The Story of Ahmadiah Idrisiah Tariqah, from Singapore to Milan;

Taken from http://www1.aucegypt.edu/faculty/sedgwick/

Tag names:

Abd al-Wahid Pallavicini,

Yahya Sergio Yahe Pallavicini,

Frithjof Schuon (Martin Ling's teacher),

Martin Lings alias Shaykh Abu Bakar Sirajuddin

Rene Guenon,

Sidi Abdul Rasyid ibn Sidi Muhammad Sa’id Al-Linggi,

Sidi Ahmad Ibn Idris al-Idrisi (the great grandson of Sidi Ahmad Ibn Idris, also known as ibn Idris)

The Ahmadiyya ---> Not to be confused with the ahmadiyya of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

In about 1949, Abd al-Wahid Pallavicini (1926- ), a wealthy young Italian who had read Guénon's Crise du monde moderne, visited its Italian translator, Evola. Evola told Pallavicini that his own interests were more in temporal than spiritual power, and referred him instead to Burckhardt. In 1951, Pallavicini became Muslim at Burckhardt's hands and took the Alawi tariqa, and the name of Abd al-Wahid Yahya.(98) Having earlier broken with Schuon over the vexed question of the validity of Christian initiation, Pallavicini visited (in 1971) the zawiya in Singapore of the Ahmadi shaykh Abd al-Rashid ibn Muhammad Said (1918-92), an Azhari alim [scholar trained at the prestigious Azhar mosque-university in Cairo] as well as an important shaykh.(99)

The Ahmadi zawiya and the dhikr [communal invocatory prayer] very much impressed Pallavicini, who took the Ahmadi tariqa. During the six months he spent with his new shaykh, Pallavicini learned the Ahmadi awrad [office; litany].(100) Although he could only understand Abd al-Rashid through an interpreter, he also had numerous conversations with Ali Salim, later Abd al-Rashid's khalifa [deputy].(101) On one occasion, Abd al-Rashid suggested that they should pray for the conversion to Islam of Pallavicini's parents. Pallavicini demurred, saying that they were all right as they were, as People of the Book, and could expect to go to Heaven as non-Muslims - a Guénonian view more than an Islamic one. In order to resolve their disagreement, the two wrote to the Azhar for a fatwa [opinio, ruling] - which, unsurprisingly, supported Abd al-Rashid.(102)

---> The Religion of the People of the Book is recognised in Islam as valid, for Islam simply means Submission to God and to do so, one is required to follow His Prophets among whom are Moses and Jesus. The real issue today is whether or not the Christianity and/or Judaism of today is still exactly the same as the religion of Jesus and Moses respectively; refer to Misquoting Jesus by Biblical Scholar Bart D Erhman for details. In history we know of Unitarian Christians who reject the Trinity just like Muslims, and the scientist Isaac Newton was one of them. Refer to An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture is a dissertation by the English mathematician and scholar Isaac Newton. First published in 1754, 27 years after Newton's death, it reviewed all the textual evidence available from ancient sources on two disputed Bible passages, at 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16.

In the King James Version Bible, 1 John 5:7 reads:
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Using the writings of the early Church Fathers, the Greek and Latin manuscripts and the testimony of the first versions of the Bible, Newton attempted to demonstrate that the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," in support of the Trinity doctrine, did not appear in the original inspired Greek Scriptures. He then traced the way in which the spurious reading crept into the Latin versions, first as a marginal note, and later into the text itself. He argued[citation needed] that it was first taken into a Greek text in 1515 by Cardinal Ximenes on the strength of a late Greek manuscript corrected from the Latin. Finally, Newton considered the sense and context of the verse, concluding, "Thus is the sense plain and natural, and the argument full and strong; but if you insert the testimony of 'the Three in Heaven' you interrupt and spoil it."

Historical background

Newton did not publish these findings during his lifetime, likely due to the political climate. Those who wrote against the doctrine of the Trinity were subject to persecution in England. As late as 1698 the Act for the Suppression of Blasphemy and Profaneness made it an offense to deny one of the persons of the Trinity to be God, punishable with loss of office, employment and profit on the first occasion, and imprisonment for a repetition. Newton's friend William Whiston (translator of the works of Josephus) lost his professorship at Cambridge for this reason in 1711. In 1693 a pamphlet attacking the Trinity was burned by order of the House of Lords, and the next year its printer and author were prosecuted. In 1697 Thomas Aikenhead, an eighteen-year-old student charged with denying the Trinity, was hanged at Edinburgh, Scotland.

It can also be proven that certain verses in the Bible that propagates Trinity were actually added centuries after Jesus, hence the issue today is the originality of the religion<---

Either before or despite this dispute, Pallavicini was given an ijaza by Abd al-Rashid.(103) Given that the two earlier ijazas of which we know which were received by Guénonians were somewhat unusual, it is interesting to see how Pallavicini came to receive his. Abd al-Rashid is only known to have given four other ijazas, and of these only one was to someone who was not a long-established Ahmadi, the Director of Dakwah [calling to God] in Brunei, already an important Muslim dignitary. Pallavicini was a very different case, and seems to have been a departure from Abd al-Rashid's normal practice.

--->I have asked some old timers of the Tariqah about Sidi Abdul Rasyid and his giving off ijazas, they all said Sidi Abdul Rasyid rarely gave out ijazas, and only about 4 such cases were known; one of the ijazas was for Almarhum Ust Abdur Rahman Al-Kaff, the other for Almarhum Ust Osman Yusuf.<---

It is impossible to say why Abd al-Rashid decided to give Pallavicini an ijaza,(104) but shaykhs in any tariqa do sometimes give ijazas for their recipients to 'grow into.' Another partial explanation is that Abd al-Rashid was perhaps reverting to an earlier Ahmadi practice, evidently followed at some times by his father, of distributing ijazas almost wholesale. At any rate, Pallavicini's ijaza, unlike Schuon's, seems to have been entirely regular; on this basis his tariqa might almost be classified as 'standard.'

On returning to Italy, Pallavicini went first to Rome; he had at that time no particular intention of doing anything with his ijaza.(105) It was not until the end of the 1970s that a fortuitous combination of circumstances led to the establishment of an Ahmadiyya in Europe. Pallavicini became involved in Muslim-Christian dialogue and so became famous, and used his fame to spread the Guénonian message. One of the high points of Pallavicini's involvement with this dialogue was the Day of Prayer held by Pope John Paul in Assisi on 27 October 1986, at which representatives of twelve religions met together to pray for peace.(106) Ten delegations represented Islam; Pallavicini went with the CICI, the main Islamic organization in Rome, made a speech to a 'round table of the representatives of religions,' and issued a press release.(107) Pallavicini became a popular interviewee for the Italian newspapers,(108) reflecting the role he had played at Assisi, both because a much interviewed person becomes newsworthy anyhow, and because at this time the position of Islam in Italy was changing significantly. By 1990, Pallavicini had become the most interviewed Muslim in Catholic papers, a sort of Muslim 'de confiance.'(109) He was even being described by the major newspaper Corriere della Sera as shaykh 'of one of the most important Sufi brotherhoods.'(110)

Shaykh Abdul Wahid Pallavicini with Pope John Paul II

During his Muslim-Christian dialogue, Pallavicini did not try to proselytize for Islam, but found that many of those persons with whom he was trying to carry out an inter-religious dialogue became Muslim (and Ahmadi), so that in the end the 'dialogue with Christians' became a 'monologue of Muslims.'(111) By 1996, three buildings in Milan housed Pallavicini's Milan home, the Centro Studi Metafisici 'René Guénon,'(112) the zawiya of the Ahmadiyya in Italy, the Associazione Italiana per l'Informazione sull'Islam (AIII),(113) and Sintesi (a small publishing house).(114)

Pallavicini's followers see themselves more as members of the Centro Studi Metafisici than as Ahmadis. During their monthly meeting in January 1996, time was divided more or less equally between considering their next step in a new round of the old controversy over the validity of Christian initiation (being held with a Greek Orthodox Guénonian in the pages of the Guénonian publication Vers la tradition),(115) and such recognizably Sufi activities as prayer, dhikr, and communal living in the zawiya. This dual identity - as Ahmadi Muslims and as Guénonians - persists at other times. Various Ahmadis spend much time attending almost every conceivable possible forum to spread the Guénonian view, but also perform the normal Muslim duties and the Ahmadi awrad. The strong identity of Milan Ahmadis as Guénonians combines, in many cases, with a somewhat weak identity as Muslims. Milan Ahmadis are separated from most other Muslims not only by disputes, but by geography and language. This is not true of Pallavicini himself or of his son Yahya, both of whom have contacts with the Islamic world and with various sections of the Ahmadiyya, but it is true of almost everyone else. It is less true, in contrast, for the Western followers of al-Haqqani, who are inevitably in contact with the significant numbers of immigrants among his followers in the West, and who may also from time to time visit their shaykh in the Muslim world, as well as seeing him on his regular visits to the West.
Were it not for the dual identity of its followers, Pallavicini's Ahmadiyya could be described not only as a standard tariqa, but also as traditional. The Milan Ahmadis are all Muslim, and no significant variations of the Sharia are known; their practice is orthodox and their silsila recognized. The spread of the Ahmadiyya from Singapore to Milan differs little from the spread of the Ahmadiyya from Singapore to Brunei or the Naqshbandiyya to Germany.

Pallavicini himself was evidently accepted as an Ahmadi shaykh by Ahmad ibn Idris al-Idrisi (a descendant of Ahmad ibn Idris, fount of the Ahmadiyya) when they met in Dubai, since Ahmad ibn Idris al-Idrisi instructed Pallavicini to give the Ahmadiyya to his son Yahya, then aged fifteen.(116) The dual identity however produces conflicts in the area of Transcendent Unity, both in doctrine (Pallavicini's recognition of the validity of Christianity, if not of Christian initiation) and in practice (a tendency to urge Italians to return to Catholicism rather than to become Muslim).

Sections of the Muslim community in Italy, then, clearly rejected Pallavicini's Ahmadiyya as being (in our terms) other than traditional, but this rejection took place within a particular context. At about the same time as it attacked Pallavicini, however, Il Messagero dell'Islam also ran a full-page article with the title: 'Sufism is not Islam!'(121) This view is itself also far from traditional: it is characteristic of the Salafi reformers and their descendants, and while it may now have become part of a strong current within the Islamic mainstream, rejection of Pallavicini on the grounds that he is a Sufi is inconclusive. Some of the further grounds for Pallavicini's opponents' rejection of him, however, are indicative: his views on the status of Christianity, for example, are Guénonian rather than Islamic

Pope Benedict 16th greeting Shaykh Yahya Pallavicini

Shaykh Yahya Sergio Yahe Pallavicini and the Italian Ikhwans at Masjid Kassim with Ust Hasbi

Figurative interpretation in the Quran

MasyaAllah, I really do not know how to properly begin this post. I guess I can start by saying that it is a rather axiomatic fact that certain expressions in Islamic Literature deal with figurative interpretation; for if it is common in other literature, then why not Islamic Literature, one of the most richest ever?

I don’t agree and don’t understand how some square-headed people just simply love to only accept literal interpretations of the Quran and/or Hadith. Even the strictest of literalists acknowledge that figurative interpretation is sometimes necessary, such as in the case of the Hadith “the heart of the Believer is between the two fingers of the Merciful” If I were to be literal, then my ribs must be His fingers. God Forbid!

Another classic is when aunties gossip, at the same time refrain from mentioning names, for fear of gossiping, but then they include very telling details. Might as well give off the NRIC no., that way you are still not mentioning names per se.

Solat, for example, literally is a set of rituals that includes bowing, prostrating etc, but solat is also the mi’raj (ascension) of the believer.

One example of how figurative interpretation can complement literal interpretation would be the story of Abraham’s Reflections. For the Quran is vast in its meanings. I am no expert in Quranic exergesis nor do I know Arabic well, but some things just beg you to wonder; in this case, why did Abraham reflect as such? Couldn’t he see the very Obvious?

ABRAHAM’S REFLECTIONS

6:75 And thus We gave Abraham [his first] insight into [God's] mighty dominion over the heavens and the earth - and [this] to the end that he might become one of those who are inwardly sure.
Topics discussed in this Verse: [Abraham] [Abraham:watches the heavens]
وَكَذَلِكَ نُرِي إِبْرَاهِيمَ مَلَكُوتَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ وَلِيَكُونَ مِنَ الْمُوقِنِينَ (6:75)



6:76 Then, when the night overshadowed him with its darkness, he beheld a star;., [and] he exclaimed, "This is my Sustainer!" -but when it went down, he said, "I love not the things that go down."
Topics discussed in this Verse: [Abraham] [Abraham:watches the heavens] [Stars:setting of] [Stars]
فَلَمَّا جَنَّ عَلَيْهِ اللَّيْلُ رَأَى كَوْكَبًا قَالَ هَـذَا رَبِّي فَلَمَّا أَفَلَ قَالَ لا أُحِبُّ الآفِلِينَ (6:76)




6:77 Then, when he beheld the moon rising, he said, "This is my Sustainer!"-but when it went down, he said, "Indeed, if my Sustainer guide me not. I will most certainly become one of the people who go astray!"
Topics discussed in this Verse: [Abraham] [Abraham:watches the heavens] [Moon]
فَلَمَّا رَأَى الْقَمَرَ بَازِغًا قَالَ هَـذَا رَبِّي فَلَمَّا أَفَلَ قَالَ لَئِن لَّمْ يَهْدِنِي رَبِّي لأكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْقَوْمِ الضَّالِّينَ (6:77)



6:78 Then, when he beheld the sun rising, he said, "This is my Sustainer! This one is the greatest [of all]!" - but when it [too] went down, he exclaimed: "O my people! Behold, far be it from me to ascribe divinity, as you do, to aught beside God!
Topics discussed in this Verse: [Abraham] [Abraham:watches the heavens] [Sun]
فَلَمَّا رَأَى الشَّمْسَ بَازِغَةً قَالَ هَـذَا رَبِّي هَـذَآ أَكْبَرُ فَلَمَّا أَفَلَتْ قَالَ يَا قَوْمِ إِنِّي بَرِيءٌ مِّمَّا تُشْرِكُونَ (6:78)

Imam Ghazali mentions in his “Faysal At Tafriqa” concerning figurative interpretations:

If their figurative interpretation pertains to matters that are not of the basic principles and requirements of the creed, then we do not brand them as Unbelievers. An example of this would be the statement of some Sufis regarding Abraham’s seeing the stars, moon and sun (note the order) and his statement “This is my Lord” as not being apparent meaning of these things but rather of an angelic, luminous essence whose luminosity is noetic rather than perceptual and whose essences are characterized by ascending levels of perfection, the level of disparity between them is like the level of disparity between the stars, moon and sun.

I once asked “Wasn’t Abraham too noble to have to see a created body disappear before coming to belief in an All-Powerful Creator? What if that body does not disappear? The Moons of some celestial bodies are always visible from that celestial body...."

Then the Sufis answered my inquiry sufficiently; they argued that that would not be the case, for Abraham was indeed noble for he was harboring the seed that is to be Muhammad saw. How is it possible for the stars to be the first thing he saw (according to the arrangement of the verses above, Abraham saw stars first, then moon, then sun) when the sun is much more prominent than the stars and usually is the first celestial body one sees. Therefore there must be a deeper, figurative meaning.



And the Sufis also point to the fact that God mentioned this verse first “We gave Abraham [his first] insight into [God's] mighty dominion over the heavens and the earth - and [this] to the end that he might become one of those who are inwardly sure” after which Abraham is cited to have spoken the words aforementioned. How was it ever possible for Abraham to suppose that the stars, moon and sun were his gods AFTER the hidden realities have been revealed to him?

Surely this is but a literal lesson for those who engage in idolatry, in particular, animism. And metaphorically, it has tasawwuf(sufi) meanings.

Also in Surah Taha verses 9 to 16; beautifully mentioned, and beautifully poetic, heavy in its subject and topic, deep in meaning.

Surah Taha verses 9 to 16 deal with the manifestation (tajalliyat) of God in the form of a fire, appearing to Moses thereby exclaiming “I Am God”. It also mentions the Valley of Tuwa as sacred, and is also commands Moses to remove his sandals.

Why sandals? Why was something so pedantic such as removing the shoes mentioned alongside something much more significant like the manifestation of God as a flame or the sacred valley?

Apparently, it has inner meanings of leaving behind that which is morally filthy, that which attaches the heart to material matters and that which blemishes the heart spiritually. Of course no one is denying that Moses literally removed his sandals, for it is part of the Orthodox Jewish Law to remove shoes/footwear prior to entering the synagogue.

There is, without doubt, such a thing as figurative interpretations, alongside literal interpretations. And we need scholars to guide us in both.

Wallahu ‘alam.

God guide us all, amin

The Quran's Grandeur

One thing amazing about the Quran is that its miracles are not just in its content, unlike a scientific writing such a textbook. For textbooks, its value is measured in its content, not so much in its arrangement or under what chapter and paragraph a point is mentioned. But for the Quran, all of its content, right down to the individual letter and even dot, are important, and so too are its arrangements.

Just consider this:

The verse of the Quran that mentions that Iron(Hadid) is sent down and therein lies great power for Man is mentioned in the Chapter of Iron, the 57th chapter of the Quran and mentioned in the 25th verse,(57:25) that is, without including the Opening Basmallah which is found in every chapter except Tawba. Including the Basmallah would make the verse the 26th. Iron, 26, 57, Ring a bell? 26,57Fe . The common periodic table that we have would show the Ar(Atomic Mass) of Fe to be 56, but astronomers have found out that the commonest isotope of Iron in the Universe is of Ar 57.

here the Quran is accurate in its assertion that Iron was sent down, scientists have found out that our earth is not huge enough a furnace to produce Iron which requires an immense pressure and heat to bring about a nuclear fusion to produce the rather heavy nucleus of the Iron atom. Hence, all our iron are sent down from the other celestial bodies.
The other miracle is that the reference for this particular verse is very telling in its numerology. There is even a secret in the reference of the verse!

&

Al-Nour (The Light)
24:39 But as for those who are bent on denying the truth, their [good] deeds are like a mirage in the desert, which the thirsty supposes to be water – until, when he approaches it, he finds that it was nothing:
instead, he finds [that] God [has always been present] with him, and [that] He will pay him his account in full - for God is swift in reckoning!

How coincidental! We know that the mirage is caused by Light that does not travel in a straight path (an analogy to the straight path of truth often mentioned in the Quran), having been refracted by the different media it travels in. There is only one mention of Mirage in the Quran and it is in the Chapter “The Light”.

Of course there are many other instances. May God guide us all.

eh eh dah besar panjang...aper kau pikeh die anak batu gileng?

i cant resist uploading pics of me nephew who is 14 mnths old now!

some update about my 'rapport' with him; apparently izharul doesn't like me carrying him, he will like turn his face away accompanied by his cute "hmph!" when i offer to carry him.

but this politic-minded boy stretches out his arms to me when he is in his cot which i call his "kandang"(cage in Malay). tsk tsk..hehe, but i don't bame him lah, it's all my fault, because everytime i carry him i will kiss his cheeks, bite them and press em hard against my face hehe, so naturally he feels uncomfortable, but heck, i don't care, serve him right for being soooo cute. see lah, make me geram somemore....hehehehehe

but he knows a few words now! i can ask him to dance, solat, btw he imitates my bro, eat,milk, sit, sleep, ask whether or not he yak-yak(pass motion)...hehe, geram arh!!!!

and now he is such a hardworking toddler, he will do 'house cleaning' after we have done house cleaning... '--

but nothing beats seeing him first when i open the door after coming back from camp; he smiles at me and i immediately chase him to unleash my geramness.. khekhe

Abang to be!

Suka Hati

Astro-Izharul!

Fireman Jr!

Rabbi sallimhaa wa sallim maa fi bathnihaa, amin.

Hangout with Dr Hisyam Hellyer

MasyaAllah, i was given the opportunity to attend Dr's lecture at arqam yesterday, really an eye opener, he went on to highlight the immense contributions and achievements of converts to this religion who in as short a timespan as a decade can rise to become respected authorities, this being the fruition of their hardwork and dedication in seeking knowledge. All these are even more admirable given the fact that they come from minority communities who make up less than 1% of their country's population, we are 14.9% here.

Dr mentioned quite a long list of names, including Shaykh Nuh Keller, Shaykh Hamzah Yusuf, Prof Abdul Hakim Murad alias Timothy Winter and many more.

These converts excelled in various fields, from scholars of Jurispudence to scholars of Theology, even authorised Khalifahs and Shaykhs in Tasawwuf.

after all that, we had a light refreshment, and after that i was dragged by Dr Ahmad the dentist to join them for supper. i wasn't mentally prepared, nor did i feel exactly comfortable squeezing in a car driven by Dr Hisyam; but Dr Ahmad insisted... anyways, somehow managed to break the ice as we chatted actively whilst dining in at Swensens beside Paragon.

had a light moment, and we discussed various issues, from Ayah Pin's Sky Kingdom in pro-Islam Kelantan, to the various Tariqah movements in Singapore.

One thing to be at ease at would be the fact that the Tariqah movements in Singapore are generally friendly with one another, with their heads working closely and/or are close friends, fellow students of the same teachers etc. And the Islamic scene in Singapore is something that we can be grateful for, as many of the top positions are held by scholars who emphasize on tasawwuf.

And then we went to talk about the Awrad Muhammadiyah movement. The respected Shaykh, Almarhum Ust Taha Suhaimi is a leader of the Awrad Muhammadiyah, which is to a certain extent misunderstood and/or not well understood by the masses. anyways, i guess it won't be appropriate to talk about it here. Both Ust Taha Suhaimi and his late father Kiyai Fadhulllah Suhaimi were renowned scholars, and the Suhaimi family founded the madrasah maarif at ipoh lane.

I was told by my mum that her father (my maternal grandpa) was a follower of almarhum Ust Taha Suhaimi, but he passed away when i was three.

Here are some pics;


Dr Hisyam giving the lecture



Having a good chat


with Dr Ahmad, Dr Hisyam and his zawjah

Dr Hisyam Hellyer @ darul arqam

This friday, 24 oct 2008 at 8pm at darul arqam auditorium will be a talk by Dr Hisyam Heller entitled Islamic Educaiton; From conversion to learned scholars. He wil be speaking about some prominent scholars who began as converts who eventually became experts in the religion.

Tatu di kalangan Masyarakat Melayu Singapura.

Terlihat anak-anak muda bangsa kita berjalan-jalan dan bersembang-sembang di Orchard Road, alangkah kecewanya hati ketika itu. Terlihat juga dengan jelas, reaksi orang kita yang lain, ada daripada mereka bersungguh-sungguh menggelengkan kepala, dan ada juga yang hanya dapat menundukkan kepala, dek rasa malu di hadapan orang-orang yang berbangsa dan beragama lain.

Susungguhnya, penghulu kita telah bersabda bahawa orang yang bertatu dan orang yang melukis tatu kedua-duanya dilaknat.

Tapi, apakah maksudnya kepada kita? Adakah yang berhak melaknat itu diri kita sendiri, yang juga merupakan manusia yang dhaif? Ataukah ia milik Allah Yang Maha Sempurna? Ternyata, jawapannya begitu jelas sekali, tiada syak pada kebenarannya, yang hanya berhak melaknat adalah Allah.

Oleh kerana itu, jauhkan lah hati kita ini dariada membenci, menghina atau mengutuk orang-orang sedemikian. Yang boleh di sisi Syarak adalah membenci perbuatan yang dilarang itu, bukan membenci pembuatnya. Pelajaran yang sebegini dapat kita perolehi dari beberapa kisah teladan, demi menjaga kebersihan hati kita, kerana sesungguhnya, di akhirat nanti, yang lebih dilihat adalah kebersihan hati, lebih daripada apa-apa amalan zahiri sekali pun.

Seorang sahabat, pada zaman baginda SAW, masih meneruskan meminum arak, walaupun larangan jelas telah diwahyukan, beliau kemudiannya dipukul oleh sahabat-sahabat yang lain, kerana masih fasiq melakukan dosa besar, tetapi, ketika itu juga, baginda SAW menahan sahabat-sahabat yang lain seraya berkata “sesungguhnya hatinya(sahabat yang meminum arak) masih mencintai Allah dan RasulNya.”
Kesemua sahabat terpegun dan tidak lagi berani membantai lelaki itu, kerana suatu kenyataan tentang rasa kasih telah dikeluarkan oleh baginda; agaknya gementar hati para sahabat yang lain itu.

Janganlah kita membenci atau menghina orang yang berbuat dosa, sebaliknya hendaklah kita menegur, bolehlah dengan tegas dan memadailah jika ia hanya merupakan nasihat. Selemah-lemah iman ialah membenci kemunkaran di hati. Bolehlah juga kita berdoa agar mereka yang berkenaan diberi hidayah dengan segera.

Dikhuatiri jika kita membenci mereka, akan terlahir di dalam hati sanubari perasaan lebih mulia daripada si pendosa, dengan itu, hati kita pula yang akan dikotori atau 'ditatu' pula dengan penyakit-penyakit hati seperti riya’ dan sombong. Baginda telah memberi amaran keras terhadap perasaan riya’ atau sombong, dengan kekatanya yang membawa maksud lebih kurang seperti ini “riya itu syirik yang tersembunyi”dan ”sesiapa yang menyimpan sifat sombong ,meskipun sebesar biji zarrah di dalam hatinya, tidak akan masuk syurga”.

Shah Bahauddin Naqshaband(q), pernah pada satu ketika, ketika beliau sedang berjalan dengan beberapa muridnya, berhenti hanya untuk memberi laluan kepada seekor anjing. Beliau pun disoal oleh muridnya akan perbuatannya tadi yang agak aneh, memandangkan anjing itu binatang najis mughallazah. Jawab beliau, “anjing itu lebih mulia daripada diriku.” Apakah yang dapat kita fahamkan daripada kisah ini? Janganlah kita ukur seseorang itu dengan melihat kotoran ataupun dosa-dosa ynag zahir, kerana dosa-dosa yang bersifat batin itu lebih berat.

Maka di sini, muncullah Syaitan dan segala anak-pinaknya, membisik di hati agar jangan “hiraukan” dosa-dosa luaran atau dosa-dosa zahir, katanya yang penting hati itu baik.
Janganlah pula kita layankan bisikan sedemikian, memang bisikan Syaitan itu halus dan sedap didengar. Sebaik-baiknya, jika kita tahu dan sedar bahawa diri kita ini melakukan maksiat atas mengambil kesempatan sifat Pemurah Ilahi, atau kenyataan bahawa kesucian hati itu lebih berharga, maka segeralah tinggalkan perkara itu dan malulah sendiri atas keterlanjuran itu!

Sesungguhnya malu itu sebahagian daripada iman.

Sidi Ahmad Ibn Idris(q), di dalam tulisannya yang ringkas berjudul Risalah Qawaid, telah melakarkan empat kaedah bagi memastikan keredhaan Tuhan itu dapat dikecapi. Kaedah yang pertama ialah: Hendaklah seseorang itu menyoal dirinya akan sesuatu perbuatan yang bakal dilakukannya, jika ia pasti akan dapat menjawap bagi perbuatan itu di hari akhirat, maka bolehlah ia teruskannya, jika sebaliknya maka lebih mulia perbuatan itu ditinggalkan.

Nafs itu tidak dapat menipu dirinya sendiri, dan ia juga tidak akan dapat menipu Allah.
Jika Nafs itu dapat menipu dirinya sendiri, maka tidak akan tsabitlah dosa kepada sesiapapun!
Bukankah Allah seadil-adil Hakim?

Mudah-mudahan peringatan ini abadi buat yang terpaling sekali diriku!

Memanglah bukan halwa telinga untuk mendengar si berbangsa lain mengatakan tentang keburukan perbuatan sesetengah daripada bangsa kita, justeru itu, kita hendaklah mempunyai kesedaran tentang sebenar-benarnya keburukan perkara yang dilarang Syariah, sehinggakan orang yang bukan beragama Islam juga mengutuk perbuatan sedemikan. Tak malukah?

Nifaq? perhaps...

If Israel can ignore the IAEA, why should anyone else listen?

Media reports on Monday suggested that this week’s annual conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will include a serious discussion of Israel’s presumed nuclear capabilities. One can only hope that this takes place, that the long-running grievances of Arab and other countries are finally given their just due. With accusations relating to weapons of mass destruction having been a large part of the US pretext for invading Iraq and Iran now facing heavy pressure over similar claims, the double standard involving the Jewish state ­ which has steadfastly refused to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) ­ has become too obvious to ignore any longer.

None of this has deterred the Israelis, though, from speaking out against the alleged ambitions of others. In fact, Israel has been at the forefront of countries demanding that the IAEA get tough with Iran. The Israelis are not at all embarrassed that Tehran is a signatory to the NPT and they are not; nor does it bother them that no one thinks the Islamic Republic has nuclear weapons, while the Jewish state is estimated by experts to possess something in the order of 200-300 warheads, not to mention a variety of air-, land- and sea-based delivery systems.

The unbridled hypocrisy of Israeli policy and rhetoric on this issue constitutes a major test for the IAEA, and indeed for two cornerstones of modern diplomacy: arms control and collective security. If the presumed violations of some countries are to be “punished” pre-emptively while those of others go unchecked, there is little point in cooperating with the co-opted organization that enforces its own regulations according to Washington’s whim. Israeli impunity relies on America for its sustenance, and the nuclear question is a case in point: US law is very clear in banning foreign aid to countries that either do not sign or fail to obey the NPT, but somehow more than $3 billion in illegal funds gets from Washington to Israel every year with nary a word of protest on Capitol Hill.

If America is unwilling to comply with its own laws when these do not suit Israel’s purposes, why should anyone trust it to undertake an accurate accounting of international security arrangements? And if the IAEA is unwilling to assert its independence in the face of pressure from Washington, why should any of its members bother to help maintain the pretense that signed agreements mean anything at all?

taken from: http://www.antiwar.com/rep/dstar7.html
reference: The Straits Times, World.international, Israel slammed at IAEA meeting, 06 OCT 2008

EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW THIS!

Discuss it during GP! Hold conferences and discussions about it!

Authentic Jews are proclaiming that:

Zionism is a rebellion against G-d and His divine decree of exile.
G-d has bound the Jewish people with 3 oaths:

Not to go en mass to the Holy Land
Not to rebel against the nations amongst whom we are living.
Not to force the redemption.

Zionism is a breach of all three.

Zionism transforms Judaism from spirituality to nationalism.
All authentic Rabbis have opposed Zionism since its inception.
Zionism has caused the deportation, subjugation, and oppression of the Palestinian people.
Zionism has caused enormous anti-Semitism in the whole world.

from: http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Demonstrations/20080629.cfm

pictures speak more than a thousand words...

In Hebrew, Arabic and English, what more do you want?

raya with izharul haqq

same same!

hari rayer tak mintak maap ngan aku! all the time menggeramkan org jer!

happy famili!

with che yam, my niece

the cousins, and their heroes

Pagi raya bersama Ust Ibrahim

Pak haji Dogol

MUKE dia dah NOTTY!

punyerlah susah nak siap2 kan dier!

all i know is romos

Tasawwur Islam 2; Islam And Secularism

As promised,
Islam and secularism.
From lesson conducted by Akhi Abdul Halim, 14 Sept 2008

وَأُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُسْلِمَ لِرَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
And I am ordered to submit to the Lord of the Worlds – 40:66

With all the hype about secularism and its perceived benefits, a Muslim ought to be careful about what it entails, for not everything that secularism boasts about is good or compatible for the Muslim.

First and foremost, the definition of Secularism:
From Latin Saeculum;
Which means HERE and NOW, not future, not hereafter

Syed Naquib Al-Attas in his book Islam and Secularism says there is no definition for secularism in Islam, therefore just use secularism so as to really contain its essence in meaning.

Secularism is an ideology which claims that God-consciousness and religiosity have no bearing whatsoever on daily activities, ie non-consequential in daily life -> why pray? Why fast?

Secularism is an avenue for Man to be “free” from the throngs of religion, although what is understood by “free” is highly debatable. Free to do as your heart’s desire without any consideration for religion is also known as being enslaved by your lowly desires. It is therefore quintessentially a question of who do you take as master. God, Yourself or Satan? As for those who take God as their master, then God is the Best Master, Noble and utmost Generous!

[secularism is] The removal of everything that associates with religion such as symbols.

[secularism is] to view that your fate is in your hands only.
Consider this: why are so many Muslims saying such things:
I fail because it is His Preordainment; I Pass because of my efforts.

A more tolerant version of secularism would probably state something to this effect;
Religion is solely a personal matter, between you and your God only, you don’t enforce it on others.

In reality, Islam is more than a religion, it is a Way of Life (deen) and in it we are taught that Islam is about relations among Humans, Nature (alam) and God.

Islam is Deen and Daulah, Religion and State; for many of Islam’s Syariah would not be able to be implemented without a State. Secularist reduce Islam to strictly private sphere, when in reality we have in Islam things like muamalat(daily activities such as financing, transactions, banking), jinayyat(criminal law) etc.

Even so, within Islam itself there are specific orders set out by God ordering us not to coerce the religion upon those who are unwilling.


لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ
There is no compulsion in religion2:256

AND

اللَّهُ رَبُّنَا وَرَبُّكُمْ لَنَا أَعْمَالُنَا وَلَكُمْ أَعْمَالُكُمْ لَا حُجَّةَ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمُ اللَّهُ يَجْمَعُ بَيْنَنَا وَإِلَيْهِ الْمَصِيرُ
God is our Sustainer as well as your Sustainer. To us shall be accounted our deeds, and to you, your deeds. Let there be no contention between us and you: God will bring us all together - for with Him is all journeys’ end.” 42:15

That a non-muslim should be afraid of Syariah is unfounded.

Chinese next door do not want Islamic Law implemented because they want the liberty to be able to eat in public during the day in Ramadhan.
Reality (why reality? Because Tasawwur Islam is to see things as they REALLY are) is that no muslim is allowed to punish a non-muslim for that action because the Syariah in this case is NON-ABIDING to non-muslims.

Another example: a muslim visits his neighbor, a non-muslim and finds an expensive investment of vintage wines in his cellar. The muslim takes a hammer and smashes all the wine bottles. The Non-Muslim complaints to the Muslim Ruler and the Just Muslim Ruler rules in favour of the non-muslim; ie the muslim who smashed the wine bottles was ordered to pay just compensation.

If the scenario was reversed, ie a non-muslim visits a muslim and was jealous of the muslim’s impressive collection of vintage wines and smashes all of the muslim’s wine bottles, the judgment would be different. The Muslim ruler will not ask the non-muslim to pay compensation, rather he will admonish the muslim who keeps wine in his house which is haram in the first place.

Certain things about Islamic law surely are still not well understood by the public and too much negative images have been potrayed about it, both by muslims(out of ego and/or ignorance) and non-muslims.

The Jews who faced persecution by the Catholics during the Spanish Inquisition found solace in Muslim Ottoman Lands which ruled by the Syariah.

No doubt, today there are extremists who hijack the name of Islam, as there were extremists who hijacked the image of chritianity in the past, to the extent that Pope John Paul II made formal apologies for the Church’s misdeeds over the millennia.


Islam’s View of Nature (Tasawwur) and Secularism’s Desacrelisation of Nature

Secularism’s disenchantment and desacrelisation of Nature.

إِنِّي جَاعِلٌ فِي الأَرْضِ خَلِيفَةً

2:30 - Behold, I am about to establish upon earth one who shall inherit it."

This is the Islamic concept of Man; that He is the Viceroy of God in this world, entrusted with the management of the world. The world is the trust God gave us and it follows that our view of nature is one that is God centered.

Which is why Muslims view nature as sacred, but not as how Hindus view Nature as Sacred. Hindus view the sacredness of nature as being Divine, but Muslims see Nature as Ayatullah, or Signs of God and also His Trust, for we are entrusted to manage the world.

However, what secularists propagate is that the world is of its own and has no Creator, it is, it was and it will be.

This difference in attitude is axiomatic when one compares the attitude of a secularist to that of a sincere Muslim.

Take for example, Photosynthesis.
When the Muslim marvels at photosynthesis and praise His Lord for such ingenuity, the secularists merely dismiss photosynthesis as a natural occurrence, expected of plants since they possess chlorophyll.
Perhaps what they do not realize is that this “primitive” process is one that we cannot imitate even with today’s advancement of technology.

Even classical scientists of old such as Isaac Newton, Johannes Copernicus, Gallileo, Pascal, Louis Pasteur, all marvel and Praise God, and they cite this sense of wonderment at God's Might as their main drive that fuels their enthusiasm to study science.

Secularism and Defatalisation of History:

Secularists say, there is no such thing as Qiamat, why are you so fatalistic and morbid! But astronomers say the sun will die…

Deconsecration of Values and Moral Relativism

A secularist who studies obscure tribes may come to know of their own unique culture, not necessarily correct morally, and yet claim that their value system is good for them and our value system is good for us.

For example, a secularist studies a tribe which practices a system whereby unmarried women have sex as much as possible and have children as many as possible, as a showcase of her fertility before getting properly married. Secularists say such a moral system is good for them and works for them, not the urban people of his country. Whereas Islam would stand for what is ordered by God and demand a change in their abhorrent way of life.

Fragmentation of Knowledge

It follows that secularists also like to fragment knowledge and they do not necessarily establish rightful links between those fields of knowledge.

The most classic is the separation of religion from science.

Islam views all knowledge as coming from God, the All-Knower, and all knowledge are linked in one way or another, regardless they be religious knowledge or scientific knowledge, which is why Muslims are encouraged to seek knowledge, whatever it is and which also explains the Golden Age of Islam when the Muslims were the beacons of knowledge for the whole world.

The result of all this can be quite saddening, the muslim today no longer have their own identity or are grounded on it, they do not have a worldview that is Islamic, they are easily misled by others.
For example, why wear the scarf? Look at the progressive westerners! They don’t wear scarves!

The most fundamental behind this Islamic worldview is a firm creed, a firm witnessing to the ultimate truth that There is no God save Allah, and Muhammad is His Messenger.

It is such a simple statement which, on the surface, is not difficult to understand at all, yet is the most profound and powerful.

And how timely it is, in the end times, so near to us, in the 19th century, a saint appears who was taught a secret by the Prophet saw, more valuable than all diamonds, gems and bezels, reserved for him by the Prophet saw himself, for the benefit of all humanity.

لاَ إِلٰهَ إِلاَّ اللهُ مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُوْلُ اللهِ فِيْ كُلِّ لَـْمحَةٍ وَنَفَسٍ عَدَدَ ماَ وَسِعَهُ عِلْمُ اللهِ.

There is no God save Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of God, in every blink of the eye and in every breath, to the number that only God's knowledge can comprehend

For this, every ahmadi owes an infinite amount of gratitude to Sidi Ahmad Ibn Idris, may God sanctify his secrets. May God strengthen me and all ikhwans upon the Manhaj of Sidi Ahmad Ibn Idris! Amin!

Abraham's (pbuh) Worry

Prophet Abraham (a.s) was so worried and apprehensive about his own condition in the future, not knowing whether he would still be enjoying the Good Pleasure of God Most Great for verily, no one can ascertain entry to Paradise.

So God Most High asked Abraham, " What is it that you are worried?"
Abraham replied, " I worry about my own condition in the Hereafter, for Adam only sinned once and he was expelled from Paradise! I fear losing Your Good Pleasure O God,"

And God replied, " Oh Abraham, do you know how painful disobedience to the Beloved really is?"