Friday, December 12, 2014

Al-Qaradawi and the Egyptian military

It is now official. The International Criminal Police Organisation (Interpol) has placed Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradawi on its "wanted" list. The decision to issue a "red alert" for the arrest of the chair of the International Union of Muslim Scholars was made at the behest of the Egyptian government. Dr Al-Qaradawi has been a vocal critic of the military regime which, in July 2013, ousted Egypt's first freely elected president, Mohamed Morsi, in a coup. The noted cleric has "never killed anyone or incited anyone to kill", so the Interpol decision seems a classic case of misdirected blame and ill-judged priorities.

The red alert for Al-Qaradawi was issued just days after an Egyptian court cleared the former military dictator Hosni Mubarak of conspiring to kill 846 protesters during the 2011 uprising against his rule. The judgment overturned the life sentence Mubarak received in June 2012. There never was, and never will be, any talk of an international arrest warrant issued for Mubarak. Those who opine that he is too old to be pursued by the law should remember that Al-Qaradawi, at 88, is two years his senior.
The veteran Islamic scholar summed up the duplicity of his detractors thus: "There are those who killed thousands of innocent people at the Republican Guard headquarters [in Cairo] and at Rabaa Al-Adawiyya and Nahda Squares without any consideration for justice or law."
In reality, the Interpol decision raises fundamental questions about its modus operandi. For a start, should international arrest warrants be issued strictly on the basis of verifiable evidence or simply at the whim of an accidental politician? Surely, if the former is adopted, then the Egyptian military leadership itself would have a lot to answer for.
On another level, there is also the question about whether international warrants should be used as a means to silence the critics and opposition of signatory governments? Suffice to say that institutions responsible for upholding the rule of law and international security can ill-afford to become instruments in the hands of dishonest politicians guilty of breaking the law.
At a time when the Middle East is plagued by destructive wars, the collapse of states and proliferation of weapons across borders, international agencies have everything to gain from preserving their own integrity. The example of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is particularly instructive. It is regarded by many as a blunt instrument used by western governments to target "unfriendly" leaders, mainly in Africa; as such, it has lost much of its credibility and respect as a force for justice.
Shortly before Interpol publicised its latest red alert, the nefarious conduct of the Egyptian military was exposed with the leak of audio recordings featuring several senior army officers discussing how to resolve the problem of where to detain Mohamed Morsi. Egyptian Law prohibits the detention of a civilian inside a military barracks for any period of time, but that is where the ousted president has been held.
The scandalous revelations bear striking resemblances to the Watergate affair for which the late US President Richard Nixon was forced to resign in the face of impeachment. In the absence of genuine democratic processes in Egypt, there is virtually no chance that any of the generals involved will ever face a court of law.
After Egypt sentenced 183 members of the Muslim Brotherhood to death in June this year, Britain's former Foreign Secretary William Hague noted that, "These sentences damage the reputation of Egypt's judicial system..." Six months on, his observation has proven to be the understatement of the year.
Under the current circumstances, international organisations and institutions, including Interpol, owe a huge debt to the Egyptian people to avoid being complicit in providing cover for corrupt and criminal elements. If ever there are any doubts about what took place in Egypt during the summer of 2013 and thereafter, Interpol officials are obliged to examine the leaked audio recordings.
At the end of the day it is the Egyptian people, not Interpol, or any other international body, who will pass the final verdict on this dark period of their history. They will in the fullness of time learn the lessons from their current tragic condition and devise suitable ways to rebuild their judiciary and military institutions into independent but patriotic institutions that will not be a source of embarrassment and disgrace.
When public institutions lose their moral compass the consequences can often be catastrophic for society. In Egypt the signs are that the ramifications will be felt beyond its borders. The siege of Gaza and demolition of homes in Rafah are some of the earliest signs of things to come. Indeed President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi spelt it out clearer when he told the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera that he is ready "to send military forces to a Palestinian state" in order to assist local police and "reassure the Israelis, serving as guarantors."
Meanwhile Al-Qaradawi remains undeterred and steadfast believing in the total liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. For this, and little else it appears, he is now wanted by Interpol

http://MuslimWindow.blogspot.com/

Saturday, December 6, 2014

Widows are protected in Islam from their in-laws, but are forced and not protected in the Bible

Widows are protected in Islam from their in-laws, but are forced and not protected in the Bible's NT and OT:
In this article, we will see how Islam protects the widows from the mistreatment of her in-laws, while the Bible forces her to be under their control and mercy.

In Islam:
Narrated Ibn Abbas:  "Regarding the Divine Verse: "O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will, and you should not treat them with harshness that you may take back part of the (Mahr) dower you have given them." (4:19) (Before this revelation) if a man died, his relatives used to have the right to inherit his wife, and one of them could marry her if he would, or they would give her in marriage if they wished, or, if they wished, they would not give her in marriage at all, and they would be more entitled to dispose her, than her own relatives. So the above Verse was revealed in this connection.  (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh)), Volume 6, Book 60, Number 103)"
So as we clearly see, Islam in Noble Verse 4:19, clearly prevents the in-laws from trying to control and abuse the widows.  Before Islam, widows were basically enslaved to their in-laws.  They had no control over any of their inheritance, and they were in many times married off to their former husband's brothers or relatives.  Islam came and ended all of that, and lifted the status of women and gave them liberty and rights.

In the Bible's NT and OT:
The Bible has absolutely no regard for women what so ever!  I have challenged before Jews and Christians to give me one Biblical verse that praises women in the article: Polygamy is allowed in both the Old and New Testaments in the Bible.  Let us look at what the Bible says about widows:
"If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her.  (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 25:5)"
It would be nice for the widow to marry her husband's brother, especially if they had a good relationship.  But what if they couldn't stand each others?  Why does she have to be forced to marry him and be under her husband's family's control and mercy?
Let's not forget about how bad mother in-laws can be, especially toward the wives.  The Bible clearly forces the widowed wives, who lived with or near their husbands' families, to continue living under the control and mercy of their in-laws even after their husbands' deaths.  It is clear that there is no liberty and freedom of choice granted to women.
The reason why I said "who lived with or near their husbands' families" is because Matthew 22:24-28 in the New Testament doesn't specify that the brothers must be living in one single home together.  Being near each others in one town is good enough to force the widow to marry her brother in law.
And by the way, Jesus in Matthew 22:24-32 didn't really answer the question.  Let us look at the verses to and analyze what Jesus said:
Matthew 22
24. "Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.
25. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother.
26. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.
27. Finally, the woman died.
28. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"
29. Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
30. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 
31. But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you,
32. `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

Humans will not be like Angels in Heaven.  According to the Bible itself, Adam was created from dust in Heaven, and GOD Almighty created woman, Eve, for Adam to be his physical mate.  So in Heaven, we will not be spirits and angels.   We will have earthly-similar bodies, and we will have the feelings and pleasures that we currently have here on earth.  This means that we will have sex in Paradise as we do here on earth, and also enjoy seeing, breathing, hearing and sensing good things.   GOD Almighty intended for Adam and Eve to have a relationship which included a sexual one in Heaven, long before they were kicked out of it.
The Jews' question was wrong because in Heaven there is no forced marriage.  People are free to do what ever they wish and please.  But Jesus' answer also wasn't accurate and precise either!  Taking his answer in the literal sense will clearly reveal inconsistent and wrong information when comparing it to the Old Testament.  Jesus failed to elaborate on our physical life and bodies in Heaven.   He never talked about it in the New Testament.  He should've addressed it in Matthew 22:24-32.  This is another reason why Jesus can not be the Creator of the Universe, because he wasn't even perfect with his words.  GOD Almighty is Perfect.  Jesus was not perfect, and it was GOD Almighty's Holy Wisdom and Intention to not make Jesus perfect.  As Allah Almighty said in the Noble Quran:
"The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.  (The Noble Quran, 3:59)"
"O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs.  (The Noble Quran, 4:171)"
"Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected Faith, by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses.  (The Noble Quran, 5:78)"
"And behold! God will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of God'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.  (The Noble Quran, 5:116)"

http://MuslimWindow.blogspot.com/