Most Muslims who indulge in many alien cultural practices, these days, do not know what they are doing. They are just blind followers of their equally blind cultural leaders.
Little do they realise that what they regard as innocent fun may in fact be rooted in paganism. That the symbols they embrace may be symbols of unbelief. That the ideas they borrow may be products of superstition. And that all these may be a negation of what Islam stands for.
Consider Valentine's Day, a day that after dying out a well deserved death in most of Europe - but surviving in Britain and the United States - has suddenly started to emerge across a swath of Muslim countries. Who was Valentine? Why is this day observed?
Legends abound, as they do in all such cases, but this much is clear: Valentine's Day began as a pagan ritual started by Romans in the 4th century BCE to honour Lupercus, the ‘god of fertility and flocks’. Its main attraction was a lottery held to distribute young women to young men for ‘entertainment and pleasure’ - until the next year’s lottery.
Among other equally despicable practices associated with this day was the lashing of young women by two young men, clad only in a bit of goatskin and wielding goatskin thongs, who had been smeared with the blood of sacrificial goats and dogs. A lash of the ‘sacred’ thongs by these ‘holy men’ was believed to make the women better able to bear children.
As usual, Christianity tried, unsuccessfully, to n the evil celebration of Lupercalia. It first replaced the lottery of the names of women with a lottery of the names of saints. The idea was that during the following year the young men would emulate the life of the saint whose name they had drawn. Christianity ended up doing in Rome, and elsewhere, as the Romans did.
The idea that you can preserve the appearance of a popular evil and yet somehow turn it to serve the purpose of virtue has survived. Look at all those people who are still trying, helplessly, to use the formats of popular television entertainment to promote good. They might learn something from this episode in history. It failed miserably.
The only success it had was in changing the name of Lupercalia to St Valentine’s Day. It was done in the year 496 by Pope Gelasius, in honour of one Saint Valentine. However, there are as many as 50 different Valentines in Christian legends. Two of them are more famous, although their lives and characters are also shrouded in mystery.
According to one legend, which is more in line with the true nature of this celebration, St Valentine was a ‘lover’s saint’ who had himself fallen in love with his jailer’s daughter.
Due to serious troubles that accompanied such lottery, French government banned the Valentine ritual in 1776. It also vanished over the years in Italy, Austria, Hungry, and Germany. Earlier, during the 17th century when the Puritans were strong it had been banned in England, but King Charles II revived it in 1660.
From England the Valentine ritual arrived in the New World, where enterprising Yankees spotted a good means of making money. Esther A Howland who produced, in the 1840s, one of the first commercial American Valentine Day cards called - what else valentines sold $5,000 worth in the first year. (Then $5,000 was a lot of money.) The valentine industry has been booming ever since.
It is the same story with Halloween, which has otherwise normal human beings dressing like ghosts and goblins in a re-enactment of an ancient pagan ritual of demon worship.
The pagan name for that event was Samhain (pronounced sow-en). Just as in case of Valentine's Day, Christianity changed its name, but not the pagan moorings.
Five star hotels in Muslim countries arrange Halloween parties so the rich can celebrate the superstitions of a distant period of ignorance that, at one time, even included the shameful practice of human sacrifice.
Christmas is another story. Today Muslim shopkeepers sell and shoppers buy Christmas symbols in Islamabad or Dubai or Cairo. To engage in a known religious celebration of another religion is bad enough. What is worse is the fact that here is another pagan celebration (Saturnalia) that has been changed in name - and in little else - by Christianity.
Even the apparently innocuous celebration might have pagan foundations. According to one account, in pagan cultures, people feared evil spirits, especially on their birthdays. It was a common belief that evil spirits were more dangerous to a person when he or she experienced a change in their daily life, such as turning a year older. So family and friends surrounded the person with laughter and joy on their birthdays to protect them from evil.
How can anyone in his right mind think that Islam would be indifferent to practices steeped in anti -Islamic ideas and beliefs? Islam came to destroy paganism in all its forms: it cannot tolerate any trace of it m the lives of its followers.
Further, Islam is very sensitive about maintaining its purity and the unique identity of its believers. Islamic laws and teachings go to extra lengths to ensure it.
For example, salâh is forbidden at the precise times of sunrise, transition and sunset to eliminate the possibility that it might get mixed up or be confused with the practice of sun worship. To the voluntary recommended fast on the tenth of Muharram, Muslims are required to add another day (9th or 11th) to distinguish it from the then prevalent Jewish practice. Muslims are forbidden to emulate the appearance of non- Muslims.
A Muslim is a Muslim for life. During joys and sorrows, during celebrations and sufferings, we must follow the one straight path - not many divergent paths. It is a great tragedy that under the constant barrage of commercial and cultural propaganda from the forces of Jahiliya and the relentless media machine, Muslims have begun to embrace the Valentines, the Halloween ghosts, and even Santa Claus
courtesy: IRF group, Ammara Qidwai
Showing posts with label Muslims. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muslims. Show all posts
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Well crafted speech with little substance for the Muslims
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/opinion/?id=32606
"Words are easy and many, while great deeds are difficult and rare." British Primer Minister Winston Churchill
By Abdus Sattar Ghazali
Just before the well-orchestrated Obama speech, the leading Cairo newspaper Al Ahram asked me: Do you think Obama’s messages of reconciliation are part of a media stunt—an attempt to achieve political gains—or a sincere attempt to bridge gaps with the Muslim world?
My response was: I am afraid that his repeated reconciliation messages may prove a media stunt if they are not followed by changes in his administration’s policies towards the Muslim World in general and Afghanistan, Iraq and the Palestine issue in particular.
Now what we find in his image-building speech? It was well crafted and rich with good gestures. Its tone was striking. It was very carefully worded, non-committal and lacking substance. But the much hyped speech did not amount to a breakaway from American policies that have created the deep divide between the United States and the Muslim World since 9/11. Vague and flowery rhetoric was used as an adjustment of the language to cloak the US policy.
Contrary to the expectations aroused by the White House about his outreach speech to the Muslim world, Obama continues long war against terror which he has renamed as “violent extremism.” He described extremism (read terrorism) as the first issue. “The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.” Unlike his predecessor, George Bush, he did not mentioned terrorism a single time during his 55 minute speech.
However, Obama's decision to close the infamous Guantanamo Bay military prison is seen merely as a move that appeared to symbolically separate his administration from Bush's. Tellingly, in a court filing, the Justice Department has argued that the president has the authority to detain terrorism suspects without criminal charges, much as the Bush administration asserted. It provided a broad definition of those who can be held, which was not significantly different from the one used by Bush.
At the same time, the US detention facility at Bagram, in Afghanistan, is being expanded -- nearly doubled in size -- in order, possibly, to accommodate 200- plus detainees from Guantanamo, as well as future POWs from Obama's expanded war on Afghanistan.
Perhaps most important part of his image-building speech in which he tackled seven issues ("violent extremism" (read terrorism); the Israeli-Arab conflict; nuclear weapons and Iran; democracy in the Muslim world; religious freedom in the Muslim world; women’s rights; and "development and opportunity") was what he did not say:
Obama ignored the dozens of civilians who die each day in the "necessary" war in Afghanistan, or the millions of refugees fleeing the US-invoked escalation in Pakistan. About three millions people have been displaced in recent weeks in the US proxy war launched by the Pakistani army against its own people.
Obama omitted any mention of the four million Iraqi refugees created by the US invasion of that country because of the “war of choice.”
And not a single word about the Israeli massacre of Palestinians in the landlocked Gaza. In Israel’s 22 day last December-January rampage against the unarmed population killed over 1,400 Palestinians - 85% of whom were civilians - including over 400 children. However, Obama admonished the Palestinians for their violence – for "shooting rockets at sleeping children or blowing up old women in a bus."
Contrary to the perception in the Muslim world, for Obama the Middle East conflict is the second source of tension between the US and the Muslim world. “The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world,” he said.
Taking a leaf from his predecessor George Bush’s policy, Obama declared that the two-state solution was the only solution. “The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.”
The so called “Bush vision” of the two-state solution was adopted by the policy makers of the “Quartet”, a formulation that had been created by the US, Russia, the EU and the UN to help reach a peaceful resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Quartet launched a “Roadmap” plan in April 2003 that envisages a “Two-State” solution. However, Israel virtually rejected the two-state solution when it said that it would be implemented subject to fourteen political and security reservations including that neither the Saudi initiative nor the Arab initiative serve as a basis for the political process and the Palestinians should publicly declare their “renunciation of the right of return” and accept Israel’s right “to exist as a Jewish state”.
Obama said that he was opposed to the new Jewish settlements but he did not oppose the existing settlements. Interestingly, one day after Obama’s speech a new settlement was erected on the occupied West Bank and mockingly named “Obama Hut.”
Not surprisingly, he indirectly urged the Arab states to recognize Israel when he said: the Arab-Israeli conflict “must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.”
The Arab-Israeli conflict is the main source of contention between the West and the Muslim and Arab worlds. Israeli massacres of unarmed Palestinians in Gaza are fresh in their memories. The Arab and Muslim worlds were awaiting a bold initiative by President Obama on the Arab-Israeli issue.
Democracy was the fourth issue tackled by Obama. Ironically he was speaking in the capital of Egypt which has one of the most autocratic Muslim rulers since October 1981, Air Force General Hosni Mubarak, who is America's closest ally in the Middle East after Israel. Tellingly, President Obama, like his predecessors, waves the flag of democracy but whether it is Palestine or Afghanistan, its legitimacy in his eyes, depends on its pro-American stance. The United States did not recognize the legitimacy of the crushing Hamas win over Fatah in the US-backed and closely monitored 2006 Palestinian elections. Ever since its parliamentary victory, Hamas has been isolated and demonized by the West.
Obama qualified his reference to democracy by saying: “America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them.” This is not explicitly spelled out, but the context makes it clear that what he is really saying is that the United States is justified in refusing to talk to the democratically elected Hamas because it is not a peaceful government. Interestingly, Palestinians were only party that was called to end violence but he ignored the daily Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians.
On another important Middle East issue, Iran’s nuclear program, Obama argued that it is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. However he did not talk about Israel’s estimated 264 nuclear warheads.
Surprisingly, Obama became the first U.S. president to admit the U.S. role in the 1953 CIA-led coup of Iran's elected prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh. "In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government," he said, alluding to the coup. Until now, the most senior U.S. official to express regret for the coup was Madeleine Albright in 2000 when she was secretary of State.
There can be hardly two opinions on the fact that few world leaders today can match Obama's eloquence and charisma at the podium but words cannot bring change. Only real change in policies will bring change and banish the mutual suspicion between the Muslims and the West. Alexander Cockburn is perhaps right when he says there are facts on the ground as one 1000-pound bomb or remote-controlled drone trumps 10,000 words on rhetoric about peace.
Abdus Sattar Ghazali is the Executive Editor of the online magazine American Muslim Perspective: www.amperspective.com email: asghazali@gmail.com
"Words are easy and many, while great deeds are difficult and rare." British Primer Minister Winston Churchill
By Abdus Sattar Ghazali
Just before the well-orchestrated Obama speech, the leading Cairo newspaper Al Ahram asked me: Do you think Obama’s messages of reconciliation are part of a media stunt—an attempt to achieve political gains—or a sincere attempt to bridge gaps with the Muslim world?
My response was: I am afraid that his repeated reconciliation messages may prove a media stunt if they are not followed by changes in his administration’s policies towards the Muslim World in general and Afghanistan, Iraq and the Palestine issue in particular.
Now what we find in his image-building speech? It was well crafted and rich with good gestures. Its tone was striking. It was very carefully worded, non-committal and lacking substance. But the much hyped speech did not amount to a breakaway from American policies that have created the deep divide between the United States and the Muslim World since 9/11. Vague and flowery rhetoric was used as an adjustment of the language to cloak the US policy.
Contrary to the expectations aroused by the White House about his outreach speech to the Muslim world, Obama continues long war against terror which he has renamed as “violent extremism.” He described extremism (read terrorism) as the first issue. “The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.” Unlike his predecessor, George Bush, he did not mentioned terrorism a single time during his 55 minute speech.
However, Obama's decision to close the infamous Guantanamo Bay military prison is seen merely as a move that appeared to symbolically separate his administration from Bush's. Tellingly, in a court filing, the Justice Department has argued that the president has the authority to detain terrorism suspects without criminal charges, much as the Bush administration asserted. It provided a broad definition of those who can be held, which was not significantly different from the one used by Bush.
At the same time, the US detention facility at Bagram, in Afghanistan, is being expanded -- nearly doubled in size -- in order, possibly, to accommodate 200- plus detainees from Guantanamo, as well as future POWs from Obama's expanded war on Afghanistan.
Perhaps most important part of his image-building speech in which he tackled seven issues ("violent extremism" (read terrorism); the Israeli-Arab conflict; nuclear weapons and Iran; democracy in the Muslim world; religious freedom in the Muslim world; women’s rights; and "development and opportunity") was what he did not say:
Obama ignored the dozens of civilians who die each day in the "necessary" war in Afghanistan, or the millions of refugees fleeing the US-invoked escalation in Pakistan. About three millions people have been displaced in recent weeks in the US proxy war launched by the Pakistani army against its own people.
Obama omitted any mention of the four million Iraqi refugees created by the US invasion of that country because of the “war of choice.”
And not a single word about the Israeli massacre of Palestinians in the landlocked Gaza. In Israel’s 22 day last December-January rampage against the unarmed population killed over 1,400 Palestinians - 85% of whom were civilians - including over 400 children. However, Obama admonished the Palestinians for their violence – for "shooting rockets at sleeping children or blowing up old women in a bus."
Contrary to the perception in the Muslim world, for Obama the Middle East conflict is the second source of tension between the US and the Muslim world. “The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world,” he said.
Taking a leaf from his predecessor George Bush’s policy, Obama declared that the two-state solution was the only solution. “The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.”
The so called “Bush vision” of the two-state solution was adopted by the policy makers of the “Quartet”, a formulation that had been created by the US, Russia, the EU and the UN to help reach a peaceful resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Quartet launched a “Roadmap” plan in April 2003 that envisages a “Two-State” solution. However, Israel virtually rejected the two-state solution when it said that it would be implemented subject to fourteen political and security reservations including that neither the Saudi initiative nor the Arab initiative serve as a basis for the political process and the Palestinians should publicly declare their “renunciation of the right of return” and accept Israel’s right “to exist as a Jewish state”.
Obama said that he was opposed to the new Jewish settlements but he did not oppose the existing settlements. Interestingly, one day after Obama’s speech a new settlement was erected on the occupied West Bank and mockingly named “Obama Hut.”
Not surprisingly, he indirectly urged the Arab states to recognize Israel when he said: the Arab-Israeli conflict “must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.”
The Arab-Israeli conflict is the main source of contention between the West and the Muslim and Arab worlds. Israeli massacres of unarmed Palestinians in Gaza are fresh in their memories. The Arab and Muslim worlds were awaiting a bold initiative by President Obama on the Arab-Israeli issue.
Democracy was the fourth issue tackled by Obama. Ironically he was speaking in the capital of Egypt which has one of the most autocratic Muslim rulers since October 1981, Air Force General Hosni Mubarak, who is America's closest ally in the Middle East after Israel. Tellingly, President Obama, like his predecessors, waves the flag of democracy but whether it is Palestine or Afghanistan, its legitimacy in his eyes, depends on its pro-American stance. The United States did not recognize the legitimacy of the crushing Hamas win over Fatah in the US-backed and closely monitored 2006 Palestinian elections. Ever since its parliamentary victory, Hamas has been isolated and demonized by the West.
Obama qualified his reference to democracy by saying: “America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them.” This is not explicitly spelled out, but the context makes it clear that what he is really saying is that the United States is justified in refusing to talk to the democratically elected Hamas because it is not a peaceful government. Interestingly, Palestinians were only party that was called to end violence but he ignored the daily Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians.
On another important Middle East issue, Iran’s nuclear program, Obama argued that it is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. However he did not talk about Israel’s estimated 264 nuclear warheads.
Surprisingly, Obama became the first U.S. president to admit the U.S. role in the 1953 CIA-led coup of Iran's elected prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh. "In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government," he said, alluding to the coup. Until now, the most senior U.S. official to express regret for the coup was Madeleine Albright in 2000 when she was secretary of State.
There can be hardly two opinions on the fact that few world leaders today can match Obama's eloquence and charisma at the podium but words cannot bring change. Only real change in policies will bring change and banish the mutual suspicion between the Muslims and the West. Alexander Cockburn is perhaps right when he says there are facts on the ground as one 1000-pound bomb or remote-controlled drone trumps 10,000 words on rhetoric about peace.
Abdus Sattar Ghazali is the Executive Editor of the online magazine American Muslim Perspective: www.amperspective.com email: asghazali@gmail.com
Friday, May 29, 2009
Hazrat Maulana Mufti Taqi Usmani Sahab message for Pakistani Brothers & Sisters
.
On Sunday 24 May 2009, Hazrat Maulana Mufti Taqi Usmani Sahab Damatbarakatuhum said during his bayan at Darul Uloom Karachi, that one of Mufti Sahab's Buzurgs saw Nabi e Kareem(SAW) in his Dream. Nabi e Kareem(SAW) said in the dream, that Pakistan might soon be caught in an Azaab from Allah(SWT). Nabi e Kareem(SAW) said, in the dream, that the people of Pakistan should recite Surah Shams at least 70,000 times to avoid this Azaab.
Mufti Taqi Usmani Sahab Db has asked everyone to recite Surah Shams as much as possible and also to recite Ayat e Kareema freuently.
Hazrat Mufti Sahab has also asked people to forward this msg to as many people as possible.
Listen Mufti Saheb Voice: Pakistanio Kay Naam Mufti Taqi Usmani Sahab Ka Aham Peghaam (VERY IMPORTANT)
http://www.mehboob-e-elahi.com/Download.php?BayanID=1163
Sunday 24 May, 2009 - Bayan after Namaz e Asr at Jamia Darul Uloom Karachi by Hazrat Maulana Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani Sahab Damatbarakatuhum
Sura e Shams: http://www.asanquran.com/Quran/Pages/Images/1061.gif
Please forward this message to as many people as possible.
Jazak Allah
On Sunday 24 May 2009, Hazrat Maulana Mufti Taqi Usmani Sahab Damatbarakatuhum said during his bayan at Darul Uloom Karachi, that one of Mufti Sahab's Buzurgs saw Nabi e Kareem(SAW) in his Dream. Nabi e Kareem(SAW) said in the dream, that Pakistan might soon be caught in an Azaab from Allah(SWT). Nabi e Kareem(SAW) said, in the dream, that the people of Pakistan should recite Surah Shams at least 70,000 times to avoid this Azaab.
Mufti Taqi Usmani Sahab Db has asked everyone to recite Surah Shams as much as possible and also to recite Ayat e Kareema freuently.
Hazrat Mufti Sahab has also asked people to forward this msg to as many people as possible.
Listen Mufti Saheb Voice: Pakistanio Kay Naam Mufti Taqi Usmani Sahab Ka Aham Peghaam (VERY IMPORTANT)
http://www.mehboob-e-elahi
Sunday 24 May, 2009 - Bayan after Namaz e Asr at Jamia Darul Uloom Karachi by Hazrat Maulana Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani Sahab Damatbarakatuhum
Sura e Shams: http://www.asanquran.com/Q
Please forward this message to as many people as possible.
Jazak Allah
Thursday, May 7, 2009
European Muslims feel ‘isolated’: survey
.
LONDON: Muslims living in European countries feel far more isolated than those living in the United States, according to a survey on coexistence, with a lack of access to education and jobs reinforcing a sense of ostracism.
dawn.com
LONDON: Muslims living in European countries feel far more isolated than those living in the United States, according to a survey on coexistence, with a lack of access to education and jobs reinforcing a sense of ostracism.
At the same time, Muslims in France, Britain and Germany feel far more loyalty to their country than they are perceived to feel, and express a strong willingness to integrate, Reuters reports.
The findings by pollsters Gallup tend to suggest that a longer period of migration to the United States and economic growth there has helped foster integration.
Meanwhile, Muslims in Europe are working hard to fit in and say it is important, but they are not always seen to be succeeding.
‘This research shows that many of the assumptions about Muslims and integration are wide of the mark,’ said Dalia Mogahed, the executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and co-author of a report based on the findings.
‘European Muslims want to be part of the wider community and contribute even more to society.’
The survey, described as the first of its kind, polled at least 500 Muslims in June and July of last year to generate its findings on European Muslim integration. At least 1,000 members of the general public in each country were also randomly surveyed to create comparisons on specific issues.
While 38 per cent of Muslims in Germany, 35 per cent of those in the United Kingdom and 29 per cent of those in France were found to be ‘isolated’ in their countries, that figure stood at just 15 per cent in the United States and 20 per cent in Canada.
‘This can be explained by the historical importance of immigration in the development of Canada and the United States as modern nations,’ said Mogahed, adding that better access to higher education and work in North America had helped over decades to create more integration and social advancement.
‘Perception Gap’
One of the starkest findings of the surveys was the gap in perception between European Muslims and the general public.
While nearly half of French Muslims (46 per cent) said they felt integrated, only 22 per cent of the French public said they felt the same about the Muslims living in their country.
In Germany, 35 per cent of Muslims saw themselves as integrated, but the broader public put it at 13 per cent. And in Britain, while 20 per cent of the public thought Muslims were integrated, only 10 per cent of Muslims thought they were.
Mogahed and co-author Mohamed Younis said the findings showed how hard it was to draw broad conclusions about Muslim integration across Europe or develop policy as a result.
They suggested that country of origin — many Muslims in France are originally from North Africa, many in Germany are originally from Turkey, and in Britain from Pakistan or Bangladesh — affected integration and/or its perception.
That certainly appears to be the case when the surveys examined the importance of certain moral issues to Muslims and compared it to the general public in each country.
In France, 78 per cent of the public said homosexual acts were ‘morally acceptable,’ while 35 per cent of Muslims agreed.
In Germany, the ratio was 68 per cent of the public and 19 per cent of Muslims. In Britain, it was 58 per cent to zero. The margin of error was five per centage points in all cases.
Similar dissonance was found on issues such as viewing pornography, extramarital sex, suicide and the death penalty.
The authors suggested that a combination of more rigid views and religious practices by Muslims in certain countries had contributed to a misperception about their degree of integration, even while those Muslims were keen to integrate.
‘Since 9/11 and the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London, mistrust toward European Muslims has become palpable,’ the authors wrote. ‘Significant segments of European societies openly express doubt that Muslim fellow nationals are loyal citizens.’
‘The integration debate has to widen its frame, moving beyond the confines of security and religion, and focus more on the socioeconomic struggles of citizens of all faiths.’dawn.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)