Hamba aR-Razzaq
Be not frightened when death draweth night, It is but the departure for this blessed home Think of the mercy and love of your Lord, Give thanks for His Grace and come without fear. What I am now, even so shall you be. For I know that you are even as I am. The souls of all men come forth from God. The bodies of all are compounded alike. Good and evil, alike it was ours. I give you now a message of good cheer. May God's peace and joy for evermore be yours."

The Life of Iranian President Ahmedinejad

Category: By Hamba Razzaq



The Fox News TV (USA) asked the Iranian President Ahmedinejad;

'When you look into the mirror in the morning what do you say to yourself'?


He answered: I see the person in the mirror and tell him 'Remember' you are no more than a small servant, ahead of you today is the heavy responsibility, and that is to serve the Iranian nation'.
Ahmedinejad, the Iranian President who astonished many when he first reached to the office of the Presidency by donating all the high valued Iranian carpets to one of the mosques in Tehran by replacing them with the low cost ordinary carpets. He observed that there was a huge extravagant lounge for receiving and welcoming the VIPs and he ordered it to be closed and asked the protocol office to arrange for an ordinary room only with the wooden chairs.

On many instances he joins the cleaning staff of the municipality for cleaning the streets in the area where his home and the Presidency are located.

Under his authority whenever he appoints any minister to his post he gets a signed document from him with many points, particularly highlighting that he shall remain poor and that his personal and his relatives accounts will be watched and the day he leaves the ministry shall be with dignity, and therefore it is not lawful for him or his relatives to take any advantage of his office. First of all he declared himself for all the 'Big' wealth and the property he owned was a Peugeot 504 car, model 1977, an old small house inherited from his father 40-years ago in one of the poorest zones in Tehran . His accounts with a zero balance and the only money comes in to his a/c was from his salary from the university as a lecturer with an amount of US$ 250 only.

For your information the President still lives in that same house. This is all what he owns; the president of one of the world's important countries; strategically, economically, politically and with regard to its oil and defense. He even doesn't take his personal salary with the argument that all the wealth belongs to the nation and he is the safeguard over it. One of the things that impressed the staff at the presidency is the bag the President brings with him every day, which contains his breakfast; some sandwiches or bread with olive oil and cheese prepared by his wife and eats and enjoys it with all happiness.

One of the other things he changed was his personal carrier 'the President's Aircraft' to a cargo aircraft in order to save the spending from the public treasury and he ordered that he will be flying with the ordinary airline in the economy class. He organizes meetings every now and then with all the ministers to know their activities and efficiency and he closed down the office of the Manager of the president and any minister can enter to his office without any permission. He also stopped the welcome ceremonies like the red carpet, the photo session or any personal advertisement or respect of any kind while visiting any place in the country.

Whenever he has to stay in any of the hotels he asks them to make sure not to give him a room with any big bed because he doesn't like to sleep on beds but rather likes to sleep on the floor on a simple mattress with a blanket.

Refer to some of the photographs which also confirm the above. The Iranian president is sleeping in the guest room of his house after getting away from his special guards who follow him wherever he goes and photo is taken by his small brother according to the Wifaq Newspaper which published this photo and the next day the photo was published in most of the world's newspapers and magazines and particularly the Americans. During the prayer you can see that he is not sitting in the first row. And the final photo is of his dining room where the president is busy eating his simple meal.
 


Understanding Millah Ibrahim : Comparative Studies

Category: By Hamba Razzaq

Abraham in the Qur'an and the Bible

MILLAT-A-IBRAHIM: THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM.

1. The Nature of Abraham's Faith in the Qur'an.

We have already seen that there are two great points of agreement between Islam and Christianity respecting the patriarch Abraham, namely that he was called the Friend of God and appointed the head of all true believers. We come now to the third great feature that Christianity has in common with Islam, and that is the teaching in both the Bible and the Qur'an that it was by faith alone that Abraham found approval with God. Indeed the Qur'an teaches that Islam is not a new religion but claims that it is this very thing of which we are speaking, namely the faith of Abraham. The following is but one of many passages which make this claim:

    Say thou, Allah has spoken the truth; follow therefore the faith of Ibrahim, the upright; and he was not of the polytheists. Surah 3.95 (Daryabadi).

In this verse the faith of Ibrahim in the original Arabic reads millata-Ibraahiim. The word millah appears fifteen times in the Qur'an and on seven of these occasions it is used in direct association with Abraham (see, for example, Surahs 2.130, 2.135, 6.161). On one occasion it is significantly said that God has laid on the Muslims the millata-abiikum-Ibraahiim - "the faith of your father Abraham" (Surah 22.78). The word millah is taken to mean "religion, faith, creed" (Kassis, A Concordance of the Qur'an, p. 768) and it is clear, therefore, that Islam takes the faith of Abraham, the father of the faithful, as its model.

We must enquire, however, as to what the millata-Ibrahim is held to mean in practice. In the last section we saw, from various passages in the Qur'an, that Abraham's greatness before God arose out of his belief in the oneness of God and his willing submission to him. Another passage helps us to understand further what the Qur'an has in mind when it speaks of the faith of Abraham. It reads:

    Recall when his Lord said unto him: 'submit', he said: 'I submit to the Lord of the worlds'. Surah 2.131 (Daryabadi).

The command in the Arabic original is simply Aslim - "Submit!" Abraham's reply aslamtu - "I submit". Both words come from the same root letters (sin, lam and mim) as the words Islam (Submission) and Muslim (one who submits). Here we see how the Qur'an regards Abraham's faith and why it speaks of him as a Muslim and the father of those who believe. It sees Abraham's faith, as in the other passages, as an unquestioning obedience to the commands of God. Surah 2.130 Speaks of the millata-Ibrahim as the true faith from which only fools turn away and the declaration of submission to God in Surah 2.131 quoted above does indeed appear to be a commentary on and explanation of the nature of Abraham's faith.

    All this plainly shows that the submission was originally associated in Mohammed's mind with Abraham; it was from his action, or attitude, that the religion received its name. He obeyed the commands with which Allah tested him (53.38 and 2.118). (Torrey, The Jewish Foundation of Islam, p. 103).

We are compelled to enquire whether the Qur'an has an adequate conception of what this faith really was. Our study of the title Friend of God disclosed that there was a very close relationship between Abraham and his Lord and that it was based on a spirit of mutual trust, in particular Abraham's faith in God's own faithfulness. This aspect of his faith has been overlooked in the Qur'an which sees his faith purely as conformity to God's commands. If it was nothing more than this, an unquestioning submission, it does not qualify as faith in the Biblical sense. It is simply a blind resignation to the will of God. A Christian writer in consequence says, "Islam is submission to the inevitable" (Christensen, The Practical Approach to Muslims, p. 382). In much of the Muslim world a sense of fatalism prevails, an attitude that what will be will be, and that no one can change God's decrees. Still less should anyone ever seek to question them.

A dog can soon be taught to submit to its master and when he commands "Heel!" and the dog responds appropriately, we shall not say that the dog has faith in its master but rather that it has been taught to implicitly obey whatever the master says. Such obedience is indeed commendable, but it cannot qualify as faith. No more does the response aslamtu, "I submit", constitute a response of faith to the command Aslim - "Submit!" We shall see later what the implications of this are when the command comes to Abraham to sacrifice his son.

2. The Faith of Abraham in the Christian Bible.

As in Islam, so in Christianity we find Abraham marked for his faith in God and here too it is a model and example for all true Christians. The following verses set out comprehensively the relationship between Abraham's faith and true Christian faith:

    Thus Abraham "believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness". So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham . . . So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith. Galatians 3.6-7,9.

In this case, however, the faith spoken of has a very different nature to the faith of Abraham in the Qur'an. It is faith in the faithfulness of God. God promised to bless Abraham and give him a son and, because Abraham believed that God would be true to his word, he responded in faith. It was this implicit trust in God, not an unquestioning submission to his commands, that commended him to God and as a result his faitb was reckoned to him as righteousness. This verse very succinctly describes the character of his faith. He believed:

    Every word of God is true. Proverbs 30.5

An illustration helps to identify the nature of Abraham's faith as it is set forth in the Bible. The sun and the moon are the two most obvious celestial bodies and each has its place. The sun gives light by day and the full moon light by night. Yet there is a vast difference between them. The sun generates light and its brilliance is unrivalled in the sky. At best the moon can but feebly reflect the sun's light. Without the sun the moon cannot shine at all, yet the sun will shine on untroubled if the moon should be removed. The moon simply reflects the sun's light.

So it was between God and Abraham. God's glory is unrivalled in the heavens. He generates holiness, righteousness and faithfulness. At best man can only reflect his glory for no man has power to generate any righteousness of his own (John 3.27). In this way, therefore, Abraham's faith was a reflection of God's faithfulness. No man will have faith in someone he considers untrustworthy. Abraham had faith in God because he knew that "God is faithful" (1 Corinthians 10.13, 2 Thessalonians 3.3). His faith was a response to God's faithfulness. This is why his faith was "reckoned to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15.6). God generates both faithfulness and righteousness and as Abraham laid hold on the former by faith, so the latter was counted to him as well. His righteousness' was not a self-righteousness obtained through good deeds, etc., but a God-given righteousness, a righteousness that was reckoned and imputed to him, a reflection of God's own righteousness and faithfulness.

2. The Promise of a Son to Abraham.

We have been analysing points of agreement between Islam and Christianity regarding the great patriarch Abraham. As we proceed to analyse succeeding events in his life we shall see what tremendous material we have here for an effective witness to Muslims of God's grace in Jesus Christ.

We begin with the promise to Abraham that he would have a son. This promise is recorded in both the Bible and the Qur'an and in both books it is expressly stated that the promised son was Isaac, the first-born son of Abraham's wife Sarah. The promise is recorded as follows in the Bible:

"As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her; I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her . . . Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him". Genesis 17.15-16,19.

In the Qur'an we likewise find passages plainly stating that God promised Abraham that he would bear a son, Isaac, through his wife Sarah:

    And his wife was standing (there), and she laughed: But We gave her glad tidings of Isaac, and after him, of Jacob.
And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet - one of the Righteous. Surah 37.112

What was Abraham's response to this promise? No mention is made of it in the Qur'an but, as we have seen, the Bible States that he "believed the Lord" and that this response of faith had momentous consequences for "he reckoned it to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15.6). Never had it ever been heard that an old woman of ninety could bear a son, especially when the woman herself had hitherto been unable to bear children. What made Abraham believe God - did he just simply believe that God could do anything he wished? Not at all. He believed God because he trusted in God's faithfulness. He knew he would be true to his word. This is indeed the true millata-Ibrahim, "the faith of Abraham". He believed that, once God had made a promise, he would certainly fulfil it. It was as a result of this conviction that he concluded that God could bring about the birth of a son when it seemed to be naturally impossible. The following passage outlines perfectly the process of faith that enabled Abraham to believe that the promise would be fulfilled:

    In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations; as he had been told, "So shall your descendants be". He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead because he was about a hundred years old, or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb. No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do as he had promised. Romans 4.18-21.

He did not blindly resign himself to what he had heard. Twice we read that he gave the promise much thought and reflection: "he considered his own body . . . he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb". He took full stock of the situation. Nothing in the circumstances around him would give credence to the promise. To all intents and purposes both he and his wife were well "over the hill" and her barrenness only served to increase the unlikelihood that she would bear a son. But in hope he "believed against hope" because he knew God would fulfil his word. "No distrust made him waver" - a vital clue to the character of his faith - but he "grew strong in his faith" as he gave glory to the God whom he considered faithful to his word. Thus he became, by a studied process of reasoning based on the assurance that "every word of God proves true" (Proverbs 30.5), thoroughly persuaded that the promise would be fulfilled, "fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised". The passage concludes: "That is why his faith was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Romans 4.22).

On the basis that God would surely fulfil his promise Abraham was led to believe that the son would be born and this led him to discern that God is he "who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist" (Romans 4.17). He believed that God would give life to his body, though it was as good as dead, and that he would call into being something that otherwise could not exist. We also read that his wife Sarah likewise shared this very faith in God's faithfulness to his own word:

    By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. Hebrews 11.11

She followed the example of her husband and did not just blindly believe what she heard. She too considered just as he had done, not so much that God had the power to fulfil his promise, but rather believed "him faithful who had promised".

Abraham did not just believe God would fulfil his promise but considered as to how it could be fulfilled. Because of this exercise of faith, because he reasoned carefully about it, he came to understand how his son would come into being and so gained a greater understanding of the mind and will of God. He came to understand the promise and so gained knowledge of the ways of God. He was thus able to believe with sound reason (and not blind resignation) and so became fully convinced that God would do as he had promised.

Abraham received a promise that he would bear a son and that his name would be Isaac. Some years later God spoke to him again about this very same son Isaac, issuing a command that seemed to shatter the promise in pieces. We shall proceed to see how the great prophet, maintaining the same faith that had enabled him to respond to the promise, was able to reconcile the two apparently contradictory messages that came from heaven. More importantly, we shall see how this led Abraham on to perceive from afar the coming of God's redemption through his Son Jesus Christ.

 


Understanding Millah Ibrahim (Abrahamic Tradition)

Category: By Hamba Razzaq
[For the sake of easy reading, the arabic has been ommitted]

Surah Maryam [ayah 41]:

And mention in the Book (the Quran) Ibrahim (Abraham). Verily! He was a man of truth, a Prophet.

In this ayah, Allaah subhanahu wa ta'aala is telling Muhammad sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam to recite to the people what happened to Ibrahim 'alayhis salaam, who Allaah subhaanhu wa ta'aala took as a khalil (close friend), when he spoke to his father who was an idol worshipper.

When he said to his father: "O my father! Why do you worship that which hears not, sees not and cannot avail you in anything?

In this ayah, we hear Ibrahim 'alayhis salaam, questioniong his father as to why he worships something that can't hear him, nor see him, and not only unable to benefit him in any way, but is unable to protect him from any harm.

O my father! Verily! There has come to me of knowledge that which came not unto you. So follow me. I will guide you to a Straight Path.

And this was to say that although you see me (Ibrahim 'alayhis salaam) as inferior to you (his father) by virtue of being the son, that some knowledge has been given to me by Allaah subhaanahu wa ta'aala which did not reach you before, so follow me and I will guide you to a straight path, which will lead to our desired objective, and save you from hell.

"O my father! Worship not Shaitan (Satan). Verily! Shaitan (Satan) has been a rebel against the Most Beneficent (Allah).

Here we see that Ibrahim 'alayhis salaam exhorting his father not to follow shaytaan, who is calling to shirk (idolatry, in this case) and is pleased with it. Shaytaan was too obstinate and arrogant to obey Allaah, and so Allaah made him an outcast, so if you follow in his footsteps, then you too will be made an outcast.

"O my father! Verily! I fear lest a torment from the Most Beneficent (Allah) overtake you, so that you become a companion of Shaitan (Satan) (in the Hell-fire).

Meaning that because of the fathers associating partners with Allaah by worshipping idols and your rejection of my words, Ibrahim 'alayhis salaam is fearful that Allaah will punish him (the father). In face of this punishment, his father wont have anyone to protect him or help him, except Iblis, but Iblis has no power in front of Allaah, nor for that matter has anyone else, and following shaytaan will only lead to you be surrounded by the torment of Allaah.a
 


What is pardoned for this Ummah

Category: By Hamba Razzaq

Ibn Abbas, radiyallahu 'anhu, reported that the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam, said:

"Truly Allah has for my sake pardoned the mistakes and forgetfulness of my community, and for what they have done under force or duress."

[A fine hadith related by Ibn Majah, Al-Baihaqi and others]


background

What has been stated in this hadith has also been stressed and emphasised in the Qur'an. In Surah al-Baqarah, Ayah 286, it is stated:

"Our Lord, punish us not if we forget or fall into error."

(Another translation for the meaning of the ayah :) "Oh our Lord, do not take us to task if we forget or make mistakes."

Allah says in Surah al-Ahzab, Ayah 5:

And there is no sin on you concerning that in which you made a mistake, except in regard to what your hearts deliberately intended. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Allah also says in Surah al-Nahl, Ayah 106:

Whosoever disbelieved in Allah after his belief, except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with faith or at certainty.



lessons

Being excused for what is done mistakenly or out of forgetfulness does not mean that there will be no consequent rulings. This means that a person might be forgiven but he still has to take responsibility for his actions. The consequent rulings for doing something mistakenly or out of forgiveness can be classified into three categories:

  1. There are mistakes where there is no consequent ruling such as a person or a Muslim who eats during the day in the month of Ramadhan out of forgetfulness. The majority of scholars say that his fasting is still valid and he does not have to repeat that day. This opinion is based on the hadith that is related by Imam Al-Bukhari and Imam Muslim which states that "any Muslim who eats during Ramadhan out of forgetfulness will be excused and forgiven."

  2. There are consequent rulings to actions that are done out of mistakes or forgetfulness such as if someone kills a Muslim by mistake - as what happens nowadays in car accidents or accidents at work, etc. It is well-known by scholars that for such a person there is no consequent ruling. There is no kaffarah (expiation of sins) but he has to pay the fidyah as stated in the Qur'an. Another example is if someone caused harm or damage to the property or money of someone else by mistake. In this case the person is responsible and has to compensate for what he has damaged even though he is forgiven by Allah and is not being regarded as sinful.

  3. There are actions where there are different opinions among the Muslim scholars of whether there is a consequent ruling or not. Some scholars say that the person has a consequent ruling. Others will say that he is fully excused and has nothing to do. For example, if a person talked out of forgetfulness during his prayer. Does he have to repeat his prayer? Here we have different opinions among the scholars. Some will say he has to repeat while others will say he is going to be forgiven and excused.

    Another example is that a person takes an oath or swears by Allah not to do something and then he does it out of mistake or because of forgetfulness. Is this person responsible? Some scholars will say he is not forgiven and he has to make kaffarah. Others will say that he is forgiven and need not make kaffarah. A third example is if a person who is muhrim - that is he intended to perform 'umrah or hajj and then by mistake he hunts or kills an animal. Is he forgiven (i.e. is this not considered a sinful act)? He is forgiven and will not be punished for that. But the issue is whether he has to pay for it and be responsible or not. This is again a debatable issue among the scholars. Ibn Rajab states that the person who acts out of forgetfulness or by mistake is excused and that the sinfulness will be removed because sinfulness is related to those who does it deliberately. But the ruling, whatever the responsibility is, is not meant by this hadith. The hadith does not mean that they are going to be excused from everything including any kind of responsibility or rulings. This is something very important to know because some Muslims have the misconception that they are totally excused and they do not have to bear any consequences.

In the situation where a person is forced to do something which is not acceptable in Islam, this ikrah or duress can be categorised, according to Ibn Rajab, into two categories:

  1. The person is powerless and has no choice to refuse doing an evil act or something which is not acceptable by shari'ah. Ibn Rajab says that he is excused.

  2. The person is forced to harm someone else. In this situation, we look at the issue from the perspective that he has the power over his actions and can refuse to do the harm but at the same time his intention is to remove the harm from himself rather than to harm the other person. What is the ruling in this case? The scholars say that there are certain cases where the Muslim should not do it (i.e. harm someone else) even if he is harmed himself, such as if a Muslim is forced to kill someone else. He is not allowed to do so because this is a major harm that Muslims should do their best to avoid.

But the scholars have different views regarding similar situations and actions. The first situation is that if a Muslim took an oath not to do something and then he is forced to do it. Some say that he is excused and he is allowed to do the thing that he promised not to do - he is excused and there is no ruling here. Other scholars say he is responsible and he should not do it. If it is out of his choice, this goes under the first category. The same if someone is forced or threaten or even beaten and he has been ordered to cause damage to the property of someone else. Scholars say since he has the choice, he has to do his best not to cause the damage. The issue here is that if he does it, scholars say that he will be excused in the sense that he is not sinful but he still remains responsible for the damage that he caused.

The second situation where Muslim scholars differ is prohibited acts such as drinking wine. Some scholars say if a person is forced, then he is excused. Other scholars say though he is forced, he is not allowed to do it.

Another view or category is the distinction between speech and actions. In terms of speech, a person might be forced and allowed to say something that is not allowable. The scholars say he should not practice taqiyah. Taqiyah means to say or do something which you do not believe in and are not satisfied with. This only applies to sayings and not actions. Regarding this issue there is an agreement among the Muslim scholars. They say that whoever is forced to say something that is not allowed in shari'ah, then he will be allowed to say it - he will not be regarded or considered as 'saying' it. There is another condition that the scholars set. They say that whenever a person is put into ikrah or duress, the duress should be definite and most likely to happen and not just something the person imagines or assumes. He has to be sure.

What is mentioned in this hadith should not be abused. Some Muslims today abuse what the hadith implies by using it as an excuse to not uphold a responsibility or to break a promise. Allah knows our intentions and we should not take what is mentioned in the hadith to get away from the responsibility of fulfilling a commitment or an obligation.


conclusion

Islam encourages ihsan, quality, excellence at work, and a sense of responsibility. At the same time, Islam discourages recklessness, carelessness, and heedlessness. However, Islam takes into account the nature of human beings and their shortcomings. It also takes into consideration the unavoidable situations that they may undergo. It should also be noticed that Islam calls for taking lessons from our mistakes and our experience with others. That's why the Prophet Muhammad, sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam, says a Muslim should not be bitten from the same hole twice.

We should also be aware (based on Hadith 32) not to harm others. That hadith says: "There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm." According to this hadith we have to minimise the size of the harm and the consequences of the mistakes as much as possible. Even though the person might be excused and forgiven by one of these factors that are mentioned in the hadith, he still has to bear the full responsibility of his actions or deeds.

We should look at this in a positive way. Islam does not encourage people to become reckless, careless, or to feel that they are unaccountable. We should look at the hadith as a total picture of the situation and not to look at it in an isolated manner. We should have a complete view of what Islam has already established or stressed such as excellence in our performance, accountability and many other issues that we have to observe. But because we are human beings and subject to committing mistakes out of forgetfulness, Islam still leaves room for these human shortcomings and makes it possible for them to be excused and forgiven - but they have to bear some of the consequences.

 


Ayat-Ayat Cinta

Category: By Hamba Razzaq

Ayat Ayat Cinta is a beautifully portrayed Islamic love story – a tale of a virtuous Muslim protagonist who overcomes all obstacles of life maintaining pure ideals.

Fahri bin Abdillah is a poor, intelligent student who wins a scholarship to complete his graduate degree at Egypt's esteemed Al Azhar University. Very disciplined and dedicated by nature, Fahri embraces his life in Cairo, completing his studies and translation of religious books with full enthusiasm, exactly according to pre-determined targets.

Only one goal is left unattempted: the pursuit of marriage.

For Fahri is innocent and pure, and doesn't believe in the concept of relationships prior to marriage. He is inarticulate and shy around women. All his life, only two women have been close to him – his mother and grandmother.

Life changes drastically in Egypt for he suddenly finds himself surrounded by four beautiful, distinctly different women.

Maria Girgis, a shy, open-minded Coptic-Christian neighbor who is attracted to the teachings of the Holy Al Quran, finds herself falling in love with Fahri (a fact she only reveals to her diary).

Nurul, a student at Al Azhar like Fahri, is the Muslim daughter of a renowned Indonesian cleric. Fahri feels unworthy of her and thus ignores his feelings for her, leaving her confused and guessing.

Noura, an abused Egyptian neighbor, develops strong romantic feelings for Fahri, who in turn simply sympathizes with her situation. His romantic rejection destroys her and eventually leads to a false accusation of rape.

Aisha, a German Turkish student in Cairo haunts Fahri with her beautiful eyes. Following an incident on the metro where Fahri defends her against narrow minded bigoted Muslims, both immediately develop feelings for each other.

As the story unravels, the protagonist makes the audience face the daunting decisions he himself faces, and forces us to marvel at his undying loyalty to the true ideals of Islam as he ultimately makes the choice of a lifetime.
 


Philosophy of religion as a part of metaphysics

Category: By Hamba Razzaq

Philosophy of religion has classically been regarded as a part of metaphysics. InAristotle's,Metaphysics, he described first causes as one of the subjects of his investigation. For Aristotle, the first cause was the unmoved mover, which has been read as God, particularly when Aristotle's work became prevalent again in the Medieval West. This first cause argument later came to be called natural theology by rationalist philosophers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In Aristotle's Metaphysics he also states that the word that comes closest to describing the meaning of the word God is "Understanding".[citation needed] Today, philosophers have adopted the term philosophy of religion for the subject, and typically it is regarded as a separate field of specialization, though it is also still treated by some, particularly Catholic philosophers, as a part of metaphysics.

To understand the historical relationship between metaphysics and philosophy of religion, remember that the traditional objects of religious discussion have been very special sorts of entities (such as gods, angels, supernatural forces, and the like) and events, abilities, or processes (the creation of the universe, the ability to do or know anything, interaction between humans and gods, and so forth). Metaphysicians (and ontologists in particular) are characteristically interested in understanding what it is for something to exist--what it is for something to be an entity, event, ability, process, and so forth. Because many members of religious traditions believe in things that exist in profoundly different ways from more everyday things, objects of religious belief both raise special philosophical problems and, as extreme or limiting cases, invite us to clarify central metaphysical concepts.

However, the philosophy of religion has concerned itself with more than just metaphysical questions. In fact the subject has long involved important questions in areas such as epistemology, philosophy of language, philosophical logic, and moral philosophy.


History of metaphysics

One of the first metaphysicians is Parmenides of Elea. He held that the multiplicity of existing things, their changing forms and motion, are but an appearance of a single eternal reality (“Being”), thus giving rise to the Parmenidean principle that “all is one.” From this concept of Being, he went on to say that all claims of change or of non-Being are illogical. Because he introduced the method of basing claims about appearances on a logical concept of Being, he is considered one of the founders of metaphysics. [2]

Referred to as the subject of "first philosophy", the term "metaphysics" is utilized in the works of Aristotle. The editor of his works, Andronicus of Rhodes, placed the books on first philosophy right after another work, Physics, and called these books τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικὰ βιβλία (ta meta ta physika biblia) or, "the books that come after the [books on] physics." This was misread by Latin scholiasts, who thought it meant "the science of what is beyond the physical."[3] In the English language, the word comes by way of the Medieval Latin metaphysica, the neuter plural of Medieval Greek metaphysika.[4] While its Greek and Latin origins are clear, various dictionaries trace its first appearance in English to the mid-sixteenth century, although in some cases as early as 1387.[4][5]

Aristotle's Metaphysics was divided into three parts, in addition to some smaller sections related to a philosophical lexicon and some reprinted extracts from the Physics, which are now regarded as the proper branches of traditional Western metaphysics:

Ontology

The study of Being and existence; includes the definition and classification of entities, physical or mental, the nature of their properties, and the nature of change.

Natural Theology

The study of God; involves many topics, including among others the nature of religion and the world, existence of the divine, questions about Creation, and the numerous religious or spiritual issues that concern humankind in general.

Universal science

The study of first principles, which Aristotle believed to be the foundation of all other inquiries. An example of such a principle is the law of noncontradiction and the status it holds in non-paraconsistent logics.

Universal science or first philosophy treats of "being qua being" — that is, what is basic to all science before one adds the particular details of any one science. Essentially "being qua being" may be translated as "being insofar as being goes", or as, "being in terms of being". This includes topics such as causality, substance, species and elements, as well as the notions of relation, interaction, and finitude.

Metaphysics as a discipline was a central part of academic inquiry and scholarly education even before the age of Aristotle. Long considered "the Queen of Sciences",[cite this quote] its issues were considered no less important than the other main formal subjects of physical science, medicine, mathematics, poetics and music. Since the beginning of modern philosophy during the seventeenth century, problems that were not originally considered within the bounds of metaphysics have been added to its purview, while other problems considered metaphysical for centuries are now typically relegated to their own separate regions in philosophy, such as philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, philosophy of perception, philosophy of language, and philosophy of science.

In some cases, subjects of metaphysical scholarship have been found to be entirely physical and natural, thus making them part of physics proper (cf. Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity).

Summarized by : Hamba Razzaq

 


Who is Paul?

Category: By Hamba Razzaq
Hyam Maccoby: Harper San Francisco 1986

I have included Maccoby's work because it contrasts well with Brandon's critical hypothesis that most traditional scholarship on this topic fails to cover the "context" that is the "historical context" of events within Judea at this time under oppressive Romanrule. The Rabbinical and Talmudic references available to a Jewish scholar also provide independent sources. Few Christians are even aware that perhaps the most important proponent of a non orthodox type of Jewish belief was never even in verbal contact with the man called Jesus in fact, Paul never met Jesus and yet he claimed to be a direct interpreter of his teaching.

The Problem of Paul

Paul never met Jesus, they did not know each other. N.T. earliestwritings are Paul's letters written A.D. 50-60 the Gospels were written about A.D.70 to 110. Paul's birthplace was in Tarsus, Acts. 9:11, 21:39, and 22:3 he claims he is from the tribe of Benjamin see Romans. II:2, and was a Pharisee according to Phillipians 3:5 claims he studied under Gamaliel Acts. 22:3 * it is important to note that Paul himself never mentions that he was a student of Gamaliel. Stephen was murdered and Paul is implicated in his death see Acts. 8:1. Paul harries the church and siezes Christians, Acts. 8:3. At the time of Paul's activities the High Priest was a Sadducee not a Pharisee! Paul claims he was a Roman citizen by birth meaning his father also was a Roman citizen. He was, however, flogged several times see Acts.26, and II Corinthians 11:24 " Fivetimes I have recieved at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one.25 Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned....(he was flogged in total five times) this is problematical as under Roman law Roman citizens were not flogged. see the best modern effort to make Paul a Pharisee in W.D. Davies Paul and Rabbinic Judaism.

Pharasees, Sadducees and Ebionites:

Paul was never a Rabbi ( ie. Pharisee ) he was a police officer for the Sadducee party in Jerusalem under the High Priest. Jesus and his followers were members of the Pharisee sect. Both James and Peter who founded the church after Jesus died were Nazarenes definately a Jewish sect. It was Paul who founded the new religion called Christianity. * Epiphaneus in his book "Heresies" Testified that Paul had no Pharisee background but that he was the son of Gentile parents who converted to Judaism in Tarsus. The Ebionites were the true successors of Jesus the word in Hebrew means the poor.

The Pharisees

Pharisees noted for their scholarship, fairness, and leniancy in the law, see Josephus (Ant: 13:294) Torah Relgious teaching and Written and Oral Law. Through the Halakah (Going) and Aggadah (Telling) Christ is the Gk form of the Hebrew word for Messiah or the annointed one ie. the King. The Sadduccees rejected as heretical by the Pharisees because they rejected the Oral Law and were more concerned with the Status quo. The Sadduccees held three things to be important the Old Testament the Temple and The Priesthood. The Pharisees were leaders concerned with being Rabbi's whereas the Sadduccees were more concerned with being ireus the ireus were accepted by the Pharisees as leaders ie. as didaskos Pharisees were qualified as lawyers and teachers in the Midrash , Torah, and Talmud. They were the favourite of the people. By 160 B.C. the Ptolemic Greeks had centralized power in the "ireus Rank and file priests were Pharisees they really held the power among the people. The Essenes began a movement against the ireus for bieng corrupt Jesus said regarding the Sabbath and observation of the Law " The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath " this is a famous Pharisee source, part of an argument that saving a life takes presedence over the Sabbath.

Was Jesus a Pharisee?

Yes see (Mark12. 28-34) Jesus is speaking to a lawyer (meaning a Pharisee) in a (friendly discussion) * in Mathew the story is edited to make a Pharisee look very critical of Jesus.*
Pharisee teaching:


The 2 statements Jesus makes are an exact reference to Deuteronomy and to Leviticus and are Pharisee teachings; as follows:
A) Shema Hear O Israel the Lord our God is the only Lord, love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

B) Love your neighbour as yourself. Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Akiba both taught that this was the principal of Judaism upon which everything else depended. These two men were the greatest sages of Pharisee thought. In the Gospels an attempt is made to state the Pharisees accused Jesus of healing on the Sabbath against the Jewish laws when in fact there are laws which support these very acts of Jesus. see. Mark3:6 and Matt.12:14 In Mark 3:6 the reference is to partisans of Herod Antipas they must be Sadduccees! Mark 12:18-27 Ressurection from the dead is a Pharisee belief. Luke 13:31 At that time a number of Pharisees came to him and said, " You should leave this place and go on your way, Herod is planning to kill you. " Jesus is shown in
this reference to be a friend of the Pharisees and therefore it cannot be an interpolation or a late insertion it must be true. Messiah= anointed ie. King of Davidic line this is not a blasphemy. Exodus 21:19 Doctors bills and loss of employment must be paid for by the guilty party to an injury. * an eye for an eye refers to monetary compensation. Mark 7:19 Jesus declared all foods to be clean. ( is this an interpolation or mistranslation?) see the word Brwmata = foods? Mark1:43 Jesus expressly commands a leper to follow the laws of purity. Mark 2 the corn plucking incident. * Jesus did not break the law as the men were very hungry ie. a sense of emergency has been removed.

Why was Jesus Crucified?

Luke 23:2

And they began to accuse him, saying, " We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king." The actual charge was that he claimed to be King and forbid people to give tribute to CaesarJohn 19:12 Upon this Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, "If you release him you are not Ceasar's friend; every one who makes himself a king sets himself agianst Ceasar."Acts 5 Gamaliel's actions show that the Pharisees were sympathetic towards Jesus see the reference to his intervention upon the behalf of the disciples in the Sanhedran Sadduccee court.

Acts 5:33-40

33 When they heard this they were enraged and wanted to kill them. 34 But Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, held in honour by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a while. 35 And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you do with these men. 36 For before these days Theu'das arose, giving himself out to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was slain and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. 37 After him Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered. 38 So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail;39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!" 40 So they took his advice and, when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

to be continued.....

Summarized By : Hamba Razzaq