The New Jabriyyah

Those whom I have taken to calling "neo-Jabriyyah" or "crypto-Jabriyyah":

Those who perpetrate questionable acts on the justification that Allah's Divine Decree (al-Qadr), or plan for creation, cannot be violated anyway. Implying but not stating outright (hence the prefix crypto-) that it thus absolves them of responsibility for their actions since the consequences are determined by Allah.

For example, chasing away potential converts on the pretext that if Allah chooses to guide them, then none can lead them astray.

This can be consistently or inconsistently applied. For another example which appears to contradict itself on the surface, aiming to achieve short term ends by using "the ends justify the means" logic while disregarding long term ends or vice-versa (focusing on long term ends at the expense of short term consequences). Either way, the set of ignored consequences, regardless of how arbitrarily they are chosen, are always ignored on the pretext of fatalism.

Neo-Jabriyyah would be those who openly harbor such beliefs but could also refer to those who hide them (crypto-Jabriyyah). One can observe a degree of this strain of thought running as an undercurrent in much extremist philosophy.

The original Jabriyyah were the school of Jahm ibn Safwan. They were influenced by pantheistic/atheistic/humanistic schools of Hindu philosophy (Sumaniya and Ajivikas). His followers eventually became deniers of the divine attributes and outright pantheists known as the Jahmiyyah. Jahm learned from his teacher, Ja'd ibn Durham, who invented the doctrine of the createdness of the Qur'an, which the Mu'tazilah later adopted. Some of them also adopted Neoplatonism in their pantheist theology.

The Abortion Debate in The West

Category: WEAK

In Islam we have it as a matter of doctrine that the soul does not enter the fetus until 120 days, so abortions before this, though not indulged in for petty reasons, are not considered to be "murder" as they would to a modern day conservative Christian.

There's also the other point, that we don't automatically rule on the value of the fetus' life over the mother's, even if we're talking about a possible late-term abortion. It's justifiable to save the mother's life if it is threatened. A jurist could make such a ruling.

What I wanted to point out was in regards to the first point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_abortion#Christianity

Specifically,

Some scholars have concluded that early Christians took a nuanced stance on what is now called abortion, and that at different and in separate places early Christians have taken different stances.[8][9][10] Other scholars have concluded that early Christians considered abortion a sin at all stages; though there is disagreement over their thoughts on what type of sin it was[11][12][13][14] and how grave a sin it was held to be, it was seen as at least as grave as sexual immorality.[11][13] Some early Christians believed that the embryo did not have a soul from conception,[15][16][8][17] and consequently opinion was divided as to whether early abortion was murder or ethically equivalent to murder.[18][14]

Augustine affirmed Aristotle's concepts of ensoulment occurring some time after conception, after which point abortion was to be considered homicide,[19] while still maintaining the condemnation of abortion at any time from conception onward.[20] Aquinas reiterated Aristotle's views of successive souls: vegetative, animal, and rational. This would be the Catholic Church's position until 1869, when the limitation of automatic excommunication to abortion of a formed fetus was removed, a change that has been interpreted as an implicit declaration that conception was the moment of ensoulment.[15] Consequently, in the Middle Ages, a less severe penance was imposed for the sin of abortion "before [the foetus] has life".[21]

Christianity did not have a doctrinal position on the exact time of "ensoulment", so earlier Christian scholars inherited philosophy on the matter from Aristotle and others. This was a point on which the debate pivoted for quite some time until the 19th century when the Catholic Church decided to default it to conception.

The theological issues aside (What was the justification? Were the earlier Popes wrong?), there is a metaphysical point to be made. The idea that life begins at conception is a very materialistic one (in the sense of metaphysical materialism). As Western culture moved to such materialism (and also away from Judeo-Christian tradition), the Catholic Church seems to have moved right along with everyone else. Christians, who should believe in a soul, now don't even bring it up at all in the debate. All they are concerned with is the physical, the material: the zygote. Their blind adherence to this doctrine (which, from all indications, seems arbitrarily concocted by the Catholic Church in the 19th century) is a manifestation of this extreme materialism. Perhaps we can give the Catholics a pass, because they must follow the Church without question. But the Protestants have no excuse, their reasoning is purely materialistic (unsurprising in the context of their other positions on social issues which represent Ayn Rand more than Jesus Christ).

Just one of the consequences of the old clashing with the modern shift in philosophical outlook. Though metaphysical materialism is certainly an extreme by religious standards, it has had its upside (the increased focus on the worldly life makes people work to make it better... but when done in this way it comes at the expense of concern for the next life).

Regarding the materialistic answer to the question of when exactly can we consider a fetus to be alive

It's also not so simple to call a zygote not "alive", because people will take issue with that definition of "alive". If left alone in a womb, it will continue growing. Cells can be alive, they can die. We certainly know what a dead cell looks and behaves like, so it stands to reason the opposite is life.

I think the materialistic debate really comes down to a question beyond materialism: utilitarian ethics. Yes, an embryo/fetus, when left alone, can grow into a person, can be born, can grow up, can contribute much to society and their own fulfillment. But those are a lot of "cans". The mother is in the here and now, she's already a living, breathing adult with all the attributes of sentience, plus a safe and early abortion (that can be facilitated with the law on her side) allows her to have another child (or more) soon again whereas the risks with the fetus are a lot more. The life of the mother is clearly more valuable to society under the typical circumstances.

In a way, I find the debate kind of ironic because it's kind of a flip of the evolutionary origin of man debate. Darwinian evolution proponents ("scientism", not necessarily atheists, scientists, or anyone who already believes in the evolutionary origin but those who put such an emphasis on it so as to behave downright theologically in their treatment of evolution... cue: evolutionary psychology and other similar pseudoscience) will adhere to a materialism similar to the sort that the Christian conservatives strongly hold to on the issue of life beginning at conception. On the other hand, the arguments expressing skepticism (not necessarily opposition) of the meaningfulness or relevance of evolution to the issue of man's origins tend to take a similar route through ontology as in the objections to the "life begins at conception" position (regarding what it means to be a person and how to distinguish that while limiting arbitrariness).

Ali Shariati's "Expectations from the Muslim Woman"

Category: WEAK

Here's a rare political/philosophical addition. Dr. Ali Shariati is an interesting figure. An Iranian sociologist inclined to Socialism yet also prominent in the field of contemporary Islamic political theory. He drew inspiration from the last major political thinker of the Sunni world, Allama Iqbal and the famous Sufi poet, Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi (the former also being heavily inspired by the latter).

Here is the Wikipedia article on him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Shariati

There are two things to take into account.

1) He was inclined to Socialist views. Wikipedia: "Shariati's worldview was shaped by the Marxism and Third Worldism he encountered as a student in Paris - ideas that class war and revolution would bring about a just and classless society. He sought to translate these ideas into cultural symbols of Shiism that Iranians could relate to."

2) He was Shi'ite. However, his forays into historical politics are usually kept seperate from his modern political views even within a work, he just uses Ahl-ul-Bayt as role models. As such, one can take his preoccupation with the Prophet (saw)'s family and easily include most of the Sahaba with mentions of Hazrat Ali (ra), Fatima (ra), and their family to further reinforce his original ideas even better.

These two points while also being weaknesses, wind up serving as strengths. The political orientation that Socialism gave him let loose his amazing mind on Western capitalism/civilization in awe-inspiringly, potently meaningful words that still hold a transcending sort of spiritual grace. To call these reflections of his sociological imagination simply "enlightening" would be an understatement. Keeping that in mind, I have pasted relevant excerpts from his lecture, Expectations from the Muslim Woman here, carefully excising any Shi'ite-Sunni political conflicts (which weighed down most of the latter half of the work). I have grayed the paragraphs which I felt were leaning too much towards either socialism or Shi'ite beliefs. I made the font slightly larger to distinguish where the good stuff starts.

---

Prior to beginning my lecture, I would like to propose some practical suggestions. Just speaking about women's rights, women's personality and Islam's view of women is very different from realising the actual value which Islam gives to human beings, and to women in particular. Most often, we are satisfied by pointing out that Islam gives great value to science or establishes progressive rights for women. Unfortunately we never actually use or benefit from this value or these rights. We could benefit from these if we were to act according to the understanding which we could acquire of them.

A great many people are acquainted with Islamic views of society, social relations, women's rights, children's rights and family rights, but these same people then actually follow non-Islamic, ancient cultural traditions and do not dare to base their lives upon Islamic values. That is, they do not practice what they preach. Thus we always remain at the stage of talking. We must complete Islamic views and intellectual discussions with practical solutions. We must find a way whereby we reach these values and rights in practice. After proposing my views, the question should be asked as to how we can actually put them into practice. Throughout history, the problem of women's rights and their role has always been considered to be an intellectual problem. Thus, various religious, philosophical and social systems have reached varying views in this respect.

Unfortunately the crisis of the problem of women's liberation which began in the West and has been strengthened by the ruling superpowers in the 20th century has influenced all human societies, even closed traditional and religious societies. There are only a few cultural, traditional and even religious societies which have been able to properly stand against this flood. Such societies have frequently been confronted by a particular kind of modernism, which they have adopted under the guise of the liberation of women, either by rejecting old traditions or by undertaking reckless struggles. None of them have succeeded in standing against this attack. In such societies the newly-educated class, the pseudo-intellectuals, who are in the majority, strongly and vigorously welcome this crisis. They themselves even act as one of the forces that strengthen this corrupting and destructive transformation.

In traditional religious societies, including Islamic communities, neither group could stand against the attack of the modern view of the liberation of women as announced by the West. The pseudo-intellectual and modern class of Islamic and non-Islamic societies in the East considered a modern style of dress to be the symbol of modern civilization, progress and awareness. The old, traditional group passed through and confronted this crisis with non-scientific and illogical tactics due to their lack of experience. It is a general law that when there is a fire resulting from a spill of oil, if someone tries to hurriedly and unskilfully put the fire out, it only spreads more rapidly and more vigorously! Thus such unskilled struggles against the West have frequently been carried on in a manner that has created complex and differing reactions inside such societies. In this way they have paved the way for acceptance of Western ideas and innovations. There are very few societies who have been able to stand against, to adequately resist, and to show an effective reaction to the modern West by consciously selecting their own manner and type of lifestyle.

...

Then suddenly the phenomenon of sexual liberation appeared. Women realized that under the banner of sexual liberation, all of the inhuman limits, restrictions, and bonds which restrained them could be destroyed. Women welcomed this change wholeheartedly to the extent that sexual liberation entered the arena of science! What is normally designated as the scientific understanding of religion is not a pure scientific and scholastic understanding. It is rather a bourgeois cognition. After the Middle Ages, Science, which had been in the service of religion and the Church, was made to serve the contempory ruling bourgeois system. If nowadays Science appears to oppose religion and moral values, it is not really Science that opposes these, but it is the ruling bourgeoisie which does so, just as in the Middle Ages, it was feudalism which defended aristocratic social-moral traditions in the name of religion. It was Christianity which was, in fact, defending feudalism, and now it is Science which, in fact, defends the bourgeoisie. It is intellectuals - those who believe that economic and materialistic social foundations are the basis of all social transformations - who will more easily accept my argument and logic. Up to the appearance of Freud (who was one of the agents of the bourgeoisie), it was through the liberal bourgeois spirit that scientific sexualism was manifested. It must be taken into consideration that the bourgeoisie is always an inferior class. Although feudalism was an inhuman system, it nevertheless relied on an aristocratic elite and their moral values, even though these moral values led to a decline. The bourgeois mentality denies all of the elevated, exalted human values, and believes in nothing except money.

Therefore, a scholar or scientist who lives, thinks and studies during the bourgeois age, measures collective cultural and spiritual values (the sacrifices of mankind, the martyrdoms, struggles, literature, art etc.), with only the scale of naked economy, with production and consumption and with nothing else. One who studies psychology or anthropology, looking at all the dimensions and manifestations of the mystic spirit of human beings, that which religion believes to be the spirit of God and the manifestation of metaphysical virtues, sees only unsatisfied sexual appetites. Belief, culture, mental illnesses all are related to the struggle to release an imprisoned and condemned sexual complex. The bourgeois social scientist looks at all of the delicate human sensations and feelings (even a mother caressing her child, or the worship of the beloved by the lover, and all other issues) in relation to sex. Freud, a modern bourgeois, armed himself against all moral and human values, against all elevated and exalted manifestations of the human soul, and called it "realism". Freud's realism was not that of the bourgeoisie, but rather that of the scientist, scholar, philosopher, psychologist, and anthropologist who serve the bourgeois class, for all of these bring the human being down to the level of a sexual and economic animal! Thus, the bourgeoisie, by alienating all values and virtues, made only one religion, one school, one temple and one messenger for all the miserable men of this age; a religion for which all must be sacrificed. This messenger was named Freud. His religion was sex. His temple was Freudianism, and the first to be sacrificed on the threshold of this temple was woman and her human values.

We who live in the East always speak about Western colonization, but I would like to explain that this does not mean that Western colonization only colonizes or exploits the East. It is a world-wide power representing a class of people that exploit and colonize both the East and the West. If I had the opportunity, I would explain that this power has alienated the European masses even more than the Eastern masses. The European has been overtaken by colonialism's legacy of unemployment and misery and will continue to be in the future. They will continue to be victims of anti-colonialism. This ruling colonial power influences Eastern people in many ways, such as placing emphasis upon unimportant, sensational and emotional matters; spreading rumors, discrimination, and hypocrisy; and sowing discord and pessimism, to keep Easterners occupied with mundane and unimportant issues. By these means Easterners are kept in a state whereby they are unaware of what Western colonization is doing to them, unaware of their fate and destiny. These conspiracies then cause young Europeans, likewise, to become alienated and destructive, and commit more deception and crime. All of these actions are taken in the name of the colonization of Eastern countries without the Easterners realizing it...

For example, we all know about the widespread international police network and the extensive intelligence services which observe even the minutest movement anywhere in the world. And yet there are tons and tons of narcotics which are freely transferred from the East to the West. They are distributed and sold by huge international organizations and transferred through their factories, planes, ports, ships and offices. Why is it that the international police cannot prevent the distribution of narcotics among the younger generation in Europe and the U.S.A.? Why? Because the ruling powers prevent the young generation from understanding what is going on in Europe and the U.S.A. The ruling powers prevent them from caring about who rules the destiny and fate of humanity. These are the same ruling powers which colonize both West and East; only their methods and relationships differ. At any rate, in both East and West, human beings are victims of this inhuman world-wide power.

One of the most important tools that has been created by this ruling power from the intellectual, social, economic and moral point of view, is Freudian sexualism. This has become the communal social spirit of our age and has become the substitute for all values, virtues and liberties. It is not accidental that Freud's view of sexuality came to prominence after the Second World War and became the fundamental basis and foundation of art. Most motion pictures are based on only two elements; violence and sexuality. Both of these are legacies of the war. Motion pictures are one of the most important examples of the relationship of art to Western capitalism because film production is the only art which cannot exist and develop without the aid of capital. Thus it differs from the arts of painting, literature, poetry and music. A poor painter, writer, poet or musician can create the greatest work of art, but a film producer must have capital of millions of dollars to create a saleable film. Thus, this art is unconsciously supporting capitalism. The pseudo-intellectuals and pseudo-scholars of the third and fourth worlds suppose that Freudism is really the science of the present age. Modern scholars research and record Freud's works in a special way. It is interesting to note that in underdeveloped countries, under the guise of intellectuality and modern scientific psychology, scholars and scientists serve these universal powers free of charge. In the name of Science, they freely propagate inhuman ideas among the intellectuals and the younger generation. How miserable are these thinkers and intellectuals who serve the capitalistic ruling powers! They really believe that they are serving humanity, freedom, liberty and science!

Thus, in order for the superpowers of bourgeois scientism to dominate, both the East and the West must be sacrificed. They must become the victims of narcotics as well as Freudianism. From Scientism's point of view, every young person who is still human and who still shows sympathy and sensibility towards the destiny of his or her nation and other nations, must be caused to change his or her mind, must be made indifferent to his or her destiny and the destiny of others. In order to accomplish this, any means is permissible and advisable, whether it takes the form of science, art, sports, literature, history, tradition, or religion. It does not make any difference. One must be amused by any form. One must be removed from the scene so that one takes notice of nothing. The best way is scientific and mental stupifaction and the strongest factor, particularly among the younger generation, is sex! Why sex? Because it can be logically explained. It is new. It can easily and freely be accepted. It is the most important factor that can attract the young generation, who, in turn, are the most important victims of Freudianism. Thus all of their intellectual, human, artistic, social, political and financial investments must strengthen this School of thought. It is not strange to see how rapidly it progresses and develops.

It must be noted that there is another group who co-operates, albeit unconsciously, in a most effective way with this world-wide power, to achieve the aim of attracting the younger generation, particularly women, to Freudianism and to sex. This group unskilfully fights Freud's innovations by relying on old, strict, illogical and inhuman traditions to create restrictions and produce psychological complexes in the young generation, particularly women. You may want to know how they co-operate in this inauspicious endeavor.

They co-operate by pushing the young generation towards pessimism. While Freudianism invites woman out of the house, this old group tries to hold her inside by creating bonds, obligations, and restrictions, and by depriving her of all her human and religious rights, thus unconsciously preparing the way for Freudianism. It is in this way that they co-operate with Freud. Statistics show that the insidious invitation of Freudianism has been most successful in traditional societies and countries where women have been most deprived. Thus we cannot fight and confront this universal illness and danger only by relying on ancient traditions, customs, restrictions, bonds, etc. which deny rights to women. There is only one solution; to give human and Islamic rights back to women. Yes! This is the only way! If the human and Islamic rights of woman are given back to her, you have armed her with the weapon whereby she can personally resist and confront Freudianism. But if you deprive her of her rights, you insure that this satanic invitation will ensnare her. You have pushed her towards it.

The essential and important problem, which we have confused, is the distinction between culture and religion. Culture and religion have mixed with each other throughout history. They make up the collection of ideas, tastes, behavior, feelings, customs and legal relationships which are sacred and honored in a society. For example, in Islamic societies, Islamic rights, values, precepts and laws relating to the economy, the family, the community and even the social system have been mixed with local and tribal traditions formed over the centuries. These are certainly not related to Islam. They are only ancient tribal and local traditions and customs supported and protected by society. Thus an intellectual wishing to be released from such ancient, local, tribal traditions, must fight a combination of religion and custom in order to be free of both. Thus, both groups who defend religion and those who do not, must defend the mixture of ancient customs. Those who fight against traditions also confront the living and uplifting values of Islam. None of these groups, neither the progressive modern intellectuals nor the old traditional religious group, can distinguish between religion and culture. Why should they be separate and distinct from each other? Because we Muslims believe Islamic rights and laws are derived from the essence of humanity and the essence of nature, and are made by the Will of the Creator of the laws of nature. The laws of nature are stable and never grow old. Thus laws which are based on the general dignity of creation never grow old. On the contrary, social traditions based on production and consumption (in cultural systems where they are not fixed laws) have to change.

Religion, a living, permanent phenomenon which could be effective in the present age, can no longer play an effective role in the social life of a community, a society or a generation, because Religion has been captured by ancient, declining, ossified, deviated traditions, and thus can no longer effectively confront the danger of the superpowers. An aware intellectual is a historian, traditionalist, Islamologist, chronologist and sociologist whose most important cultural mission and responsibility is to distinguish Islam as a living faith, removed from the old traditional moulds which are not Islam but rather tribal customs, and to put the true Islamic ideas and faith into new moulds which match the necessities of the present age. The everlasting, living, moving, progressive Islamic contents must be protected, and put into new moulds which meet the challenges of each age. Based on my own experience, I have to say that even the most progressive, intellectual, rebellious and revolutionary thinker, when confronted by pure Islamic values and virtues, (once these values have been separated from inherited, tribal, ancient, ignorant customs), will be attracted to them and submit easily to them.

The visage of Fatima; the visage of the woman who existed, who spoke, who lived, who played a role in the mosque, in society, in the home training her children, in her family's social struggles and in Islam; a woman whose role should be made clear in all its dimensions to the present generation (not only to Muslims, but to any human being, man or woman, who has human feelings, who believes in human values, and who is faithful to real freedom) should be accepted as the best and most effective role to be imitated by the present generation. I myself have experienced this. I have seen so-called religious histories which lack religious feelings, which have no idea about religion, which even deny and oppose religion. When a proper picture of the Prophet's family, all of whom showed humility and submission, emerges, we feel that they are really living personalities. When I say that Islam is living, I mean it is a collection of living thoughts and ideas. It is alive because of its living social laws and rights. It is alive because exemplary, living personalities have been trained by it.

When the beautiful image of Hossein is presented, no human society, no matter what form of production it may have, no matter what social system it may use, no matter at what cultural stage it may be, can deny his unique and exceptional personality. No one can deny he is an eternal human symbol who should be followed, admired and praised. All accept him.

...

Such people are living. They are symbols of Islam. To be alive means to be effective, to show the right way, to guide humanity in whatever stage it may be, in whatever land it may live, and to whatever race it may belong.

But, unfortunately, customs and religion have been mixed together. This mixture of customs (which are changeable, and vary from one social, tribal, and local system to another, and which are related to and produced by economic and social relationships), and Islamic values (which are unchangeable, eternal and related to inspiration, revelation and the prophetic mission) is defended in the name of religion. The intellectual, seeing the deprivations and abuse of women on one hand and the semblance of social freedom, class advantages and sexual liberty on the other hand, becomes confused. When the religious group in a community (who are acquainted with religion and believe it), are unable to distinguish between the religion and the local, tribal, cultural customs, how can we expect young, modern intellectuals (who are willing to fight against ancient customs) to make a distinction between religion and customs? If the distinguished scholars of Islam, who are acquainted with Islamic truths, do not perform this task, then what organization, what power, will do so?

The Prophet of Islam, who was such an elevated personality and one before whom history is humbled, when he entered his home was kind, lenient and gentle. When his wives quarrelled with him, he left his home and made a place for himself in the storage area without showing any harsh reaction against them. This behaviour of the Prophet of Islam must be considered as an Islamic example, in contrast to the behaviour of a supposedly religious, but in reality an abusive, man. Such un-Islamic, abusive behaviour was based on an ethnic, cultural tradition. Therefore, distinctions should be drawn between ethnic, cultural customs and Islamic religious instructions. The Prophet's behaviour was so humane that it amazes us....

In the Prophet's Mosque in Medina, there was a porch used for social affairs. Each corner of it was devoted to a different social purpose. In one corner was the tent of Ruqiya who, at the Prophet's command, had established a tent inside the Prophet's mosque, Islam's place of prayer, to hospitalize, care for, and nurse the war-wounded. Sad ibn Maaz (the Islamic chief officer who was wounded in the Battle of Khandaq by a spear) was hospitalized there. This tradition of looking after the sick and nursing them, continued for many centuries afterwards in Islam. I personally read about this in Ibn Yamin's book in which he praised Aladdin, the governor of Sabzevar, and mentioned that Aladdin built a hospital in a very large paradise-like garden in a village near Sabzevar. Describing the hospital, Ibn Yamin says that there were beautiful girls, like angels, who looked after the patients and nursed them.

When there was such a hospital, with such staff, in a remote village near Sabzevar in the 7th and 8th Islamic centuries, there must certainly have been more important and well-equipped hospitals in larger cities like Rey, Tus, Balkh, Bukhara and Baghdad. But we see that our ethnically-oriented intellectuals announce that a European or American woman serving in the First World War established Nursing in the world. They deny and denigrate the nurses who worked in the early phase of Islam, because it is a religious tradition. Therefore, you can see how facts may be confused, how rights are abolished, how great talents are sacrificed in the name of religious traditions, and how many great religious values and Islamic virtues are forgotten in the name of intellectualism and opposition to traditional religious beliefs!

Thus the responsibility of those who understand both present society and Islam (and who live in the present century) is very heavy. They must bear the burden of many centuries of emotions, ideas and faith. It is not an easy task to travel such a long distance and discover the truth which exists beyond it.

As I mentioned, one of the most important factors that enables Islamic communities to stand against and resist the insidious invitation of pseudo-scientific Freudianism and its dreadful use of sexuality is the presence of exemplary religious models in a humane culture. In the same way that Western world-wide colonialization stupefies the minds of its own youth through narcotics, Western colonialism designs and promotes Freudianism and sexual liberty for Eastern countries. Western colonialism exports sexual liberty to the Eastern countries in exchange for their raw materials. In return for the oil, diamonds, gold, rubber, etc. which the West takes from the East, it gives them sexual liberty. When a young man or woman is introduced to sexual liberty, he or she will become pre-occupied with it and will not think about other things, such as the problems of freedom. And when such young people have matured, they will be so involved with installment payments, sexual obsessions, etc. that they will never come to look at or think about other problems! The most important weapon of Islamic youth against this insidious invitation from the West is the possession of symbols leading the mind to genuine spiritual experiences. The spiritual symbols made available to the present generation, which is unwilling to be enslaved either by hollow, conservative, anti-human, anti-Islamic ethnic traditions or by the stupefying culture of indecent Western modernism, are the best weapons against the West's attack.

The woman of the Third World must be one who selects, who makes a choice. She is the woman who neither accepts the inherited mould nor the imported novelty. She recognizes both of them. She knows and is aware of both of them. The one which is imposed upon her, in the name of tradition which she inherits, is not related to Islam at all but is related to the ethnic customs of the period of paternalism and even slavery. And the one which is imported from the West is not science, not humanity, not freedom and not liberty. It is not based on sanctity and respect for women at all. Rather it is based on the low tricks of the bourgeoisie, stupefying consumerism and mindless self-indulgence. She wants to select, to choose, but what role-model should she choose? She wants neither the model of the traditional, strict woman, nor the model of the modern degraded woman. She wants the face of a Muslim woman. Fortunately both the material and history are available to construct this third figure. And even more authentic than history, more logical than scientific arguments are the objectively exemplary personalities who are symbols from our Islamic history....

...

Thus it is sufficient for any intellectual woman to read a book about Fatima (or about other distinguished Islamic women like Khadija or Zeinab), to know these figures and compare them with figures who are introduced in the name of modernism. When the Prophet migrated to Madinah, Fatima bore the difficulties of the period of migration. Even in marrying Ali, she showed social commitment. Any women comparing Fatima with women who are introduced through modern magazines will recognize significant differences and reach the proper and inevitable conclusions. Therefore the most important duty of the aware, responsible, writers and preachers is to introduce these figures clearly, enthusiastically, responsibly and accurately, to the present generation, thus holding up the most efficient, responsible, humane role-models, to defend against and resist the West's attack.

...

Thus when a woman, a thinking and responsible, committed woman, sees such heroics from a woman who belonged to Fatima's family, she understands where she must look, how she must be. She realizes that a woman of any epoch and any century can emulate this model. These are the values that will not change or grow old, nor do they depend upon the customs of the social, cultural or economic systems. These are stable and permanent values which will be destroyed only when there is no longer any humanity in existence.

---

At this point, I'd recommend reading the previously posted Stories of Sahabi Women.

A common children's cartoon interpreted Islamically

Category: WEAK

Samurai Jack is known for having little wordage. The first entire half hour had zero dialogue. It's a pretty awesome show. So they could understand easily what's going on, but they being kids, of course, are gonna ask a ton of questions ('YEH KYA HORA HAI'). Boys tend to stare entranced and absorb it without thinking but girls especially like to ask a million questions during the process. <3 I found myself explaining the entire thing in Islamic terms and was surprised at how well it fit.

This is what I explained:

Three angels were fighting a great Djinn, as powerful as Shaitan, named Aku in space. Since this was before Islam and all that ( ), they took the forms of the various human nations. One after the Greeks, another after the Egyptians, and another after the Indians (without having to explain the whole 'god' thing... it's a cartoon... Indians can have six arms in a cartoon). They were blasting away at him, with stars and everything, but a tiny piece of it fell all the way to Earth where it was buried as the dinosaurs came and went, etc. etc. until finally humans arrived. At first the Djinn was just growing like a plant everywhere. This brings us to medievel Japan. The thing was growing all over the Kingdom, and the Emperor (consider him like Dhul-Qarnayn(as)) didn't know what to do. He took some special potion thing (I forgot what the eldest called it), and threw it at the weird growth but that only wound up giving it 'life' (human-like consciousness). Meaning magic is bad and the Djinn thrives on it. So it took it's proper form as a typical Djinn. It destroyed half the Kingdom, and trapped the Emperor. Out of nowhere, a white 'Buraq' came. A giant glowing white horse with a ton of legs, kind of like the one that took Prophet Muhammad (saw) on Isra & Miraj. Wherever it stepped or breathed, the Djinn-growth would disappear. It freed the Emperor and flew off. It reached the top of some mountain where three Sufi Pirs (I said Walis, but they didn't know what Wali or Awliyah or those words meant yet) were waiting. As he stepped in, they were transported into space, where he was just hovering about. The three Angels stood before him and told him about the evil Djinn that was plaguing his Kingdom. They then lifted him up, and took out from within his Ruh, his Taqwa (righteousness, piety... God-consciousness... the youngest doesn't have a grasp on these things yet, the oldest barely does, but is able to suspend disbelief and believe that Taqwa can become tangible in a Nur-like form). The three Pirs took out giant hammers, and as the Angels kept zapping it, they hammered it into a shape. A samurai sword. They gave it to the Emperor, and the Angels told him that the sword was forged from the Taqwa within his soul (Ruh). It is the only thing that can defeat the evil that is the Djinn, Aku. But, they warned him, the Djinn's magic is like nothing the human has ever seen before, so he must be careful. So, the Emperor, decked out in glowing white armor with the sword, gets on a flying cloud (Hazrat Suleiman (as) could travel like that) and goes back. He fights the Djinn in his various incarnations. And this part, they all got. That the Djinn, being evil, took various incarnations... was scary, but also kind of funny. He liked to make fun of and mock the humans, especially the Emperor. And was very chalaak. Meaning all these attributes are things to be wary of (as is embodied in Islamic teachings). The Emperor finally defeated Aku by capturing him in the sword and trapping him in the Earth. At that moment also, Jack was born. And the Emperor and his wife decided Jack was their backup plan.

As he grew up (the two-parter ended here, and this is another episode), he was sent around to the kings of the various human nations and trained by the best. He got back just in time, as a solar eclipse struck, and the Djinn was freed (mentioned here the Hadith about how the Prophet(saw) treated eclipses). He fought Aku, but as he was about to trap him in the sword as his father had done, the Djinn pulled out a new trick. He opened a portal many years into the future and threw Jack into it. When Jack comes through, Aku has taken over everything and the world is populated by mutants, aliens, robots, and all sorts of weird things. Then I summarized that the rest of the stories involve Jack trying to find a way to defeat Aku and go back to his time. But Aku never fights him properly, always sends his minions in various forms. He comes up with a ton of tricks, sometimes coming in the form of humans to trick Jack and foil his plans. The few times he does fight Jack, he does it hilariously, by first arguing that it has to be with no weapons (no sword), so Jack agrees... then he says it has to be a certain spot, at a certain time, etc. etc. and Jack agrees readily as long as Aku doesn't change forms. This behaviour is the kind the Qur'an repeatedly mentions of past peoples, like Bani Israil. (Jack was kicking his ass until Aku broke his word and fled).

Even though they were girls, they loved it. I dunno if they have the attention span to sit through a ton of these, but they would if it were in Urdu. I need to get the DVD sets of Voltron, Thundercats, and the other shows. I can't wait to spoil Abdullah when his parents aren't looking. :anxious:

The best part is, of course, being able to visualize all these Islamic teachings. Now when they think of what a saint/wali is like, they'll know. It's not just about fantastic tales of miracles, it's about their everyday embodiment of their beliefs. Like how Jack walks around in simple clothing, is very humble, incredibly considerate of others, protects the weak and oppressed, of few words, never lies, etc. etc. I also like how it lets them see how important being good is... it makes all the good behaviour, that increases piety or taqwa, practically important. It really does protect you from Djinns too. Boys tend to accept it all a bit more easily, girls tend to be too clever for their own good.