http://english.wafa.ps/body.asp?id=7621
DATE: 10/1/2006 TIME :14:57
MOH: 4,412 Palestinians Killed During Al-Aqsa Intifada

GAZA, October 1, 2006, (WAFA)- Ministry of Health (MOH) reported that 4,412 Palestinians were killed, including 76 handicapped, and 48,322 wounded during Al-Aqsa Intifada, erupted in July 28, 2000.

In the 6th anniversary of Al-Aqsa Intifada MOH issued a report revealing that 534 citizens were killed while 3088 wounded in the last year of the Intifada.

MOH mentioned that 69 women were forced to get babies at the Israeli checkpoint where 389 of them suffered miscarriage and the babies died.

It added that 140 patients, including 28 children and 14 elderly, died at the Israeli checkpoints as they were banned accessing.

The report shed the light on the Israeli practices against Palestinian paramedics saying that 38 members of medical teams were killed and 469 wounded.

It added that 2,109 ambulances were prevented from movement and 36 were completely destroyed.

S.A.S. (14:55 P) (12:55 GMT)

http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=15665

No wonder they hate us - By Shulamit Aloni
Date: 25 / 09 / 2006 Time: 10:53
Time to talk peace! Israel's leaders must change mindset, engage in dialogue with Palestinians
By Shulamit Aloni in the Israeli newspaper, 'Yedioth Ahranoth'
24 September 2006

In a few months, we will mark 40 years of "enlightened" occupation by our famed army in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Israel pretends to be an enlightened state and signatory of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which rules that "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" (Israel ratified the Convention in 1951.)

Over the years we deported, robbed land and stole water, destroyed crops, uprooted trees, turned every village and town into a detention camp, and set up hundreds of communities on land that doesn't belong to us.

We allowed the settlers to make a living by providing them with huge amounts of money (more than 5 times per capita compared to residents of southern development towns.)

We paved roads for Jews only, a case of blatant apartheid, while defending it using witty Jewish self-righteousness in the absence of fair and public reporting of the budgets involved, deeds committed, expropriation of land, and disregard for vandalism.

Morality, justice, law and order stopped at the Green Line. Lawlessness prevailed right under the noses and protective and soothing hand of the IDF and police, as lawbreaking settlers made their own laws undisturbed, and at times with the kind help of authorities.

Every illegal settlement enjoys water, hydro, and a paved road. The permanent residents, the natives, which the Israeli regime had to take care of, became seemingly non-existent. As if they are there but not there at the same time. The government only notices them if they bother it by filing complaints.

It's no wonder that the leader of a political movement in Israel and a Knesset member can declare that we should expel the Palestinians (and also Israel's Arab citizens) in order to take over what is still left to them.

But as we usually present it – we're the victim while they're the murderers with blood on their hands. We never report the number of Palestinians we murdered from the sky and killed by fire – women, children, the elderly, whole families, thousands of them.

No wonder they hate us

Aerial bombings kill wanted suspects, while eliminating many civilians – yet the hands of the pilot are "clean" of any blood. After all, the victims were killed at the press of a button while their killers returned home safely. None of them committed suicide to kill wanted suspects, who by the way are not a "ticking bomb" and no evidence exists against them.

At times it appears that the IDF, particularly during the last, needless Lebanon war, turns the Gaza Strip into live-fire training grounds for all army branches. Is it a wonder they hate us, and is it a wonder they elected Hamas in free elections, the same Hamas whose establishment we encouraged in order to undermine the PLO?

Many peace-making windows were opened over the years. We hindered all of them, because we coveted the whole of the Territories. We had the Oslo agreements. Twenty countries, which in the past had no ties with us, recognized Israel. We had welfare, international ties were blossoming, peace was at our gates – but we didn't want to make concessions.

Rabin was murdered for the sake of the settlers, and the job of burying peace-making attempts was completed by Ehud Barak with his "There's nobody to talk to!" spin. In order to establish himself in power, Barak also allowed Arik Sharon to visit Temple Mount with armed escorts, even though he was asked by Arafat the night before not to allow this due to the frustration and fury among Palestinians.

Now, another possibility for dialogue has opened. Yet our government is again turning its back on it. They don't know how to and don’t want to talk. Just now we brutally destroyed half of Lebanon at an immense cost and turned a million civilians into refugees in their own country.

Another superb achievement by the IDF and government of Israel. We're willing to resort to any provocation and blow any incident out of proportion, just to hold on to the regular pretext that "There's nobody to talk to", and that we don't talk to terrorists.

Kahane won

Yet the acts we undertake by starving, curfews, deportations, the theft of water and land, false arrests, and targeted killings – all those are, of course, not terror, because the acts are undertaken by a national army through the power of a decision made by legitimate government.

Wonderful, it turns out we forget the fascist states (including Stalin's USSR) that were very legitimate according to their own logic, while committing a plethora of terror acts.

The time has come for the government of Israel to start talking peace, and end the excuses for disqualifying and boycotting Palestinian representatives. The use of arms does not have to be the first reaction. Starvation, imprisonment, and expropriation by an occupying force attest to an unwillingness to reach an agreement and an addiction to greed.

This is reminiscent of Benny Elon comments: "We'll embitter their lives so that they transfer themselves elsewhere."

One cannot escape the impression that the racist and brutal declarations by Effie Eitam gave public expression to government policy over the years. We must note that the courts – the defenders of law and order, including the High Court of Justice – were partners to the developments that led to the legitimization of parties and Knesset members reminiscent of the racist, crude words uttered by MK Eitam.

In fact, it appears that Meir Kahane won, and we continue in his path – we don't talk, but rather, only kill, raze homes and roads and bridges, cut off electricity, fill prisons with women and children and elected officials, because all of them are the "terrorists" while we, the Jewish state, need to be defended from them. We're always the ultimate victim.

As Golda Meir said: "I don't forgive the Arabs for forcing us to kill them." There you go, she's the killer, yet she's the victim.

For our sake, the citizens of Israel, and for the sake of brining peace and quiet – government leaders, start talking and keep doing it until you reach an agreement.

Unruly sons will be brought back into the country, we'll be respecting UN decisions and international conventions, we'll earnestly memorize the universal human rights declaration and our own declaration of independence, we'll rehabilitate our soul, and we'll attempt to establish a democratic country governed by the law and justice. Shana Tova.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/September/25%20o/Muhammad's%20Sword%20Benedict%20XVI%20Joins%20Forces%20With%20Bush%20II%20By%20Uri%20Avnery.htm

Muhammad's Sword: Benedict XVI Joins Forces With Bush II

By Uri Avnery
Gush Shalom, September 25, 2006

Since the days when Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.

Constantine the Great, who became Emperor in the year 306 - exactly 1700 years ago - encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the Emperor accept his superiority.

The struggle between the Emperors and the Popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some Emperors dismissed or expelled a Pope, some Popes dismissed or excommunicated an Emperor. One of the Emperors, Henry IV, "walked to Canossa", standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope's castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.

But there were times when Emperors and Popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present Emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week's speech by the Pope, which aroused a world-wide storm, went well with Bush's crusade against "Islamofascism", in the context of the "Clash of Civilizations".

IN HIS lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God's actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.

As a Jewish atheist (Avnery could by more accurate if he described himself as an atheist of Jewish background. One cannot be a believer and atheist at the same time - Al-Jazeerah), I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this "war of civilizations".

In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?

To support his case, the Pope quoted - of all people - a Byzantine Emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had - or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt) - with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the Emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:

"Show me just what Mohammed (Peace and blessings of God be upon him - Al-Jazeerah) brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".

These words give rise to three questions: (a) Why did the Emperor say them? (b) Are they true? (c) Why did the present Pope quote them?

WHEN MANUEL II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.

At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. On May 29, 1453, only a few years after Manuel's death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul) fell to the Turks, putting an end to the Empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.

During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.

In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, George Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim "Axis of Evil". Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe, this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union.

IS THERE any truth in Manuel's argument?

The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur'an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, verse 256 which says: "There must be no coercion in matters of faith" (In Yousuf Ali's translation: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" - Al-Jazeerah).

How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur'an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes - Christian, Jewish and others - in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.

Jesus said: "You will recognize them by their fruits." The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to "spread the faith by the sword"?

Well, they just did not.

For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.

True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.

In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus (Peace be upon him - Al-Jazeerah). At that time, 400 years with Palestine under Muslim rule, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith - and they were the forefathers of most of today's Palestinians.

THERE IS no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the "spreading of the faith by the sword"?

What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi ("Spanish") Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.

WHY? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the "peoples of the book". In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service - a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion - because it entailed the loss of taxes.

Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith.

THE STORY about "spreading the faith by the sword" is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.

Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?

There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of "Islamofascism" and the "Global War on Terrorism" - when "terrorism" has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush's handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world's oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers' expedition becomes a Crusade.

The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences?

http://www.aljazeerah.info/22%20o/Get%20Ready%20Welcome%20Ramadhan%20By%20M.%20Burhanuddin%20Qasmi.htm
Get Ready! Welcome Ramadhan

By M. Burhanuddin Qasmi

Al-Jazeerah, September 22, 2006

Fasting is another unique moral and spiritual characteristic of Islam. Literally defined, fasting means to abstain "completely" from foods, drinks, intimate intercourse and smoking, before the break of the dawn till sunset, during the entire month of Ramadhan, the ninth month of the Islamic year. But if we restrict the meaning of the Islamic Fasting to this literal sense, we would be sadly mistaking.

The Glorious Month of Ramadhan

The month of Ramadhan enjoys a special importance in the Islamic calendar. As the Prophet (saws) said: "It is Allah's Own month." It is the chief of all months and the most glorious one. 'Fasting' is one of the important pillars of Islam and it is the very month of Ramadhan during which fasting has been made obligatory for all adults and sane Muslims. By fasting during Ramadhan, a Muslim besides discharging an obligation imposed upon him by Allah, becomes entitled to great rewards in the Hereafter. On the other hand, any lapse in the matter amounts to a great sin. Fasting is an article of worship, the knowledge about the performance or otherwise whereof rests only with Allah and the person concerned. Hence, it is Allah alone who will reward that person for it, on the Day of Judgement.

The blessings of Ramadhan are not limited to fasting alone, because the performance of all sorts of worship and good deeds during this month is also a source of great Divine favour. The revelation of the Qur'an commenced during this very month and it is therefore the duty of every Muslim to read, listen and try to understand the message of the Qur'an and thereby gain an insight into the Divine secrets enshrined therein. It brings peace and illumination to the mind and imparts purity to the soul.

Ramadhan is the month of fasting, intensive prayer, sacrifice and Divine worship. Throughout this month a devout Muslim fasts during the day in the true sense of the word, that is, he not only merely abstains himself from food and water, but also as explained by the Prophet (saws), exercises strict control over his tongue, eyes, ears, thoughts and deeds and does everything possible to seek the pleasure of Allah.

Devout supplications to Allah and repentance of one's sins during Ramadhan are the sources of Divine blessings and mercy. One night, among the last ten nights of Ramadhan, is called the 'Night of Glory' (Laylatul Qadr). Muslims keep awake during last ten nights and offer special prayers in search of that special night which is ‘greater than thousand years’, as stated in the Qur’an. Laylatul Qadar is accompanied by great blessings, and the supplications made to Allah during this night are granted by Him. Pious Ulama or saints spend whole month worshiping—day and night—with their followers in Khanqah or Masjid to assure blessings of every moment of Ramadhan. Wealthy people visit Masjid-e Haram in Makkah to avail most of the benefits of Ramadhan and blessings from Allah.

The month of Ramadhan, besides being the month of worship and blessings, carries a historical importance as well. As already mentioned above, the revelations of the glorious Qur'an commenced in this month. The epoch-making 'Battle of Badr' and the 'Conquest of Makkah' also took place during the month of Ramadhan.

Fasting in Ramadhan is Obligatory

"O you who believe! Fasting is prescribed to you as it was prescribed to those before you, that you may learn self-restraint," says the Qur’an [2,183].

It has already been indicated that the period of obligatory fasting is the month of Ramadhan. The daily period of observance starts before the break of the dawn and ends immediately after sunset. Normally there are accurate calendars to toll the exact time, but in the absence of such facilities one should consult one's watch and the sun's positions, together with the local newspapers, weather bureau, etc.

Fasting in Ramadhan is obligatory on every responsible and fit Muslim. Month of Ramadhan may be 29 or 30 days only, depending on the moon's positions. Fasting is a pillar of Islam, and any failure to observe it without reasonable excuses is a grave sin in the sight of Allah.

But there are other times when it is recommended to make voluntary fasting, after the Traditions of Prophet Muhammad (saws). Among these times are Thursdays and Fridays of every week, a few days of each month in the two months heralding the coming of Ramadhan, i.e., Rajab and Sha'ban, six days after Ramadhan following the 'Eidul Fitr Day. Besides, it is always compensating to fast any day of any month of the year, except the 'prohibited’ days when no Muslim should fast.

They are exempted from fasting

Ø Children (below age 15)

Ø Elderly People (Al-Harim)

Ø Physical Disability (Al-'Ajiz)

Ø Pregnant and Nursing Mothers

Ø Travelers

Spiritual Benefits of Fasting

When Islam introduced this matchless institution, it planted an ever-growing tree of infinite virtue and invaluable products. Here is an explanation of the spiritual meaning of the Islamic Fasting:

Ø It teaches man the principle of sincere Love: because when he observes Fasting he does it out of deep love for Allah. And the man who loves Allah truly is a man who really knows what love is.

Ø It equips man with a creative sense of hope and an optimistic outlook on life: because when he fasts he is hoping to please Allah and is seeking His Grace.

Ø It cultivates in man a vigilant and sound conscience: because the fasting person keeps his fast in secret as well as in public. In fasting, especially, there is no mundane authority to check man's behavior or compel him to observe fasting. He keeps it to please Allah and satisfy his own conscience by being faithful in secret and in public. There is no better way to cultivate a sound conscience in man.

Ø It indoctrinates man in patience and selflessness: as through fasting, he feels the pains of deprivation but he endures them patiently.

Ø It is an effective lesson in applied moderation and willpower.

Ø Fasting also provides man with a transparent soul, a clear mind and a light body.

Ø It shows man a new way of wise savings and sound budgeting.

Ø It enables man to master the art of Mature Adaptability. We can easily understand the point once we realize that fasting makes man change the entire course of his daily life.

Ø It grounds man in discipline and healthy survival.

Ø It originates in man the real spirit of social belonging, unity and brotherhood, of equality before Allah as well as before the law.

Ø Fasting helps in conditioning the heart, the soul, and the body on the virtues of patience, tenacity, and firmness in the face of adversity: Because patience is the apex of self-mastery, discipline and spiritual alertness. Patience is to turn the phrase "I can't" into "I can." It is to say the difficult is easy. It is an inner and psychological demolition of things perceived by others as impossible.

Ø It is an ‘Allahly’ prescription for self-reassurance and self-control.

The wisdom behind fasting

There is wisdom behind every act in Islam, no matter how big or small it is. In time we may know the wisdom behind some acts, and for others we may never know. Salat, the five daily prayers for instance, is a daily training for purifying a believer and reminding him that he is a member in a community of believers. Fasting, on the other hand, is an annual institution containing all conceivable attributes for human excellence. It is a training for the body and soul, a renewal of life, encouraging the spirit of sharing and giving. The following are some of the general benefits:

Behavior Modification

One of the most benefiting factors of fasting is that its observer is able to control or change his or her old or so called 'unbreakable' habits. The reason being is that human life is an embodiment of acquired habits. To change or control a habit is to wage a war on oneself.

Fasting - Key to Good Health

Fasting is a sentinel against disease, provided that the faster follows the strict dietary rule: eat during fast breaking and avoiding over-eating. Allah (swt) States: "...Eat and drink, but waste not by excess, for Allah loves not the wasters." (Al-Qur`an, 7:31)

When the stomach is empty, as a result of fasting, it gets well-desired rest, to renew and revitalize its energy. With the fasting, the stomach is forced to go through a discharge whereby harmful residues are eliminated through perspiration as the body searches for food during fast. During fast, the system of secretion is organized, and this in turn benefits the blood pressure, inhibiting hardening of the arteries. The heart and kidney functions are enhanced as the workload tapers off. Fasting helps to correct the problem of obesity and diabetes. Doctors over the years have used fasting as a prescription for certain ailments.

Islam wants a Muslim to be healthy, clean, alert, agile and energetic. "Fast to be healthy," had said the Prophet (saws). And physicians today acknowledge the many benefits of fasting that ensure health and the soundness of one's body and mind. Some of these positive points have a direct influence on psychology and physique of the fasting individual.

Fasting has been found to be an effective treatment for psychological and emotional disorders. It helps a person to firm up his will, cultivate and refine his taste and manners, strengthen his conviction of doing good, avoid controversy, petulance and rashness, which all contribute towards a sane and healthy personality. Besides nurturing resistance and ability to face hardships and endurance, fasting reflects on outward physical appearance by cutting out gluttony and getting rid of excess fat.

According to expert doctors the benefits of fasting on health do not stop there but are instrumental in alleviating a number of physical diseases, including those of the digestive systems, such as chronic stomachache, inflammation of the colon, liver diseases, indigestion, and conditions such as obesity, arteriosclerosis, high blood pressure, asthma, diphtheria and many other maladies,

A Swiss physician Dr. Barsilus noted that: ‘The advantages of hunger as a remedy exceed those ingesting medicine several times’.

As readers are well aware, several physicians advise patients to skip meals, sometimes for a few days, before prescribing them a controlled diet.

Generally speaking, fasting hastens the destruction of the decaying tissues of the body by means of hunger, and then builds new tissues through nutrition. This is why some scientists suggest that fasting should be regarded as an effective means of restoring youthfulness and longevity. However, Islam exempts from fasting sick and old people whose health is bound to deter.

But fasting should have its regulations too, and not simply the inorderly skipping meals, that is bound to harm health and stamina, rather than improving them. Here again Islam provides the answer, and in order to realize the benefits of fasting, it recommends the late midnight meals called 'Sahar' (before the formal start of a fast) and the breaking of the fast at the time prescribed. Of course, to ensure good health one should abstain from gluttony after breaking fast.

Social Outlook

Socially, fasting is an expression of solidarity with the poor, the family and the whole society. This is a period in which the rich have first-hand experience of what it is to remain hungry. The pains that indigents suffer in normal living conditions. The process of disciplining resulting from Islamic fasting instills in the rich the virtue of mercy, which is very important in terms of social well being, and proliferation of harmony.

Family Ties

Fasting strengthens family ties, especially in that the family is an endangered institution in the western society. It helps the family gather together to break fast at Iftar, and then eat Sahoor (food before fasting) together at least twice a day for a month. The family even makes Salat together.

Basic elements of fasting

There are two basic elements that constitute the essence of Islamic fasting. The observation of these elements makes one's fasting acceptable. The first element of fasting is abstinence of an individual from the break of dawn (Fajr) until sunset (Maghrib) from food and drink and sexual relations. Any nourishment taken by mouth or nose, or drink of any sort, water, juices, milk, etc., should be avoided. The second element of fasting is Niyyah (intention).

Importance of Niyyah in Islam

In Islamic practices, Niyyah is highly rated. This remarkable element is not unique to fasting; it includes every degree of the believer's undertakings from Salaat, to Zakaat, to Hajj. It is the difference between whether the actions are religious or irreligious. As the Chairman of MMERC Maulana Badruddin Ajmal Al-Qasmi frequently says that Muslim Ummah is in great lose not because of ‘Badh Neyatie’ (bad intention) rather it is in great lose because of ‘Bey Neyatie’ (no intention). For instance, fasting for political reasons, or as a weapon of passive resistance, or hunger strikes, or starving for dietary reasons, or weight control, or even on medical advice - all of these are not proper Islamic fasting, because they lack one main component: that is, the Niyyah. This is why Niyyah for fasting is to worship Allah by abstaining from fast-breakers from the break of dawn to sunset is an essential component of Islamic Fasting.

Why Muslims are not in a utopia

Someone may be tempted to raise the objection: If this is the case with the Islamic institution of fasting, and if this is the picture of Islam in this aspect, why are the Muslims not living in a utopia? To such an objection we can only say that Muslims have lived in and enjoyed a utopia in a certain epoch of their history. The realization of that utopia was a phenomenon of a unique achievement in the history of man. We say unique, because no religion or social system other than Islam has ever been able to realize its ideals in reality.

The reason why the Islamic utopia is not being established nowadays is manifold and easily explicable. But to restrict our discussion to the institution of fasting we may say that some Muslims, unfortunately for them, do not observe the fast or, at best, adopt the attitude of indifference. On the other hand, some of those who observe it do not realize its true meaning and, as a result, derive very little benefit out of it or, in fact, no benefit at all. That is why some Muslims today, do not enjoy the real privileges of fasting.

[A Darul Uloom Deoband graduate and Editor ‘Eastern Crescent’, English monthly, M. Burhanuddin Qasmi, an English poet is also Director of a Mumbai based institute ‘Markazul Ma’arif Education and Research Centre’. He can be reached at manager@markazulmaarif.org]

http://www.aljazeerah.info/22%20o/Pope%20Benedict's%20Statement%20A%20Catholic%20Stamp%20to%20a%20US%20War%20By%20Nicola%20Nasser.htm

Pope Benedict's Statement: A Catholic Stamp to a US War

By Nicola Nasser

Al-Jazeerah, September 22, 2006


No mistake, the Successor of Saint Peter, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI has erred and the damage is done: His anti-Islam remarks are out and cannot be retracted, like bullets that cannot be retrieved once shot, adding a Catholic stamp to the Evangelist “Islam versus the West” justification for the U.S. neoconservative–led “WWIII on Islam.” (1)

Coincidently the Pope and the U.S. President George W. Bush on Wednesday expressed “a deep respect” for Islam and Muslims, but both men failed to calm Islamic angry reactions because both of them blatantly sounded self contradictory.

The Pope in two public apologies in less than a week cited “reason” to justify unconvincingly his unreasonably quoted anti-Islam remarks “to explain that not religion and violence, but religion and reason, go together,” (2) but failed to dispel a rapidly growing impression that he has positioned the Vatican in a role in the U.S.-led international war on “Islamic terror” similar to its role in the U.S.-led anti-communism war.

His self-contradiction was further highlighted by repeatedly stating that he quoted a 14th-century dialogue to encourage interfaith dialogue, not spark controversy, but his quotation was unquestionably at least a “setback” for any such dialogue.

Even if His Holiness could or would take out his defamatory and inflammatory quotation from the official text of his controversial speech at Germany’s University of Regensburg in Bavaria on September 12, which nothing yet indicates that he might do, the damage done is snowballing rapidly to vindicate the rejection of the Catholic dogma of Papal Supremacy and infallibility by the Orthodox and other mainstream Christian churches, the secular and liberal intellectuals and the Muslims.

Were his remarks a “lapse,” a “tumble”? Even those Muslim religious and political leaders who have wisely and ardently taken upon themselves the difficult mission of trying to contain the damage and control the angry reactions found insufficient the Pope’s apologies on Sunday and Wednesday. If his slur against Islam was unintentional he should have made a more convincing apology.

“You either have to say this 'I'm sorry' in a proper way, or not say it at all; are you sorry for saying such a thing, or because of its consequences?” Turkey’s cabinet minister, Mehmet Aydin, said.

The minimum acceptable “proper way” according to the Qatar-based Egyptian Islamic influential and prominent scholar Sheikh Yousuf Al-Qardawi is to drop out the “insulting” quotation from the official text of the Pope’s speech.

Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei this week charged that Benedict's words were “the latest link in the chain of a crusade against Islam started by America's [President George W.] Bush.” Khamenei as well as the former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami have been spearheading an international campaign for dialogue among civilizations, an effort that the Pope’s quotation could not in any way be interpreted as a helpful contribution.

Apologists may acknowledge that the Pope’s offending quotation was insensitive but unintentional.

Islamic leaders in Indonesia and Malaysia -- the first being the world’s largest Islamic country and both converted peacefully to Islam and easily could be cited to refute the Pope’s quoted thesis that Islam spreads by sword -- have accepted the Pontiff’s apology, seeing no Islamic interest in antagonizing the largest Christian church and playing in the hands of the Christian Zionists who have been trying to undermine the Islamic - Christian dialogue. (3)

Similarly the world’s largest secular Islamic nations of Turkey and India -- the second being the home to world’s largest Islamic minority -- were swift to demand papal apology but were also interested to contain the damage. Turkey’s Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul, said the Pope's planned visit to the country in November was still on. Russia’s Christian leader Vladimir Putin, whose country is home to more than 20 million Muslims, also indirectly warned that “religious leaders” should be more careful in their statements.

The most internationally wide-spread and influential Islamic political movement, Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, has also accepted Pope’s apology as “sufficient.”

However, the mainstream rank and file of an estimated one and a half billion moderate Muslims worldwide could not swallow the fact that the leader of the largest Christian church who is highly educated and sophisticated and speaks about ten languages could have “lapsed.” Al-Qardawi told the Arabic al-Jazeera satellite television station that the Pope added insult to injury when he assumed that Muslims could not apprehend his speech.

Sheikh Mohammed Tantawi of Egypt’s Al Azhar, the Sunni Arab world's most powerful institution, said the Pope should have refused the Emperor’s quotation but he did not.

Muslim and non-Muslim critics wonder why the Pope chose to quote from a 14th century “dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both,” (4) and not from the 21st century inter-religious dialogue, thus jeopardizing the future of the modern debate on religious truth.

In Tehran the Shiite Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Taskhiri, Secretary-General of the World Forum for Rapprochement Among Islamic Schools of Thought, stressed that Pope's statements were a “great setback” to the dialogue among divine religions. (5) “Instead of preaching peaceful coexistence among the great divine religions, the pope is planting seeds of division,” Grand Ayatollah Saafi Gholpaygani separately added. (6)

The Vatican said it hoped the self-inflicted “wave of hate” sweeping the world did not lead to “grave consequences” for the church. Burning of effigies of the Pope and anti-Vatican riots in many countries tarnished its image of tolerance and hand-stretched initiatives for inter-religion dialogue, an image that was carefully promoted by his predecessor.

The Pope’s quotation is also going down into Muslims’ collective memory as fitting into the U.S.-led war on “Islamic terror,” which is cloaked in anti-Islam terminology like President Bush’s blunders of “crusade,” “Islamic terrorists,” and his latest “Islamic Fascists.”

It boils down to be serving as a Catholic justification for an American political-military anti-Islam campaign. “Many Muslims are on the defensive in our modern world with its dominance of western secular perspectives, backed up by brutal military force which is often indistinguishable from the terrorism it claims to be fighting.” (7)

The Pope’s attempts to portray his speech as a scholarly and theological matter is not convincing enough to distance the Vatican from being embroiled in political involvement or to shadow the fact that the Pontiff is also a politician and a head of a state, which helped to undermine communism; no one can expect him to be happy or eager to see a U.S. defeat whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or the overall war on terror.

“Why the pope chose to throw a hand grenade into a powder keg, and why he chose to do it at this moment in history”? asked George Friedman.

“Bush has been trying to portray the war against Islamist militants as a clash of civilizations, one that will last for generations and will determine the future of mankind. Benedict, whether he accepts Bush's view or not, offered an intellectual foundation for Bush's position,” Friedman added. (8)

Whether it was his intention or not, the Pope has cornered his church in the role of providing a Catholic justification for the US-led Evangelist WWIII on Islam. “Ironically, despite the lip service by leaders like President Bush and Pope Benedict XVI about the need to isolate the lunatic jihadi fringe, by word and deed they have succeeded in accomplishing exactly the opposite.” Wrote an Indian Hindu. (9)

Nor Muslim observers can isolate the Pope’s defaming quotation from his record of anti-Islam indications:

Benedict XVI during his 17-month papacy has been lecturing Muslims on the need to teach their young to shun violence, suggesting that violence is part of Islam.

In March he decided to merge the Vatican's office for dialogue with Muslims with its culture office and to send the English prelate who headed it, Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, - considered a top Islamic expert - to Egypt as papal envoy.

Recent statements by senior Catholic bishops have singled out Lebanon’s Hizbullah and the Palestinian Hamas in names as violent groups under his papacy.

His insensitivity could not also be forgiven on the backdrop of the latest anti-Islam cartoons blunder.

The Pope’s reported opposition to Turkey’s membership in the European Union because of its Islamic different culture is cited as another anti-Islam indicator.

His quotation is also viewed within the context of the Vatican’s intolerance of other churches. How could a church be tolerant vis-à-vis another religion when it cannot afford to accept Christian Protestants as “sister churches” and describe them as “ecclesial communities”? (10)

Similarly Muslims could not view positively the Vatican’s reported anti-immigration into Europe of immigrants of different cultures, especially Muslims, within the context of its preoccupation with a campaign to incorporate Christian ethics and values in the constitution of the European Union in the face of a strong secular opposition.

The Pope’s insensitivity also embroiled the decreasing Christian minorities in the Muslim countries -- especially in the Arab countries and particularly in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories -- in an antagonistic environment that could contribute further to the ever shrinking Christian presence, a headache that has become a permanent item on the agenda of the annual meetings of the Middle East Churches.

“I wish the Catholic pope had considered the reaction to his remarks,” the head of the Egypt's Coptic Orthodox church, Pope Shenouda III, told journalists, adding: “Being enthusiastic about one's religion shouldn't lead to judging other peoples' religions. Criticizing others' faith breeds enmity and divisions.” (11)

It’s a pity that the Pope has chosen to exacerbate a world divide over religious lines that have nothing to do with the real problems humanity faces today, and it is saddening to watch how humanity in the post-cold war era has shifted from a real divide to absurd divides that contribute to humanity’s deteriorating material as well as moral and ethical tragic status quo under the U.S.-led globalization world order.

One could not but lament the collapse of the USSR, when the times were dominated by an international divide between the international liberation movements and the remnants of western colonialism, and between the transcontinental capitalist warmongers and the overwhelming majority of the tramped-to-earth billions of people yearning for justice and peace.

Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist in Kuwait, Jordan, UAE and Palestine. He is based in Ramallah, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.


Notes


(1) “WWIII on Islam” is a term used by the former Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich in a recent speech at the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI); he was quoted by Jim Lobe, Asia Times on September 14, 2006.
(2) Pope Benedict XVI on Wednesday, September 20, 2006.
(3) UCANews (www.ucanews.com), September 18, 2006, and Malaysia’s Prime Minister Abdulah Ahmad Badawi’s statements in New York on the same day.
(4) Pope’s speech at Germany’s University of Regensburg on September 12, 2006.
(5) SANA, September 18, 2006.
(6) UAE’s Gulf News, September 17, 2006.
(7) Tina Beattie, Open Democracy, September 18, 2006.
(8) George Friedman, www.stratfor.com, September 19, 2006.
(9) Ajoy Bose, Indian “The Pioneer,” September 18, 2006.
(10) Christian Century, 13 September 2000.
(11) AP, September 17, 2006.