Skip to main content

Who will ever break the silence on Israel?

Deeply saddening, appalling is indeed the violence in Gaza, as our world leaders have called it. Events which stir our emotions intensely. But more than emotion, we all feel a view, have an opinion as politics doesn't just conjure feeling, it conjures thought and viewpoints as more than anything its about how we look after mankind in the world we live in. And in this present world we live in, it has to be said not only is the Palestinian conflict one of the most saddening, but is one which conjures the most political voice. For even the most apolitical amongst us, we all have a view about whether those people who claimed their homeland after around 2000 years, were right to do so, or wrong.

I remember some years ago, before I came to Islam, I was travelling in Morocco with a young Jewish girl who told me about how her parents envisaged settling in Israel one day from the UK, as their ultimate dream. At that time all I knew about Israel was, that it was a place in the middle east which came up in the news now and again, but didn't really know why and I wasn't that bothered either. When I returned to the UK, I ambled through some news pages in a vague attempt to maybe find out about this Israel. All I read was Israel was suffering at the hands of Palestinians and Palestinians were suffering at the hands of Israelis. Seemed like another classic conflict situation with some sort of history I'd never get but I hoped, as a passing thought, that both sides would meet in the middle somewhere. Thats classic conflict mediation isn't it, even in marriages, it's all about meeting somewhere in the middle; compromise. Both sides had to do their bit.

A couple of years later, my attachment to my Muslim brethren, urged me to read up on the history of Palestine and Israel. I read about a group of people homeless in Europe. I read about them set their eyes on a land they not only wanted to live in, but rule over. I read about them coming into Palestine and throwing people out of their homes, bulldozing them down and making people refugees in their own land. I read about bloodshed, I read about their domination, occupation spreading like a infectious disease. I read about their sophisticated missiles and tanks, whose design, manufacture was aided in Britain and America; massacre families, and the resistance of the Palestinians named as terrorism. Palestinians who grew up generation after generation in the muddy squalor of refugee camps in their own land attempted to fight this occupation with whatever they had. I read it all. Then came the wall, the blockades and the intense attacks of the last few days.

This was Israel. This was occupation, domination and suffering to the nth degee whilst the world watched, calling it deeply saddening and terribly appalling, but never wrong.

There have been many demos over the last few days, asking Israel to stop the attacks - and despite news reports saying that they won't until Hamas does, we must be slightly loopy if we ever believe they will put an end to their agenda which has been ruthlessly undertaken over the past century. And the West - they will never verbalise Israel's cruelty, as they are the ones who set the cannon loose and gave the go-ahead all those years ago. It's a silence that will never be broken in Washington or London, and if we don't own up to this, we continue to leave the suffering Palestinians stranded in a problem which has been sugarcoated and sold to us as a solution through roadmaps and ceasefires.

The solution lies in a place which we don't always look. Like a action-packed thriller, where the director misguides you into thinking who the killer is, masking the real one in order to create that all breath-taking twist, the Muslims will also face their twist. The realisation that sustainable change can only come from the solution Allah SWT gives us for our politics. Lobbying MPs, pressuring Israel, all these things serve to divert us from the real solution - the armies of the Muslim lands - who did they stand to defend? The thousands and thousands of people, weaponry who make up the Muslim armies - where and for what reason do they stand idle?
Allah SWT will ask the rulers of the Muslim world, where were their ears and their eyes as the missiles fell, one after the other? These rulers we know prefer to shake the hands of the perpetrators than straighten them, in order to keep their seats of power. But Allah Almighty is the owner of the Heavens and the Earth, and it is He who can destroy all 50+ of them and their kingdoms in a fell swoop and one day InshaAllah He will. There will come a day, as Allah SWT has promised where just Islamic rule will return to this Earth and liberate all the oppressed. This is the only solution which can pool together the resources of the Muslim world, and create the unity to enable a resistance which stands to the likes as those of Israel. This is the solution which doesn't accept a few Palestinian homes being returned, or a few Palestinians being allowed to work - This is the solution which will return an uncompromising rule of law which favours no race, only justice, to the Arabian plains. I pray that we are strong enough to remember this and become part of its return, instead of busying ourselves with fruitless actions which actively ensue its delay.



Anonymous said…

June 18, 1877 New York Times.

An Oriental correspondent of the London Telegraph writes: "On April 25, the Sultan Abdul Hamid, addressing the Turkish Army, said: 'The fatherland is in danger. It is my duty to take in my hand the banner of the Caliphate and go into the midst of my soldiers to sacrifice, if necessary, my life for the independence of the Empire and the honor and life of our women and children.' Many of the readers of the Daily Telegraph would like, perhaps, to know some details of this banner, and of it wonderful influence upon the minds of those who believe in Mohammed and his 'Koran'. It might interest them, therefore, if I give here some observations on the subject.

The banner of the Caliphate, to which the sultan alludes in his speech, is that which the Turks call ‘the Heavenly Standard,’ and, in their language, ‘Bairack.’ Its color is green, and they believe it to have been the banner of the Prophet Mohammed, delivered to him by the angel Gabriel, through the medium of Ayesha, as an indubitable token of victory over their enemies. This standard was formerly laid up in the Treasury of the Sultan of Constantinople, but is now kept in the Mosque at Eyoob, where the new Sultans on the day of their coronation gird on the saber of the Caliphate. In case of any serious struggle, a religious duty compels the Sultan to give orders to the ‘Mullas,’ or Mohammedan clergy, to display the Prophet’s standard before the people and Army, and proclaim ‘Al-Jehad,’ or the holy war, by exhorting the Moslems to be faithful to their religion and defend their Kingdom. ‘This is the prophet’s banner,’ the Sheikh-al-Islam exclaims; ‘this is the standard of the Caliphate; it is set up before you and displayed over your heads, O, true believers, to announce to you that your religion is threatened, your Caliphate in danger, and your life, wives, children, and property exposed to the prey of your cruel enemies! Any Moslem, therefore, who refuses to take his arms and follow this holy Bairack is an infidel, and must, therefore, suffer condemnation.’

Such and expedient has always produced wonderful effects among those who profess the Mohammedan religion. All good Moslems are considered as being divorced from their wives, ipso facto, if the refuse to make haste, take up their arms, follow the banner of the Caliphate, and fight against the enemy of their religion and Kingdom. It is confirmed by trustworthy historians that the standard of the Caliphate has been always kept with extraordinary care and reverence – that even the Janissaries, who were often disrespectful to the Sultans, trembled at the sight of this holy ensign. Only one instance if disrespect to the heavenly standard is related in the Turkish annals. This happened in 1658, when Hassan Pasha, at the head of a seditious faction, waged war with his legitimate sovereign. The Sultan gave orders, as usual, to display the banner of the Caliphate, with a view to induce Hassan Pasha and his parties to obey and respect the Head of Islam. Hassan Pasha seems to have been of little faith, inasmuch as when he saw the sacred banner displayed he turned his back to it and to the exhorting Mullas, and gave orders to his soldiers to fight fiercely and carry on the war to the end.

I will not encroach upon your time with tiresome discussions on the genuineness of this green banner of the Caliphate. I only observe that in the first place, all the biographers of Mohammed, and also the reliable historians of Islamism, both Orientals and Occidentals, make no allusion whatever to a green banner used by Mohammed in his military engagements. Elmacin mentions only two flags, which were constantly carried before Mohammed in the 25 campaigns in which he was personally engaged. One was black, and was called “Al-‘Okab,” i.e., the Eagle; the other was white and was called “Al-Lowa,” i.e., the standard par excellence. In the second place, the banners used in former times during the Sultans’ wars as the standard of the Caliphate were of different colors, and had different mottoes inscribed on them. Several banners of the Caliphate have been also taken in different wars by the Christians. One of these was captured by the King of Poland in the year 1683, and sent to Rome to be presented to the Pope. The centre-piece was gold brocade upon a red ground, and its borders were of silver brocade upon a green ground. On one side was embroidered in Arabic the Mohammedan formula, ‘There is but one God, and Mohammed is apostle.’ On the other side were the following motto in Arabic: ‘Have confidence in God, O faithful, and strengthen your faith.’ Another standard of the Caliphate was captured by the Venetians in the year 1685, with 17 other banners, 300 horses, 28 guns, and other spoils. This standard was, by the order of the Venetian Senate, exposed in the Church of the Theatin monks at Venice. On one side of it the following words were inscribed in Arabic: ‘In the name of God, the Most High and Almighty, God the Lord of all things, and the honorable prophets and saints Mohammed, Abubekir, Omar, Othman and Ali.’ On the other side was written also in Arabic: ‘There is but one God, and Mohammed is his apostle. O God, our Lord, Thou art great in goodness, and Thou art the Lord of all nations.’ It appears, therefore, from these historical facts, that the green standard now in the Mosque of Eyoob, at Constantinople, is not the same one used by Mohammed in his military engagements. And this accords with the tradition that says that when the Prophet was dying, Ayesha, his favorite wife, tore down the green purdah form the door of the death chamber, and, giving it to the assembled chiefs, bade them make it the flag of future victory. The Moslems, therefore, call this green banner ‘Bairack-un-naui,’ as being used as the standard of the Kingdom and the religion of Mohammed.

Notwithstanding all historical facts with regard to the non-genuineness of the ‘green’ banner; the Moslems have always believed, and still believe, that the green banner which they posses is the true ‘Lewa,’ or standard, delivered to Mohammed by Divine ordinance as an ‘indubitable token of victory.’ This strong faith compels them in conscience to carry their arms and follow it whenever they see it displayed, nay, the Sultans themselves are bound, as good Moslems and successors of Mohammed, to accompany the banner of the Caliphate, and go into the midst of their troops to fight against their enemies. War is, indeed, not only a political expedient to the Moslems, as it is to the Christians, but it is a religious duty enjoined upon them by the precepts of the Koran. I beg to quote here only a few texts from the book of Mohammed to show that the Mohammedans are not only allowed to wage was with their enemies, but are even commanded by the Koran to do so, In the 47th chapter, entitled ‘Mohammed,’ it is said, ‘O, true believers! If you assist God by fighting for his religion, he will assist you against your enemies.’ In the 11th chapter, entitled ‘The Cow,’ it is also said, ‘War is enjoined to you against those who fight against you. …. Fight for the religion of God.’ And in the chapter entitled ‘The Spoils,’ ‘O Prophet! Stir up the faithful to war,’ & etc. Thus, the Koran knows nothing of protocols, but enjoins Moslems to wage war and fight against their enemies; hence they are justified by the precepts of their religion in displaying the banner of the Caliphate, and in stirring up the nation to war.”
Anonymous said…
"Thus, the Koran knows nothing of protocols, but enjoins Moslems to wage war and fight against their enemies;" as quoted by the author, is utterly wrong. There are numerous verses in the Quran which mention protocols relating to the Muslim's actions during war. Furthermore,the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad elaborate considerably on Jihad protocols. No Muslim enters Jihad without a grounding in 'rules of engagement'.

Popular posts from this blog

An advice to Muslims working in the financial sector

Assalam wa alaikum wa rahmatullah wabarakatahu, Dear Brothers & Sisters, We are saddened to see Muslims today even those who practise many of the rules of Islam are working in jobs which involve haram in the financial sector. They are working in positions which involve usurious (Riba) transactions, insurance, the stock market and the like. Even though many of the clear evidences regarding the severity of the sin of Riba are known, some have justified their job to themselves thinking that they are safe as long as they are not engaged in the actual action of taking or giving Riba. Brothers & Sisters, You should know that the majority of jobs in the financial sector, even the IT jobs in this area are haram (prohibited) as they involve the processing of prohibited contracts. If you work in this sector, do not justify your job to yourself because of the fear of losing your position or having to change your career, fear Allah as he should be feared and consider His law regard

Q&A: Age of separating children in the beds?

Question: Please explain the hukm regarding separation of children in their beds. At what age is separation an obligation upon the parents? Also can a parent sleep in the same bed as their child? Answer: 1- With regards to separating children in their beds, it is clear that the separation which is obligatory is when they reach the age of 7 and not since their birth. This is due to the hadith reported by Daarqutni and al-Hakim from the Messenger (saw) who said: When your children reach the age of 7 then separate their beds and when they reach 10 beat them if they do not pray their salah.’ This is also due to what has been narrated by al-Bazzar on the authority of Abi Rafi’ with the following wording: ‘We found in a sheet near the Messenger of Allah (saw) when he died on which the following was written: Separate the beds of the slave boys and girls and brothers and sisters of 7 years of age.’ The two hadiths are texts on the separation of children when they reach the age of 7. As for the

Q&A: Shari' rule on songs, music, singing & instruments?

The following is a draft translation from the book مسائل فقهية مختارة (Selected fiqhi [jurprudential] issues) by the Mujtahid, Sheikh Abu Iyas Mahmoud Abdul Latif al-Uweida (May Allah protect him) . Please refer to the original Arabic for exact meanings. Question: What is the Shari’ ruling in singing or listening to songs?  What is the hukm of using musical instruments and is its trade allowed? I request you to answer in detail with the evidences? Answer: The Imams ( Mujtahids ) and the jurists have differed on the issue of singing and they have varying opinions such as haraam (prohibited), Makruh (disliked) and Mubah (permissible), the ones who have prohibited it are from the ones who hold the opinion of prohibition of singing as a trade or profession, and a similar opinion has been transmitted from Imam Shafi’i, and from the ones who disliked it is Ahmad Ibn Hanbal who disliked the issue and categorised its performance under disliked acts, a similar opinion has been tran