Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Banu Musa

Sign in to follow this  
  • entry
    1
  • comments
    16
  • views
    1,494

Talmud and Zionism

Yoel

2,312 views

 

Reposting my old post and summarizing some comments to it.

Quite a few Christians, especially Protestants, claim the following combination of beliefs that I find highly disturbing:

1) That “pharisaic” Judaism and its central text, Talmud, are “satanic”

2) That Islam is similar to Talmudic Judaism and therefore, by extension, is also “satanic”

3) That the entire world must support the state of “Israel” and that Palestinians are bad, because they don't support it.

 

Since I studied in traditional anti-Zionist rabbinical institutions, I am well familiar with this topic and I would like to say a few words about it.

Interestingly enough, these beliefs represent in a distilled form the original core idea of Zionism and demonstrate its origins very well. In colonial times, various British and American Protestant theologians of the early 19th century started spreading the idea of the “restoration of the Jews”. Based on their peculiar interpretation of the Christian Bible, they came to believe that if the Jews will gather in Palestine and establish there their own state, such event would trigger the Second Coming of Christ. Apparently, this idea originated from the Catholic Jesuit circles, but found a solid ground among the Anglo-Saxon Protestants, some of whom came to believe to another weird idea that they are the descendents of the original Hebrew tribes and therefore have the right to control Palestine. This website has a large collection of historical articles about these developments within Protestant groups.

Contrary to Judaism, these people viewed Jews as a race and not a religion. The colonial West in the 18th and 19th centuries was in general obsessed with racial and nationalist theories. The Church condemned the Jewish Talmud since the Middle Ages, primarily because it sharply criticizes the Christian Trinity doctrine and because is written is a style that most Christian couldn't comprehend. After the series of liberal revolutions, more and more assimilated Jews became emancipated in the Western society, but due to the spread of nationalism, new anti-Jewish currents emerged in the West. In contrast to traditional anti-Judaism of the Church, these new currents were based on racial mythologies.

Some assimilated Jews picked up the “brilliant” solution that early Christian Zionists offered for them: to establish their own state, based on the “enlightened” Western values of secular nationalism and colonial attitudes to non-Western people. Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, wanted originally to convert all Jews to Christianity, but later modified his views and supported “plain” secularization. Here comes a major paradox: those British and American Christians who supported this idea really wanted the Jews (and everyone in the world) to become Christians, but wished them to move to Palestine, where they could serve as allies of the colonial West. They didn't want anything “Talmudic”; they just wanted to create another “civilized” Western colonial state like South Africa.

Traditional Talmudic Jews, on their hand, were totally opposed to Zionism, because the Talmud explicitly forbids this idea of gathering in Palestine and establishing their own state. This idea contradicts the basic Jewish belief that only the true Redeemer sent from God can gather them in a miraculous way and even that is not universally accepted. According to some more esoteric Jewish teachings, the future messianic Redemption of universal harmony will transcend state politics altogether.

This is the real Zionist “conspiracy”: the entire Zionist movement started as a result of cooperation between Anglo-Saxon Protestants and anti-traditional assimilated Jewish nationalists. The Talmud as such plays no role in classical Zionism, except that some isolated concepts from it were adopted as secularized slogans, often in a completely twisted fashion. 90% of Jewish Zionists, let alone the Christian ones, are unable to read the Talmud at all. At best, they may consider it an important historical piece of Jewish literature. Typical high-rank supporters of the Zionist state like bankers and politicians are usually totally secular and have no serious Jewish education. As long as they thinks and acts like their right-wing Protestant Christian fellow ruthless businessmen, they are “cool”. If they would act "Talmudic", they wouldn't fit into the club.

Since the Zionists captured and twisted the minds of many Jews, new heretical varieties of Judaism emerged from this confusion. Such notorious fascists as Baruch Goldstein or Meir Kahane undoubtedly considered themselves followers of the Talmud. We hear now chief rabbis and famous religious figures supporting Zionism and spreading hatred against the Palestinians and Muslims. How did this happen? Simple enough and in some ways quite similar to Wahhabi currents in Islam.

The Talmudic corpus and related literature is a very large and complicated collection of texts, which may be compared to the Muslim Hadith collections. The Quran (5:32) contains an explicit quote from the Talmud and affirms the basic traditional Jewish belief that the Talmud contains supplemental parts of Moses' prophecy, which has been transmitted through oral narration. The above verse is found only in the Talmudic literature and not anywhere in the Bible. A number of other verses in Quran also have parallels in the Talmud and not found in the Scripture.

Besides orally transmitted information from the prophets, the Talmud contains many legal decisions that the Talmudic sages derived using certain logical rules, which were also transmitted from Moses. It also contains historical rabbinical decrees, esoteric interpretations of the Scripture, theological and ethical discussions, various folk legends and even ancient medicinal remedies. Those Christians who tried to study the Talmud and came to hate it didn't get what it is all about. The Talmudic literature is a extremely large and diverse collection of discussions about all sorts of things, recorded during many centuries mostly in Persia and written in a very Persian multilayer story-inside-story style. The largest and most reliable collection is called “Bavli”, which means the Babylonian or Iranian Talmud. It's written mostly in Sassanian dialects of Aramaic, not in Hebrew.

Practical law or advices comprise only a fraction of the Talmud and are a matter of debates and analysis. Many narrations and interpretations are rejected by the Talmudic text itself, but were still considered worth recording or allowing an esoteric interpretation. In some cases, parallel narrations allow to decide, which variant is more reliable in practice. A number of schools within Judaism, somewhat like Islamic madhhabs, derive various laws from the Talmud by somewhat different rules. One school considers a certain narrator or some text more practically reliable than another etc.

No one in traditional Judaism, since the Middle Ages, derives any law directly from the Talmud without consulting first classic commentators and existing practical legal literature. Proper understanding of the Talmud requires years of systematic study and reading lots of commentaries.

Maybe, this link to another Shiachat thread could help the readers to understand where most of these old Christian accusations come from. Anti-Muslim writers use the Ahadith in the same exact fashion, taking things out of context or by amplifying weak rejected narrations.

Many Talmudic discussions are related to similar theoretical issues. Capital punishment was abolished in Judaism about 2000 years ago, because no one is considered righteous enough to serve as a judge or witness for such serious cases. Even when capital punishment existed, it was very rarely practiced by the line of tradition that became what's known today as rabbinical Judaism. Only very directly committed offenses, with at least two righteous male witnesses and a proper warning, could lead to death penalty. In many cases, the Talmud discusses, whether some weird and disgusting actions could be punished, in theory, by a human court, or whether one who did them may perform certain religious rituals. Such discussions also help to understand the metaphysical, philosophical and esoteric underpinnings of various laws.

One classic example that Christians constantly use against the Talmud is that a Jew who kills a non-Jew is exempt from death penalty. First of all, some commentators explain that it only applies to people who worship idols and have no morality, and not to Christians and Muslims. Murder of a Jew or non-Jew is a terrible sin, whether punishable by human means or not. Second, the Talmud lists many other situations when a murderer is exempt from penalty. The general line in the Talmud is to find all possible ways and arguments to avoid death penalty. A court who would kill even one person in 70 years would be considered a “bloody court” and some sages provided a logic that, in Islamic terms, avoids “hudud” altogether.

Another classic example Christians use against the Talmud that it allegedly teaches that sex with a girl below 3 years is permitted. Absolutely not! What it says that if such undoubtedly disgusting act happened, the girl would still be considered a virgin and her honor would not be blemished.

The main and most famous complaint against the Talmud is its alleged teachings of Jewish supremacy. The Talmud never considers non-Jews “subhuman”. That's simply a fabrication. But it does contain pretty harsh statements about idol worshipers and teachings about the Jews' being a people who receive special and unique blessings from God, if they carefully follow Judaism.

One main source of controversy and potential misunderstanding is that the Talmudic texts sometimes conflate the terms "goy" (non-Jew) and "akum" (abbreviation of "Star worshippers"), because most non-Jews, when the Talmud was written, were "by default" idol worshippers of various kinds. Careful analysis of parallel narrations shows that all this negative stuff is about idolaters. The Talmud praises non-Jewish monotheists, including some Persian kings and other people.

Another example. Current standard editions of the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 37a) contain the following: Therefore, humans were created singly, to teach you that whoever destroys a single soul of Israel, Scripture accounts it as if he had destroyed a full world; and whoever saves one soul of Israel, Scripture accounts it as if she had saved a full world. The oldest version of this Talmudic quote correspond exactly to the Quran 5:32 and don't mention Jews in particular. The Yerushalmi Talmud, the Midrashim and several other parallel transmissions of this quote also don't mention the word "Israel". Even in the case of the common Babylonian Talmud editions, this quote makes a difference between Jews and immoral non-believers, but does not, exclude non-Jews who practice an ethical monotheistic religion, as it is easy to prove by the internal logic of the same Talmudic tract, which praises non-Jewish monotheists and equated them with the Jewish High Priest who served at the Jerusalem Temple (Sanhedrin 59a). In Islamic terms, this is an example of a "weak Hadith".

The basic practical Talmudic structure of categories of believers/unbelievers, as their are interpreted in Judaism, goes as follows:

Good people:


  1. Torah-observant Jews, who receive special blessings for following Moses' prophecy. A convert to Judaism is a Jew. According to traditional Judaism, it doesn't matter, whether Jews today are descendents of the ancient Hebrews or Khazars or Romans.

  2. Righteous non-Jews, who follow the prophecy of Noah and receive special blessings. Muslims are usually included in this category or in a somewhat different respected category of people. Trinitarian Christians are included by many opinions, but it's a matter of debate. Some schools of thought completely equate Muslims and Christians with the Jews on social and spiritual level. More liberal rabbinical authorities include all ethical people into this category, including polytheists and atheists, using basic ethics as the main criterion of righteousness. I personally agree with this opinion.

It's a duty for Jews to support, love, help, treat well, respect all good people.

Bad people:


  1. Classic idolaters of Antiquity. In times of peace, Jews must treat them well and with hospitality, deal with them fairly, help their poor, but the basic attitude is to stay away from them, not to get too friendly and not to help them too much.

  2. Ex-Jewish outright heretics and non-believers. The worst category in the Talmud. No love, no good treatment here. According to some hardcore opinions, they may be killed even without a court decree. To secular Jewish readers: No, neither me nor most Orthodox Jews today accept this attitude. People get confused and come up with all sorts of ideas. Some atheist definitions of nature or philosophical ground of being are more theologically sound than some other people's weird ideas about God, who may better decide, who is a heretic and who is not.

The “gray zone”:


  1. Many classic sources of rabbinical law say that the Talmud condemns only the seven ancient Canaanite tribes who practiced human sacrifices or other ancient nations like the Romans who would come to a circus to entertain themselves watching animals tearing people apart or forcing slaves to fight each other to death. So, even someone would erect today a statue, proclaim it as a deity and bow to it, there is still room to disregard this behavior, love and respect such a person. Or, esoterically, one may say that everything is a reflection of God's names and this person in his heart really worships God. On the other hand, because the status of Trinitarian Christianity is a matter a debate in Judaism and because the Church systematically persecuted, killed, tortured and humiliated the Jews until recent times, there are many Orthodox Jews who avoid having close friendship with Christians and have negative opinions of their religion. For Christian readers: No, I don't agree with this attitude and many Orthodox Jews don't. But there is enough room for opposite opinions here. More inclusively minded Orthodox Jews tend to value ethical behavior over religious beliefs, while more hardcore Orthodox tend to regard people as heretics and idolaters for any slight deviation. In any case, traditional Judaism requires to treat everyone nicely and fairly.

Traditionally, Islam was always considered the closest religion to Judaism. Christianity, on the other hand, was often viewed negatively, although there are many highly positive opinions on it, i.e. by Menachem Meiri, Jacob Emden and Elia Benamozegh. Very many classic commentaries to the Torah and Talmud were written in Muslim countries, often originally in Arabic. Most classical schools of rabbinical law were established in Muslim countries.

The Zionists turned the Jewish history upside down. They discarded the long history of Jewish-Islamic cultural synthesis and invented the myth of “Judeo-Christian” civilization. Classical Judaism with its Talmud, which explicitly forbids the Jews to create a state in Palestine and which was written in a “politically incorrect” region (Iraq and Iran), has no place in classical secular Zionism.

But here comes a surprising twist. After the Nazi genocide of millions of European Jews, the Zionist movement captured the attention of most Jews who were well familiar with the long history of traditional Christian anti-Jewish hatred. But the Zionist's best allies and the originators of their ideology were some Protestant sects who don't exactly like Judaism. So the Zionists projected the history of Christian anti-Jewish persecution on the Muslims. To be fair, persecutions did happen under various Muslim rulers, but they were not nearly as common as in the Christian world and they were actions of certain corrupt individuals and not an integral doctrine of religion. The Jews perfectly understood that, but the Zionists seized the moment after the Nazi genocide and managed to confuse many people. Another factor that helped this confusion was that the governments in some Muslim countries made the conditions of the local Jewish communities unbearable after the Zionist state was established and forced them to leave the Arab countries. This was a very bad move, which only popularized Zionism and helped to created this new myth of anti-Jewish Muslim hatred. The final factor is the Salafi/Wahhabi type of Muslims who basically copied the old Christian hatred against the Jews. So, two very anti-traditional and somewhat similar movements, both strangely connected to Anglo-Saxon Protestantism in their ideology - Wahhabism and Zionist pseudo-religion - started fighting each other and polluting the world with their ideas.

As a result of all that, new forms of “religious” Zionists emerged. All negativity against the idolaters and oppressive types of Christians that one can find throughout the history of Judaism was redirected in a highly amplified and concentrated form to the Muslims. The fact that this negativity has to do with theology (idols and Trinity) was ignored. On the contrary, Muslims became somehow equated in this Zionist twisted version of Judaism with the worst kind of idolaters, who should be normally still treated nicely and without trying to dominate them. But here is a catch: one may kill “even the best of idolaters”, according to the Talmud, during a military combat. The “religious” Zionists declared that their state is in constant war with the Muslims who want to kill all Jews. Such twisted logic basically gives a license to kill. The same exact logic is used by Wahhabis who removed the concept of “Ahl Al-Kitab” from their version of Islam and consider everyone at permanent war with Muslims.

There is a good book written by Yakov Rabkin, A Threat from Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism, which explains how traditional Judaism and Zionism are totally incompatible. The author is an Orthodox Jew and a history professor. I strongly don't recommend books written by anti-religious authors (Israel Shahak) or fanatical right-wing Christians (David Duke, Israel Shamir), because such authors usually have no serious knowledge of Judaism and often promote hatred against both Jews and Muslims under a mask of “anti-Zionism”.

I hope this rough introduction is clear enough. If people here will find these topics interesting, we could go into more detailed discussions. There also also esoteric trends in Judaism, kind of similar to Bektashis or Alawites, who tend to emphasize things like personal devotion and non-literal interpretations over fixed rules.

My main interest on this forum is not battling Zionism. I am trying to apply Henry Corbin's methodology to Jewish philosophy and esoterica, and I find studies of Hadith and Irfan in comparison to Talmud and Kabbalah very refreshing and important.



16 Comments


Recommended Comments

Whoa! This unbelievable. Than you so much for this enlightening discussion on Judaism. I had some vague knowledge of the Talmud; most of it was negative. But this is so informative. So I have the following questions, if you don't mind answering :-)

 

1) When it comes to revealed verses, are they to be found in the Torah or the Talmud?

2) Is it correct to say that the Torah and the Old testament are the same thing?

3) What's your opinion of the this New Age obsession with the kabalah? What I mean is Madonna, baphomet, and devil worship?

4) Do Jews believe in the Psalms of David (AS) (Zabur)? Does it actually exist?

Lastly, I just make a point in saying that I find it really cool, that akin to Shia Islam where a verse of the Holy Quran has tafseer and ta'weel ( hidden meaning) we see a similar trend in traditional Judaism. Also, I really wish the world would learn the truth about Zionism vs and actual Judaism!

 

Thank you and keep up the great work!

 

Salman

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 12/14/2016 at 3:23 PM, salman1 said:

Whoa! This unbelievable. Than you so much for this enlightening discussion on Judaism. I had some vague knowledge of the Talmud; most of it was negative. But this is so informative. So I have the following questions, if you don't mind answering :-)

 

1) When it comes to revealed verses, are they to be found in the Torah or the Talmud?

2) Is it correct to say that the Torah and the Old testament are the same thing?

3) What's your opinion of the this New Age obsession with the kabalah? What I mean is Madonna, baphomet, and devil worship?

4) Do Jews believe in the Psalms of David (AS) (Zabur)? Does it actually exist?

Lastly, I just make a point in saying that I find it really cool, that akin to Shia Islam where a verse of the Holy Quran has tafseer and ta'weel ( hidden meaning) we see a similar trend in traditional Judaism. Also, I really wish the world would learn the truth about Zionism vs and actual Judaism!

 

Thank you and keep up the great work!

 

Salman

 

1) The Torah is by definition composed of verses revealed to Moses, although there is a discussion, whether some verses at the ending part were added by Joshua who was also a prophet. The Talmud contains many narrations transmitted from Moses and other prophets, very much Ahadith, although it's full of hypothetical conjectures and dubious traditions that are rejected after careful analysis, but preserved, because they may have esoteric meaning or some other useful information.

2) The Torah is a part of the Old Testament, which contains a collection of other prophetic books.

3) New Age folks are also obsessed with Sufism, Buddhism and who knows what comes next. Give them Nahj al-Balagha presented by some crook, it would be the next obsession. The funniest thing about Baphomet that it is. apparently, a corrupted version of Muhammad invented by some Islamophobic Catholics who accused the Templers in sympathies to Muslims.

4) Psalms of David are a central part of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and are recited on daily basis in Jewish prayers.

 

Edited by Yoel

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 hours ago, salman1 said:

Thank you Yoel. That was very enlightening. I guess my next question is, are the Neturei Karta the original adherents of Judaism, or are they a cult or a sect of Judaism. 

 

Thank you!

 

Salman

 

Neturei Karta has two meanings:

1) A traditional Orthodox community of Lithuanian and Hungarian origin centered in Jerusalem, which existed already in the 18th century or earlier and which was strongly opposed to the establishment of the Zionist state and always aligned with its Palestinian neighbors.

2) An international movement of anti-Zionist activists representing various trends in Hasidic and non-Hasidic Judaism. I am more familiar with this group, because I never lived in Palestine.

In both cases, there is nothing cultish or sectarian about this groups. They just try to preserve highly conservative varieties of authentic pre-Zionist Judaism. Some people who align with Neturei Karta are more modern and don't see a problem in listening to secular music, watching movies with less than proprietary dressed actresses, but share the same traditional rejection of Zionism. Hundreds of thousands of other Orthodox Jews also completely reject Zionism and believe that the establishment of the Zionist state was a heresy or a mistake of apocalyptic proportions, but prefer to just live a quite life in North America or Europe instead of showing up at Palestinian demonstrations.

Edited by Yoel

Share this comment


Link to comment

This article is, as I understood, trying to present Talmud as legit to the Muslims. It's not and it can't be.

Musa a.s. came to Beni Israil with "of Tewrat" (min et-Tewrati). Et-Tewrat is a full Law and "min et-Tewrati" means that he came with not all of the Law. Proof for this is in all the words from 'Isa, son of Meryem a.s., to Beni Israil.

But, 'Isa, son of Meryem a.s., came with Et-Tawrat, not its part, he came with full the Law. This means that Beni Israil had all of the Law with 'Isa, son of Meryem a.s. Not a single command as law was reaveled to them after him a.s.

As you said, ayet 5:32 refers to something what is contained in Talmud, which, as I understood, was written according to oral narrations and that happened in Babylon. All of this means that 'Isa, son of Meryem a.s., lived and came to Beni Israil before Babylon happened, right?

As, I know, there's a passage in Torah, which is recognized as Et-Tewrat, which is describing death of h. Musa a.s. I think nobody can say that this was written by Musa a.s. I hope you know who wrote this.

Why I told that Talmud is not legit to Muslims?

Talmud probably contains a lot of sayings of Musa a.s., but it also contains a lot of sayings of h. 'Isa, son of Meryem a.s. They (Jews) rejected him a.s. as Mesih and they changed his words and they even changed owner of those words. This is why we cannot accept anything from Torah, unless we're 100% certain that it's something we know from the Qur'an.

The Qur'an contains all 7 "revelations" and some of them are Et.Tewrat, El-Injil, Zebur and Dhikr. These 7 are totally different and they use for different purposes. Since the Qur'an contains all of them there's no need for any of them for us Muslims. It's, if I can compare, as some book was published in 7 parts, then publisher published all 7 in one book. But Almighty "Publisher" said that he'll be hafiz of the Qur'an.

We should never forget that of all the people Jews and mushriqoon hate us most and we cannot take as ewliya' those of the Jews and the Christians who are ewliya' to each other.

On the other hand, there's ummah amongs them who're mu'minoon.

Allah swt knows best

Share this comment


Link to comment

This article, as you, unfortunately, misunderstood, is just trying to explain how the Talmud is related - or rather unrelated - to Zionism, its place in the tradition of Judaism and some basic examples of traditional Jewish interpretation of the Talmud.

The Talmud serves exactly the same role in Judaism as the Hadith in Islam. It's not scripture, but a compendium of narrations and discussions. It contains prophetic traditions narrated by Moses and other prophets. It also contains various historical rulings made by scholars who used the internal logic of these prophetic traditions, their personal fatwas issued in various specific situations, as well as folk legends, remedies and other things unrelated to prophecy and laws. In fact, according to Judaism, it is heresy to believe that the main prophetic part of the Talmud was not revealed to Moses! The Quran 5:32 refers to something that is contained in Talmud and is believed in Judaism to have been revealed to Moses and transmitted orally through many generations.

Now, regarding "all the people Jews and mushriqoon hate us most" I would like to mention that the entire Talmud was completed during the 5th century, with a few 6th century minor additions. The editors of the Talmud could not possibly have been Muslim-haters, because they lived centuries before Muhammad's birth. In their mind, they were doing precisely the same as Imam Muslim or Al-Kulayni who tried their best to preserve orally transmitted prophetic traditions and logical conclusions based on those traditions.

Besides, many discussions on this website are held by Christians and followers of other religions who wish to broaden the knowledge of their readers. The University of Religions and Denominations in Qum offers courses in various fields, including the Talmud, Jewish esoteric tradition known as Kabbalah, Hunduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism... Let's discuss next time Avesta and the Diamond Sutra. All great religious traditions in the world contain a degree of esoteric truths and wisdom.

Quite a few passages from the Gospels are, in fact, recorded in the Talmud, albeit anonymously. How and when is another interesting research topic.

BTW, there is a well known discussion in the Talmud, whether Moses himself described his own death right before he died or it was written by Joshua who also was a prophet. Many Jewish commentators (perhaps most) lean toward the first opinion. It is perfectly possible and logical to think that a prophet may predict and describe his own burial.

 

4 hours ago, Aladin from Azra tribe said:

This article is, as I understood, trying to present Talmud as legit to the Muslims. It's not and it can't be.

Musa a.s. came to Beni Israil with "of Tewrat" (min et-Tewrati). Et-Tewrat is a full Law and "min et-Tewrati" means that he came with not all of the Law. Proof for this is in all the words from 'Isa, son of Meryem a.s., to Beni Israil.

But, 'Isa, son of Meryem a.s., came with Et-Tawrat, not its part, he came with full the Law. This means that Beni Israil had all of the Law with 'Isa, son of Meryem a.s. Not a single command as law was reaveled to them after him a.s.

As you said, ayet 5:32 refers to something what is contained in Talmud, which, as I understood, was written according to oral narrations and that happened in Babylon. All of this means that 'Isa, son of Meryem a.s., lived and came to Beni Israil before Babylon happened, right?

As, I know, there's a passage in Torah, which is recognized as Et-Tewrat, which is describing death of h. Musa a.s. I think nobody can say that this was written by Musa a.s. I hope you know who wrote this.

Why I told that Talmud is not legit to Muslims?

Talmud probably contains a lot of sayings of Musa a.s., but it also contains a lot of sayings of h. 'Isa, son of Meryem a.s. They (Jews) rejected him a.s. as Mesih and they changed his words and they even changed owner of those words. This is why we cannot accept anything from Torah, unless we're 100% certain that it's something we know from the Qur'an.

The Qur'an contains all 7 "revelations" and some of them are Et.Tewrat, El-Injil, Zebur and Dhikr. These 7 are totally different and they use for different purposes. Since the Qur'an contains all of them there's no need for any of them for us Muslims. It's, if I can compare, as some book was published in 7 parts, then publisher published all 7 in one book. But Almighty "Publisher" said that he'll be hafiz of the Qur'an.

We should never forget that of all the people Jews and mushriqoon hate us most and we cannot take as ewliya' those of the Jews and the Christians who are ewliya' to each other.

On the other hand, there's ummah amongs them who're mu'minoon.

Allah swt knows best

Edited by Yoel

Share this comment


Link to comment
9 hours ago, Aladin from Azra tribe said:

Talmud probably contains a lot of sayings of Musa a.s., but it also contains a lot of sayings of h. 'Isa, son of Meryem a.s. They (Jews) rejected him a.s. as Mesih and they changed his words and they even changed owner of those words.

The Talmud does contains many sayings that seem identical to supposedly canonical or apocryphical teachings of Jesus. Even more interesting is the fact that they appear here and there is Jewish traditions recorded much later. The real historical picture is much more complicated. Christianity started largely as a movement within Judaism up until the 4th century, when the Roman Empire adopted its own acceptable narrow range of versions of Christianity as its own official religion and gave the Jewish followers of Jesus the choice either to abolish the law of Moses or exactly to reject Jesus outright. To put it simply: imagine they tell you that if you accept Jesus, you must eat from now on pork and worship him as an incarnated triune god. Some Christian philosophers and mystics, especially in the Eastern Orthodox tradition did a lot of work to rectify their theology, but the damage was already done. The Roman Church forced those Jews who still believed in a some non-standard form of christology either to get out or to accept the new anti-Jewish religion tainted will idol worship and old Roman imperial cults.

Now, precisely in Sassanid Persia and Arabian Peninsula there were still fairly traditional Jewish groups who believed that Jesus was a prophet and a messianic figure in some sense. There groups were still around in medieval Muslim countries up until 12th-13th century exactly because the Greco-Roman church was unable to destroy them there.

Much later, in 15th-16th century, amid the liberalization of Western society, you start finding prominent Jewish thinkers who thought that Jesus was a righteous man of wisdom and in some limited sense a messianic figure. Very carefully, because the church would still tell you: Eat pork, my dear, forget your old laws and accept a theology that at least in its crude interpretations smacks of sheep idolatry. And because most Jews, on the other hand, would remind you that everything related to Jesus was for centuries associated in the West with burning at the stake, mass murders by the Crusaders and other highly unpleasant things.

Anyway, it's complicated. :)

Edited by Yoel

Share this comment


Link to comment

It's not complicated, just people are getting illusion (batil) as reality (haqq) and they are confused, under sihr.

'Isa, son of Meryem a.s., had two uncles: Musa a.s. and Haroon a.s., brothers of his mother h. Meryem s.a. This is why you'll find a lot of sayings which you can recognized as "similar to his". What Jews done is that they changed them and they accepted them as from somebody else, because they rejected (were kafiroon in) 'Isa, son of Meryem a.s.

His name is Joshua for Jews and they know for Joshua, son of Miryam a.s., "author" of "part of Torah".

As I said, there's a lot of reality (haqq) in Talmud for sure, but there's a lot of illusion (batil) too. We Muslims shouldn't take it, because it's very hard to distinguish one from another without a great knowledge from Him and there's no need to take anything from it, because all of its reality is in the Qur'an, if we care about reality.

Ayet about hate of Jews to Muslims is not in past (perfect) tense, it's imperfect, so its reality comes from the moment of its revalation.

All of the people of Kitab will know and accept reality about 'Isa, son of Meryem a.s., before he dies (he's not dead yet). Jews should think about him, a lot.

Anyways, your article is not negative at all. I just wanted to add a few things I found related to what you wrote.

Allah swt knows best

Share this comment


Link to comment
5 hours ago, Aladin from Azra tribe said:

His name is Joshua for Jews and they know for Joshua, son of Miryam a.s., "author" of "part of Torah"...
 

Ayet about hate of Jews to Muslims is not in past (perfect) tense, it's imperfect, so its reality comes from the moment of its revalation.

I am talking not about Jesus, but about Joshua bin Nun, the main disciple of Moses who is recognized by many Muslims as a prophet and successor of Moses, and who is mentioned (not by name though) in the Quran 5:22-23. The lines about Moses' death are also recorded in the Greek translation of the Torah (Septuagint) written long before Jesus, around the 3rd century BCE.

Regarding hatred, Muhammad encountered a number of Jews and Jewish group who exhibited hatred toward him and plotted against him. It was a fact of 7th century reality, but it does not mean that the Talmudic sages somehow hated Muhammad who was not born yet or that he was hated by 7th century Jews in India or China who never heard of him. In classical Jewish religious literature you can find various opinions about Islam and Muhammad, ranging from sharp criticism to love and conditional acceptance of Muslim traditions. The most common mainstream historical opinion was somewhat cautious sympathy to Muslims as fellow monotheists who practice many things similar to Judaism. The unfortunate current anti-Muslim hatred that you find often in today's Jewish communities is very recent and is politically motivated due to the confusion created by the Zionists and the Middle East conflict.

Edited by Yoel

Share this comment


Link to comment

Who was Joshua's mother according to Judaism? Jesus is not 'Isa, son of Meryem a.s. Joshua, son of Miriam a.s. is him. This is the main error in thinking, taken from siners amongs Jews (fasiqoon).

You mentioned ayets 5:22-23 and these two and ayets after these are very interesting. In 5:23 "two men" were mentioned. Who're they? If one is Joshua ibn Miriam a.s. is Haroon a.s. (Aaron ibn Awram) other one? There were not followers of Musa a.s. amongs Beni Israil, except youth. They rejected all from Musa a.s. or it was very hard to accept these things they accepted.

1) This is why Jews lied on all of them. They said that Aaron ibn Awram a.s. made golden calf

2) They said that Miriam, their sister, s.a. was against Moses a.s., same as Aaron a.s. was

3) They said that Miriam s.a. was not pure, she had a problem with her skin, as a punishment from God

4) They rejected her son Joshua a.s. as Mesih, etc etc etc.

This is why they lied and made a story about Jesus, a centuries after real person 'Isa, son of Meryem a.s., lived. To do so, they had to change oral narrations and this is why Talmud is very dangerous for the Jews.

You're forgetting that there were Muslims before Islam came to Arabs as the Qur'an. And Jews and mushriqoon were enemies of them too. Some of these Muslims were amongs Jews themselves, because being a Muslim is not in somebody's name, it's in what he recognizes and what he's doing.

Jews who knew/know about this were/are saying: "We were Muslims before", as stated in the Qur'an.

I'm totally sure that anybody who comes to Talmud with intention to know reality will conclude a lot about Musa a.s. and 'Isa, son of Meryem a.s. But, I'm inviting all to read about them from the Qur'an only, as it is easiest way to know the reality (haqq).

I am not making any difference between Muslims amongs Jews, Christians and Muslims as nation. Anybody who's recognizing and accepting reality from Allah swt Only is my brother, no matter what is his name.

Knowing about 'Isa, son of Meryem a.s., is knowing about The Hour (es-Sa'at) and The Hour is very close...

Allah swt knows best

Share this comment


Link to comment
3 hours ago, Aladin from Azra tribe said:

Who was Joshua's mother according to Judaism? Jesus is not 'Isa, son of Meryem a.s. Joshua, son of Miriam a.s. is him. This is the main error in thinking, taken from siners amongs Jews (fasiqoon).

 

Once again, I am not talking about Isa/Jesus, the son of Maryam, but about Joshua (يوشع بن نون‎‎). His father's name was Nun. His father was from the tribe of Ephraim. He lived in Moses' time. His wife was Rahab. His tomb is usually believed to be located in Palestine. Thousands of Muslims go there to pray. An entirely different person who name is spelled يوشع  in Arabic.

Share this comment


Link to comment

We can't talk then. I asked about his mother and you're telling me about Joshua in Arabic. To understand names we have to understand word "ism" first. If you ever believe in 'Isa, son of Meryem a.s., as somebody who lived in time of Musa a.s. and you accept him, I'll be glad to have you as somebody very interesting for dialogue.

Sorry if I ruined your blog entry.

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 hours ago, Aladin from Azra tribe said:

We can't talk then. I asked about his mother and you're telling me about Joshua in Arabic. To understand names we have to understand word "ism" first. If you ever believe in 'Isa, son of Meryem a.s., as somebody who lived in time of Musa a.s. and you accept him, I'll be glad to have you as somebody very interesting for dialogue.

Sorry if I ruined your blog entry.

Not at all! You greatly entertained my blog entry.

As for 'Isa the son of Maryam - who is, let me repeat again, not the prophet Joshua bin Nun, but an entirely different person - please define in some meaningful way what do you mean by "accepting" 'Isa the son of Maryam. Who is, let me repeat again, again and again, not the prophet Joshua bin Nun, but an entirely different person? 

Which type of Christian missionary are you, by the way?  Never heard of this particular missionary position. :)

Edited by Yoel

Share this comment


Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Latest Blog Entries

    • By Haji 2003 in Contemporania
         0
      I've always thought that since British Mandate the Palestinians have been in a no win position. If they accepted the offers the Israelis gave them there would have been an incentive for the Israelis to take more land (if the Pals don't time yielding some they might not mind yielding more) and if the Pals had resisted that would also have given the Israelis a pre-text to take more land (for defensive purposes).
      In short whatever the Pals decided did not matter, the Israelis were in too dominant a position.
      Turning now to a totally different situation, the following piece in the FT neatly summarises how I feel about the situation between the U.S. government and Huawei. In a previous FT story about the same subject I posted a comment that this situation is similar to the British attempts to stop Indian technological development by banning the Indians from making their own steam engines, at the start of the 20th century. They may have delayed development by some decades, but that's all they were able to do. 
      https://www.ft.com/content/8fc63610-88fe-11e9-b861-54ee436f9768
      In summary I think the U.S. government feels a threat to its economic/technological dominance. And the sanctions are its attempt to fight back. But whether the U.S. decides to fight or not, I think in the longer term that dominance will have to be compromised. Huawei and the Chinese are now too far along the technological path of development and they are far further ahead than the India of the early 20th century. 
    • By starlight in Light Beams
         1
      Salam everyone, 
      One of the most tragic incidences in the history of Islam has been the the martyrdom of the the Lady of light, Our Prophet Muhammad(saw)' daughter, Fatima Zahra(عليه السلام). To date the exact location of her grave is not known. What is even sadder is that most Shias of Ahlebayt(عليه السلام) are not clear about the facts and timeline of events surrounding her tragic death. Ambiguities have been created,some people choose to adopt a defensive attitude when naming people involved in the incident, others shy away from talking about it because of creating discord with people of other sects. However, I believe it is very important that we are very clear about what happened after the death of RasulAllah(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and in the event of a discussion we are able to state the facts objectively, and this is the sole purpose of this post. It is not to curse the caliphs, or offend the Sunnis, so I will request that if anyone replies here he also refrains from doing so. 
      Most of what I have written below comes from Sheikh Abbas Qummi's book "House of Sorrows" . I will try to provide references wherever possible in the post, but since I want to keep it short and concise I would ask you to refer to the book if anyone wishes to read more. The book is available online on al-Islam.org. 
      1. DEATH OF THE HOLY Prophet
      The Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) departed from this world on 28 safar 11 A.H.  For three days Imam Ali(عليه السلام) postponed his burial. Why? Because he wanted to give all the Muslims an opportunity to join his funeral. Sadly, most of the Ansar and Muhajireen were busy choosing the successor of Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and didn't show up. Seeing this, Imam Ali(عليه السلام) went ahead with the funeral and burial of RasulAllah(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) 
      2. SAQEEFAH
      In Arabic, the word Saqeefah literally means a 'tent'.So,while the Bani Hashim were busy with funeral arrangements of RasulAllah(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and had withdrawn from social activities because they were mourning the Ansaar gathered in the tent of the tribe of Bani Sa'idah and started choosing a leader for the Arabs. Upon hearing this Umar told Abu Bakr to quickly rush to the place. After some squabble between Ansaar and Muhajireen Abu Bakr was chosen as a successor for Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).
      The first three people to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr were: Bashir b.Sa'ad, Umar b.Khattab and Abu ‘Ubaydah al-Jarrah. 
      3. DID EVERYONE PLEAD ALLEGIANCE TO Abu Bakr? WHAT HAPPENED TO PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T? 
      Of course, one of the persons to not pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr was our Imam Ali(عليه السلام) but there were people amongst Arabs who refused to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr. Let's just look at two examples.
      1. MALIK b.NUWAYRAH: Malik b Nuwayarh was a devout companion of the Holy Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Upon his refusal to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr, Abu Bakr told Khalid b. Waleed to prepare an army against him and attack him under the pretext that he had turned apostate and was refusing to pay Zakat and taxes to the Caliph. What Khalid b. Waleed did was attack him during the night in his house, like a coward. They killed him, later raped his wife and they didn't stop there. They cut off Malik's head and cooked it with camel meat and the food from the vessel containing Malik's head was consumed by Khalid b. Waleed's army. 
      2. SA'AD b. UBADAH: Saad b.Ubadah was from the Ansaar of Medina and a contender with Abu Bakr for caliphate.However, he lost when the clan of al-Khizraj did not side with him. Umar tried to force him to pledge allegiance. However,he refused to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr and to Umar after him and instead lived a life of seclusion. When Umar took over the reins he ordered Khalid b. Waleed to kill Sa'ad. He shot arrows at him which killed him and they later spread a rumour that he was killed by jinns(narrated by Historian al-baladhuri)
      So now we have some idea what was happening to people who refused allegiance. 
      4.CONFISCATION OF Fadak
      Fadak was confiscated and one of the reasons behind confiscating Fadak was to hurt Imam Ali(عليه السلام) economically because Abu Bakr and Umar feared that Imam Ali(عليه السلام) might rise against them so they took away Fadak. 
      5. WHY DIDN'T Imam Ali (عليه السلام) OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT OF Abu Bakr?
      After Saqeefa took place three hundred and sixty people pledged allegiance at the hand of Imam Ali(عليه السلام) to defend him until his death. Imam(عليه السلام) told them go home and gather in a particular street the next day with shaved heads.Out of of these three hundred and sixty people how many turned up the next day? Only FIVE!     Abu Dharr, Miqdad, Hudhayfah, Ammar and Salman.
      Imam Ali(عليه السلام) saw a flock of sheep, about thirty in number gathered in a pen and looking at them he said, "By Allah! If I had along with me men who were true supporters of Allah, the Mighty, the Sublime, and His Prophet, equaling the number of these sheep, I would certainly have deposed Abu Bakr, from his authority."
      6. FORCING Imam Ali(عليه السلام) TO GIVE ALLEGIANCE & THREATENING TO BURN THEIR HOUSE
      After seeing fickleness of the people Imam Ali (عليه السلام)settled into his house. Abu Bakr sent men to get Imam Ali(عليه السلام) to come out. He turned them down.They went again,this time Lady Fatima(عليه السلام) refused to open the door and sent them away. Next, three men gathered firewood outside the home of Hazrat Ali(عليه السلام) and Bibi Fatima(عليه السلام). Who were these three men 1. Qunfudh  2.Khalid b.Waleed  3.Mughaira b.Shu'bah.
      Umar came to the door and asked Fatima(عليه السلام) to open it, which she refused once again.They started lighting up the firewood on Umar's instructions. Hazrat Fatima(عليه السلام)cried out and tried to remind them of her position which they ignored and, pushed the door open behind which Hazrat Fatima(عليه السلام),who was pregnant at that time was standin, and she was crushed between the wall and door. Umar entered the house and struck Fatima(عليه السلام) on the arm with his whip which left a bruise there. She sustained injuries which led her to miscarrying the baby Mohsin; and went into an illness from which she did not recover. 
      7.IS IT REALLY POSSIBLE THAT Umar ASSAULTED Fatima(عليه السلام)?
      If we look at Umer's life we see that he had an explosive temper a history of abuse against women. The famous incident narrated by our Sunni brothers about his conversion to Islam, where Umar struck his own sister and wounded her. Before going to his Sister's house he was on his way to kill Prophet of Allah(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)
      8. Islamic POSITION ON ENTERING SOMEONE'S HOUSE WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION
      O you who have believed, do not enter houses other than your own houses until you ascertain welcome and greet their inhabitants. That is best for you; perhaps you will be reminded.And if you do not find anyone therein, do not enter them until permission has been given you. And if it is said to you, "Go back," then go back; it is purer for you. And Allah is Knowing of what you do. - Qur'an Surah Nur: 27-28
      9. WHY DID Fatima(عليه السلام) ANSWER THE DOOR AND NOT Imam Ali(عليه السلام)?
      This is one of the points frequently brought up, why didn't Imam Ali answer the door? The answer is, there is nothing wrong per se to a wife answering the door. there are numerous narrations where one of Prophet(saw)'s wives answered the door while the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was himself in the house.
      10.WHY DIDN'T Imam Ali DEFEND Fatima(عليه السلام)?
      After Umar had struck Fatima(عليه السلام) Imam Ali(عليه السلام) came out and caught hold of the collar of ‘Umar and threw him down to the ground. He was determined to kill him but suddenly recalled the testimony of the Prophet (to forebear) and called out, ‘O son of Sahhak! I swear by Allah Who exalted Muhammad to the rank of prophethood that if the command of Allah would not have been decreed and the promise (to bear patiently) not have been given to me by the Prophet of Allah, you would have realized how difficult it is to enter my house!’
      11. HAZRAT Fatima(عليه السلام) PASSED AWAY AT LEAST A MONTH AFTER HER SERMON ON Fadak
      https://www.al-Islam.org/house-sorrows-life-sayyidah-fatimah-al-Zahra-and-her-grief-shaykh-Abbas-qummi/chapter-3-state
      http://www.askthesheikh.com/can-you-provide-reliable-shiasunni-sources-on-martyrdom-of-lady-Fatima-al-Zahra-a-s/
    • By Last Chance in Poems for the Ahlul Bayt
         0
      Alone, in the dark, a young girl is weeping,
      Not knowing what her heart has always been seeking,
      So, now, to her Lord, she is finally speaking,
      Revealing the secrets she thought she'd been keeping.
       
       
      Her Lord listens to her with indescribable love,
      He watches her raise her weak hands, above.
       
       
      "My Lord, I beg you to enter my heart,
      To you, all my sorrows, I wish to impart,
      This emptiness, I can bear it no more,
      I feel I am drowning and you are my shore."
       
       
      She buries her wet face in the palms of her hands,
      For she knows that He, alone, understands,
      But she wonders if she is worthy of His mercy, so great,
      She wonders if forgiveness and love are her fate.
       
       
      "My Lord, I have neglected my soul,
      I never gave heed to my purpose or goal,
      And now, I need You to set my soul right,
      I have no-one but You in the midst of this night."
       
       
      Tears flow from her eyes like a thunderous river,
      As she awaits the reply from this Generous Giver,
      But He waits and He watches as she continues to cry,
      So she calls desperately into the night sky,
       
       
      "My Lord, You are everything I need,
      Of any happiness, You are the seed,
      I yearn for You to make my heart whole,
      To take Your place, this world previously stole."
       
       
      With nothing more to give, the girl gets to her feet,
      As longing for her Lord fills her every heartbeat.
      She raises her hands, one final time,
      Her soul weighed down by her forgetful crime.
       
       
      "My Lord, You are my only, last hope,
      Without you, I know, I won't be able to cope,
      To feel Your presence, my soul, I can sell,
      All I want is that in my heart, You dwell.
       
       
      My Lord, I want You to open my soul's eyes,
      And to put an end to my grievous cries,
      You said that Your friends feel no sorrow, nor pain,
      So befriend me, God, let this night not pass in vain."
       
       
      As she tires from this begging, her eyes slowly close,
      And she feels that her yearning, now surely, He knows,
      Her Lord looks lovingly at the slumbering youth,
      And knows that her words carried nothing but truth.
       
       
      So He enters her soul and whispers some words,
      Sweeter than the chirping of awakening birds,
       
       
      "...Call upon me; I will answer you," (40: 60)
      And more than this, what else could be true?
    • By Last Chance in Poems for the Ahlul Bayt
         0
      How I must beg, I do not know,
      Now I've learnt to let these tears flow,
      For I've begged you and with you I've pleaded,
      And maybe your nearness, some others have needed,
      But you know who I am and you know what I need,
      Is it the pain when I feel my heart bleed?
      Tell me how to beg, for I do not know,
      How do I see your golden dome glow?
      My tears have been shed and my soul has felt sorrow,
      And desperation has set for news of tomorrow,
      And disappointments of which I have lost count,
      Aren't these reasons enough? Too small in amount?
      But how I must beg, I do not know,
      So now I beg you to teach me and show.
      To your love, I've submitted, for how can one not?
      And of my life's story, I've made you the plot,
      I've discarded of any beginning or end,
      For I know that my heart, only you can mend,
      But to beg you better, I just don't know how,
      A lifetime's attempts and in shame, I still bow.
      Regarding my worth, I will not speak,
      For in you and your service, my own worth, I seek,
      But tell me what in my pleading is wrong,
      Is the pain in my love for you not strong?
      I will not ask you, from me, what you want,
      For what king can gain from his servant's servant?
      All I ask is, my emptiness you understand,
      My craving to weep on Karbala's sand,
      The heavenly walk, baynol haramayn,
      To shout with the millions, "Labbaika ya Hussain",
      To drown in your love and to die in that state,
      Be worthy of smelling the scent of your gate,
      To look up into your once-red, blue sky,
      And have no sense but to helplessly cry,
      In awe of your beauty and the fact that I'm here,
      In the hope that I might return in a year,
      And the realisation that this isn't a dream,
      Blinded by this love and your dome's golden beam,
      The heat of the sun striking all those in black,
      To walk towards your shrine and never look back,
      Relive your sorrow and make it my own,
      Watch your black flag in the wind, being blown,
      To feel a long-lost peace in my heart,
      Forgetting that from here, we'll all once depart,
      Engrave these memories deep in my soul,
      For my emptiness to fill, making me whole.
      And for the rest of my life, to live on these tears,
      If you'd just end the waiting I've done for these years.
      Allahumma irzoqni ziyaratel Hussein ((عليه السلام).)
    • By Last Chance in Poems for the Ahlul Bayt
         0
      The poets have written and the scholars have preached,
      Yet the value of Ali no understanding can reach,
      An eternity has passed and another will come,
      The Earth's ink could diminish and al tongues could go numb,
      Yet no heart of his lover is able to rest
      For this love of Ali remains trapped in their chest,
      No words can unlock it and no action can earn
      And through a million books, only a fraction they'd learn.
      What is this mystery that no mind can perceive?
      What lies in the depths of the souls that believe?
      What is the reason that they call us insane,
      When the essence of sanity with his love we gain?
      It is the man that no man understands,
      Save the last messenger to all of these lands,
      The Lion from whom the enemies would flee,
      The servant who would break his bread on his knee,
      The man who would cry out into a well,
      With secrets in his heart and no believer to tell.
      Which man speaks words like pearls from the heaven?
      Which light is this, followed by the other eleven?
      Which prince shares his progeny with a mistress unmatched?
      To which soul and which mind is all truth attached?
      This soul is the hero of Siffeen and Hunayn,
      The nurturing father of the pure Hassanain,
      The generous slave who bows while he gives,
      This is the man whose name always lives,
      Whose enemies' lives are wasted in vain,
      In countless attempts to have this gem slain.
      But what is this rarity that circles my mind?
      Makes me hear nothing and turns my eyes blind,
      So that his words are the only words that I see,
      And a servant of these words all hearts want to be.
      Which man is the line between falsehood and truth?
      Which warrior's courage stood unshaken since youth?
      The soldier who did not need his sword to slay,
      Only his novel of a name he would say,
      "Know that I am Ali" and the enemy inside would die,
      One strike and soon after, "Allahu Akbar" he would cry,
      He, whose shield had shielded his brother,
      A man like whom there has been no other,
      The seal of the Prophets and best of all men,
      …Inseparable now and inseparable then.
      The hero who lifted the gate of Khaybar,
      My master, Ali, my leader, Haidar,
      The half that Our Lady perfectly completed,
      By whose enemies the fires of hell are heated,
      The man who one night sold his soul to his Lord,
      And cried out in victory upon being struck by the sword,
      Sayyidi, Mawlai, Ameeri Ali,
      Ni3mel Ameer wa ni3mel Wali.
    • By Last Chance in Poems for the Ahlul Bayt
         0
      Yesterday, they sent me a king,
      One whose praises they all seem to sing,
      He told me he could grant me some wealth,
      And if I served well, some more for my health,
      But with this king, I was not content,
      So him, like the others, away I sent.
      I met another who offered me fame,
      Said all the world's tongues could utter my name,
      All it would take was my obliging hand,
      And he'd turn my lowliness into something so grand,
      But with this king, I was not content,
      So him, like the others, away I sent.
      A third one arrived a fortnight before,
      Met my humble abode with a knock on my door,
      He told me he'd make my children my pride,
      And in a house of gold, he'd make me reside,
      But with this king, I was not content,
      So him, like the others, away I sent.
      Like this they kept coming and as always, they went,
      And my heart wished not to serve any king the world sent,
      And so in this frustration, I sought a way out,
      I went on a journey with my luggage of doubt,
      Perhaps I was too harsh on the kings that had come?
      Should I have listened a little to some?
      But now on this journey, it was too late,
      And to turn them away, it seemed was my fate.
      In the midst of this voyage I still had no goal,
      For I knew not where to find the cure for my soul,
      So I stopped for a while and stepped onto the ground,
      And a scent filled my heart with beauty profound,
      And as I walked on the sand to follow this scent,
      The weight on my shoulders seemed to relent,
      'Til I reached a sight that was ice to my eyes,
      In this heat of the sun under heaven's red skies.
      I saw a gold light where the sun hit the dome,
      And a red flag like a sign on the door of a home,
      And masses of servants running to their master inside,
      Where I thought the royals of this land would reside,
      But I looked again and saw no servants around,
      Only kings and queens in their dignity, crowned,
      So, confused, I asked where the servants might be,
      And one man told me that the servant was he,
      But another man came and said, "Servant? That's me,"
      Then another and another, and they all said the same,
      And soon every royal in that place made that claim.
      Finally, a woman told me the truth,
      She was the wisest and most modest of youth,
      She said that these people were not kings or queens,
      Until they had served her son through their means,
      She told me that his service turned slaves into kings,
      The way a goldsmith turns stones into rings,
      She showed me why other kings, I had turned down,
      Why each one was simply a slave in a gown-
      What king needs his servants and roams the low Earth?
      The true king's servants struggle to meet him since birth.
      Like a lost orphan who seeks a father's embrace,
      I'd serve all my life for the peace in that place,
      So here I stand, still waiting outside,
      And by his principals, I try to abide,
      So that maybe one day, we might finally meet,
      And this king of kings, I might humbly greet,
      And perhaps he might accept me as his,
      Maybe he'll turn my pain into bliss,
      For the servants of a king of kings feel no pain,
      The cure for their ailments is the love of Hussein ((عليه السلام)).
    • By Last Chance in Poems for the Ahlul Bayt
         0
      In this short life I sought virtues and love,
      So I asked those who knew and those from above,
      They told me to go to a land of blessing and sorrow,
      The land in which no soul wants tomorrow,
      So I took on this journey and stepped onto this land,
      And I saw two shining domes standing upright and grand,
      But in my shame and my filth, I spoke just to the sand.
      I asked this sand what virtues she carried,
      What treasures and gems within her were buried,
      She told me that there were too many to count,
      The virtues were more than her grains in amount,
      So instead I began asking my questions one by one,
      From the sight of the moon 'til the rise of the sun.
      I asked, 'In all your years, what friendship have you seen?'
      She cried, 'Only I have witnessed what true friendship means.
      When Habib came sprinting to the side of my master,
      Could anyone have come to his aid any faster?
      This world knows nothing about the friendship I saw,
      For if they understood, they would have wept from its awe,
      No friendship exists like that of Habib and Hussain,
      Together they grew and together were slain.
      Tell me, which others do you know who had such love in their hearts?
      Which other man would come from such a distance apart?'
      I fell silent for no other name came to mind,
      No other such friendship was I able to find,
      So I asked her what she knew of the virtue of love,
      And she said, 'You see the attachment of a love stricken dove?
      That is nothing, for true love is only for Him,
      Not these petty desires that come and go on a whim,
      The woman who loved was the young newlywed,
      Who gave away to her Lord what all women dread,
      She bed her husband Wahab farewell as she cried,
      And a widow became of this heart broken bride.
      Tell me, which other young soul do you know,
      Who would give her husband away to a devil's sword blow?'
      Again, I fell silent, for I knew not such a soul,
      And my river of tears I was unable to control,
      I choked back my grief and asked her about youth,
      And she said, 'If only you'd witnessed this truth,
      The women had wailed when Qasim had gone,
      For it was Hassan again who had passed on,
      But nobody in this world can truly understand,
      Unless they saw Qasim in his new armour stand,
      And Awn and Mohammed bidding their mother goodbye,
      But if you had seen this, from grief you would die,
      And the arrow in the neck of the six month old rose,
      The blood that drenched his small, infant clothes,
      More blood than the milk he ever drank from his mother,
      Yet this soldier was the youngest amongst all of his brothers.
      Tell me, which other young men have you seen,
      Who sell their dreams for a reward that's unseen?
      Silence took over and I had no reply,
      Only the sense to lament and to cry,
      And then I asked, 'But what of their mothers?
      How could they see their sons killed by others?'
      Karbala wailed before she started to speak,
      Her words filled with sorrow and her voice very weak,
      'The mothers...I don't know where to begin,
      To put one above another would be a grave sin.
      I am no mother and still for years I have wept,
      These mothers, never again in peace have they slept,
      For which mother can rest when her son lies in a desert?
      No shroud and no grave and a bloodied red shirt.
      Which mother to weep for, I did not know,
      Rubab, who's Abdullah was only starting to grow?
      Or Layla who's Ali had been the chest of her dreams,
      Or the mother of Qasim, who's face with Hassan's light beams?
      Or Zainab who herself had not gotten to weep?
      And her tears in her heart, for Medina she'd keep.
      I know you know no mothers like these,
      So I will not ask you that question of ease.'
      My soul was torn between asking or not,
      For a spear of grief in my heart had been shot,
      But what sorrow was mine alongside of theirs?
      What grief do I carry next to what their soul bears?
      So I asked her the question that makes all hearts break,
      And her sobbing voice had started to shake,
      I asked her what loyalty she'd seen in this land,
      And she showed me the first dome that stood tall and grand,
      'No man has been loyal while Abbas's name lives,
      For the meaning of loyalty, Abbas's life gives,
      The father of virtues became the guard of Hussain,
      His eyes and his arms gone, and his body was slain,
      But I swear, oh visitor, this man is alive,
      Your Lord through His mercy made his great soul survive,
      For I have seen no one who leaves here distraught,
      Abbas carries any burden a visitor has brought,
      Through his own tears for the children, he wipes away yours,
      And the ailments of your life, this warrior cures.'
      My tears flowed and I craved to touch his blessed shrine,
      But I saw the dome of the king himself shine,
      'And tell me, Karbala, about my master Hussain,
      For my questions, no words of mine can contain,
      Tell me of his greatness, and his mercy and love,
      Tell me of the words that come from above,
      Karbala, tell me what his visitors don't know,
      Tell me those things which no human can show.'
      Karbala paused in awe and deep thought,
      For it was eloquence to do justice to him that she sought,
      'Oh visitor, no words of mine can suffice,
      But I will give you some simple words of advice...
      Oh visitor, go to him covered in my blessed sand,
      Gift him your tears of longing to be in this land,
      For Hussain is the king of kings in this world,
      The secrets of your soul by him are unfurled,
      Nothing you do will repay him a breath,
      For no man will see an end like his death.
      His death was so holy that God gifted him three,
      And yet these three are for this Earth that is temporary.
      The first were nine other lights from his line,
      Nine other princes of lineage divine,
      The second is the cure that my sand contains,
      I swear I can cure the worst of your pains,
      They say sand is so humble and the essence of low,
      But by God, 'til this day, His miracles I show.
      And the last and the third is where you should run,
      For under his dome his answer is one,
      Whatever need you have in your heart,
      Go, oh visitor, and to Hussain you impart,
      Shed the tears of your life and tell him your sorrow,
      I am a liar if your heart does not rest by tomorrow,
      Run like you'd run to be saved from a flood,
      For the ark of salvation floats on Hussain's holy blood.'
      I tried to run but my feet would slow down,
      How could a beggar run to touch a king's golden crown?
      So slowly I went and I kissed his caged shrine,
      And nothing but peace washed this stained soul of mine,
      And the rest of this journey can't be contained by this pen,
      Or the words of even the most eloquent men,
      But only one thing makes me hurt and insane...
      The dreams where I see his great shrine again.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Blog Statistics

    76
    Total Blogs
    395
    Total Entries
×
×
  • Create New...