, deception, and threats of coercion.

The Incoherence of the Infinite Regress

The Incoherence of the Infinite Regression

The Infinite ٌٌٌRegress is the (false) claim that results from believing the universe is beginningless. Historically, this was the position adopted by some atheists to account for the existence of this world. This was also the idea promoted by Aristotle—and those who followed him, like the pseudo-Muslim philosophers with Ibn Sina (Avicenna) being the most prominent among them.

To account for the world the atheist can only claim that either the universe created itself or that it always existed (that is, it is (allegedly) beginningless). It is invalid to claim that the world brought itself into being, for common sense tells us that for something to act that it has to exist. Just as the non-existent could not produce something else, it could not produce itself. A thing must be (exist) to do (to act). The non-existent can’t possibly act.

Furthermore, to claim that the world created itself, it would mean that world (allegedly) existed before it was originated, and was originated after it was already existing. This is a clear contradiction. So to escape this contradiction (that the world allegedly made itself), the atheists thought themselves “clever” and posited that the universe is beginningless. Praise Allah, the brilliant Sunni scholars also dismantled this erroneous claim with multiple refutations.

The Qur’an tells us that everything other that Allah is a creation.

“Allah is the Creator of all things.” (Az-Zumar, 62)

“Allah [alone] is Al-Awwal (Beginningless).” (Al-Hadid, 4)

Furthermore, when the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) was asked about the genesis of creation, he said:

“Allah was existing [before the creation] and there was nothing other than Him.”

It is from the very fundamentals of Islam to believe that there is only One Creator—without any partners or similars. Allah is the Creator of the Heavens and Earth—the light and the darkness—and everything else. Allah exists without a beginning and everything else exists with a beginning. Allah is the Creator, and everything else—without an exception—is a creation.

Now when dealing with the atheists, we typically don’t start with the proofs from Revelation—because the atheists are disbelievers in Allah. So, in their case, we give them rational proofs that establish that the world must necessarily have a beginning, and that their atheistic ideology is incoherent and contrary to the judgment of reason—which they (allegedly) hold in high regard.

The atheists who claim that the universe is beginningless fall into the fallacy of the infinite regress. The infinite regress is a fallacy because if the past were infinite, then it would be impossible to reach the present. The contradiction lies in their claim that the past is both (allegedly) unlimited—but also has a limit—that is, when we reach the present, the past (which is supposedly infinite) has come to an end. That which is infinite does not come to an end.

Let’s bring this closer to the mind. If a person (hypothetically and falsely) claimed that there was an chain with an infinite number of iron links, then it would be impossible to reach either end of this (hypothetical) chain. In the case of ourselves, if a person claimed that there was an infinite series of previous events, it would be impossible to reach the present—but we have reached the present, so therefore, we know that the past must have a beginning. And from what we know, it could not have begun (originated) itself. So the mind concludes that there must be One (the Creator) that is not originated—and has always existed—Who brought the universe into being. If someone claimed that the Creator was created by another Creator that was created by another, that was created by another… then, the person would again fall into the fallacy of an infinite regression, and that’s invalid as we mentioned above.

We will provide a few more more proofs, in-shaa’ Allah. According the atheists (who believe in the infinite regression), they are claiming that before the present there was an infinity, and before the time of Julius Caesar there was also an infinity, and before the time of the building of the pyramids, there was also an infinity. But it is clear that the set of events before Caesar into the past is greater than the events preceding the building of the pyramids—and likewise, the events into the past from the present are greater than the events previous to to the time of Caesar. So the result would be that some (alleged) infinities are less than other (alleged) infinities… but of course, there is a problem with that because that which has no limits (allegedly) would not be less than something else. Again, the sound conclusion is that the past is finite; it must have had a start—and it could not have started itself.

Although we do not know what number of “day” of creation (or whatever unit of time measurement one may choose to use) it is, we know that this “day” of creation is either an odd day of creation or an even day of creation (think: Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, etc. are either odd or even days of the week). We know FOR SURE that it can’t be both an odd and even day of creation, and it cannot be neither an odd nor even day of the creation. According to those who claim that the universe is beginningless, they are saying that today is neither an odd nor even day of creation. This is clearly absurd.

The Sunni scholars gave another example. They said: “I will give you a coin today only on the condition that I gave you a coin yesterday, and you’d only be given a coin yesterday if I gave you a coin the day before, and only if I gave you a coin on the day before that—and so on.” We know that the person would never receive a coin, because the first condition (that is the initial giving of the coin) could not be met. And likewise, the present could only be reached if the past has a start. (And since we have reached the present, then we know that the first condition must have been fulfilled—i.e., the world must have begun.)

In summary, to reach the present, the past must have a start. Things can not start (i.e., originate) themselves. So we are left to conclude that the world can’t be beginningless or self-created. The universe necessitates that there must be One Who brought the universe into being—and this One (the Creator) is not originated. From this, we also know that the Creator would be without an associate or partner. The Creator would be Unique (because if the Creator were similar to the originated beings, then the Creator would need a Creator). Since the Creator existed before the creations, then it would also be known that the Creator is Transcendent (i.e., the Creator is Non-Dependent upon the creations; hence, the Creator is clear of all spatial and time-related properties). Additionally, the One Who brought the universe into being must be attributed with Perfect Will, Power, and Knowledge—and other Perfect, Befitting, Eternal Attributes.

Much of the atheists’ objection to Imaan is not because atheism is “logical” and the proper belief in the Creator is illogical or irrational—but the atheist typically does not want to submit to God. The proper Belief is rational and complies with the judgment of the sound mind. Once a person recognizes that there must be a Perfect, Incomparable Creator, then it leads one to realize that he does not “own himself” and that he is not “free”–but rather he is the property of the Creator, and the ultimate purpose of life is to obey and worship the One Who created him. This is the conclusion that the reasonable and sincere person reaches.

May Allah make us among the reasonable, sincere, and obedient people.

COUNTERING THE SECULARIST/LEFTIST TSUNAMI

COUNTERING THE SECULARIST/LEFTIST TSUNAMI

Among the challenges for Muslims in the West in refuting secular ideology is the need to frame the discussion properly. Many Muslims attempt to argue for the Deen within a secular framework—taking secular notions for granted and failing to examine the inconsistencies and absurdities that underlie secularism. Bi’idhnillah, our intention here is to address this challenge.

Our First Principle

We say that there is an Eternal, Incomparable, Transcendent (Free-of-Need) Creator. The proof for this is that the world exists. The world can’t be beginningless (for this would lead to the fallacy of the infinite regression). The world can’t be self-created. The non-existent could not produce something—for action requires existence. The non-existent can’t act; a thing must be to do. From this, reason necessitates the recognition of the Creator. The Creator must be One (there could not be a duality or a multitude of Creators). The Creator is not originated. The Creator has always existed. And since the Creator existed before anything else—including, light and darkness, time and place, distance and direction—the Creator is not dependent upon any of the creations. Also, the Creator is Incomparable—the Creator alone is beginningless and everything else is originated. Being Beginningless (while everything else is originated) is a proof that the Creator is distinct from the originated. Also, the One Who creates must be attributed with Perfect Knowledge, Power, and Will.

The Muslim worldview is based upon this First Principle. We are creations of God—and the entire universe is a creation of God. Upon this, every Muslim agrees.

First Principle of the Secularists

Briefly, secularism is the ideology that religion should be separated from public life and the government. Rather—according to the secularists—religion should be a private affair that is ideally restricted to only the home and places of worship.

The secularists have no First Principle to speak of—the core of secular ideology leads to the absurd doctrine of atheism. The absurdity of atheism lies in the fact that the particles that compose the universe could not have brought themselves into being from nonexistence (the non-existent can’t produce itself—and it can’t produce something else). After these particles (allegedly) brought themselves into existence, they also (allegedly) arranged themselves into phenomenally complex and self-sustaining systems… all by themselves. No honest and sincere person should entertain such a belief.

To be clear, this does not mean that every secularist is an atheist—but the driving forces behind secular ideology are ultimately atheistic in nature. Aside from many of the prominent hardline secularists beings atheists, if one were to just follow secular ideology through to its “logical” conclusion , it leads a person in the direction of atheism.

Our Second Principle

It naturally follows that if one recognizes the Existence and Perfection of the Creator, then what the human being is can truly be known—and the ultimate objective of human existence can be known known. We are the slaves of Allah. We did not make ourselves—but rather, we have a Creator, who existed before us (and all other creations) and does not need us.

Our ultimate purpose is to revere, praise, worship and obey the Creator. This entails humbling ourselves to the Creator, and showing gratitude to the Creator for the endowments bestowed upon us—without the Creator being obligated to grant us anything. The Creator is the One Who Owns everything—and the Creator does not owe us anything. We realize our ultimate purpose by adhering to the Sacred Laws that the Creator has commanded us to follow (this is known by Divine Revelation unto the Prophets).

Islam entails submission (to the Commands of God). And the person who fails to submit to the Commands of God has failed to attain the ultimate purpose of his being.

The Second Principle of the Secularists

This is actually the First Principle of secularism. According to the secularists, life has no higher purpose—for there is nothing beyond this material realm. We are merely a conglomeration of cellular material who are on Earth for a few years; we die; and then we decay and become soil. That’s it. For the secularists, the ultimate purpose, is the “freedom”–freedom to pursue pleasure. “Freedom”—according to their standards—however, is an unattainable myth.

(The Muslim should be clear that secularism itself is essentially a “mythology.” It is an ideology based upon human whims that grew out of a specific set of circumstances in European history. It is an ideology that HAS NO PROOFS for its claims.)

As for “freedom,” any given society–for it to function–has to have LAWS. Laws–by their very nature—restrict people’s “freedom.” Hence, it is absurd to claim that the people are “free” …but they are also restrained by laws. If “freedom” were the ultimate objective of human existence, then various secular regimes would encourage even greater “freedom” among its citizens—and if some of the citizens felt that they are not getting enough “freedom,” then, they would be encouraged by the government to secede and start their own–“freer”–nations. No government, however, encourages its citizens to rebel against itself.

Furthermore, if we follow the “’freedom’ principle” to its logical conclusion, it would lead to chaos and tyranny. Socially, powerful individuals—in exercising their “freedom”–would dominate and exploit the weak individuals. Powerful groups would unite to exploit the weak groups. A restriction upon the powerful would mean that they are not “free,” and the poor being crushed and exploited by the powerful would mean they are not free.

On a personal level, “freedom” is frequently understood to mean the “’freedom’ to follow one’s whims and (base) desires.” However, the person who is a slave to his physical or egotistic passions also isn’t “free.” Gluttony does not produce “freedom.” Gluttony produces obesity and a host of physical illnesses. The consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs doesn’t produce “freedom”–rather it produces addiction to substances that destroy the body and the mind. Consumption of such substances is also a public health hazard (which inherently reduces the “freedoms” of others) because intoxicated workers, drivers, and people in general make poor decisions and engage in dangerous, irrational behavior because of their minds being clouded by intoxicants.

Vanity and the perpetual need for social validation isn’t “freedom.” Rather, it is a dependency upon others for one’s sense of well-being. Fornication and sexual perversion don’t lead to “freedom.” Rather, indulgence in such behavior leads to health problems, disease, feelings of betrayal and emptiness, unwanted pregnancies, children growing up ignorant of their fathers (and all the social fallout that often follows, such as, the next generation having unwanted pregnancies, engagement drug use, criminal behavior, and poverty).

The Hollywood elite serve as an example of those who “have it all” in the worldly, materialistic sense. They have fame and fortune. The Hollywood elite have access to vast supplies of alcohol and drugs. The Hollywood elite are “free” to indulge in serial fornication and unthinkable perversions—yet, many of them suffer from feelings of despair, depression, addiction, and other mental health issues. And, of course, suicide is not unheard of among them… and many of them, engage in the “slow-suicide” of self-destructive behaviors. From the aforementioned, it is clear that “freedom” (in the secular sense) is simply an unattainable myth. It is not desirable on a governmental level—and it is not desirable on a personal level.

Our Third Principle

Since we have established that the Creator exists and that the ultimate purpose of human existence is to worship and obey the Creator, then next step is to know how one is to worship and obey the Creator. This is known from Divine Revelation. The Creator has sent Prophets—that is, men who have received Divine Revelation. The Divine Revelation informs the people about the proper belief in the Creator and the Commands of the Creator (and other matters). The Prophets have qualities that distinguish them from the rest of humanity. The Prophets are all men of integrity, intelligence, fortitude, sincerity, and wisdom. The Prophets are clear of committing any abominable acts. The Prophets all had the same belief in the Creator. The Creator is One. The Creator is Perfect and does not change—and the proper belief in the Creator does not change.

Allah supported the Prophets with miracles. The miracle (mu`jizah) is an extraordinary occurrence that comes from a Prophet to prove that he is a genuine Prophet. The miracle cannot be matched or outdone by an opponent; the miracle happens the way he says it will occur. Allah is the Creator. As Allah has created the world with its norms, Allah is not restricted to the norms—and Allah has given the Prophets miracles, which breach the normal state of affairs. Although the miracles are extraordinary, they do not contradict the judgment of reason.

Third Principle of the Secularists

As was said, secularism is essentially an ideology based upon a mythology that sprang from the European-Christian experience. In the 1500’s Martin Luther became a renegade against the Catholic Church. His rebellion against Catholicism led to a multitude of other sects coming forth. Although some were religiously motivated, other sects were clearly driven by a desire for political and worldly power. This led to massive amounts of bloodshed between the various Protestant sects and the Catholics, which carried on for generations.

Given the fundamentally unsound nature of the Christian doctrine—namely, that an infant allegedly became the Creator of the universe, and then later had to become a homicide victim to gain the power to forgive people for their sins—it was impossible for any Christian sect to “prove” that they were right. Furthermore, people became weary of the bloodshed between the different Christian sects—and the corruption and hypocrisy of the Christian leaders. This led to many Europeans saying that they would just have to “agree to disagree” about religion (meaning, for them, Christianity). Religion became increasingly less central to their lives, so, the Europeans tried to turn to non-Christian (non-religious) sources for their worldly “guidance.” In this mix, of course, were those who didn’t care about religion or the betterment of society at all—they just wanted political power.

From this concoction of confusion and hypocrisy secular mythology was born. It was in this environment that the European secularists tried to figure out what are the rights of the people and how to rule them. Of course for the Muslim, when he examines this European mythology, it becomes immediately evident that the claims of the secularists have NO AUTHORITY. They are merely relying upon their OPINIONS—that they impose on the masses—by force… in the name of “freedom.” Also, it is important to note that these same European myth-makers who were talking about (what they deemed to be) the “Rights of Man” were also supporting genocidal policies, colonialism, and slavery against human beings who did not look like them.

Our Fourth Principle

The matter of morality, rights, laws, and our values is clear for the Muslims. Morality, rights, laws, and values are known from what the Prophets conveyed. We know that the Sacred Law is for the human’s benefit in this world—and for his (or her) benefit in the Hereafter. This should be clear–for Allah has created us; Allah knows our reality, and Allah knows what is best for us.

Hence, the Muslims’ values and sense of morality do not change, like, the wind. We know that Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) is the last of the Prophets. Allah supported him with hundreds of confirmed miracles—therefore, we accept all that he conveyed from Allah. And we know that the Sacred Laws revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) are in effect until the end of this world.

For the sincere person, it only makes sense to follows the Divine Laws of the Creator. Furthermore, adherence to the Sacred Laws instills in the person the best of human virtues: integrity, sincerity, courage, humility, patience, honor, self-restraint. People who embody such qualities make for good human beings–good parents, good children, good neighbors, good community members, good leaders, etc. Such values produce a stable and prosperous society .

Fourth Principle of the Secularists

The secularists frequently claim that morality is relative—there is, ultimately, no right or wrong—and no one can determine what is right or wrong. …Actually many of them will say that it is wrong to judge others—that is, it is wrong to declare something as being good or bad (apparently they don’t see the contradiction of such a claim). As long as one does not harm others, they say “do as thou will.” Some may appeal to popular opinion for morality, but we know that popular opinion is largely the construction of social engineering by the media and by edumucational indoctrination.

The notion of “not judging” is alien to the Islamic tradition. For one, Muslims are COMMANDED to JUDGE matters according to the Sacred Law. One of the names of the Qur’an is “Al-Furqan”–that is, “The Criterion” by which the Muslim is to judge. Furthermore, Al-amru bil-maʿruf wan-nahy ʿanil-munkar (the enjoining of the good and forbidding of evil) is an essential part of the Deen. If it were forbidden to judge, then it would not be possible to enjoin the good or forbid the evil.

As for harm, the secularists only take into consideration what they deem to be “harm” in this world—and even on this point they can’t come close to an agreement. The Muslim understands that some actions may not seem to be very “harmful” in this world—but may have severe consequences in the Afterlife. We can only know about what is beneficial and detrimental to us in the Afterlife by way of Divine Revelation.

The intellect—by itself—cannot confirm or negate the existence of the Afterlife. All the intellect can say is that Afterlife is something rationally possible—the existence of the Afterlife doesn’t contradict reason. Divine Revelation, however, confirms the existence of the Afterlife, and the Divine Revelation informs us about the deeds that are beneficial and the deeds that harmful to our condition after death. The secularists, however, deny the Afterlife and reject Divine Revelation because they prefer to follow their caprices and deluded opinions.

Regarding the “not harming others clause” this still holds no validity Islamically. The Muslim knows that he does not “own himself.” He (or she) is the property of the Creator, and he does not have the right to do with his body whatever he chooses—rather, he is only allowed to use his body in accordance with the Laws of the Creator.

The secularists have no basis for their mythology. This is clearly demonstrated with their notion of “human rights.” The secularists keep discovering (alleged) “rights” that they did not know the humans had before… and rights that they had before have ceased being “rights.” Who is to say (given the claims of the secularists) what new (alleged) “rights” these people will discover in the next decade, or the next year… or the next month?

Again, if the Muslim steps back for a moment, and evaluates the blather of the secularists from an Islamic perspective, he will immediately see that this secular ideology is ludicrous. The human being can’t give himself his “rights.” The Muslim knows that the Creator is the One Who gives humans their rights. The Creator is Just, and the Creator Orders us with whatever He wills. The Muslim’s worldview is based upon SUBMISSION to the Commands of the Creator. And the one who submits to Allah and obeys Allah, will be successful in this temporary life—and more significantly, will attain everlasting success and salvation in the Afterlife.

Conclusion

Being a Muslim entails believing in the Declaration of Faith (Shahadah). The Declaration of Faith has two parts: “Nothing is worthy of worship except Allah.” That is the first part. The second part is “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” Part of believing in the second Declaration is believing Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) is the last of the Prophets—and that entails believing in the authenticity and superiority of the Sacred Laws revealed unto Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam). This means that the Sacred Laws revealed to Prophet Muhammad are inherently superior to whatever people may invent in their minds. Also, in believing in Prophet Muhammad is the belief in the Afterlife—and that the Sacred Laws he came with benefit the human in this life and in the Hereafter. The one who follows the Sacred Law attains certitude and dignity in this life—and attains salvation in the life after death. The proof in Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) claim to Prophethood—and the validity of his Sacred Law–is in the numerous confirmed miracles he performed.

As for the secularists, their “da`wah” (“call”) is an invitation to doubt, to confusion and contradictions, to hypocrisy. Secularism leads to feelings that life is pointlessness—secularism leads to despair and even depravity. Secularism brings no comfort to the human soul and offers nothing for the well-being of the human in death. It needs to be in the forefront of the Muslim’s mind that the claims of the secularists have no actual basis for their validity—whereas, the Muslim’s proofs for following the Sacred Law are irrefutable. It is only Islam that enables the human being to realize his ultimate purpose (which is, to worship and obey the Creator)—and by doing so, the person will attain safety, salvation, and everlasting bliss.

A Wahhabi Goes FULL PAGAN

A Wahhabi Goes FULL PAGAN

When the Wahhabis have been accused of worshiping a “giant, unidentified, extraterrestrial, smiling-face, bipedal object, situated beneath Prophet Jesus—with one shin and two hands,” the Wahhabi will typically accuse the Muslim of “lying.” The aforementioned, however, is a summation of the Wahhabi belief—as per their warped distortion of the Qur’an and the Hadith.

Before going any further, the proper belief should be clarified. The Creator exists. The Creator alone is Beginningless. Allah existed before the genesis of creation—and there was NOTHING ELSE in existence. Allah existed before the Heavens and Earth, before light and darkness, before distance or direction, and before time and space. The Creator is ABSOLUTELY different from all the created beings—and since the Creator existed before ANY of the creations, the Creator’s Existence is not dependent upon the creations.

Allah is not a material being. Allah is not a spiritual being. Allah existed before space and time and is not subject to space or time or change (change is intrinsically related to time). Allah does not have a size, shape, form, or dimensions. The Creator is ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT from the creations. Whatever one imagines, the Creator is TOTALLY different from that. This is the Muslim belief.

Any Qur’anic Verse or authentic Hadith that some people may misconstrue and try to give people the impression that Allah is situated in a place, or has a size, or a direction, or a variety of body parts should not be taken literally. (And even the Wahhabis who CLAIM that all such Verses and Hadiths must be taken literally do NOT take all such Verses and Hadiths literally). There are no contradictions in the Muslim Belief in the Creator. The Muslim can demonstrate the truthfulness of the Muslim Belief in the Creator by Divine Revelation AND he can demonstrate it by the use of reason.

—Allah exists—for the world could not be beginningless nor could it be self-created. (At–Tur, 35)

—Allah is One—there could not be a multitude of alleged gods, for that would lead to chaos. (Al-Anbiya, 22)

—Allah is Transcendent—Allah existed before the creations without need for the creations; Allah did not change after originating the creations (Al-`Ankabut, 6)

—Allah is Incomparable—Allah exists without a beginning and everything else exists with a beginning. The originated (i.e., everything other than Allah) share in the quality of having a start, being specified with existence, being in need of the Creator (Ash-Shura, 11)

The Truth does not contradict itself, and the Truth does not contradict what Allah revealed.

As for the Wahhabi doctrine, it is built on the assumption that God is some sort of giant object that happens to be not quite the same as other objects (again, the Muslim premise that the Creator is ABSOLUTELY different from the creations—we are objects and the multitude of things we see around us are all objects—Allah isn’t like us or any other object; Allah is NOT an object and does not have the properties of objects). Because of this false assumption, the Wahhabi reads and distorts the Qur’an and Hadith to try to “prove” his blasphemous belief.

Recently, I encountered a Wahhabi who went FULL PAGAN. Among of what he said:

Allaah is not Isomorphic (Equal Form) to Humans – Elementally, but He is Multimorphic (i.e., He can Change His Purest Form to another Purest Form, to which He Wills, Within the Image of Man Only).

First of all, Allah does not have a form. A form—HOWEVER IT IS—is similar in some regards to other forms. Also, Allah does not change. Every change is originated. And anything that is originated can’t be beginningless. Furthermore, Allah is not something like a human being!

The Wahhabi goes on to say:

Allaah Does not Have a Stomach nor Intestines, nor is He Hallow [sic—hollow?], Because He is As-Samad.

What he means here is that since the Qur’an says that Allah does not need to be fed (as it is the habit among some pagans to put food out for their idols), then God (according to him) has various body parts and organs (as he’ll mention below)–but God has no need for a stomach. The Name of Allah, As–Samad, however, means the One Who does not need ANY of the creations. Allah not only is free of needing to be fed and free of needing our worship, Allah is free of needing space (for space is other than Allah—space is a creation).

The Wahhabi pagan goes on to say (a`udhu billah!!!):

Therefore, Allaah has an Image (or Form) with a unique Face that has two eyes, a nose, a mouth, and two ears, And a neck. Allaah has two shoulders with two arms and that are interconnected with two hands. Allaah has two legs and two shins and two feet, interconnected. Therefore Allaah has an Image (or Form) that is like Adam, yet His Essence is different and is Complete And Perfect.

This is a person’s brain on Wahhabism. Many Wahhabis will not (perhaps) agree exactly on this description of the thing they worship—but all the Wahhabis believe that God is something situated above Paradise for part of the time—and situated beneath Jesus part of the time. All the Wahhabis will ascribe various body parts and changes to the imaginary thing that they pray to.

Ironically, when a Muslim attempts to demonstrate that the True Belief in the Creator is rationally consistent, the Wahhabi will claim that the Muslim is engaging in Greco-paganism, but its the Muslims who say that the Creator is Supremely Clear of having a form or dimensions—while it is the Wahhabis and Ancient Greeks (and other pagans) pray to objects and images. Muslims worship the One for whom there is none similar, equal, or greater. Muslims worship the Incomparable Creator—and not ANY of the creations.

TALKING TO A WAHHABI #1

TALKING TO A WAHHABI #1

The Wahhabi erroneously (and blasphemously) believes that the Creator “rose above” and is now is situated upon (or over) the `Arsh (while at the same time he LITERALLY believes that Allah is situated beneath Prophet Jesus for part of the night).

FIRST PRINCIPLE: Allah is One. Allah is the Creator. Allah is Beginningless–Allah existed before the creations. Everything other than Allah is a creation.

SECOND PRINCIPLE: Direction entails the comparison between the POSITION (place) of one SPATIAL ENTITY (object) in relation to another spatial entity.

THIRD PRINCIPLE: Place is not Allah. Place is something other than Allah. Place is a CREATION. Allah existed BEFORE place existed.

FOURTH PRINCIPLE: Allah is Eternal–hence, Allah is not subject change or development. Change entails a COMING INTO BEING. Whatever comes into being is ORIGINATED. Allah and His Attributes are NOT ORIGINATED.

FIFTH PRINCIPLE: Allah was existing before place. After Allah originate place, Allah did not transform from Who He was into something else. Allah did not transform from existing without being in a place and materialize into a spatial entity situated in a location. Allah was existing before places and directions without being situated in a place or direction—and Allah is as Allah ever was (Allah does not change—for the reasons mentioned above).

THIS IS THE BELIEF OF THE MUSLIMS

______________________________________________

As for the Wahhabi, he must (according to his absurd-kufri ideology) believe:

1. Place (or direction) IS Allah. This is kufr, because such a person would be claiming Allah is the creation.

2. Place (or direction) is co-eternal with Allah. This is kufr (blasphemy)–because the Wahhabi would be claiming that Allah is NOT the Creator of everything. He would be claiming that Allah has an eternal partner—and this is shirk.

3. Place (or direction) BECAME an (alleged) Attribute of Allah AFTER Allah created place and direction. “BECOMING” entails development and change. If someone claims Allah develops, then he would be implying that after this development Allah became either inferior or superior to what He was. If he claims Allah became superior, then that would mean that Allah was previously less than Perfect. And if he claims that Allah became inferior—then he is clearly stating that Allah is less than Perfect. In either case, the Wahhabi does not escape kufr.

THE ESSENTIAL BLUNDER OF THE WAHHABI

The Wahhabi does not understand what it means when the Muslim says: “Allah is One.” The Muslim understands that Allah is the Only Creator—hence, Allah existed before the creations without the need for anything. The Muslim understands that Allah is Unique—without ANY similarity to the creations whatsoever. The Muslim understands that Allah is Indivisible—that is, Allah is not composed of parts, or pieces, or dimensions. Allah does not have a size, form, or shape.

The Wahhabi believes that for God to exist, God must be situated in a place. This is evident when a Muslim says to a Wahhabi that Allah exists without being in a place, the Wahhabi blurts: “You are denying the Existence of Allah.” …No, the Muslim is not denying Allah’s Existence, for we say: “Allah EXISTS without being in a place”–that is, Allah EXISTS without need of the creations, and that Allah EXISTS without being similar to the creations (creations are situated in places). The Wahhabi thinks that God is a giant object that is dissimilar to all other objects. And since OBJECTS require places (and directions) to exist, then the Wahhabi (erroneously) assumes Allah must be situated in a place (and direction). In reality, the Wahhabi does not believe in the Oneness of Allah, but rather he believes that Allah is dependent upon and similar to what is created. This is the essence of their kufr (blasphemy).

Refutation of the Right–Part 1: Introduction and The Greeks

Refutation of the Right–Part 1: Introduction and The Greeks

Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds

More often than not, I devote posts addressing the dangers of Leftist ideology (LINK) than the Right. The reasons being have been mentioned many times before. In brief, Leftist ideology is a threat to the very core of a Muslim’s Imaan. That is so because Leftist ideology can lead to a Muslim denying or rejecting matters that are commonly-known to be part of Islam, and to deny or reject such matters is itself kufr—the worst of the sins.

As for Right wing ideology, rarely do Muslims embrace the Right’s rhetoric—much less do so while claiming that Right wing ideology is compatible with Islam. Nonetheless, Muslims need the wherewithal to address Right wing ideology (RWI), expose its internal inconsistencies, and demonstrate the superiority of Islam.

Now let us define what is meant by Right wing ideology and some of its attributes. In general when one speaks of the “Right,” one means a political ideology that favors authority, tradition, order, and nationalism. In the USA, the Right includes (typically) Christian conservatives/fundamentalists, American nationalists/imperialists, white nationalists, and economic conservatives. This does not mean that every conservative checks all of the above boxes, but the people who subscribe to at least a couple of the aforementioned worldviews tend to be “Right wingers.”

The Rightists seek to maintain the social order as it is, and they look to the past for inspiration. This means (typically) holding Ancient Greece and Rome (the Classical world) in high regard; the religious among them, will revere Christianity; they consider what they call the “Age of Enlightenment” as a definitive era in their history; they will have a high opinion of European history and culture—and tied to that is the notion of “whiteness.” Again, this does not mean that everyone who identifies as a “conservative” or Right wing agrees with all the above points, but he will tend to agree with at least some of them. And, of course, some people identify as “conservative” or “Right-leaning” simply to stand in opposition to Leftist ideology.

God-willing, we will, for the sake of this work, address some of the pillars of Rights thought—with its pillars being:

1. Ancient Greek civilization

2. Christianity

3. Secularism

4. Nationalism and Imperialism

5. “Whiteness”

The Ancient Greeks

Ancient Greece is highly regarded by the Right because of its mythology, philosophy, and its political theory—in particular, introducing the concept of “democracy.” Greek mythology is a bunch of make-believe stories about alleged “gods” often doing mischievous, treacherous, and wicked deeds to each other. For the Muslim, such mythology is absurd and repulsive. There can only be One God. And God alone deserves to be worshiped. We know this to be true, for it is revealed in the Qur’an:

لَوْ كَانَ فِيهِمَا آلِهَةٌ إِلَّا اللَّهُ لَفَسَدَتَا

which means: “If there had been other gods with Allah, then this world would have been in ruins.”

In Islamic Doctrine, there is the Daleel of Tamanu` (The Proof of Mutual Negation). Rationally, we know that there cannot be two alleged “gods.” Firstly, let us clarify what is meant when the Muslims say, “God,” “The Creator,” “Allah.” Muslims understand that the world can neither be beginningless*** nor can it be “self-created.” (***We will explain this matter in detail below, God-willing.) The world requires a Creator—Who is not originated and has always existed. Everything other than the Creator has been brought into being by the Creator. The Creator is Beginningless and everything else is originated by the Creator.

From the aforementioned, it is known that the Creator is not in need of any of the creations (for the Creator existed before the creations). Before time and space, and light and darkness existed, there was a Creator. The Creator is not dependent upon what is created. Hence, the Creator is clear of requiring space, being established in a place, or situated in a direction. The Creator doesn’t have an age, for Creator’s Existence is not an occurrence and can’t be measured by time.

Also, it is known that the Creator is ABSOLUTELY unlike any of the creations. The creations are originated—they were non-existent—and then they were brought into existence by the Creator. This makes all the creations similar in that regard (that is, being originated). The Creator, however, is not originated and is categorically different from everything else in existence. The intellect necessitates recognizing the Existence of the Creator—but the imagination cannot fathom the Reality of the Creator. Whatever one imagines, the Creator is categorically different from that.

Since we know that the Creator would be Beginningless, Transcendent (Free-of-Need), and Incomparable, it also leads to follow that there can only be ONE Creator. If one were to (wrongly) claim that there could be two alleged “gods,” then it would lead to the rationally impossible scenario of contrary matters occurring in the same place, at the same time, in the same regard. For example, if one claimed that there are two alleged gods, then one could claim that one alleged god could will for the sun to rise in Chicago and the other could will for the sun to set in Chicago at the same time. We all recognize that the self-same sun could not be rising in the east and setting in west in the same place at the same time. Hence, the wills of both these alleged gods could not be fulfilled. The being that can’t fulfill its will would be weak, and the weak could not be God, and other than God does not deserve to be worshiped.  This is the Daleel of Tamanu` (The Proof of Mutual Negation).

The Muslim looks at Greek mythology with disgust. Unlike many Westerners who fawn over the polytheism of their pagan cultural ancestors, the Muslims know that the Creator has revealed:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَغْفِرُ أَنْ يُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَٰلِكَ لِمَنْ يَشَاءُ

which means: “Verily, Allah does not forgive the sin of shirk [ascribing partners to Allah], and Allah may forgive whatever is less than that for whomever he wills.”

So, not only is the polytheism of the Ancient Greeks repulsive to reason, the Muslim knows that associating partners to Allah is blasphemy—and blasphemy is the only sin never forgiven by Allah for the one who dies on that state. It is shameful and tragic that children in school are often immersed in the polytheistic myths of pagan Greeks (and others), while they are not informed about the Oneness and Perfection of their Creator.

For the more “intellectual” Ancient Greeks, they gravitated toward philosophy—of which there were numerous schools of thought. Some schools of thought were atheistic—and some claimed to recognize the existence of God but (fallaciously) argued that the universe is beginningless. As for the latter, we know that the universe could not be beginningless, because that would lead to an “infinite regression,” which is rationally invalid. To claim that before the present there was an infinite amount of time, then it would be impossible to traverse infinity to reach the present—but we have reached the present. Hence, to reach the present, the past must have a beginning—and it could not have begun itself.

Regarding the atheists, we have established that the world can’t be beginningless and must have a start. We know that for something to act, it has to exist—for a thing must be to do. The non-existent cannot do something; hence, non-existent can’t make itself or make something else. To claim that something “made itself” is a ludicrous claim, for that would entail that this thing must have existed before it was originated—and–that it was originated after it was already existing. Hence—rationally–the Muslim (and every reasonable person) must conclude that there must be One non-originated Being Who existed before the creations and brought the creations into existence. Muslims refer to this One as God, Allah, the Creator. So although the Greeks are lauded in the West for their “intellect,” the Muslim sees that whether it is their pagan mythology or their philosophy, the beliefs of the Greeks are invalid and absurd.

The Greeks are often praised because of “democracy”–which wasn’t (and isn’t) what its literal name connotes. “Democracy” literally means: “the people rule.” The fact is that the VAST MAJORITY of people in Ancient Greece (Athens, in particular, which is regarded as the birthplace of democracy) were not allowed to vote. Only Athenian, adult male, citizens could vote. Hence, the slaves—who are said to be the majority of the people in Athens—women, children, non-citizens residing in Athens could not vote. So, in reality, Greek “democracy” was the rule of a minority for the overwhelming majority.

Furthermore, the Muslim understands that laws are not to be determined by human beings—but, rather, by the Creator of the human beings. The Creator knows about us better than we know ourselves. Hence, it only makes sense that one would follow the Divine Laws of the Creator as opposed to what some people concoct in their minds. Whether it be a small elite or the mob of the masses, when humans make up laws, they will find them changing, being altered, manipulated, corrupted for material and egotistic gain. Furthermore, the laws that the human beings invent cannot guarantee to benefit the human being in the Afterlife.

The human being is in desperate need for Divine Guidance. Regardless of how intellectually brilliant one may be, the intellect—by itself—cannot confirm or negate the experiences of the Afterlife. The judgment of reason only says that the Afterlife is a possibility. However, the reality of the Afterlife is confirmed by the Prophets, whom Allah supported with miracles to demonstrate that they are truthful in their claim of being recipients of Divine Revelation. The Prophets not only informed the people about the proper belief in the Creator and about the reality of the Afterlife, the Creator revealed Sacred Laws to the Prophets, and those Sacred Laws are for the benefit of the human in this life and the Hereafter.

The man-made laws give no consideration to the person’s circumstances after he passes over from this world. No one asks that the Constitution of Canada be read at his grave site after he is buried. It’s as if the makers of man-made laws don’t care about the Afterlife well-being of those whom they compel to follow their laws. That is often the case because such law makers are simple materialists, who don’t believe in anything beyond their physical senses.

Praise Allah, the Sacred Law of Islam benefits the human being in common worldly matters– such as, how to buy and sell, how to sleep, how to observe basic hygiene, how to marry, what to eat and what not to eat, etc. Additionally, one would know the rights of the children upon the parents, the parents upon the child, the rights of neighbors, the rights of animals, the rights of religious minority groups, the rights of other nations. And, of course, the Sacred Law informs the people about the Oneness and Perfection of the Creator, about the proper belief in the Prophets, and how to perform the various acts of worship, such as, praying, fasting, and Hajj (Islamic Pilgrimage). The Sacred Law is a comprehensive system for every aspect of human life—and again, those Divine Laws benefit the Believer in this life and prepare him for the inevitable reality of death and the events of the Afterlife.

In summary, although the Rightists may not pose the same sort of ideological threat to Muslims as the Leftists, Muslims should understand the nature of the Right. Right wing ideology is based upon a call to tradition—not the tradition of following Prophetic guidance—but it is based upon a tradition that originated from ancient Greek mythology and philosophy. The call of Greek mythology and philosophy is an invitation to absurdity, hypocrisy, and deviation—and the Call of Islam is an invitation to clarity, sincerity, and guidance.

A bust said to be a depiction of the infamous Ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle

FOR THE BENEFIT: Questions for Hadith-Rejectors

Dealing with some characters from the so-called Qur’anist Cult (Hadith-Rejectors). When dealing with them, you don’t want to get into long debates about Qur’anic Verses–for they make up meanings as they go along. You want to expose the faulty nature of their whole methodology. The following questions we’re posed to them… for which they never provided answers:

—Which Muhammad are you speaking of? [They frequently disregard history.]

—When did he live? [Again, by their method, they can’t prove (without external sources) the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) ever lived)]

And they were asked:

—Who numbered the Verses of the Qur’an? [They arbitrarily will accept certain things and reject others]

—How did they learn the rules related to Tajweed–and with whom did they recite the Qur’an so that they would know they are reciting properly?  How would they know where to stop when reciting?

–And how did you come to be able to read the Qur’an and understand it without the i`jaam and harakaat? [I`jaam = dots on letters. Of course, they can’t read such Books–if they can find one. So, in reality–according to THEIR method–they are not actually reading the Qur’an]

***The point of raising these questions is that the so-called “Qur’anists” claim the Hadiths of the Prophet should not be followed.  Now aside from the issues of Fiqh, like, how would a person pray, when would they pray, what would invalidate one’s wudu‘, how would one perform istinja’, how would one perform Hajj, or how would one perform a marriage contract, etc., the Hadith-Rejector STILL requires Islamic scholarship to read—much less understand—the Qur’an. And when it comes to Prophetic biography and  Fiqh, a so-called “Qur’anist” can’t answer the above mentioned questions—without referring to traditional Islamic scholarship and the Hadith of the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam).

These rejectors of the Sanctified Sunnah will tell Muslims to remain ignorant of these essential matters. Or the Hadith-Rejectors will tell the people to follow THEIR (i.e., Hadith-Rejectors) OWN OPINIONS about how these matters should be done…. So, in reality, the Hadith-Rejctors aren’t calling people to follow the “Qur’an only”–rather, they are calling the people to follow THEIR (Hadith-Rejectors) OPINIONS about the Qur’an–while rejecting and disparaging the scholarship of 1,400 years of learned, pious, wise Muslim men and women.***

In summary, the methodology Hadith-Rejectors is bankrupt and is ultimately a call to ignorance and doubt, which leads many of them to becoming open atheists. May Allah protect us from their demonic ideology.

Dismantling the Patriarchy and the Spread of Promiscuity

Someone said: “Dismantling the patriarchy correlates with the spread of promiscuity.”

*********************************************

Is this not obvious? Feminism promotes the idea that women are free to do with their bodies as they please–hence, according to feminism, no one has the right to tell a woman (or a “girl”) not to fornicate if she chooses. These folks have even come up with the term “slut shaming” to condemn the notions of modesty and chastity.

Also, no competent and responsible Muslim father is going to want his daughter running about fornicating and bringing home some guy’s biological child that he (the Muslim father–of the daughter) is going to find himself in many cases having to support.  It is in the man’s nature to want to protect the chastity of his daughter.  However, if the  “patriarchy is dismantled” and the father is taken out of the picture, one finds the children born out of wedlock increase–and a vicious cycle of dysfunction and pathology almost certain to follow (and this is all by design).

Feminism/dismantling the patriarchy, as these people seek, leads to women fornicating A LOT–meaning, it becomes a social norm and even ideal. This demotivates men–and keeps them in an arrested state of development. For one, “easy access” (to fornication) takes away the motivation for a man to be responsible to maintain a family. Why get married– “Why by the cow, when you can get the milk for free?”

Furthermore, in a society with a whole lot of females fornicating, it throws the fathers’ of the children in doubt. Probably most of us have seen a segment from “Maury:” “…And you are NOT the father….” …And then the guy jumps for joy while pumping his fists—knowing he dodged a bullet… and a paternity suit. Men, typically, don’t want to be taking care of some other man’s child that was conceived with his wife (or “girlfriend) “on the sly.”

It is said according to the latest research in science that the more partners the woman has, the more difficult it is for her to pair bond—that is, feel connected to a mate and be loyal. Again, a promiscuous partner isn’t something that the vast majority of men are going to willingly sign up for. As for double standards—it is what it is—it is as the saying goes: “Women are interested in a man with a good future. Men are interested in a woman with a good past.” If you try to warp human nature for the sake of some theory, it ain’t gonna pan out in the long term.

And then you add the other problems that come with “dismantling the patriarchy.” You end up with LOTS of children being raised in single parent—single mother—homes. And children raised in single mother households are far more likely to have problems in school, with drugs, and with the law. Single mothers typically don’t have the financial means to raise a child on their own—and she will be forced to play a smaller role in her child’s life because of working full-time (and perhaps, even two jobs). Often the grandparents—and in many cases—just the grandmother—ends up carrying a large load of child raising (because the mother is working full-time).  And, of course, Uncle Sam comes in and plays the role of sugar daddy in many of these scenarios.

Boys need (good) fathers so that they can have someone to model their behavior upon. They need fathers to teach them manly skills. Boys need good fathers to give them sound advice about how to handle their urges when it comes to dealing with the fairer sex. Girls need fathers, so they can feel the security of being appreciated for who they are—and not because of what they may offer some predatory male.

“Dismantling the patriarchy” is another Leftist da`wah (“invitation”) to psychological chaos and social subversion. No good comes from it—and it is completely contrary to what the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) came with. Islam—with no doubt—is patriarchal, as a multitude of rulings in the Sacred Law demonstrate.

The answer is not to emasculate boys, while converting girls into viragoes. The solution is in the recognition that men and women have different temperaments and roles. The solution is to STRENGTHEN boys by raising them to be responsible family leaders. And girls are raised to be good wives and mothers. The solution is for Muslim men and women to build strong, cohesive, and high-functioning families that are conducive to Piety and the preservation and transmission of Islam.  Feminism and “dismantling the patriarchy” leads to the opposite of this.

FOR THE BENEFIT: Dealing with a “Modernist”

FOR THE BENEFIT: Dealing with a “Modernist”

The “Modernists” are those who attempt to make Islam conform with whatever happens to be faddish in Western thought. This can include ideas about morality, law, and government, and it can include trends in science. Among those of the latter is the W.D. Movement. That movement is notorious for inventing its own meanings for explicitly clear Verses of the Qur’an (and they pick and they choose of what they “like” of the Hadith of the Prophet). This has led them to rejecting the miracles of the Prophets—like, for instance, claiming that Prophet Musa’s splitting of the Red Sea (by the Will of Allah), requires one to look into the “symbolic meaning” of the word “Red” and the word “Sea”–while denying the actual temporary separating of that body of water.

From what is reported, a doctor was being maligned recently because she believed that spirit (jinn) possession can affect the health. (I am not trying to confirm what she said—or the legitimacy of all that is attributed to her—the principle is sound, however: that is, jinn can affect a person’s physical or mental health.) Anyway, this member of the W.D. Movement was making fun of her for holding such a conviction. I explained that the jinn are real, and that the Deen has various practices to help protect the person from the harm of such entities. Another member of the W.D. Movement responded by saying:

Jinns of folklore is not what the Qur’an is speaking of. These concepts came from misinformed scholars and Islamic teachers. This is not speaking of demons of some dark world of existance, nor vodoo, nor witchcraft. All of that mess came from preachers and ignorant scholars. Allah teaches us to use our intelligence when studying the Quran. There is jinn in every human being and it is not an evil spirit…. We must grow up so we can see the beauty of Allah’s Qur’an. Imam Mohammed said, that many of us are like playful children in religion.

(Clarification: A jinn is not in every human being, but there is at least one demonic jinn that accompanies the person and attempts to influence the person to do evil.)

As for the person’s response, he is claiming, in essence, that ALL THE MUSLIMS—lay people and scholars—misunderstood the reality of the jinn and what is revealed in the Qur’an… for 1,400 years… but what some guy came up with in the 1970’s is right.

Even back in the day, when I was searching for the Truth—and was influenced by the W.D. Movement—i could never understand what was meant to be taken literally and what was not. The W.D. Movement denies the reality of the miracles and the jinn because such matters contradict the mythology of the modern materialists. However, it makes me wonder do they believe in the reality of the Afterlife. If they reject the miracles and the jinn because of “science,” then how can they confirm the Hereafter? The Hereafter, like, the jinn and the miracles are all rejected by the materialists/scientists.

It was said to the W.D. Guy:

The jinn are mentioned EXPLICITLY in the Qur’an. The Muslims have all understood that the ghayb is real, and that the Angels and jinn are real entities. Now if some characters come along and make up their own opinions about what Allah revealed and the Prophet conveyed (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam), then that is a reflection of their misunderstanding and deviation from the Ummah.

The W.D. guy responds:

I did not say that the unseen bil ghayb is not Real. I’m saying that the understanding from many Hadith on jinn and angels are mistakes or otherwise from ignorant scholars that followed the language and thinking of Christians and folklore of generations before the Prophet (PBUH). The Quran is not antiquated in ideas, but our minds can remain in a state of aniquation [sic]. As we evolve in our thinking the Qur’an opens up to us with a clearer and more refined meaning. We have accepted actiquated ideas of previous scholars amd teachers that date back as far as 1000 years. The Shaitan can enter into the scripture by way of weak translation and my way of minds that have not evolved to see Allah’s revealed words as they should be seen. There are those that are sincere but their sincerety is given to false information. We don’t believe in ghost, people putting the hecks on others, a spooky devil in the dark, jinns waiting in the room to attack us.

This is what the ideology of “Modernism” leads to. It leads to one claiming that 1,400 years of Islamic scholarship is all dubious… but again, some character (charlatan) can come along and claim that “he got the Deen right”–that he understood the Deen even better than the Companions of the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam). Such a belief is kufr without a doubt—because the implication of such a claim leads to saying that the people who transmitted the Deen were ignorant about what the Prophet taught. If the Muslim scholars before us were all (allegedly) superstitious ignoramuses—as these Modernist-Munaafiqs claim–then how could they be certain that the Deen was not corrupted and lost? How could they prove that their understanding is actually the proper understanding? On what basis would they judge?  And on what basis would others judge them–if Islamic scholarship is rejected in evaluating their claims?

When people abandon Islamic scholarship, they tend to deviate in a multitude of ways. A lot of this group’s deviance stems from the Batiniyy influence of Elijah Poole, who, like his offspring –and like others among the Batiniyyah—would invent figurative meanings to Qur’anic Verses that contradict the understanding of all the Muslim scholars. Among the misguidance of this same group is that they claimed that the Muslim woman could marry the Christian man. They also claim that the person who has a bad belief about the Creator, or rejects Prophet Muhammad, or rejects the Qur’an can attain salvation in the Hereafter. This is kufr—without a doubt. The Qur’an informs us in Surah Al-Fath, 13:

وَمَن لَّمْ يُؤْمِن بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ فَإِنَّا أَعْتَدْنَا لِلْكَافِرِينَ سَعِيرًا

which means: “Whoever does not believe in Allah AND HIS MESSENGER, then Allah has prepared for the disbelievers (kaafireen) the Hellfire.”

The safe way is to follow the learned and righteous people who have preceded us. Islam is not based upon “coming up with new explanations” to demonstrate how (allegedly) clever we are. Often the people who engage in this method  don’t want to expose their own ignorance—and they want to deceive the people by making the unlearned and gullible think they are “deep like that.” Also, we don’t warp and distort the Deen to make it conform with whatever happens to be the rave of science that week. Scientific theories and personal opinions come and go. The Religion of Allah is not based upon the shifting sands of science or personal opinions—but rather, it is based on the Divine Revelation of the Creator of the Universe.

Confessions of an Ex-Leftist (Refutation and Conclusion)

CONFESSIONS OF AN EX-LEFTIST (Refutation and Conclusion)

Praise Allah, in this final segment we will expose and refute the claims of Leftist ideology.

One of the challenges of Muslims living in the West—especially, second generation Muslims—is the lack of authentic Traditional Islamic knowledge in the English language. In addition to the lack of that knowledge, is the overall ignorance of many Muslims, and because of that ignorance, it contributes to feelings of inadequacy and inferiority—which is further compounded by the fact that many Muslims would be classified as “non-white.”

The remedy for that is (in addition to the Muslim learning the fardul-`ayn (personal obligatory) knowledge) that he (or she) views the world from an Islamic vantage point and frames matters in accordance with the Sacred Law. It should be enough for the Muslim to realize that the Leftists are astray because they don’t have the proper belief in the Creator, and they don’t believe in Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam). Hence, anything that the Leftists would claim—even their underlying assumptions–should be taken with a grain salt and should be scrutinized according to the standards of the Sacred Law. Anyone who does the aforementioned immediately realizes that MANY Leftist claims are incompatible with what the Prophet taught.

One of the rallying cries of the Leftists (and much of the secularized West) is what they call “human rights.” Again, for the person who is thinking Islamically, perhaps the first question that should come to mind when the Leftist calls for (what he deems to be) “human rights” is: Who gave human beings their rights? The Muslim knows that he didn’t create himself and that human beings could not have possibly given themselves their rights—but rather the genuine rights of the human beings come from the CREATOR of the human beings. And those rights are known through the Divine Revelation to the final Prophet, Muhammad (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam).

An indication that what the Leftists call “human rights” is a sham is that they keep discovering new (alleged) “rights” that they didn’t know they had before. One year they didn’t have a given (alleged) right… and then the next they have it. Where did this new (alleged) right come from? Where did they find it? If they didn’t have this (alleged) right in the past, does that mean that this supposed right did not belong to the human being—or was it always there waiting to be discovered?!? And if new rights can be discovered (according to the Leftists), then that also means that current “rights” can be abolished. These are just people lost in a maze of delusion!

The Muslim would see that the hypocrisy of the Leftists talking about what they deem to be “human rights” all the while they are failing—and not wanting—to recognize the rights of the One Who has created them, that is, Allah, the Lord of the Worlds. This is the epitome of arrogance and ingratitude. It is here we see how divergent the Muslim worldview is from the Leftists. And this leads to another pillar of Leftist (and secular) ideologies: “freedom.”

Of “Freedom”

Whereas Islam means “submission to the Orders of the Creator”–the Leftist seeks open rebellion against the Orders of the Creator. The Muslim understands that he has the “right” and the “freedom” to obey the Creator. He (or she) does not have the “right” to disobey Allah. Even the best of the creations—Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam)–said that he is the slave of Allah. The best of the creations (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) was not calling humanity to unfettered “freedom”–but rather he called us obedience to the Creator. And this makes perfect sense. The person should be grateful to God for what he has been granted. The Creator is the One Who owns everything, and no one owns the Creator. We are the property of the Creator, and the Creator has the right to order us and do with us whatever the Creator wills. The only wise and practical decision is to submit to the Creator.

As for “freedom” in the Leftist or secular context, this is a phantasm that they are chasing based upon the delusions of overly inflated egos. The human being by nature isn’t “free.” The human is bound by environmental factors, dependent upon other human beings—and above all, he is in need of the Creator. Furthermore, we see that even in the most “liberal” regimes, people are bound to a multitude of laws that restrict the people’s behavior. And if one violates these laws, he can have his property confiscated, and he can be thrown in prison. Recently, with “hate-speech” codes on steroids and the neo-Inquisition of cancel-culture, we can see the very people CLAIMING to be the promoters of freedom are suppressing and harming people for saying things that the Leftists don’t like.

Some may say that Leftist ideology provides people with more freedom than Islam. Even IF one chose not to argue that point (for one would find that in many ways Islamic Law is often less strict than secular law and has a lot less government micromanagement of people’s lives), the point remains that a Leftist or secularist government is still restrictive. And those restrictions are ultimately arbitrary. In conclusion, such a government or system would not, in reality, be promoting “freedom.” It would merely be arguing for what it thinks are the best restrictions to impose upon the people.

Of Equality

Another pillar of Leftist ideology is the notion of “equality.” Again, when Muslims engage in discussions of this nature, they need to be careful not to concede points that conflict with the Sacred Law. Islam promotes justice—not “equality.” This is immediately clear when we recognize that the Prophets are superior to the Awliyaa‘ (ultra-Righteous). The Awliyaa‘ are superior to the sinful Muslim. And the sinful Muslims are superior to the disbeliever .

Human experience tells us that people are not equal. Some men are ignorant, stupid, foolish, deformed, treacherous cowardly scoundrels drowning in debauchery. And some are learned, intelligent, wise, strong and handsome, honest, courageous, noble men of self-restraint. The ideal isn’t for everyone to be “equal”–the ideal is for everyone to be righteous. And it is the degrees of righteousness—or lack thereof—by which people are distinguished. It’s not skin complexion, “race,” income, class, height, weight, or shoe size that is the essential distinction between people; rather it is creed and deeds. A person attains salvation and safety by having the proper Belief and obeying the Creator—that is, he’s a Muslim who fulfills his (or her) obligations and refrains from the sins.

Of Feminism

One of the central babbling-points of Leftists, no doubt, is feminism. Feminism—at least in theory—claims that men and women are “equal.” And by “equal” what the feminist means is that women and men should have identical rights… but women should have more rights than men. As we have mentioned, Leftist ideology is based upon strange thoughts that arise in the heads of very often very strange people. There are no proofs for the claims they make—instead, the Leftists make emotional appeals that they hope no one will examine critically because their claims can’t stand up to scrutiny. (And this is why when someone does stop and think critically about Leftists’ claims, the Leftists will cry that using critical thinking is “hate speech.”)

Allah is our Creator. Allah knows everything. Allah knows about us better than what we know ourselves. Allah knows what is to the human being’s benefit and detriment in this world and in the Hereafter. Allah created the male and female humans distinct from each other—and Allah made the Sacred Laws for men and women distinct from each other.

Human experience tells us that men and women are not the same. They look differently; their bodies are different; their bodies function differently; men and women have different temperaments, and they think differently. Imposing identical laws upon men and women would not be in the best interests of women, nor of men, nor of the society.

Islam establishes gender JUSTICE—and not “equality” (in the feminist sense). The feminist claims to advocate for “equal-equality,” but reality does not seek it and does not want it. A point of clarification regarding “equality”–in Islam if a man does a good deed or a woman does a good deed (and “good” is defined by the Sacred Law), then both are “equal” in the sense that they earn reward for the good that they do. No one is rewarded or punished simply because of their sex. So in this sense there is “equality”–but it is a term better avoided, for the feminists mean something else when they say “equality.” It is better to use the clear and unambiguous phrase that Islam establishes gender justice and explain what is justice.

(On a related note, there is nothing wrong with Muslim women advocating for women’s rights as defined in the Sacred Law. It would be a GREAT thing if more Muslim women were seeking Traditional Islamic knowledge and were educating Muslims about the rights that women and men deserve according to the Divine Laws of Islam.)

As for the absurdity and hypocrisy of feminism, it is enough to consider that although feminists claim to want “equal-equality,” they reject it. If feminists truly wanted “equal-equality,” then they would be at the forefront of desegregating college, and professional sports and Olympic events on the basis of sex. Logically speaking—if one is believes in “equal-equality”–there should be no sports (like, women’s tennis, women’s martial arts, women’s basketball, women’s soccer—among a multitude of others) that bar people (men) merely on the basis of their sex. How can a person be barred from a professional sport, for instance, because he’s too athletic?

Likewise, one can show the hypocrisy of the feminists when it comes to prison accommodations. If the objective is “equal-equality,” as the feminists claim, then why aren’t men and women housed in the same prisons and in the same cells? If the feminists believe that there should be no discrimination based upon sex, then there is no way they can’t be in favor of desegregating the prisons.

We see other areas of feminists hypocrisy, such as, in family law. The biases against men are blatant in this regard. In NINETY PERCENT of divorce cases, women get the primary custody of the children. This is not “equal-equality.” Feminists are almost unanimously in favor of abortion. If a woman aborts a child that the father wanted to have, he has no legal recourse. On the other hand, if a woman has a child that the man does not want to have, he can be bound to at least 18 years of child support—that if he doesn’t pay in full it can lead to prison time. This isn’t “equal-equality.”

Sports, prisons, and family law demonstrate that the physical differences (read: male strength and athletic advantage) and temperament (read: female maternal instinct) make men and women better suited for different roles… which is ABSOLUTELY TRUE—and in compliance with the Sacred Law. The feminists admit (at least implicitly) that men and women are different and there should be different laws between the two sexes—but because the feminists lack Divine Guidance they cannot not define what those different laws should be in a coherent manner. They are lost. They are misguided.

Equal-equality is not a “buffet” where one gets to pick and choose where one wants to be “equal.” “Equal-equality” should be an all in or not affair. Feminism—in reality—however, is not about “equality.” It, like the rest of Leftist thought, is a subversive ideology that is intended to destabilize the society. In the case of feminism, it’s primary objective is to undermine the family and to incite fitnah (sedition) between men and women. The desire to instigate hatred between the sexes and destroy the family is explicitly stated in the works of the feminists. What has been mentioned above is enough to demonstrate the impracticality, absurdity, and hypocrisy of feminism. For the reasonable person—especially, the Muslim—feminism should not be given any consideration.

When we look at Leftist ideology as a whole, we see that it is an ideology deprived of Divine Guidance. It is just an ideology—some ideas that some folks have cooked up in their heads that happened to have been promoted by some powerful interests. Simply because some people had some ideas does not make their ideas legitimate. As we have demonstrated, Leftist ideology is essentially a modern day mythology based upon assumptions about the world that are inaccurate and devoid of logical consistency. Leftism has not proofs for its claims. It has no legitimacy.

The obedient Muslim views this world as merely a temporary station before entering into the Hereafter. Death is inevitable for all of us. The wise thing to do is to prepare for our transition from this plane of existence. The Muslim prepares for his (or her) journey into the Hereafter by having the proper Belief in the Creator—that is, affirming the Oneness and Perfection of the Allah; he believes in all the Prophets of Allah, and that Muhammad is the final Prophet. He prepares himself for death by acquiring the virtuous deeds—for his Creed and deeds will be his only provisions in the Afterlife. Hence, the Muslim considers the acts he does in terms of how they will be in his favor or against his favor on the Judgment Day. The obedient Muslim has a clear sense of purpose. He understands what this life is about and where he is going.

On the other hand, the so-called “Social Justice Warrior” gives no consideration to what is beyond his senses—only to what is immediately before him. He has his head clogged up with a bunch of secular myths that have no substance. He is often angry, confused, neurotic and suffering from anxiety and despair—because he knows not his purpose or where he is going. The Leftist, in reality, is ignorant about what is best for the people in this life—much less what is best for the people in the Afterlife. The “sunnah” of the Leftist is not a way to wisdom, rectification, and self-mastery. His “sunnah” is a way to foolishness, hypocrisy, and impulsiveness. The way of the Leftists is not the Straight Path of Piety—the way of the Leftists leads one into a labyrinth of deception and deviation in this world and utter humiliation and ruination in the Hereafter.

In summary, Leftist ideology is dangerous to the Muslims, because at the core of Leftist ideology is a denial and rejection of what Allah revealed and what the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) conveyed. That is, Leftist ideology is a call to kufr (disbelief). It is the duty of Muslims to enjoin the good and forbid the evil. There is no worse evil than kufr. Hence, we need to (God-willing) educate Muslims about the menace of Leftist ideology and call the general public to Islam by demonstrating the dangers of misguidance and the superiority of the Islamic Way of life.

May Allah guide us and guide others through us and grant us the blessed endings.
Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds!

CONFESSIONS OF AN EX-LEFTIST (Of Origins)

CONFESSION OF AN EX-LEFTIST (Origins of Leftism)

Before we continue, let us briefly summarize the danger of Leftist ideology.

1. Much of the media and certainly the educational institutions have a strongly Leftist bias.

2. Many of the values promoted by the Leftists conflict with what the Prophet Muhammad taught (and this can lead to a person having a crisis of faith—or outright rejecting Islam).

3. Muslims (especially, young Muslims) are coming under the influence of those ideas without realizing their harm—this potentially also leads to disbelief because the person start to have doubt about the validity of the Deen.

4. Even when Muslims are somewhat aware of the danger, they are not equipped with the knowledge to expose the absurdity of Leftist claims.

Bi’idhnillah, in this segment, we will talk about the origin of Leftist ideology

First, let us establish this discussion within an Islamic framework.

The Call to Tawheed

Muslims believe in—and invite humanity to–the proper belief in the One, Beginningless, Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator, Who is the Creator of everything and absolutely does not need or resemble anything. The Creator existed before the universe was brought into being. There was no Earth or outer space; there was no light or darkness; there was no distance or direction; there was no time or space. Allah was existing and there was nothing else in existence.

The Creator does not develop or transform or change—the Creator is as the Creator was before originating the universe. The Creator exists without having a size, shape, or form—the Creator exists without being situated in a place or direction. The Eternal Creator is not similar to the originated. Whatever one imagines, Allah is completely different from that. The Creator alone deserves to be worshiped—and the ultimate objective for the human being should be to sincerely worship and obey the Creator of the universe.

Additionally—and this is a point that is not emphasized enough in the education of Muslims in the West—is the belief in Nubuwwah (Prophethood) and what that entails. A Prophet is a man who receives Divine Revelation from the Creator. Although the Prophets are human beings, they are a different class of human beings. They have an exalted mission—that is, to call people to the worship of the One, True Creator, and to guide the people on how to sincerely obey the Creator. The Prophets are all men of intelligence and integrity, wisdom and courage; they embody the best of the manly virtues.

Allah supports the Prophets with miracles—extraordinary acts that can’t be duplicated or surpassed by an opponent—so it can be known that a Prophet is genuinely a recipient of Divine Revelation. Allah, the Creator, supported Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) with numerous miracles. Some of those miracles were mass-witnessed and mass-transmitted, so there can be no doubt about their occurrence. Prophet Muhammad’s Prophethood (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) is confirmed and authenticated.

For the Muslim, his sense of right and wrong comes not from the TV, the social media, or the classroom. The basis of morality is Divine Revelation. The Creator knows about us better than we know ourselves. The Creator knows what is to our benefit and detriment in this world and in the Afterlife. It only makes sense for the human being to obey the Creator—as opposed to obeying his ever-changing whims… or the whims (or agendas) of others.

The sincere and obedient Muslim seeks to learn and live by the Sacred Law of the Creator by following the Sanctified Way (Sunnah) of the Prophet Muhammad. In doing so, he would live lead an honorable and dignified life. He would be just to others as he is just to himself. And because of his sincere obedience to the Creator, he would be well-prepared for the events that are to come during his journey into the Afterlife.

Now let us compare what Muslims believe to the worldview of the modern Leftists. As we have said, if one wants to understand something, it is wise to trace its “isnaad” (chain of transmission). Leftism stems from what is called “Liberalism” in its original sense–by “Liberalism” here, one does not mean “liberal” as in “liberal” vs. “conservative,” is understood in the USA, but liberalism stems from an ideology that was largely innovated and developed during the 1600 and 1700’s in Europe. “Liberalism” is based on the notion that the objective of life is to maximize liberty.

One has to understand the historical context in which the idea of “Liberalism” arose. In brief, for centuries Europe was under the tyranny of the Catholic-Christians and despotic kings. In 1517 Martin Luther went rogue against the Catholic Church and came up with a new movement among the Christians, called “Protestantism.” Once, Martin Luther broke away from Catholicism, a multitude of sects also went rogue and rebelled against the Catholic Church, and then those rebels even rebelled against other Protestants, which led to European Christianity splintering into numerous subsects.

These sects and subsects all held similar (invalid) core beliefs, such as, claiming an infant became the Creator of the universe—and then grew up to maturity and became a homicide victim. Almost all of them claimed that the Creator is (allegedly) three distinct entities but a single entity with some of those entities being inferior to other entities; they also claimed/claim that the Creator allegedly had an offspring, that the Creator allegedly became exhausted and took a rest, that the Creator is situated inside of Heaven—many of whom believed the Creator is a European-looking man floating around in the clouds, etc.

Since all of these sects had invalid and rationally absurd beliefs about the Creator, there was no way that any of these sects could “prove” that they were correct. This led to on-going fighting and purges of undesirable sects based upon which ever group was in a dominant position at the moment. In time, the fanaticism over a delusional doctrine waned, and this led to Europeans wanting to have less and less to do with religion—for they saw religion as something that only causes strife and bloodshed–and impeded their pursuit of the material world .

And then you add to the equation characters, like, John Locke (1632-1704), who—in his mind—came up with HIS THEORIES about “freedom,” and “liberty,” and “human rights.” …John Locke… however, was not a Prophet—nor were any of these other characters from what they call the “Era of Enlightenment.” These were guys, who had ideas in their head, about, how things should be. They had no proof for their claims—and almost without exception they did not live by what they preached. In other words, they were hypocrites who invented a mythology about the world and government… and then they viciously imposed their mythology on a large portion of the Earth by way of war, slavery, colonialism, and deceit.

Through the 1700 and 1800’s they propagated their mythology largely by subversion of the old order (of kings) by violent revolutions—with each European revolution (and the American Revolution) being a variation of the same theme. And then in the early 20^th century, perhaps the most radical of these (so-called) “liberty” ideologies manifested in Marxism and communism in Russia. The Russian Revolution and communism would eventually lead to all sorts of upheaval and the killing of TENS OF MILLIONS OF HUMAN BEINGS around the world in the 20^th century.

Much of what we see among the modern Leftists is a tweaking and rebranding of the same subversive Marxist ideology.  This is the reality of Leftism. …And this is the ideology that many people who self-identify as “Muslims” are vocally promoting and rabidly defending. Such a stance contradicts not only what the Prophet came with (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam)—Leftist ideology is also impractical and inherently self-contradictory. Bi’idhnillah, in our next segment, we will discuss some of the inconsistencies and absurdities of Leftist gibberish.

A QUOTE TO REMEMBER

It’s been said:

“When the Right has power, you start to fear for the lives of the Muslims, but when the Left has power, you start to fear for the Afterlives of the Muslims.”

CONFESSIONS OF AN EX-LEFTIST: Part 3–The Menace of the Leftists

CONFESSIONS OF AN EX-LEFTIST: Part 3–The Menace of the Leftists

Some Background

After college (and living a year in the town of Amherst), I spent most of the 90’s in Philadelphia learning Traditional Islamic knowledge, working at an Islamic elementary and middle school, and doing street-level da`wah (maa-shaa’ Allah). By and large, I voluntarily cut myself off from the outside world. Occasionally, i’d bump into folks I went to college with in the UPENN area, but other than that, I gave little concern to what was being taught in universities and Leftist politics.

One has to keep in mind the dynamics of the da`wah at the era. Much of the da`wah was geared toward African-Americans coming from the streets, or so-called Nation of Islam folks who had abandoned that organization, and a few older folks, who often had a conservative black Christian upbringing. The African-Americans, nor the recently arrived Muslim immigrants—whether they were the cab drivers, small shop owners, or university students seeking degrees in computer science, engineering, or medicine–were not likely to gravitate toward the ideology of ranting blue haired feminists or radical transgender activists.

The demographics, however, have changed. And both the children of immigrant Muslims and young African-American Muslims are much more heavily influenced by Leftist ideology than their parents. For the former, 2-Gen Muslims (second generation Muslim children of immigrants) have been assaulted by Leftist ideology, especially in the universities—and even increasingly, in the public schools. As for African-American Muslim youth, rap music tends to have a very strong grip on their minds. And the rap music has increasingly promoted a morally relativistic—or even nihilistic—worldview. (And when a person’s mind is under the influence of such values, it becomes very hard for him to recognize right from wrong and to defend Islamic values.)

By the late 1990’s and the rise of the internet, I was able to access a lot more information. And in the process, I could more readily connect the dots of what I had learned in college. It was getting clearer (especially, since having started to learn the Deen) that much of what I had learned was merely indoctrination with secular, Leftist propaganda. In the early 2000’s I left Philadelphia and eventually ended up in the South teaching and mentoring Muslim youth. My experience with them—and attending several ISNA conferences–made me realize that Muslim youth going to college would have to be prepared to defend their Faith against the doubt-inducing skepticism of the American academic system, and they would need the knowledge to fortify themselves against Leftist-Marxist ideology.

In the last decade or so, the influence of Leftist and Cultural Marxist*** ideology has grown exponentially (***Cultural Marxism is shorthand for various Leftist ideas, such as, feminism, LGBTism, anti-racism, etc.). And as result, I have tried to help give Muslim youth the tools so they can defend themselves—and to make Muslim parents of school-age children aware of what is being taught in the schools.
What about the Right?

This question comes up sometimes when Muslims warn against Leftist ideology.
As I was writing “Part One” of this series, it occurred to me that Right wing ideology was never an option in my days at college. As a black guy calling himself a Muslim, I knew that the Right did not have my best interests in mind (and i’m not saying that everyone who favors the Right over the Left—as a lesser of two evils—is guilty of the following, but there is no doubt that a substantial portion of the Right was/is driven by such). The Right was:

1. Racist and Anti-Muslim—this was known by the statements coming out of the mouths of some of those ascribing to Right wing ideology

2. Militaristic and Imperialistic—as was (back in the college days) seen with US foreign policy, Iran Contra, the attack on Panama, Gulf War One, etc.

3. Driven by corporate greed and selfishness–“capitalism” (i.e., greed) was used to justify massive imbalances of wealth, and that people should live in crushing poverty and under the iron heel of dictators so that corporate profits could be insured.

None of the above was remotely appealing to me—nor the people I associated with. And it is VERY RARE that one encounters a person who self-identifies as a “Muslim” who would claim he’s a “Right winger” (other than, again, he chooses the Right as a lesser evil over the Left).

The Danger of the Left

I think the “Left-Right” dichotomy for Muslims can best be summed up by with the quote:

“When the Right has power you start to fear for the lives of the Muslims, but when the Left has power, you start to fear for the Afterlives of the Muslims.”

By and large, the Right is not trying to force or deceive Muslims out of their Faith. The Right, and the radical Right, in particular, makes its antagonism known to Muslims, and Muslims tend to avoid such people the best they can. In the case of Leftists, they PRETEND to like Muslims—but they despise what Islam teaches.

There is a basic principle in the matters of Islamic Doctrine: whoever denies or rejects what is well-established and commonly-known to be part of Islam blasphemes. So for example, if someone denied the obligation of the five daily prayers, the existence of Paradise, the prohibition of alcohol or swine consumption, the requirement of hijab for women, etc. the person cannot be regarded as a Muslim. The reason being is that the person who does so is in essence claiming that although he knows that the Prophet Muhammad taught such, he does not believe that what the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) taught was true or correct. A person who claims such or believes such things is not a Muslim. He is a disbeliever in Islam.

When one looks at Leftist ideology, one can see that a MULTITUDE of its talking-points are contrary to what the Prophet taught (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam). The one who embraces Leftist ideology while professing to be Muslim will soon find himself (or herself) having a “crisis of faith”–or suffering from SEVERE cognitive dissonance. Islam is Islam. Leftist ideology—or secular ideology, in general—is its own ideology. On some points Leftism complies with Islam, but on many points it does not. Muslims don’t use Leftism as a standard to legitimate Islam—but rather Muslims use Islam to demonstrate the illegitimacy of Leftism.

Among the “pillars” of current Leftism is feminism and LGBTism. When a Leftist speaks of feminism, she or he is claiming that women should have the identical rights of men (that’s at least what they CLAIM). This is simply not what the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) taught. In Islam we believe in GENDER JUSTICE—but we don’t believe in gender “equality” in the sense that men and women have identical rulings in the Sacred Law. We’ve already mentioned some of those differences related to dress code, post-marital waiting periods, rules for travel, etc.

When a Muslim ignorant of the Deen and indoctrinated in Leftist ideology learns about judgments of this nature in Islam, some commit blasphemy by outright by renouncing Islam (because Islam does not uphold Leftist “values”). Others will still fall into blasphemy by having doubt in the validity of what the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) taught—even if they still call themselves Muslim. Others will claim to be “Muslim”–but insist that the Sacred Law must be “updated” to comply with this week’s standards in Western secular society.  And some will just will walk around in a cognitively dissonant state professing to be Muslim, while still holding on to Leftist ideas—apparently not recognizing the irreconcilable gulf between the two worldviews.

As for LGBTism, it is an abomination for the man to imitate the woman and for the woman to imitate the man. Whereas the Leftists regard homosexual sodomy an alleged “human right,” the Sacred Law deems it to be among the worst of the sins with prescribed punishments for those who engage in it. In the case of women’s rights—Islam insures those rights that the Creator has given women. In the case of LGBTism, the duty of the person who is afflicted with such inclinations is to resist them. A person is not sinful—nor Islamically rewarded—for the sex they were born with. We, however, are responsible for and will be judged for the behavior we choose to indulge in. In is forbidden to indulge in LGBT behavior. No one has the “right” to do a wrong. Point blank. Full stop. Period.

Lastly, Leftist ideology almost inevitably leads to atheism. When you want to understand the nature of an ideology, you have to trace its “isnad” (that is, its scholarly chain of transmission). In the case of Leftist ideology, it goes back to Marxism—and Marxism is EXPLICITLY atheistic. (It is important to note that one of the founders of “Black Lives Matter,” Patrice Cullors, says that they are trained in Marxist ideology.)

For the Marxist, the communist ideology must take priority over everything else—the people must be first and foremost devoted to the ideology and to the communist state. Of course, for a person devoted to his religion, his religion would take priority over the government—especially, when the government is imposing values and behaviors upon the people that contradict his religious values. The communists have understood this… and they have ruthlessly persecuted people of religion. The communists and Leftists have been unrelenting enemies of Islam—this has been seen historically in the Soviet Union, in the Muslim regions of Eastern Europe—and, of course, we can see it today in China.

MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of Muslims have suffered under communist regimes—an untold number of Muslim scholars have been imprisoned, tortured, and killed by these Leftists. Islamic libraries have been burned, Muslim schools closed, and masjids have been used for foul purposes because of Leftism. IT MAKES NO SENSE FOR MUSLIMS to support Leftist ideology. Yes, there are those on the radical-Right that promote the physical harm of Muslims… but history also tells us that the Leftist-extremists also have a blood-lust for Muslims… even if they pretend to like Muslims… for the time being.

In summary, the danger of Leftist ideology leads one to rejecting what the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) taught—which is kufr (blasphemy). That is bad enough in itself, but what adds to the danger of Leftism is that many Muslim are not aware that Leftists seek to destroy the Imaan (Faith) of Muslims—especially, the Imaan of vulnerable Muslim youth. Bi’idhnillah, in our final segment, we will discuss how Muslims can defend themselves from the menace of the Leftists and refute their empty-headed claims.

CONFESSIONS OF AN EX-LEFTIST (Part 2)

CONFESSIONS OF AN EX-LEFTIST (Part 2)

Deprogramming from the Leftist Cult

I think that one of the things that saved me from going completely down the path of Leftist ideology was that I was also a black nationalists (and I was calling myself a “Muslim”). Back in the day, anybody who “went hard” down the path of black nationalism would likely encounter various conspiracy theories—especially, if one read the likes of “Dr. York,” listened to Farrakhan***, or just talked with folks in the street who had been in black activism for awhile. Reading such literature—and even the mainstream stuff I was getting in Political Science courses—and having such interactions indicated that there were deeper things going on. Because of that, I kept a healthy degree of skepticism about what was being taught in the college classrooms.

Another advantage of being a black nationalist (at the time) was that I didn’t fall for the feminist Agenda completely (maa-shaa’ Allah). I’ll put it out there: I was sympathetic to feminism… but from a black nationalist perspective. Let me clarify. As a black nationalist (albeit a naive one), there was the notion that in order to build our strong black nation, we black men would have to do right by the black woman. We could not build a strong, beautiful black nation if black guys were exploiting our “Sistas.” The black woman needed to be defended and her voice heard. That was the essence of my feminist sympathies.

This, however, was not the objective of feminism. Black feminism was not about how to build a strong, beautiful black nation. Black feminism was about turning the black woman against the black man—in a war of grievance. And this could be found in the popular fiction of the time, such as, the works of Toni Morrison and Alice Walker—and then you also had your hardcore black feminists, like, bell hooks and Audre Lorde. Black feminism wasn’t about healing the wounds between black men and black women and helping black men and women work together cohesively—it was about making black women think they were not in need of black men (or men, in general). For the black feminists, female independence took priority over black unity. It was only later that I realized that much of what was driving black feminism (and mainstream feminism) was a lesbian recruitment agenda.

Religiously I was getting radicalized (although I didn’t have the proper understanding of Islam—which was the reason for getting radicalized). It was only by the Grace of Allah that I didn’t get entrapped by some alphabet-agency for doing something stupid. This radicalization is a natural extension of what happens when one is Islamically ignorant and takes Leftist ideology to its conclusion. Whether as a radically social conscious person, a black man, or as one thinking himself to be a “Muslim,” you see lots of evil and injustice in the world. You want change—and you want change immediately—and certainly don’t have any tolerance for Uncle Toms, sell-outs, wannabes—or the powers that be. This was the mindset I had when I graduated from college.

Praise Allah, it was also at that time, that I sat down and started to learn traditional Islamic knowledge—and my deprogramming and deradicalization also began. One of the first things that happened with learning Traditional Islamic knowledge was gaining clarity about the proper belief in the Creator—and the difference between genuine Sunni Islam and various misguided sects. This was done by simply doing a compare and contrast in the belief in God taught by Traditional Sunni Islam and beliefs taught by other groups. Among the misguided and extremist sects were (are) the Ikhwan (so-called “Muslim Brotherhood”) and the Wahhabis, especially, the radical-extremist among the Wahhabis (like, Al-Qaeda). These groups call for an alleged “jihad” and overthrow of governments. I learned early on that this doesn’t work Islamically. And that “revolution” and the overthrowing of governments far more often than not leads to tremendous levels of destruction and bloodshed—and that “revolution” doesn’t make thing better, but rather, attempting to overthrow governments usually makes matters significantly worse. Also, from my reading about what COINTELPRO did to the various black radical groups of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s made it pretty clear that armed revolution against the government probably wasn’t a very good idea. Praise Allah, with Traditional Islamic knowledge I was beginning to come to my senses.

Early on in a study of Traditional Islamic knowledge, it is apparent that Islam makes clear distinctions between the sexes. This is evident even to almost everyone regarding Muslim women having to wear the hijaab and the permissibility of polygyny. In my previous Leftist mindset, I could jump through mental hoops to try to reconcile such rulings with my notions of “equality.” However, the more one learned, the more one saw that there were specific rulings different for the sexes (like, the post-marital waiting period, rules related to ritual purification, spousal obligations, travel, etc.). These matters were not—as I would have said in my Leftist days–“cultural Islam”–but genuine parts of the Islamic Sacred Law.

When I learned some of these judgments (regarding different rulings for the sexes) I could feel myself reflexively cringing. I was not intentionally objecting to the rulings in the Sacred Law, but these rulings were so different from what I had been indoctrinated with on campus. Nonetheless, it was a lot easier to agree with the Islamic worldview than the Leftist one. Having gone down the Leftist path, it only leaves one feeling empty—or angry and resentful at best. There could be no peace in Leftist ideology—for there was no sense of who God was, or what was the ultimate purpose of life, or what happens to us after we die. Also, with Islam, came the sense of family stability—whereas, with feminism and Leftist ideology, there was only chaos and confusion between the sexes.

Finally, in the initial study of Traditional Islamic knowledge, was learning about the obligations and sins of the body. Even in college, I could see that one of the main reasons for disunity in the black community was a lack of moral cohesion. People could not agree upon right and wrong (much less do right and refrain from wrong). Also, when one learns about the obligations and sins of the body, it becomes clear that we are all personally responsible. In my black nationalist days, (I thought) the fundamental problem that black folks faced was racism—was “The Man.” Upon learning Traditional Islamic knowledge, racism did not disappear, but one realizes that the biggest problem black folks face isn’t racism; the biggest problem black folks face is our disobedience to the Creator. Whereas, many black nationalists–and certainly white-guilt Leftists–blamed virtually all the problems black people faced on whites and racism, Islam did not leave out the centrality of personal responsibility. With Islam, I could still speak out against racism and other social injustices—but within a just and balanced framework that never abandons high moral values and self-rectification.

In conclusion, as I learned more Traditional Islamic knowledge, I realized that Leftist ideology was simply incompatible with Islam. Furthermore, since I was starting to use Islam as my standard to evaluate the world, I could more readily see the inconsistencies and impracticality of Leftism. Whereas Islam called people to salvation by sincere obedience to the Creator of the Universe, Leftism was merely a call to envy and resentment and the pursuit of perishing worldly political power. By the Mercy of Allah, the choice between the two was easy.

Bi’idhnillah, in Part Three, we will discuss the dangers of Leftist ideology and how to refute it from an Islamic standpoint.

***Neither “Dr. York” nor Louis Farrakhan hold the beliefs of Muslims.  This is a video explaining the difference between Islam and Farrakhanism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYcVhf2Npk4

CONFESSIONS OF AN EX-LEFTIST (Part 1)

CONFESSIONS OF AN EX-LEFTIST (Part 1)

I’ve been wanting to do this for awhile. There several reasons, which I will discuss in more detail later, in-shaa’ Allah. In brief, many Muslims have no idea or greatly underestimate the threat that Leftist ideology poses to the Deen. Many Muslims—even if they are aware of the danger—are not equipped to refute Leftist ideology (especially, within the Leftist framework). And many Muslims are adopting Leftist talking points—while failing to realize that such talking points are contrary to what the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) taught.

My Journey into Leftist Ideology

It was in my senior year of high school that I had a teacher, a big rugby playing guy of German descent, who introduced me to Marxist/socialist thought. I grew up in a small city—which was not known for its academic pursuits. His class, however, was the beginning of a brain dead person’s intellectual awakening. The main takeaways from the course was the issue of social class and the concentration of wealth. As for race, although he may have over-simplified matters, he basically said that race was used to keep the poor and working class divided so they could not unite in opposition to the wealthy. Although he was a socialist, he wasn’t anything like the stereotypical whining and crying (so-called) “social justice warrior” of our time.

After high school, I went to community college, and flirted with more “liberal” ideas, and I did have a professor that made me more class conscious—but this was nothing extreme. I later transferred to a small very liberal Liberal Arts college (Amherst College)—in a town and area with a large university and many hippy-types, academics, and political activists. The studies of class and race and feminism at Amherst were far beyond what I had learned in the summaries of the “Western canon” in community college.

I was pretty much hooked on Leftist ideology after a semester in the classroom, debates in the dining halls, and late night “deep discussions” in the dorms. Although, the one thing that I never gravitated to was the LGB ideology (back then, they only had appropriated three letters of the alphabet). To me and my provincial Springfield sensibilities, it seemed BIZARRE that there would actually be people out in public proudly claiming to be homosexuals—and even advocating homosexual political activism.

At the beginning of the summer break, I read, The Autobiography of Malcolm X. This was the beginning of what I could call a “radical race consciousness,” for Malcolm’s description of the black plight made far more sense than anything else I had ever read about the black condition. From Malcolm, I went into the radical socialist/communist influenced groups, like, the Black Panther Party. It wasn’t long thereafter that I realized that if black people wanted to reform their condition, it couldn’t be just by redistribution of wealth, the ballot box, or political revolution. There had to be a spiritual component. Around this time, I also befriended a person who deemed himself to be a Muslim (but he was not learned in Islam). From what I was reading of the literature available at the time, it seemed that Islam was the perfect template for the black revolution that I was envisioning.

This led me to saying the Declaration of Faith (without proper understanding of its meaning) and calling myself a “Muslim”–although I readily had to admit that I was confused about what I believed. Because I thought myself to be a “Muslim”–but I had my head filled with a WHOLE LOT of Leftist ideology and assumptions about how the world should be, I quickly found myself trying reconcile Islam with my Leftist indoctrination.

Especially when it came to women’s issues, and to a lesser extent issues like “democracy,” I found it hard to reconcile my Leftist sympathies with what Islam taught. The answer was “obvious” in my mind (at the time): Islam would have to be modified and modernized to comply with prevailing Leftist sentiments.*** (***However, to change the rulings in the Religion—to deem the forbidden to be permissible or to deem the permissible to be forbidden would entail rejecting what the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) taught—and doing so is disbelief and apostasy/riddah.) This is the grave danger of Leftist ideology.

At the time, I was not even aware of the matter of kufr (disbelief) and apostasy, and how what I was advocating leads to negating the Prophethood of Muhammad (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam). My ideas of “Islamic revisionism” were merely in compliance with many of the academic books I was reading that were purportedly about “Islam.” And my revisionism conformed with my already held Leftist convictions. I thought my revisionist ideas would be a “service” to the Ummah.

In retrospect, the problem I had here (among others) was that I did not understand the concept of Nubuwwah (the Islamic understanding of Prophethood). A Prophet is a man who receives Divine Revelation from the Creator. Prophets are intelligent and wise, and they are truthful and trustworthy, and they convey all of that which they were ordered to convey from the Creator. The Muslim believes that Prophet Muhammad is a genuine Prophet. He demonstrated his Prophethood by performing numerous miracles—some of which were mass witnessed and mass transmitted through the centuries. As a result of Prophet Muhammad’s Prophethood being confirmed, that means that whatever the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) informed us about the Sacred Law, we must accept—for the Sacred Law is from the Creator and is necessarily superior to the laws and values that some human beings may invent.

God-willing, in Part Two, I will discuss how I got myself deprogrammed from the insidious effects of Leftist ideology (praise be to Allah).

FOR THE BENEFIT: An Islamic Framework for Addressing Racism

FOR THE BENEFIT: An Islamic Framework for Addressing Racism

(A response to a question about Malcolm X, Islam, and racism)

Islam gives people a framework to deal with racism. European Christianity was taught to people simultaneously with white supremacy. The European missionaries brought with them the images of who they deemed to be “Jesus” and an old white man in the clouds whom they deemed to be “God.” At least subconsciously, the various non-white people who embraced Christianity would feel that whites were inherently superior to them (because these white people (allegedly) “looked like God”–of course, God is, in reality, not similar to anything).

An observation from the 19th century Afro-Caribbean missionary, Edward Blyden:

“The Christian Negro is abnormal in his development, pictures God and all beings remarkable for their moral and intellectual qualities with the physical characteristics of Europeans, and deems it an honor if he can approximate–-by a mixture of his blood, however, irregularly achieved–-in outward appearance, at least, to the ideal thus forced upon him of the physical accompaniments of all excellence. In this way he loses that ‘sense of dignity of human nature’ observable in his Mohammedan [Muslim] brother.”

Also, the Europeans were very keen to mention that they were (allegedly) superior on the basis of their skin tone. Furthermore, white racism was reinforced by Charles Darwin and the notion of “evolution”–and according to that theory, whites were the last people to (allegedly) evolve, and this made them superior to the “lesser evolved” non-whites.

With Islam, we assert that the status of the human being is based upon creed and deeds. A person should believe properly in the Creator and not ascribe unbefitting attributes to Allah or ascribe partners to Allah. Allah is the One and Only Creator. The Creator does not need or resemble the creations.  Whatever you imagine in your mind, the Creator is different from that.  The Creator alone deserves to be worshiped.

As Muslims, we don’t worship statues or images–whether those images are in drawings and paintings or images in our minds. We know that there is no person or thing that is similar to Allah. Allah can’t be imagined. Furthermore, we have from the Sunnah of the Prophet EXPLICIT condemnation of racism. For one, humanity has a common origin in Prophet Adam and Lady Eve.  Our origin isn’t from ape-like creatures in Africa.  Rather, the origin of humanity is from beyond the stars–yet, we are created (in part) with the humble soil of the earth.  The Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) spoke highly of the King of Ethiopia. A black African woman (Sumayyah) was the first female martyr of this Ummah. Her son (`Ammar) was the commander of a Muslim army appointed by the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) that had Caliphs in it.

Of course, there is Bilal–and there was Zayd Ibn Harithah, a dark-skinned person, who was regarded for years as “the [adopted] son of Muhammad” (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam). Praise Allah, we have the framework to fix the racial problem–the challenge now is overcoming the ignorance and cultural hang-ups that are stopping us from following that which the Prophet taught (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam).

FOR THE BENEFIT: Clarifying Wahhabi Induced Doubts

FOR THE BENEFIT: Clarifying Wahhabi Induced Doubts

This was a response to a person struggling with doubts raised as a result of reading so-called “Salafi” material.

1. One is not accountable for the thoughts that involuntarily arise in the mind.  It seems that this is a case of waswas (satanic suggestions).  The shayateen will whisper ugly thoughts to a person.  The person needs to ignore them.  Keep your mind occupied with something useful.

2. The Sunni Way is NOT to take all the Verses and Hadiths literally (as you mentioned).  Even the so-called Salafis don’t take all the Verses of the Qur’an literally.  What helps in all of this is to stick with the rule: “Whatever you imagine in your mind, Allah is different from that.”

3. As for directionality and place, they are inapplicable to Allah.  The Prophet (sallallahu  `alayhi wasallam) said what means:  [O, Allah] You are ADH-DHaahir and there is nothing above You.  And You are Al-BaaTin and there is nothing below You.”  This is related in Muslim, and Al-Bayhaqiyy explained that this Hadith is a proof that Allah exists without a place (since there is nothing above nor beneath Allah, place (and direction) can’t be applied to Allah).

Similarly, At–Tahawiyy, in his famous `Aqidah–which is stated in the text to be and is regarded by the Sunnis as the Sunni Creed–said: “None of the six directions contain Allah, as is the case with all the originated beings.”

As was mentioned before, the “Aboveness” (`Uluww) of Allah is a matter of status–and not that of literal direction.  One might say (in English) about a righteous Muslim: “He’s above drinking alcohol,”–meaning, that drinking alcohol is beneath his status; he wouldn’t do such a bad thing.  It would not be understood that this is in reference to the physical location of the person and the alcohol.  You have to keep in mind that it is possible (and is the case) that a person might misunderstand or intentionally misinterpret a Verse or Hadith.  The rational proofs can’t be misinterpreted.

• Allah is the Creator
• Allah existed before the creations
• There was no light or darkness, distance or direction, time or place

THEREFORE: Allah is Perfect, and after Allah originated the creations, Allah did not change from what He was.  Allah did not transform, become a spatial entity, and materialize in a location or direction.  (As Allah existed before places without a place, Allah will always exist without being in a place (or direction)).

Also, if a person says that Allah is literally situated above the `Arsh, that would entail ascribing a limit and size to Allah.  Limit and size are INAPPLICABLE to Allah.  Just as if one were asked about a chair: “Is it a ‘happy’ or ‘sad’ chair?” You would say: “Neither–because emotions don’t apply to a chair.”    Similarly, limits, size, and directions are inapplicable to Allah (because Allah ABSOLUTELY does not resemble the creations). If Allah were (allegedly) above, then Allah would not be below–that is, He would be some sort of spatial entity with limits.  Again, limits are inapplicable and directions are inapplicable to the One Who created all limits and directions (as At-Tahawiyy and the Prophet himself mentioned).

4. All of Allah’s Attributes are Beginningless.  The Kalaam of Allah is Beginningless.  A voice–by definition–involves sounds, sounds that come in succession.  If something comes in succession, that means that one sound came after the other sound.  That which comes AFTER could not be beginningless.  It would be originated, and the originated can’t be Beginningless.  As you can see, you will encounter A LOT of bad books and websites filled with all sorts of misguided statements, misinterpretations, and outright fabrications and lies.  If you stick with the fundamentals, it will go a LONG way in protecting the person (bi’idhnillah).

5. As for the Isra‘, it means that when the Prophet was above the `Arsh, Allah empowered Prophet Muhammad to see Allah–without Allah having size, form, color, light, or dimensions. When the Muslims are in Paradise, Allah will empower the Believers to see Him–without Allah  having a size, shape, form, direction, mass, location. It does not mean that Allah will be inside of Paradise, or adjacent to it, or near it.  It happens to be that when the Muslims are in Paradise–in that location–Allah creates in the Muslims the ability to see the One (Allah) Who absolutely does not resemble anything in any way whatsoever. Likewise, when Prophet Musa was on Mount Sinai, Allah EMPOWERED Musa to understand the Kalaam of Allah.  It does not mean that Allah was close to (or far from) the Earth.  Prophet Musa did not hear a sound or a voice or talking.  This was a special honor that Allah granted Prophet Musa and cannot be fathomed by the mind.

6. Lastly, if a person believes that Allah is in a location or literal direction, then he has to reject that belief, and be firm that place/direction are both created and Allah ABSOLUTELY does not need or resemble the creations–AND he has to say the Shahadah immediately to come to Islam.  As for the satanic suggestions, the way to deal with it is to apply the formula:

“If someone were to ask me: ‘Does Allah have eyes, feet, face, or a size, or a location?’–then what would my answer be?”  Your answer is a DEFINITE, “NO!”  That answer IS your conviction.  If the shaytan tries to tell you that you believe otherwise or that you doubted in the proper Belief, you have to ignore it, reject it, and tell yourself: “I believe in Allah and His Messenger.”  Don’t allow yourself to engage in internal mental debates over these issues.  The shaytan can’t read your mind, but he will try to read body language and keep bothering you for a while, but then, he will see that he can’t bother you and the disturbances will subside (in-shaa’ Allah).

I would add that physical exercise is TREMENDOUSLY BENEFICIAL in helping one deal with depression and the satanic suggestions. Even if you just start by walking and getting some sunshine. You can do very basic exercise at home. It doesn’t need to be anything fancy or exhausting. The main thing is to get started and stay consistent (in-shaa’ Allah).

If you have more questions, feel free to ask, in-shaa’ Allah.

FOR THE BENEFIT: Dealing with Racism

FOR THE BENEFIT: Dealing with Racism

***This is a response to someone talking about race and racism among Muslims.***

I get the sentiment [about making derogatory statements about European/”white” people]–TOTALLY. But i think in common parlance, when people (meaning, Muslims in the West, and perhaps, African-American Muslims, in particular) use the term “white people,” they mean it interchangeably with white kuffaar (meaning, people from the Western European Crusader legacy). They don’t mean observant “white” Muslims from Bosnia or Albania or Chechniya. And, of course, they don’t mean that fair-skinned people of Western European descent can’t become Muslims.

 

Likewise, i saw something recently on FB where African-American Muslims were objecting to having to feel (i.e., being told) by Immigrant Muslims they must choose between being “black” and being Muslim. What the Immigrants typically mean when they say “black,” they mean black kaafir culture.  In most the the US, the OVERWHELMING number of African-Americans an Immigrant Muslim is likely to encounter are not going to be Muslims.

 

I think that many folks from the outside don’t understand the complexity of “race” and identity in the US (as it pertains to “white” and “black” people–and it gets more complicated when speaking about the various Latino groups). These discussions need to be had. Not talking about them isn’t going to make the problems go away. And if we don’t talk about them, they will cause frustration and resentment–and deviant people and groups will have those discussions, and they will win more people into their camps. If you want to give da`wah in the USA you HAVE TO talk about “race”/identity. If anyone doubts this, then just look at the protests/riots.

 

What i would suggest is that folks shift the focus of their identity to that of Belief (Islam) from that of “race.”

1. It has to be made clear that American notions of “race” are not universal–and they have changed over the past couple of hundred years in this country. Not everyone believes in the one-drop rule–and the one-drop rule isn’t even applied consistently in the US (like, people of at least partial Native American extraction from Mexico aren’t simply regarded as “Native Americans” who happen to speak Spanish).

2. Notions of “race” become even more confusing when one travels outside of the country.  And American notions of race will continue to change with the large influx of Latino immigrants and exogamy (people marrying–or at least having children–with people of different “races” and ethnicities).

 

3.  The idea of “race” in the US has largely been subverted by the extreme Left, and they are using “race” to promote their own Narrative–which does not lead people toward obedience to their Lord. Muslims should have a counter to the Leftist Narrative.

 

4. If we make Belief the basis of our identity, then we can “leap-frog” a lot of this race-mess. Our standard is Islam. Our cultural norms should comply with the Sacred Law and Sunnah. If our (ethnic) culture has elements that oppose the Sacred Law and Sunnah, then they should be abandoned and condemned. Our Muslim culture should be positive and EMPOWER us to be more obedient to Allah, and to protect and promote the interests of the Muslims. And anyone who seeks to obey Allah has to know that racism is haraam–and that it is a “bad look” and an impediment for people seeking to investigate Islam.

 

Lastly, when Islam is made the center of one’s identity, it enables one to be less sensitive about racism, because Islam and–not race–is the foundation of one’s identity. That doesn’t mean that one accepts racism–it’s just that he doesn’t feel debilitated or “triggered” by a racist remark or behavior (or what he may perceive as such), because his (or her) “race” isn’t the core of who he is. And he understands that racism isn’t so much his problem as it is the one who is infected by it.  Our Islam takes precedence over our “race.”   In striving for Piety, it inherently entails enjoining the good and forbidding the evil.  Consequently, we must promote the good of  Muslim solidarity and condemn the evil of racism to become Pious.  When Piety is our priority, by the Grace of Allah, we can transcend racism and the other diseases of the heart and attain victory in this life and the Hereafter..

 

FOR THE BENEFIT: What Can Be Done to Oppose Racism?

FOR THE BENEFIT: What Can Be Done to Oppose Racism?

A person asked about what she and her daughter can do to help oppose racism.

RESPONSE: The first principle in opposing racism  is to remember the saying of the Prophet:

قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَنْظُرُ إِلَى صُوَرِكُمْ وَأَمْوَالِكُمْ وَلَكِنْ يَنْظُرُ إِلَى قُلُوبِكُمْ وَأَعْمَالِكُمْ

which means: “Allah does not judge you according to your forms (appearances) or wealth. But rather Allah judges you according to your hearts and your deeds.”

In addition to the above, the person should acquire the Fard-`Ayn knowledge. This is the body of Religious knowledge that every Muslim is required to learn. This is includes the knowledge of Creed, worship, transactions, sins and obligations of the body–so that the person can understand what one needs to do to be obedient to Allah.

When a person is well-rooted in the above knowledge, it will be easier for the person to use the Religion as his/her frame of reference for what is right and wrong. They will be able to judge things properly (in-shaa’ Allah).  And this will protect them from being easily manipulated by ignorant or misguided people.

As for racism in particular, we have to examine our hearts and be careful–and remind ourselves that the status of the human being isn’t based upon skin color or “race.” We will not be judged in the Hereafter because of our complexion or physical features. We will be judged by Allah for what we did and believed.

As we need awareness of the illness of racism, we also need to let other Muslims know that racism is not going to be tolerated. Racism is a major sin–and it is a cause of MANY of the problems Muslims face today around the world.

In summary, the way to oppose racism is in learning the Religion, practicing it, and sincerely sharing it with others–by word and deed

FOR THE BENEFIT: Race Matrix Reflections–A Response to a “White” Convert

A Response to a “White” Convert

(Regarding immigrants coming to the US seeking a “better” life)

1. By itself, there isn’t anything wrong wanting to live a better material life. But all things in this world have a price. Seeking material comfort as an end in itself makes the human being weak. More often than not, a person will fall into many sins in the pursuit of such comfort (consider the Arab-owned corner stores in the hood, for example).

 

2. If *you* [*generic “you”*] are a white preservationists, who wants his granddaughter to have white babies, how does it benefit you to try to come to grips with the history of American society? How would you reconcile claiming the US was a land based upon freedom–while those same people were selling slaves and engaged in the ruthless eradication of native peoples?  The history of the USA is one long mythology that would generate cognitive dissonance to anyone who would believe the mythology.  To avoid such cognitive dissonance, it’s just easier for (such) people not to think about it.

 

3. In Shar`, this is regarded as a Christian land–and it was Christianized by people regarded themselves as “white”–and they made their “whiteness” abundantly clear to everyone else they dealt with. As for the Native American tribes, they were conquered by the Europeans, and they lost their lands–just as those Natives had conquered other Native Americans before the European invasion. Moral of the story: If you want to keep your stuff–don’t be weak.

 

4. Of course, in the these discussions, i am speaking from the point of view of the white preservationists. To simplify, you have “whites” who do want to have a reconciliation and at least in their mind have a more just and equitable society–and then you have those “whites” who want their granddaughters to have “white” babies.

 

Regarding the former, in principle, they aren’t wrong–but they have no Islamic guidance. And the Social-Subversives exploit their feelings of guilt and shame (and their desires to follow sinful inclinations uninhibited). Such “whites”, many of whom perhaps are kinda well-meaning, just end up being “Useful-Idiots”–and dangerous to Muslims (because they end up advocating matters that oppose Islam).

 

As for the white-preservationists, they (at least many of them) understand that their culture and society is being surreptitiously subverted, and they are trying to resist it. Their problem, however, is that they made their “whiteness” the core of their identity–and as a result, everyone else is an existential threat. This feeds into an extreme pride, arrogance, and a racism that is a requisite for their very survival–and all of this makes it difficult for them to be fair to others… and worse, it makes it extremely difficult for them to embrace Islam. Nonetheless, this doesn’t mean that Muslims should not present their concerns accurately and speak to their concerns (without being naive).

 

5. The answer to this mess is simple. The honest and sincere person (of whatever skin tone), will want to know the proper Belief in their Creator and how to worship and obey their Creator. And the one who abides by that knows that “race” isn’t what ultimately distinguishes people–but rather, it is Imaan and Piety.

 

 

For the Benefit: A Refutation of Elijah Muhammad

FOR THE BENEFIT

A Refutation of Elijah Muhammad

Among the hideous blasphemies propagated by Eli Poole (known to some as “Elijah Muhammad”) is the claim that the Blackman is Allah (a`udhu billah from such a hideous claim). In one of his books, I saw it said that Eli claimed that there are “millions of Allahs” (a`udhu billah)!

First, it is common knowledge that Muslims say that Allah is One. This means that Allah has no partners–no one is the Creator except Allah. Allah is One–Allah is Unique with no similar (in any way whatsoever). Allah is One and is not composed–that is, Allah is not composed of parts, pieces, or dimensions. Allah does not have a size or occupy space. Allah does not have a form or shape. Whatever one imagines, the Creator is ABSOLUTELY different from that.

The aforementioned aside–and the fact that the human beings (whatever their “race” may be) are by their very nature dependent (in the least, dependent upon space to occupy)–the Nation ideology has a GLARING internal contradiction.

The Nation claims the Blackman is God. But there are hundreds of millions of black men who say they are NOT GOD. So the Nation-Nut is stuck with either claiming (a`udhu billah) that these hundreds of millions of black men don’t know that they are God… or that they  know that they are actually God (allegedly)… but lie by denying that they are God. In conclusion, the Nation-Nut is left with claiming that either God is ignorant of being God–or that God is a liar about not being God (A`UDHU BILLAHI MIN DHAALIK!!!). Either claim is an atrocious blasphemy on their part.

When a person abandons the use of reason, they fall into a morass of contradictions and absurdities. And the worse of contradictions and absurdities is to reject the Oneness and Perfection of God and believe that the Creator is somehow/somewhat similar to the creations.

FOR THE BENEFIT: A Response to a Curious Neo-Pagan

FOR THE BENEFIT: A Response to a Curious Neo-Pagan

When i was in the seeking phase, i did quite a bit of dabbling into New Age literature, yoga/meditation (even considered going in for TM–Maharishi’s “Transcendental Meditation). I was also curious about Ancient Egyptian culture/religion and had some interests in West African traditional religions–and i was curious about the paranormal, in general.

What made Islam standout for me was first and foremost, the belief in One, Perfect Creator. The Creator ABSOLUTELY does not need or resemble the creations; the Creator is not a material being or a spiritual being. The Creator cannot be imagined. The Creator alone deserves to be worshiped.  This all made perfect sense to me.

Also, Islam recognizes the existence of the paranormal. Much of the paranormal is simply the workings of the jinn. So unlike the hard-line skeptics, atheists, and materialists who deny things, like, sorcery, ET’s, spirit possession, etc., Islam accepts these things as being real–but these entities (the jinn) don’t deserve worship, and the ability to cast spells does not prove spiritual guidance (quite the contrary).

In summary, the rationally consistent belief in the Creator and  Islam’s recognition of the “ghayb” (unseen dimensions)–plus, the world-transforming influence of Prophet Muhammad made me choose and remain with Islam (by Allah’s Grace and Guidance).

 

FOR THE BENEFIT (Regarding the Attributes of Allah)

FOR THE BENEFIT (Regarding the Attributes of Allah)

This can be a delicate subject for some, but i will try to make it easy to understand (bi’idhnillah).

PRINCIPLE #1 The Creator ABSOLUTELY does not need or resemble the creations (3:96/42:11)

—Hence, Allah is clear of all dimensionality, size, and what is related to that (such as, location, motion, stillness, etc.)

PRINCIPLE #2 The Qur’an does not contradict itself. And the True Belief in the Creator is free of absurdities and contradictions

PRINCIPLE #3 The Qur’an contains Muhkam Verses (which are the unambiguous Verses and they are the foundation of the Book). And the Qur’an contains Mutashaabih Verses (“non-literal” Verses which are understood from the Muhkam Verses)

PRINCIPLE #4 We affirm what Allah attributed to Himself in the Qur’an–that is, what Allah revealed IN THE ARABIC LANGUAGE with the firm understanding that terms, such as, `Ayn, Yad, and Wajh are not understood in their literal linguistic level. (These words have a multitude of meanings in the Arabic language.) It would be absurd for one to claim, for instance, that Allah has a literal “face” but that literal face is not the front part of the head. (If the person thinks that Allah has a literal face, then he has deemed God to be a spatial entity and has deemed God to be somewhat similar to and in need of the creations (the least of which being having a size and requiring space). If the person says that this alleged literal face is not the front part of the head–then he has rejected the literal meaning of the term, “face.”)

What one can do is affirm the Attributes of Allah IN ARABIC–while negating any similarity or need for the creations. Or one can follow the method of INTERPRETING* terms, such as, `Ayn, Yad, Wajh, etc. in a manner that is clear from tajseem and tashbeeh (that is, the misconception that Allah is a spatial entity or otherwise similar to the creations). *That is, he follows what the Sunni scholars said about such Verses and Hadiths.

***The crucial rule is to be firm that any Verse (or Hadith) that may linguistically give a person the impression that Allah is, for example, physically everywhere or inside our throats, in the direction of the Ka`bah, situated above our heads, or an illumination in the skies and on earth, jogging, becoming the hands and feet of the pious, beneath us in prostration, etc.–or has ocular organs, a tibia, a smiling face, etc. should not be taken literally. Such Verses and Hadiths have a meaning other than their apparent meaning (or a meaning contrary to what some people may claim).***

SOME COMMENTS ABOUT KUFR AND TAKFEER

SOME COMMENTS ABOUT KUFR AND TAKFEER

I wanted to address this topic recently because of the confusion surrounding this topic.  This is a brief summary, and bi’idhnillah, I will try to elaborate some more in the future.

In short, a Muslim must know that there is a distinction between Imaan (True Belief/Faith) and kufr (disbelief/blasphemy). To protect oneself—especially at this time of great turmoil, ignorance, and confusion—from falling into kufr and to be able to discern kufr from True Faith, one needs to understand the rules related thereto. When one knows the general rules pertaining to kufr, the matter of takfeer becomes clear. Kufr can be classified into three categories.

1. TA`TEEL (Denial): It is kufr to deny any of the Attributes of Allah that Allah is necessarily known to be attributed with (such as, Existence, Oneness, Eternality, Knowledge, Power, Will, Absolute Non-Neediness, etc.). If a person denied any of these Attributes, he would be ignorant of who Allah is—and, in reality, he would not be worshiping Allah. Hence, such a person could not be deemed a Muslim. We would HAVE TO make takfeer on such a person.

2. TASHBEEH (Resemblance): It is kufr to resemble Allah to the creations—whether one does it explicitly or implicitly. By explicit resemblance to the creations, we have groups, like, the so-called “Nation of Islam,” which claims that God is a real live human being and could not be other than a human being.

Implicit resemblance would be more in line with what the Wahhabis (so-called Salafis) claim. They will BY THEIR TONGUE say that Allah does not resemble the creations, but they ascribe a size, form, location, direction, motion, spatial establishment, literal tibia, eyes, fingers, face, etc. to Allah. Now the Wahhabis will say that Allah’s alleged eyes, fingers, motion, etc. are not like that of the creations, but body parts, movement, and being situated in a direction or location are by their very nature related to that which is temporal and originated. The Wahhabis resemble Allah to the creations—although most probably do not realize it. Nonetheless, they fall into kufr, for in reality, when they worship a form and something situated in a direction, they are worshiping other than Allah.

(N.B. Allah existed BEFORE the creations, and THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE IN EXISTENCE. Allah was before the creations, and there was no light, darkness, distance, direction, or location—and after Allah originated the creations, Allah did not transform from what He was into something else and materialize inside of a place or direction. Change, itself, is originated, and anything that changes is a creation. The Creator changes THE CREATIONS, but the Creator DOES NOT CHANGE.)

3. TAKDHEEB (Belying or Rejecting). It is kufr to deny, reject, or belittle that which Allah has revealed. A Muslim is not a person who only believes in the Oneness and Perfection of the Creator—he (or she) must also believe in the Prophethood of Muhammad (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam). Believing that Muhammad is a Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) means that the person accepts ALL THAT WHICH HE CONVEYED FROM ALLAH. This includes the knowledge about the previous nations, the events of the Hereafter, and the Sacred Law.

It is not possible for the person to be a Muslim and also reject what the Prophet taught. Hence, if a person knowingly rejected matters that are well-known to be part of the Deen, then such a person commits kufr. So, for instance, if the person denied (or belittled) matters, such as, the obligatory prayer, using the siwaak, the hijaab for women, the prohibition of alcohol, fornication, sodomy, thievery, consuming swine, etc., then this person has committed kufr—for, in essence, they are rejecting the validity of what Allah revealed and the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) conveyed. And again, the person can’t be a “Muslim” who knowingly rejects what the Prophet came with. And we cannot hesitate on the kufr of the one who knowingly rejects what the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) taught.

In summary, if a person rejects the Shahadah or its implications, then the person is not a Muslim. One must believe in Allah PROPERLY and one must believe in ALL the Prophets properly. To protect ourselves from kufr we must learn—and we need to educate others. May Allah grant us the tawfeeq.

Feminism: A Menace to the Ummah

Feminism: A Menace to the Ummah

One of the greatest threats to the well-being of the Faith of Muslims, especially, Muslim youth, in the West is Leftist ideology. One of the pillars of Leftist ideology is feminism. It is a dangerous ideology, for its objective—as is stated by its leaders—is to foment discord in the family and subvert the society (see quotes below). And even more dangerous than that is that feminism—by its very nature—leads to rejecting what the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) taught. And the one who rejects what the Prophet taught can’t be regarded as a Muslim.

(N.B. In THIS post, I am not addressing the GENUINE problems that extend from men failing to give women their deserved rights and issues of men abusing women. In this post I am dealing with the deviant IDEOLOGY of feminism. Bi’idhnillah, I will address the other issues in a forthcoming post.)

How we frame matters is most important. Many Muslims (naively) allow the Leftist to frame the discourse about women’s rights (or other matters). They fail to realize how their framing (i.e., the framing of the Leftists) is Religiously dangerous. Also, they fail to scrutinize the false premises of Leftist dogma and its inconsistencies.

Feminism allegedly (or at least the stated claims of the feminists—the feminists don’t actually believe in their claims) is:

1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes (Merriam-Webster)

In REALITY the feminists don’t believe in political, economic, and social, equality of the sexes. Rather they believe in “selective ‘equality’”–when convenient for their subversive objectives. The feminists don’t believe in “equal-equality.” In Islam, the idea of “equality” (as the feminists/Lefitsts understand it) is not what the Religion teaches. Islam is promotes JUSTICE—not “equality.” Even Aristotle understood the absurdity of “equality” when he said:

“The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.”

Does any Muslim devoted to bettering himself or herself seek to be “equal” to an alcoholic, gambling addicted, lying, perverted, thieving, devil worshiping, dope fiend? We are commanded, rather, to strive to excel each other in virtuousness. We don’t seek to be “equal” to the lowest elements of the society.

Islam enjoins GENDER JUSTICE—not gender “equality.” There are many naive Muslimahs, who refer to themselves as “feminists”–presumably not realizing the UTTER incompatibility of Islam with feminism—as per its very definition mentioned above. Islam does NOT promote political equality. In the Sacred Law, the Caliph must be a man. As for economics, men are OBLIGATED to support their spouses and children (women are not); men receive a greater share of the inheritance; men must pay a dowry—women do NOT pay a dowry (in the Western tradition, the reverse was true). Socially, men

and women have different rulings—polygyny and dress codes being among the most evident. From the aforementioned, the Muslimah who calls herself a “feminist” is going to suffer from a SEVERE case of cognitive dissonance. Feminism CLAIMS to promote “equality”… Islam does NOT promote “equality”–as per the understanding of feminism.

Which is it going to be? The Prophet for the Muslims of this era is Muhammad Ibn `Abdullah. It is from him (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) that we derive our guidance and our moral scope regarding what is right and wrong—what is just and unjust. We believe he is the LAST of the Prophets, and his Sacred Law is not abrogated and remains in effect until the end of this world. For the feminists, they get their moral scope and “law” from the likes of Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, bell hooks, and Andrea Dworkin. What the Prophet taught and what the feminists teach are mutually exclusive.

This is your brain on feminism:

“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” (so said Andrea Dworkin) We OBVIOUSLY don’t take our Deen from such people.

The sincere Muslim can’t serve two masters. Either she (or he) follows the Way of Guidance—or the way of deviance. Furthermore, the ideology of feminism promotes the emasculation and alienation of men. Feminism promotes the hatred of men. And by (un)natural extension it promotes the hatred of Islam and the rejection of Prophethood.

As with falsehood in general, refuting feminism isn’t difficult—once one cuts through the bias, emotional language. Firstly, don’t let them get away with using terms, like “justice” and “rights” and “equality.” Muslims understand that justice entails obeying the Creator—as per the Sacred Laws revealed to Prophet Muhammad. What complies with the Sacred Law is just—what does not is unjust.

As for rights, human beings have rights—that were given to them by their Lord. We do not have a “right” to do a wrong. We do not have the “right” to disobey the One Who created us. Our “rights” aren’t based upon subjective, ever-changing standards—like, the case is with feminism. Our rights are known from what the Creator revealed to Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) and what he conveyed, As for equality….

Well, secondly, you throw their argument back on themselves and show how they don’t genuinely want what they advocate. A few examples: if the feminists believe in “equality,” then why don’t they promote men engaging in various female sports, like, the women’s MMA, the WNBA, or on the professional tennis circuit? Equality means “equality.” Either you are all in for it, or you are (hypocritically) not (that is, for the feminists).

Why aren’t feminists advocating for men to have at least comparable parity in child custody cases? Why is it that in the OVERWHELMING number of child custody cases, the women get primary custody of the children? Why is it that a woman can abort a child that the man wants to have—but the man is obligated to support a child that he doesn’t? (Here, I am not talking about the ruling in the Sacred Law—anyway, this wouldn’t apply in the case of fornication/illegitimacy.)

If the feminists believe that men having their own spaces is such a bad thing—then why don’t the feminists promote gender desegregation of the American prison system? Why not house men and women together in the same prisons… and in the same cells? Wouldn’t that save money (theoretically speaking)? This is what genuine “equality” would look like… but feminists don’t want: “equality”—they want something else….

Thirdly, Muslims believe that following the Sacred Law is for our benefit in this temporary world and the everlasting world of the Afterlife. Now juxtapose that with feminism. Feminism—in the words of its proponents—is a da`wah (“invitation”) to discord in the family and over-turning the social order. It is not a call to establish greater family and social harmony—but rather a call to over-turning the family and the society. Furthermore, how does feminism benefit the person after death? What will an angry atheistic feminist have to show for herself when the Angel of Death comes to snatch her soul? Feminism is a call to bitterness and isolation in this world—and utter ruination in the Hereafter.

Some quotes from leading feminist thinkers. It should be BEYOND CLEAR that many of these people suffered from various psychological issues. They simply want to lure more women into their pit of misery.

RADICAL FEMINIST QUOTES

It was said:

“Radical feminist theorists do not seek to make gender a bit more flexible, but to eliminate it. They are gender abolitionists, and understand gender to provide the framework and rationale for male dominance. In the radical feminist approach, masculinity is the behaviour of the male ruling class and femininity is the behaviour of the subordinate class of women. Thus gender can have no place in the egalitarian future that feminism aims to create.” –Sheila Jeffreys, Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism

I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them. –Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor

The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. –Linda Gordon

Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage. –Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race. –Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future – If There Is One – Is Female

If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. –Mary Daly

Women have their faults / men have only two: / everything they say / everything they do. –Popular Feminist Graffiti

From Andrea Dworkin

I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig. Andrea Dworkin

Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Andrea Dworkin

Childbearing is glorified in part because women die from it.

Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.

Only when manhood is dead – and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it – only then will we know what it is to be free.

The Guiding Creed: Lessons 4-6

 

 

Please watch, share, like, and subscribe.

In this lesson, human will is discussed.

 

In lesson 5, we discuss the difference between genuine Sufism and some of the beliefs and practices of the pseudo (false) Sufis.

 

In this lesson, we discuss the sources of knowledge as understood in the Islamic tradition.

Intellectual Self-Defense for Muslims (Part 1)

Intellectual Self-Defense for Muslims (Part 1)

Over the past several weeks, i have been reading websites and watching videos attempting to attack Islam.  In many cases, the responses of those claiming to represent Islam have been weak and wholly inadequate.  Also, many Muslim youth are in jeopardy in the face of this assault against Islam.  God-willing, i hope that this will help serve as a tool to counter these attacks.

One could classify the anti-Muslim polemicists into three categories.

1) The Christian fundamentalists–they are people who use a primarily Biblical and Christianity to oppose to Islam

2) The European nationalist–they see that Islam and Muslim immigration is a threat to European/national identity.

3) The secular supremacist–these are the atheists (usually) who unquestioningly assume the authority of secular ideology.

We will deal with each group one by one.   As for the CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS, they are closest to the Muslims.  These Christians will say, just as the Muslims say, that the ultimate purpose of human existence to obey and worship the Creator (that is not to say that Christians understand what is appropriate to believe in the Creator).  Also, the Christians, like the Muslims will claim to use a religious book as their authority for codes of conduct and morality.  Of course, in reality, the modern Christians pick and choose what they like out of the Bible.  Hence, when debating with them, one must need to be familiar with some of their tricks.

For one, this class of people often outright LIE (in spite of the Christian command of not lying).  These Christians virtually NEVER compare the genuine Islamic belief in the Creator with the Christian belief.  After all, it would not be in their interests to say: “Muslims assert that there is One, Eternal, Transcendent, Incomparable, Omniscient Creator, Who is the Creator of everything.  And we [the Christians] believe that an infant incarnated into the Beginningless Creator, had to eat drink, and rest, and eventually get murdered to gain the power to forgive people for their sins.”  A side by side comparison of the two beliefs would show that the Christian belief is inferior to the Muslim belief in the Creator (and given that the Creator is Superior to everything and not inferior to anything, it could not be possible that the Christian belief could be correct).

With the above being true, the Christian fundamentalist types will make claims, such as, “Allah isn’t God.”  Even after it is explained to them that the Arabic speaking Jews and Christians use the Word “Allah” to refer to the Creator (that isn’t to say they have the proper belief in the Creator) or that THE ARABIC BIBLE says that Allah created the Heavens and Earth in the beginning of Genesis, these people will insist that Word “Allah” isn’t used by Arabic speakers (Muslim and non-Muslim) to refer to the Creator.  (Please see: https://facetofloor.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/the-word-allah-in-the-bible/ )   Some have even concocted bizarre so-called “moon god” theories to try to discredit Islam.  In brief, the Christian fundamentalists don’t want to discuss Tawheed (the Islamic belief in One, Perfect, Incomparable Creator), because it would make their anthropolatry (i.e., the worship of a human being) look ludicrous.

Instead of having an honest discussion about the proper belief in God, the Christian fundamentalists will attack the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam).  This is problematic for the Christian fundamentalists on several accounts.  For one, these Christians often judge the Prophet by contemporary secular values (the very values the Christians claim to be decadent).  When Muslims point out that many of the practices in Islam have parallels in the Bible, the Christian fundamentalist will claim that those rules are from the Old Testament and have been abrogated.  Again, this is a problem–even from the Christian perspective, for the Bible says that Jesus said:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”  (Matthew 5:17)

The Christian tradition readily admits that Jesus followed the laws in the OLD TESTAMENT.  And, in fact, the laws of the Old Testament are replete with war, mass execution (of even infants), amputating hands of thieves, and capital punishment for disobedience to the parents, sorcery, blasphemy, murder, etc.  So–according to the Christian tradition–Jesus agreed with and abided by the the laws of the Old Testament for most of his time on Earth.  This matter gets more problematic for the Christian, for not only did Jesus (allegedly) follow the laws of the Old Testament, Jesus is the one who SANCTIONED and ORDERED the laws of the Old Testament–because, according to Christian tradition, the Bible is the Revelation of God… and Jesus is God.

 Sometimes Christians will try to escape the issue of morality the Bible by saying to the effect that we live in modern times.  So according to them, the man-made secular laws are superior to the laws of the one they deem to be their so-called “god.” If Christian morality changes according to the prevailing secular norm (on any given week), then this opens the door to all sorts of deviance and debauchery–and makes Christian/Biblical morality irrelevant.  (Incidentally, it is this line of reasoning that has led to numerous churches promoting Biblical absurdities, like so-called “gay marriage.”)

The main points in dealing with the Christian fundamentalists is to establish the proper belief in God by using rational proofs.  If the Christian seeks to use his Bible to prove his doctrine, then demonstrate:

1) the Bible has not been reliably preserved and transmitted (it’s been altered)

2) the Bible has contradictory statements about God (such as, claiming that God does not change–and also claiming that God walks about and finds things)

3) the Christian doctrine (Trinity) is a man-made innovation and is rationally absurd

4) the Christian doctrine is incompatible with the Bible itself

When it comes to morality, either a person is going to agree with (what they think to be) the Commands of the Creator or with the commands of human beings.  He can’t have two masters.  The laws in the Old Testament are stricter than the Sacred Law revealed to Prophet Muhammad.  A Christian cannot honestly condemn Islamic Law without condemning Jesus and what they regard to be Jesus’ own tradition.

This is a brief overview on how to address the typical objections of the Christian fundamentalists.

With Allah is the success and the guidance.

An Illustrated Refutation of Atheism

In this short video, we demonstrate why the atheist doctrine is inconsistent and invalid.  In brief, the universe exists; the universe can not be beginningless; the universe can not be “self-created.”  This means that something other than the universe created the universe–and the One Who created the universe would not be subject to what the universe is subject to (e.g., time, change, space, dimensions, etc.)

Please watch, share, like, and subscribe.

 

Mawlid Speech 1438/2017

A lecture about the legacy of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) and his influence on human history.  Please watch, share, like, and subscribe.

 

The Absurdity of the Anti-Muslim Christian Polemicists

ABSURDITY OF THE ANTI-MUSLIM CHRISTIAN POLEMICISTS

I recently saw some comments on a (supposedly) Muslim vs. Christian debate. Among the comments from the human-worshipers was that “Islam is evil because it’s violent.” This is an odd statement for a Christian to make… a very odd statement.

It is odd because the Bible is VERY violent by contemporary secular standards… and by the Sacred Law standards that Muslims follow. Of course, the Christians will claim that the laws of the Old Testament have been abolished by the (alleged) teachings of Jesus (what they really mean are the teachings of Paul). But… this doesn’t help the Christian cause. According to Christianity, Jesus readily followed the laws of the Old Testament for most of his time on Earth…. So, according to the Christian, Jesus studied and followed the “barbaric laws” that the Prophets before him followed… and that’s not the only problem for them….

According to standard Christian doctrine, Jesus IS GOD. Aside from ludicrous Christian claim that a baby became the Beginningless Creator of the universe–or claiming that Jesus walked around calling himself one-third of the Creator of the universe (and an inferior one-third at that)–the Christian runs into another problem. If Jesus is God (as THEY claim), then not only did Jesus follow the laws of the Old Testament, Jesus is the one who sanctioned and ORDERED the mass killings of babies, killing children for disrespecting their parents, killing sodomites and fornicators, etc. (as per the orders of the Old Testament). So according to Christian “logic,” since Jesus (allegedly) ordered such practices, then that would make him a wicked and evil person (or a wicked and evil God-person… or a wicked and evil one-third of God-person )–these are things a Muslim would NEVER say.

Muslims understand that the Creator is One, ABSOLUTELY Incomparable and Free-of Need.  The Creator is not a material being and is not a spiritual being.  The Creator is not dependent upon the creations–before there was light or darkness, distance or direction, time or space, there was a Creator. Allah (the Creator) existed before the creations and there was NOTHING else.  After Allah originated the creations, Allah did not transform into a spatial entity and materialize in a location (or a direction).  The Creator exists without being in a place. The Creator does not resemble the creations and cannot be fathomed by the imagination.  Muslims understand that the Creator has sent Prophets to guide humanity, and those Prophets conveyed the Sacred Law for the well-being of the human in this transitory world and for their well-being in the Afterlife.   Muslims submit to the Orders of the Creator and do not object to the Orders of the Creator.

As for the Christian polemicists, they often attempt to attack Islam based on the standards of whatever happens to be trendy today in Western secular-corporate thought–while failing to realize that the very practices they often attack Muslims for are mentioned in the Bible, and as we said above were (according to their logic) must have been commanded by Jesus himself. This has to be regarded as the pinacle of either hypocrisy or deception.

With that said, one should be reminded of the proverb: “Folks dwelling in glass cribs shouldn’t be chuckin’ rocks.”

Lady Rahmah, Causation, and Feminism

Two lessons about the righteous Muslimah, Rahmah bint Ibrahim.  We also discuss the concept of causality and Allah being the One and Only Creator.  Furthermore, the absurdity of feminism is discussed.

Lesson 1

 

Lesson 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of Reishi

OF REISHI

 

 

 

It has been  said:

“As a Spirit [Shen] tonic, nothing compares to Reishi. It is simply the greatest Spirit tonic of them all. It is believed by the Chinese to protect the Spirit and to nurture the growth of intelligence, wisdom, and spiritual insight. Reishi is a superb anti-stress herb. Everyone who takes Reishi notices the peacefulness that seems to accompany its use. Many people are able to stop using chemical drugs. And Reishi seems to be cumulative, gradually strengthening the nerves and actually changing how we perceive life.

It has routinely been used by mountain hermits, monks, adepts and spiritual seekers throughout Asia because it was believed to help calm the mind, ease tension, strengthen the nerves, improve memory, sharpen concentration and focus, build will power and, as a result, help build wisdom. That is why it was called the “Mushroom of Spiritual Potency” by these seekers. The people of Asia believe more than ever in Reishi’s power to improve the quality of life by improving the inner life of a human being. All the scientific validation only explains the physical nature of Reishi, but it is the profound ability of Reishi to improve one’s life on every plane that makes it so incredible.”

https://facetofloor.wordpress.com/

Of Gynostemma

OF GYNOSTEMMA

It is reported:

Jiaogulan (Gynostemma) is a plant that grows wild in China. The leaf is used to make medicine. Jiaogulan is sometimes referred to as “Southern Ginseng” because it grows in south central China and is used in similar ways as ginseng. Gynostemma is also known as: sweet tea vine, fairy leaf, and “magic grass.” Jiaogulan is used for high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and improving heart function. Gynostemma is a SUPERB adaptogen, that is, it helps the body and mind deal with stress. Furthermore, Gynostemma helps bring the body into homeostasis, that is, Gynostemma helps bring the body (and the moods) into balance—if one needs energy, it increases energy; if one needs to relax, it helps one to relax. It also helps the body find its optimal weight.

Benefits of Gynostemma

Increase strength and endurance

• Build lean muscle
• Reduce fatigue
• As a powerful adaptogen
• As a powerful antioxidant
• Reduce stress
• Treat depression and anxiety
• Maintain optimal weight
• Maintain normal blood sugar levels
• Remove toxins from the body
• As a general tonic for overall health and well-being
• Decrease bad cholesterol (LDL) and triglycerides
• Increase good cholesterol (HDL)
• Lower high blood pressure
• Increase coronary blood flow
• Decrease vascular resistance
• As a healthy source of natural vitamins and minerals
• Maintain healthy brain function
• Enhance immune system

Preparation

Bring a cup of water in a pot to a roil (close to a boil); add a teaspoon of Gynostemma. Steep for 3-5 minutes for the best taste. One can steep for a longer time to get optimal health and medicinal benefit.

Health is invisible wealth.

Of Yerba Mate

YERBA MATE

Benefits of Yerba Mate

It is reported that the Pasteur Institute and the Paris Scientific society in 1964 were interested in this healthy source of vitamins and did a thorough study of its properties. The investigators concluded “it is difficult to find a plant in any area of the world equal to [yerba] mate in nutritional value”

1. Yerba mate provides a smooth increase in energy.

2. Yerba mate boosts mental functions of all kinds.

3. Yerba mate is a nutritional powerhouse loaded with vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants.

4. Yerba mate can boost the immune system.

5. Yerba mate tea can help you lose weight.

6. Yerba mate has a long history as a digestive and elimination tonic.

7. Yerba mate can build strong bones, even without exercise.

Drinking yerba mate tea increases bone density, even in people who don’t exercise.

8. Yerba mate helps keep your heart healthy.

Yerba mate is loaded with nutrition that it contains practically all the micronutrients needed to sustain life. (11)

Each serving of mate contains the following vitamins and high concentration of these minerals:

• vitamin A
• vitamin C
• vitamins B1, B2, B3, and B5
• vitamin E
• calcium
• iron
• magnesium
• manganese
• phosphorus
• potassium
• selenium
• sodium
• sulfur
• zinc

Great Diet Aid

• Increases Focus
• Increases Strength, Energy, and Endurance
• Reduces Blood Pressure
• Reduces Cholesterol
• Reduces Fatigue
• Contains Antioxidants
• Contains 15 Amino Acids
• Contains 24 Vitamins and Minerals
• Strengthens the Immune System
• Best natural remedy for constipation by softening the fecal mass
• Rejuvenates
• Breaks Down Fat (Lipolytic)
• Balances Sleep Patterns
• Increases Libido
• Delivers Oxygen to the Heart and Lungs During Exercise
• Diuretic
• Is a Whole Body Tonic

Preparation

For a single serving:

1. Add a teaspoon to a cup

2. pour a small amount of room temperature water over the tea

3. Pour hot water (do not boil the water), over tea; let steep at least 3 minutes

Health is invisible wealth.

(The above is for educational purposes and is not intended to be medical advice.)

 

Of Paradigm Shifts

“Change is inevitable, but personal growth is a choice.”

(BOB)

“Had a paradigm shift, like I met Morpheus….”

(stic.man)

This morning i was listening to some BOB, and he was talking about “Paradigms.”  He says that Paradigms are a multitude of habits–most of which we don’t voluntarily adopt, but rather, we were programmed with them from the time of our childhood and infancy.  As a matter of fact, people were making decisions five generations ago that are currently influencing our thinking and behavior.  Hence, in reality, many of our habits are not “our” habits but the habits of those who were around us (and before us).  If we wish to change our Paradigm, then, we need to consciously overwrite the negative and useless programming that is already in our minds.  Only we can do this (bi’idhnillah)–and this takes persistence and determination.  Nonetheless, if we change our patterns of thought, then (by the norm), our behavior will change, and then our results and circumstances will change (bi’idhnillah).

Some important points:

1. First and foremost, one must understand that whatever the Creator has willed to occur, it will occur.  There is only One Creator.  We don’t “create” anything (even our thoughts and intentions are created by the Creator).  Hence, when we speak about changing our thoughts and thereby our circumstances, we are only speaking about customary norms.  These changes do not take place by necessity, but rather, they are causes and effects that Allah wills to occur–or not to occur.

2. We need to recognize that we have been programmed.  The way we think is not a necessity, but it’s just a thought pattern that we–whether we wish to admit it or not–are usually comfortable with.  We can’t insist on indulging in the same thought patterns and expect that we will behave differently (and consequently get different results in our lives).

3. Many of us are in the habit of letting present circumstances dictate our thinking and what we are capable of.

4. The results of our current thinking patterns support our Paradigm. And then we engage in more of those thoughts, and more of those behaviors, and get more of those results.  The results reinforce the thinking–the thinking (and behavior) reinforces the results… which reinforces the Paradigm.

5. The way to break the cycle of vicious-thinking is to voluntarily choose new thoughts.  This also means that one decides not to allow external circumstances to dictate his internal condition.  One must develop inner strength and determination and focus so that he is driven from within and not from without.

6.  The solution lies in:

A) Having worthy goals.  This enables the person to have a target that will enable him to rise above circumstances

B) Developing the confidence that the worthy goals are attainable.  Others have done what is similar to what we would like to do.  What is largely holding the person back is past (negative) programming–and that is all that it is, namely, programming.  The negative programming became part of our Paradigm through repetition.  We change that negative programming through repetition–the repetition of positive affirmations.

D) Trust in Allah and Yaqeen (Certitude)–that is, being certain that no one or thing creates except Allah.  Making lots of dhikr sows the seeds of Tawakkul (Trust in the Creator) deeper and deeper into the heart.  We (should) put forth our best effort to attain lofty goals, while remembering the saying of the spiritual master:

My heart is at ease because I know whatever was meant for me will never miss me, and whatever misses me was never meant for me.

–Ahmad Ar-Rifa`iyy

Hence, we strive for a balance between ambition and contentment.  We want what is good for ourselves and others.  We seek to positively influence the world–all the while recognizing that NO ONE is the Creator except Allah.  And as Muslims, we don’t object to the Creator–rather, we submit to the One Who created us and everything else.

Jesus: The Son of Mary

This is a short lecture on the Islamic perspective of Jesus.  Please watch, share, and subscribe.  Your support is GREATLY appreciated.

 

 

 

Is it Racism or Bigotry? (Part One)

Is it Racism or Bigotry? (Part One)

An interesting discussion came up recently about racism and the term “Islamophobia” and how many Immigrant Muslims (IMs) are feeling the brunt of anti-Muslim discrimination and “racism” (especially since 9/11 and more recently with the election of Don Trump).    We discussed whether or not it was racism and white supremacy that drives “Islamophobia” or is it anti-Muslim bigotry that drives “Islamophobia.”  Despite the centrality of white racism to the American psyche, i would posit that it is religious bigotry and civilizational challenge that ultimately drives anti-Muslim sentiment.

In my opinion, the beginning point of defeating white racism is to deny “white” people their whiteness–meaning, that race, as we understand it in America, is largely an arbitrary matter (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN9mwhSrTdU ).  I believe it is more prudent to deem “whiteness” to be an ideology than an actual “race.”  In the case of “race,” you are born with what you are born with.  In the case of an ideology, one is free to relinquish it whenever they choose.

That’s not to say that there aren’t people who are clearly Northern European and are of an identifiable phenotype.  But in many parts of the world, such clear distinctions are easily made.  There are many regions on earth where you have “whites” who have for a long time “mixed” with other people (e.g., much of India, Central Asia, Egypt, Arabian Peninsula, much of the Americas).  In America (USA), “white” people mixed with “black” blood are regarded as “black.”  On the other hand, “mulatto-looking” people in Egypt are regarded as “white.”  So Vin Diesel is “black,” but what we are seeing here are brown-skinned white children with afros:

(Egyptian children)

This inconsistency in “whiteness,” of course, applies here in the USA, as well.  Latinos (e.g., Mexicans)–the majority of whom are Native Americans with a relatively small admixture of European blood–are categorized racially as “white” according to various government data… but according to the mainstream narrative on human migration, Native Americans came from Eastern Asia–hence, Mexicans should be regarded (racially) as “East Asian/Mongoloid” (or at least Native American) but they are not. So in the US, if you have “one drop” of black blood, you are “black”–but if you are East Asian (Native American) and have a few drops of European blood, then you are “white.”  Nonetheless, we all kinda sorta know that kids who look like this don’t get a “white card” in the realm of reality.

Claiming such people for the “white team” is just a means of giving yourself inflated numbers.

Technically speaking, when we discuss race and anti-Muslim discrimination, there are only four primary “races” (Australoid, Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid)–according to mainstream anthropology… or at least, that used to be the case.  Indo-Pakistanis and Arabs are classified as “Caucasians”–Caucasian shouldn’t be confused with being “white.”  All of these people are regarded as “Caucasian”

(Indian children)

(Yemeni children)

(Omar Al-Bashir, President of Sudan)

…So, the President of Sudan is a “Caucasian,” but Colin Powell:

…is, well, a “Negro.”  It gets clear pretty quickly, that this notion of “race” is largely an  ambiguous (and arbitrary) matter.  And that the founders of “race” (as we use the term in America) had a clear agenda of the IDEOLOGY of white supremacy–and used the IDEOLOGY  of white supremacy to divide and weaken the masses against the ruling class… and most white people (and black folks, for that matter) have bought into the illusion.

Whiteness in America isn’t merely a “racial” phenotype descriptor, but it is an IDEOLOGY related to being part of the Western European (historically) Christian tradition.  Many Muslim immigrants think that they can get their “white card” because of their complexion.  But if you are an observant Muslim, i gotta break it to you, you may be fair of skin, but you aren’t really “white.”  These are REAL Caucasians here (as in from the Caucus region–and they are fair-skinned), but they won’t be getting invites to join the Klan anytime soon.

(Chechen women)

The Western European historically has had two aspects to his identity: whiteness AND hostility to Islam.  But even here, the concept of “Europe” has to be called into question. Europe is NOT a continent (as in a distinct continuous landmass).  Similar to “race,” “Europe” is an arbitrary divide separating (historical) Christendom in the west (i.e., Europe) from Islam to the immediate east.  Without Islam, there would be no European identity and there would be no “Europe.”  Although racism and the fear of genetic annihilation NO DOUBT are major motivators of “whiteness,” it is the civilizational challenge of Islam that the ideology of “whiteness” fears the most.

God-willing, in Part Two, we will explain why “whiteness” sees Islamic as a civilizational threat to its existence.

 

Of Walking

Some reflections on walking.

“I only went out for a walk, and finally concluded to stay out until sundown: for going out, I found, was really going in.”
–   John Muir

“As a single footstep will not make a path on the earth, so a single thought will not make a pathway in the mind. To make a deep physical path, we walk again and again. To make a deep mental path, we must think over and over the kind of thoughts we wish to dominate our lives.”
–  Henry David Thoreau

“Me thinks that the moment my legs begin to move, my thoughts begin to flow.”
–   Henry David Thoreau  

“Thoughts come clearly while one walks.”
–   Thomas Mann 

“Walking is also an ambulation of mind.”
–   Gertel Ehrlich

“All walking is discovery.  On foot we take the time to see things whole.”
–   Hal Borland

“Details of the many walks I made along the crest have blurred, now, into a pleasing tapestry of grass and space and sunlight.”
–  Colin Fletcher

A Saturday Lesson #3

In this lesson, we discuss some of the basic of the Muslims’ belief in God, Prophets, human origins, the jinn and the Angels.

The Guiding Creed: Lessons 1-3

This is an explanation from the famous treatise on the Muslim belief in the Creator (Allah) known as `Aqidatul-Murshidah (The Guiding Creed).  Please share and subscribe.

LESSON 1 is an introduction to the text, and we also discuss proofs for the Existence of the Creator and refute the misconceptions of the atheists.

 

LESSON 2 discusses that there must be only One Creator and that Allah is not composed of parts or dimensions.  Also, we discuss the refutation of those who claim that Muslims worship the moon.

LESSON 3: we discuss some of the misconceptions that some people have about the Creator.

 

Abul-Hasan Al-Ash`ari: A Short Biography (parts 1 and 2)

This is from a two-part lecture on the life and contribution of the famous Sunni theologian (scholar of doctrine), Abul-Hasan Al-Ash`ari.

 

Humans Need Not Apply (Some Thoughts and Reflections)

Humans Need Not Apply (Some Thoughts and Reflections)

One of the main themes of our more recent discussions is the need to “Break the Matrix,” that is, the need to get out of time-sucking unfulfilling jobs (that frequently teeter on the edge of the haraam), and at the same time generate levels of wealth that can  enable one to raise families in decent environments, and have the means to travel, study the Deen, and be engaged in the da`wah.  As for those Brothers and Sisters who seek to be full-time Students of Knowledge and future Shuyukh, then go for it–and don’t ever look back.  On the other hand, for those Brothers and Sisters, who for whatever reasons due to circumstances, responsibilities, or capabilities may not be able now to be full-time seekers of knowledge, there is a need to prepare for the New Economy.

What is meant by the “New Economy?”  It is the global, internet-based, technology-driven  economy–wherein we have to compete with people from all over the earth.  We have reached a point where change in our lives–because of technology–will grow exponentially (by that, i mean by looking at the various trends–we, of course, do not know the future).  If we don’t make the necessary change in mindset, folks will simply be left behind.  To bring this closer to the mind, 150 years ago more that 60% of the American workforce was involved in farming.  By 1920, it was 30%.  Today, it’s 2%.

Recently, i have been saying to folks in our Ciphers: “Would you encourage your son to become a farmer using old-fashioned conventional farming techniques–selling conventional crops?”  I’m not talking about doing small scale organic farming using alternative technologies, for instance–and i didn’t intend to belittle the honor of farming; i am talking the practicality of trying to earn a sustainable living and raising a family off of ten acres of soil.  The days of the small-scale farmer have come and gone in the USA.

After the  era of agriculture, the US transitioned to heavy industry.  In particular, the Brothers i know in Philadelphia can relate.  Fifty or sixty years ago, a young guy could finish high school (or not finish), get a hook-up from pops or an uncle with a job in a union, and work at the factory making what would be today equivalent to $18-$20 an hour, and in a few years, he’d be making $25 and hour, have the means to buy a home, and raise a family on a single income–and if the wife did work, she didn’t have to work full-time.  Like with small-scale farming, those days have come and gone.  Heavy industry has been exported to China and elsewhere–and/or are being done by computerized robots.  As for skilled trades (e.g., carpentry, plumbing, painting, etc.), we can see that these labor intensive jobs are being filled with recent immigrants–Latinos, in particular.  With the loss of heavy industry and jobs and skilled trade work in many cities, many black males have fallen through the cracks, and are now being rounded up for the privatized prison industrial complex.  This is what happens when folks don’t look ahead, anticipate trends, and make the necessary changes to prepare to meet ever new challenges.

Now we are in the era of “Cubicle Life.”  But here too, we can see–given shifts in technology and communications–that many office jobs in America are going to be phased out.  From an economic point of view, why would a company hire an monolingual American secretary, have to pay her $35,000 a year (and healthcare and other bennies), when the company can hire virtual office assistance from India or the Philipinnes and pay them $75 a week?  The numbers simply don’t add up… in favor of the American worker.  And as the documentary, Humans Need Not Apply, demonstrates, the loss of jobs in the New Economy isn’t only for those in the blue collar sector or lower end white collar sector.  The New Economy means that accountants, nurses, teachers, engineers, and doctors have their jobs in jeopardy.  The impications of all this is TREMENDOUS–and the majority of Americans are utterly clueless about the seismic economic shifts that are on the horizon for us (from what we can see from the prevailing trends).

What’s the solution?  The first step is AWARENESS.  We have to be aware of what is taking place.  Secondly, we have to reassess our relationship to work.  There are MANY people who are now doing work they LOVE and earning decent incomes–with plenty of time-freedom (to do more of what they love, do it well, and monetize it–which leads to an on-going virtuous cycle of high-productivity and increasing income).  The 9-5, forty hours a week, 50 weeks a year work model is not written in stone.  Farmers, hunters, and trappers of 200 years ago did not observe such a work schedule.

Thirdly, we can model (in what is halaal and good) those who are already ahead of the curve with the New Economy.  Right now there is a subculture of “digital nomads,” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_nomad) who travel the world, while working remotely.  This type of lifestyle could be very appealing to young Muslims.  Among the books, which can help one develop a plan for living in the New Economy is Tim Ferriss’, The 4-Hour Work Week (http://fourhourworkweek.com/overview/).  The first impediment one must surmount to attain this mindset is overcoming skepticism and doubt.  Most of us have been programmed to work an 8-5-50.  But it’s just that–it’s programming that came from people (and institutions) that benefit from keeping (most of) the masses busily employed… working for them.  It doesn’t have to be that way.  There are people who are working a quarter the amount of hours earning five times the income of the average American.  They are able to do so because they are taking advantage of the technologies that are available.  And as was said, these people are doing what they love–hence, their “work” doesn’t seem like work.  They are doing what they would do if money weren’t a factor in their lives, and that’s not a bad place to be for a Muslim, who wishes to learn more and have more time for religious devotion.

We have moved into a thought-and-idea-based economy.  And the technology enables one to put “meat” on those thoughts and ideas.  This may require a radical shift in our outlook, but the fact remains: technology and robots are going to make MANY workers obsolete.  These outdated workers will serve no purpose in the New Economy–and this is likely to lead to massive social instability.  However, there is no reason for Muslims–especially, those of us in the West–not to be aware of what is happening, prepare for the changes, and take advantage of the technologies to benefit oneself, one’s family, the Ummah and humanity.  Bi’idhnillah, it can be done–we just have to expand our minds to meet the challenges.

A Brief Guide to Refuting the Quasi-Salafis (Wahhabis)

In-shaa‘ Allah, this can serve to help people in countering the claims of the Wahhabis and their doctrine.

<<<Among the core misguided beliefs of the Wahhabis is that the Creator allegedly “rose above” the `Arsh (ceiling of Paradise) after originating the creations.>>>

Let it first be said that truth does not contradict itself. And the greatest truth is the true belief in the Creator. The True Belief in the Creator is that the Creator existed before the creation–before darkness and light, distance and direction, time and place. That being so, we know that the Creator cannot be imagined. And we should know that the Creator does not develop or change (for change is related to time), and the Creator exists without being in a direction or a location (for the Creator of direction and location did not materialize in them after creating them). The Creator does not have a form or dimensions and is not a spatial entity. This is the Muslim belief.

Any Verse or Hadith that some interpret and ascribe to Allah being situated in a location or direction or occupying space or having any type of dimensionality should NOT be taken literally. This isn’t a matter of inventing fanciful interpretations, but understanding the nature of language. For instance, when the Muslims say Allah is “Exalted,” we do not mean by direction, but by status. This type of non-literal usage is evident in Arabic and in English.

The issue of literal/non-literal usage is not a problem for the Sunni Muslims, but it is for the Wahhabis. The Wahhabis are the ones who CLAIM that every Verse and hadith in reference to Allah must be taken literally… and then they violate this principle they put forth (by taking MANY such Verses and Hadiths non-literally).

Now in dealing with the Wahhabis, we should establish that words have meanings (literal and non-literal). As for the term literal, it means:

“taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.” (And non-literal means the opposite of doing so.)

We have established that words have meanings. To claim that Allah literally “rose over” the `Arsh means that He was not always situated “Most High” (which is the Wahhabi belief)–for “to rise” means to go from a lower position to a higher one. Hence, prior to this alleged “rising above” (according to the Wahhabis), Allah was (allegedly) below (something) and being situated below is (for the Wahhabi) an imperfect Attribute for the Creator. (Again to clarify: the Muslim belief is that Allah is not a spatial entity, and location and direction are inapplicable to Allah, as are other spatial characteristics.)

Allah existed BEFORE space and direction. Allah is not a spatial entity. Going from one place to another entails occupying space. The CREATOR of space isn’t of space (this was mentioned above, but this is the main point that the Wahhabis (quasi-Salafis) fail to grasp).

The word “hand,” for instance, is an English word (the Wahhabis claim that Allah has a LITERAL “h-a-n-d”). The literal meaning of “hand” is a body part–the organ of grasping at the end of the wrist. To claim that Allah has a “literal hand”–a word familiar to anyone who knows English–but that “literal hand” is not a body part is in itself a contradiction.

It’s like this:

hand = organ of grasping at the end of the wrist

The Wahhabi says: Allah has a literal organ of grasping at the end of the wrist… but it is not a literal organ of grasping at the end of the wrist. (Nonetheless, the Wahhabis do say that the Earth will fill God’s (alleged) hand on the Judgment Day–so indeed, the Wahhabis believe Allah has an “organ of grasping.”)

Now if the person is speaking of a “yad,” (an Arabic term) and he says that the word “Yad” (in reference to Allah) is not a body part, then he has not taken the literal meaning of the word “yad.” (“Yad” and “hand” have MULTIPLE MEANINGS in their respective languages.) If he takes the literal meaning (i.e., a body part), then he is an object worshiper. If he does not say the Yad of Allah is a literal body part, then he has done what the Sunnis do–namely, accept a non-literal meaning. But according to the Wahhabis, taking the non-literal meaning is “distortion of the Scripture” or indulging in “philosophy” (more on that below, in-shaa’ Allah).

The Wahhabi may claim Allah has a literal-real-actual Yad–but he does not know what the Yad of Allah is. If he doesn’t know what the Yad of Allah is, then how does he DARE TRANSLATE it into another language (and call it a literal “h-a-n-d”), and ascribe to Allah what He did not ascribe to Himself!?!

Regarding this matter, one can either follow the method of affirming Allah has a Yad that befits Him–hence, it is NOT a body part and does not have spatial characteristics (like, having a size, being situated in a location, being connected or disconnected from objects, having a form, etc.) and not otherwise similar to the “yads” of the creations.

The other alternative is for one to interpret the Verse (or Hadith) in a way that conforms with one of the non-literal meanings of the term “yad,” (such as, power, control, oath, etc.)–while NOT contradicting the principle that the Creator ABSOLUTELY does not need or resemble the creations.

The difference between the Sunnis and the Mujassimah/Mushabbihah (object-worshipers/resemblers) is that the Sunni negate all spatial and temporal characteristics for the Creator of space and time (b/c Allah does not need or resemble the creations). As for the Wahhabis (i.e., Mujassimah/Mushabbihah), they pray to an unidentified deformed extraterrestrial shadow-casting smiling face object with fingers, two feet, and one tibia. The Sunnis say that Allah is ABSOLUTELY different from the creations. The Wahhabis say that Allah is a giant object… but not quite identical to other objects.

The Wahhabis claim that Allah is situated beneath Jesus. Muslims believe that Jesus is in the Second Heaven. The Wahhabis say Allah comes down to the First Heaven in the last third of the night (and it should be noted that it is ALWAYS the last third of the night somewhere on Earth). The Second Heaven is situated ABOVE the First Heaven–therefore, the Wahhabis are claiming that the Creator of Jesus is situated underneath Jesus.

As for the accusation of “philosophy,” what Wahhabi means is that he does not recognize (i.e., accept) the principle of “non-contradiction.” The principle of non-contradiction says that “a thing cannot both be and not be in the same regard at the same time.” For instance, a person cannot say that in 2015 New York City was larger (in population) than Dallas, TX… and Dallas was larger (in population) than New York City (in 2015). We know BY COMMONSENSE that both statements can’t be true. We know by natural intelligence that anyone who states such would be making a false statement.

Likewise, it is by natural intelligence, we recognize that if one claims:

–Allah is literally situated “Most High” (as in location)

AND

–Allah literally descends (i.e., goes down) in the last third of the night to the First Heaven (which is beneath the six other Heavens and beneath Paradise)

THEN

We can conclude that such a statement is false. A thing cannot be situated literally “most high,” while at the same time be situated beneath other things.

One need not study philosophy at university to realize that this a contradictory claim–and a contradictory claim must be regarded as false.

Again, this whole problem stems from people indiscriminately picking up and reading books–or indiscriminately listening to speakers–while not understanding the proper Creed. These people are reading IMPROPERLY TRANSLATED books and statements and getting misconceptions about the Creator. They end up falling into tajseem (object worship) and praying to a giant deformed extraterrestrial entity. And when one shows the Wahhabi (quasi-Salafi) the CONTRADICTIONS in their doctrine, they reject the use of reason and common sense. And it is this rejection of reason that fuels the fanaticism of the Wahhabis and their various splinter groups, such as, so-called ISIS, Boko Haram, and Al-Qaeda. And this is one of the reasons why the Wahhabis pose such a great menace to humanity today.

Islam and the African

This is a short lecture about some Africans who were significant in the history of Islam.

Please watch, share, and subscribe.

The Guiding Creed: Introduction and Proofs for the Existence of the Creator

This is the first of a series on the Explanation of the `Aqidah of Ibn `Asakir called, The Guiding Creed.  We give a short biography of Fakhrud-Deen Ibn `Asakir, and we briefly discuss some proofs for the Existence of the Creator.

Please watch, share, and subscribe.  Your support is GREATLY appreciated.

Our Way: Sedona, Arizona

In this lesson we discuss the proper creed, and clarify the misconception regarding the New Age community’s pantheist doctrine (that is, the erroneous belief that the Creator is the creations).  The proper belief is that the creations are INDICATIONS of the Creator’s Existence.  The Creator is Greater than the creations.  The Creator ABSOLUTELY does not need or resemble the creations.  The Creator, Allah, exists without time or place–and whatever we imagine, Allah is categorically different from that.

One becomes a Muslim simply by saying and believing in the Declaration of Faith:

“Nothing is worthy of worship except Allah.  Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.”

A person does not need to go to the mosque, or have witnesses, or take a ritual bath beforehand.   It is enough to say the Declaration of Faith with the desire to become Muslim.

The Leftist Pathology Enablers

The Leftist Pathology Enablers

I don’t know much about the backstory regarding this incident:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8EOHyLiIUc

I assume that it’s a gang of some Crusader-Serf types angry about the over-reach of the central regime over in Washington.  As for the “Young Turks” (what a disgusting name), the Turko-atheist, Cenk, nails it when he says of white “right wingers” (which would mean the VAST MAJORITY of white folks for the VAST MAJORITY of American history–according to today’s standards) that they go and take other people’s property (or convert them into property), do it with arms–and kill the folks if they don’t accept.

From a Native American or African-American perspective, the schizoid nature of these American nationalists is apparent.  On the one hand they (meaning, the characters who founded the empire), were signing off on:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.    (from the US Constitution)

…all the while some of them were slinging slaves and having the Native folks being hunted to virtual extinction… just because they were brown.  The way they “justified” this was by claiming that the blacks and Native Americans were subhuman animals… but then, these same white racists were having children (which they typically disowned and abandoned) with these allegedly subhuman animals.  Says a lot about those guys.

Now in the midst of his rather on point rant against the Crusader-Serfs, Cenk tries to absolve black people (African-Americans) from having problems in their culture.  This is the sleight of hand of the Leftists/Cultural Marxists.  They will point to the VERY REAL problems with white culture, while denying the VERY REAL PROBLEMS of whichever “minority” group is being discussed.  Now, I can follow the argument of the one who wishes to say that nearly all of the problems of black America today stem from the legacy of slavery either directly or indirectly (I can follow that argument–albeit, I don’t agree with it entirely).  That argument, however still admits that there are problems within black culture–and the WPDIT (White People Do it, Too) arguments just don’t hold up to the stats.  White people (culture)–no doubt–have problems, but they don’t have the SAME problems on the same SCALE as blacks.

As for violence, black males constitute 6% of the population.  They commit nearly 50% of the murders.  Asian males are 2.5% of the population and they were charged with 1.2%  of the murders committed (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/43tabledatadecoverviewpdf).  “Real” white males are about 33% of the population and were charged with about the same number of murders as black males (albeit, they outnumber blacks by more than 5:1).  And here it should be noted that the Spanish speaking people of largely Native American decent are regarded as “white.”  So that would place “white” males at over 40% of the population committing close to 50% of the murders.

As for “Leading Causes of Death” (LCD), for black males ages 15-24, murder accounts for 50% of all deaths, and is the LCD for black males from the ages of 15-34.  In the case of Asian Americans in the same age brackets, murder as the LCD ranges from 5.8% to 9.5%–and is between the fourth and fifth leading cause of death.  For white males, the figures are similar to Asians.  (http://www.cdc.gov/men/lcod/).

Now the Leftists, when crime stats are brought up, will quickly try to deflect the argument and say that the drug laws are draconian and intended to target black males.  That’s true… but I didn’t say anything about drug arrests.  We are talking about murder.  And it leads to follow that a group that is astronomically over-represented in committing murder is probably committing a disproportionate amount of lesser crimes.

The fact of the matter is that there are MAJOR problems in black culture.  Cenk may pretend that there aren’t… but then, I would bet (if I were a betting kind of a guy), that he doesn’t live in a poor predominantly black neighborhood, and he doesn’t send his kids (if he has any) to a school with a student body that is 75% or more black.

Now a significant part of problems black folks suffer from today are due to the legacy of slavery and racism in America–and even if one were to argue that ALL of the problems black people face are due to slavery and racism, the SOLUTION, nevertheless, would remain the same.  And if all the white people in America were to disappear tomorrow without a trace, black America would still be in its deplorable condition–and would still remain behind Asians and Latinos.  The SOLUTION to improving the black condition–whether or not there are any white racists–would be for blacks to raise their moral standards.  A person can’t become better, unless he (or she) is willing to take personal responsibility and make a commitment to becoming a better and more moral human being.

One of the first things that could be done would be to make a collective commitment to stabilizing the black family–and having competent and caring men in the household.  But this can’t happen when you have the culture engrossed in the abomination of serial fornication and its frequent consequence: illegitimacy.  Even the Leftist (reluctantly) admit the correlation between single mother households and black poverty.

The fact is, having married, father-headed households is absolutely contrary to the Cultural Marxist/feminist policies of the Left.  We are looking at a culture with a 70% illegitimacy rate–yet, you won’t hear the Leftists encouraging black people to  reduce their illegitimacy rates–rather, the Leftists will rant about white racism… but it isn’t white racists who are forcing black men to fornicate with black women and getting them pregnant–and feeding them into the cycle of poverty and social dysfunction.  Its the amoral/immoral ideology of the Left that helps enable black poverty–and according to them poverty is the reason for black dysfunction (along with racism).

The Cultural Marxist promote fatherless unmarried homes–because they HATE patriarchy.  They prefer “alternative families,” including, lesbian and male homosexual households.  These households only promote more instability, which leads to more social dysfunction, juvenile delinquency, poor school performance, crime, incarceration, and illegitimacy–which leads to an on-going cycle from generation to generation.  This (black pathology) is a cash cow not only for the Right Wing Prison Industrial Complex, but it’s also a cash cow for the Leftist bureaucracy and its welfare and social services industries.

The general Leftist ideology is based on an underlying (and racist) assumption: black people are not to be held to the same standards as Asians and whites.  This is a paternalistic ideology that says blacks cannot be held accountable for their decisions or their behavior… because something is inherently deficient in them.  And on a more insidious level among the Cultural Marxist elites, they are merely using the black-white conflict to further divide the society, and to normalize dysfunctional cultural trends.   They, for instance, promote (black) single mother-headed  households (and the “strong black woman”), and then regard any criticism of such households (in general) as “racist.”   The goal of the Cultural Marxists is not to unite the society on the basis of a loftier set of moral standards–but rather to divide the society along “identity politics” and subvert the society with moral relativism and atheism.

As Muslims, we do not want to blindly adopt the arguments of the Leftists/Cultural Marxists–although they DO make some good arguments about race and class.  We, however, have our own standards by which to analyze and understand the society.  In Islam, we do not disdain people because of their complexion or “race,” and we are to have compassion for the poor and should help to alleviate their suffering–but at the same time, we are accountable beings, and if a poor person, or a wealthy person, or a fair skinned person, or a dark skinned person, or a tall person, or a short person, or a woman, or a man, or an older adult or a young adult commits a sin, then it’s still a sin on them.  And if they do a good deed properly, with the proper belief and proper intention, then they earn reward from their Lord.  We can condemn the abuses of those in power–while at the same time not encourage or enable anyone to sin.  This is true justice.   This is what Islam teaches.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Breaking the Back of White Racism: The Curious Case of Egypt

Breaking the Back of White Racism: The Curious Case of Egypt

It’s that month, again, and God-willing, I will do some posts (and maybe some videos) about race and identity coming from a Muslim’s perspective.  For many Immigrant Muslims (IMs) discussions about race and identity are very uncomfortable–and often there are attempts to suppress discussions about race with what are almost platitudes about being Muslim and the alleged absence of racism among the Believers.  For many African-American Muslims, race/color were the very core of their identities prior to Islam, and many still struggle with race and identity after embracing Islam–and the denial of the prevalent racism among Immigrant Muslims only frustrates the convert.

With that said, I want to focus on “race” as it is understood in America (i.e., the USA).  In brief, my position is that “race” is largely a social construction–that is not to say that we don’t immediately recognize the difference between a native of China and a native of Australia, but that for large parts of the world, there has been extensive racial mixing, and that such people can’t (rightfully) fall into a particular “racial category.”  Nonetheless, if we apply American notions of race, it becomes very easy to show the absurdity and hypocrisy of racial categories as invented by white racists.

Egypt and the race of the Ancient Egyptians (AEs) provides a particularly curious case for the white supremacists.   They posit that the AEs are of a “white” or Caucasian race (and the white racists will play games with labeling people who clearly are not “white” as “Caucasian” especially, when those people are associated with advanced civilizations).  I even saw a comment last night from a white racist that said: “The Ancient Egyptians could not have been black because blacks have never contributed to civilization.”  That’s kinda putting the cart in front of the horse.  (You don’t start with an assumption about a matter and then disregard evidence to the contrary because it doesn’t concur with your assumption.)

Another racist said that although there were some blacks in Egypt, that does not mean that they mixed with the native Egyptians–just as blacks and whites live in America have not mixed (by blood) that frequently.  I guess he missed the lessons in school about centuries of racial apartheid in the US–and I guess that he doesn’t know about all the racial mixing between blacks and whites that has happened in places, like the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, and Brazil.  The natural thing is that when peoples live in proximity–especially, for millennia (like in Egypt)–they tend to intermarry.

As for the “race” of the Ancient Egyptians, I will take a safe position and say that for a very long time the people of that region have been intermarrying–and this is evident when we take a look at the Egyptians today.  Until today, there is still a substantial portion of the Egyptian population that is clearly “black” or “Negroid” in features.  And the majority of the population–certainly outside of the northern coastal cities (which have attracted people from all over the “Middle East” and Mediterranean for eons)–would be classified as (in the old American system) as “mulatto”–i.e., of a mixed “black” and “Caucasian” ancestry.  Here are some random examples of today’s Egyptians:

Now according to the white racists, these kids are “Caucasians” who happen to have “Negro features.”  But… if someone in America looks like this:

…then they are regarded as “black” (these are biracial kids (i.e., children of black and white ancestry)).

One of the things the white racists will say is that the Ancient Egyptians did not portray themselves in their statuary and hieroglyphics as “black sub-Saharan Africans,” but typically as a brownish-red color.  Again, the problem for the white racists is that they only regard people who look like this in Africa:

…as being “black…” but in Africa, if you look like this…

…then you are white… but in America, if you look like this…

…then you are “black.”  However, ALL of these people (with the exception of the Egyptian girl with the red hijab… maybe) would be on the back of the bus in Alabama or drinking from the “black water fountain” in Mississippi circa 1955.

The point is to show how inconsistent this idea of “race” is.  The white racists innovated the idea of the “one-drop rule”–that is… for America, but then turn around and fail to apply that same principle to the people of Africa.  And this is done intentionally so that they can say “black” people have never had advanced civilization–and since blacks are backwards and inferior (allegedly), then they can be killed and enslaved as subhumans and without compunction.  This is the twisted mentality that goes along with white supremacy.

In reality, MOST people on earth do not follow American ideas about race and identity.  More often than not, one’s identity is based upon tribe, nationality, language, culture, and religion.  And even in America, notions of race and identity are not fixed, but rather they are fluid–and they are all the more likely to change in this era of global mass communication and travel.

As for African-American Muslims, it is time for us to step out of the American Race Matrix and look at things objectively and critically–and to stop clinging on to an identity that was NEVER intended to empower “black” people,  but rather was intended to reinforce black subordination to white supremacy.  We have the opportunity to transcend American notions of race and demonstrate that the ultimate merit of the human being is not in skin complexion or “race”–but rather in having the proper belief in and sincere obedience to the Creator of the Universe.