The shaykh has a way with words!

I JUST WANT TO ANALYZE THIS QUOTE REAL QUICKCLY HERE:

“To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

WOW, EVEN THOUGH HE’S TALING ABOUT “MUSLIM COUNTRIES”, THIS STATEMENT SOUNDS ALOT LIKE TO POLICIES OF THE US, DOESN’T IT. Judging from how Obama refused to comment on the deaths of 1,300 palestinians, we citizens of this country (muslims and non-muslims who smell the coffee) will judge what the US can build and not destroy ( in light of how much destruction around the muslim world the US is aiding).

Past administrations (and I’m guesing Obama as well – since he himself is in the pocket of neo-cons), “silence dissent” all the time – you can’t even criticize the Israel Lobby without receiving a public crucification (literally).

Coming off of so much blood and carnage in the Muslim world, its hard to believe that this past administration (and inferring from Obama’s silence) are on the right side of history.

@ sis AnonyMouse

That was great stuff from the sheikh, hafidhahullah.

I hope you didnt mean ‘sheikh’ Obama!!!

“This was also a solid quote and touched on many nerves, including the draconian laws against personal privacy, i.e. Patriot Act and the like.”

The same patriot act your beloved former Senator voted for?

“To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist. ”

The very same rulers America aids, succours, abets, clad and feed?

Aslamu-alaikum:
I LOVED the LETTER in every way. I would ONLY CHANGE it to GOOD-RIDDENCE instead of goodbye.
salam

I wanted to perform my “journalistic duty” to convey the letter in its entire form

akhee, there is no such duty. in fact, most people want journalists to reduce long texts to their essentials. on the other hand, many journalists (or their editors and publishers, more often) would reduce such a letter to a soundbite. one aimed at furthering the agenda of the journalist and/or attacking that of the shaykh.

so, i do not have a problem with reproducing the whole letter — just ascribe it to the integrity a Muslim would show :) instead of a nonexistent duty in a profession much to blame for inaccurate information disseminated in the West.

that said, you did more poorly on a different score: though you are responsible for introducing the words of this shaykh, you give no information at all about his background, nor the context of his letter. those omissions, sadly, have become hallmarks of modern American reporting. may Allah Guide you to what is better, and may He always be pleased with you, and may He always ease for you the way to good wherever you may be.

@ Abu AbdAllah H………….

Intresting read…..here………. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat

Is making some one “scapegoat” halaal or haraam?

What a blasphemy… mentioning Muslims before Jews. I think Obama will get a lot of hate-mail for that one, moving America from a “Judeo-Christian” nation to one that is more inclusive

Mistah Savage’s already got that covered. On the way home from ‘Isha, he was ranting about how Obama added Muslim after Christian, apparently President Obama doesn’t realize that this country is “Judeo-Christian.”

salaam! I absolutely loved the speech. I thought I would be dissapointed but I was not at all! I was not very excited about the inauguration bc of Gaza and I was mad about the silence but today morning I got excited again.. and the inauguration was emotional just like when he was elected.

I will miss Bush… for real. He used to always provide some free, good quality entertainment, just google ‘bushisms’ and laugh your head off, just don’t waste too much time on them, they can get addicting, and excessive laughing is bad for your heart. As for Obama, I wouldn’t think he will change much, especially not in the matters of foreign policy, as we all know that it is the Israeli lobby that really runs the show and not the president, so I wouldn’t expect any positive change in the foreign policy… but then again how bad can he be… No matter how bad he is he can’t be worse than bush.. but bush did provide us with humor whenever he opened his mouth and tried to talk. But lets wait and see, as time will tell, and it wouldn’t be fair to make assumptions about Obama, as obvious as they might be, but lets wait and see if he really will change things, and time will tell, and only Allah knows what the future holds.

Thank God for Obama!!!

The long wait is over! Now we can experience justice after the long nightmare that was Bush. A new age of prosperity and peace has come!!! Let the choirs sing as the heavens part and cast upon us the soft warm light of change.

Let saint Obama shade us with his wings and with his luminescent halo light our glorious path to the future!

Let those tears of happiness flow freely and rejoice. Lament only for those before us and after us that were deprived of this most excellent day!

@mofw,

Sounds like you are submitting yourself to OBAMA rather than Allah SWT.

If you ask the creator (Allah swt) he will answer what is good for you in this life, Hearafter or both. BUT if you ask from the CREATED you will feel like you are banging your head on the wall. (never satisfied on the return)

http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004lmt&srPos=1&srKp=087&srS=1

George Mitchell (former Democratic Senate Majority Leader) as special envoy to the Middle East. Interestingly enough, his dad’s of Irish descent, and his mum’s from Lebanon.

Trust obama to pick someone interesting (and with a legislative bent, no less!)

@haytham,

Is “sacasm: HALAAL or HARAAM? :)

Muhammad Nizami wrote:

As Obama addressed the US as well as the wider world, the hype that has proceeded his election victory seemed to dissipate as he affirmed in the most unambiguous way to date that he shall continue with Bush’s policies towards those who refuse to fall in line with American dictates.

Of course, the many Muslims of both the East and West who called for Obama’s support, with his every word on the tip of their tongues, will undoubtedly be overwhelmed with a sense of shame while many commentators both Muslim and otherwise resist the urge to say “told you so”.

The inaugural speech, prepared by Obama’s writers and edited by himself, left more to be desired resembling a sermon more than a speech. There is no doubt that Obama, being evidently more intelligent than Bush, managed to address issues that affect the wider citizens of the world, yet the leaders he criticised for oppression and terror wouldn’t necessarily evoke names such as those Obama intended.

As well as addressing the economic, healthcare, and environmental problems facing the US, he spent an important part of the address discussing foreign issues. As the first (semi) Afro-American president, it was quite ironic that he mentioned the ‘founding fathers’ who “faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations”, especially given that most of those founding fathers were slave owners and in no way would they have accepted, nor intended in the charter, the presidency of a black man.

In keeping with the contradictory state of US presidents, Obama said, “We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan.” Having accepted the irresponsibility of Bush and Co in attempting to occupy Iraq and milk it for its oil’s worth, Obama apparently isn’t ready to afford Afghanistan the same amount of dignity in letting Afghani’s decide the future of their own country. If anything, it will renew the call of the mujahideen of Afghanistan with fighters gathering once again reminiscent of the Afghan-Russia conflict.

Obama also indicated that in similar fashion to Bush, he intends to continue with the Israeli instigated accusations that Iran is building nuclear bombs. Of course, Iran were not as quick as the Gulf states in welcoming the Obama presidency, Ahmadinijad saying earlier, “If changes are fundamental, genuine and based on respect… we wait and see and do not make premature judgement”. However, more aptly, if Obama intends to “work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat”, then I suppose he’ll be commencing with Israel.

Turning his attention to so-called ‘terrorists’, he claimed “We will not apologise for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defence”. It is extremely poignant to note that such rhetoric has been continually utilised by neo-cons (such as Bush) who have attempted to portray fighters as those who want to destroy the US, where in reality, individuals such as Osama bin Laden have repeatedly stated that if the US were to cease from imposing their oppressive policies in the Middle East all acts of violence would also discontinue. Thus, the mere fact that Obama has resorted to such propaganda evidently proves that although there may be ‘change’, it certainly won’t be in the Middle East. In continuing with his Bush-like rhetoric, he said “those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.” Spoken like a true neo-con, Obama managed to resemble his Zionist colleagues egotistically assuming that the US will manage to eradicate all forms of resistance to their colonial oppression. Moreover, his statement concerning those who “terror and slaughtering innocents” highlights the theme of contradiction running through all neo-con discourses, as if any nation could surpass the US and Israel in the massacre of innocent civilians. The mere fact that Obama failed to mention the current carnage of Gaza by the terrorist apartheid state of Israel clearly demonstrates that pro-Zionist policies will continue to dominate both the bias of the US president and the policies of the White House.

In an apparent attempt to imply states such as Iran, Venezuela, and others who openly disagree with US policies, Obama said, “To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West…To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” Yet, any individual aware of the oppressive regimes littering the Middle East would promptly apply the above descriptions to leaders such as Hosni Mubarak, the Gulf monarchies, Mahmoud Abbas, and many others. Yet in keeping with the American colonialist mindset, Obama has clearly indicated that support for wicked dictators shall continue in similar fashion to the killing and torturing of those who dare to resist. What was quite notable was the fact that Obama didn’t refer to the ‘axis of evil’ nor the ‘war on terror’, an obvious bid to distance himself from Bush terminology. However, in using the Shakespearean phrase in the current context, “a war by any other name is just as evil…”

As was clear from Obama’s speech, the continual support of pro-Zionism and pro-Middle Eastern dictatorships shall continue, with the intensified oppression of innocent Muslims continuing in Afghanistan once again. In the end, Obama is a politician, and as one he chose his words carefully, ambiguously mentioning nations and leaders. Overall, the tone of the speech was sombre, imparting no great news nor informing us of any change, but instead affirming the reality so well known to all those who despise both Zionism and those who wage war killing innocent Muslims in foreign lands.

The eminent companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him), Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), once famously said, “if anyone amongst you used to worship Muhammad , then Muhammad is dead, but if (anyone of) you used to worship Allah, then Allah is Alive and shall never die.” He then recited “Muhammad is no more than an Apostle, and indeed (many) apostles have passed away before him…”1 Similarly, if anyone had trust in Obama then it is incumbent that s/he know that he cannot even help himself, as Allah stated “And those whom you call upon besides Him (Allah) cannot help you nor can they help themselves.”2 But “whosoever puts his trust in Allah, He will suffice him. Verily, Allah will accomplish his purpose. Indeed Allah has set a measure for all things.”3

Footnotes:

1 Qur’an 3:144
2 Qur’an 7:197
3 Qur’an 65:3

Abu Abdullah (the houstonian)

“akhee, there is no such duty. in fact, most people want journalists to reduce long texts to their essentials. on the other hand, many journalists (or their editors and publishers, more often) would reduce such a letter to a soundbite. one aimed at furthering the agenda of the journalist and/or attacking that of the shaykh.

so, i do not have a problem with reproducing the whole letter — just ascribe it to the integrity a Muslim would show :) instead of a nonexistent duty in a profession much to blame for inaccurate information disseminated in the West.”

Actually, I’d have to disagree akhi. Sometimes it is journalistic to post the transcripts of lectures or articles as they appeared somewhere else– I agree this is usually rare, but it is done, based on certain occasions.

Take the Inaugural speech, that was posted word by word everywhere, without reducing it to soundbites.

So based on a journalistic perspective, I think Br. Haytham actually did do a “Journalistic Duty” especially since the article was timely and not previously published in english.

Wallahu alem.

I heard one of his first acts as President is gonna be to shut down Gitmo, is this true?

“Intellect betrays his namesake”

JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS: I was originally intellect 1429, the Islamic year changed, so I became intellect1430. But I only used Intellect1420 once on this post since the new year. SOMEONE ELSE decided to use the name INTELLECT1430, so don’t confuse this person with me.

I will let him/her continue to use my name, and I’ll find a new and creative came (or just stick with intellect1429).

@Shirien Elamawy

alhamdolillah, i thought i was clear that Haytham did a good thing by reproducing the letter, and by translating it. and may Allah increase him in good for it.

but the comparison to the inauguration speech only highlights why it was essential to tell us more about the shaykh and about the context of the letter, was it spontaneous, etc.

seriously — no person who has had any interest in reading the inauguration speech — and i freely admit that i have neither read it, nor did i watch it, nor do i have much desire to do so — no person who might stop and read the speech of Obama has any doubt who he is. nor would that person have much (if any) doubt about the context.

i still have no clue who this shaykh is, except that he is my brother in Islam, that Haytham and a worthy sister translated the speech, and many of us have stopped to consider his words. that if Obama does not turn to Allah, that the shaykh has more reason to be raised above him on the day of Judgment, and only Allah Knows the outcome of any of us. maybe Haytham wants us all to google the shaykh — fair enough, but that would be “the duty of care of a blogger” not the “duty of care of a journalist.”

حياك الله ياشيخ!!!