Mawdudi: The Godfather of Islamism

This is a guest post by Raziq

****

There is a common misconception that the roots of radical Islamism stem from grievances in the Middle East i.e. Israel/Palestine. This is actually not true. The Indian Sub-continent is just as responsible for radical Islamism as the Middle East is thanks to one man in particular, largely ignored in the Western media, Maulana Mawdudi. In this article I will be looking at Mawdudi’s personality and ideology.

Mawdudi was the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), an Islamist party in the Indian sub-continent (the counterpart of the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt). In the early part of his life he was a newspaper editor. He had no theological grounding as a scholar, rather he was a self-taught man with a passion for political authority. He was a key influence on many Islamist ideologues.

According to historian Philip Jenkins:

Egyptian Hassan Al Banna and Sayyid Qutb read him. Qutb ‘Borrowed and expanded’ Mawdudi’s concept of Jahilliyya (pagan ignorance) being a modern as well as pre-muhammadan phenomena, and for the need for an Islamist revolutionary vanguard movement. His ideas influenced the young Osama bin Laden during the anti-soviet war in Afghanistan. The South Asian Diaspora, including “significant numbers” in Britain, were “hugely influenced” by Mawdudi’s work. Mawdudi even had a major impact on Shia Iran, where Ayatollah Ruhoallah Khomeini is reputed to have met Mawdudi as early as 1963 and later translated his works into Farsi. “To the present day, Iran’s revolutionary rhetoric of ten draws on his themes.

(tnr. com The New Republic “The Roots of Jihad in India” by Philip JENKINS, December 24, 2008)

Mawdudi‘s ideas are laid out in the 120 books he wrote. In his book Al-Jihad fil-Islam (Jihad in Islam) he explains his interpretation of Jihad:

It must now be obvious that the objective of the Islamic jihad is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system, and establish in its place an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confine his rule to a single state or a hand full of countries. The aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution. Although in the initial stages, it is incumbent upon members of the party of Islam to carry out a revolution in the state system of the countries to which they belong; their ultimate objective is none other than world revolution

(Jihad Fi Sabillilah: Jihad in Islam by Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdudi “– Chapter 3, Pg 10)

In another book he says:

Human relations are so integrated that no state can have complete freedom of action under its principles unless the same principles are not in force in a neighbouring country. Therefore, a, ‘Muslim Party’ will not be content with the establishment of Islam in just one area alone –both for its own safety and for general reform. It should try and expand in all directions. On one hand it will spread its ideology; on the other it will invite people of all nations to accept its creed, for salvation lies only therein. If this Islamic state has power and resources it will fight and destroy non-Islamic governments and establish Islamic states in their place.

(Maulana Mawdudi, Haqiqat-i-Jihad ,Pg 64, Taj Company Ltd, Lahore, Pakistan 1964)

It is not difficult to see the influence Mawdudi’s ideas had on Islamist ideologues (Syed Qutb for example) as they swiftly became widespread in various parts of the world.  To propagate his ideas Mawdudi set up his group Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) in 1941. He describes his group as:

It (JI) is not a missionary organisation or a body of preachers or evangelists, but an organisation of God’s troopers.

(Mawlana Mawdudi, Haqiqat-i-Jihad, Pg 58, Taj Company Ltd, Lahore, Pakistan 1964)

The vision of this group was to destroy all man-made political systems and to establish an Islamic state in their place where non-Muslims would not be allowed to propagate their faiths. This state would then wage a Jihad against other countries.

In our domain we neither allow any Muslim to change his religion nor allow any other religion to propagate its faith.

(Mawlana Abul Ala Mawdudi, Murtad ki Saza Islami Qanun Mein, Pg 32, Lahore Islamic Publications Ltd, 1981, 8th Edition)

Women’s role in society would be restricted:

..the real place of women is the house and she has been exempted from outdoor duties…She has however been allowed to go out of the house to fulfil her genuine needs, but whilst going out she must observe complete modesty. Neither should she wear glamorous clothes and attract attention, nor should she cherish the desire to display the charms of the face and the hand, nor should she walk in a manner which may attract attention of others. Moreover she should not speak to them without necessity, and if she has to speak she should not speak in a sweet and soft voice

(Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdudi. Purdah and the status of Women in Islam, Taj Company Ltd, Pg 140)

In Pakistan, JI protested against women’s rights and supported the Hudood bill of 1979. This bill made it difficult for women to receive justice for rape as, if they failed to bring four male witnesses to the crime, they risked having their accusation against the man turned into an admission of guilt to fornication. The woman would be flogged and the rapist would walk free.

Mawdudi himself was arrested in 1953 for inciting violence against the minority Ahmadiyyah community and sentenced to death, which was later commuted. In total Mawdudi was jailed four times before his death in 1979.

In Pakistan, members of JI have gone on to join Pakistan’s military and intelligence departments in large numbers. This was a factor in the military coup in the 70’s which overthrew the government of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and brought the dictatorship of General Zia into power. Zia then went on a campaign to Islamicize the country. He supported, trained and funded JI-inspired Islamist fighters in Afghanistan and India; the birth of the Taliban was a direct result of JI influence in the Pakistani Intelligence services.

In the UK today there are many organisations which have links to JI or actively support and propagate Mawdudi’s ideas. They include the Islamic Foundation in Leicester, East London Mosque, UK Islamic Mission, Islamic Forum Europe and leading figures in the Muslim Council of Britain. It is a shame that today in Britain we have organisations promoting Mawdudi’s hate-filled works and, if we are serious about defeating extremism in the UK, they must be exposed and challenged.

This entry was posted in Islamism, Your View and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

37 Comments

  1. Ibn Khaldun
    Posted August 25, 2009 at 4:29 PM | Permalink

    Mawdudi was also very keen on sex slaves:

    “Even today, the government must distribute the women war captives among Muslim soldiers and the soldiers should “use” them. This rule will apply to women regardless of whether they belong to the People of the Book, or any other religion”

    Vol 1 Pg 340 Tafirul Quran

    Hmmmm.

  2. The Great Satan
    Posted August 25, 2009 at 5:32 PM | Permalink

    The old JI website used to list exactly how it envisioned the Islamic state to be and had some pretty nasty stuff in it. Their new website has been cleared of most of the extreme stuff

  3. Zalloom
    Posted August 26, 2009 at 11:32 AM | Permalink

    Mawdud, HT, Ikhwan, Al-Qaeda are all the same.

    Power hungry freaks who try to justify there ideas through religion, even if it means lying, twisting and distorting religous scripture.

  4. thabet
    Posted August 26, 2009 at 2:47 PM | Permalink

    Good brief intro to Maududi.

    One of his close friends Amin Islahi split off from him over the role of Muslim scholarly class in politics. Javed Ghamidi, a sort of conservative-orientated modernist I suppose, is a pupil of Islahi.

  5. Zalloom
    Posted March 2, 2010 at 9:28 PM | Permalink

    In the light of current events I think we should all be reminded of Maudoodi and exactly what he stood for. Only then will we understand the IFE, MCB, FOSIS & Jamaat-e-Islami.

    For this reason I am bringing this article to the fore again.

  6. Bari
    Posted March 2, 2010 at 9:40 PM | Permalink

    Didn’t Inayat once say that it was Mawdudi’s writings that first got him interested in Islam?

  7. By: Ibn: Adam
    Posted March 3, 2010 at 3:21 PM | Permalink

    Iqbal finds the source of life in the desire for power and domination He says that misplaced forgiveness is a sign that life is decaying. He who remains contented with weakness falls into a state of disgrace. Weakness is a thief that steals away life and it is productive, of such evils as fear and falsehood. Truth is always accompanied by strength. Life is a field and its crop is strength. Power and strength are the criteria for the judgement of truth and falsehood. If your enemy is capable of mustering power and strength, his argument needs no further proof. Falsehood acquires the glamour of truth by means of power and considers itself the truth, because truth lacks power.

    But how should one acquire strength and power. Iqbal says by conquering the world and subduing it to our purposes:-

    Whoever hath subdued the things perceived can of one atom reconstruct a world.

    The world and its splendours are not to be derided but subdued to higher purposes:-

    O thou who slumberest, by dull opiates drugged,
    And namest mean this material world;
    Rise up and open thy besotted eyes!
    Call not mean the world by law compelled!
    Its purpose is to enlarge the Muslims’ soul,
    To challenge his potentialities;

    And again

    God counts this world the portion of good men; Commits its splendours to believers’ eyes;
    It is a road the caravan must pass,
    The touchstone the believer’s gold to assay;
    Seize thou this world, that it may not seize thee
    And in its pitcher swallow thee like wine.

    Just as Afghans condemns cowardice, Iqbal condemns fear:

    The fear of God faith’s only preface is,
    All other fear is secret disbelief.

  8. By: Ibn: Adam
    Posted March 3, 2010 at 3:26 PM | Permalink

    Islamic warfare is directed to the securing of essential human liberties. Some people think, he says, that Islam has sanctioned only defensive warfare. If it means that you should wait until you are actually attacked, it is a misinterpretation of the essential principles of Islam. War must be waged in defence of human liberties, as the Qur’an says,’ ‘Fight with them until there is no persecution and religion should only be for Allah’ (2:193).

    Fighting for the way of the Lord means fighting for social justice, it does not mean fighting to spread a dog¬ma. In countless places the Book says that you have to fight against tyranny and suppression of liberties and the fight must go on until per¬secution stops and people are free to believe and act as they like in a free manner. “And what reason have you that you shall not fight in the way of Allah and of the weak among the men and the women and the children are those who say: our Lord! cause us to go forth from this town whose people are oppressors and give us from thee a helper”. (4:75). This clearly explains what is meant by fighting in the way of the Lord. It is not a fight for a theological mystery or metaphysical doctrine; God is the ideal of human conduct, He stands for social justice. The fight for social justice only is enjoined by Islam, a war for any other purpose would be un-Islamic.

  9. By: Ibn: Adam
    Posted March 3, 2010 at 3:29 PM | Permalink

    Islam is however too realistic a religion to be pacifist. It is one thing to want to live peacefully with others, but quite another to make them have the same attitude toward you. On the whole, people of every culture desire to be more powerful than those who are culturally opposed to them. They take all steps which they deem necessary for the preservation of their cultural identity, and for the subjugation of others. In his new classic paper on clash of civilizations, Huntington tells us with unusual candidness that, “The West is now at an extraordinary peak of power in relation to other civilizations. Apart from Japan the West has no economic challenge. It dominates international political and security institutions, and with Japan economic institutions.”

    And: “In the post-Cold War, the primary objective of arms control is to prevent the development by non-Western societies of military capabilities that would threaten Western interests. The West attempts to do this through international agreements, economic pressure and controls on the transfer of arms and weapons technologies.”

    Muslims are therefore enjoined to be materially powerful so as to deter those who might resort to aggression against Muslims or who are prone to use force to subjugate others. Material power can and should thus be an ally to the cause of spiritual development and not a contradictory of it.

  10. By: Ibn: Adam
    Posted March 3, 2010 at 3:33 PM | Permalink

    In order to judge the incorrect ideas held by western people, it would be useful to survey the attitudes to women in different societies in the past.
    During the Roman civilization, for example, a woman was regarded as a slave. The Greeks considered her a commodity to be bought and sold. Early Christianity regarded women as temptresses, responsible for the fall of Adam from Heaven. (1)

    1. Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 19, p. 909 (1977 edition)

    In India, the Hindus until recently considered their women worse than death, pests, serpents or even Hell. A wife’s life ended with the death of her husband. In the past, a widow had to jump into the flames of her husband’s funeral pyre.

    In pre-Islamic Arabia, a woman was treated as a cause for grief and unhappiness and baby girls were sometimes buried alive after birth. This is mentioned in the Qur’an when Allah says: “And when the female (infants) buried alive (as the pagan Arabs used to do) is questioned. For what sin was she killed?” (81:8-9)

    In France, in 587 CE, a conference was held to study the status of women and to determine whether a woman could truly be considered a human being or not! Henry VIII in England forbade the reading of the Bible by women and throughout the middle ages the Catholic Church treated women as second-class citizens. In the universities of Cambridge and Oxford, male and female students were not given the same rights until 1964. Before 1850, women were not counted as citizens in England and English women had no personal rights until 1882.

    If we keep this status in mind and look into the position of the women in Islam, we must conclude that Islam liberated women from the dark age of obscurity, insecurity and being non-entities fourteen hundred years ago!
    Islam is a religion of common sense and is in line with human nature. It recognises the realities of life. This does not mean it has recognised equality of man and woman in every respect. Rather, it has defined their duties in keeping with their different biological make-up (2:228). Allah has not made man and woman identical, so it would be against nature to try to have total equality between a man and a woman.

    That would destroy the social balance. Society would not prosper but would instead have insoluble problems such as broken marriages, children born outside marriage and the break-up of family life. These problems are already rife in Western society. Schoolgirl pregnancies, an increase in abortions, divorce and many other problems have resulted from a permissive outlook and the so-called freedom of women championed by feminists.

  11. Zalloom
    Posted March 3, 2010 at 4:11 PM | Permalink

    What a load of waffle!

    The post is about Mawdudian philosophy. Stick to the topic at hand!

  12. Respectabilia
    Posted March 3, 2010 at 4:19 PM | Permalink

    Zalloom, don’t mask ‘waffle’ claims for your inability/laziness to read detailed posts. Adam’s post is related to the portion on women in the OP.

    Don’t expect anyone to spoonfeed you meanings next time.

  13. By: Ibn: Adam
    Posted March 3, 2010 at 4:43 PM | Permalink

    Responsibilities and Duties

    To the Muslims we have only one very simple thing to say: Understand and fulfil the responsibilities and duties that fall upon you by virtue of your being Muslims. You cannot get away with merely affirming that you are Muslims and that you have accepted God as your only God and Islam as your religion. Rather, as soon as you acknowledge Allah as your only Lord and His guidance as your way of life, you take upon yourselves certain obligations and duties. These obligations you must always remain conscious of, these duties you must always endeavour to discharge. If you evade them, you shall not escape the evil consequences of your conduct in this world or in the Hereafter.

    What are these duties? They are not merely confined to the affirmation of faith in Allah, His Angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Day of Judgement. Nor are they confined to performing the Prayers, observing the Fasts, going on the Pilgrimage, and paying the Alms. Nor are these duties exhausted by observing the injunctions of Islam relating to marriage, divorce and inheritance. Over and above all these duties, there is one which is the most important: that your lives bear witness to the Truth that you have been given by God before all mankind, the Truth which you believe to be true.

  14. By: Ibn: Adam
    Posted March 3, 2010 at 4:44 PM | Permalink

    The Only Purpose of Existence

    The Qur’an clearly states that witnessing to the Truth in a manner that would leave mankind with no justifiable ground to deny it is the only purpose behind constituting you as a distinct Ummah (community), named Muslims.

    And thus We have made you a community of the middle way, so that you may be witnesses [to the Truth] before all mankind, and the Messenger may be witness [to it] before you (al-Baqarah 2: 143).

    This mission is the sole objective for which your Ummah has been brought into being, it is the raison d’être of its existence as a society of human beings. Unless you fulfil it you are squandering your life. For this is no ordinary duty; it is a duty enjoined on you by God. It is a Divine command and a Divine call:

    O believers, be ever steadfast in standing up, for the sake of God, bearing witness to justice (al-Ma’idah 5: 8).

    It is not a mere trifle but an emphatic and grave mandate, for Allah also says:

    And who is a greater wrong-doer than he who suppres ses a witness entrusted to him by God (al-Baqarah 2: 140).

    You have been warned of the consequences of evading this duty. Look at the history of the people of Israel. They too were appointed to stand in the witness-box; but sometimes they suppressed the Truth, and sometimes they witnessed against it. By their conduct, they, in fact, became witnesses to falsehood rather than witnesses to the Truth. The consequence was that God forsook them and a curse fell upon them.

    And so, humiliation and powerlessness afflicted them, and they earned God’s anger (al-Baqarah 2: 61).

  15. By: Ibn: Adam
    Posted March 3, 2010 at 4:44 PM | Permalink

    Witness to the Truth

    What does this duty of witness imply? Consider it carefully: You have been given Divine guidance, you have been shown the Truth. You must, therefore, establish by your testimony and witness its authenticity and truthfulness before all mankind. This is a testimony that will make the authenticity and truthfulness of Divine guidance self-evident, for all to see, and a witness that will make it clear and indisputable for all people.

    For this very purpose all the Messengers were sent to the world; this was their primary duty. After them, their followers were entrusted with the same duty. And now the Muslim Ummah, as the successor to the Last Prophet, blessings and peace be on him, is charged with this very mission, just as he was charged with it during his lifetime.

  16. By: Ibn: Adam
    Posted March 3, 2010 at 4:45 PM | Permalink

    Nature and Importance

    What is the importance of this witness? You will know its importance only when you understand that man has been made accountable for his conduct and will be rewarded and punished in the Hereafter under the Divine Law which rests entirely on this witness. God is All-wise, All-merciful, and All-just. His mercy, justice and wisdom are not such that He should punish people for living against His will while they had no knowledge of it, that He should take people to task for deviating from the right path of which they were ignorant, that He should hold people accountable for things of which they were unaware. [1]

    It was as a provision against this that the first man He created was a Messenger, and that after him many more were sent from time to time. [2] They were all to be witnesses to mankind, to make it understand and remember the will of God. They were all to teach human beings the proper way of conducting their lives, the code of behaviour that they should adopt to win God’s favour, the acts that they should perform, the acts that they should avoid, and the things for which they will be brought to account. [3]

    This witness was given by Allah’s Messengers so that the people may not be in a position to say to God: How can we be punished for things of which we were not warned? The Qur’an says:

    [We sent] all Messengers as heralds of glad tidings and as warners, so that men may not have any argument against God, after [the coming of] these Messengers; God is indeed All-mighty, All-wise (al-Nisa’ 4: 165).

    In this manner God made His Messengers bear the crucial responsibility for guiding man on His behalf. They were thus charged with a very delicate and grave responsibility: if they bore witness to the Truth properly, the people would be accountable for their own actions, but if they failed in their duty, they themselves would be called to account for their people going astray. In other words, unless the Messengers made people responsible for their conduct by giving them conclusive and indisputable testimony to the Truth, the people would hold the Messengers responsible for their own misdeeds, saying: ‘The knowledge that God gave you, that you did not communicate to us; the way of life that He showed you, that you did not show US.’ [4] That is why all the Messengers always remained acutely conscious of the burden of this responsibility, and that is why they endeavoured so hard to bear witness before the people to the Truth entrusted to them.

  17. By: Ibn: Adam
    Posted March 3, 2010 at 4:45 PM | Permalink

    Responsibility of the Ummah

    All those who were led by the Messengers to the knowledge of the Truth and Divine guidance were formed into a community, an Ummah. Every Ummah was charged with the same mission as the Messengers of witnessing to the Truth. As successors to the Messengers, every Ummah has the same crucial role and responsibility as they had. Thus, if an Ummah properly fulfils its duty of witnessing to the Truth and yet the people do not pay heed, it will be rewarded and the people will be brought to account. However, if the Ummah neglects its duty, or if it gives false witness, it will deserve to be punished more severely than the people. The Ummah shall be accountable not only for its own misdeeds, but also for the misdeeds of those who went astray or turned to error and wickedness because the testimony given to them by the Ummah was misleading or false.

    This, brothers, is the nature and logic of that grave and crucial duty which lies upon me, you and all those who consider themselves part of the Muslim Ummah, or those who have become sufficiently aware of God’s Book and the guidance brought by His Messengers.

  18. Abu Faris
    Posted March 3, 2010 at 5:39 PM | Permalink

    Not only bonkers waffle, but factually wrong:

    Henry VIII in England forbade the reading of the Bible by women

    Canon law reforms, isntigated by the establishment of the Church of England during the reign of Henry VIII, included extension of the already existing stipulation that a woman might not serve as a deacon in the newly established Church of England. As deacons traditionally make the readings in church service, this meant that effectively women continued to not be allowed to read from the Bible during Church service. The fact that Henry’s own daughters (both the Catholic Mary and the Anglican Elizabeth) not only read from the Bible but read it in Hebrew, Greek and Latin might give the lie to this piece of guff – but also consider the impossibility of enforcing such a law. Ridiculous!

    This clarified the Church of England’s status as a non-conforming Catholic church in rite and Canon law.

    throughout the middle ages the Catholic Church treated women as second-class citizens.

    Not just the Catholic Church, but also lay society – and not just women. Equal legal rights are a recent invention, historically – Islamism seeks to return society to conditions similar to those of the High Middle Ages in Europe on this score, lest we forget.

    In the universities of Cambridge and Oxford, male and female students were not given the same rights until 1964.

    Rubbish. Iris Murdoch, for example, was up at Cambridge (where she was one of Wittgenstein’s finest Post-Grad students). There were colleges for women established in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries at both Places.

    Dons – lecturers with tenure at Oxford and the Polytechnic of the Fens (sorry, couldn’t resist!) were expected to be celibate or at least bachelors. This was because, of course, both Places were originally monastic establishments.

    Epic fail on this one as well, Ibn.

    Before 1850, women were not counted as citizens in England and English women had no personal rights until 1882.

    This is so utterly deranged it is hilarious. Of course women had rights – they may not have been equal to men’s rights – but they had rights. Even Anglo-Saxom rich women made wills in their own right, women figured in court cases which considered their rights throughout the whole history of English law. Women have ancient customary rights enshrined in Common Law.

    Incidentally, until recently no-one was a citizen of Britain. One was (is) a subject of the Crown. The view being that citizens belong to republics, subjects to monarchies. Britain is, of course, part of a monarchy (read that carefully – part of a monarchy… now go and do some research).

    In other words, you are a deranged, ignorant, dribble-merchant. Do go away.

  19. Jean L. Dell'Aquila
    Posted March 3, 2010 at 7:02 PM | Permalink

    The details of unjust rulings are but fuel for the Fire. As it is the lewdness of the western woman of this century as in bygone centuries isn’t something that I would want to defend or publicize. Praise be to the Creator Glory be to Allah WHOa Allah He is Allah that made the knowledge upon which Mawdoodi talked about and acted upon a well spread cause for concern. For there is only one Book in Islam the Koran and were all the trees pens and all the oceans ink never would the words of Allah end. The Muslim woman is stationed in her house her husband in the position of a slave to meet her material needs although he is her master the father of her children. For the illegitimate wars with the legion of illegitimate children is the answer of one man Imam Al-MAhDE who fights illegitimacy of causes rule and manpower. His enemies know him to be true. The promised one the guided one. So bring forth O ignorant ones your book of guidance if it be not your current whims your farcical laws your vendettas against the Muslim. If your talking about any version of the Bible again the Koran is the seal of that scripture too. If your drunk in public drinking openly we’ll rehabilitate you in public openly with forty lashes. Reason is the highest gift of God-Allah upon man and the Muslim protected the mind-life. The Muslim is to be preferred any day to the torture retreats of the disbelievers with there allied hypocrites in Islam. In the war on terror the Muslim is THE terrorist striking terror in your midst !! For you are the Terror wrecks –rex–king upon which the romans lost the revolutionary wars against kings for it is Islam under the Messiah who kills your crowned blinded king the antichrist !! Is there any other prattle about Islam or babble cock !!

  20. By: Ibn: Adam
    Posted March 3, 2010 at 7:17 PM | Permalink

    Before we look at magna carta (the script) let us go back two years previous to 1213 and thecontract called the treaty of verona. King John, as most kings tried to no avail to establish as William the conqueror did a dictatorship. This seems to be the model to follow and William set a precedent that all kings and queens would to try to follow, or at least they would try to push the boundaries further set out in the doctrine written by the church of rome. The pope’s main goal was to try and control all the lands of the world under the doctrine he is the ‘vicar of christ’, using the myth of jesus christ to achieve this. Placing him at the top of the chain and by using the myth to his and who he serves benefit, he would proclaim that he was the owner of all lands on behalf of jesus, until such time as jesus would return and he would supposedly hand it all back to him. Contained within this is every living breathing creature including us – basically in servitude to his wishes and all he commands? This was done through a legal system called canon law, the law of contracting that works through fiction, as it itself, is only fiction. So to set the stage we have the pope at the top of the chain supposedly owning all land and everything upon it and canon law as the script for the play, and the principles of the script to be; that the principles of religion contribute most powerfully to keep nations in the state of passive obedience including their kings and queens. In being the ‘vicar of christ’ the number one law to be used at first was the fear of god and this is exactly what was used against king John to make him circum to the popes wishes.

    When looking at King John there are so many conflicting versions of history surrounding the events and the life of John, almost to the point that most versions contradict themselves? It would seem that yes John and England were in some financial difficulties arising from the constant need to maintain lands in other countries and thecontrol of them, but more to the point that there was always someone wishing to take the throne of this country away from whoever held it at the time. The basis of the problem seems to be that John did not want to accept Stephan Langton as Archbishop the Vatican’s representative, installed by pope innocent III to rule England under religious doctrine as Holy See. (canon law) Did John realise he was just to be a front man with everything being controlled from the shadows? John in effect was to become a slave to Stephan Langton and I am sure John released this and of course no king of England could become a slave in his own land….what would become of his status? John thwarted the pope on this and got himself excommunicated, which to John being a very holy man in fear of god, was a very bad thing to happen – in fact the only card the pope needed to play. John, as his brother Richard I had done, had invoked the law of mortmain, being brought in by Richard when he was crowned for the second time after being held captive for 7 years by the czar of Germany. One of the agreements and part of the contract for his release was that Richard would install canon law on being crowned, to maintain what William had started. John invoked mortmain so no one could pass land on to the church or anyone else without the king’s permission, in some ways I see what John was trying to do, although historians have masked this fact deliberately – maybe a vain attempt to protect this island on behalf of who he served: us. But it still remains that the law of mortmain was to be used as a very bad devise and still is today and would serve the pope well, but it seems John was forced into a predicament and used what he had at his disposal. It seems without mortmain the king would lose all the land he controlled. The Vatican did not like this as they were losing control of lands as many under the fear of god were giving their lands to the church. The church had to devise a way to maintain the lands would always be theirs and they would maintain control. John was the perfect candidate because of his religious nature and the excommunication devise worked perfectly to achieve this, with the added bonus that Stephen Langton would be in control and John would circum to this. The pope needed to cast in stone or at least on paper a contract with John that would be everlasting that would hand over everything including lands and chattels (us) to the supremacy of the pope and the church of rome.

    When John was excommunicated this affected this very religious man to such an extent it is said he went on bended knee and submitted to the popes supremacy to be absolved of excommunication. John handed over title to his kingdoms at the time which consisted of England and Ireland to the pope and all chattels as vassals, which means someone who is holding a fief (a piece of land held under the feudal system) who owes allegiance and service to a feudal lord. The pope was setting himself up as the ultimate lord on behalf of the corporation known as the church of Rome, the greatest conquest that netted the pope the place needed to take the rest of the world under an empire that he represented, an empire that was to become the biggest corporation in the world. John swore submission and loyalty to the pope under the delusion that if he didn’t he would be excommunicated again, and to John this was worse than death of the body or anything else on this earth that could be done to him. The threat of eternal damnation was enough for John to circum to the wishes and desires of a man pretending to be a god on earth, a land lord John would worship as all of religious men, women and children have been deceived into doing. This is the ultimate deception, the ultimate lie relying on a myth, but was so strong in its devious nature that a man would surrender anything it requires to be surrendered – as when you join the ‘order of St John of Jerusalem’ better known by their nick name ‘the knights templar’.

    Albeit reluctantly John accepted Stephen Langton as archbishop of Canterbury, knowing full well that the new archbishop was in control of the country and truly ‘ruled’, for John had offered a vassals bond (contract) of fealty (a loyalty someone owes to a lord or sovereign) and homage (a disposition or tendency to yield to the will of another) to the pope and the pope’s servants, in other words to the CEO of the corporation and the CEO’s directors. It is recorded in history that in July of 1213 John was absolved of excommunication at Winchester by the newly appointed ‘ruler’ Stephen Langton after becoming the new archbishop of Canterbury. On October 3rd1213 John placed this island and every land across the world and the men, women and children of those lands in the hands of slavers and the biggest slave corporation in the world forever, by the ratification of the Treaty of Verona and by doing so he surrendered this island to the pope as vicar of christ who has claimed ownership of everyone and everything. Through the deception of religion and the lies it is based upon and perpetuates, from that moment in history we all became slaves to those lies and the construct it created, known as the commercialconstruct, in other words the world as we know it and all it has to offer.

    The pope realized after a while, and only a short while, that in essence because the contract was between himself and John then the only people that could ever break the contract were descendants, heirs and successors doing the same in the same positions i.e. successive popes or successive kings and queens of England. Although he had manipulated John, he knew which is obvious, that John would not live forever, so steps would have to be taken to make sure every successive pope or king and queen of England would keep up their end of the contract. Now the Barons (French title not English) were the popes and the corporation’s next tool to be used to create a controlling aspect upon the king. By fueling the Barons by saying they were now the slaves and not the slavers as was created for them in William’s times, the pope and corporation fueled a rebellion of the Barons against the king for signing the treaty (contract) and supposedly forced John to sign the magna carta at Runnymede in 1215. Immediately after magna carta was signed it is wrote in history that the pope innocent III declared it unlawful, which I feel is a complete smoke screen (evidence to follow) as the pope needed the Barons to control any successive kings and queens to make sure the contract stayed in place – for without it the See of Rome (corporation) would lose its strangle hold over the island and would not have allowed for the control and false ownership of the lands of the world the corporation has now, none of this would have happened without this treaty (contract) first being in place.

    At this time the whole powerbase was held by John, even though in pretence John was just over seeing what was happening under the ruling hand of Stephen Langton. As many in the country were very loyal to John, in effect John could raise an army if he had had the balls to do so, to go against Langton, the pope and the corporation, if becoming strong enough again to undo what he had done if his false belief in an entity called god did not stand in the way. The Barons were very much needed to be on the corporation’s side, so they were enticed and mustered through the greed of power and position, offering them status was all that was needed to maintain they would do the corporations dirty work. This was needed as anyone who ascended the throne after John could dissolve the contract, especially if they would not conform to the will of the corporation and the false laws of the fear of god and its oppression. What was needed was for the separation of power away from John and a legal document that would offer the Barons a unique set of laws for them alone and a commune of their own (city of London; within the Roman walls) a separate state to control everything from, in return for their willingness to keep John in check – on behalf of the archbishop which in turn was on behalf of the corporation. Because John was weakened from his endeavors with the pope, Stephen Langton and because of illness it was needed to strike while the iron was hot and a document within legal history was needed to be scripted to do such, not only the unique set of laws for the Barons, but also a document that would serve later to allow the corporation to extend its grip and maintain that the treaty (contract) would never be broken, by the introduction of a parliament and a fully fledged central point of administration of the legal systems you would call law that would ensure the devolution of the power base happened. Within this parliament (senate) the archbishops would have 26 seats to maintain absolute control on behalf of the corporation through a serious of deceptive processes based upon representation to fool everyone – which still remains to this day

    Magna Carta 1215….the most perfect of all legal documents….

    Not two years later the most famous or should I say infamous document in English legal history was scripted and forced upon King John at Runnymede to sign on the 15th June 1215, but to this day I have not seen a signed copy of this document and I know of no one who has ever checked the translation to see if it is correct – what else could be hidden in these words we have not been told about. Magna carta 1215 is as it stands the most perfect of all legal documents and contains many of the processes still used to this day, but as it was then, none of these are for you to use they are explicitly for the socially dominant and are unique to them. This is why Jack Straw in a presentation in Washington in February 2008 stated “we need to modernise magna carta” and the presentation he gave was called the modernisation of magna carta. Let’s start by looking at its name magna carta – the great charter of liberties.

    Charter: A written grant from the sovereign power of a country conferring certain rights and privileges on a person or a corporation, also: A document incorporating an institution and specifying its rights; includes the articles of incorporation and the certificate of incorporation

    As you can see a charter is a grant that does not apply to men, women and children it applies to ‘persons’, as long as you are deemed as to have the ‘privileges of a person’. Under canon law although man and person are synonymous in grammar, not all men were classed as persons as slaves were classed as ‘things’. At this time in England most of us would have been serfs; in other words slaves and this would have been the majority of us, so to any lord we would have been things and things (chattels) have no rights. They have no personality they are personalty: moveable property and Williams ‘Domesday Book’ was a list of all his personalty, as all censuses are. So when you combine this with liberties.

    Liberties: The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, forced labour, privileges, rights etc civil liberties.

    Something that is plainly obvious starts to emerge. As it says above legally free, but ‘things’ cannot be legally free as they have no legal personality i.e. ‘status’ they do not exist in the legal world, so in effect they have no legal rights. ‘Things’ are not physically or legally free and can be kept in confinement, servitude under forced labour, they have no privileges, or rights and no civil liberties. ‘Things’ do not enjoy social, political or economic rights and privileges, they are property of another under the whim of that other. Even in its name alone it spells out who it was wrote for and exactly why it was wrote. Liberty is not freedom, liberty is a grant of rights, but would only apply to the ones of status, those who believed they were better in some way, as we would know it now the upper class high society. This legal document set forth the class divide, although already well established this document maintained that this concept would carry on through the ages even to present day and even in the parliamentarians own words spoke by Jack Straw “it is very essential and is needed to be modernised so it can be maintained”.

    The concept of liberty forms the core of all democratic principles and societies, yet as a legal concept it defies clear definition, which to me is very obvious because it actually defines slavery and is the antithesis of moral or natural as slavery is. We must remember that legal is in form only (persons) a category of ‘things’ distinguished by some common characteristic or quality and within this comes the legal ability to enslave those of lesser quality. A master slave syndrome maintained by a immoral legal concept in the form of liberty under a false belief system based upon nothing more than human suffering and a delusional miscomprehension that anything and everything is ok, as long as it has the label ‘legal’ upon it such as war. What is most evident here is the fact that ‘society’ relies upon a democratic process to exist and this is where the true meaning of society rears its ugly head. The socially dominant members of any community a definition of the word society says it all and describes what a democratic process really allows for in allowing the socially dominant to live off the back bone of the rest of the community believing they have a divine rite to do so and no matter what is needed to maintain this deception it is ok as long as it has the label ‘legal’ applied to it. In essence liberty is no more than legal slavery where men, women and children are bound by legal chains and not physical ones – are bound to those who are deluded under a misguided comprehension deriving from the use of fictional artificial law emanating from the church and the laws of oppression. One of the concepts magna carta achieved was to make the laws of oppression legal. But this document was to lead to many other devises that were needed to contain the kings and queens of the future within legal doctrine to prevent them from ever being able to break the originalcontract between John and pope innocent III and was to be used to set up the legal mechanism that would prevent this occurring and create a constitutional figure head. If you are struggling with any of this then let’s put it another way and bring it up to modern day. Before 1972 we were all known as ‘subjects’ the queens subjects, now of course we are known as ‘citizens’ more on this in a bit, but for now let’s look at the word ‘subjects’.

    Subject: One who is under the rule of another or others, especially one who owes allegiance to a government or a ruler, the obligations of a vassal to a lord: a slave

    So up until 1972 we were classed as slaves no different in description to the times magna carta was penned. Another deceptive word to disguise the true meaning of what we are actually classed as, by the socially dominant, the ruling classes and those of delusional status. Now we are classed as citizens, as of by definition being part of a republic, with the processes of a republic and a sovereign who is no more than a president, a figure head called a constitutional sovereign. When the new republic is fully establish i.e. the European union, the figure head of the old republic will be removed to allow us to merge with the new republic and thus the only one who can break the original contract is removed forever, legally that is….please remember this is all based upon legal fiction, the use of artificial law (legal systems) and has no power whatsoever over you unless you want it to and you except the illusion. The republic is a political one based on the legal concept of liberty that is why you are now classed as a ‘citizen’; a native or naturalized member of a state or other political community and oh boy you live in a political community controlled by legal parameters within a constitution, that is why everything is done under a constitutional basis derived from statute (legal) from the word status: The legal character or condition of a person or a thing. Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed: The body of people (plural of person) who are citizens (a native or naturalized member of a state or other political community) of a particular government. But what they do not tell you is the fact that not all persons have to give consent, only ‘particular persons’ as slaves have no say now as they did not at any other time. You are ‘ruled’ whether you like it or not FULL STOP under this doctrine as a thing. They use an attachment to you called a legal personality via a piece of paper, a name, or as it was in the days of magna carta just a family name, to be able to legally label the thing (slave) as the thing cannot exist in the legal world unless it has a name, which became a certificate 153 years ago to say what it’s called. The thing is then ruled, regularised, regulated and ordered to adhere to all democracies legal concepts (statutes) via the attached name, via policy=contracts under acts (statutes) and are fooled into believing they are electing representatives to do this on their behalf and they are fooled into believing they can withhold consent – all we are really saying is ‘NO’ and that is the stumbling block, nothing to do with consent whatsoever. Without doubt we are fucking stupid!

    This document set this doctrine in place as a legal concept and maintained that slavery would be legalised through this document that would be maintained till even now, with the concepts still now driven by the same purpose for the same needs. But this was not only to effect just England this was to effect the world and everywhere the fleet set sail to, delivering the doctrines of common and canon law legal systems and of course the place it emanates from the church. That is why whenever you look at a country within the common wealth its foundation is within a common law legal system construct to set up the privileges for the socially dominant who would then introduce the canon law legal system to control the ‘things’ (us), because the civil legal system has no foundation without the common law legal system first being in place. Because without a common law legal system there are no socially dominant and without the socially dominant there is nothing classed as things (slaves) so there is no need for a system to control them, a canon law legal system called democracy.

    Without delving too deeply into the document evidence starts to emerge that without doubt throws new light on to what historians maintain. One key element is that the dope sorry the pope was against the signing of magna carta and was quoted to say “….this document is unlawful and unjust as it is base and shameful….” and this has been given as the main reason King John was excommunicated, total fabrication. Without doubt this document was scripted in Rome and put together by legal minds of the time because John had already signed the treaty of Verona (contract) and this document was to ensure John or any successor to the throne could never break that treaty (contract) and if this was not the case then why was Stephen Langton present at the signing? And offering advice! Especially because he was a cardinal: one of a group of more than 100 prominent bishops in the sacred college who advise the pope and elect new popes. It just does not make any sense if you realise the facts and do not except what historians say as being literal and more based on hearsay constructed to mask the truth deliberately.

    “….on the advice of our venerable fathers, Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and cardinal of the holy Roman church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William of London, Peter of Winchester, Jocelyn of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh of Lincoln, Walter of Worcester, William of Coventry and Benedict of Rochester, bishops, of master Pandulf, subdeacon and member of the household of the lord pope, of brother Aymeric, master of the order of Knights Templar in England….”

    Not just Stephen but many other members of the pope’s house hold plus the ruler of Ireland in the holy see’s eyes. If the pope was so against this document, then why were all these witness to it and giving advice? Surely if this was the case they would have boycotted the whole thing, or prevented it from happening and not witnessed it. The Barons were being granted concessions in return for their obedience to the pope and to recognise the Stephen Langton was the official ruler even though this would be done from the shadows as it is now. Certain privileges and rights ordained upon them in the form of magna carta to maintain they would do what the pope wished through his representative Stephen Langton to ensure that the King would never have the ability to undo the contract. This is why this legal document is unique in every aspect to them and would serve to be the template to create another vessel for control of the king or queen and all the men women and children of England, namely parliament. This vessel again was to be employed around the world, although called by many different names, nonetheless exactly the same in construct and design for the same purpose: slavery through a deceptive legal process called democracy!

  21. Abu Faris
    Posted March 3, 2010 at 7:37 PM | Permalink

    Nurse! NURSE!!!

    The screens!!!!! THE SCREENS!!!!

  22. Zalloom
    Posted March 3, 2010 at 11:07 PM | Permalink

    Well done Ibn Adam, good boy. I hope IFE gives you a gold medal.

    Now, meaningless waffle aside, will you address the real topic? the article is about Mawdudi and his violent ideology!

    Interesting that no IFE/Jamaati actually wants to talk about Mawdudi and instead keep trying to change the topic!

  23. La Policia
    Posted March 4, 2010 at 1:05 AM | Permalink

    Zalloom, the posts are all Mawdudi’s writings, directly linked to the post on ‘Mawdudi’.

    Someone spoonfed you meanings before above, and you get fed yet again.

  24. Zalloom
    Posted March 4, 2010 at 7:55 AM | Permalink

    I could put up many nice quotes from Osama Bin Laden and George Bush!

    Mawdudi (a non-scholar) and his views on aggressive jihad, sex slaves and world revolution make him a blood thirsty violent extremist. Selective quoting of some of his writings does not change that. JI & IFE are entryist organizations. Even your Islamist cousins Hizb ut-Tahrir admit that. Gradualism is the key word!

  25. Jean L. Dell'Aquila
    Posted March 4, 2010 at 8:47 AM | Permalink

    You may call Mawdudi not a dyed in the red scholar suggesting other groups agree with your slander but that does not displace his valuable contribution to Islamic thought. Truly had my brothers taken his point of view on sex slaves then the Muslim would have leverage over Muslim prisoners tortured and held Muslim sisters like Dr. Aafia Siddiqui would be championed in rights and rooms that are a guest house and not a jail where the criminals rape beat shoot lie and walk around !! How do you like the last three earthquakes Haiti Chile Taiwan and one in the Hindu Kush too. Whether you like it or not see the environment will be addressed as you speak about O same Bin LADEN. There is no pity for you the depositors with the bankers who made WAR an ecological concern then refused to address ecological issues. As I said before the ecological issues will inch a Allah be addressed macho Allah and O same’s proposal of doing away with the dolloping dollar is modest in comparison to what the dollar is doing away with of your cherished institutions !! Give me Mawdudi any day any time of the week O USA losers !! For you gradualism is but the inroad of evil the assault and battery of Islam.

  26. Abu Faris
    Posted March 4, 2010 at 10:47 AM | Permalink

    You may call Mawdudi not a dyed in the red scholar suggesting other groups agree with your slander but that does not displace his valuable contribution to Islamic thought.

    Actually, it does.

    Truly had my brothers taken his point of view on sex slaves then the Muslim would have leverage over Muslim prisoners tortured and held Muslim sisters like Dr. Aafia Siddiqui would be championed in rights and rooms that are a guest house and not a jail where the criminals rape beat shoot lie and walk around !!

    Not even the arch-liar Siddiqui claims she was being held as a “sex-slave”.

    How do you like the last three earthquakes Haiti Chile Taiwan and one in the Hindu Kush too.

    What are you babbling about?

    I was on the edge of the Hindu Kush earthquake – and I assure you I was none to pleased when all the washing up came crashing off the draining board and the telly fell off its stand.

    Tell me was it a secret US earthquake drill, or God’s will?

    Mad.

    Whether you like it or not see the environment will be addressed as you speak about O same Bin LADEN. There is no pity for you the depositors with the bankers who made WAR an ecological concern then refused to address ecological issues. As I said before the ecological issues will inch a Allah be addressed macho Allah and O same’s proposal of doing away with the dolloping dollar is modest in comparison to what the dollar is doing away with of your cherished institutions !!

    As a young man I used to toy with Class As; but they never had this effect on me!

    Are you speaking in tongues?

    Give me Mawdudi any day any time of the week O USA losers !! For you gradualism is but the inroad of evil the assault and battery of Islam.

    I think, were he alive, Mawdudi would be presently not answering the door to you, O loonie one.

  27. Jean L. Dell'Aquila
    Posted March 4, 2010 at 12:53 PM | Permalink

    The arch liar is not Aafia for sure O arch villain and for Hindu Kush the slayer of Hindus NO hindus so petal your fairy some where else. You will be shown the signs of Allah in the outer universe and within yourselves !! Truly those in SIN are mad (looney) and wandering in mind !! The Muslim is sane !! Not so the american-jew polytheist Hindu disbelievers-hypocrites !! Burn in your forgeries/witch craft !!

  28. bananabrain
    Posted March 4, 2010 at 1:33 PM | Permalink

    cluck cluck!!! gibber gibber!!! my old man’s a mushroom!!! o american-jew-polytheist-hindu-disbelievers-hypocrites, i’m just off to hartlepool to buy a pair of exploding trousers!!

    b’shalom

    bananabrain (with underpants on my head and a pair of pencils up my nose)

  29. Leonard de la Paor
    Posted April 3, 2010 at 12:38 PM | Permalink

    YO,

    Just picture a naked, six-year-old female child & a fifty-four-year-old lecherous Arab and he putting his large PENIS between the child’s thighs & using them like the sides of a vagina to ejaculate. Or picture this lecherous, naked Arab sucking the “pussy” of the naked, six-year-old female child until he “shoots” his load of semen all over the place. And Allah watching & approving of his prophet debauching this innocent, six-year-old child. Allah is some FUCKING god & so is his pervert prophet!!!

    Leonardo

    AISHA WASHING SEMEN FROM MUHAMMED’S CLOTHES
    From the Hadith of Bukhari:

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229:

    Narrated ‘Aisha:

    I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible).

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 230:

    Narrated ‘Aisha:

    as above (229).

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231:

    Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar:

    I asked ‘Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, “I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah’s Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible. ”

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 232:

    Narrated ‘Amr bin Maimun:

    I heard Sulaiman bin Yasar talking about the clothes soiled with semen. He said that ‘Aisha had said, “I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah’s Apostle and he would go for the prayers while water spots were still visible on them.

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 233:

    Narrated ‘Aisha:

    I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them.

    Islam’s Not For Me!
    They tried to tell me
    my religion was wrong.
    They tried to tell me
    to follow Islam.
    They said their “Prophet”
    was a righteous dude,
    But I found out
    none of their words were true.

    I read the Qur’an
    and I read the Hadith,
    And the sickness of Mohammed
    was apparent to me.
    He justified perversion
    in the name of Allah,
    When he married a girl
    too young for a bra.

    She was playing with dolls
    when the “Prophet” came.
    Her childhood was stolen
    in Allah’s name.
    Aisha was nine
    when he took her to bed.
    Don’t tell me that fool’s
    not sick in the head.

    I ain’t gonna follow no child molester, sex offender, Prophet pretender.
    I ain’t gonna follow no child molester! Islam’s not for me!
    Islam’s not for me!

    The sickness of
    the Islamic mind,
    Has caused some mullahs
    to be blind.
    To justify their “Prophet”
    they will justify sin,
    So the sins of the “Prophet”
    are repeated again.

    All over the world
    in Islamic states,
    Nine year old girls
    suffer cruel fate,
    Sold into marriage
    to twisted men,
    And Aisha’s sad story
    is repeated again.

    I ain’t gonna follow no child molester, sex offender, Prophet pretender.
    I ain’t gonna follow no child molester! Islam’s not for me!
    Islam’s not for me!

    Do you care about women
    all over the world?
    Do you care about those
    little girls?
    Better stand up and fight
    for human rights,
    Speak out against
    the laws of Islam!

    I ain’t gonna follow no child molester, sex offender, Prophet pretender.
    I ain’t gonna follow no child molester! Islam’s not for me!
    Islam’s not for me!
    Islam’s not for me!

  30. Jean L. Dell'Aquila
    Posted April 10, 2010 at 7:14 AM | Permalink

    Praise be to God Who made Muhammad (s) defend the Virgin Mary (AS) when others defiled themselves be either defiling her name or either worshipping her as the mother of god.
    Praise be to God Who made A’aishah (RA) the most beloved soul in the world and wife to Muhammad (s) love him more than anybody in existence. She who never in her life saw his form unclothed cradling him in her arms at death.
    Every good in existence came through the perfection of Muhammad (s) as a man including the protestant work ethic. There is no god except Allah Muhammad is His Messenger.
    O Allah sLAUGHTER the jews the teachers-writers of the talmud for their filth that spreads in the world… The mockers of Moses ( peace be upon him) the rejectors of Jesus (peace be upon him) and the scorners of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah upon him). Truly O Allah You have rejected those who took Jesus the son of mary as god AS–they did so so that they may have a partnership with God. You cursed the sickness of hollywood actors aping one another in crimes and filth as You cursed those who broke the sabbath turning the law-breakers into despised apes and swine !!
    Exalted is the living God, exalted is Your Name Allah Swat !!

  31. Effendi
    Posted April 10, 2010 at 8:30 AM | Permalink

    fuck off Jean.

  32. Abu Faris
    Posted April 10, 2010 at 11:12 AM | Permalink

    Every good in existence came through the perfection of Muhammad (s) as a man including the protestant work ethic.

    So he wasn’t a Catholic, then?

    Typical.

  33. khursheedejahan
    Posted May 5, 2011 at 4:48 PM | Permalink

    better all of u re-read islam, maududi’s(r.a) books and practices of ji with ur eyes in india and pak…….I STRONGLY COMMENT U WILL CHANGE UR THOUGHTS IF U R (SCHOLARS), as if now it seems so-called scholarship dominates ur minds!

  34. Muhammad Nasir
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 4:14 PM | Permalink

    Syed Maududi is a honest, sincere muslim scholar. He revolutionized the islamic concept of individual as well as a state. He is worth reading.

  35. Leonardo de la Paor
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 6:16 PM | Permalink

    Salamb to the Slaughter,

    Ibn: Adam attempts to defend the Murderous Cult of Islam & its Cult Leader.

    Firstly:

    THE COSMIC JOKE

    YOU DON’T NEED TO KNOW ARABIC TO REALIZE THAT THE QURAN IS A “COSMIC” JOKE

    SO THIS IS ALLAH’S PERFECT BOOK?

    “The Qur’an escapes from the hearts of men faster than a runaway camel.”

    Islam provides only one prime source of information on Muhammad and the formation of Islam written within two centuries of the time he lived and it was conceived. Ishaq’s Sira, or Biography, stands alone—a singular and tenuous thread connecting us to a very troubled man and time. Over the next two hundred years, other Hadith Collections were compiled by the likes of Tabari, Bukhari, and Muslim.
    Their assemblages of oral reports, or Traditions, were said to have been inspired by Allah. They purport to convey Muhammad’s words and example. They also explain the Qur’an—a book so deficient in context and chronology, it can only be understood when seen through the eyes of the Sunnah writers. Their message is all that Muslims have. Together, the Sunnah and Qur’an are Islam.

    But you don’t have to dig very deep to find the truth. Even a cursory reading of the Qur’an is sufficient to prove that it is a fraud. There is no way the creator of the universe wrote a book devoid of context, without chronology or intelligent transitions. Such a creative spirit wouldn’t need to plagiarize. He would know history and science and thus wouldn’t have made such a fool of himself. The God who created man wouldn’t deceive him or lead him to hell as Allah does. Nor would he order men to terrorize, mutilate, rob, enslave, and slaughter the followers of other Scriptures he claims he revealed, wiping them out to the last. One doesn’t need a scholastic review of the Qur’anic text to disprove its veracity. It destroys itself quite nicely.

    Tradition tells us that Muhammad had not foreseen his death, and so he had made no preparations for gathering his revelations. He left it up to his followers to sift through the conflicting versions. That’s astonishing. Islam’s lone “prophet” left his Qur’an as vapor, sound waves that had long since faded.

    Bragging one day, Muhammad called his surahs a miracle:

    Bukhari:V6B61N504 “Muhammad said, ‘Every Prophet was given miracles because of which people believed. But what I have been given is Divine Inspiration which Allah has revealed to me. So I hope that my followers will outnumber the followers of the other Prophets.’”

    If the Qur’an was his only “miracle,” why would he leave it in such horrid condition? I believe the answer is clear. Muhammad knew his recitals had been nothing more than a figment of his less-than-admirable imagination, situational scriptures designed to satiate his cravings. Preserving these recitals would only serve to incriminate him, as this Hadith suggests.

    Muslim: C24B20N4609 “The Messenger said: ‘Do not take the Qur’an on a journey with you, for I am afraid lest it would fall into the hands of the enemy.’ Ayyub, one of the narrators in the chain of transmitters, said: ‘The enemy may seize it and may quarrel with you over it.’”

    A number of Bukhari Hadith suggest that Muhammad’s companions tried to remember what they could of what he had said, but there was a problem. Like today, those who knew the Qur’an were militants. So Abu Bakr feared that large portions would be forgotten. The best Muslims were dying on the battlefield subduing fellow Arabs. In one battle alone, most of the Qur’an’s most knowledgeable reciters were lost, and many Qur’anic passages along with them.

    Bukhari:V6B60N201 “Zaid bin Thabit, the Ansari said, ‘Abu Bakr sent for me after the (heavy) casualties among the warriors (of the battle) of Yamama (where a great number of Muhammad’s Companions were killed). Umar was present with Bakr. “The people have suffered heavy casualties at Yamama, and I am afraid that there will be more casualties among those who can recite the Qur’an on other battlefields. A large part of the Qur’an may be lost unless you collect it.” I replied to Umar, “How can I do something which Allah’s Apostle has not done?” Umar kept on pressing, trying to persuade me to accept his proposal.’ Zaid bin Thabit added, ‘Umar was sitting with Abu Bakr and was speaking (to) me. “You are a wise young man and we do not suspect you of telling lies or of forgetfulness. You used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah’s Apostle. Therefore, look for the Qur’an and collect it (in one manuscript).” By Allah, if Abu Bakr had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place) it would have been easier for me than the collection of the Qur’an. I said to both of them, “How dare you do a thing which the Prophet has not done?”
    Zaid declared that collecting the Qur’an’s surahs would be an impossible task. He said that it would be easier to move mountains than to turn Muhammad’s string of oral recitals into a book. The reason for this rather troubling statement is obvious: Zaid’s search for Qur’anic passages forced him to rely upon carvings on the leg or thigh bones of dead animals, as well as palm leaves, skins, mats, stones, and bark. But for the most part, he found nothing better than the fleeting memories of the prophet’s Companions, many of whom were dead or dying. In other words, the Qur’an, like the Hadith, is all hearsay.

    There were no Muslims who had memorized the entire Qur’an, otherwise the collection would have been a simple task. Had there been individuals who knew the Qur’an, Zaid would only have had to write down what they dictated. Instead, Zaid was overwhelmed by the assignment, and was forced to “search” for the passages from men who believed that they had memorized certain segments and then compare what he heard to the recollection of others. Therefore, even the official Islamic view of things, the one recorded in their scripture, is hardly reassuring.

    Worse still, the Muslim chosen for this impossible task was the one in the best position to plagiarize the Torah and Talmud. Moreover, it’s obvious he did.

    Remember:

    Tabari VII:167 “In this year, the Prophet commanded Zayd bin Thabit to study the Book of the Jews, saying, ‘I fear that they may change my Book.’”
    the worse it gets.

    Bukhari:V6B61N511 “Zaid bin Thabit said, ‘I started searching for the Qur’an till I found the last two Verses of Surat At-Tauba with Abi but I could not find them with anyone other than him. They were: ‘Verily there has come to you an Apostle from amongst yourselves.’” [9:128]

    This is incriminating. The 9th surah was the second to last revealed. If only one person could remember it, there is no chance those revealed twenty-five years earlier were retained. Furthermore, this Tradition contradicts the most highly touted Islamic mantra: Most Muslims contend Uthman, not Bakr, ordered the collection of the Qur’an a decade later. And who knows what version they finally committed to paper, if in fact they ever did?

    Bukhari:V6B61N513: “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Gabriel [whom Muhammad said had 600 wings] recited the Qur’an to me in one way. Then I requested him and continued asking him to recite it in other ways, and he recited it in several ways till he ultimately recited it in seven different ways.’”

    So there were at least seven Qur’ans.

    THE QU’RAN CHALLENGE!
    • In Bukhari’s Hadith we find a sea of disturbing and contradictory claims regarding the compilation of Allah’s book. There were differing versions, even in Muhammad’s day:

    “Ibn Abbas asked, ‘Which of the two readings of the Qur’an do you prefer?’ The Prophet answered, ‘The reading of Abdallah ibn Mas’ud.’

    Then Abdallah came to him, and he learned what was altered and abrogated.” This is reasonably clear. The Hadith says that portions of the Qur’an were conflicting, changed, and cancelled.

    WHY QURAN WAS WRITTEN DOWN
    • Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif—Many (of the passages) of the Qur’an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama . . . but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur’an, nor were they found with even one (person) after them.

    THE REMAINDER QURAN
    Abu Bakr decided that it was time to gather what remained of the Qur’an in order to prevent more from being lost, and he appointed Zaid ibn Thabit to this task. After Zaid completed his codex around 634 AD, it remained in Abu Bakr’s possession until his death, when it was passed on to Caliph Umar. When Umar died, it was given to Hafsa, a widow of Muhammad. (For a fuller account see Sahih al-Bukhari 4986.)

    THE “PERFECT” QURAN IS MISSING
    When Ibn Umar—son of the second Muslim caliph—heard people declaring that they knew the entire Qur’an, he said to them: “Let none of you say, ‘I have learned the whole of the Koran,’ for how does he know what the whole of it is, when much of it has disappeared? Let him rather say, ‘I have learned what is extant thereof’” (Abu Ubaid, Kitab Fada’il-al-Qur’an).

    UTHMAN’S QURAN
    During Caliph Uthman’s reign, approximately 19 years after the death of Muhammad, disputes arose concerning the correct recitation of the Qur’an. Uthman ordered that Hafsa’s copy of the Qur’an, along with all known textual materials, should be gathered together so that an official version might be compiled. Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, Sa’id bin Al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith worked diligently to construct a revised text of the Qur’an.

    Bukhari:V4B56N709 “Uthman called Zaid, Abdallah, Said, and Abd-Rahman. They wrote the manuscripts of the Qur’an in the form of a book in several copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi persons, ‘If you differ with Zaid bin Thabit on any point of the Qur’an, then write it in the language of the Quraysh, as the Qur’an was revealed in their language.’ So they acted accordingly.”

    Because there was such confusion, Uthman ordered competing versions to be burned. But by destroying the evidence, he destroyed the Qur’an’s credibility. Now all Muslims have is wishful thinking.

    WHO BURNT THE FIRST QURANS?
    When it was finished, “Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt” (Sahih al-Bukhari 4987). The Qur’an we have today is descended from the Uthmanic codex.

    ZAID’S QURAN REJECTED
    Muhammad once told his followers to “Learn the recitation of the Qur’an from four: from Abdullah bin Masud—he started with him—Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Mu’adh bin Jabal and Ubai bin Ka’b” (Sahih al-Bukhari 3808). Interestingly, Ibn Masud (first on Muhammad’s list) held that the Qur’an should only have 111 chapters (today’s version has 114 chapters), and that chapters 1, 113, and 114 shouldn’t have been included in the Qur’an.

    FLAWED QURAN
    Due to these disputes among Muhammad’s hand-picked reciters, Muslims are faced with a dilemma. If Muslims say that the Qur’an we have today has been perfectly preserved, they must say that Muhammad was horrible at choosing scholars, since he selected men who disagreed with today’s text. If, on the other hand, Muslims say that their prophet would know whom to pick regarding Islam’s holiest book, they must conclude that the Qur’an we have today is flawed!

    2 CHAPTERS MISSING FROM THE “PERFECT” QURAN
    One of Muhammad’s companions, Abu Musa, supported this claim when he said that the early Muslims forgot two surahs (chapters) due to laziness:
    Sahih Muslim 2286

    THE PART THE GOAT EAT

    Aisha also tells us that individual verses of the Qur’an disappeared, sometimes in very interesting ways:
    Sunan ibn Majah 1944—It was narrated that Aishah said: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep/goat came in and ate it.”

    The verses on stoning and breastfeeding an adult not in the Qur’an today.

    MISSING PASSAGES
    We know further that large sections of certain chapters came up missing. For instance, Muhammad’s wife Aisha said that roughly two-thirds of Surah 33 was lost:
    Abu Ubaid, Kitab Fada’il-al-Qur’an—A’isha . . . said, “Surat al-Ahzab (xxxiii) used to be recited in the time of the Prophet with two hundred verses, but when Uthman wrote out the codices he was unable to procure more of it than there is in it today [i.e. 73 verses].”

    • Sahih al-Bukhari 5005—Umar said, “Ubayy was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur’an), yet we leave some of what he recites.” Ubayy says, “I have taken it from the mouth of Allah’s Messenger and will not leave it for anything whatever.”

    • But Ibn Masud wasn’t the only one of Muhammad’s trusted teachers who disagreed with Zaid’s Qur’an. Ubayy ibn Ka’b was Muhammad’s best reciter and one of the only Muslims to collect the materials of the Qur’an during Muhammad’s lifetime. Yet Ibn Ka’b believed that Zaid’s Qur’an was missing two chapters! Later Muslims were therefore forced to reject some of Ibn Ka’b’s recitation:

    • Ibn Masud advised Muslims to reject Zaid’s Qur’an and to keep their own versions—even to hide them so that they wouldn’t be confiscated by the government! He said:
    Jami at-Tirmidhi 3104—“O you Muslim people! Avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of this man. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man”—meaning Zaid bin Thabit—and it was regarding this that Abdullah bin Mas’ud said: “O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them.”
    • Because of this (along with hundreds of other textual differences), Ibn Masud went so far as to call the final edition of the Qur’an a deception! He said, “The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur’an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him [i.e. Muhammad] whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit” (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 444).

    Secondly:

    THE BOOK FROM HELL:
    DEMONS LOVE LISTENING TO THE QURAN

    And Allaah revealed other aayahs in a separate soorah, where He says:
    “Say (O Muhammad): “It has been revealed to me that a group (from three to ten in number) of jinn listened (to this Qur’aan). They said: ‘Verily, we have heard a wonderful Recitation (this Qur’aan)!” [al-Jinn 72:1]

    MUHAMMAD HAD A DEVIL COMPANION WHO BECAME A MUSLIM

    Even the Prophet had a shaytaan with him, his constant companion (qareen) from among the jinn, in the hadeeth which says that the Prophet said:
    “There is no one among you but he has with him a constant companion (qareen) from among the jinn and a constant companion from among the angels.” They said, “You too, O Messenger of Allaah?” He said, “Me too, but Allaah has helped me against him (the devil-companion) and he has become Muslim.”

  36. Leonardo de la Paor
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 6:25 PM | Permalink

    WHEN IS RAPE NOT RAPE?

    WHEN MUHAMMAD ENDORSES IT.

    THE PRINCIPLE OF AL-AZL

    Qur’an, Hadith and Scholars:Al-’Azl
    Al-’Azl, (العزل) also known as coitus interruptus, is the practice of having sexual intercourse with a woman but withdrawing the penis before ejaculation. Apparently al-’Azl with female captives and slaves was a pretty important topic for Muhammad and his companions as evidenced by the abundance of Hadith material on the subject.

    Practiced during Muhammad’s lifetime

    Narrated Jabir: We used to practice coitus interruptus during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle .

    Sahih Bukhari 7:62:135
    Narrated Jabir: We used to practice coitus interrupt us while the Quran was being revealed. Jabir added: We used to practice coitus interruptus during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle while the Quran was being Revealed.

    Sahih Bukhari 7:62:136
    When having sex with your captive, it’s better if you do not pull out at the end
    Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: that while he was sitting with Allah’s Apostle he said, “O Allah’s Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?” The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.”

    Sahih Bukhari 3:34:432
    Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I saw Abu Said and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said said, “We went with Allah’s Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Barli Al-Mustaliq and we captured some of the ‘Arabs as captives, and the long separation from our wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to practice coitus interruptus. We asked Allah’s Apostle (whether it was permissible). He said, “It is better for you not to do so. No soul, (that which Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come, into existence.”

    Sahih Bukhari 3:46:718
    Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, “We went out with Allah’s Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, ‘How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah’s Apostle who is present among us?” We asked (him) about it and he said, “It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist.”

    Sahih Bukhari 5:59:459
    Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: That during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relation with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interruptus. The Prophet said, “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.” Qaza’a said, “I heard Abu Sa’id saying that the Prophet said, ‘No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it.”

    Sahih Bukhari 9:93:506
    Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah’s Apostle about it and he said, “Do you really do that?” repeating the question thrice, “There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection.”

    Sahih Bukhari 7:62:137
    Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: That while he was sitting with the Prophet a man from the Ansar came and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! We get slave girls from the war captives and we love property; what do you think about coitus interruptus?” Allah’s Apostle said, “Do you do that? It is better for you not to do it, for there is no soul which Allah has ordained to come into existence but will be created.”

    Sahih Bukhari 8:77:600
    Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

    Sahih Muslim 8:3371, See also: Sahih Muslim 8:3372
    Yahya related to me from Malik from Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman from Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Habban that Ibn Muhayriz said, “I went into the mosque and saw Abu Said al-Khudri and so I sat by him and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said al-Khudri said, ‘We went out with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, on the expedition to the Banu al-Mustaliq. We took some Arabs prisoner, and we desired the women as celibacy was hard for us. We wanted the ransom, so we wanted to practise coitus interruptus. We said, ‘Shall we practise coitus interruptus while the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is among us before we ask him?’ We asked him about that and he said, ‘You don’t have to not do it. There is no self which is to come into existence up to the Day of Rising but that it will come into existence.’ ”

    Al-Muwatta 29 32.95b
    It’s okay to practice ‘azl when having sex with your slave-girl
    Narrated AbuSa’id al-Khudri: A man said: Apostle of Allah, I have a slave-girl and I withdraw the penis from her (while having intercourse), and I dislike that she becomes pregnant. I intend (by intercourse) what the men intend by it. The Jews say that withdrawing the penis (azl) is burying the living girls on a small scale. He (the Prophet) said: The Jews told a lie. If Allah intends to create it, you cannot turn it away.

    Abu Dawud 11:2166
    Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported that a man came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: I have a slave-girl who is our servant and she carries water for us and I have intercourse with her, but I do not want her to conceive. He said: Practise ‘azl, if you so like, but what is decreed for her will come to her. The person stayed back (for some time) and then came and said: The girl has become pregnant, whereupon he said: I told you what was decreed for her would come to her.

    Sahih Muslim 8:3383
    Your slave-girl is your field, so water it or leave it thirsty if you want
    Yahya related to me from Malik from Damra ibn Said al-Mazini from al-Hajjaj ibn Amr ibn Ghaziya that he was sitting with Zayd ibn Thabit when Ibn Fahd came to him. He was from the Yemen. He said, “Abu Said! I have slave-girls. None of the wives in my keep are more pleasing to me than them, and not all of them please me so much that I want a child by them, shall I then practise coitus interruptus?” Zayd ibn Thabit said, “Give an opinion, Hajjaj!” “I said, ‘May Allah forgive you! We sit with you in order to learn from you!’ He said, ‘Give an opinion! ‘I said, ‘She is your field, if you wish, water it, and if you wish, leave it thirsty. I heard that from Zayd.’ Zayd said, ‘He has spoken the truth.’ ”

    Al-Muwatta 29 32.99b
    “You don’t need your slave-girl’s permission to practice ‘azl with her.”
    Yahya related to me from Malik from Humayd ibn Qays al-Makki that a man called Dhafif said that Ibn Abbas was asked about coitus interruptus. He called a slave-girl of his and said, “Tell them.” She was embarrassed. He said, “It is alright, and I do it myself.” Malik said, “A man does not practise coitus interruptus with a free woman unless she gives her permission. There is no harm in practising coitus interruptus with a slave-girl without her permission. Someone who has someone else’s slave-girl as a wife, does not practise coitus interruptus with her unless her people give him permission.”

    Al-Muwatta 29 32.100b
    Additional Hadith about ‘azl
    Sahih Muslim
    Sa’d b. Abu Waqqas (Allah be pleased with him) reported that a person came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: I do ‘azi with my wife. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Why do you do that? The person said: I fear harm to her child or her children. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (way peace be upon him) said: If that were harmful it would harm the Persians and the Greeks.

    Sahih Muslim 8:3394
    Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported: We took women captives, and we wanted to do ‘azl with them. We then asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) about it, and he said to us: Verily you do it, verily you do it, verily you do it, but the soul which has to be born until the Day of judgment must be born.

    Sahih Muslim 8:3373
    Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) (was asked if he had heard it himself), to which he said: Yes. (I heard) Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: There is no harm if you do not practise it, for it (the birth of the child) is something ordained (by Allah).

    Sahih Muslim 8:3374, See also: Sahih Muslim 8:3375
    Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) was asked about ‘azl, whereupon he said: There is no harm if you do not do that, for it (the birth of the child) is something ordained. Muhammad (one of the narrators) said: (The words) La ‘alaykum (there is no harm) implies its Prohibition.

    Sahih Muslim 8:3376
    Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that mention was made of ‘azl in the presence of Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) whereupon he said: Why do you practise it? They said: There is a man whose wife has to suckle the child, and if that person has a sexual intercourse with her (she may conceive) which he does not like, and there is another person who has a slave-girl and he has a sexual intercourse with her, but he does not like her to have conception so that she may not become Umm Walad, whereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: There is no harm if you do not do that, for that (the birth of the child) is something pre- ordained. Ibn ‘Aun said: I made a mention of this hadith to Hasan, and he said: By Allah, (it seems) as if there is upbraiding in it (for ‘azl).

    Sahih Muslim 8:3377, See also: Sahih Muslim 8:3378 and Sahih Muslim 8:3379
    Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported: Mention was made about al-’azl in the presence of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), whereupon he said: Why any one of you practises it? (He did not say: One of you should not do it), for there is no created soul, whose creator is not Allah.

    Sahih Muslim 8:3380
    Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) was asked about ‘azl, whereupon he said: The child does not come from all the liquid (sermen) and when Allah intends to create anything nothing can prevent it (from coming into existence).

    Sahih Muslim 8:3381, See also: Sahih Muslim 8:3382
    Jabir b. ‘Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported that a person asked Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) saying: I have a slave-girl and I practise ‘azl with her, whereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: This cannot prevent that which Allah has decreed. The person then came (after some time) and said: Messenger of Allah, the slave-girl about whom I talked to you has conceived, whereupon Allah’s Messeuger (may peace be upon him) said: I am the servant of Allah and His Messenger.

    Sahih Muslim 8:3384
    Al-Muwatta
    Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu’n-Nadr, the mawla of Umar ibn Ubaydullah from Amir ibn Sad ibn Abi Waqqas from his father that he used to practise coitus interruptus.
    Al-Muwatta 29 32.96b
    Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu’n-Nadr, the mawla of Umar ibn Ubaydullah from Ibn Aflah, the mawla of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari from an umm walad of Abu Ayyubal-Ansari that he practised coitus interruptus.

    Al-Muwatta 29 32.97b
    Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar did not practise coitus interruptus and thought that it was disapproved.

    Al-Muwatta 29 32.98b
    Yahya said that Malik related from Ibn Shihab from Salim ibn Abdullah ibn Umar from his father that Umar ibn al-Khattab said, “What’s the matter with men who have intercourse with their slave-girls and then dismiss them? No slave-girl comes to me whose master confesses that he has had intercourse with her but that I connect her child to him, whether or not he has practised coitus interruptus or stopped having intercourse with her.”

    Al-Muwatta 36 23.24b
    Malik related to me from Nafi that Safiyya bint Abi Ubayd informed him that Umar ibn al-Khattab said, “What is the matter with men who have intercourse with their slave-girls and then leave them to go? No slave-girl comes to me whose master confesses that he has had intercourse with her but that I connect her child to him, whether or not he has practised coitus interruptus or left off from intercourse with her.” Yahya said that he heard Malik say, “What is done in our community about an umm walad who commits a crime is that her master is liable for what she has done up to her value. He does not have to surrender her, and he cannot be made to bear more than her value for her crime.”
    Al-Muwatta 36 23.25b

  37. Posted October 8, 2014 at 3:17 AM | Permalink

    This will get you traffic to your site and make money. In addition, many of the
    words used started to take on slightly different meanings, depending on the context in which they are used.
    A internet marketing business, in a nutshell, a business that’s
    designed to run on the internet via a website.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe without commenting

  • Categories

  • Archives