Arab Racism

bismillah
assalamu alaikum

A few days ago I was with an Arab brother who while talking mentioned something that showed he has a slight dislike of black people. This came to me as no surprise as I am an Arab and I know how alot of Arabs think. However, I decided to not let this one go without the proper verbal beating it deserved. He told me he agrees that all people are the same, however people from central and South Africa never did have any historic achievements and have always been a backwards people whilst the rest of the world at least had a period where they achieved something.

First and foremost there is nothing in the Quraan and Sunnah that says there are any distinctions between white people and black people. On the contrary, in the prophet's last sermon he (pbuh) said;
""All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white (person) has no superiority over a black (person) nor a black has any superiority over a white except by piety and good action."

Also Allah (swt) said:
"And mankind is naught but a single nation."
Holy Quran 2:213

Although this should be enough to silence any Muslim's racist seed, I will not stop there to make you realise how silly that idea is.

I was told that the black people didn't achieve anything throughout history. Although that point is wrong in itself, the Central and South Africans had several great empires, let me ask just for the sake of argument; why is that? Is it because of a gene in the black people that makes them unsuccessful? If so, then that would directly imply that white people, who did achieve something in history (although that is wrong in itself and I will get to that later) have a gene that makes them successful. But are we?? Let us look at the Europeans. When did they achieve anything in the past? You have two periods where the Europeans actually achieved something, in the ancient times under the Roman Empire and the Greek Empire and the more modern times after the Reneissance and the removal of the tyranical Church. Let's take this step by step. First of all in ancient history the one thing that the Romans and the Greeks had in common is that they had (to a degree) a democratic system in place, and they achieved something with that. The rest of Europe? The rest of Europe were a bunch of barbarian nomad nobodies. The Saxons? The Celts? The Goths? The Vikings? What did the rest of Europe do? Absolutly nothing! And then we have the Reniessance. It was a period, again, when relative freedom after the oppression of the Church was gradually being given to the people. It was a time when the leadership and the governing body of the Church are removed and replaced by a more lenient and independant leadership. In both cases we see the effect of the governing body on the achievements the people are bringing forth.

Now the Arabs, what were they before Islam? They were a bunch of warring desert tribes half of which were controled by the Romans and the other half by the Persians. After Islam came, nay, after Islam was implemented, the Arabs united and fought and conquered both their previous masters, the Romans and the Persians. It is when Islam ruled them that they actually became of any significance and it is the day that Islamic rule left them that they went back to becoming several warring tribes ruled by foreign masters, be that the US, France or Britain.

I say it alot and I will say it again. The people are a reflection of the governing body. If a certain people were not achieving then it is not because they were created a lowly creature. That is not only incredibly stupid, but also a great haraam. All people are the same as we are all the children of Adam and Eve.

If a certain people were not achieving, ask yourself "why?" Are they not humans like the rest of us? If you claim that they do not achieve because of their colour or any biological matter, then you are claiming that it is a genetic matter. If so, then why aren't the rest of humanity failing as well? And if it is indeed genetic, then how come we succeed at times and fail at other times? The most obvious example are the Arabs who succeeded at one point of their history and the rest was utter garbage. It does not make sense, it is absolutly silly, and most importantly it is haraam! And if the white people have a "gene of success", then why aren't all white people successful? Take Western Europe and Eastern Europe. The only thing I can think of is that Western Europe has a more democratic governmant than the East. And if today the Eastern Europeans are growing, it is because they finally let go of the shackles of Communism. Again, back to the same point; the governing body!

wassalam

Sabrun Jamil's Blog

bismillah
assalamu alaikum
I have been going through sister Sabrun Jamil's blog for a few days and I have to say it is quite a wonderful peice of work! mashallah tabarakallah you can see how much patience she puts for each entry with all the colours and font sizes. What saddens me is that I don't seem to see alot of brothers and sisters posting in her blog any comments. I do wish you would take a couple of minutes from your blog surfing time and visit hers and I'm certain you would get attached just as I have.

here is the link

enjoy!

wassalam

Sunnies and Shiaa

bismillah
assalamu alaikum

There has been alot of talk on the question of whether ahlul Sunnah are allowed to support or work with Shiaas or whether Shiaas are even Muslims at all. So here is my view on the matter and inshallah if I was wrong, may Allah correct me and guide us all.

First of all, what are Shiaas? You can compare Shiaas in Islam to Protestants in Christianity. There is no one group called Shiaas, their are several groups with different beliefs and practices. So in other words, we cannot come up and say Shiaas do this and that. What Shiaas? Are all Shiaas the same? The main discourse and the first seeds of divisions between what we today call "sunnies" and "shias" only began to exist from one base point and that who is to rule the Muslims after the death of the prophet (pbuh). According to the shiaas it should be from ahlul bait and according to the sunnies he should be chosen by the Muslims. This is where the problem started but even yet, there was no such thing at the time called "shiaas". I might be wrong, but I think it was not until the death of Hussain that the word was used, I am certain however, it did not exist at the time of Ali (ra). And to put the record straight, even the Sunnies agree that Ali (ra) should have remained in power and what Mu'awiyah did was wrong (except for a book I have which I am still to read). What was even worse was what happened with Hussain on Ashura by Mu'awiyah's son Yazid whom not even the "Sunnies" liked. And I quote the word "sunnies" because as I said earlier, there were no such thing as "shiaas" at the time of Hussain.

So the main divide between the Sunnies and the Shiaas is not ideological, but political. That is in the initial stage ofcourse. Several year later, ideological differences in aqeedah developed which is what is forcing ahlul sunnah to question how much of Muslims the Shiaas really are.

Now this point should be seriously kept in mind. The difference between Shiaas and Sunnies initially is political. Political differences does not constitute kufr as kufr will only come from aqeedah. Now keeping that in mind, we can then look at the Shiaas which we know of today. Indeed there are differences in aqeedah, but for a fact, not all Shiaas hold the same aqeedah, they do however, all hold the same basis which is the political differences they still hold against ahlul Sunnah. As for their aqeedah, there are shiaas who most obviously believe in things that will constitute kufr as far as ahlul sunnah are concerened, but I do know for a fact that there are other Shiaas which really hold as much a difference in aqeedah with the sunnies as the different schools of thought within ahlul Sunnah hold between each other.

Now that is the first point. Second point is, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that they are kufaar indeed. So what? Do we take the sword and fight them with blood for that? Muslims have always had an obligation upon themselves to protect the oppressed people no matter their faith. Unless the Shiaas as a people are fighting ahlul sunnah with the sword, then we really have no right to fight them or to bring out silly fatwas saying that we should not support them when they are being attacked. Remember what our beloved prophet (pbuh) did for the tribe of Banu Khuza. Our duty is towards the oppressed be they Muslims or not.

Third point; when did you hear Hizbullah attack ahlulsunnah? Until now, I have only seen ahlul Sunnah attacking Hizbullah and bringing out fatwas against them. Where exactly is Hizbullah oppressing, attacking or even insulting ahlul Sunnah. Don't bring me what some Shiaas say about Abu Baker and the wives of the prophet (pbuh). I already know it and whoever says those things are obviously kufaar. But they are neither murtadeen for them to be executed (the murtaad should be a person who used to believe in the true Islam and then made kufr. Shiaas today are taught their beliefs for generations and thus the penalty is no longer applicable as far as the shariah is concerned), nor is what they say the worst thing that people say against ahlul Sunnah. Is not the insult against Allah worse than that on Abu Baker and the wives of the prophet (pbuh)? Then what do you make of the lies the Christians and Jews make of God? of the trinity and the rest of the yaddah yaddah they make up? But that still only constitutes that we should try and give them Islam and not wage military war on them as a people (waging war on kufr governments that attack Islam and the Muslims is another matter). In the case of Hizbullah, assuming they are kufaar, our war is still against the same enemy and having them as allies in war is not haraam. What evidence is there that we are not allowed to fight alongside a kafir when we have a common enemy? It is a fact that Christians fought alongside Muslims of their own free will when the European Crusaders invaded Jerusalem. Salahuldeen al Ayoubi himself had Christians in his army. The prophet (pbuh) himself had non-Muslim allies, namely Banu Khuza which I mentioned above.

There is an article which I read several months ago in the New Civilisation magazine inshallah I will try and find an online version to paste it here, if not I will re-type it again. It is quite worth the read even though it might be a little long.

wassalam