Morocco: Sex for a European husband

Via nieuwsblad (Dutch):

Poor Moroccan girls are willing to do everything in order to get a European husband.

Said, a 21 year old tourist in Tangier says there’s no talk of love, he says of the flirting in the streets of Tangier between locals and European-born youth. “In Morocco marriage has become big business. Singles no longer look for a beloved, but for somebody who will inject capital into their lives. Poverty is consuming this country, it makes its residents unemotional materialists. There is no future here for the Arab Romeo and Juliet.”

Many dream of a life in another country, preferably overseas. Some adventurers flee at nights by boat to Spain. Whoever fears the water, tries hooking somebody from Europe. Tangier in particular is flooded in the summer by Moroccans from abroad, to the delight of many poor Moroccan girls. Without any diversions they offer money or sex for European residence permits.

Naima from Antwerp: “In the nightclub I met a Moroccan girl from Casablanca. Very quickly she asked me how much my brothers would cost. I answered her that my brothers weren’t for sale, but she kept on pressing. She wanted to get out of Morocco. She was tired of the country and was looking for a boy from Europe. I joked that one of my brothers is asking for 10,000 euro. She couldn’t pay that, she said seriously. After that she asked if we couldn’t get to an agreement some other way.”

Ahmed, a twenty-something from Brussels, is passing through Tangier. He’s constantly confronted with desperate bartering: a night out for papers, sex for the right documents.. these are proposals boys from Europe often get.

“Ad nauseum,” says Ahmed. “And every year it gets worse. They see as as walking residence permits.” He says the girls aren’t ashamed of what they do at nights. “It’s downright disgusting and shocking. For some money or a false promise you get everything by Moroccan chicks. They’re whores!”

The older generation of Moro0ccans thinks the youth living in Europe are no good. “They’re westernized, also in their sexual behavior,” says Fatima (70) from Tangier. “The foreigners imported their uninhibited sexual mores to Morocco and turn our youth onto the wrong path.”

Of course there are differences in sexual mores between Morocco and Europe. 86% of the women in Morocco feel sexually intimated on the streets. The journalist says she herself got lewd comments multiple times while she was out. Even pregnant women aren’t exempt, and her pregnant niece was accosted by a disturbed man. [Ed: this article is summarized and I did not feel like translating all the comments]

Everything in Morocco is done secretively, and Moroccan society shuts their eyes, for fear of family or sex scandals. “And yet the Moroccans insist that their country is not sexually depraved. I’m irritated to no end by the hypocrisy,” says a Brussels woman. “In the hotel my friend and I can’t sleep in the same room because we aren’t married, but the Saudi sex-tourists can get Moroccan whores sent up to their room. The petro-dollars are suddenly above any modesty law. Sex tourism is flourishing like never before in Morocco. I see it with my own eyes, Morocco is a second Thailand.

UK: “They’re Somalian Muslims and alcohol or drugs isn’t something they’re used to”

The quote is from the girls’ lawyer. According to the article, the judge didn’t actually say that was a mitigating circumstance.

Via the Daily Mail:

A gang of Muslim girls who repeatedly kicked a young woman in the head walked free from court after a judge heard they were ‘not used to being drunk’ because of their religion.

The group screamed ‘kill the white slag’ while kicks raining in on 22-year-old Rhea Page as she lay motionless on the ground, the court heard.

The attackers – three sisters and their cousin – were told by a judge that normally they would have been sent to jail.

However, he handed the girls – all Somalian Muslims – suspended sentences after hearing that they were not used to alcohol because their religion does not allow it.

(source)

Sweden: Naked man in ‘pot-fuelled’ train sex attack

Göteborgs-Posten originally reported the man said he was a Somali fighter (h/t Mitt Sverige):
This information was scrubbed from the article. Some Swedish papers still report he said he was a ‘fighter’.

Via the Local:

A 30-year-old man from western Sweden has been detained after he stripped down naked and started asking people to have sex with him before attacking a female passenger and a conductor on a train traveling in central Sweden.

The incident occurred last Saturday on a train travelling from Gothenburg to Örebro in central Sweden, the Göteborgs-Posten (GP) newspaper reported.

According to police, the man smoked marijuana somewhere between Herrljunga and Skövde, after which he began behaving erratically.

“He got high during the trip, he threatened and assaulted a conductor and he assaulted a woman,” police spokesperson Lars Johansson told the paper.

(source)

Sweden: ‘Not wrong’ to move aide after Islam slur

Via the Local:

Sweden’s top legal official has given backing to the decision to reassign the integration ministry civil servant who compared Islam to totalitarian ideologies.

”There are no indications that the employee has suffered a drop in pay or any disadvantageous consequences from the move,” read the statement from the Swedish Chancellor of Justice (Justitiekanslern – JK).

The man, a non-political appointee, shared his opinion on Islam on his blog in September 2008 when he commented on an article by writer Lena Andersson in which she warned against the “religious terrorism” directed at artists, writers and journalists.

The civil servant’s own commentary on the article was that “Islam is like Communism or Nazism. There are no good practitioners – just confused or evil.”

(source)

BREAKING: Terror attack in central Oslo, several dead

Oslo police confirm a bomb attack against the government HQ in central Oslo killed several people this afternoon, at 3:20pm. It’s unclear how many victims there are. Video taken minutes after the attack.

Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet reports the attack was aimed at the Energy Ministry, and that a car-bomb went off between the ministry and the PM’s office. The Norwegian PM is reported safe.

Update: Reports of a second blast turned out to be untrue. They were apparently caused by shattering windows.

Update 2: A man pretending to be a policeman started shooting on the island of Utøya. The Worker’s Youth League (Labour Party’s Youth) are having their summer camp there, with 700 attendees. Norwegian PM Jens Stoltenberg told TV2 that the situation on the island was serious and critical. An eyewitness speaking to VG Nett reported “we are under attack!”, before the call was cut off.

Update 3: Government HQ, site of the blast:

Update 4: Various updates throughout the article.

There are reports that 3 people were arrested.

Share

by Khalid Yahya Blankinship

Crossposted from Lampost Productions

Question:

Didn’t the Muslim caliphate or khilâfah end in 1342 AH/1924 CE, when Turkey abolished the office? Didn’t the khilâfah have a continuous existence up to that point?

Answer:

These questions are two-sided, as they deal with fiqh and with history. The fiqh of the khilâfah is important, and perhaps that can be dealt with in a future article. In this article, however, I will be exclusively concerned with the history. In revealing historical facts, it is not my purpose to challenge any point of fiqh regarding the necessity of having a leader. Therefore, I am not disputing here that from the time of the death of the Prophet (SAAS) there was an amîr, and that the amîr had to be obeyed, and that the amîr also had the title of khalîfah. Most of what I would amend concentrates on the idea that the khilâfah was abolished in 1342/1924, which is an event whose significance has often been misconstrued by Muslims.

The early khilâfah had a more or less continuous history from Abu Bakr (RA), despite the civil wars of 35-40/656-661 and 64-73/683-692, until the coup that overthrew al-Walid ibn ‘Abd al-Malik in 126/744. That led to the Third Fitnah or Civil War (126-134/744-752), during which the ‘Abbâsids came to power in 132/749-750. This history is detailed in my book, The End of the Jihâd State: The Reign of Hishâm ibn ‘Abd al-Malik and the Collapse of the Umayyads, available from SUNY Press.

Contrary to most popular belief, the ‘Abbâsids’s position was weak, not strong, because the disordersof the Third Fitnah had undermined the khilâfah. The ‘Abbâsids never ruled in Algeria (except briefly in the extreme east of that country), Morocco, and Spain, so that the unity of the state had decisively ended. This actually first happened when the rebelling Berbers of Morocco set up their own khalîfah in 122/740, and it never happened after that year that all the Muslims ever were under one single khalîfah again. Although it has been mentioned that the Umayyads in Spain did not claim the title of khalîfah until the 4th/10th century, they were in a constant state of hostile relations with the ‘Abbâsids, who never ruled or even exerted any influence in Spain.

The North African Berbers, whose revolt had actually broken the back of the earlier Umayyad khilâfah in 122/740, had plenty of justification for their revolt, and it is really unfair merely to treat them as followers of a deviant sect of “Khawârij,” as has often been done. Even though their presence gave rise to the separate sect or madhhab of the Ibâdîs who still exist in the Algerian city of Ghardâyah and also in villages in Jabal Nafûsah in Libya, their initial impetus was purely political. All they did was to rebel against an Umayyad khilâfah which had lost all legitimacy except among the Syrians and which soon collapsed and disappeared. Remember that Sunnis have historically never validated the rule of the khalîfahs apart from the four Râshidûn and, often, ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azîz (99-101/717-720). While Mu‘âwiyah occurs in hadîth and might be defended as a Companion, that does not apply to the later Umayyad rulers. ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwân’s viceroy of the East, al-Hajjâj ibn Yûsuf (d. 95/714), even executed Sa‘îd ibn Jubayr (d. 95/714), the great muhaddith and authority of al-Bukhârî and other hadîth collections, sarcastically berating him for having thrown off his oath of allegiance by joining the ill-fated rebellion of Ibn al-Ash‘ath much earlier and then hiding out. This episode is documented in detail by al-Dhahabî in his huge biographical dictionary, Siyar a‘lâm al-nubalâ’, Vol. IV.

From the time of its first proclamation in 132/749, the ‘Abbâsid khilâfah continued to disintegrate through most of its history. It is quite notable that Abû Hanîfah (80-150/699-767), the putative founder of the Hanafî legal school and an outstanding jurist of the Muslim metropolis of al-Kûfah, after he had supported the ‘Alid rebel Muhammad al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah, spent the last four and a half years of his life (145-150/763-767) in the prison of Abu Ja‘far al-Mansûr (ruled 136-158/754-775), the ‘Abbâsid khalîfah. Indeed, Abu Hanifah was imprisoned in Baghdâd in the very year of the founding of that city and thus broke in the new prison. Further undermining the claim of the ‘Abbâsids to universal rule, a separate Fâtimid Shî‘î khilâfah was set up that lasted 297-567/909-1171 in North Africa and Egypt, and the surviving Umayyads in Spain also claimed the title of khalîfah 317-422/929-1031, when they fell. After that, many small princelings in Spain and North Africa claimed to be khalîfahs, so that a poet stated that they would take up big names like al-Mu‘tasim, just like housecats pretending to be lions. The Hafsid dynasty of Tunis claimed the title of khalîfah 651-977/1253-1569 and adopted ‘Abbâsid-sounding reign titles. When Islam spread to West Africa, so did claims to the office of khalîfah or amîr al-mu’minîn. This became part of the titles of ‘Uthmân ibn Fûdî (or dan Fodio) of Sokoto and his successors in Nigeria to this day. Since the khilâfah of the Ottomans was remote and made little pretense of being a real office, ‘Uthmân ibn Fûdî ignored it. The continuity of the use of such titles in the Muslim West also extends down to the present in Morocco, where Muhammad VI is still to this day amîr al-mu’minîn, just like ‘Umar ibn al-Khattâb, and that is taken with deadly seriousness in Morocco. Thus, the Moroccans, having their own continuous succession of the title, do not at all now and never before did recognize the Ottoman Turkish sultâns’s claim to the title of khalîfah. Indeed, since the sultâns of Morocco claimed descent from the Prophet (SAAS) and were thus Qurashîs, while the Ottomans were not, it might be held against the Ottomans rather that they did not recognize the Moroccan ruler as khalîfah and submit to him.

Meanwhile, in the East, the ‘Abbâsid khalîfahs exercised no personal power in 247-279/861-892 and again 295-334/908-945, when they were under the control of military dictators, and then lost all power completely with the capture of Baghdâd in 334/945 by the Shî‘î Bûyids or Buwayhiyyûn, who kept the ‘Abbâsid khalîfahs under house arrest until the Bûyids’s own downfall in 447/1055, when the Sunnî Saljûq Turks came as “liberators.” However, the ‘Abbâsid khalîfahs soon found that the Saljûqs were just as intolerable and would allow the khalîfahs no power, although they “respected” them, for example, by seeking to marry their daughters. The Saljûks arrogated to themselves the title of sultân or “authority,” which henceforth became the main title of the rulers in Islam until the last century, when malik or “king” began to make a comeback. The ‘Abbâsid khalîfahs only became independent again from the Saljûk sultâns in 547-656/1152-1258, after which Baghdad was captured and destroyed by the kâfir Mongols and the last ‘Abbâsid khalîfah was slain. The Egyptian Mamlûks set up one of his relatives, but he too was killed by the Mongols trying to go back to Baghdâd. After that, they set up a distant relative in Cairo in 659/1261 as khalîfah, and that line continued until the death of the last one in 950/1543. This was the so-called “‘Abbâsid khilâfah in Cairo.” Although the very far away Muslim Sultanate of Delhi in India used to seek investiture from them, everyone else regarded them as a joke. Usually the Mamlûk sultân would go out and drag the khalîfah along in his baggage just like one of his wives. It was form without content.

At the same time, the Turks of Turkey used the titles of amîr al-mu’minîn and khalîfah occasionally before 905/1500, but their real title was sultân, just like the Saljûks, Ayyûbids, and Mamlûks before them. After that the title khalîfah was not used by them for several centuries, until it was rediscovered at the Treaty of Kuchuk Kanarjli in 1188/1774. At that time, in that treaty with the Russians, the Turkish sultân reserved the title of khalîfah for himself so that he could still be considered the spiritual leader of the Crimean Tatar Muslims who were surrendered at that time to the Russians. Thereafter, it was used very little except from 1293/1876, when the Ottoman ruler ‘Abd al-Hamîd II started calling himself the Sultân-khalîfah in order to threaten the British Empire and thus preserve his rule. In this he was strongly opposed by ‘Abd al-Rahmân al-Kawâkibî (d. 1321/1903), who pointed out that according to Sunnî law, the khalîfah had to be from Quraysh, and the Ottomans were not Qurashîs and had never claimed to be. Long after ‘Abd al-Hamîd was overthrown in 1326-1327/1908-1909, many Muslims started looking back on him as the ideal ruler and his time as the golden age, because his overthrow practically meant the end of the multinational Ottoman Turkish state, but they did not think so at the time. His successors Muhammad V Rashâd (1327-1336/1909-1918) and Muhammad VI Wahîd al-Dîn (1336-1341/1918-1922) continued to use the title, but they were under the control of military dictators. When Muhammad VI surrendered to the British in 1337/1918, he fell under the control of those colonialists, and none mourned his expulsion by the military dictator Mustafâ Kamâl in 1341/1922. Thereafter for two years, Muhammad VI’s cousin ‘Abd al-Majîd II had the title of khalîfah without being sultân, until that was terminated by Kamâl in 1342/1924. That was the end of one khilâfah, but hardly the end of THE khilâfah, because there was nothing legitimate about the Ottoman claim to be khalîfahs to begin with.

After that, various rulers tried to claim to be khalîfah, including the British puppet kings of Egypt and the Hâshimite ex-king of the Hijâz, but no agreeable candidate appeared. The Sa‘ûdî rulers never tried to claim it, maybe because they had fought the Ottoman Turks on and off for nearly two centuries and did not respect their claim to the title, so they did not see that any legitimate title had become vacant.

It would seem to me that any attempt to restore the khilâfah today would have to begin by asking why all Muslims should not swear allegiance to King Muhammad VI of Morocco, who certainly holds this claim and does so through an ancient and venerable lineage that goes back much earlier than the Ottoman claim and is much more authentic. Not that I hold the view that that is what is to be done, but it would seem that classical theory would require allegiance to the existing khalîfah rather than setting up another as rival. The Ottoman state did represent the largest surviving Muslim state in the center of the Muslim world in the thirteenth-fourteenth/nineteenth century, it is true, but it almost went under in 1247-1256/1831-1840 and was only saved by British intervention. Thus, for most of its last century it did not constitute a truly independent Muslim polity but depended on Britain for protection from Russia and from other enemies. Indeed, its destruction after the First World War occurred because it had transferred its poltical allegiance to Germany, so that Britain no longer wished to preserve it.

Besides these difficulties with idealizing the Ottoman state, there are other problems. The centralizing organization of that state made the religious scholars very subservient, thereby undermining their traditional role as defenders of the people. Ottoman statism cynically used Islam in the thirteenth/nineteenth and early fourteenth/twentieth centuries, not cultivating real spiritual and moral values and already capitulating to the West. Thus, Mustafâ Kamâl, the secularist military dictator, represented more a continuation of Ottoman statism than a revolution against the Ottoman state model. Even if we go back to Muhammad II al-Fâtih (855-886/1451-1481) and Sulaymân I al-Qânûnî (926-974/1520-1566), we find the statist model in full operation. Nor is its derivation even wholly Muslim; in many of its forms and especially its content, it goes straight back to the defunct, authoritarian Roman Empire which it replaced in 857/1453. Of course, there is also some virtue in the Ottoman state as an example of possible Muslim political arrangements, but it can hardly be considered to accord with the classical shar‘î model of a Muslim state, nor can it be wholly defended on moral grounds. It is better to be circumspect about such matters.

The idealization of Sultân ‘Abd al-Hamîd II is also a dubious exercise. While I agree that he has been overly abused by European colonialist writers, his rule, although sometimes clever, was not ideal in an Islamic sense at all. It was rather filled with compromises and a huge intrusion of European influence, including a bankruptcy similar to Egypt’s meltdown of 1293/1876. Most modern defenders of Muslim statism would not have liked ‘Abd al-Hamid’s conservative dependence on the Sufi shaykh Abû al-Hudâ al-Sayyâdî, nor perhaps his personal character, nor would they have been content to live under his rule without protest.

Finally, one should note that it is not usually wise to take a partisan position about every episode in past history, as we were not there, did not experience it, and do not know the details to weigh who was more in the right in the majority of cases. It is true that we have set views received from our tradition regarding respect for the Prophets (AS), in particular our Prophet Muhammad (SAAS), as well as his Companions (RAA), especially the Rightly-guided Khalîfahs or Râshidûn. And even after them one may make some historical criticisms and judgements after careful study. But in most cases it is better to invoke and obey the command of the Prophet (SAAS) in the sahîh hadîth from al-Bukhârî, “lâ tasubbû al-amwât, fa-innahum afdaw ilâ mâ qaddamû” = “Do not curse the dead, for they have gone to the reward of what they did” (See al-Bukhârî, Sahîh, translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khân, Vol. 2, p. 270, hadîth 476 (kitâb al-janâ’iz, bâb mâ yunhâ min sabb al-amwât), and Vol. 8, p. 344, hadîth 523 (kitâb al-riqâq, bâb sakarât al-mawt); also reported by al-Nasâ’î, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and al-Dârimî).

By: Mehmudah Rehman

Ever been in love? Stayed up nights thinking about the object of your adoration? Ever felt the helplessness, the vulnerability of falling in love? Ever felt your life was on a standstill, revolving as though in a strange cacophony of thoughts, emotions and words around the one you love? I’m talking about the feeling, which when unrequited can tear your heart into a million little pieces. The feeling that overpowers you, envelops you and controls you in such a way that defeat in its game is too unspeakable an option to even think about, for it can annihilate you thoroughly — almost without hope of a rebirth.

The above may not be an ideal opening paragraph, but you know why I felt compelled to begin this way? Well, because in all age-groups, especially in that of teenage and young adulthood, this phenomenon called ‘love’ is creating waves. If we look at college life, the workplace, the TV-shows we follow, to the movies we watch, to books we peruse we learn that love seems to be on everyone’s mind. So coming to my original question: Have you ever been in love

If you have, you’ve probably been through profound grief as well. You know that the one thing that can bring pleasure and pain in equal quantities is in fact: love. Just about everyone around us seems to be yearning for ‘love’ yet few around us have found that proverbially ‘happy ending’.

So what is this elusive entity anyway? My mind is a cauldron of thoughts which only confuse me more than before. I look to the perfect deen of Allah to find some answers. And then I realize the solution, the answer to my question, has been there all along – I just didn’t look hard enough.

It is narrated in Al-Bukhari in a hadith qudsi:

“When Allaah loves a slave, He says to Jibreel (Alayhis Salam)l, ‘I love so-and-so, so love him,’ so Jibreel (AS) loves him and then calls out to the people of heaven, ‘Allaah loves so-and-so, so love him,’ and the people of heaven love him, and then acceptance is placed in the Earth for him.”

Take a moment to read the last part again – ‘acceptance is placed in the earth for him’. So that’s how it works! The acceptance, the love we sometimes crave from people comes from – Allah’s love? Does this mean that if Allah begins to love us, the whole world will follow suit? Actually, it means more than only that (although it does mean that too!).

When a believer is blessed by the love of Allah, life suddenly begins to look better – indeed the fixation with the love of others is finally given a rest. Imagine, a person who is so close to Allah that Allah becomes the eyes which he sees with, and the hand with which he strikes, and the tongue with which he speaks, wouldn’t the contentment of the entire universe be at his feet? Would a person so spiritually elevated even crave the recognition and love that we sometimes do from the dunya? To quote the words of another hadith qudsi:

“….When I love him I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes and his foot with which he walks. Were he to ask [something] of Me, I would surely give it to him, and were he to ask Me for refuge, I would surely grant him it.

[Bukhari 6502]

But how does one get Allah’s love? This ayah of the Quran puts things in perspective:

“Say (O Muhammad Sallallahu Alayhi Wa Sallam to mankind): If you (really) love Allah, then follow me (i.e. accept Islamic Monotheism, follow the Quran and the Sunnah), Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:31]

As we are all aware, Prophet Muhammed (Sallallahu alayhi Wa Sallam) was the most perfect man ever to tread on the earth and by following him we are making Allah love us. It’s that simple! Following the sunnah of our blessed Prophet (Sallallahu Alyhi wa Sallam) is not only good for us in deen, but also dunya. After all, who doesn’t like an honest, humble, trustworthy and pure person? Truly, like Hazrat Ayesha (Radi Allahu Anh) once commented, his conduct was the Quran. Remember Allah says in the first part of the above hadith qudsi:

My servant draws not near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the religious duties I have enjoined upon him, and My servant continues to draw near to Me with supererogatory works so that I shall love him.

So that’s one way to gain Allah’s love. Do the religious duties (fard) and supererogatory (nafli) ibadahs until Allah begins to love us. However, that is not the only way – far from it. Concealed inside the pages of the Quran are myriad ways of soliciting the Creator’s love. Below are only a few glimpses of it.

Patience

“And Allah LOVES as-Sabirun (the patient).” (Quran: 3:146)

]]> http://www.allah.eu/allah/its-a-matter-of-love.html/feed 0 http://www.allah.eu/allah/its-a-matter-of-love-2.html http://www.allah.eu/allah/its-a-matter-of-love-2.html#comments Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:26:57 +0000 admin http://www.allah.eu/general/its-a-matter-of-love-2.html By: Mehmudah Rehman Ever been in love? Stayed up nights thinking about the object of your adoration?

By: Mehmudah Rehman

Ever been in love? Stayed up nights thinking about the object of your adoration? Ever felt the helplessness, the vulnerability of falling in love? Ever felt your life was on a standstill, revolving as though in a strange cacophony of thoughts, emotions and words around the one you love? I’m talking about the feeling, which when unrequited can tear your heart into a million little pieces. The feeling that overpowers you, envelops you and controls you in such a way that defeat in its game is too unspeakable an option to even think about, for it can annihilate you thoroughly — almost without hope of a rebirth.

The above may not be an ideal opening paragraph, but you know why I felt compelled to begin this way? Well, because in all age-groups, especially in that of teenage and young adulthood, this phenomenon called ‘love’ is creating waves. If we look at college life, the workplace, the TV-shows we follow, to the movies we watch, to books we peruse we learn that love seems to be on everyone’s mind. So coming to my original question: Have you ever been in love

If you have, you’ve probably been through profound grief as well. You know that the one thing that can bring pleasure and pain in equal quantities is in fact: love. Just about everyone around us seems to be yearning for ‘love’ yet few around us have found that proverbially ‘happy ending’.

So what is this elusive entity anyway? My mind is a cauldron of thoughts which only confuse me more than before. I look to the perfect deen of Allah to find some answers. And then I realize the solution, the answer to my question, has been there all along – I just didn’t look hard enough.

It is narrated in Al-Bukhari in a hadith qudsi:

“When Allaah loves a slave, He says to Jibreel (Alayhis Salam)l, ‘I love so-and-so, so love him,’ so Jibreel (AS) loves him and then calls out to the people of heaven, ‘Allaah loves so-and-so, so love him,’ and the people of heaven love him, and then acceptance is placed in the Earth for him.”

Take a moment to read the last part again – ‘acceptance is placed in the earth for him’. So that’s how it works! The acceptance, the love we sometimes crave from people comes from – Allah’s love? Does this mean that if Allah begins to love us, the whole world will follow suit? Actually, it means more than only that (although it does mean that too!).

When a believer is blessed by the love of Allah, life suddenly begins to look better – indeed the fixation with the love of others is finally given a rest. Imagine, a person who is so close to Allah that Allah becomes the eyes which he sees with, and the hand with which he strikes, and the tongue with which he speaks, wouldn’t the contentment of the entire universe be at his feet? Would a person so spiritually elevated even crave the recognition and love that we sometimes do from the dunya? To quote the words of another hadith qudsi:

“….When I love him I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes and his foot with which he walks. Were he to ask [something] of Me, I would surely give it to him, and were he to ask Me for refuge, I would surely grant him it.

[Bukhari 6502]

But how does one get Allah’s love? This ayah of the Quran puts things in perspective:

“Say (O Muhammad Sallallahu Alayhi Wa Sallam to mankind): If you (really) love Allah, then follow me (i.e. accept Islamic Monotheism, follow the Quran and the Sunnah), Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:31]

As we are all aware, Prophet Muhammed (Sallallahu alayhi Wa Sallam) was the most perfect man ever to tread on the earth and by following him we are making Allah love us. It’s that simple! Following the sunnah of our blessed Prophet (Sallallahu Alyhi wa Sallam) is not only good for us in deen, but also dunya. After all, who doesn’t like an honest, humble, trustworthy and pure person? Truly, like Hazrat Ayesha (Radi Allahu Anh) once commented, his conduct was the Quran. Remember Allah says in the first part of the above hadith qudsi:

My servant draws not near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the religious duties I have enjoined upon him, and My servant continues to draw near to Me with supererogatory works so that I shall love him.

So that’s one way to gain Allah’s love. Do the religious duties (fard) and supererogatory (nafli) ibadahs until Allah begins to love us. However, that is not the only way – far from it. Concealed inside the pages of the Quran are myriad ways of soliciting the Creator’s love. Below are only a few glimpses of it.

Patience

“And Allah LOVES as-Sabirun (the patient).” (Quran: 3:146)

]]> http://www.allah.eu/allah/its-a-matter-of-love-2.html/feed 0 http://www.allah.eu/about-islam/uk-muslims-proud-of-gay-rights.html http://www.allah.eu/about-islam/uk-muslims-proud-of-gay-rights.html#comments Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:20:27 +0000 admin http://www.allah.eu/general/uk-muslims-proud-of-gay-rights.html UK: Muslims proud of gay rights Pink Paper headlined this article ‘British Muslims more proud of gay rights than secular peers, poll claims”, but according to the poll breakdown (via Liberal Conspiracy ), if you also take into account those who ‘tended to agree’ with the statement: Muslims are just a bit more proud than Christians, and those with no religion are most proud. Liberal Conspiracy also points out that the poll was based on an extremely small sample. Via the Pink Paper : A recent poll claims that British Muslims are more likely to be proud of gay rights than secular Britons.

UK: Muslims proud of gay rights

Pink Paper headlined this article ‘British Muslims more proud of gay rights than secular peers, poll claims”, but according to the poll breakdown (via Liberal Conspiracy), if you also take into account those who ‘tended to agree’ with the statement: Muslims are just a bit more proud than Christians, and those with no religion are most proud.

Liberal Conspiracy also points out that the poll was based on an extremely small sample.

Via the Pink Paper:

A recent poll claims that British Muslims are more likely to be proud of gay rights than secular Britons.

The research was conducted by YouGov for a forthcoming Demos essay collection on Conservative attitudes to race and ethnicity in modern Britain.

It concluded that almost half of British Muslims agree with the statement “I am proud of how Britain treats gay people” and found that 15 per cent strongly agreed with the statement, while only 8 per cent of secular Brits strongly agreed.

(source)

Netherlands: Jewish Moroccans balancing between cultures

RNW has an interesting article about Jewish Moroccans in the Netherlands. Usually when the media talks about “Moroccans” in Europe they focus on the Muslim majority and ignore the Jewish minority. It’s most striking when it comes to France, since the majority of French Jews today immigrated to France from North Africa, but the media never refers to them as such.

In any case, trying to be politically correct this article does exactly the opposite. It talks about two groups: “Jewish Moroccans” and “Dutch Moroccans”, as in the following sentence: “Jacob al-Malagh, a 47-year-old Jewish Moroccan mechanic, comes into contact with Dutch Moroccans on a daily basis.”

Am I the only one who thinks that sentence is ridiculous?