Best 1302 quotes in «islam quotes» category

So eventually, our mutual ignorance of each other's faith cancelled each other out and we found ourselves at a stalemate, a common ground beyond our misunderstandings, where we could begin a healthy and open dialogue about the similarities and differences between Christianity and Islam… but our face to face dialogues helped us begin to comprehend with some degree of clarity what the other group actually believed.

So I close this long reflection on what I hope is a not-too-quaveringly semi-Semitic note. When I am at home, I will only enter a synagogue for the bar or bat mitzvah of a friend's child, or in order to have a debate with the faithful. (When I was to be wed, I chose a rabbi named Robert Goldburg, an Einsteinian and a Shakespearean and a Spinozist, who had married Arthur Miller to Marilyn Monroe and had a copy of Marilyn’s conversion certificate. He conducted the ceremony in Victor and Annie Navasky's front room, with David Rieff and Steve Wasserman as my best of men.) I wanted to do something to acknowledge, and to knit up, the broken continuity between me and my German-Polish forebears. When I am traveling, I will stop at the shul if it is in a country where Jews are under threat, or dying out, or were once persecuted. This has taken me down queer and sad little side streets in Morocco and Tunisia and Eritrea and India, and in Damascus and Budapest and Prague and Istanbul, more than once to temples that have recently been desecrated by the new breed of racist Islamic gangster. (I have also had quite serious discussions, with Iraqi Kurdish friends, about the possibility of Jews genuinely returning in friendship to the places in northern Iraq from which they were once expelled.) I hate the idea that the dispossession of one people should be held hostage to the victimhood of another, as it is in the Middle East and as it was in Eastern Europe. But I find myself somehow assuming that Jewishness and 'normality' are in some profound way noncompatible. The most gracious thing said to me when I discovered my family secret was by Martin, who after a long evening of ironic reflection said quite simply: 'Hitch, I find that I am a little envious of you.' I choose to think that this proved, once again, his appreciation for the nuances of risk, uncertainty, ambivalence, and ambiguity. These happen to be the very things that 'security' and 'normality,' rather like the fantasy of salvation, cannot purchase.

So I asked Dr Ceric if he thought there was a conflict between European values and Islam. ‘Not at all,’ he said. ‘Respect for other religions lies at the heart of Islam. And the principle of democracy is even anchored in Islam.’ When I looked surprised he explained: ‘Go right back to the origins of Islam. After Muhammad died, how did his followers seek his successor? They consulted with each other and chose his closest friend Abu Bakr in a democratic vote. Democracy is absolutely Islamic.

Some Christians pretend that Christianity was not established by the sword; but of what period of time do they speak? It was impossible that twelve men could begin with the sword: they had not the power; but no sooner were the professors of Christianity sufficiently powerful to employ the sword than they did so, and the stake and faggot too; and Mahomet could not do it sooner. By the same spirit that Peter cut off the ear of the high priest's servant (if the story be true) he would cut off his head, and the head of his master, had he been able. Besides this, Christianity grounds itself originally upon the [Hebrew] Bible, and the Bible was established altogether by the sword, and that in the worst use of it — not to terrify, but to extirpate. The Jews made no converts: they butchered all. The Bible is the sire of the [New] Testament, and both are called the word of God. The Christians read both books; the ministers preach from both books; and this thing called Christianity is made up of both. It is then false to say that Christianity was not established by the sword.

Some of the toughest ayaat in the Quran have Allah's name "ar-Rahman" in them to make it clear that just because Allah is the Most Merciful, it doesn't mean He's not going to carry out justice.

Someone once said to me, 'There are so many religions in the world. They can't all be right.' And my reply was, 'Well, they can't all be wrong either.' All religions in the world today share more commonalities than differences, yet language blinds many from seeing these truths. Some people will tell me that what I write about is straight from their holy book, but the truth is that the main principles found in all holy books were already engraved in all our hearts. If you think common sense, the golden rule and knowing right from wrong are exclusive only to your faith, then you need to open yourself up to the rest of the world's religions.

Some of us cover to protect our bodies some of us cover to protect our souls in both cases, respect their choices.

Some people have a heart to do evil and they don’t care if you’re Muslim or Christian.

Some people make the mistake of confusing "submission" with "weakness", whereas it is anything but. Submission is a form of peaceful acceptance of the terms of the universe including the things we are currently unable to change or comprehend. I accepted the fact that there are things beyond my limits. I can only see some parts, like floating fragments from a movie, but the bigger scheme is beyond my comprehension.

Some people make the mistake of confusing "submission" with "weakness", whereas it is anything but. Submission is a form of peaceful acceptance of the terms of the universe including the things we are currently unable to change or comprehend.

sometimes we need the world and all the people on her to abandon us so we can turn to the One who will never leave us stranded.

songkok dan kopiah keduanya dimurkai Allah jika gagal menjalankan perintah songkok dan kopiah usahlah bertelagah (Tiada Siapa Yang Lebih)

So this is where all the vapid talk about the 'soul' of the universe is actually headed. Once the hard-won principles of reason and science have been discredited, the world will not pass into the hands of credulous herbivores who keep crystals by their sides and swoon over the poems of Khalil Gibran. The 'vacuum' will be invaded instead by determined fundamentalists of every stripe who already know the truth by means of revelation and who actually seek real and serious power in the here and now. One thinks of the painstaking, cloud-dispelling labor of British scientists from Isaac Newton to Joseph Priestley to Charles Darwin to Ernest Rutherford to Alan Turing and Francis Crick, much of it built upon the shoulders of Galileo and Copernicus, only to see it casually slandered by a moral and intellectual weakling from the usurping House of Hanover. An awful embarrassment awaits the British if they do not declare for a republic based on verifiable laws and principles, both political and scientific.

Sosyal münasebetlerde nazik ol ve herkese en güzel şekilde davran! Zamanın akışı içinde beklenmedik tavırlar sergileyen kimselerden duygularını gizle! Rahat ve huzulu yaşarsın.

So, verily, with every difficulty, there is relief; Verily, with every difficulty there is relief. Therefore, when thou art free (from thine immediate task), still labour hard, And to thy Lord turn [all] thy attention.

Soudain, il me sembla que le ciel descendait. De la terre, surgit comme une fontaine d’énergie dorée. Cette chaude énergie m’encercla, et mon corps et mon esprit devinrent très légers et très clairs. Je pouvais même comprendre le chant des petits oiseaux autour de moi. A cet instant, je pouvais comprendre que le travail de toute ma vie dans le Budo était réellement fondé sur l’amour divin et sur les lois de la création. Je ne pus retenir mes larmes, et pleurai sans retenue. Depuis ce jour, j’ai su que cette grande Terre elle-même était ma maison et mon foyer. Le soleil, la lune et les étoiles m’appartiennent. Depuis ce jour, je n’ai plus jamais ressenti aucun attachement envers la propriété et les possessions.

Spominjanjem Gospodara u srcu se rahmet stvara.

Stenham had always taken it for granted that the dichotomy of belief and behavior was the cornerstone of the Moslem world. It was too deep to be called hypocrisy; it was merely custom. They said one thing and they did something else. They affirmed their adherence to Islam in formulated phrases, but they behaved as though they believed, and actually did believe, something quite different. Still, the unchanging profession of faith was there, and to him it was this eternal contradiction which made them Moslems. But Amar’s relationship to his religion was far more robust: he believed it possible to practice literally what the Koran enjoined him to profess. He kept the precepts constantly in his hand, and applied them on every occasion, at every moment. The fact that such a person as Amar could be produced by this society rather upset Stenham’s calculations. For Stenham, the exception invalidated the rule instead of proving it: if there were one Amar, there could be others. Then the Moroccans were not the known quantity he had thought they were, inexorably conditioned by the pressure of their own rigid society; his entire construction was false in consequence, because it was too simple and did not make allowances for individual variations.

Sta mi mogu moji neprijatelji. Moj dzennet je u mojim prsima, prati me svugdje. Ako me zatvore, to mi je osama sa Allahom. Ako me ubiju, to mi je sehadet. A ako me protjeraju, to mi je turizam na Allahovom putu".

Standing in Front of the Mirror of Eternity Dressed By True Existence Looking to Your Own Reality In the Ocean of Oneness

States that are built on a religious foundation limit their own people in a circle of faith and fear.

Suppose that members of a religious movement, such as Christianity, maintain that the existence of some powerful god and its goals or laws can be known through their scriptures, their prophets, or some special revelation. Suppose further that the evidence that is available to support the reliability of those scriptures, prophets, or special revelations is weaker than that God is hypothetically capable of producing. That is, suppose that Christians maintain that Jesus was resurrected on the basis of the Gospels, or that God’s existence can be known through the Bible, or Muslims insist on the historical authenticity of the Koran. Could God, the almighty creator of the universe, have brought it about so that the evidence in favor of the resurrection, the Bible, or the Koran was better than we currently find it? I take it that the answer is obviously yes. Even if you think there is evidence that is sufficient to prove the resurrection, a reasonable person must also acknowledge that it could have been better. And there’s the problem. If the capacity of that god is greater than the effectiveness or quality of those scriptures, prophets, or special revelations, then the story they are telling contradicts itself. 'We know our god is real on the basis of evidence that is inadequate for our god.' Or, 'The grounds that lead us to believe in our god are inconsistent with the god we accept; nevertheless, we believe in this god that would have given us greater evidence if it had wished for us to believe in it.' Given the disparity between the gods that these religious movements portend and the grounds offered to justify them, the atheist is warranted in dismissing such claims. If the sort of divine being that they promote were real and if he had sought our believe on the basis of the evidence, the evidential situation would not resemble the one we are in. The story doesn’t make internal sense. A far better explanation is that their enthusiasm for believing in a god has led them to overstate what the evidence shows. And that same enthusiasm has made it difficult for them to see that an all powerful God would have the power to make his existence utterly obvious and undeniable. Since it’s not, the non-believer can’t possibly be faulted for failing to believe.

Sumbu lilin tersangat dekat dengan api. Roh engkau tersangat dekat dengan barzakh. (Melihat Akhirat)

Sufis are keys to open up hearts.

Submission, when it is submission to the truth — and when the truth is known to be both beautiful and merciful — has nothing in common with fatalism or stoicism as these terms are understood in the Western tradition, because its motivation is different. According to Fakhr ad-Din ar-RazT, one of the great commentators upon the Quran: The worship of the eyes is weeping, the worship of the ears is listening, the worship of the tongue is praise, the worship of the hands is giving, the worship of the body is effort, the worship of the heart is fear and hope, and the worship of the spirit is surrender and satisfaction in Allah.

Sufism (tasawwuf) is not wearing clothes that you patched; it is not weeping when the singers sing their songs; and it is not dancing, shouting, experiencing ecstatic states, or passing out as if you’ve gone mad. Rather, Sufism is to become whole without any impurities; to follow the truth, the Qur’an, and this religion; and to be seen in a state of awe, broken and remorseful about all of your sins.

Suppose that we agree that the two atrocities can or may be mentioned in the same breath. Why should we do so? I wrote at the time (The Nation, October 5, 1998) that Osama bin Laden 'hopes to bring a "judgmental" monotheism of his own to bear on these United States.' Chomsky's recent version of this is 'considering the grievances expressed by people of the Middle East region.' In my version, then as now, one confronts an enemy who wishes ill to our society, and also to his own (if impermeable religious despotism is considered an 'ill'). In Chomsky's reading, one must learn to sift through the inevitable propaganda and emotion resulting from the September 11 attacks, and lend an ear to the suppressed and distorted cry for help that comes, not from the victims, but from the perpetrators. I have already said how distasteful I find this attitude. I wonder if even Chomsky would now like to have some of his own words back? Why else should he take such care to quote himself deploring the atrocity? Nobody accused him of not doing so. It's often a bad sign when people defend themselves against charges which haven't been made.

Svaki talenat, vještinu, znanje, organ, materijalni ukras... ukoliko ne zavjetujemo Allahu, dž.š, i ne potrošimo ga na Njegovom putu, biva kad-tad prijeteća omča o našem krhkom vratu.

Take terrorism, one example among the methods used in that struggle. We know that leftist tradition condemns terrorism and political assassination. When the colonized uses them, the leftist colonizer becomes unbearably embarrassed. He makes an effort to separate them from the colonized's voluntary action; to make an epiphenomenon out of his struggle. They are spontaneous outbursts of masses too long oppressed, or better yet, acts by unstable, untrustworthy elements which the leader of the movement has difficulty in controlling. Even in Europe, very few people admitted that the oppression of the colonized was so great, the disproportion of forces so overwhelming, that they had reached the point, whether morally correct or not, of using violent means voluntarily. The leftist colonizer tried in vain to explain actions which seemed incomprehensible, shocking and politically absurd. For example, the death of children and persons outside of the struggle, or even of colonized persons who, without being basically opposed, disapproved of some small aspect of the undertaking. At first he was so disconcerted that the best he could do was to deny such actions; for they would fit nowhere in his view of the problem. That it could be the cruelty of oppression which explained the blind fury of the reaction hardly seemed to be an argument to him; he can't approve acts of the colonized which he condemns in the colonizers because these are exactly why he condemns colonization. Then, after having suspected the information to be false, he says, as a last resort, that such deeds are errors, that is, they should not belong to the essence of the movement. He bravely asserts that the leaders certainly disapprove of them. A newspaper-man who always supported the cause of the colonized, weary of waiting for censure which was not forthcoming, finally called on certain leaders to take a public stand against the outrages, Of course, received no reply; he did not have the additional naïveté to insist.

[Taliban spokesman on Malala Yousafzai] Malala Yousafzai targeted and criticized Islam. She was against Islam and we tried to kill her, and if we get a chance again we will definitely try to kill her, and we will feel proud killing her.

Taqwā means to protect oneself against the harmful or evil consequences of one's conduct. If, then, by "fear of God" one means fear of the consequences of one's actions—whether in this world or the next (fear of punishment of the Last Day)—one is absolutely right. In other words, it is the fear that comes from an acute sense of responsibility, here and in the hereafter, and not the fear of a wolf or of an uncanny tyrant, for the God of the Qur’ān has unbounded mercy—although He also wields dire punishment, both in this world and in the hereafter.

Teaching: One hour's teaching is better than a whole night of prayer. Saying of the Prophet

Tawakkul is having complete trust that Allah's plan is the best plan.

Teaching One hour's teaching is better than a whole night of prayer.

Te poruke su navele Farisha da razmišlja u svojim kategorijama: "Da mi muslimani, poslije petnaest vjekova civilizacijskog napretka, izgleda još nismo u stanju da mislimo o Sveopćem Dobročinitelju Bogu, Koji je Milostiv i Koji prašta. Ne možemo si pomoći a da ne zamislimo kako je Bog nasilan, gotovo zao entitet, koji rutinski gura svoje potčinjene u ključale jame Pakla, tako da će vječno biti mučeni. Kakva ironija je to, kad uzmemo u obzir da praktično svaku važniju stvar koju muslimani čine u svakodnevnom životu počinju sa: "U ime Allaha, Sveopćeg Dobročinitelja, Milostivog." Je li islam uvijek bio ovakav? Odgovor je, na sreću, jednostavan - nije!" " Hajrudin Somun, "Mahathirove dileme

Terkadang kelompok yang anti madzhab menggugat kita dengan pendapat sang pendiri madzhab atau para ulama dalam madzhab yang kita ikuti, seakan-akan mereka lebih konsisten dari kita dalam bermadzhab. Kaum Wahhabi ketika menggugat kita agar meninggalkan tahlilan dan selamatan tujuh hari selalu beralasan dengan pendapat al-Imam as-Syafi'i yang mengatakan bahawa hadiah pahala bacaan al-Qur'an tidak akan sampai kepada mayit, atau pendapat kitab I'anah al-Thalibin yang melarang acara selamatan tahlilan selama tujuh hari. Padahal selain al-Imam as-Syafi'i menyatakan sampai. Kita kadang menjadi bingung menyikapi mereka. Terkadang mereka menggugat kita karena bermadzhab, yang mereka anggap telah meninggalkan al-Qur'an dan Sunnah. Dan terkadang mereka menggugat kita dengan pendapat imam madzhab dan apra ulama madzhab. Padahal mereka sering menyuarakan anti madzhab. Pada dasarnya kelompok anti madzhab itu bermadzhab. Hanay saja madzhab mereka berbeda dengan madzhab mayoritas kaum Muslimin. Ketika mereka menyuarakan anti tawassul, maka sebenarnya mereka mengikut pendapat Ibn Taimiyah dan Ibn Abdil Wahhab al-Najdi. Sedangkan kaum Muslimin yang bertawassul, mengikuti Rasulullah SAW, para sahabat, seluruh ulama salaf dan ahli hadits. Ketika mereka menyuarakan shalat tarawih 11 raka'at, maka sebenarnya mereka mengikut pendapat Nashiruddin al-Albani, seorang tukang jam yang beralih profesi menjadi muhaddits tanpa bimbingan seorang guru, dengan belajar secara otodidak di perpustakaan. Sedangkan kaum Muslimin yang tarawih 23 raka'at, mengikuti Sayidina Umar, para sahabat dan seluruh ulama salaf yang saleh yang tidak diragukan keilmuannya. Ketika mereka menyuarakan anti madzhab, maka sebenarnya mereka mengikut Rasyid Ridha, Muhammad Abduh dan Ibn Abdil Wahhab. Sedangkan kaum Muslimin yang bermadzhab, mengikuti ulama salaf dan seluruh ahli hadits. Demikian pula ketika mereka menyuarakan anti bid'ah hasanah, makas ebenarnya mereka mengikuti madzhab Rasyid Ridha dan Ibn Abdil Wahhab al-Najid. Sedangkan kaum Muslimin yang berpendapat adanya bid'ah hasanah, mengikuti Rasulullah SAW, Khulafaur Rasyidin, para sahabat, ulama salaf dan hali hadits.

Terrorism has nothing to do with religion, Islam or otherwise. Terrorism is born of fundamentalism not of religion.

Terrorism is born of fundamentalism not of religion.

Tentang kopi kesukaanmu, cappucino, kopi itu bukan dari italia. Aslinya berasal dari biji-biji kopi Turki yang tertinggal di medan perang di Kahlenberg. Hanya sebuah info pengetahuan kecil-kecilan. Assalamu’alaikum” — Fatma, 99 Cahaya di Langit Eropa hal. 50

The beauty of Islamic System is that in contrast to the current international judicial systems, it involves the victims or their heirs in the process of deciding the quantum of the punishment. The responsibility of the court is to examine the charges, decide the nature of the crime and the involvement of the accused persons and then announce the Maximum Permissible Punishment available under Islamic law. Following that, it is the right of the victims or their heirs to either allow the maximum punishment or to reduce or pardon it, in return or not of an adequate compensation, to be decided through mutual understanding.

That Muhammad could predict certain events does not prove that he was a prophet: he may have been able to guess successfully, but this does not mean that he had real knowledge of the future. And certainly the fact that he was able to recount events from the past does not prove that he was a prophet, because he could have read about those events in the Bible and, if he was illiterate, he could still have had the Bible read to him.

The anti-religious modernism which now threatens Islam and Muslims everywhere can be fully understood only by understanding the religion of the civilization in whose bosom modernism first developed, against which it rebelled, and whose tenets it has been challenging through constant battle since the birth of the modern world in the Renaissance.

The barbarians never take a city until someone holds the gates open to them. And it's your own multicultural authorities who will do it for you

The call for justice was a protest as fierce as those of the biblical prophets and of Jesus, and the similarity of the call was no coincidence. As with early Judaism and early Christianity, early Islam would be rooted in opposition to a corrupt status quo. Its protest of inequity would be an integral part of the demand for inclusiveness, for unity and equality under the umbrella of the one god regardless of lineage, wealth, age, or gender. This is what would make it so appealing to the disenfranchised, those who didn't matter in the grand Meccan scheme of things, like slaves and freedmen, widows and orphans, all those cut out of the elite by birth or circumstance. And it spoke equally to the young and idealistic, those who had not yet learned to knuckle under to the way things were and who responded to the deeply egalitarian strain of the verses. All were equal before God, the thirteen-year-old Ali as important as the most respected graybeard, the daughter as much as the son, the African slave as much as the highborn noble. It was a potent and potentially radical re-envisioning of society. This was a matter of politics as much as of faith. The scriptures of all three of the great monotheisms show that they began similarly as popular movements in protest against the privilege and arrogance of power, whether that of kings as in the Hebrew bible, or the Roman Empire as in the Gospels, or a tribal elite as in the Quran. All three, that is, were originally driven by ideals of justice and egalitarianism, rejecting the inequities of human power in favor of a higher and more just one. No matter how far they might have strayed from their origins as they became institutionalized over time, the historical record clearly indicates that what we now call the drive for social justice was the idealistic underpinning of monotheistic faith.

The breakup of Pakistan was the result of the autocratic policies of its state managers rather than the inherent difficulties involved in welding together linguistically and culturally diverse constituent units. Islam proved to be dubious cement not because it was unimportant to people in the different regions. Pakistan’s regional cultures have absorbed Islam without losing affinity to local languages and customs. With some justification, non- Punjabi provinces came to perceive the use of Islam as a wily attempt by the Punjabi- led military–bureaucratic combine to deprive them of a fair share of political and economic power. Non- Punjabi antipathy toward a Punjabi- dominated center often found expression in assertions of regional distinctiveness.

The campaign for Pakistan had, in its final stages, become a religious movement even though its leaders initiated it as a formula for resolving post-independence constitutional problems. This created confusion about Pakistan’s raison d’être, which Pakistan’s leadership has attempted to resolve through a state ideology.

the bombers of Manhattan represent fascism with an Islamic face. . . . What they abominate about ‘the West,’ to put it in a phrase, is not what Western liberals don’t like and can’t defend about their own system, but what they do like about it and must defend: its emancipated women, its scientific inquiry, its separation of religion from the state. Loose talk about chickens coming home to roost is the moral equivalent of the hateful garbage emitted by Falwell and Robertson.

The construction of civilizational difference is not exclusive in any simple sense. The de-essentialization of Islam is paradigmatic for all thinking about the assimilation of non-European poeples to European civilization. The idea that people's historical experience is inessential to them, that it can be shed at will, makes it possible to argue more strongly for the Enlightenment's claim to universality: Muslims, as members of the abstract category "humans," can be assimilated or (as some recent theorist have put it) "translated" into a global ("European") civilization once they have divested themselves of what many of them regard (mistakenly) as essential to themselves. The belief that human beings can be separated from their histories and traditions makes it possible to urge a Europeanization of the Islamic world. And by the same logic, it underlies the belief that the assimilation to Europe's civilization of Muslim immigrants who are--for good or for ill--already in European states is necessary and desirable.

The City of Madina itself becomes sacred. Everything he (the Prophet) touched, every little place he went, every palm tree he touched, the mount Uhud - everything has a particular magnetism about it. And Imam Maliks Madhab is based on that sense of sanctity of the city of Madina. It's not purely a legallstig concept, it's a sacred concept: the holiness of the City. (Imam Malik: Sage of the City of Light - quilliampress.com)

The coming of the Prophet would sweep away this fragmented and pluralistic pattern of trade in the ancient world. Within a few centuries of Muhammad's death, one culture, one religion, and one law would unify the commerce of the Old World's three continents nearly a millennium before the arrival of the first European ships in the East.