Bekijk Volledige Versie : Why I am not a moderate Muslim
Why I am not a moderate Muslim
I'd rather be considered 'orthodox' than 'moderate.' True orthodoxy is simply the attempt to piously adhere to a religion's tenets.
By Asma Khalid
Cambridge, England - Last month, three Muslim men were arrested in Britain in connection with the London bombings of July 2005. In light of such situations, a number of non-Muslims and Muslims alike yearn for "moderate," peace-loving Muslims to speak out against the violent acts sometimes perpetrated in the name of Islam. And to avoid association with terrorism, some Muslims adopt a "moderate" label to describe themselves.
I am a Muslim who embraces peace. But, if we must attach stereotypical tags, I'd rather be considered "orthodox" than "moderate."
"Moderate" implies that Muslims who are more orthodox are somehow backward and violent. And in our current cultural climate, progress and peace are restricted to "moderate" Muslims. To be a "moderate" Muslim is to be a "good," malleable Muslim in the eyes of Western society.
I recently attended a debate about Western liberalism and Islam at the University of Cambridge where I'm pursuing my master's degree. I expected debaters on one side to present a bigoted laundry list of complaints against Islam and its alleged incompatibility with liberalism, and they did.
But what was more disturbing was that those on the other side, in theory supported the harmony of Islam and Western liberalism, but they based their argument on spurious terms. While these debaters – including a former top government official and a Nobel peace prize winner – were well-intentioned, they in fact wrought more harm than good. Through implied references to moderate Muslims, they offered a simplistic, paternalistic discourse that suggested Muslims would one day catch up with Western civilization.
In the aftermath of September 11, much has been said about the need for "moderate Muslims." But to be a "moderate" Muslim also implies that Osama bin Laden and Co. must represent the pinnacle of orthodoxy; that a criterion of orthodox Islam somehow inherently entails violence; and, consequently, that if I espouse peace, I am not adhering to my full religious duties.
I refuse to live as a "moderate" Muslim if its side effect is an unintentional admission that suicide bombing is a religious obligation for the orthodox faithful. True orthodoxy is simply the attempt to adhere piously to a religion's tenets.
The public relations drive for "moderate Islam" is injurious to the entire international community. It may provisionally ease the pain when so-called Islamic extremists strike. But it really creates deeper wounds that will require thicker bandages because it indirectly labels the entire religion of Islam as violent.
The term moderate Muslim is actually a redundancy. In the Islamic tradition, the concept of the "middle way" is central. Muslims believe that Islam is a path of intrinsic moderation, wasatiyya. This concept is the namesake of a British Muslim grass-roots organization, the Radical Middle Way. It is an initiative to counter Islam's violent reputation with factual scholarship.
This was demonstrated through a day-long conference that the organization sponsored in February. The best speaker of the night was Abdallah bin Bayyah, an elderly Mauritanian sheikh dressed all in traditional white Arab garb, offset by a long gray beard.
The words coming out of the sheikh's mouth – all in Arabic – were remarkably progressive. He confronted inaccurate assumptions about Islam, spoke of tolerance, and told fellow Muslims an un_pleasant truth: "Perhaps much of this current crisis springs from us," he said, kindly admonishing them. He chastised Muslims for inadequately explaining their beliefs, thereby letting other, illiberal voices speak for them.
I was shocked by his blunt though nuanced analysis, given his traditional, religious appearance. And then I was troubled by my shock. To what extent had I, a hijabi Muslim woman studying Middle Eastern/Islamic studies, internalized the untruthful representations of my own fellow Muslims? For far too long, I had been fed a false snapshot of what Islamic orthodoxy really means.
The sheikh continued, challenging Mr. bin Laden's violent interpretation of jihad, citing Koranic verses and prophetic narrations. He referred to jihad as any "good action" and recounted a recent conversation with a non-Muslim lawyer who asked if electing a respectable official would be considered jihad. The sheikh answered "yes" because voting for someone who supports the truth and upholds justice is a good action.
The sheikh, not bin Laden, is a depiction of true Islamic orthodoxy. The sheikh, not bin Laden, is the man trained in Islamic jurisprudence. The sheikh, not bin Laden, is the authentic religious scholar. But to call him a moderate Muslim would be a misnomer.
• Asma Khalid is pursuing her master's degree in Middle Eastern/Islamic studies at the University of Cambridge in England.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0423/p09s01-coop.html?page=2
I am a Muslim who embraces peace. But, if we must attach stereotypical tags, I'd rather be considered "orthodox" than "moderate."
We moeten juist geen etiketten plakken, maar naar inhoudelijke zaken kijken.
True orthodoxy is simply the attempt to adhere piously to a religion's tenets.
Om orthodoxie te beoordelen moeten we dus kijken wat die leerstellingen inhouden.
To be a "moderate" Muslim is to be a "good," malleable Muslim in the eyes of Western society.
“Gematigde” moslim omschrijf ik als: bereid om verkeersregels voor levensbeschouwingen te aanvaarden.
Een moslim kan dus tegelijk “orthodox” en “gematigd” zijn, mits de orthodoxe islamitische leerstellingen niet botsen met geldige verkeersregels voor levensbeschouwingen.
The term moderate Muslim is actually a redundancy. In the Islamic tradition, the concept of the "middle way" is central. Muslims believe that Islam is a path of intrinsic moderation, wasatiyya. This concept is the namesake of a British Muslim grass-roots organization, the Radical Middle Way.
Zo voegt ze er nog een categorie aan toe. Als de categorie “gematigd” overbodig is, waarom is de categorie “middenweg” dan nodig? Zo te zien betekent dat (in mijn opvatting) in effect hetzelfde.
Geplaatst door Olive Yao
We moeten juist geen etiketten plakken, maar naar inhoudelijke zaken kijken.
Dat gebeurt nu eenmaal niet in werkelijkheid.
De westerse associatie, en daarmee beeld van de werkelijkheid, is duidelijk : " Moslim-terroristen zijn altijd orthodox, moslims met een ´gematigde´opvatting plegen geen aanslagen" .
Vanuit dit beeld roept een orthodoxe moslim angst op en een orthodoxe christen totaal niet.
Ik kan me voorstellen dat vanuit dit alomtegenwoordige, westerse beeld een integer en gelovig moslima daar haar eigen omschrijvingen tegen af wil zetten.
Als je wil leven als een moslim in Europa is er altijd wel een addertjes onder het gras. Het wordt moslims gewoonweg niet gegund om als moderne mens te leven...
Er is altijd wel iets. Terroristen die aanslagen plegen ofzo?
Nouja.
Ik geef maar weer een voorbeeld.
Khalid Khan die aanslag pleegde op de metro. Was toch een leraar. Een moderne islamist?
Maar toch!
Amerika de CIA of de FBI had die Khan allang in the picture..Deze Khan had contakten met terroristische cellen in Amerika.
Ze hebben hem gewoonweg laten lopen.
Khan wilde naar Amerika gaan, maar de geheime dienst heeft hem niet toegelaten,voor gevaar ofzo....
Maar toch presteerde die zelfde Khan die sociaal bekend stond,die aanslag,in vraag mij af, waarom ze hem hebben laten lopen, en die aanslag hebben laten plegen....
Maar de Engelsen zijn meer op hun hoedde voor aanslagen dan andere Europese landen(Ira-aanslagen).
Maar die bloedbad had gewoonweg kunnen worden voorkomen, ze hebben gewoonweg die Khan laten lopen ....(terwijl geheiimediensten hem wilden arresteren op Amerikaans grondgebied).
Raar maar waar.....
Er zijn nog te veel vraagstukken,vooral Bin laden,die ze maar laten lopen,die aanslag op het World Trate is ook een vraagteken...
De inval van IraK SLUITHIERBIJ AAN....
Men kweekt angst....
Het westen kweekt de angst bij moslims
kweekt de angst bij die anderen
Het is
gewoonweg
geregisseerd
gemanipuleerd
en
vooral
hersendood maken!!
Thermopylae
23-04-07, 17:56
Het westen laat de terroristen expres lopen, zodat de aanslagen die ze zo kunnen plegen voor angst zorgt en aanzet tot haat jegens de moslims?
Dat lijkt me een ongeloofwaardige complottheorie.
Het westen laat de terroristen expres lopen, zodat de aanslagen die ze zo kunnen plegen voor angst zorgt en aanzet tot haat jegens de moslims?
Als ik al die boeken lees,zoals de eeen procent doctrine,van Ron Suskind,gaat vooral over Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld,Condi,Wolwowittz,FBI en CIA,het is een doolhof aan feiten...
Het boek van David Ray Griffin, de elfde september,een onderzoek naar de feiten,gaan je haren recht overeind staan.
Explosieven in de gebouwen aangebracht,11e september,het gewoon laten weg lopen van Bin laden. (is niet belangrijk meer).
De slachtoffers die de feiten willen weten worden gewoonweg afgesnauwd.
En een boek van een Amerikaanse Jihad strijder die vecht in Tsjetsjenie,die vertelt hoe hij daare vecht, hoe hij die landen binnen komt. Later werkt hij voor de FBI. Zetten terroristen kampen op om die cellen te gaan onderzoeken..Allemaal in de doofpot.
Khalid Khan in de doofpot.
Terroristen kampen die gebombardeerd zijn in Afghanistan was een wassen neus...Een miniscuul kampje,tussen de bergen ingegraven..
Maar Bin laden heeft een vrijbrief,die lieten ze gewoonweg met zijn grote colonne uitgeleidde...
Muller van de FBI moest een hoofd in een doos gaan onderzoeken,regelrecht uit Afghanistan. Ze dachten dat ze die arts te pakken hadden: Al Zwawaheri....
Maar was een hoofd van iemand anders ...(luguber maar maar).
Ik lees het boek van Robert Fisk,journalist van de Independence,de Grote Beschavingsoorlog...Die liegt er helemaal niet om,die vertelt de waarheid,maar Robert Fisk is niet geliefd in het westen....
Gelukkig zijn er nog mensen die onderzoeken doen, die de mensen medt de neus op de feiten drukken, maar daaar zie je bitter wijnig van terug in de media.
Zogenaamde Alqaida strijders worden gemarteld in Jordanie,in Marokko,in Algerije,zelf in die voormalige oostbloklanden...
Dit zijn de zwarte gebieden,genoemd in het boek, de een procent doctrine,maar ik hoor de Nederlandse regering hier nooit over.
Het enigste waar dit cabinet zich mee bezig houdt is over die holocaust van Armeniers in Turkije in 1915...
Ze willen ontkenning verbieden, de christen unie wil dat....
Armeniers waren dus ook christenen. Ze zijn echt met voorbedachte rade vermoord en gedeporteerd....Genocide!
Maar genocide heb je ook in Darfur, heb je ook in Oeganda,het leger van de Heer. Oeganda een land van protestanten en katholieken, die bijbel spreuken hanteren, om de lippen,de oren en de ogen maar uit te steken....(geen woord over die moordpartijen).
Er zit geen olie in die grond,daarom is dat niet belangrijk....
Amos Os,heb ik gisteren nog op de t.v. gezien,documantaire over Israel,en haar bezettingen etc.
Hij zegt,en daar sluit ik bij aan: Weg met die radicale moslims,weg met die radicale fundamentalistische christenen in Amerika,en weg met die extreem joodse fundamentalisten.....
Die maken de wereld kapot,die zorgen voor verdeel en heers,die snoeren je de mond,die manipuleren waar je bijstaat.
En Bush is in mijn ogen de grootste Hond. En Poetin een vrijbrief?
Het loopt zolangzamerhand allang uit de hand....Het vertrouwen is allang zoek.
Straks is het weer de vierde en de vijfde Mei...Dodenherdenking en bevrijding weer eens vieren,lekker feesten en vrije dagen in vakantie van de scholieren....
De tweede wereld oorlog en de vervolging van de joden is een herdenking, mag nooit meer gebeuren. Maar het wrange is, het gebeurd al die vijftig jaren in vrede van ons land,in andere landen.,...
We hebben niks voor niks politieke vluchtelingen....
Het wrange is altijd, het gaat van ouder tot aan hun kind, de volgende generatie.....
Straks hebben we alleen maar mensen die leiden aan oorlogssyndromen,holocaust,martelingen,uithuis zettingen,verkrachtingen,kinder handel, vrouwen prostitutie,het gaat maar door en door......
Stop! Stop! Stop! Stop! Stop!
En laten we in Vrede!!! Leven!! Inscha Allah!! :tover:
Geplaatst door Invidia
Why I am not a moderate Muslim
I'd rather be considered 'orthodox' than 'moderate.' True orthodoxy is simply the attempt to piously adhere to a religion's tenets.
By Asma Khalid
Goed geschreven:).
This was demonstrated through a day-long conference that the organization sponsored in February. The best speaker of the night was Abdallah bin Bayyah, an elderly Mauritanian sheikh dressed all in traditional white Arab garb, offset by a long gray beard.
The words coming out of the sheikh's mouth – all in Arabic – were remarkably progressive. He confronted inaccurate assumptions about Islam, spoke of tolerance, and told fellow Muslims an un_pleasant truth: "Perhaps much of this current crisis springs from us," he said, kindly admonishing them. He chastised Muslims for inadequately explaining their beliefs, thereby letting other, illiberal voices speak for them. I
Sheik Ibn Bayyah is :duim:. Een mooi stuk dat ik laatst van hem las:
Shared Values | Sheikh `Abd Allah b. Bayyih|
The study of values comes under the broader field of ethics, which is the field of enquiry that looks into what is good and correct with respect to standards which may be personal or cultural, and which can be used as a normative standard for behavior.
Values can be defined as ethical principles that determine honorable and praiseworthy conduct, where acting contrarily is shameful and worthy of condemnation.
Philosophers have debated since time immemorial about whether there are such things as universal values. There is agreement that shared values exist on a cultural level. Specific societies all have norms and values that are derived from custom, tradition, or religious belief. The dispute is whether there are any values that transcend the confines of a particular society or culture and are shared by all of humanity.
The dispute hinges on the question of the true nature of values. Is there an absolute and objective standard of what is good? Is “good” something universal? Or is it always relative and subjective, dependent on the interests of an individual or group?
This is a point of fierce philosophical debate that has engendered numerous schools of ethical thought, including utilitarianism, pragmatism, and idealism, as well as a host of applications for economics, politics, and political science. I will not dwell on each of these schools of thought on its own. Rather, I will discuss two general philosophical tendencies, that of moral relativism and that of universalism. Then I will discuss what Islam teaches about this matter.
Moral relativists believe that there are no universal values. position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social and cultural circumstances that vary according to time and place. Conditions for people living in the Arabian desert are different than those for people living in a valley in the Himalayas, or on the Chinese coast, or the Indian coast, or along a great river delta.
Then – the relativists argue – there is the obscurity and capriciousness of how moral standards are conceptually understood. There are various concepts of property, of family, of marriage, of reason, and of God. Norms of conduct that prevail one environment in a given historical era could very well be destructive if transplanted to another. Each society faces specific challenges at various times in its history. The ideal solutions to these challenges will necessarily differ.
Consequently – the relativists argue – the idea that there are universal normative truths that are suitable for guiding the lives of all people at all times is simply absurd.
Moral universalists hold the opposite view, that there is a single and timeless ethical standard. Some system of ethics applies universally to all people regardless of culture, environment, or historical era. The same standards hold true for someone in China, Spain, or Paraguay. They were the same for the people of Ancient Greece and Medieval Europe as they are for us living today and as they will continue to be for all times. What was evil in the past will remain evil in the future. Moral laws do not change with the times. Ethical standards are neither “Eastern” nor Western”.
The idea of moral universalism can be traced back to the revealed religions, especially those religions which claim to have a universal message. The Philosopher Hunter Mead expresses this idea in the context of Western Christianity, explaining that the idea that there is a single deity who governs the affairs of the world which He created is the basis for Western religious thinking.
This idea has also been defended on the basis of logic. This approach was taken by Kant, who may well be the most famous of all philosophers of ethics. He believed that analysis can consistently demonstrate that the violation of moral law is simultaneously the violation of logic. Anti-ethical behavior is always contradictory.
One of the examples that Kant gives to illustrate this point is making a promise. When a person makes a promise that he has no intention of fulfilling, his behavior is morally wrong. This is because his behavior is based simultaneously upon two contradictory principles. The first of these principles is that people should believe promises. The fact that I have broken my promise expresses another principle – that an individual has the right to break his promise. This is the case as long as we accept that moral law applies to everyone. However, if every person who makes a promise breaks it, then no one would believe a promise. This results in a principle that no one should believe promises, which is directly contradictory to our first principle.
The Islamic Perspective
As Muslims, our intellectual outlook supports the existence of shared values. The basis for this belief is as follows:
1. Islam establishes the idea of absolute equality between all human beings and that they are descended from a common ancestor. They have one Lord and they share one father. Allah says: “O humankind! We have indeed created you from a man and a woman and made you into nations and tribes to know one another.” [Sűrah al-Hujurât: 13]
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “O humankind! Your Lord is one Lord, and you have one father. All of you are from Adam, and Adam is from dust. The noblest of you is the most God-fearing. No Arab has and superiority over a non-Arab, no non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab, no black person has any superiority over a white person, and no white person has any superiority over a black person – superiority is only through piety.” [Sunan al-Tirmidhî]
2. Islam asserts that all human beings are created with a natural inclination towards goodness, towards, truth, and towards faith in Allah. Allah says: “So set thy purpose (O Muhammad) for religion as a man by nature upright - the nature (framed) of Allah, in which He hath created the human being. There is no altering (the laws of) Allah’s creation.” [Sűrah Rűm: 30]
No matter how protracted and never-ending the debate might be among philosophers whether moral values are universal or relative, common sense tells us that shared values do exist. The best proofs for this are the human faculties of reason (which Descartes considered the greatest thing distributed among humanity) and of language.
Every rational mind recognizes justice and every language has a word for it – a word which is recognized as having a positive and noble meaning. The same can be said for “truth”, “liberty”, “tolerance”, “integrity” and many other concepts. These are praised by all cultures and expressed positively in all languages.
The opposites of these concepts are regarded with derision and rejected, like “tyranny” and “oppression”. If we were to address the most despotic person as a “tyrant”, he would take offense. He would prefer to be described as just. Likewise, even a liar dislikes to be named as such. “Deception” and “bigotry” are likewise words that people have an aversion to, regardless of what cultural background they have. Is this not evidence for the existence of shared values?
These shared values need to be actively promoted in the world today, and not just the essential human rights that are indispensable for human beings to be able to live with each other. Rather, these shared values are much more embracing, like mercy, kindness, and the generosity to help those who are in need regardless of their race, religion, or country of origin. We need to incorporate these values into our understanding of human relations, so that we will not only uphold the principle of human equality in a neutral way, but embrace the “other” with warmth, love, and a true sense of brotherhood.
An old Arab saying – which is found in one form or another in all languages – goes: “Treat others the way that you wish to be treated.”
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said in the hadîth: “No one truly believes until he wants for his brother what he wants for himself.”
The value of “human brotherhood” is being joined with that of “love” in these words of our Prophet (peace be upon him). Before somebody accuses me of reinterpreting this hadîth for my own purposes, they should know that this is the understanding of the scholars from centuries back.
For instance, the leading Hanbalî jurist, Ibn Rajab said: “The brotherhood referred to in this hadîth is the brotherhood of humanity.” [Sharh al-`Arba`în al-Nawawiyyah]
The same is asserted by al-Shabrakhîtî and many others.
Love is an essential value, since all people desire to be loved. It is extremely rare to find a person who desires to be despised by others.
When love is realized by both parties, hostilities come to an end. Love is an emotional state as well as a mode of conduct. The Prophet (peace be upon him) encouraged us to proclaim our love, saying: “If one of you loves his brother, he should let him know it.”
Love is a shared value, since all people are pleased with it, even those who do not act according to its dictates. This is the true test for a shared value – that everyone wishes to be regarded as possessing it. No one wants to be described as “unjust” or “intolerant”.
Such values, in spite of their universality, can wilt and become dormant if they are not nurtured and encouraged. An Arab poet once wrote:
These noble values grow like flowering plants
When they are watered from a noble spring.
One of the most important values that can solve the world’s problems is that of respecting diversity, indeed loving it – regarding it as a source of enrichment and beauty, as an essential element of the human experience.
When we navigate our differences successfully and aspire to conduct ourselves in a most noble manner above and beyond the legislation of human rights, then we establish a basis for applying our shared values to bring harmony from our differences and to bring love in place of enmity.
Allah tells us in the Qur’ân: “Repel evil with what is best, and then the one between whom and you had been enmity will become as your dearest friend.” The message of this verse is that goodness brings about goodness and love engenders love.
Can we not then hope to foster these shared human values by making our own conduct exemplary – by being tolerant, generous, honest, trustworthy and thereby convincing the “other” who is just as human and who shares the same love for these values? Good conduct results in reciprocal good conduct. Generosity cultivates generosity. Convincing others of the ways of goodness is the most important humanitarian issue. We wish to take from Plato his words when he said: “The morality of the world is an expression of the victory of the power to convince over the power of force.”
The values of humanity lie in their ability to have conviction – to convince and to be convinced by various means of substituting one thing for another. There are things which are better and others which are worse. Civilization is essentially the preservation of a mode of life by means of the inherent conviction to respond by choosing what is best.
The use of force, under any circumstances, is a failure of civilization, regardless of whether we are talking about society in general or the individual.
The harmony that we must aspire to is not just between various cultures and societies. We must bring about such harmony within the individual as well. People have a varied cultural heritage, which sometimes develops into a crisis of values within the individual, and which needs to be transformed into inner harmony and a source of personal enrichment. A person can be of Asian origin, Muslim by faith, and British by nationality and upbringing – all at the same time.
By cultivating the value of tolerance over violence and hate, we channel people’s energies into productive activity that contributes to the general welfare. No one should ever resort to warfare or to violence to further their goals.
Religious leaders need to do their part to promote these universal values. They should be part of the solution and not part of the problem, as we have unfortunately found to be the case for certain representatives of all faiths. Religious leaders should not stir up tensions in a hope to gain the approval of their followers at the expense of human solidarity and mutual understanding.
Likewise, the media, the universities, and civic organizations have their roles to play in fostering these shared human values. Political leaders also should do their part. They should find ways to alleviate poverty and oppression whenever they are found. They should look for solutions to the issues of our time, even if they can only achieve partial solutions and partial justice. Military means to solve these problems are unethical and they do not work.
I wish, finally, to call to three objectives that we, as Muslim scholars, need to focus on:
1. We need to present convincing lessons on these values to the people of the West, specifically to the Muslims living there, that will prevent them from ever committing acts of violence or terror.
2. We need to address the responsible agencies in the West to assure the Muslims their cultural rights, so that they can be a positive element in society whose particular identity does not contradict with European society in any essential way.
3. We need to invite the people of the West to take another look at their relations with the Muslim world in light of these values so that together we establish a world in which we all coexist to the benefit of us all. This is the way that is most ethical, most intelligent, and most rewarding.
Shemharosh
25-04-07, 21:18
Het probleem zit hem in domme gedoe wat uit de golfolieputjes komt.Door het geld wat is ze komen aanwaaien hebben ze gif en allerlei domme onzin zitten verkopen aan hun domme broeders om aan ze zo te kunnen zuigen als parasieten.Zolang centra als Casablanca,Cairo,Baghdad,Tehraan,Karachi...etc rioolen blijven van ellende wordt het nooit wat daar....schijnt dat ze het er wel lekker vinden reuken dus waarom verandering in brengen?
We are Sunnis in practice, but Shi'ites at heart."
Dit is een goede zin. In Marokko zijn er nog al wat overheersers geweest. Het is een grote geschiedenis les. OOk t.o.v. van de rest van Afrika,zoals Senegal,Mali,Burkina Fasso,en noem maar op.
Zoals in Europa en overal in de wereld was er nog geen god. Geen bijbel,geen koran en geen thora....
De mensen van de wereld hadden hun eigen goden en gebruiken.
Oorlogen kwamen pas later toen het wiel is uitgevonden...
Toen het wiel is uitgevonden werden er nog al wat mensen over de kling gejaagd,bloederig dat wel,maar toch,volkeren gingen hun eigen gang in hun eigen mystieke koers.....
Totdat die religie erbij ging komen.
Het begon bij het jodendom,naar het christendom en even later naar het Islam.
Karin Armstrong, heeft er boeken over geschreven,eerst over het ontstaan,dan over allerlei stromingen,religies,ook over islam.
Zijn zeer interessante boeken, het lezen de moeite waard,dan weet je beetje welke religieuze groeperingen,vanuit,christen en islam de boel hebben overheerst...
Hoe de bijbel is geschreven b.v., en hoe ze die bijbel hebben vervalst...
In het jodendom,christendom en Islam,mogen geen andere goden worden aanbeden, ook geen traditionele geloof, zoals fetisj geloof,b.v. in Afrika wat betreft de voorouders....
Islam geloof heeft god zij dank die fetisj geloof maar laten begaan,ze hadden ook wel door,dat zonder voorouders hun religie niet meer heilig kon blijven.
Maar christelijk geloof,heeft de joden vervolgt,uitgebannen,vermoord,in Europa....In tweede wereldoorlog zijn edr zes miljoen joden verdelgt,vervolgt,vermoord...
Dat kan je van islam niet vertellen..
Misschien nun wel in Darfur, maar daar heeft kolonialisatie van de Engelsen mee te maken,die meter grens,die meter grens,aan volkeren,die hun familieleden,niet meer mogen en kunnen zien.
NOu ja van de islam vanuit Turkije dan maar...Eerst was het toch een ander rijk,het christelijke rijk....Byzantium! Istanbul.,voormalig Constantinopel....Daar is de bijbel vervalst....Zeker weten....
Maar dat ging over de profeeet Jezus! Over al die andere discipelen,over Rome en de Romeinen,over Cesar en noem maar op...
Het is allemaal vervalst, en uit de conteksten gehaald, zowaar het islam dominant is gebleven bij bepaalde verdeel en heers...
De geschiedenis herhaalt zich. Vooral in midden-oosten,zoals die inval in Irak..Is zelfde als wat de Engelsen en de Fransen deden in 19e eeuw...
We zitten nu met al die grensen,we zitten met die onrechtmatige Israel,we moeten leven met elkaar, maar toch,Syrie zit ook in die mandaat gebieden die ooit zijn gecreeerd door de Europenanen...
Niet dooor de Amedrikanen,die waren nog echt democratie. Die wisten wel van die genocide van de Armeniers,die wisten wel van de olie van Perzie,maar ze waren democratische land...
Later niet meer.
En nu al helemaal niet meer....
En als je nu suniet bent of sjiiet,het is allemaal islam.
Het mooie is eraan het feesten: vooral in Iran. Ali,Hassan,al die familieleden van de profeet Moahmmed,vrede zij met hem,en Hoessein...
Allemaal afgeslacht in Irak, Kerbala,b.v.Najaf....De mooiste bevaartsoorden, de mooiste moskeeen.....Mag dat?
Sjiieten zijn vooruitstrevers die blijven niet alleen stil staan met de goddelijke wetten, die denken voort en voort.
Uit sjiieten,zijn er de mooiste en heldere dingen gekomen,soefies,b.v.
Sarathoestra b.v.
Al die andere disciplines van islam kunnen en mogen heilig zijn.
Maar soenieten blijven stil staan in hun eigen afgraving...Die denken dat ze meer heilig zijn dan hun eigen brroeder volk.
Maar dit alles heeft alles te maken met onderdrukking vanuit het westen, ook vanuit inval van Djenghis Khan....(Vanuit Mongolie).
De verlichte islam is hierbij gestopt.....
Dus!
Islam denk eens na!
Ook aan je broedervolk,zwart Afrika.....Is niet slaaf maar mens....
Ik geef toe in islam is slaaaf familielid, die kan vrij zijn.....
Maar in christendom is slaaf nog nooit vrij......
In Amerika al niet.....
In de Nederlandse gebiedsdelen....al niet......
In al die slaven kolonies...b.v. Phillipijnen....JamaicA...sIERRA lEONE..lIBERIA.....bLOEDBADEN.....VERMINKINGEN.... ..dIAMANTEN.....
Zuid-Afrika......Zwart komt niet in hemel..staat in bijbel....
Dus.
Isllam is meer in zicht dan christendom zijn......
Christendom en jodendom, verrijkt met geldmiddelen en moderne tijden,beschimpen islam als een middeleeuws geloof......
Is dat zo?
Alleen in midden -oosten moeten ze een keer vrijhedenb bieden, vooral op electroaal gebiedt....Zoals in Egypte, daar hoort de moslim broederschap bij....Die sociale doel heiligt,die ziekenhuizen, en scholen,en de bevolking wil bevrijdden,van het koloniale harnas van het westen..
Mag dat?
Ja dat mag.
Zoals in Tunesie,waar ze bang zijn, voor fundamentalisten, maar die fundamentalisten,zijn voor de bevolking,tegen onderdrukking,zijn ook sociaal,tegen het westen,willen hun eigen sociale islamitische koers,
mag dat?
Ja dat mag.
In Marokko zelfde.....
Marokko is wel beetje vooruitstrevend,maar voor de alleramsten al niet, die zetten zich om in een bomkoers...( die maagden,die 72,maakt hun vrij in die bizarre bestaan)..
Fundamentalisme is geen vies woord,is een woord van daden, is een woord,van alloude tradities, die niet verloren mogen gaan....
En daar dient het westen rekening mee te houden,en Amerika ook.
Vrijheid is niet alleen maar voor het geld,maar het geld moet beter verspreid worden,ook onder de mensen in Marokko....
En vooral voor die mensen die respect verdienen,en een keer een kans moeten gaan krijgen,als volwaardige mens, op deze aardbol.
Inscha Allah!!!
Shemharosh
26-04-07, 16:38
Geplaatst door BiL@L
Shi'ism in Morocco
By: Yasin 'Abd al-Salam
Jafariya News Network, July 27, 2005
The fact that there are followers of Ahl al-Bayt in Morocco should come as no surprise considering the fact that wherever there are Muslims, there are Shi'ites. The history of Islam in Morocco traces back to the year 683 when Uqba ibn Nafi, the commander of the 'Ummayad dynasty in Damascus conquered the region. While many Berbers were quick to embrace Islam, this did not guarantee their support for their Arab conquerors who taxed them heavily, treated converts as second-class Muslims, and, in the worst cases, even enslaved them. As a result, many Berbers became inclined to the teachings of Kharijism, as well as Isma'ili and Imami Shi'ism.
It was only in 788, with the arrival of Idris ibn Abd Allah, the founder of the Idrisid dynasty, that Imami Shi'ism spread throughout the country. Moulay Idris, as he was respectfully known, traced his ancestry back to 'Ali ibn Abi Talib and Fatimah al-Zahra. As an Imami Shi'ite, he was persecuted by the Abbassids. As one of the few survivors of the battle of Fakhkh, in which many 'Alids were slain by the Abbassids, Idris fled to the Maghreb. There, he was embraced by Muslim Berbers as their Imam, converted the remaining Berber tribes to Shi'ite Islam, and created the first autonomous Islamic state in Morocco. Moulay Idris established the sharifian tradition in Morocco, by which the claim of descent from the Prophet was the basic requirement for monarchic rule. His dynasty was also the first to incorporate both Berbers and Arabs.
The Idrisids would rule Morocco until 985, losing power for short periods (922-25 and 927-37) to the Miknasa who were Fatimid allies, and thus Isma'ili Muslims. In the 10 th century, the Idrisid dynasty fell apart and Morocco was divided into smaller kingdoms. The entire country was re-united once again by the Almoravides (1062-1145), who were followed by the Almohades (1145-1248), the Merinides (1248-1554), the Saadians (1554-1660), and, finally, the Alaouites (1660-present).
Every dynasty which has ruled Morocco--with the exception of the Almoravides and the Almohades--has claimed descent from the Prophet and followed a Shi'ite political model. With regards to theology, philosophy and jurisprudence, Moroccan rulers have traditionally espoused the Maliki madhhab, officially and obligatorily imposed by the Almoravides. Much like the Wahhabis, the Almoravides, sought to "purify" religious practice. Their goal was the conversion of the pagans or semi-pagans of the Sahara , as well as the struggle against Christians and "heretical" Muslims. The spread of Malikism commenced around the year 1040 with the help of 'Abd Allah ibn Yasin, a zealous Maliki missionary from Tunisia brought to the country by Almoravid leader Yahya ibn Ibrahim. The conversions, however, were not without compulsion and by 1054, the Moroccan Shi'ites who failed to practice taqiyyah had all been exterminated. Due to perpetual persecution, Moroccan Shi'ites were forced to go underground until the 21st century.
The situation for Shi'ites in Morocco has improved sufficiently for them to present themselves timidly in the public sphere. In April of 2003, the daily Assabah revealed the existence of a strong Shi'ite presence at the core of the PJD, al-Yaqadha wa al-fadhila, a Muslim political party. According to the article, more than fifty Shi'ites participated in the first assembly of the movement. The report was quickly denied by Saâd Bouaachrine, one of the founders of the movement. His denial seemed odd, indeed, since for more than one year the movement's official publication, al-Asr, had devoted a column to Driss Hani, the head of the Moroccan Shi'ite community, titled "Tahta' chams."
Besides participating in political debate, Shi'ite Moroccans have also established religious organizations like Attawassoul in al-Hoceima, al-Inbiaat in Tangiers, and al-Ghadir in Meknes. This latter group, whose founding members include Mohsinne Hani, was cited in the 2002 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, published in March 31, 2003, by the American Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. The report mentions that in May of 2002, the organization al-Ghadir asked for official status. It was the first time an association of Shi'ite citizens asked for official recognition. As of 2006, no response has been received from the authorities. While the Shi'ite community awaits official recognition from the Moroccan government, other associations are being organized discreetly in Agadir, Marrakesh, and Tetouan, without revealing their religious affiliation. If the Moroccan government, which is known for its omnipresence and omniscience, can confirm the existence of some 300 Bahais in the country, the Shi'ites in the country have lived in such deep dissimulation that no number exists for them.
The majority of Shi'ites of Morocco are highly educated and young, rarely reaching forty years of age. They are engineers, medical doctors, lawyers, business men, teachers, and students. It is the latter who form the core of the Shi'ite movement in Morocco. Some of them come from Shi'ite families which have been deep in taqiyyah for over one millennium. Others are converts who studied abroad in Lebanon, Syria, or Iran, and returned with the faith of Ahl al-Bayt. And yet others embraced Shi'ism thanks to the inspiration of Imam Khomeini, as well as Hizbullah's al-Manar television network. This station is finding more and more viewers in Morocco, an audience which continues to steadily increase with its new broadcasts in French aimed at the Francophone intelligentsia in the Maghreb. Last but not least, we must also mention the important role of Shi'ite literature in the spread of Shi'ism in Morocco.
Shi'ite literature is now readily available in many bookstores throughout in Casablanca, Rabat, and Marrakesh. During the past two years, the International Book Fair in Casablanca was marked by exceptional fanfare around the stands of two Iranian and Lebanese publishers who offered a wide selection of books on Shi'ite Islam at rock bottom prices. Since 1999, there is even a bookstore specializing in Shi'ite scholarship in downtown Casablanca. The founder of the library is a convert to Shi'ism in his forties. He has a degree in business management and has become a fervent defender of Shi'ite philosophy. He openly discusses religious matters but insists on remaining anonymous, possibly fearing "problems" with the authorities.
If Moroccan Shi'ites remain discreet about their faith, they have plenty of reasons to do so. Many of them remember the late 70s and early 80s when the Moroccan government sought support from Saudi Arabia to counter the influence of the Islamic Revolution of Iran. As a result, Wahhabism, which had merely been a marginal movement introduced in Morocco in the 19 th century, found state-support. By accepting Saudi oil money, which helped counter Iranian efforts to export the revolution as well as finance the war against the Polisario in the south, the Moroccans were obliged to accept Saudi scholars. With the help of the Saudis, a full-scale propaganda campaign against Shi'ism was launched on the country's state-controlled media. The situation reached a critical point in 1984 with the "pro-Khomeini" manifestations which resulted in many arrest. It was at this time that the Moroccan court- 'ulama passed a fatwah declaring that Imam Khomeini was an infidel. Rather than speaking in Modern Standard Arabic as is the norm in Arabic countries, broadcasters spoke in colloquial Arabic to ensure the message would reach the masses.
With the help of the Saudis, Wahhabi religious schools spread throughout Morocco, extremist literature was distributed to thousands of students, and scholarships were given to study in Saudi-supported universities. Morroco, which in modern times was known for its moderation, was soon confronted with the surrogate prodigal sons of the Saudis: Wahhabi-trained preachers who returned home to spread their theories. These Wahhabi theorists rejected the modern open Malikism of Morocco and denounced Shi'ites as apostates. As a result, since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979, many Moroccan Shi'ites, men, women, and children, have simply left the country and moved to Iran where they could practice their religion freely.
It was only in the late 1990s, with the process of democratization initiated by King Hassan II, that Shi'ites found a degree of religious freedom. The Moroccan Constitution of 1996 establishes Islam as the state religion and guarantees freedom of religion to all of its citizens (Article 6). It also guarantees its citizens freedom of expression and association (Article 9). Despite these newly-acquired constitutional rights, Shi'ite Muslims still felt obliged to meet semi-secretly to discuss and debate the future of their faith in the Maghreb. It was only after the tragedy of 9/11 that the Moroccan state started to shift its policy, officially breaking from Wahhabism as a result of the Casablanca bombings in 2003. While the real culprits were soon caught, all members of the Salafia Jihadia, the government initially suggested that Shi'ites were responsible for the attacks, subjecting 6 Shi'ites from the PDJ to investigations according to the Minister of Justice himself.
It was only in November 2002 that the continued existence of Moroccan Shi'ites came to light through an interview with Hujjat al-Islam Sayyid Dris Hani, the spiritual leader of the Moroccan Shi'ites, which appeared in Maroc Hebdo. Now in his mid-thirties, and living peacefully in Sale with his wife and well-to-do family, Dris Hani discovered Shi'ism as a teen and moved to Syria at the age of 18 to study in the Hawzah. Upon his return to Morocco, he felt invested with a mission: to struggle for the recognition and respect of the minority Shi'ite community. In his interview with Maroc Hebdo, he stated that "Morocco was a Shi'ite country;" that Shi'ism was the rule and that Sunnism was the exception. He explained that there was no need to make Morocco a Shi'ite country, because it already was one. He also hoped that the community could create a political party like the Hizbullah, but adapted to Moroccan reality. Due to pressures placed on him by the Moroccan authorities, always eager to ensure national unity through uniformity--Allah, King, and Country, one religion, one language, and one madhhab--he was "requested" to retract his statements. In subsequent interviews, he took back many of the statements which had been attributed to him, even his titled of "Hujjat al-Islam," made a vow of silence, and then returned to the scene speaking of Islamic ecumenism and the need to unite the Muslim 'Ummah. In his words, Sunnism and Shi'ism are two complementary currents, and all Muslims, be they Sunni or Shi'i share, the same fundamental beliefs.
Despite the fact that Moroccans were forced to embrace Sunni Islam, they always retained many aspects of Shi'ite Islam: the love for the Prophet and his Family; the respect for descendants of the Prophets, known in Morocco as the shurafa; the celebration of 'Id al-Mawlid, a Shi'ite custom commenced in the country by the Merinides; the common invocations of intercession made to the Prophet and Fatimah; the reverence of saints; the rich Shi'ite-inspired spirituality of the Sufis; and the commemoration of 'Ashura. In Morocco, these mourning ceremonies are observed mainly by women and children. They were commenced by the Shi'i communities which existed in the country between the 9 th and 12th centuries and were perpetuated by the Sharifs, the descendants of the Prophet. As Hujjat al-Islam Dris Hani explains, "Even countries which claim to be Sunni are in fact Shi'ite, since they all share the same respect for Ahl al-Bayt. It is just a question of their degree of Shi'ism." As many Moroccans say, "We are Sunnis in practice, but Shi'ites at heart."
ja goede morgen.....De Berberse Fatimiden dynastie uit Tunesie was de eerste en de laatste Shietische Khilafat die er ooit was,zij hebben de Aqsa moskee gebouwd zoals die nu is,daarom heeft die een gouden koepel zoals " Persische" moskeen dat hebben.Cairo was voor een paar eeuw de evenknie en rivaal van Baghdad totdat de koerden onder aanvoering van Saladin er een einde aan maakten en later met de komst van de Turken werd heel Noord Afrika soenitisch.Ashoera bijvoorbeeld,wat en preislamitische Midden-Oosters feest is wordt nog steeds goed gevierd in Marokko.Na de Iraanse revolutie en de Libanese burgeroorlog kwamen veel jonge marokaanse intelectuelen onder invloed van het Shiesme weer,vooral door Shietische literatuur uit Libanon:Mohammed Baqir Assadr,de vader van Mouqtada,staat bij velen hoger in aanzien dan Sayd Qutb!!!! vooral zijn boeken:Iqtisadona"Onze economische visie" en Falsafatouna": Onze Filsofie" maakten veel indruk.Alalam 'het tijdschrift" van Hizbolah was het best verkocht tijdschrift in Marokko toen....en toen kwam Aljazeera,de TV schotel van Bin Ladin en Alqaradawi en die veegde alles en iedereen weg....nu leest niemand meer wat maar zitten ze gehypnotisserd zielig en kwaad te doen op zijn Aljazeera.
Maar de echte hard-core wanaabe Shia dat waren jonge migranten die in Frankrijk en vooral in Belgie in aanraking waren gekomen met Libanese en Iranaanse geheimedienstachtige figuren die er heel actief waren in de jaren 80...de voorlopers en meesters van Abou JahJah zeg maar.
Shemharosh
28-04-07, 08:32
Geplaatst door BiL@L
Shi'ism in Morocco
By: Yasin 'Abd al-Salam
Jafariya News Network, July 27, 2005
As Hujjat al-Islam Dris Hani explains, "Even countries which claim to be Sunni are in fact Shi'ite, since they all share the same respect for Ahl al-Bayt. It is just a question of their degree of Shi'ism." As many Moroccans say, "We are Sunnis in practice, but Shi'ites at heart."
De Shia is het geloof van de straat en de armen,daarom is het zo militant en bluesy....Sunnisme is het geloof van de elite en de troon....De sunni doctrine is ontwikkeld voor de Sultan,het heeft geen enkele andere legitimiteit behalve macht en de zwaard,daarom is het zo corrupt en kleurloos.
De Shia is het geloof van de straat en de armen,daarom is het zo militant en bluesy....Sunnisme is het geloof van de elite en de troon....De sunni doctrine is ontwikkeld voor de Sultan,het heeft geen enkele andere legitimiteit behalve macht en de zwaard,daarom is het zo corrupt en kleurloos.
Wahabieten in Saoedie Arabie zijn ook soennieten...Mekka en Medina zijn de heilige poorten van hele islamitische geloof.
Sjiieten worden in die land als dummies behandeld..
De jeugd,is de toekomst die willen vrijheden, en de vrouwen willen een keer achter het stuur..
De geestelijken,die de wetten hanteren,en het land in tweeen deelt,is niet meer zo succesvol zoals het lijkt.
Men wil in Saoedie ook van die geestelijke bekrompen harnas af.
Ik heb drie mail adressen uit de krant van NRC-handelsblad gehaald,die heten bloggers..(mag niet, maar wordt gedoogd,ook in Saoedie Arabie).
Als je je wilt verdiepen in..vrijheden,linken naar vrijheden van hier naar daar,dan kan je op internet gelukkig ook die meningen horen, die wij nooit horen, of mogen horen.
1. www.saudijeans.org
2. ubergirl87.blogspot.com
3. hdeel.ws/blog.
Succes!!
Er zijn anders genoeg christenen die moslims niet als vijandig of pervers zien, maar gewoon als medemens. Waarom wordt dat dan niet vaker benadrukt? Voor het westen ben je dan een allochtonenknuffelaar, maar vanuit de moslimgemeenschap wordt het ook als verraad gezien.
Waarom?
Er zijn anders genoeg christenen die moslims niet als vijandig of pervers zien, maar gewoon als medemens. Waarom wordt dat dan niet vaker benadrukt? Voor het westen ben je dan een allochtonenknuffelaar, maar vanuit de moslimgemeenschap wordt het ook als verraad gezien.
Waarom?
Christenen,die de moslims niet als pervers zien? Maar als medemens?
Allochtonen knuffelaar? En moslimgemeenschap vind deze knuffeling als een verraad?
Ik snap er niks meer van. Mensen zijn mensen. Van alllerlei geloof strekkingen,ook zonder geloof visie.
Christenen op een voetstuk die moslims proberen te promoten op hun eigen voetstuk. Zoiets!
Al die geloven zijn allemaal zelfde.
Als je daadwerkelijk echt gelooft sluit je anderen nooit uit....
Ook als je niet eens gelooft, dan ben je samen zijn, in een toekomst.
Geloof is niet prioriteit,geloof is iets individueels,is niet samen.....
Samen zijn is een sekte. Samen zijn is een weet tegen een andere weet..
Als je niet kan verdiepen in b.v. koran,bijbel of een thora....
Maar die mensen van de harde strekkingen in geloof die botsen keer op keer...Kijk nu in Turkije,wat een jamboel zeg?
Het nationalisme van Attah Turk zet zich voort....Ze hebben zich nog nieteens verdiept in die Attah Turk koers...Ja Ha! Kerk en staaat zijn gescheiden, maar is dat wel waar?
Het is allemaal met de paplepel er in gesnoert,die Turkije,is nog bezig,om haar plaats te gaan vertegenwoordigen....
Het verdeel en heers ligt hier dermate voor de hand, omdat ze elkaar nieteens het licht in ogen gunnen.
Men zwaaait maar wat met die vlaggen, zo rood als bloed,houdt het dan nooit eens op.
Waarom is men bang voor een islamitische koers,met sharia wetten=
Men verdiept zich er nieteens in±soenieten en sjiiten zijn niet samen een geheel=
En christenen ook al niet, zet je af,kijk naar die moorden op de Armeniers:
Er is wel een weg, maaar die weg ligt verscholen tussen onheil,en domheid,men laat Attah Turk de wegbanen,terwijl die Attah ook maar dom deed, en het Arabisch ging verbieden.
Verbieden is slecht...Verbieden zet niet aan tot een heilstaat...
In Nederland doet men zelfde, men sluit Turken uit, die zich niet willen uitspreken in koers van genocide..
Het is allemaal Nationalistisch belang,voor je je woord geeft, lig je achter het behang..--
We zijn geen troetel kinderen of mensen, we willen gelijkwaaardigheden schepppen,in landen waar we leven..
En dat lukt best wel. Alleen niet op bedweterigheden,het altijd wel weten,het invullen,b.v. wat de christenen nu doen in Nederland...
Het is niet strijden tegen geloven, maar tegen je eigen shit intrepetatie,je eigen shit indoctrinatie,je eigen shit doelstellingen, wat nergens op slaat.
Dus!
Mensen leef en doe het goed,niks meer of minder,dan komt het goed,inscha Allah!