Ali Somali, what is down right frightning is that some of you believe that there are Muslim leaders that are rightly guided thus there citizens can not reject them The idea of leaders being divinely choosen is a shia concept. The view of Ahlu Sunnah wa jama'ah is that the ummah has the authority to choose/elect the khilafah. Any method can be employed to gain the consent of the people. During the time of the prophet (Saw) and the rightly guided imaams the pledge of allegiance was taken from the people for the ruler. how about if the leader is committing haram by say waging an unjust war, and the whole populace sees this war as unjust, but the leader thinks this war is just and in accordance with Islamic rules and laws, what recourse do the innocent civilians have? If the khilafah is a mujtihad he has the right to adopt any Islamic opinion he wishes and we are forced to comply. If we feel he's being oppressive then we have the right to challenge him in "the court of the unjust" in which case the judge will decide for or against the khilafah. The judge has the legal right to remove the khilafah from his position.

asalaamu alaykum, While browsing, I came across this article and remembered this thread. I thought I'd share for those of you interested in this subject. Unclothing Democracy Origins Democracy has originated from the mind of man, whereas Islam has originated from Allah (swt). Basis Democracy has its basis in secularism i.e. the detachment of religion from life, whereas Islam is based upon a comprehensive socio-economic and political structure where 'religion' i.e. the shariyah, is the source of all legislation. Thoughts Democracy produces thoughts such as the four general freedoms (belief, individual, speech and ownership), people are the source of legislation, and the rule of the majority. Islam by contrast does not allow these absolute freedoms, nor are the people the source of legislation and neither is the Islamic ruling based on majority rule.

Just as there are aspects that are similar in every religion there are aspects in different political systems that are also similar. This however does not mean they're compatible. When most people say Islam and Democracy are compatible what they actually mean is there's some similarity between the two. For example, while the right to choose a leader exists in both (in Islam in the form of giving allegiance), in democracy the people choose leader on the condition that he will rule them with whatever they dictate. Contrast this to Islam, where choosing a leader is seen as a contract between the people and the leader that he will rule with what Allah has revealed. So in democracy, when the people are displeased with their leader bc he has failed to answer to them, they vote him out. In Islam, however, we don't have this right as we can not remove the leader we've chosen so long as he doesn't break the contract we have with him and rules with what Allah has revealed. For argument's sake, even if the democratic ruling system and the Islam were so similar that they were almost indistinguishable, it would still be wrong for Muslims to adopt democracy as their ruling system since Allah has already defined one for us. After all, who better knows us than He?

salaam, I'm not sure I fully understand what you're asking Baashi but I'll gauge at an answer anyway. I think it's natural for man to ask questions related to his existance; why am I here, what's my purpose in life. I think it's equally natural for man to employ rational thinking in his attempts to find answers to these questions. Of course, this requires that we limit ourselves to what we can perceive and sense, namely, the universe, life and ourselves. If we do this then we understand that everything we can sense and perceive is an effect of a cause and we easily (since we're predisposed) come to the conclusion that there's a creator for everything we sense and perceive. Allah encourages us in the Quran to contemplate and come to believe in His existance rather than just asking us to "believe". He says: " Behold in the creation of the heaves and the earth and the alteration of night and day there are indeed signs for men of understanding." Also the prophet was reported to have said; "An hour spend in contemplation is worth more than spending awhole night in prayer." I think the danger lies more in not using rational thinking correctly, by failing to recognize our limitations, than it does with using it. To answer your question: Why can’t one be satisfied with what the revealed knowledge has to say about the particular question? I think this only happens when one is intellectually convinced of Allah and the validity of the revealed knowledge.

asalaamu alaykum, BBC is doing a series on life in Somalia. I came across this photo journal of a widow struggling to raise her children in mogadishu. It really touched my heart. May Allah fill our hearts with love for one another and bless us with peace and security. Photo Journal Life in Somalia

asalaamu alaykum, Wow, I never anticipated this many responses. If these discussions are being held about us then there's no reason why we shouldn't be discussing them too. Jzk for all your insightful replies. Hanif: Your point about Muslims finding a way to live in the West is very valid. The notion of Muslims living in un-Islamic society, is not something that's new to Islam and as such has not left it undefined. Islam defines exactly how we should live, function and conduct our affairs in un-Islamic societies. I should've clarified that Islam encourages interaction with society for the purposes of guiding people (doing dawah) by showing them the fallacies of the man-made systems they live their lives by and offering them Islam instead. Of course, it goes without saying that our means of doing this must be halal. With respect to gaining our rights, the ends dont justify the means here. As Muslims our means must also be halaal. We can't partake in a haraam political system where we actively endorse someone to a position where they will assume the role of Allah and legislate laws for the people all bc there's a preceived benefit in it for us (maybe if we all vote for a particular candidate, we will influence foreign policy). Also, this would not be conducive to our first mission of doing dawh. We can not simultaneously call be to Islam and tell them our way of life, ordained by the Creator, is better while at the same time being active participants in the political process that supports and prolongs the existence of the un-Islamic system. How counterproductive would this be? Living in the West is no doubt a huge challenge for us, but we should see this challenge as a test from Allah and use it as an opportunity to strenghten our allegiance to Islam. We shouldn't try to compromise fundamental aspects of our deen all because it'll make our lives here a bit more comfortable. Mutakalim, Jzk for your last post as it clarfied your previous posts. One thing about the definitions of words, you see, unlike your example with scissors, words like integration are defined by the socio-political context in which they're used. For example in European countries like France and Germany where assimilation tendencies are high, the words integration and assimliation are used almost interchangeably. Regardless, even if we were to take the dictionary definition; to integrate means: " to mix with and join society or a group of people, often changing to suit their way of life, habits and costumes". So if assimilation entails Muslims giving up all of their values and integration entails keeping only those that are in harmony with society, then they both amount to the same thing, kufr. So then it really makes no difference to Muslims if it's integration or assimilation. Sayyid Qutb (may Allah grant him jannah) is right in his assertion that legislation is the exclusive right of Allah. This is a fundamental tent of tawheed and Qutb takes great care in spelling it out for the readers in Milestones. Wallahi I'm always surprised at how lightly we take this, bc if it's a matter of tawheed then it's a matter of kufr. The idea of necessity over riding the hukm- I think this is a principle in fiqh much like that of benefit (maslaha) that has been mis-used by Muslims in the West to justify everything from voting to taking riba (mortgage). About your red light example, this would fall under the administrative system in Islam which is designed to aid the implementation of the shari'ah and is composed permissible (mubah) actions. For example, the hukum would be that the State ensures the safety of the citizens (or collect zakah, or build roads ect) any method used in achieving this is fine granted it's halaal. So stopping at a red light, bc it's man-made does not contravene with right of Allah to rule. Again Jzk for your replies. p.s Baashi, I used to have link where you can download Milestones online. Just can't find it right now. Let me know if you're interested and I'll inshaAllah look for it again.

assimilation has a negative connotation in my mind Integration essentially means assimilation but perhaps recognizing the negative connotation associated with it, it's better to market it as integration? From what I gather of this whole talk of integration, it just seems to me that integration is just another tool the west wishes to utilize in their never ending pursuit of attempting to convince Muslims to adopt secular values, of course, with the implication that Islam has failed to provide a solution to their problems. For example in the report published by this group, they question the role of Muslim women in society and because the role of women as defined by Islam is not in line with the dynamics of the westren way of life, the "traditional" understanding of women's role should be challenged and re-shaped. They use the term traditional when they mean Islamic, knowing very well that if they were to say what they mean Muslims would reject it. So the call to get women out into the work force (contribute to the capitalist economy) and compete with men in every sphere is clearly something against the "traditional" (i.e Islamic) understanding of gender roles therefore, the Islamic aqeedah should be excluded from defining the role of the modern Muslim woman. Muslims should invest more in social mobility and participate in the political process and find allies among the members of the majority societies; Here urging Muslims to participate in the un-Islamic political system is an attempt to force Muslims to accept the will of man over that of Allah (swt), under the pretext that Islam has failed to provide a method of protecting the interests of the Muslims and that their solution lies outside of the Islamic aqeedah. Thus Muslims should constantly look to the constitutions of their respective countries, UN resolutions, Human rights charters ect for solutions to their problems and not to Allah (swt) and the prescribed method in Islam. Muslims should focus more on the issues facing them in the majority societies rather than on events occurring in their countries of origin; In the report they talk about what they see as barriers to integration, such as the concept of Ummah. The idea of Muslims seeing themslves as belonging to one nation of believers should be discouraged among Muslims as it is hindering integration. In other words, the Islamic aqeedah should not form the basis of unity among Muslims and it should not define their relationships with respect to one another. The list goes on and on and the examples are endless. One of the things that worried me (among other things) was how they associated seclusion and integration to make it seem that Muslims who refuse integrate are secluding themselves. This is clearly misleading as Islam encourages Muslims to interact with society and forbids seclusion. We, Muslims should constantly be engaged in dialog with society promoting Islamic values and ideas as alternatives to secular non-solutions to human problems. As usual though, it's their way or the highway. Either we interact with the society on their terms (integrate) or we're the problem.

At the 10th International AIDS Conference in Yokohama (August 1994), Dr. Yuichi Shiokawa claimed that AIDS would be brought under control only if Africans restrained their sexual cravings. Professor Nathan Clumeck of the Université Libre in Brussels was skeptical that Africans will ever do so. In an interview with Le Monde, Clumeck claimed that "sex, love, and disease do not mean the same thing to Africans as they do to West Europeans [because] the notion of guilt doesn't exist in the same way as it does in the Judeo-Christian culture of the West." Thus, AIDS "educators" counter "shame" in African sexuality through conservative appeals to restraint, empowerment, negotiating safe sex and a near evangelical insistence on condom use.(20) Racist myths about the sexual excesses of Africans are old indeed. Early European travelers returned from the continent with tales of black men performing carnal feats with unbridled athleticism, with black women who were themselves sexually insatiable. These affronts to Victorian sensibilities were cited, alongside tribal conflicts and other "uncivilized" behavior, as justification for colonial social control. :eek: If only the Africans weren't so uncivilized...

asalaamu alaykum, I recently came across a report, published by the Center for International and Strategic Studies, about Muslim integration and how the West can benefit from this experience. Frustrated at how painfully slow the process of integrating Muslims has proven to be, they've made a list of recommendations to speed it up. Since this is an issue that effects us, what do you think? What does integration mean to you (although ultimately it's how they define it that matters)? How does one stay Muslim yet be integrated into this society? Recommendation: How to advance the Goal of integration In order to encourage the process of Muslim integration and to prevent any backsliding, the following measures were recommended. Most of these recommendations are addressed to Muslim communities. 1. More efforts should be made in the field of Muslim education, employment and the promotion of a culture of dialogue between Muslim communities and the majority societies; Integrating Muslim Communities in Europe and the United States 2. Muslims should (not) accept money from Muslim governments or other extraneous sources; 3. Muslims should focus more on the issues facing them in the majority societies rather than on events occurring in their countries of origin; 4. Muslims should engage in open discussions of issues related to identity both within their own communities and with the majority societies; 5. Muslims should put emphasis on citizenship and avoid supporting extremist groups, which threaten, in one form or another, the security of the country of their citizenship or residence; 6. Muslims should educate the wider society about their faith and their communities, engage in philanthropy, and make Muslim communities relevant and important to the welfare of the rest of the society; 7. Muslims should invest more in social mobility and participate in the political process and find allies among the members of the majority societies; 8. Muslims should act with more self-confidence and in support of Muslim rights by setting up media watch groups and human rights watch groups; 9. Muslims should engage in inter-religious dialogue and other forms of constructive communications with the followers of other faiths. Other important results of the workshop were: 1) A greater appreciation of the fact that many aspects of Muslim presence in Europe and the United States need further study; 2) The importance of dialogue on various dimensions of Muslim integration between the Muslims on the one hand and European and U.S. societies on the other; 3) Regular interaction among scholars, members of Muslim communities, and representatives of governments across the Atlantic to discuss issues of common concern and develop new ways of addressing them, thus, helping advance the goal of more harmonious interreligious relations with the integration of Muslim communities and, hence, the overall social and political stability of Europe and the United States.

asalaamu alaykum, I got this forwarded from a friend. It essentially outlines the mechanism of democracy: get two candidates that are virtually identical, and then tell everyone they are "free to choose". One interesting fact if you can't read the whole article: "Commission on Presidential Debates is a jointly owned subsidiary of the Democratic and Republican parties" - that is they debate is managed by the 2 parties, and this is why independents (such as Nader) are not allowed on TV to discuss their ideas. http://www.businessweek.com/print/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2004/nf2004101_6866_db009.htm?chan=db&sub=politics& OCTOBER 1, 2004 A NOT-SO-NEUTRAL CORNER By Ciro Scotti Republicrat vs. Democan Get past the bluster and bile, and the two products of privilege who each want to be the next President aren't all that different. How sad Last night was Debate Night USA. Perhaps you tuned in. But what did America really see after months of endless campaigning, hundreds of millions of dollars lavished on attack ads, and enough cheap talk (as my mama used to say) to drive any sane citizen off the nearest bridge? Answer: Two flawed candidates -- George Walker Bush and John Forbes Kerry -- both of the same generation and privileged class, but who differ largely in style. Two representatives of the major-party duopoly that controls the debates, the political process, and the country. You don't agree? Let's look at the Tale of the Presidential Tape. Bush is 58. Kerry is 61. Both went to New England prep schools (Bush to Andover, from which both his father and Kerry's father graduated. Kerry to St. Paul's). Both went to the same college (Yale). Both joined the same secret society (Skull & Bones). Both served in the military. Bush was an officer in the Air National Guard (a good way to avoid Vietnam combat). Kerry was an officer in the U.S. Navy (usually a safer alternative than the Army in those days). Kerry saw combat and became an antiwar activist after his discharge. Bush never served overseas, disengaged from the Guard after being trained as a pilot, and worked on the political campaign of a Bush family friend. Bush went to grad school (Harvard MBA). Kerry went to law school (Boston College). Bush, bankrolled with family money, pursued a largely unsuccessful career as an independent oilman. Then, again through family connections, he became a part-owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team. Kerry became a prosecutor. Both ran for Congress and were defeated. Bush was eventually elected governor of Texas, then President. Kerry was eventually elected Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, then U.S. senator. Both married and had two daughters. Kerry later had his marriage annulled and remarried. Bush was an Episcopalian, then a Presbyterian, and finally a Methodist (talk about flip-floppers). Kerry is a Roman Catholic. Bush wears his religion on his sleeve. Kerry is more circumspect about his beliefs. Both are connected to political dynasties (Bush to the Bush Dynasty of his grandfather, Senator Prescott Bush, and his father, former President George H.W. Bush; Kerry to the Kennedy Dynasty, although his own ancestors include John Winthrop, the first governor of Massachusetts, and a great-great-grandfather who was a U.S. senator). Bush runs, bikes, and clears brush. Kerry skis, bikes, and windsurfs. Both hunt (at least for the cameras). Both are multimillionaires. Both are Washington insiders (Bush settled scores for his father from the White House; Kerry has been in the Senate for almost 20 years). Both are the highly marketed and focus-group-targeted products of two competing political brands owned by Dems Inc. and GOP Inc. Corporate America has enormous equity stakes in both outfits. Neither, despite all the spin, is a regular guy. In fact, the only Presidential candidate with a national following who wasn't born with a silver microphone in his mouth is Ralph Nader. Of course, Nader wasn't allowed to participate in the debates, even though his candidacy in 2000 probably determined the outcome of the election. That's because the Commission on Presidential Debates is a jointly owned subsidiary of the Democratic and Republican parties, and squabble as they may, the last thing they want is to share their lucrative business with some political startup. Why, fresh ideas might be injected into the debate, and who knows where that would lead?

Very good read indeed! This brother always seems to hit the nail right on the head. Reading the article I did not get the impression that the author was bashing Muslim scholars. He simply stated established matters in Islam such as the institution of polygamy and the issue of defensive jihad (where, as far as I know, it is and has always been unanimously agreed upon that a khilafah is not need) in which there's no room for "re-interpretation". In this post 9/11 era where we have an outbreak of Muslim "moderates" so ready to twist and redefine issues in Islam so firmly established all in an effort to "reconcile the irreconcilable" it's refreshing to read an article like this.

This is interesting... The Middle East Forum

Olympics: Organized Distractions It was the best of times and it was the worst of times. The Europeans hosted and celebrated the grand return of the Olympics to Greece with a grandiose spectacle of fireworks. Meanwhile, 2000kms away the Ummah experienced the horror of watching the occupied city of Najaf produce pictures of turmoil, oppression, corpses and bloodshed. The juxtaposition of these images should make any sincere Muslim shudder at the colossal injustice heralded by the Capitalists’ culture: they simultaneously play games and relentlessly attack the Muslim Ummah. However, this attitude of the Capitalists should not come as a surprise to the Muslims. This is due to the simple fact that the Capitalist ‘Aqeedah is based on maximizing one’s benefit and pleasure. Therefore, it is only natural for a Capitalist to simply shut his or her mind out to the unpleasant images that originate from Iraq, Sudan, or anywhere else in the world. As Barbara Bush (mother of George W. Bush) stated on “Good Morning Americaâ€: “Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many, and what day it's gonna happen? It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?†Stark realities of today and the gravity of Islam Today, this Ummah, which was once the leading civilization of the world, witnesses a situation where its Deen is being attacked, its people divided and killed, and the very basis of its life, its ‘Aqeeda (belief), is stripped of the quality of being a political ‘Aqeeda that deals with all aspects of life. Due to such circumstances we are constantly being thrown into frivolous pursuits that occupy our time, distracting us from the serious task of rebuilding this Ummah and taking our rightful position above all nations. Hence, we witness, with sadness, the multiplicity of football teams, cricket games, national and international tournaments, and how the Muslims throw themselves at these events, taking pride in their nations and their trophies. Meanwhile, the Kafir colonialists steal our resources from underneath our feet. The effects of these games have many detrimental effects on the Ummah. Not one Muslim country has failed to be affected by them, including even occupied Iraq - seeking to mingle with their imperialist masters who subdue them with the glitter of the gold medals and the flutter of their national flags, even though they were commanded to leave nationalism by the Prophet (saw). The Messenger of Allah (saw) brought the message of Islam to the backward Arabs of Quraish. This message contained within it a system of life that would soon give its adherents leadership over the Romans and the Persians. It was narrated that when the Messenger of Allah (saw) first received revelation, he came to Khadija (ra) and proclaimed: “From this day there will be no restâ€. Hence the first Ayahs that commanded the Prophet (saw) to: “Read in the Name of your Lord…†[Al-Alaq: 1] brought with them a great burden. It was a weighty message, which required an Ummah who were characterized with thinking and seriousness to carry its burden. This Ummah is described by Allah (swt) as the: “best Ummah brought forward to mankind†[Ale-‘Imran: 110]. The meaning of Distractions (Lahw) Distraction is mentioned on many occasions in the Qur’an and Sunnah. It is mentioned in the context of entertainment, where the Prophet (saw) said: “You should (practice) (target) shooting, for it is the best of your entertainment (Lahwikum)â€. In addition it was mentioned in the context of idle talk, when Allah (swt), the Most High, said (in meaning): “But there are, among men, those who purchase idle talk (Lahw Al-Hadith)†[Luqman: 6]. Ibn Jareer said that idle talk is any talk that is used to impede the Ayat (verses of Qur’an) of Allah (swt), the obedience to His (swt) order, and “To slander and mock the truthâ€. As Ja’far Al-Saadiq (ra) had said: “That, which brings together the meanings of Lahw in the Qur’an, is the saying of Al-Sha’raawi: ‘Al-Lahw is becoming distracted with something that is forbidden, or becoming distracted with permissible entertainment, keeping you occupied from carrying out an obligation.’†[Al-Tafseer Al-Kashif – Mughniyah]. The Hukm Shari’ (Islamic ruling) on Lahw There are some matters of Lahw, which are Halal and Mubah (permissible), like sports that achieve a result, such as target shooting (weapons training and hunting), swimming, racing (on foot), wrestling and so on, or music, if it is free from forbidden ideas, anthems, or the like; as long as it does not cause one to be unmindful of his obligations. Imam Al- Shaatibi says: “Lahw, entertainment and vacancy from any work, if it does not involve a forbidden matter, or occupy one from an obligated matter, is Mubah (permissible).†And he adds: “But he is blameworthy, and the scholars did not agree with it (like it), rather they would hate to see a man, who was not busy with either improving his livelihood or improving his Hereafter; for he had wasted a period of time which was not used to gain any good for this world, nor for the afterlife.†And there are some matters of Lahw, which are Haram (forbidden) such as gambling and music that involves forbidden matters; as well as permissible Lahw that leads to Haram, or leads to neglecting an obligation, due to the Islamic principle: “All that which leads to Haram, is itself Haramâ€. For example any form of Lahw that keeps man away from the Salat or from fasting would be Haram. Also any Lahw that distracts man from the obligation of carrying the da’wa, and re-establishing the Islamic authority (Khilafah) would also be forbidden, because it distracts man from his obligations. Organized Lahw It is the nature of the ‘Aqeeda of the Kuffar that they seek the distractions of life. The belief of secularism is a belief of distractions, distracting man from achieving his goal in life, which is the pleasure of Allah (swt). Instead man is given the goal of achieving physical satisfaction; similar to what is found amongst animals. So man strives hard to entertain himself and to seek pleasure in life, not worrying about what comes after life. This ‘Aqeeda of distractions pushes them to organize for themselves activities by fixing times, organizing events, making large spectacles, and the like. And these are of many types, such as: Organized Sports: Athletes are organized, firstly, according to community, then district, then city, then on a national level, then on a regional level, an then finally, on an international level. In addition, staff re appointed to oversee these athletes and competitors in accordance with these different levels. These events have specific times for training and specific times for the games themselves to be played, each one according to their level and expertise. Television programs are scheduled and radio broadcasts inform the masses about the proceedings of a sports game, until it becomes the talk of the town, city, region or even the world. This atmosphere surrounding sports has made it the biggest distraction for the sons of our Ummah, to the extent that their discussion regarding it, during and afterwards, is full of emotion, and these events have gained many fans and fanatics. These events are then played, disregarding the Hukm Shar’ie (Islamic laws) regarding speech, manner of conduct while playing, and dress, furthering the spread of depravity and bad manners across the Ummah. It has also been used as a way to promote the feeling of pride for the nation, even though there is nothing to be proud of. The rulers of these nations use such emotions to distract the people from feeling the emotions that Islam seeks from them, that would naturally arise once they perceived the bad situation this Ummah finds itself in. The Capitalists are also known to use sports to “manage the massesâ€: “(Sports) offers people something to pay attention to that is of no importance. It keeps them from worrying about things that matter to their lives, where they might have some idea to do something about it. But the point is, it does make sense. It's a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority, and group cohesion behind leadership elements. And you know, in fact, it's training in irrational jingoism (i.e. nationalism).†[Noam Chomsky: “Manufacturing Consentâ€] The most important characteristic of organized Lahw is that organized distractions have a purpose and are planned, and are not spontaneous. They are made to be propagated universally and comprehensively over all aspects of life, covering all regions of the Ummah. Behind them is the goal, leading to dangerous results, as well to the total disregard of the correct criteria of Halal and Haram. The dangers of organized Lahw Organized distractions have affected the entire life of a Muslim. These distractions and entertainment turn the Ummah away from taking the Deen as the basis of our life, in our belief and worship, in our manners and actions, and in our legislation and constitution, weakening our reverence and respect for our Deen. This causes us to live life without a purpose and walk without a path. “This world becomes entertainment and games when there is no honorable, lasting purpose behind it, and when it is lived for what it has to offer, detached from the path Allah has set out in it…†[sayyed Qutb]. The duty towards organized Lahw The Ummah must realize the reality of organized distractions, and to assume our role in facing this serious danger. We must realize that it is intentional, having dangerous and large-scale motives, targeting the most valuable thing to us: Islam; and to wipe out the Islamic Ummah. We must become precisely aware of those who are behind it and know exactly how to struggle against them. The Messenger of Allah (saw) was most truthful when he (saw) said, “The two feet of the son of Adam will not move from near his Lord on the Day of Judgement until he is asked about five matters: about his life, how he spent it; about his youth, how he took care of it; about his wealth, how he earned it and how he spent it; and about that which he acted upon from the knowledge that he acquired†[Tirmidhi]. Indeed, the situation of Najaf is grim. It is a reminder of the grave responsibility that lies on our shoulders. When we meet Allah (swt) on the Day of Judgement what will we tell Him (swt) was our priority? Was it resuming the Islamic way of life through the re-establishment of Khilafah or was it watching the Europeans play games? Source: The Politically Aware Muslim published by Muslim Students for Universal Justice

A Professor stood before his Islamic Studies class and had some items in front of him. When the class began, wordlessly, he picked up a very large and empty mayonnaise jar and proceeded to fill it with golf balls. He then asked the students if the jar was full. They agreed that it was. So the professor then picked up a box of pebbles and poured them into the jar. He shook the jar lightly. The pebbles rolled into the open areas between the golf balls. He then asked the students again if the jar was full. They agreed it was. The professor next picked up a box of sand and poured it into the jar. Of course, the sand filled up everything else. He asked once more if the jar was full. The students responded with a unanimous "yes." The professor then produced a large cup of tea from under the table and poured the entire contents into the jar, effectively filling the empty space between the sand. The students laughed. "Now," said the professor, as the laughter subsided, "I want you to recognize that this jar represents your life. The golf balls are the important things, the faraidh - your prayers, your fasts, your zakah, your da’wah, looking after your family, bringing up your children with the Deen, obeying your parents. The pebbles are the mandubaat, the recommended actions like extra prayers and fasts, giving time to your family, reading the Qur’an, visiting your friends and neighbours, giving Sadaqah. The sand is the material pleasures and necessities of this temporary and worldy life - the house, the car, eating out." "If you put the sand into the jar first," he continued, "there is no room for the pebbles or the golf balls. The same goes for life. If you spend all your time and energy on the small stuff, you will never have room for the things that are important in Islam. Pay attention to the things that are critical when you face Allah (swt) on the Day of Judgement, Youm al Qiyamah. Take out time for your prayers, spend time to teach your children about the beauty of Islam, go regularly to your local da’wah circle. There will always be time to clean the house, and go shopping. "Take care of the golf balls first, the things that really matter. Set your priorities. The rest is just sand." One of the students raised her hand and inquired what the tea represented. The Professor smiled. "I'm glad you asked. It just goes to show you that no matter how full your life may seem, there's always room for a smile and a cup of tea."

asalaamu alaykum, President (Cerimonial l Like the Queen) Nur I nominate you for this position, this is because from your posts you display organizational tendencies and as such you would be a threat to the stability of any future anarchist gov't. The best way to silence you would be to integrate you into the system and put you in a ceremonial position where you can be monitered and restricted with respect to your organizational aspirations.

asalaamu alaykum, This is an interview with the Amir of Hizbu Tahrir Britian Jalaluddin Patel. It gives further insight into the party's methods and policies. MA: Give a brief account of HT’s activities in the UK. JP: In the UK, HT works on 2 levels. Firstly with the Muslim community, explaining the duty to work for the Khilafah (Caliphate) state, living by Islam in the West without loosing our identity and projecting a positive image of Islam in Western society. Secondly with the wider community, by articulating the cause of the Muslim world, presenting a case for the Khilafah state as a valid model for the Muslim world and explaining Islam as a political and intellectual system.We have had numerous conferences, seminars and debates to achieve this, as well as opening up a line of dialogue with Western thinkers. The Jamestown Foundation

NGONGE I understand your frustration with HT, it seems from reading their material their methodology seems vague.Then again, to be honest, I have not taken the time to fully understand how they intend to achieve their stated goal (the Khilafah) up until now I've been content to just reading their polititcal analysis. I too hope, as Jamal said, that TruthSeeker here will take the time to fully explain the party's methodology.

asalaamu alaykum, Of course it is a war against Islam, they've never made this a secret. They're just getting frustrated now bc after they thought they've successfully defeated Islam and produced a generation of self-loathing Muslim secularists, Muslims are coming bck to the light of Islam alhamdulilah. Capitalism is an ideology that exploits it has no possiblility of winning hearts and minds, look at there own society and the endemic problems. Its own people are not happy but it is that they are not shown the alterntive of Islam to solve their problems. They will do whatever is neccessary. I've recently started reading the works of the anti-globalizationist like Naomi Klein and what amazes me about these ppl is although they know VERY VERY well the devestating effects of their current economic model they don't seem to understand that this model stems from the same political idealogy they hold so dearly, democracy. They're not sincere enough in their efforts to ever accept or consider Islam as a viable alternative. I personally think for now dawah carriers should limit their efforts to Muslims in order to instill confidence in them in the Islamic system.

asalaamu alaykum, It will certainly be sad if the iraqi militants decided to kill this man BUT I can understand why they want to. Iraq is a country where hungry multinational companies are swarming to get a piece of the iraqi economy which for a long time has been closed to them. The actions of these companies is nothing short of thievery and no Muslim should work for them to help them in their cause if you do then you are just like them, an enemy, even if u r Muslim. Remember, how bck in the mid 90's warlords in Somalia killed those pakistani soldiers who were part of the UN "peackeeping" mission in Somalia?

Here's one gone too far. Indian Muslim Asra Nomani has found herself on the frontline of a battle for women's rights in Islam in the United States. She entered the local mosque through the front door and dared to pray alongside men, an act that has triggered heated discussions among America's Muslim community. An all-male "tribunal" of the mosque in Morgantown, West Virginia, wants to banish Ms Nomani because they think she is a frequent trouble-maker. In their campaign to silence her, she has been depicted as heretical, misguided and westernized, someone in need of reform. They argue that women should only be allowed to enter a mosque through the back door, pray from the balcony and quietly go home. Ms Nomani's family fully supports her campaign (Photo by Jackson Lynch) But a woman like Ms Nomani - articulate, deeply religious and independent-minded - simply does not fit their version of a true believer. "I have demanded a public hearing but they denied it," Ms Nomani said. "They pulled names out of a plastic bag to sit on the tribunal. It has been hell and it would have been easy to walk away. "But I am finding support from many people who don't want to accept the status quo. And I find my answers in Islam." Deeply religious For Ms Nomani, who was born in Bombay (Mumbai) nothing would be more painful than being rejected as a Muslim by her local mosque because religion is her strength. She sees herself as a progressive modern woman who is also religious: there is no contradiction in her mind. Ms Nomani comes from a deeply religious Muslim family, but one which she says tries to embody the spirit of Islam rather than the outward symbols such as wearing veils. Her parents, originally from Hyderabad in India, moved to the US when she was four and today her extended family is spread all over the world. Ms Nomani has written a book too Her father, a retired professor who helped build the mosque in Morgantown, supports her struggle to pray in the main hall and her larger quest to find her identity within Islam. But standing up and defying convention, specially in a conservative Muslim community, has taken a toll on his health. He was taken to the hospital last week with breathing problems. Nomani, a journalist who has written for The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, is today juggling life between finding a lawyer to help her in the dispute and looking after her 20-month-old son, Shibli. Unwed mother Support for her campaign outside her family within the Muslim community is muted: her demands for an open hearing with the mosque authorities have received little support. She has however received backing in internet chat rooms and in articles that appear on liberal Muslim websites such as Muslimwakeup.com and altmuslim.com. It is not just Ms Nomani's defiance of mosque prayer arrangements that raised local blood levels but also her status as a single unwed mother. She says the Muslims in her area do not accept or understand her. Members of the executive committee of the Morgantown mosque say Ms Nomani has challenged time-honoured Islamic traditions. They say that men and women are separated because they have to kneel down to the floor and their shoulders can touch when they stand side by side. Both men and women want privacy as a result, they say. Some women in the mosque accuse Ms Nomani of being a "publicity hound," using her journalistic skills to write strong opinion pieces in support of her unfair views. In our mosque, only the men are allowed to use a microphone to address the faithful Asra Nomani That she chooses to speak about her dispute has shaken the male-dominated world created by people she derisively refers to as "true believers." She and six other Muslim women, all writers and academics, recently formed an organization to tackle what they say are interpretations of Islam which relegate women to a secondary role. 'Sexual provocation' Ms Nomani argues that it is wrong that women are prevented from attending some mosques in the US, yet are allowed to pray together at Islam's holiest shrine in Mecca. According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a growing number of US mosques are putting women behind a partition or in another room to pray. A survey suggests that segregated mosques in the US rose from 52% in 1994 to 66% in 2000 A survey done by the group shows that segregated mosques rose from 52% in 1994 to 66% in 2000. "In our mosque, only the men are allowed to use a microphone to address the faithful," Ms Nomani said. "When I asked why, a mosque leader said that a woman's voice is not to be heard in the mosque. "What he meant was that a woman's voice - even raised in prayer - is an instrument of sexual provocation to men. "Many women accept these rulings: their apathy makes these rules become the status quo." Ms Nomani says that she is campaigning for a more inclusive Islam. Part of that, she says, is created by underlying divisions between South Asian and Arab Muslims which came to the fore as she began questioning what she said were hate-filled sermons by Arab students who had taken over her mosque. Ms Nomani argues that Morgantown is a microcosm of what is happening in mosques across the US. Muslim women in California, Minnesota and Maryland are against the practice of "herding" women in small rooms like sheep where much of the time they cannot hear the preacher, she says. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3926461.stm

Have you cleaned the house? Is dinner ready? Have you fed the kids? Did you wash my clothes? These are some of the questions that women hear, day in and day out, from husbands who assert that wives are nothing more than servants and baby machines. But a wife is neither. Nevertheless, amidst busy schedules on the parts of both women and men, some husbands forget the real reasons behind marriage and likewise the rights of their wives. Subsequently, they deprive themselves, their mates and their children of the happiness and tranquility that is the bedrock of a successful family. This unbalanced vision towards a couple's ideal relationship is bad enough to plunge the family into a situation laden with troubles and worries. Even among religious families, you will find some husbands who still do not have a proper understanding of rights of their wives, nor a clear vision of the intended relationship between a married couple. It is both painful and distressing to see a Muslim husband practicing Allah's orders on the one hand, but forgetting to follow His guidance regarding how to treat his wife. Outside the home he is kind, patient and smiling. But, as soon as he returns home, the smiling face becomes angry and sad and the kindness and gentleness turn into nervousness and adversity. He starts shouting and screaming his orders at his wife. He forgets that although he faces many challenges and pressures outside the house, his wife can also be overwhelmed with the housework and her responsibilities to the children. He forgets that she also needs rest after a long day of working. Although his duty is to work outside the house and to provide for his family, a wife's role inside the house is not any less important. On the contrary, her role is often more important as she is the one charged with raising the children and guarding the family. We often see this scenario: A wife feels tired and asks her husband to help her with the cleaning, washing or cooking. He refuses, as though it is shameful for a man to help his wife. Doesn't he know that Prophet Mohammad (SAW), the most beloved person to Allah (SWT), helped his wives with the housework? Doesn't he know that Omar Ibn al-Khattab provided recipes to a group of women in order to teach them how to cook? Could Omar teach others if he himself did not know how to cook? No husband, regardless of how much work he has, can ever be busier than our Prophet (SAW) whose duty it was to spread Islam. Likewise, no one is busier than Omar who had to bear the responsibility of a Khalifah. It shocks me to hear that some wives have never heard a loving or appreciative word from their husbands. When asked about the person he loved the most, the Prophet (SAW) did not hesitate to name his wife, A'ishah. Thus, he declared very clearly, that a husband should not be ashamed of loving his wife or even of declaring that love in front of other people. It is also painful to hear that some husbands do not speak to their wives or spend time with their families, under the pretenses of a busy schedule and da'wa work. While it is noble to be involved in da'wa outside the home, it is also necessary that the wife and children also be recipients of a husband's efforts. I wonder how married couples can live without ever talking or spending time together or how they can feel happiness and tranquility with this gap separating them. Who else can share in happiness and sadness better than one's wife? Who else can encourage one to confront the challenges of life with perseverance and patience? Who can listen and keep one's secrets better than a wife? Who can help renew iman and intentions better than a wife? The Prophet (SAW) taught us that the best among men is the one who best treats his wife. Shouldn't we follow the Prophet's example in every issue of our lives? The Prophet (SAW) spent time with his wives, talking to them, laughing with them, and even playing with them. So why have we strayed from that example? Raising children is not just the mother's job, as some mistakenly think. It is intended as a mutual responsibility to be shared by both parents. Everyone has his/her complimentary role to undertake regarding family. There is no doubt that the mother bears the bigger burden of responsibility, but the role of the father is likewise important and has tremendous effects on the stability of the family. Children need the presence and input of a father. They need him to ask them about their homework, help them memorize the Qur'an and understand religion. They need to feel that he is there for them. Dear husbands, your wife is your partner, your other half and your life mate. She can be your hassanah in this world and "the blessing of your life," but only if you give her the chance to be. She is the one who can bring a smile to your face and dry the tears of pain from your eyes. She has the potential to provide your family with iman, happiness, encouragement, and patience in the face of challenges you may face. Your wife is always ready to sacrifice everything in order to bring happiness and success to the family. No one can claim that marriage is always blissful or that there will never be any hardships to face. But, if the basis of the relationship is strong and if each person has a clear vision of his partners' rights, then challenges can easily be overcome. I do not mean to blame all husbands for the problems facing couples today. I am addressing a specific type of husband within the Muslim community: the misinformed one who does not understand that a happier and stronger Muslim family can only be built under a strong partnership between the couple. Allah (SWT) says in the Holy Qur'an, " And among His signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquility with them, and He put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect." (30:21)

asalaam Here's an interesting article I just came across on another discussion board. It's an attempted intellectual response to the criticisms "fundamentalists" like Sayid Qutb make against Western values. It's rather long but very interesting. July 02, 2004, 12:30 a.m. Land of the Free The Islamic critique cuts deep, but there is an answer. By Dinesh D'Souza Behind the physical attacks on the West and its allies is an intellectual attack — an assault not just on what America does but also on what America is. So far the U.S. government's military response — in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and elsewhere — has been reasonably effective against terrorism and its sponsors. But our intellectual response has been weak. This matters, because ultimately it is not enough to shut down the al Qaeda training camps. We must also stop the "jihad factories," the mosques and educational institutions that are turning out tens of thousands of aspiring terrorists and suicide bombers. We cannot kill all these people; we have to change their minds. Yet America is making few converts in the Muslim world. The problem is that we have not effectively answered the strongest version of the Islamic critique of the United States. Usually Americans seek to defend their society by appealing to its shared principles. Thus our leaders remind us that America is a free society, or a prosperous society, or a diverse and pluralistic culture, or a nation that gives women the same rights as men. The most intelligent Islamic critics acknowledge all this, but they dismiss it as worthless triviality. One of the leading theoreticians of Islamic fundamentalism is the Egyptian thinker, Sayyid Qutb, who has been called "the brains behind bin Laden." Like the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center, Qutb was a man who lived in the West and knew its ways. After studying in America, he wrote a book called The America That I Saw in which he argued that his familiarity with the United States was his basis for rejecting it. Qutb wrote that he was shocked by the rampant prejudice of Americans, especially toward Arabs and Muslims. He professed outrage at the materialism and sexual promiscuity of American culture. Even the church, Qutb commented, has become a place for amusement and social interaction rather than worship. In his later writings, Qutb alleged that America used to be Christian; now it is pagan. The Muslim believer, he wrote, has no reason to envy or emulate the ways of America; rather, true Muslims should feel contempt for those ways. "The believer from his height looks down at the people drowning in dirt and mud." How, in Qutb's view, did America reach its sorry state? One problem, Qutb said, is that American and indeed Western institutions are fundamentally atheist, based on a clear rejection of divine authority. "Democracy" and "capitalism" are in Qutb's view atheistic ideas. When democrats say that sovereignty flows from the people, this means that the people — not God — are the rulers. So democracy is a form of idol worship. So, too, Qutb insisted that capitalism, which is based on the notion that the market and not God is the best arbitrator of value, is a form of idolatry. A second problem, Qutb wrote, is that the core principle of America is liberty — the right to determine one's own destiny — and this, he argued, is a highly defective principle. The reason is that liberty can be used well or liberty can be used badly. Given what Immanuel Kant called "the warped timber of humanity," the human propensity for selfishness and vice, Qutb argued that freedom will often be used badly. For evidence of this, he said, just look at what goes on in America. Qutb pointed to divorce, family breakdown, homosexuality, promiscuity, and the triviality and vulgarity of American popular culture as proof that human beings cannot be expected to use freedom except to gratify their basest impulses. Indeed, Qutb sternly charged that America is materially prosperous but morally rotten. In a famous formulation that has stirred up widespread debate in the Muslim world, Qutb insisted that the West is a once-religious civilization that has now been reduced to what he termed jahiliyya — the condition of social chaos, moral diversity, sexual permissiveness, polytheism, unbelief, and idolatry that was said to characterize the Bedouin tribes before the advent of Islam. Qutb's alternative to America and the West is Islam, which in his book Social Justice in Islam he terms "an unparalleled revolution in human thinking" that provides the only solution to "this unhappy, perplexed, and weary world." Islam, Qutb emphasized, is not merely a moral code or set of beliefs; it is a way of life based upon the divine government of the universe. The very term "Islam" means "submission" to the authority of Allah. This worldview requires that religious, economic, political, and civil society be based on the Koran, the teachings of the prophet Muhammad, and the Sharia or Islamic law. Islam regulates religious belief and practice, but also the administration of the state, the conduct of war, the making of treaties, divorce and inheritance, property rights and contracts. In short, the advocates of Islamic fundamentalism like Qutb seek to bring the whole framework of human life under divine — which is to say Islamic — supervision. Qutb admits that notions of "submission" and obedience may sound alien to Western ears. In his view, this is because Western society is based on freedom whereas Islamic society is based on virtue. Qutb gives an example of what he means by Islamic virtue. There is a story in the Islamic classical tradition about a man and a woman who came to the prophet Muhammad and said, "Messenger of Allah, purify us." Muhammad asked, "From what am I to purify you?" They replied, "From adultery." Muhammed asked the two people whether they were insane or drunk. Assured that they were not, Muhammad asked them again, "What have you done?" They confessed that they had committed adultery. Then Muhammad gave the order, and the two were stoned to death. While the couple was being buried, onlookers scorned them, but Muhammad chided the scoffers. The couple had repented, he said, and now they were with Allah. "This is Islam," Qutb wrote. Analyzing the incident, he pointed out that no one had witnessed the adultery, and the prophet initially sought to attribute the couple's confession to the influence of alcohol or mental disturbance. Still, they had persisted. Finally Muhammad had no choice but to have them stoned in accordance with God's law. Qutb posed an interesting question: why did the couple demand to be stoned? His answer: "It was the desire to be purified of a crime of which none save Allah was cognizant. It was the shame of meeting Allah unpurified from a sin which they had committed." This, in brief, is Qutb's defense of Islamic theocracy. Islamic societies may be poor, Qutb admitted, but at least they are seeking to implement the will of God. Even if they are failing at this, Qutb said, at least they are trying. And that — he concluded — makes Islamic society superior to Western society. How should we in America evaluate, and answer, Qutb's critique? We need to take Qutb's views seriously, partly because they are taken seriously in the Islamic world, and partly because for all his vehemence, Qutb is raising deep and fundamental questions. Indeed in some respects the Islamic critique as exemplified by Qutb is similar to the critique that the classical philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle, made of freedom. The classical thinkers would have agreed with Qutb that virtue, not freedom, is the ultimate goal of a good society. And in saying this they would be quite right. How, then, can the Islamic argument against America be answered on its own terms? Let us concede at the outset that in a free society freedom will often be used badly. The Islamic critics have a point when they deplore our high crime and illegitimacy rates and the triviality and vulgarity of our popular culture. Indeed some Americans may be tempted to say, "The Muslims have a point about Jerry Springer and Howard Stern. If they will agree to stop bombing our buildings, in exchange for us sending them Springer and Stern to do with as they wish, why not make the deal? We could even throw in some of Springer's guests." But on a less facetious note, we should not be surprised that there is a considerable amount of vice, license, and vulgarity in a free society. Freedom by definition includes freedom to do good or evil, to act nobly or basely. Given the warped timber of humanity, freedom becomes the forum for the expression of human flaws and weaknesses. On this point Qutb and his fundamentalist followers are quite correct. But if freedom brings out the worst in people, it also brings out the best. The millions of Americans who live decent, praiseworthy lives deserve our highest admiration because they have opted for the good when the good is not the only available option. Even amid the temptations that a rich and free society offers, they have remained on the straight path. Their virtue has special luster because it is freely chosen. The free society does not guarantee virtue any more than it guarantees happiness. But it allows for the pursuit of both — a pursuit rendered all the more meaningful and profound because success is not guaranteed but has to be won through personal striving. By contrast, the theocratic and authoritarian society that Islamic fundamentalists advocate undermines the possibility of virtue. If the supply of virtue of insufficient in free societies, it is almost nonexistent in Islamic societies, because coerced virtues are not virtues at all. Consider the woman in Afghanistan or Iran who is required to wear the veil. There is no real modesty in this, because the woman is being compelled. Compulsion cannot produce virtue; it can only produce the outward semblance of virtue. Indeed, once the reins of coercion are released, as they were for the 9/11 terrorists, the worst impulses of human nature break loose. Sure enough, the deeply religious terrorists spent their last days in gambling dens, bars, and strip clubs, sampling the licentious lifestyle they were about to strike out against. In this respect they were like the Spartans who, Plutarch tells us, were abstemious in public but privately coveted wealth and luxury. In theocratic societies such as Afghanistan under the Taliban or Iran today, the absence of freedom signals the absence of virtue. This is the argument that Americans should make to people in the Islamic world. It is a mistake to presume that Muslims would be totally unreceptive to it. Islam, which has common roots with Judaism and Christianity, respects the autonomy of the individual soul. Salvation for Muslims, no less than for Jews and Christians, is based on the soul choosing freely to follow God. We can make the case to Muslims that freedom is not a secular invention; rather, freedom is a gift from God. Moreover, it is not the case that Islamic fundamentalists care about virtue while we in the West care only about freedom. We, too, care about virtue; like them, we seek the good society; but we disagree with the Islamic fundamentalists about the best means to achieve this goal. In the Western view, freedom is the necessary precondition for virtue. Without freedom, there is no virtue. I believe this is an argument that well-meaning Muslims would have to consider. The arguments on behalf of freedom, and of America, are not only for the benefit of Muslims in the Arab world; they are also for the benefit of people in America and the West. To help counter the anti-Americanism that we see from Europeans and sometimes even from Americans, we can confidently show our allies, our citizens, and our idealistic young people that America is not simply richer, more varied, and more tolerant, it is also morally superior to the fundamentalists' version of Islamic society. It was Edmund Burke a long time ago who wrote, "To love our country, our country ought to be lovely." Burke's point is that the highest form of patriotism is not based on the dogmatic assertion, "My country, right or wrong." Nor is the highest form of patriotism based on loving your country simply because it is yours. Rather, the highest form of patriotism is based on loving your country because it is good. In my view America, for all its flaws and weaknesses, can meet Burke's test. America merits a rational patriotism that can confront, and answer, the strongest criticisms of this country. Ultimately America is worthy of our love and sacrifice because, more than any other society, it makes possible for its citizens the good life, and equally important, the life that is good. — Dinesh D'Souza, the Rishwain Scholar at the Hoover Institution, is the author of What's So Great About America.

asalaamu alaykum, Well I finally had the chance to see the film over the wkend. Like his previous work, humor was big element in this film. Unfortunetly though, nothing in the film was new. The Bush-Saudi ties - this was covered in the Canadian media extensively, CBC's Fifth Estate did a whole documentry on it. The Taliban and Unacal deal - this was being covered in the international media way back in 2000. Infact, late 2000 early 2001 I remember reading I think in the Asia Times a report of the Taliban warning against an American invasion in Afghanistan bc for some reason the Taliban backed out of the pipeline deal with the Americans and was looking into deals with other companies. Anyway, unless ur only source of news is CNN and Fox News, the movie won't do much for you but it is entertaining.

Originally posted by Mutakalim: Concious Manipulation: Why do you post articles articles that are too dry; do not destroy the forest of your mind (intellect). Alas! if only your articles were as appealing and arresting as your tag-line (signature) :confused: Mutakalim, u must understand I'm one of those less read Nomads you often speak of, plz elaborate on how the above article is poisonous to the mind.

asalaamu alaykum, This is an excerpt from "Friday Nasiha" which is a weekly reminder letter from Young Muslims Canada (www.YoungMuslims.ca) Al-Imran (The House of Imran) Chapter 3: Verse 104 To Attain Felicity Let there arise out of you a group of people, who invite others to all that is good (Khayr), enjoin what is right (Ma'roof) and forbid what is evil (Munkar). They are the ones to attain felicity. Before this verse Muslims have been commanded that 'they develop the Taqwa (consciousness) of Allah in its totality, live and establish Islam till last breath of their lives, struggle against evil and injustice (Baatil) with unity, hold on to the rope of Allah's guidance tightly, and avoid all sorts of disputes and sectarianism amongst themselves' (verses 102-103). All these qualities described above are directed towards their personal lives. However, these commands are followed by a program or guidance on their social or community life: (1) they must call people to good (Khayr), (2) enjoin what is right (Ma'roof), (3) and forbid evil (Munkar). The concept of 'Calling people to Good (Da'wah ilal Khayr)' is not limited to a few aspects of life. In fact it is a comprehensive term which means revolutionizing or reforming the social, moral, political, and spiritual spheres of life, both at individual, as well as at the collective level. Source: "Ma'ruf-o-Munkar" - Syed Jalal-ud-Din Omry, pp. 19-21