Bekijk Volledige Versie : Irak en Syrie: twee belangrijke ahadith!!
IRAQ & SYRIA: Two Important Ahadeeth of the Prophet (SAWS)
The following two important Ahadeeth of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) are so relevant in understanding the events of the contemporary world. In my view, these Ahadeeth describe the current reality very accurately. They, among many other Qur'anic verses and sayings of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam), even further re-confirms and testify to the true messengerhood of the last messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam).
1. IRAQ's Boycott (followed by SYRIA’s Boycott?!)
Abu Hurairah (RA) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) said: (Iraq will be forbidden its dirhams (money) and bread, and Syria will be forbidden its food and dinars, and Egypt will be forbidden its crops and dinars; and you will return to where you started, and you will return to where you started, and you will return to where you started).
Section 67 The Book of Trials, Chapter 39 Iraq's Boycott, No. 2033, Page1079.
Saheeh Muslim (The Book of Trials) as in: Summarised Saheeh Muslim Arabic - English Volume 2; Compiled by: Al-Hafiz Zakiuddin Abdul-Aziz Al-Mundhiri; Published by: Darussalam
2. A Caliph in the last ages will collect money
Al--Jurairi reported that Abu Nadhrah said: we were with Jabir bin Abdullah
(RA) when he said, (Iraqi people will be forbidden their food and money), we asked, (who will do that?). He said: (The non-Arabs will forbid that). He added: (Syrian people will (also) be forbidden their money and food), we said: (who will do that?). He said: (The Romans). Jabir was silent for a while then told that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) also said: (There will be a Caliph in the last days of my nation, who will collect money abundantly without counting), I asked Abu Nadhrah: (Is he Umar bin Abdul Aziz?), He said: [(Absolutely) No]
Section 67 The Book of Trials, Chapter 41 A Caliph in the last ages will
collect money, No. 2036, Page 1081.Saheeh Muslim (The Book of Trials) as in: Summarised Saheeh Muslim Arabic - English Volume 2; Compiled by: Al-Hafiz Zakiuddin Abdul-Aziz Al-Mundhiri; Published by: Darussalam.
Note also the very interesting following observation: In Jabir’s Hadeeth the Iraq’s embargo is due to non-Arabs, which is a much wider concept than the Romans only (Romans are currently the Europeans and the Americans). But the Syria embargo as attributed only to the Romans, which seems to indicate a lack of wide international support: very interesting!!
Het laatste uur zal niet komen voordat de Eufraat een schat zal blootleggen, waarvoor de mensen zullen vechten.
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The Last Hour would not come before the Euphrates uncovers a mountain of gold, for which people would fight. Ninety-nine out of each one hundred would die but every man amongst them would say that perhaps he would be the one who would be saved (and thus possess this gold).
Book 041, Number 6919:
This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Suhail with the same chain of transmitters but with this addition:" My father said: If you see that, do not even go near it."
Book 041, Number 6920:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The Last Hour would not come unless the Euphrates would uncover a treasure of gold, so he who finds it should not take anything out of that.
Book 041, Number 6921:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The Euphrates would soon uncover a mountain of gold but he who is present there should not take anything from that.
Book 041, Number 6922:
'Abdullah b. Harith b. Naufal reported: I was standing along with Ubayy b. Ka, b and he said: The opinions of the people differ in regard to the achievement of worldly ends. I said: Yes, of course. Thereupon he said: I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The Euphrates would soon uncover a mountain of gold and when the people would bear of it they would flock towards it but the people who would possess that (treasure) (would say): If we allow these persons to take out of it they would take away the whole of it. So they would fight and ninety-nine out of one hundred would be killed. Abu Kamil in his narration said: I and Abu Ka'b stood under the shade of the battlement of Hassan.
Further analysis of Hadith about Iraq, Syria & Egypt
From: - Sahih Muslim - Kitab Al-Fitan wa Ashrat As-Sa`ah.
The Book Pertaining to the Turmoil and Portents of the Hour
Book 041, Number 6923:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Iraq would withhold its dirhams and qafiz; Syria would withhold its mudd and dinar and Egypt would withhold its irdab and dinar and you would recoil to that position from where you started and you would recoil to that position from where you started and you would recoil to that position from where you started, the bones and the flesh of Abu Huraira would bear testimony to it.
===============
Clearer English translation of the words in bold indicate: "The country of Iraq will be forbidden its dirhams (money) and Qafiz (i.e. Sanctions imposed on it), and Syria will be forbidden its food and dinars (Sanctions imposed on it), and Egypt will be forbidden its crops and dinars (Sanctions imposed on it).
As the Hadith shows - there is going to be difference between the sanctions between the three countries.
Starting from Iraq - we need to first investigate the word "Qifaz" - so what is Qafiz ?. The Sicilian language has a word called "Cafisu" which they describe has come from Arabic. According to Sicilian language dictionaries "cafisu (cafiso: measure of oil) [Arabic :Qafiz]". The word Qifaz is an arabic word used for measure of "OIL"!
Now in 2003 - more than thousand years after this hadith was recorded - we already know that in Iraq - the sanctions were and are for "Oil-for-Food" program - as Oil is the basis for this sanction - it fits well with "Dirhams and Qafiz".
According to latest export data from Syria - "Syria has a diversified economy based in agriculture and industry. The agricultural sector generates employment for a large percentage of the population. Wheat is the most important crop. ... its major exports are Petroleum, natural gas, textiles, food and live animals and manufactured goods".
Comparing with Islamic terminologies "mudd" is also a unit of measurement and interestingly almost always refers to a measure of Wheat! Here is a Hadith from Sahih Bukhari that mentions about Mudd as a measure of Wheat (grain).
Volume 2, Book 24, Number 497:
Narrated Abu Masud Al-Ansar:
Whenever Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) ordered us to give in charity, we used to go to the market and work as porters and get a Mudd (a special measure of grain) and then give it in charity. (Those were the days of poverty) and to-day some of us have one hundred thousand.
Another mention of Mudd in relation with Wheat comes from the time of Umar (ra). It states:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar used to do kaffara for a broken oath by feeding ten poor people. Each person got a mudd of wheat. He sometimes freed a slave if he had repeated the oath. [Book 22, Number 22.7.13: ]
So the Sanctions imposed on Syria would be "Wheat-for-Money" or some similar sanctions. Today in 2003 - USA is calling for sanctions on Syria after it has dealt with Iraq already. And this hadith was recorded in Sahih Muslim more than a thousand years ago!
Now - coming to the Sanctions that would be imposed on Egypt. According to the Hadith above it is about Irdab and Dinar. Notice that there is no oil in Egypt - so the sanctions on it will have nothing to do with oil. Checking what the major exports are from Egypt we find out that "The main agricultural products of Egypt are cotton, rice, corn, wheat and beans.". So what is Irdab. Irdab - just like Mudd is a quantity of measure. In islamic history the terminology of Irdab is used also for Wheat or for general food crops. As an example see below:
In Cairo, in 1365, the Mamluke prince, Yalbagha Al-Umari, ordered that each student at the mosque of Ibn Tulun (who was living there as someone who live in a hostel/dormitory in a university today) be given forty dirhams and one irdab of wheat every month.
Mudd is the basic unit - and around 2.5 mudd equals one Sa'. If one Irdab is sufficient for a youth for one month - that means that an Irdab of Wheat is a lot more than a Mudd of Wheat. This is because one Mudd is considered enough food for one person at one time. Sa' is considered enough for a day - so if Irdab is enough for a month - it would be a much larger measure.
Based on this information - in my humble opinion - this means that the Hadith is telling us that the "measure" of Sanctions on Egypt - the "Wheat, or Crops for Money" program imposed will be much worse than that on Syria.
So next time - if someone asks "who is next" on the US list - you know exactly who that would be.
Notice also that the three reasonable size countries that had any chance of standing up to Israel - are all listed in this - Iraq, Syria, and Egypt. As the policy of Eritz Israel (Greater Israel) is enshrined in the Zionist books - the two "blue lines" in the flag of Israel represent - River Nile (in Egypt) and River Eupharates (in Iraq) - meaning that the greater Israel is to be established from the land of the river nile to the land of the river Eupharates.
=====
May Allah (swt) allow us to contemplate and ponder on the meanings of Qur'anic ayat and on Ahadeeth and allow us to open our eyes to the fitna and the shar - and the trials and tribulations 'ameen
New Cheney Adviser Sets Syria In His Sights
by Jim Lobe
October 21, 2003
A neo-conservative strategist who has long called for the United States and Israel to work together to "roll back" the Ba'ath-led government in Syria has been quietly appointed as a Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney.
David Wurmser, who had been working for Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, joined Cheney's staff under its powerful national security director, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, in mid-September, according to Cheney's office.
The move is significant, not only because Cheney is seen increasingly as the dominant foreign-policy influence on President George W. Bush, but also because it adds to the notion that neo-conservatives remain a formidable force under Bush despite the sharp plunge in public confidence in Bush's handling of post-war Iraq resulting from the faulty assumptions propagated by the "neo-cons" before the war.
Given the recent intensification of tensions between Washington and Damascus – touched off by this month's U.S. veto of a United Nations Security Council resolution deploring an Israeli air attack on an alleged Palestinian camp outside Damascus – Wurmser's rise takes on added significance.
The move also follows House of Representatives' approval of a bill that would impose new economic and diplomatic sanctions against Syria.
Wurmser's status as a favoured protege of arch-hawk and former Defence Policy Board chairman Richard Perle at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) also speaks loudly to Middle East specialists, who note Perle's long-time close association with Cheney, Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld's chief deputy Paul Wolfowitz.
Wolfowitz was the first senior administration official to suggest that Washington might take action against Syria amid reports last April that Damascus was sheltering senior Iraqi leaders and weapons of mass destruction in the wake of the U.S. invasion.
"There's got to be a change in Syria," Wolfowitz said, accusing the government of President Bashar Assad of "extreme ruthlessness." Rumsfeld subsequently accused Syria of permitting Islamic "jihadis" to infiltrate Iraq to fight U.S. troops.
Perle, who last week was in Israel to receive a special award from the "Jerusalem Summit," an international group of right wing Jews and Christian Zionists who describe themselves as defenders of "civilisation" against "Islamic fundamentalism," has made no secret of his own desire to confront Damascus.
In a series of interviews, Perle applauded Israel's attack on Syrian territory – the first since the 1967 war – in alleged retaliation for a Palestinian suicide bombing in Israel. "I am happy to see the message was delivered to Syria by the Israeli Air Force, and I hope it is the first of many such messages," he said.
Perle said he "hope(d)" the United States would itself take action against Damascus, particularly if it turned out that Syria was acting as a financial or recruiting base for the insurgency in Iraq.
"Syria is itself a terrorist organisation," he asserted, insisting that Washington would not find it difficult to send troops to Damascus despite its commitment in Iraq. "Syria is militarily very weak," added Perle.
Damascus has been in Wurmser's sights at least since he began working with Perle at AEI in the mid-1990s.
For the latter part of the decade, he wrote frequently to support a joint U.S.-Israeli effort to undermine then-President Hafez Assad in hopes of destroying Baathist rule and hastening the creation of a new order in the Levant to be dominated by "tribal, familial and clan unions under limited governments."
Indeed, it was precisely because of the strategic importance of the Levant that Wurmser advocated overthrowing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in favour of an Iraqi National Congress (INC) closely tied to the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan.
"Whoever inherits Iraq dominates the entire Levant strategically," he wrote in one 1996 paper for the Jerusalem-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS).
Wurmser, whose Israeli-born spouse Meyrav Wurmser heads Middle East studies at the neo-conservative Hudson Institute, was the main author of a 1996 report by a task force convened by the IASPS and headed by Perle, called the 'Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000'.
The paper, called 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm', was directed to incoming Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
It featured a series of recommendations designed to end the process of Israel trading "land for peace" by transforming the "balance of power" in the Middle East in favour of an axis consisting of Israel, Turkey and Jordan.
To do so, it called for ousting Saddam Hussein and installing a Hashemite leader in Baghdad. From that point, the strategy would be largely focused on Syria and, at the least, to reducing its influence in Lebanon.
Among other steps, the report called for Israeli sponsorship of attacks on Syrian territory by "Israeli proxy forces" based in Lebanon and "striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper."
"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, even rolling back Syria," the report argued, to create a "natural axis" between Israel, Jordan, a Hashemite Iraq and Turkey that "would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula."
"For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East, which could threaten Syria's territorial integrity," it suggested.
A follow-up report by Wurmser titled 'Coping with Crumbling States', also favoured a substantial redrawing of the Middle East along tribal and familial lines in light of what he called an "emerging phenomenon – the crumbling of Arab secular-nationalist nations."
The penchant of Washington and the West in general for backing secular-nationalist states against the threat of militant Islamic fundamentalism was a strategic error, warned Wurmser in the second study, a conclusion he repeated in a 1999 book, Tyranny's Ally ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0844740748/antiwarbookstore/ ), which included a laudatory foreword by Perle and was published by AEI.
While the book focused on Iraq not Syria, it elaborated on Wurmser's previous arguments by attacking regional specialists in U.S. universities, the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who, according to him, were too wedded to strong secular states in the Arab world as the preferred guarantors of regional stability.
"Our Middle East scholarly and policy elite are informed by bad ideas about the region that lead them to bad policies," he charged, echoing a position often taken by Perle.
In the book's acknowledgments, Wurmser praised those who most influenced his work, a veritable "who's who" of those neo-cons most closely tied to Israel's far right, including Perle himself, another AEI scholar, Michael Ledeen and Undersecretary of Defence for Policy and the man in charge of post-Iraq war planning, Douglas Feith.
He listed former CIA director James Woolsey, who has called the conflict in Syria the early stages of "World War IV," Harold Rhode, a Feith aide who has also called himself Wolfowitz's "Islamic Affairs adviser" and INC leader Ahmed Chalabi.
Wurmser also gave thanks to Irving Moskowitz, a major casino operator and long-time funder of Israel's settlement movement, whom he described as a "gentle man whose generous support of AEI allows me to be here." 1996 Report ( http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm ), "A Clean Break" and "Coping With Crumbling States."
(Inter Press Service)
By Kareem M. Kamel
Researcher – International Relations
08/11/2003
If President Assad chooses not to respond, if he chooses to dissemble, if he chooses to find excuses, then he will find that he is on the wrong side of history.1 – US Secretary of State, Colin Powell
Being “on the right side of history” means being on the side of those whose roadmap for peace simply requires Arab governments to ally with the US, recognize Israel, collaborate in the suppression of Palestinian militancy, accept a noncontiguous Palestinian Bantustan state…. eliminate any weapons of mass destruction which might threaten nuclear Israel, actively suppress elements of Islam objectionable to Israel and the US, and accept the US occupation of Iraq. It would be helpful, too, if they fully open their markets, place their banks, industries and utilities under foreign control, and host US military bases.2 – Gary Leupp, Professor of History,Tufts University
Scenes from the aftermath of the Israeli airstrike
Events in the Middle East took a dramatic turn in the past few weeks when Israel launched an air strike against an alleged training camp for Palestinian militants in Ein Saheb, 15 km northwest of Damascus. The raid, Israel’s first attack on Syrian territory since 1973, came right after a Palestinian bombing, claimed by Islamic Jihad, in Haifa, northern Israel, which left 19 Israelis dead. While the Israeli-Syrian border has been relatively quiet since the armistice agreement following the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, both countries fought each other in Lebanon or through proxy forces during the Lebanese civil war. However, the Israeli raid signals an end to proxy warfare between both sides and the beginning of a new chapter in Arab-Israeli confrontations.
Leaders from all over the world condemned the Israeli attack on Syria as an act of “extreme gravity,” and an “unacceptable breach of international law.” On the other hand, US President George Bush said that Israel had a right to defend itself and that it “must not feel constrained in terms of defending the homeland.”3 In the following days, a war of words erupted between Israel and Syria, in which the Syrian spokeswoman, Bushra Kanafani asserted Syria's right of self-defense in case of further Israeli attack, and Israel responded provocatively by insisting that it had the option to attack anytime, against any country that harbored “terrorists.”4
At the same time, the US House International Relations Committee voted 33-2 in favor of the Syria Accountability Act, which threatens penalties that include prohibiting all US exports to Syria except food and medicine, barring US investments or business operations in Syria, and banning Syrian aircraft from US airspace.5 The Syrian Accountability Act of 2003 charges Syria with supporting “terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hizbullah, and Islamic Jihad, continuing to develop a weapons of mass destruction program and permitting Arab fighters to cross its border into Iraq to attack US troops.” It also criticizes Syria for refusing to withdraw its forces from Lebanon, where it maintains roughly 17,000 troops.6 The sponsors of the bill said that they have strong support for their cause even in the Senate and were confident that their bill would eventually make it to the president’s desk as a final piece of legislation. The Bush administration itself withdrew its opposition to the congressional measure, citing Syria’s failure to heed US demands.
US threats against Syria are not new. In fact, in the days after the fall of Baghdad, several US officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, issued strong warnings about Syria’s behavior. Syria was said to have given refuge to fleeing Iraqi leaders, to have permitted anti-Israeli “terror” groups to keep offices in Damascus, and to have stores of weapons of mass destruction.7 As if to underline this warning, the US bombed the Syrian trade center in Baghdad and shut down the oil pipeline from Iraq to Syria. Syria’s valuable trade with Iraq – which totaled about $5 billion in the period 1998-2002 – was and remains cut off. This is a serious blow to the Syrian economy, since Iraq had in recent years become Syria’s main trading partner.8
Reports then surfaced that the US pledged to tackle the Syrian-backed Hizbullah group in the next phase of its “war on terror,” in a move that could threaten military action against President Bashar Assad’s regime in Damascus. Then, on July 21, 2003, Bush said after a meeting with Italian premier, Silvio Berlusconi: “Today, Syria and Iran continue to harbor and assist terrorists. This behavior is completely unacceptable, and states that support terror will be held accountable.” In addition, US Secretary of State Colin Powell repeatedly urged the Syrians to not only close down the offices of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but to expel their members from Syria.9 Simultaneously, other reports indicated that as early as May 2002, the Israeli military was preparing for a major military offensive against Syria, in response to a series of Hizbullah attacks along the Lebanese border with the Jewish state. Israeli officials confirmed then that plans were underway for the assassination of Hizbullah chief, Hassan Nasrallah, and that their military reserves had been mobilized for a confrontation with Syria.10
Given America’s endless “war on terrorism” and the recent military campaign against Iraq, no one can precisely predict the nature of future confrontations in the Middle East. However, recent Israeli and US moves against Syria indicate that an important threshold has been crossed, and a new and dangerous chapter in the history of the region is unfolding.
Strategic Dimensions of US-Israeli Actions
Recent Israeli and American actions can be considered a manifestation of key strategic features of the post-September 11 world, and the result of the regional and international transformations which took place following the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq. The Israeli attack on Syria was intended to send a clear message to Damascus to cease support for militant groups considered “terrorist” by Israel.
In many ways, the Israeli attack plays upon the same logic of pre-emption found in the Bush doctrine. Once the world’s sole superpower begins to attack countries pre-emptively, it sets a precedent that can be used by other regional powers to attack their enemies under the banner of “fighting terrorism” or “preventing future terrorist attacks.” For both Israel and the United States, the doctrine of pre-emption is a convenient cliché, used to rationalize their aggressive behavior and enable them to deal with their enemies.
More importantly, however, the attack illustrated Israel’s potential to the US – not only as an historical ally, but also as a strategic asset in the post-September 11 world. Israel is aware that the US is bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, and is in no situation to open a new military front against Syria. In this regard, Israel’s attack against Syria sends a message to the US, that Israel can be its military arm. In other words, whereas the US would work to isolate Syria politically, economically, and diplomatically, Israel would be ready to go ahead with the military task and relieve the US of the cost of opening a new front. Hence, a symbiotic “division of labor” is emerging between Israel and the US. This would explain multiple diplomatic exchanges between both sides in the past weeks, from the US vetoing recent Security Council draft resolutions containing a condemnation of Israel, to its support for Israel’s recent and devastating military incursions into Gaza, and of course, for the attack against Syria.
Israel was encouraged in its act of aggression against Syria not only by an American “green light,” but also by the exceptional weakness of the Arab regional system following the occupation of Iraq, in addition to the fact that Syria is now sandwiched between Israel and the US military presence in Iraq.
Some analysts believe that Israel now plans to treat the Syrian regime much as it has treated Palestine’s Yasser Arafat over the past three years, i.e. accusing it of orchestrating every bombing against Israel and working diplomatically and militarily to isolate it both regionally and internationally with the help of the US.11 Sharon realizes that despite his use of various military means – large-scale military incursions, reoccupation of Palestinian territories and targeted assassinations – he has failed to crush the Palestinian uprising. Therefore, a successful attack on Syria would give him a badly needed political victory. In addition, a military escalation with Syria would represent a return to classical warfare methods in which Israel enjoys a relative advantage over conventional Arab armies, as opposed to dealing with a Palestinian uprising using guerilla tactics and asymmetric warfare.
Conclusions
Since 1990, Syria has engaged in many positive steps towards reconciliation with the US. It joined George Bush Senior’s grand coalition against Saddam Hussein in the 1991 Gulf War, and after September 11 it provided the US with much needed intelligence concerning al-Qaeda’s activities. In addition, it voted alongside the US in the United Nations in favor of a resumption of weapons inspections in Iraq. In this respect, it becomes more evident that current US and Israeli steps aim at punishing Syria not for what it did, but rather for what it did not do – support US military activities in Iraq and end its support for resistance groups in Palestine and Lebanon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US and Israeli are punishing Syria for what it did not do – support the US in Iraq and end its support for Palestinian and Lebanese resistance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The neoconservative and pro-Zionist hawks who dominate the Bush administration and control influential Congressional circles are interested in redrawing the map of the Middle East. In their view, a “successful” post-war Iraq is a weak, pro-American federal state, lead by a puppet regime that will never again challenge American and Israeli interests. After having eliminated Saddam Hussein – Israel’s last Arab opponent of strategic weight – Israel hopes to benefit from America’s recent war against Iraq by inciting the US to take on Syria and Iran as well. Sharon is, after all, the foremost champion of a “Greater Israel,” and the architect behind many of Israel’s grandiose regional ambitions. Sharon and his powerful friends in the Bush administration seek to weaken Syria, disarm Hizbullah, and eventually force Syria to give up its claim to the Golan, seized by Israel in the 1967 war. In addition, they seek to end all types of Arab support for the Palestinians and force them to accept a fragmented, truncated, and defenseless entity on Israel’s terms.12 They also hope to break the Syrian-Iranian alliance – the most durable alliance in the region for more than two decades. This aspect becomes important if one notes recent revelations reported by the German and American press, indicating Mossad plans for a surprise attack on six alleged Iranian nuclear facilities.13 Also, recent reports confirm that Israel modified submarine-launched US-made cruise missiles to make them nuclear-capable; hence giving the Middle East’s only nuclear power the ability to strike swiftly at any of its neighbors.14
For the decision-makers in Washington and Tel Aviv, force, domination and military conquest are the most important tools of international relations. It remains to be seen how Arab and Muslim states will react to the American-Israeli threat to their history, independence, sovereignty, and more importantly, their future existence. Will their governments act now, or will they surrender themselves to being pawns in the Bush-Sharon game of empire building?
Kareem M. Kamel is an Egyptian freelance writer based in Cairo, Egypt. He has an MA in International Relations and is specialized in security studies, decision- making, nuclear politics, Middle East politics and the politics of Islam. He is currently assistant to the Political Science Department at the American University in Cairo.
Baraka Allahu Fiek Hudaifa, Is er misschien ook een volgorde van de gebeurtenissen in de Ahadith waar te nemen. Ik heb bijvoorbeeld gelezen in een Hadith dat de tijdperk van de Saitan begint met de Rode Wind uit het Oosten (lees de opkomst van het door Bolsjewieken uitgevonden Communisme en daarmee gepaard gaande Atheisme)
Geplaatst door Hudhaifa
IRAQ & SYRIA: Two Important Ahadeeth of the Prophet (SAWS)
2. A Caliph in the last ages will collect money
Al--Jurairi reported that Abu Nadhrah said: we were with Jabir bin Abdullah
(RA) when he said, (Iraqi people will be forbidden their food and money), we asked, (who will do that?). He said: (The non-Arabs will forbid that). He added: (Syrian people will (also) be forbidden their money and food), we said: (who will do that?). He said: (The Romans). Jabir was silent for a while then told that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) also said: (There will be a Caliph in the last days of my nation, who will collect money abundantly without counting), I asked Abu Nadhrah: (Is he Umar bin Abdul Aziz?), He said: [(Absolutely) No]
Hier wordt waarschijnlijk de Mehdi mee bedoelt toch? Hij zal 7 jaar lang de macht hebben en zal weer eerlijkheid en rechtvaardigheid over de aarde verspreiden.....Moslims zullen hem trouw zweren bij de Ka'ba in Mekka.
Als de moslims van zijn komst zullen horen, wordt hun geboden zich naar hem toe te snellen om zich aan te sluiten.
Bron: Tekenen van de Dag de Oordeels (Uitgeverij Noer)
Stelletje waarzeggers bij mekaar. :moe:
Geplaatst door Puk
Stelletje waarzeggers bij mekaar. :moe:
Ik heb hun versen even nagezocht op internet.
dezelfde versen staan ook onder een kop genaamd: The Arrival of the AntiCrist
Met andere woorden, loze praat. Daarbij worden zeer oude teksten en nieuwe plaatsen door elkaar gegooid. Eerst grijpen ze terug naar de Romeinen rond het jaar van Christus. (wat dus voor het moslimgeloof is)
En vervolgens zeggen ze dat Europa en Amerika nu onder de benaming 'Niet Arabiers' valt. Daarbij beweren ze dat de 'romeinen' syrie gaan boycotten en suggereren ze dat dat betekend dat de 'romeinen' er schijbaar alleen voor staan omdat er geen 'niet Arabiers' bij staat.
Je hoeft geen genie te zijn dat deze vergelijking met opzet is gedaan om de 'Romeinen' als Amerikanen af te schilderen. Natuurlijk manipulatieve b*llsh*t en verdraaiing van woordbetekenis.
Daarbij wordt de term Anti-Christ (van een andere website met dezelfde versen) genoemd. Het is niet logish dat moslimversen refereren naar 'Anti-Christ' terwijl moslims zeggen dat Jezus een valse profeet is.
Het klopt dus van geen kanten.
Anyway, je kunt het ook zelf natrekken en deze websites met elkaar vergelijken:
http://www.tranungkite.net/c04/tiger111.htm
http://etori.tripod.com/on-antichrist.html
Vooral die laatste is goed. De maker van de site beweerd dat hij eerst geloofde dat alle religies bij elkaar hoorde. Na kennismaking met de Islam was hij ervan overtuigd dat alle andere religies uit de Islam voortkomen. Schijnbaar is onze verlichte vriend er niet van op de hoogte gebracht dat zowel het Christendom als het Jodendom ouder als de Islam zijn.
Hier wordt een religie weer gebruikt als een legpuzzel voor het heden.
Dezelfde praatjes lees je op orthodox christelijke sites aangaande het einde van deze wereld, en de terugkomst van Jezus.
Het is van alle tijden dat mensen in het heden oude boeken bewaarheid willen zien, als bevestiging van het eigen geloof.
Geplaatst door Blade20
Vooral die laatste is goed. De maker van de site beweerd dat hij eerst geloofde dat alle religies bij elkaar hoorde. Na kennismaking met de Islam was hij ervan overtuigd dat alle andere religies uit de Islam voortkomen. Schijnbaar is onze verlichte vriend er niet van op de hoogte gebracht dat zowel het Christendom als het Jodendom ouder als de Islam zijn.
Schijnbaar weet jij niet dat al voorgaande profeten de islam volgde als godsdienst.
67. Abraham was noch een Jood, noch een Christen, maar hij was een oprecht Moslim. En hij behoorde niet tot de afgodendienaren.
(surah al imraan)
Het woord Moslim betekent dat hij degene zich volledig onderwerpt aan God.
84. Zeg: "Wij geloven in Allah en in hetgeen ons werd geopenbaard en hetgeen werd geopenbaard aan Abraham, Ismaël, Izaäk, Jacob, en de stammen en hetgeen aan Mozes en Jezus en de profeten door hun Heer werd gegeven. Wij maken geen onderscheid tussen wie dan ook van hen. Aan Hem alleen onderwerpen wij ons.
(surah al imraan)
Geplaatst door Wizdom
Baraka Allahu Fiek Hudaifa, Is er misschien ook een volgorde van de gebeurtenissen in de Ahadith waar te nemen. Ik heb bijvoorbeeld gelezen in een Hadith dat de tijdperk van de Saitan begint met de Rode Wind uit het Oosten (lees de opkomst van het door Bolsjewieken uitgevonden Communisme en daarmee gepaard gaande Atheisme)
Krijgen de Koran en de Hadith toch nog de status die ze verdienen: die van Nostradamus.
Geplaatst door Blade20
En vervolgens zeggen ze dat Europa en Amerika nu onder de benaming 'Niet Arabiers' valt.
oh :verward: ik wist niet dat Amerika en Europa de Arabieren zijn
Daarbij wordt de term Anti-Christ (van een andere website met dezelfde versen) genoemd. Het is niet logish dat moslimversen refereren naar 'Anti-Christ' terwijl moslims zeggen dat Jezus een valse profeet is.
De Anti Crist wordt in de Islam aangegeven met de naam Dajaal. De profeet Jezus vzmh wordt aangeduid met Isa.
Welke Moslims zeggen dat Jezus vzmh een valse profeet is? Ik denk dat je nu bepaalde feiten van verschillende religies door elkaar haalt. Joden zeggen dat Jezus vzmh een valse profeet is. Klop maar bij hun aan de deur.
Het klopt dus van geen kanten
Geplaatst door Blade20
Ik heb hun versen even nagezocht op internet.
dezelfde versen staan ook onder een kop genaamd: The Arrival of the AntiCrist
Met andere woorden, loze praat. Daarbij worden zeer oude teksten en nieuwe plaatsen door elkaar gegooid. Eerst grijpen ze terug naar de Romeinen rond het jaar van Christus. (wat dus voor het moslimgeloof is)
En vervolgens zeggen ze dat Europa en Amerika nu onder de benaming 'Niet Arabiers' valt. Daarbij beweren ze dat de 'romeinen' syrie gaan boycotten en suggereren ze dat dat betekend dat de 'romeinen' er schijbaar alleen voor staan omdat er geen 'niet Arabiers' bij staat.
Je hoeft geen genie te zijn dat deze vergelijking met opzet is gedaan om de 'Romeinen' als Amerikanen af te schilderen. Natuurlijk manipulatieve b*llsh*t en verdraaiing van woordbetekenis.
Daarbij wordt de term Anti-Christ (van een andere website met dezelfde versen) genoemd. Het is niet logish dat moslimversen refereren naar 'Anti-Christ' terwijl moslims zeggen dat Jezus een valse profeet is.
Het klopt dus van geen kanten.
Anyway, je kunt het ook zelf natrekken en deze websites met elkaar vergelijken:
http://www.tranungkite.net/c04/tiger111.htm
http://etori.tripod.com/on-antichrist.html
Vooral die laatste is goed. De maker van de site beweerd dat hij eerst geloofde dat alle religies bij elkaar hoorde. Na kennismaking met de Islam was hij ervan overtuigd dat alle andere religies uit de Islam voortkomen. Schijnbaar is onze verlichte vriend er niet van op de hoogte gebracht dat zowel het Christendom als het Jodendom ouder als de Islam zijn.
"Hoe kunnen jullie niet in Allah geloven, terwijl jullie dood waren en Hij jullie leven gaf! Vervolgens zal Hij jullie laten sterven, waarop Hij jullie tot leven wekt en tot Hem is de terugkeer." (Soerat al-Baqarah: 28)
“En wie een andere godsdienst dan de Islam zoekt; het zal van hen niet geaccepteerd worden en hij behoort in het Hiernamaals tot de verliezers.”
(Soerat Aali cImraan: 85)
“Voorwaar, degenen die Onze Verzen loochenen en die zich er hooghartig van afwenden; de poorten van de hemel zullen voor hen niet worden geopend, en zij zullen het Paradijs niet binnengaan, totdat de kameel door het oog van de naald gaat. En zo vergelden Wij de misdadigers.” (Soerat al-Acraaf: 40)
Geplaatst door Sama
"Hoe kunnen jullie niet in Allah geloven, terwijl jullie dood waren en Hij jullie leven gaf! Vervolgens zal Hij jullie laten sterven, waarop Hij jullie tot leven wekt en tot Hem is de terugkeer." (Soerat al-Baqarah: 28)
“En wie een andere godsdienst dan de Islam zoekt; het zal van hen niet geaccepteerd worden en hij behoort in het Hiernamaals tot de verliezers.”
(Soerat Aali cImraan: 85)
“Voorwaar, degenen die Onze Verzen loochenen en die zich er hooghartig van afwenden; de poorten van de hemel zullen voor hen niet worden geopend, en zij zullen het Paradijs niet binnengaan, totdat de kameel door het oog van de naald gaat. En zo vergelden Wij de misdadigers.” (Soerat al-Acraaf: 40)
Vannuit het oogpunt van iemand die zijn godsdienst moet verkopen aan zijn volk zijn dit volkomen logische teksten om hen duidelijk te maken dat alleen zij op de juiste weg zitten.
Hoeveel mensen zouden de islam hebben aanvaard als de enige echte godsdienst als niet om de haverklap zulke teksten opduiken in de koran?
Ze zouden gaan twijfelen, misschien zelfs voor andere godsdiensten kiezen. Wat je boven citeert heeft net zoveel waarde als een reclamefolder van een bedrijf dat haar eigen produkten aanprijst.
Hoe krijg je ze anders zover om bij jouw bedrijf te blijven kopen?
Geplaatst door Jupiter
Vannuit het oogpunt van iemand die zijn godsdienst moet verkopen aan zijn volk zijn dit volkomen logische teksten om hen duidelijk te maken dat alleen zij op de juiste weg zitten.
Hoeveel mensen zouden de islam hebben aanvaard als de enige echte godsdienst als niet om de haverklap zulke teksten opduiken in de koran?
Ze zouden gaan twijfelen, misschien zelfs voor andere godsdiensten kiezen. Wat je boven citeert heeft net zoveel waarde als een reclamefolder van een bedrijf dat haar eigen produkten aanprijst.
Hoe krijg je ze anders zover om bij jouw bedrijf te blijven kopen?
Bedrijven gebruiken leugens om hun producten te verkopen. De Koran is niets dan de waarheid en perfectie. Geloof me, ik probeer mijn religie niet aan jou te 'verkopen', voor de goede daden die ik verricht word alleen ik beloond, voor de zonden die ik bega word alleen ik gestraft.
Het zal mij een zorg wezen of jij naar de hel gaat of niet..... :rolleyes:
Bedrijven gebruiken leugens om hun producten te verkopen. De Koran is niets dan de waarheid en perfectie.
Dat geloof jij, dat wil niet zeggen dat het ook waarheid is.
Het valt niet te bewijzen, dus blijft het zeer discutabel.
Jammer dat gelovigen hun religie diet bediscussieerbaar vinden :bril:
Geplaatst door Sama
Het zal mij een zorg wezen of jij naar de hel gaat of niet..... :rolleyes:
Het zal mij ook een rotzorg zijn of ik naar de hel ga of niet.
Geplaatst door Maslov
Dat geloof jij, dat wil niet zeggen dat het ook waarheid is.
Het valt niet te bewijzen, dus blijft het zeer discutabel.
Jammer dat gelovigen hun religie diet bediscussieerbaar vinden :bril:
Het is dubieus te discussieren over iets dat klaarhelder is....
Geplaatst door Sama
Het is dubieus te discussieren over iets dat klaarhelder is....
Volgens mij is het helemaal niet klaarhelder.
Vraagje:
Toen de profeet zijn versen ontving, zijn er mensen steeds bijgeweest of kreeg hij het alleen als hij zich afgezonderd had? Lijkt me interessant om te weten.
Geplaatst door Yehi 24
Bij het onderwerp blijven JUpiter...
Sorry, ik zal er wel (ooit) een topic van maken.
Geplaatst door Jupiter
Volgens mij is het helemaal niet klaarhelder.
Vraagje:
Toen de profeet zijn versen ontving, zijn er mensen steeds bijgeweest of kreeg hij het alleen als hij zich afgezonderd had? Lijkt me interessant om te weten.
Oh Jupiter toch.... :moe:
DE Profeet, vrede zij met hem, ontving zijn versen als hij alleen was. Het mooiste van alles is dat hij analfabeet was, subhan-Allah (Allah-oe-a3lam) Want zie je, er zou geen mens zijn die niet zou geloven als God (swt) direct tot hem zou spreken. Het is een beproeving in iets te geloven waarvan je weet dat het de waarheid is maar nooit hebt gezien. Dat is ook waarom de waarheid voor mij, en voor miljarden anderen, duidelijk is. Het bewijs is namelijk de Koran, deze zou nooit door een mens zijn kunnen geschreven. We weten alleen hetgeen Allah (swt) aan ons heeft geopenbaard.
Het feit dat we (= moslims) geconfronteerd worden met mensen zoals jij kan ook als een beproeving gezien worden. Door dergelijke vragen moeten we nadenken over de waarheid en de kennis die we hebben. Als ik jouw vraag zo zie krijg ik bijna medelijden met je (je staat zo ver van de waarheid) en realiseer ik me weer hoe gezegend ik ben als moslima. Bedankt daarvoor................ :duim:
Geplaatst door Sama
Oh Jupiter toch.... :moe:
DE Profeet, vrede zij met hem, ontving zijn versen als hij alleen was. Het mooiste van alles is dat hij analfabeet was, subhan-Allah (Allah-oe-a3lam) Want zie je, er zou geen mens zijn die niet zou geloven als God (swt) direct tot hem zou spreken. Het is een beproeving in iets te geloven waarvan je weet dat het de waarheid is maar nooit hebt gezien. Dat is ook waarom de waarheid voor mij, en voor miljarden anderen, duidelijk is. Het bewijs is namelijk de Koran, deze zou nooit door een mens zijn kunnen geschreven. We weten alleen hetgeen Allah (swt) aan ons heeft geopenbaard.
Het feit dat we (= moslims) geconfronteerd worden met mensen zoals jij kan ook als een beproeving gezien worden. Door dergelijke vragen moeten we nadenken over de waarheid en de kennis die we hebben. Als ik jouw vraag zo zie krijg ik bijna medelijden met je (je staat zo ver van de waarheid) en realiseer ik me weer hoe gezegend ik ben als moslima. Bedankt daarvoor................ :duim:
Bedankt dat ik zo'n belangrijk rol in je leven mag hebben. Maar wees niet ongerust ik ben gewoon veels te nieuwsgierig, dat is alles. Daarom wil ik alles weten. Ik heb gewoon overal vragen over.
Als je interesse hebt: ik heb bij de islam-sectie een topic hierover geopend.
Geplaatst door Sama
"Hoe kunnen jullie niet in Allah geloven, terwijl jullie dood waren en Hij jullie leven gaf! Vervolgens zal Hij jullie laten sterven, waarop Hij jullie tot leven wekt en tot Hem is de terugkeer." (Soerat al-Baqarah: 28)
“En wie een andere godsdienst dan de Islam zoekt; het zal van hen niet geaccepteerd worden en hij behoort in het Hiernamaals tot de verliezers.”
(Soerat Aali cImraan: 85)
“Voorwaar, degenen die Onze Verzen loochenen en die zich er hooghartig van afwenden; de poorten van de hemel zullen voor hen niet worden geopend, en zij zullen het Paradijs niet binnengaan, totdat de kameel door het oog van de naald gaat. En zo vergelden Wij de misdadigers.” (Soerat al-Acraaf: 40)
Erg leuk, maar eenieder met een ander geloof (of geen zoals het merendeel op de wereld) ziet deze woorden als onzin. Ik heb met die denkbeeldige Allah te doen, zoveel regels en zo weinig volgers.(nog geen 2 miljard)
Daarbij komt nog dat het voor Atheisten geen bal zal uitmaken, geen naleven is geen hemel of hel.
Anyways, binnenkort maakt dat toch niet veel meer uit.