http://telexads.com/ad/8HKoL2y7R2GVosa7clEPwA-AD

Saturday 14 December 2013

A DU'A FOR YOU

 O ﺂللَّــہ   I beg  Thee to grant me perfection of wudhoo and perfection of swalaah, perfection of Thy pleasure (towards me) and Thy forgiveness.

O ﺂللَّــہ    give me my record of deeds in my right hand.

O ﺂللَّــہ   grant me a shining face on the day when righteous persons will have shining faces.

O ﺂللَّــہ   cover me with Thy Mercy and save me from Thy chastisement.

O ﺂللَّــہ   keep my feet firm on the Day when feet will begin to waver.
O  ﺂللَّــہ
We are totally dependent on Thee for guidance and protection we beg Thee please guide us forgive us and protect the Imaan lives property akhlaaq a'amaal and belongings of the Ummah of Beloved Nabi
 صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ

 O OUR BELOVEd ALLAH, we seek YOUR forgiveness for those deeds which we planned to do for YOUR sake only but due to other interests, we did not fulfill them ...

... O OUR MOST FORGIVING ALLAH, please forgive YOUR repentant servants for all our sins, bless us, protect us, guide us on Siraatul Mustaqeem and accept this du'aa of ours,  آمِيْن يَارَبَّ الْعَالَمِينْ
 صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ
 صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ
 صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ
Subhaanarabbika Rabbil Izzati Amma Yassifoon Wassalaamun Alal Mursaleen Walhumdulillahir Rabbil Aalameen

Friday 13 December 2013

The people of the Right hand (PARADISE)

The People of Paradise
The Deeds for Which People Will Deserve to Enter Paradise
The people of Paradise are the believers and strict monotheists. All those who associate others with Allaah or disbelieve in Him, or deny any of the principles of faith will not be allowed to enter Paradise. Their destination will be Hellfire.
The Qur'aan often states that the people of Paradise are the believers who do righteous deeds, to quote one of many examples:
"But whoever comes to Him as a believer and has done righteous good deeds, for such are the high ranks - 'Adn Paradise under which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever: such is the reward of those who purify themselves". [20:75-76]
* Believers may earn Paradise through their eemaan and Islaam:
"My worshippers! No fear shall be on you this Day, nor shall you grieve - who believed in Our aayaat and were Muslims, enter Paradise you and your wives in happiness" [43:68-70]
* Or because they were sincere in their devotion to Allaah:
"Save the chosen slaves of Allaah [al-Mukhliseen]. For them there will be a known provision, fruits and they shall be honoured, in the gardens of delight." [37:40-43]
Or for the strength of their relationship with Allaah, their longing for Him and worship of Him:
"Only those who believe in our aayaat who, when they are reminded of them fall down prostrate, and glorify the praises of their rabb, and they are not proud. Their sides forsake their beds, to invoke their Rabb in fear and hope, and they spend [charity in Allaah's Cause] our of what We have bestowed on them". [32:15-16]
* Or for their patience and reliance upon Allaah Ta'ala:
"..Excellent is the reward of the workers, those who are patient and put their trust in their Rabb[29:58-59]
* Or for their steadfastness in faith:
"Verily those who say "Our Rabb is Allaah" and remain firm , on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. Such shall be the Companions of the Garden dwelling therein: a recompense for their good deeds". [46:13-14]
* Or for their humility:
"Verily those who believe and do righteous deeds and humble themselves before their Rabb - they will be dwellers of Paradise to dwell therein forever" [11:23]
* Or for their fear of Allaah Ta'ala:
"But for him who fears standing before his Rabb there will be two Gardens" [55:46]
* Or for their hatred of the kuffaar and mushrikeen and their refusal to befriend them:
"You will not find any people who believe in Allaah and the Last Day, making friendship with those who oppose Allaah and His messenger, even though they were their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred . For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with Ruh [proof, light and guidance] from Himself. And We will admit them to Gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein . Allaah is pleased with them and they with Him". [58:22]
Some aayaat discuss in detail the righteous deeds for which a person may deserve Paradise; for example, Surah ar-Ra'd states:
"But it is only the men of understanding who pay heed, those who fulfill the Covenant of Allaah and break not the mithaaq, those who join that which Allaah has commanded to be joined, , fear their Rabb and dread the terrible reckoning, and those who remain patient, seeking their Rabb's Countenance, perform as-Salaat, and spend out of that which We have bestowed on them, secretly and openly, and defend evil with good, for such there is a good end 'Adn Paradise which they shall enter and those who acted righteously from among their fathers and their wives, and their offspring. And angels shall enter unto them from every gate Salaamun ''alaykum for that you persevered in patience! Excellent indeed is the final home!" [13:19-24]
And at the beginning of Surah al-Mu'minoon, Allaah explains that success is for the believers and then described the deeds that will qualify them for success:
"Successful indeed are the believers, those who offer their salaah with khushoo', and those who turn away from al-laghw [dirty, false, evil, vain talk, falsehood and all that Allaah has forbidden], and those who pay the zakah, and those who guard their chastity, except from their wives or those whom their right hands possess, for then, they are free from blame; but whoever seeks beyond that then those are the transgressors; those who are faithfully true to their amaanah [all duties that Allaah has ordained: honesty, moral responsibility, and trusts] and to their covenants and those who strictly guard their prayers . These are indeed the inheritors who shall inherit al-Firdaws. They shall dwell therein forever" [23:11]
The Prophet (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wa Salaam) also said, "The people of Paradise are three: a ruler who is fair and just; a man who is compassionate and gentle towards every relative and Muslim; and a man with a large family who is proud and does not beg" [Muslim, see Sharh an-Nawawi 'alaa Muslim, 17/198] 
The Way to Paradise is Very Hard
Paradise is very high, and ascending lofty places takes a great deal of effort. The way to Paradise is filled with things that go against human wishes and inclinations. This needs strong determination and willpower. In a hadith narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim from Abu Hurayrah (Radiyallahu Anhu) the Messenger of Allaah (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wa Salaam) said,"Hell has been veiled with desires, and Paradise has been veiled with hardships."

an-Nasaa'ee, at-Tirmidhi, and Abu Dawud report from Abu Hurayrah (Radiyallahu Anhu) that the Messenger of Allaah (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wa Salaam) said, 
"When Allaah created Paradise, He told Jibreel, "Go look at it". So he went and looked at it, then he came back and said, "By Your Glory, no-one will hear of it but he will enter it". So He surrounded it with hardships and said, "Go and look at it". So he went and looked at it, then came back and said, "By Your Glory, I fear that no-one will enter it""[Jaami al-Usool, 10/520, 8068]
an-Nawawi commented on the first hadith:
"This is an example of the beautiful, eloquent and concise speech which the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wa Salaam) was capable, in which he gives a beautiful analogy. It means that nothing will help you to reach Paradise except going through hardships, and nothing will lead you to Hell, but whims and desires. Both are veiled as described, and whoever tears down the veil will reach what was hidden behind it. The veil of Paradise is torn down by going through hardships and the veil of Hell is torn down by giving in to whims and desires. Hardship including striving consistently and patiently in worship, restraining one's anger, forgiving, being patient, giving in charity, being kind to those who mistreat you, resisting physical desires, etc" [Sharh an-Nawawi 'ala Muslim, 17/165]
The People of Paradise
Description of the People of Paradise and the Delights They Enjoy Therein
The people of Paradise will enter in the most perfect and beautiful form, in the image of their father, Aadam (Alaihis Salaam), for there is no human form more perfect and beautiful than that of Aadam, whom Allaah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'ala) created very tall. He was as tall as a great palm tree, sixty cubits tall. Muslim reports from Abu Hurayrah (Radiyallahu Anhu) that the Messenger of Allaah (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wa Salaam) said,
"Allaah, Subhaanahu wa ta'aala, created Aadam in his own image, sixty cubits tall... everyone who enters Paradise will be in the image of Aadam, sixty cubits tall. People kept getting shorter and shorter after the time of Aadam."[Saheeh Muslim, Kitaab al-Jannah, Baab Yadkhul al-Jannah Aqwam Af'idatuhum mithl af'idatah at-Tayr 4:2183, no. 2841]
Their external appearance will be in harmony, and their hearts will be as one. Their hearts and souls will be clean and pure. Muslim reports from Abu Hurayrah (Radiyallahu Anhu) a hadith in which the Prophet describes people entering Paradise including a group whose light will be like the full moon. He (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wa Salaam) said, "Their form will be that of a single person, after the image of their father Aadam, sixty cubits tall." [Saheeh Muslim, Kitaab al-Jannah, Baab Awwal zumrah yadkhuluna al-Jannah, 4/2179, no. 2834]
Another aspect of their beauty is that they will have no body hair, and will look as if their eyes are anointed with kohl. Each of them will enter Paradise aged thirty-three, the age of strength, vitality and youth. Ahmad and at-Tirmidhi report from Mu'aadh ibn Jabal that the Messenger of Allaah (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wa Salaam) said, "The people of Paradise will enter Paradise hairless, looking as if their eyes are ringed with kohl, aged thirty three." [Saheeh al-Jaami' 6/337, no. 7928]
The people of Paradise will not sleep. Jaabir ibn 'Abdullaah and 'Abdullaah ibn Abi Awfaa reported that the Messenger of Allaah (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wa Salaam) said, "Sleep is the brother of death; the people of Paradise will not sleep" [Silsilat al-Hadith as-Saheehah, 3/74, no. 1087, al-Kaamil of Ibn 'Adiyy, al-Hilyah of Abu Na'eem, Taareekh Isbahaan, by Abul-Sheikh] 

Monday 25 February 2013

CONTEMPORARY ISLAMIC POLITICS



There is an account in a French diplomatic despatch of 1892 of an encounter between the Ottoman sultan Abdulhamid II and the head of Sufi orders in Egypt, Shaykh Muhammad Tawfiq al-Bakri. ‘I wish for you to understand that I am not a simple mollah’, boasted Shaykh al-Bakri. ‘I am a political man, I have general ideas, and I have read Aristotle, Montesquieu, J. J. Rousseau, Spencer, Leroy-Beaulieu, etc.’ The simple mollahs have since disappeared; political ideology suffuses religious thought. And the foreign influence is pervasive, although one more readily detects traces of Marx than of Montesquieu. The result is what some call ferment.
In this study, the late Hamid Enayat has succinctly described the modern mutations of Islamic political thought, ably summarizing representative texts for the student and general reader. The abolition of the Ottoman caliphate in 1924 is the author’s point of departure for a discussion of the rivalry between concepts of a Muslim state, and Muslim responses to the imported principles of nationalism, democracy and socialism. A parallel theme is that of specifically Shi’i modernism and Shi’i-Sunni reconciliation. We are again in the familiar company of Rashid Rida. Ali Abd al-Raziq, Muhammad al-Ghazali, Mustafa al-Siba’i, Sayyid Qutb, Mawdudi and Shari’ati. As a descriptive survey, Modern Islamic Political Thought is of great value, and doubtless will win deserved recognition in the classroom.
But another aim of this book is to advance a subtle argument, signaled by a caveat in the preface.
The question of any ulterior or hidden motive that these [surveyed] authors may have harboured has been kept out of the analysis, not only because a thorough examination of them threatens to turn a history of ideas into histoire événementielle, but also because ideas seem to have a life of their own people, especially those of the generations subsequent to the authors’, often tend to perceive ideas with little or no regard for the authors’ insidious designs, unless they are endowed with a capacity for mordant cynicism.
This is how Enayat would dispense with that higher criticism that has interpreted the writings of Muslim reformists through their mundane transactions and esoteric teachings. It was this sort of inquest which led to a radical reappraisal of Afghani’s, Abduh’s, and Malkum Khan’s religious writings, and cast the early history of Muslim reformism in a severe light. Now historical scholarship is poised to examine the sincerity of the next generation of reformists. Those who still share the reformist attitude, locked as they are in a struggle with an ascendant fundamentalism, will be discomfited.
Enayat conveys, in the subtlest language, his personal conviction that this battered modernism is not a spent force, that a balance can yet be struck between authenticity and accommodation. To buttress this belief, Enayat feels obliged to shield the icons from the iconoclasts. Characteristic is his lengthy defense of Ali Abd al-Raziq’s al-Islam wa usul al-hukm. This book, published in Egypt shortly after the abolition of the Ottoman caliphate, argued the controversial view that the caliphate was not immanent in Islam, and made a case for the separation of religion and politics. Enayat goes to great lengths to establish that the work was a step toward ‘a new Sunni consensus on the relationship between Islam and the modern state’, but was ?misunderstood’ and so evoked a ‘regrettable’ assault by the Azhar establishment. He passes in silence over the work of political historians who suggest that the book was written to thwart a scheme of the Egyptian royal house to claim the caliphate, and was regarded by contemporaries not as a theoretical inquiry but as a partisan tract.
A similar sort of omission mars Enayat’s account of the ‘religious response’ of a group of leading Azhar ulama to the abolition of the Ottoman caliphate. Enayat dwells on the ease with which these divines discarded their allegiance to the deposed caliph, and accepted the abolition as a fair accompli. ‘[The] resolution of the scholarly gathering shows that even in this body, despite its orthodox pronouncements, there was a willingness to come to terms with the new development’. Here were ‘evident clues to the readiness for accommodation with non-traditionalists’. But Enayat notes that these scholars met under the chairmanship of Shaykh al-Azhar al-Jizawi and President of the Supreme Religious Court al-Maraghi. Now these two very complex mollahs were accomplices of the royal palace, and there is ample documentary evidence that the aim of these deliberations was to clear the theological boards for an Egyptian caliphate. This resolution was not a scholastic finding but an intrigue, and was then widely recognized as such.
A similar judgment concerns the circumstances which surrounded the issuance in 1959 of the famous ecumenical fatwa authored by Shaykh al-Azhar Shaltut. Enayat makes much of this document, which recognized the validity of worship according to Twelver Shi’i doctrine and denied the existence of sects within Islam. The step ‘established a distinct trend towards greater Sunni-Shi’i understanding. The credit for this should be largely put down to Shaltut’s generally temperate vision of Islam’. But Shaltut was no simple mollah either, and so momentous a response would never have been issued without the full approval, if not upon the insistence, of a calculating President Nasir. This fatwa, like so many reformist doctrinal texts, cannot be allowed to speak for itself, even in a history of ideas. Yet Enayat will not concede the role of political exigency in the gestation of political thought, apparently because that thought is today in dire need of the credential of sincerity.
Enayat’s own critique of reformism is strictly tactical, for it is made from within. Reformism failed in Egypt because of the ‘over-confident, intemperate mood of some of the modernists, which made them insensitive to whatever potential for reform existed inside the religious community. Instead of developing this potential by adopting a more discriminating approach, the modernists launched an offensive which, simultaneous as it was with the secularisation of Turkey, lent plausibility to the traditionalists’ charge that what the modernists sought was not a simple modification of religious attitudes, but the very eradication of Islam as an all-inclusive system of moral, social and political guidelines’. In other words, Egyptian modernists, in order to disarm traditionalist criticism, should have been more dissimulating.
Now this plea for more guile is fundamentally Shi’i, and in Iran, Enayat leads us to believe, discretion is the better part of reformist valour. Consider Murtada Mutahhari, whom Enayat credits with inspiring this book. A professor of philosophy at Tehran University, Mutahhari was deeply involved in progressive reformist societies, secured the rank of ayatullah after the revolution, and became a leading light in the new order. So convincingly did he embrace the role that in May 1979, anticlericalist guerillas elected to assassinate him. But most modern Shi’i reformists in Iran have been surprisingly guileless, and so have overplayed their hand. What Enayat writes of Ali Abd al-Raziq?that he was needlessly ‘provocative’?applies no less to Ali Shari’ati, who laced his writings with quotations from French orientalists and vexed the elders of Qumm. A jealous clergy has had no trouble weeding out Iran’s reformists, and Enayat’s chapter on Shi’i modernism may be read as an adieu.
Also overwhelmed by the tide of events in Iran has been the Shi’i-Sunni reconciliation which Enayat seeks to establish as the first fruit of modernist influence. Reflecting, probably at the last revision, upon the Iran-Iraq war, Enayat concedes ‘the extent to which religion can become a handmaiden of politics, rendering any sectarian peace vulnerable to the unpredictability of international relations’. Yet he maintains that among Shi’is, ‘there has been much deprecation of the schismatic attitudes of the past’, and cites, of all things, Shi’i appeals for ‘conformity to majority norms’ during the Meccan pilgrimage. Already this ‘considerable degree of intellectual harmony’ between Shi’is and Sunnis has vanished like a morning mist, and the Iranians have made themselves the troublesome bêtes noires of the pilgrimage.
For dogmatism is the rage. Enayat provides a solid account of modernism’s fundamentalist rival, particularly the Arab Ikhwan al-Muslimun, the Iranian Fida’iyan-i Islam, and the Pakistani Jama’at-i Islami. Interestingly, he omits any discussion of Khumayni’s Islamic Government. But he finds Mawdudi’s identical vision of an Islamic state unworkable, for the premise ‘that rulers can be kept out of mischief by adhering to a certain set of doctrines, or leading an ascetic way of life’, is a ‘noble idea, but one which has so far rarely worked in practice. Maududi does not provide any evidence that his ideological state would be an exception to this depressing observation of history’. Nor has Enayat any faith in ‘the overweening attitude of militant Shi’is and their confidence in Man’s flawless ability to overcome all social and political imperfections’.
These doubts find some new confirmation daily. What is remarkable is that some of the disillusioned have found solace in the Shari’atis and Bani Sadrs, who evoke Lord Cromer’s comment on the too-well read Shaykh al-Bakri: ‘Was this fin de siècle sheikh, this curious compound of Mecca and the Paris Boulevards, the latest development in Islamism? I should add that the combination produced no results of any importance’.
http://telexads.com/ad/8HKoL2y7R2GVosa7clEPwA-AD