Idea Transcript
Let's share and win the challenge of life
english
Does Islam Promote Violence (Explanation on Quran 9:5)? JANUARY 7, 2010 / AJIPRABOWO / LEAVE A COMMENT Qur’an (9:5) (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.005) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.” This article is about the oft-quoted, or rather misquoted, Surah 9:5 verse of the Quran, which is claimed to call upon “all” Muslims to kill “all” non-Muslims or the so-called “Infidels”.
Muslims are often questioned, “Did not Muhammad call on all Muslims to kill the infidels?” The answer is absolutely not! Then, we are asked another question: “Why then does the Quran say, “fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?” (9:5). There are two interrelated answers to that question. The first is historical. The second is related to the nature of the Quran itself. HISTORY: When the Islamic state was rapidly expanding in the seventh and eighth century, many people came under the direct governance of Muslims. These peoples belonged to different religions, races, ethnicities, etc. If the hypothesis that “Muslims are required to eradicate non-Muslims or “infidels” was correct, then a pattern of deliberate extermination, forced conversions, and/or expulsion would have been observed throughout the history of Islam, especially when Muslims were powerful and winning over their opponents. That systematic pattern is simply absent. For example, let us take India. India (or considerable parts of it) was for several centuries under the Muslim Mughal Empire. Many of the subjects of the empire, up to and including very high-ranking state officials, were Hindu. (This does not mean that Hindus lived under no discrimination whatsoever. But this is another issue.) Till now, India is a predominantly Hindu country. The facts on the ground belie the hypothesis that Muslims have believed that non-Muslims should be killed, evicted, or forced to convert. Another example: in contemporary Egypt, which was included in the Islamic state only ten years after the demise of the Prophet, about 6-10% of the people are Christians. Contrast this with Spain. For about eight centuries, Spain was a place of peaceful co-existence for Muslims, Christians, and Jews. (Again, I am not, at all, claiming that everyone enjoyed the same rights under the Arab/Muslim ruling.) However, in 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella signed the Edict of Expulsion designed to rid Spain of its Jews. The Jews were given a stark choice: baptism or deportation. An estimated 50,000 fled to the Ottoman empire where they were warmly welcomed. And about 70,000 converted to Christianity and remained in the country only to be plagued by the Inquisition which accused them of insincerity. In 1499, the Spanish state gave its Muslims the same choice: convert or leave. The result of these policies was simple: Spain almost entirely got rid of millions of people who were not Christians. (Spain now of course has minority groups, including Muslims coming mainly from North Africa as immigrants.) The list goes on. Investigating history clearly shows that most (saying “all” cannot sustain historical scrutiny) Muslims have never believed that they are under obligation to exterminate non-Muslims, or as non-Muslims refer to such people as “Infidels”. Of course, it would not be scholastic to say non-Muslims, at many times, enjoyed “full citizenship” (though this term is an anachronism in the context discussed here) but compared to other locations, minorities were significantly better off under Muslim ruling, when Muslims were in fact capable of inflicting severe harm on non-Muslims, especially if we were to acknowledge the absurd notion of Muslims ambition to “kill the infidels…” I thought it was best to stop here for a few minutes to scrutinize this term “Infidel”. We have heard, over and over again, the majority of commentators and “experts” on Islam using this term and attributing it to Islam’s and Muslims sentimentality of non-Muslims. I, as a Muslim, have never called a non-Muslim an “Infidel”, so this word was actually foreign to my vocabulary, until I have heard it mentioned several time by Christian and Zionist so-called “experts” on Islam. As a matter of fact, I took the liberty of going through several widely used translations of the Quran to find this oft-spoken “infidel” term. The translations of the Quran of which I researched included: M. Khan, Yusuf Ali, Shakir, and Pickthal, only to find out that in all of these translations, I did not find this word “infidel” in any of them! The Arabic word “Kaafir, Kafir, Kufar” was translated as Disbelievers or Unbelievers. What’s more interesting, after digging deeper, we discovered this term was being used centuries before the advent of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The term infidel comes from the Latin word infidelis, which means “unbelieving” or “unfaithful.” During the Middle Ages ( A.D.c. 450–c. 1500), the Catholic Church (Christians) used the term to describe Muslims (followers of Islam, the religion founded by the prophet Muhammad; c. A.D.570–632). Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=infidel) states the following on the term “infidel”: Main Entry: in·fi·del Pronunciation: ‘in-f&-d & l, -f&-“del Function: noun Etymology: Middle English infidele, from Middle French, from Late Latin infidelis unbelieving, from Latin, unfaithful, from in- + fidelis faithful — more at FIDELITY (http://www.muslimaccess.com/dictionary/fidelity) 1: one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity 2 a: an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion b : one who acknowledges no religious belief 3: a disbeliever in something specified or understood – infidel adjective Two remaining points: (1) There is the claim that Muslims only refrained from killing the infidels because of the economic benefits of “enslaving (http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/atrocities/christian_slavery.asp)” them. Most of those who claim this also claim that Muslims are inherently violent because of the “clear” Quranic injunctions against the “Infidels”. This position is, at least, contradictory. Because on the one hand, Muslims’ violence is rooted in the Quran, and, on the other hand, generations upon generations of Muslims simply discarded the Quran for their economic well-being. If Muslims persistently and universally prefer economic prosperity to the Quran and the commandments of the Prophet, then both the Quran and the Prophet are irrelevant to them. So why the attempt to ground Muslim behavior in the Quran and the Prophetic tradition if these are in fact not important at all to Muslims? If Muslims stick to the Quran, so why did not they exterminate the other, a policy allegedly supported unequivocally by the Quran? There is no way out of this fallacious reasoning except by saying that Muslims evoke whatever serves their interest. This statement of the entire Muslim nation being innately incoherent and immoral is espoused by many Islamophobes (http://www.islamophobia.org/). This statement tells us much more about the Islamophobes (http://www.islamophobia.org/) themselves than about Muslims, however. (2) In the modern era, some Muslim people participated in the genocide of non-Muslims, such as the Armenians by the Turks and the East Timorese by the Indonesians. However, these killings were undertaken by secular regimes for nationalistic reasons. I do not think anyone can claim, for instance, that Ataturk, the father of the secularized Turkey and the abolisher of the Islamic caliphate, oppressed the Armenians (and the Greeks), to rid Turkey of them, in the name of Islam. (A relevant link (http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/atrocities/Rwanda_religious_reflections.asp) to this discussion concerning the genocide in Rwanda and the attitude of Muslims.) THE QURAN: (1) The Quran is not classified subject-wise. Verses on various topics appear in dispersed places in the Quran and no order can be ascertained from the sequence of its text. The first verses revealed in the Quran was in chapter (surah) 96 (http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/096.asp). (2) The structure of the Quran makes it necessary to approach it using the dialectic “both and” methodology of reasoning. This means that to investigate a certain issue, the verses pertaining to the issue should be gathered together. The verses are then analyzed comprehensively while paying attention to the historical context (in Islamic terminology called the “occasion of revelation”) of each verse. The truth is considered to be found in all the relevant verses, because if the Quran is divine as the vast majority of Muslims believe, it should be free from real contradictions and inconsistencies. Apparent contradictions are not only reconciled and transcended but are thoroughly investigated because they actually reflect deep meanings and paradigms. (This is akin, for example, to the process of understanding the Chinese idiom, “a man is stronger than iron and weaker than a fly.” Although the wise saying is superficially self-contradictory, it reveals a deep fact about humans who, in some situations, are very strong. Yet, in other contexts, these same people are very weak.) If the reductionist approach to the Quran is valid, then all ideas, from violence to absolute pacifism, can be justified and rationalized using the Quran. For the Quran does not only contain verses about war, it is also replete with verses about forgiveness and countering evil with good. (3) The same Quran that reads, “Whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you” (2:194 (http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/002.asp#194)), also reads, “Goodness and evil are not the same. So repel evil with goodness, then the one who had enmity between you becomes a trusted and dear friend” (41:34 (http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/041.asp#34)). When it comes to dealing with a transgressor, the Quran is basically delineating four different strategies, the validity of which is contingent on the situational and contextual factors. The first is retaliation which is permissible on the condition that it does not exceed the limits. Verse (2:194 (http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/002.asp#194)) is clear on this, “whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you.” Verse (16:126 (http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/016.asp#126)) gives the same meaning, “and if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted.” Verse (3:134 (http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/003.asp#134)) gives the other three strategies, “and those who restrain their anger and pardon men; and God loves the doers of good to others.” The three methods given here are, (a) to restrain one’s anger and not respond, (b) to pardon the wrongdoer, and (c) to do good to the transgressor. According to verse, method (c) is the most beloved by God. Here the Quran teaches the superiority, in the sight of God, of responding to evil with goodness. Now what should the Muslim do when wronged? It depends on the context, on the situational factors. Under some circumstances, the wrongdoer must be punished. Under others, one should refrain from retaliation, or go a step further to wholehearted forgiveness, or even repel the transgressor’s evil with goodness. The above is important for explaining how to deal with the Quranic text. (4) The Quranic principle for dealing with the ‘other’ non-Muslim is clear from verses (60:8-9 (http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/060.asp#8)), “God does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of your religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely God loves the doers of justice. God only forbids you respecting and loving those who made war upon you on account of your religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up others in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust.” The Quran does not present Islam as a religion of unquestionable pacifism or relentless aggression. Those who do not transgress should be treated humanely and benevolently with complete respect. Those who transgress should be fought, “And fight in the cause of God those who fight against you, and do not commit aggression. Indeed God does not love those who are aggressors,” (2:190 (http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/002.asp#190)). In other words, Islam is a religion of peace, not in the sense that it is pacifist, but in the sense that Muslims can and should co-exist peacefully with others who respect them. Neither transgression is permitted nor forcing others to espouse Islam as the Quran says, “there is no compulsion in religion,” (2:256 (http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/002.asp#256)). (5) Based on the above, we can now investigate verse (9:5 (http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/009.asp#5)), “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” One of the main concerns of Chapter (Surah) 9 of the Quran (a Surah is a collection of verses) was to delineate the strategies for dealing with the polytheists of the Arabian Peninsula after the Muslims, under the leadership of Prophet Muhammad, peacefully captured Mecca (In January, 630, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his followeres were joined by tribe after tribe along their way to Mecca. They entered Mecca without bloodshed and the Meccans, seeing the tide had turned, joined them.) the city that since the beginning of Islam lead the oppression and persecution of the Muslim converts. (6) Since the polytheists differed in their relationship with the new religion after its victory, there was a need to differentiate between the malevolent enemies of Islam bent on destroying the Muslims and who did not observe their treaties with the Muslims, those who hated Islam but were willing to honor their treaties with Muslims, those who rejected Islam but peacefully co-existed with the Muslim community, etc. The aforementioned verse (9:5 (http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/009.asp#5)) was concerned with the most vehement opponents of the Islamic faith not by virtue of their refusal to be Muslims but by continually breaching their treaties with the Muslims and fighting them. Given that, their treatment is not equal, the complete verse says, “So when the sacred months have passed away, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and keep them under observation, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely God is Forgiving, Merciful.” Meaning: so when the grace period (4 months) is past, and if the other party insists on fighting Islam, then a state of war is inevitable. The struggle may take the form of killing, or capture and imprisonment, or just keeping an eye on these enemies to fend off their evil if they decide to launch an offensive against Muslims. The punishment should be fair and just and, thus, must be proportional to the crimes actually committed. Not only this, but the pagans can repent and accept Islam, as evident from the last part of (9:5 (http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/009.asp#5)), or desist from attacking Muslims and ask for protection, as evident from the next verse (9:6 (http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/009.asp#6)), “If one amongst the pagans ask you for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure.” Understanding the verses’ historical context is crucial, not to confine them to their context, but for a proper comprehension of their implications. Moreover, as shown previously, the verse must be interpreted along with all the other verses explicating how a Muslim should deal with others, Muslim or non-Muslim, including verse (8:61 (http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/008.asp#61)), “And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in God; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing.” The worst thing to do with the Quran is to approach it seeking confirmation for what one already believes in and turning a blind eye to any evidence that is inconsistent with his/her pre-conceived attitudes and biases. Anyone can find in the Quran whatever he/she wants to prove. Anyone can do the same thing with the Bible. The challenge, however, is to make a judgment only after a thorough and exhaustive investigation of all available Quranic evidence. A Muslim may become selective and simply ignore some indispensable principles while working out what she or he should do in a given situation. Apart from self-indulgence, the socio-political context plays an important role in inducing this selectivity. A Muslim living where she or he finds Islam constantly reviled, the Prophet perpetually vituperated, and the Quran persistently misquoted may respond apologetically by declaring Islam as an “obviously” pacifist religion, ignoring anything in the Quran and the Prophetic traditions testifying to the contrary. A Muslim witnessing his wife being raped and his children slaughtered will very likely discard the well-established Islamic rules of engagement. The prevalent conditions are not a valid justification, but Muslims are humans after all, and humans — all humans — succumb to their overwhelming context. (Interestingly, the context was correctly and convincingly evoked in the U.S. media to understand the Abu Gharib prison abuses. When it comes to why some Muslims go to extremes, there is no context, only a culture of evil and fanaticism.) — Source: http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/jihad/kill_the_infidels.asp (http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/jihad/kill_the_infidels.asp)
Report this ad
Report this ad
Hukum Mati dalam Islam Sadis ? DECEMBER 15, 2009DECEMBER 15, 2009 / AJIPRABOWO / 1 COMMENT Sebuah pemberitaan internasional di salah satu media online terkemuka di Indonesia, Selasa, 15 Desember 2009 | 13:14 WIB MOGADISHU, KOMPAS.com – Adegan barbar ini bukan dari Zaman Kegelapan tetapi dilakukan sebuah kelompok militan di Somalia, Minggu (13/12/2009). Kelompok itu memaksa warga desa menonton perajaman hingga tewas seorang pria yang dinyatakan melakukan perzinahan. http://internasional.kompas.com (http://internasional.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/12/15/13141323/sadis.militan.somalia.rajam.pezina.hingga.tewas)
Apakah Islam itu sadis ? Berikut saya kutipkan dari sumber yang lain:
Substansi Hukum Rajam …Hukuman rajam adalah hukuman mati dengan cara dilempari batu. Hukum ini hanya dilakukan pada kasus yang sangat tercela dengan syarat benar-benar terdapat bukti menyakinkan bahwa seseorang telah berzina. Meski demikian, tidaklah sembarang tuduhan bisa membawa kepada ketetapan zina. Dan sebaliknya, tuduhan zina bila tidak lengkap akan menggiring penuduhnya ke hukuman yang berat. Syarat yang harus ada dalam persaksian tuduhan zina adalah (1) jumlah saksi minimal empat orang yang sudah baligh semua, (2) saksi ini adalah orang-orang yang waras, (3) Islam, (4) mereka melihat langsung peristiwa masuknya kemaluan laki-laki ke dalam kemaluan wanita yang berzina, (5) para saksi ini bersaksi dengan bahasa yang jelas (bukan kiasan), (6) mereka melihat peristiwa zina itu bersama-sama dalam satu majelis dan dalam satu waktu, (7) semua saksi harus laki-laki. Dan syarat yang paling penting adalah bahwa perbuatan zina itu dilakukan di dalam wilayah hukum yang secara formal menerapkan hukum Islam dan sudah ada ketetapan hukum yang sah dan pasti dari sebuah mahkamah syariah atau pengadilan syariat. Bukan dilakukan oleh orang per orang atau lembaga swasta, ormas, yayasan, pesantren, pengajian, jamaah majelis taklim, perkumpulan atau majelis ulama, kecuali ada mandat resmi dari pemerintahan yang berkuasa. Syarat menghukumi si penzina itu adalah terpenuhinya kriteria berikut ini padanya; dia Islam, baligh, berakal, merdeka, iffah, tazwij (sudah berkeluarga). Para ulama telah sepakat menyatakan bahwa pelaku zina muhshin (yang telah menikah) dihukum dengan hukuman rajam. Dalilnya adalah hadits Rasulullah Saw; dari Masruq dari Abdillah ra. berkata bahwa Rasulullah Saw bersabda, ‘Tidak halal darah seorang muslim kecuali karena salah satu dari tiga hal: orang yang berzina, orang yang membunuh dan orang yang murtad (keluar) dari jamaah’. Dan tentunya hukum ini berlaku bagi semua. Dan bukan hanya menjadikan rakyat kecil sebagai objek. Tidak ada yang kebal dengan hukum Allah ini. Jika kita dikaji lebih mendalam dan cermat lagi, sebenarnya pelaksanaan hukum rajam tidak dengan begitu mudahnya dilaksanakan. Sebab untuk kategori persaksian terhadap perbuatan zina itu sendiri, Islam menggariskan persyaratan yang lumayan susah terpenuhi. Bagaimana tidak? Kesaksian perbuatan zina memerlukan empat orang saksi yang di saat bersamaan harus melihat dengan mata kepala mereka sendiri bagaimana proses zina itu berlangsung. Andaikata jumlah empat tersebut tidak terpenuhi atau kalaupun terpenuhi tapi tidak bisa dipastikan apakah ia melihat dengan sejelas-jelasnya bahwa si tertuduh melakukan perzinaan, maka kesaksiannya dianggap batal demi hukum. Di zaman Rasulullah Saw, hampir semua kasus perzinahan diputuskan berdasarkan pengakuan para pelaku langsung. Seperti yang dilakukan kepada seorang wanita Maiz dan Ghamidiyah. Bila orang yang telah berikrar bahwa dirinya itu berzina lalu mencabut kembali pengakuannya, maka hukuman hudud bisa dibatalkan. Pendapat ini didukung oleh Imam Hanafi, Syafi`i dan Ahmad bin Hanbal. Secara logika akidah, dengan diberlakukannya hukuman rajam oleh Allah pada syariat umat Muhammad Saw, kita bisa meyakini bahwa bentuk hukuman seperti ini memang masih diperlukan dalam kasus-kasus tertentu di setiap zaman. Dan meskipun orang-orang barat berteriak dihapuskannya hukuman mati, namun faktanya hukuman mati itu masih diperlukan dan masih mereka jalankan. Bahkan beberapa negara maju masih memberlakukan hukuman ini sampai sekarang. Singapura yang sering dijadikan kiblat kemoderenan di Asia Tenggara, hari ini juga masih menghukum mati orang-orang yang dianggap melakukan pelanggaran berat, tapi kita tidak pernah mendengar menurunnya angka investasi di negara itu, bahkan investor semakin berduyun-duyun kesana. Demikian juga Amerika yang sekarang mengangkat dirinya sebagai polisi dunia dan simbol HAM, masih tetap memberlakukan hukuman mati. Maka kalau Allah Swt memberlakukan hukuman rajam kepada umat Islam, tentu sangat bisa diterima logika. Dan tentu sangat logis bila umat Islam dengan latar belakang kepatuhan dan ketundukan kepada originalitas agamanya, pada hari ini menerapkan hukuman rajam untuk pemeluk agamanya. Tidak ada cela dan cacat atau melanggar HAM dalam pelaksanaan hukuman seperti itu, apalagi kalau dibandingkan dengan tragedi pembantaian massal yang dilakukan oleh negara maju terhadap dunia ketiga, maka pelaksanaan hukuman rajam buat pelanggar kesalahan berat menjadi tidak ada artinya. Bandingkan dengan angka-angka pembantaian Amerika dan sekutunya di Afghanistan, Irak, Palestina, Somalia dan belahan muka bumi lainnya. Sungguh apa yang dilakukan oleh super power dunia itu jauh lebih kejam dan sadis ketimbang hukuman rajam, yang hanya menyangkut satu orang saja. Itupun pelanggar susila berat, yaitu orang yang berzina dimana dia pernah menikah sebelumnya. http://www.harian-aceh.com (http://www.harian-aceh.com/opini/85-opini/3812-substansi-hukum-rajam-.html) Kemudian didukung oleh artikel berbahasa Inggris: Stoning: Does It Have Any Basis in Shari`ah? …In the very beginning of Surat An-Nur, it is stated that 100 lashes is the punishment specified for unmarried adulterer and adulteress, Allah says: (The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.) (An-Nur 24: 2). …it’s to be stressed that such punishment should not be a cause of wonder, especially when we know that it had been there in the Divine Scriptures revealed before the Glorious Qur’an. There is a reference to this punishment in the Bible, for instance. It reads: “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.” (Deuteronomy 22: 22) and also in Leviticus, we find the following verse:”If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife-with the wife of his neighbor-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death” (Leviticus 20: 10). …The abrogated verse stated that “A married man and woman, if they commit adultery, stone them to death.” This verse states clearly that the prescribed punishment for adultery, which means an illegitimate sexual intercourse between a married man and a woman married to another man is stoning to death. But this offense must be proven either through a confession made voluntarily by the accused or by the testimony of four witnesses who state under oath that they have witnessed the commission of the crime. It’s only after this legal procedure that the accused will be punished by lapidation. This punishment is agreed upon by scholars and there is no question about it. In citing proofs for this punishment, scholars of Hadith quote `Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) as saying that he would have written this verse if not for the fear that it would be viewed as tampering with Allah’s book. …Finally, we would like to note that there are many incidents in the Sunnah and the life of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in which the Prophet stoned the married adulterer and adulteress to death. This happened in the case of Ma`iz and the Ghamidi woman. All this makes it clear that the punishment is proven and authentic and is not debatable. http://www.islamonline.net (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-EnglishAsk_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545902) Semoga bermanfaat dan menjadikan kita lebih yakin lagi akan Islam sebagai rahmat dan kasih sayang bagi alam semesta.
The Patience of Ayub PBUH DECEMBER 15, 2009DECEMBER 15, 2009 / AJIPRABOWO / LEAVE A COMMENT
(https://ajiprabowo.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/22.jpg) Ayub the prophet. Have you ever asked yourself, why people say “You have the patience of Ayub” as an example for relatively great acts of patience. First, lets talk about this man’s background, Ayub descended from the great prophet Lot, and was married to a descendant of Yusuf the prophet. The father of Ayub was the richest man in al-sham, and when he died, Ayub became the richest man in al-sham. Ayub also had 12 sons that came in 6 pairs i.e. twin sons for six times. And Ayub was well known for his great morals as he was like a husband to widows, like a father to orphans and like a caring brother for the poor. That’s to say, Ayub was truly a great man, and he is soon to be even greater. Please notice that this is the part where Ayub becomes greater, let’s see what happens. Allah (sub7anaho wa ta3ala) wanted to test this man patience and raise his level. So, he was plagued in many ways, you know what they say Misfortunes never come singly, and this is exactly what happened with Ayub. A lightening came out of the sky and struck all his money and his belongings, making all what he owns is nothing, apart from only a small house to stay in. so, he became the poor after he was the richest man in al-sham. Not only that, but also he lost his 12 sons, one after one, they all died in front of his eyes. Now he has no money, no food and no one to help him with his life except his faithful wife. But did the misfortunes come to an end? You wish! He then became ill and his illness made him stay in bed for eighteen years. Probably you would expect that this man won’t panic, won’t lose his patience and he most importantly won’t lose his faith in Allah. Well, it needs no Einstein to figure that out, we are talking about patience and satisfaction and when we say that this man is a great example, Will anybody expect?! This man must have had great patience and didn’t blow his top instead he said thanks Allah. You are partially right, but he didn’t do only that, and you will be surprised by what he really did. First, let’s talk about the money part, Ayub didn’t only say thanks Allah, but he also adapted his life to the new situation. And here is a great example, his wife was visiting their neighbors, came back with a loaf of bread and gave it to Ayub with great care. Knowing that he was poor and had not even a loaf of bread in his house, he asked his wife how she brought this loaf of bread. She told him that during her visit their neighbor’s son wanted a loaf of bread but he fell asleep before getting the chance to eat it, so her neighbor kindly offered this loaf to Ayub wife and she took it. What do you think Ayub did? “our neighbors are so kind, let’s share that loaf together I haven’t eaten in days” well he didn’t do that at all instead he told his wife to go back their neighbors and return the loaf of bread, just in case if the young boy woke up and asked for his loaf of bread and he couldn’t find it he might be sad. So, she went back to return it and while she was talking with her neighbor the little kid actually wake up and asked for his loaf and he was more than please to find it still there. As for the health part, when his wife asked him” You have been in bed for 18 years, why haven’t you asked Allah to cure you all that long?” , we expect that his answer would be “But I do! I do ask Allah to cure me every day, I don’t know why he hasn’t responded so far”, again no he didn’t say that at all instead he said” I can’t ask Allah that, Allah has gave me a great health for 70 years and he made me ill for 18 and I am ashamed (shy) to ask Allah to cure me before I complete 70 years of being ill. “Wow, who is this guy? Is he human of blood like flesh like us? Or maybe he is an angel?” this is what to comes to our minds after reading his story. Indeed he is human like all of us, he is only better than us for applying what he believes is right, while we only talk, talk, and talk without doing anything what so ever. That’s it! Is it the end of the story? Well, No. there is still a good part coming up. We didn’t say why we are satisfied with only talking and not applying like Ayub. Satan is the answer to this question, but didn’t Ayub have a Satan of his own? In fact, he had and there is a great story for that, Ayub was satisfied with his destiny and everything was going well, when the satan told Ayub:”you aren’t a real prophet, if you were Allah wouldn’t torture you like this, you aren’t better than a non believer who doesn’t follow Allah” So, Ayub, realizing that this was the Satan, asked Allah for guidance, and Allah immediately responded to his request. Allah told him to struck his feet on the floor, wash himself with the water (ya3’tasel) that will come out and he will be cured. That’s exactly what happened, He became like a young man again and was really cured (he was 88 years old). When his wife saw him, she asked him if she had seen the old man that couldn’t walk that was sitting in his place. She didn’t recognize him at all :D. He told her I am the prophet of Allah Ayub. We won’t say anything more except; have you noticed that this man became great when Allah plagued him with misfortunes and disasters? Have you noticed this man’s disasters? Our disasters compared to this man’s are like a trip to Disney land. Whereas we blow our top when the mobile phone’s battery run out and this man lost everything without losing his smile . Please try to smile more as a trial and you will be astonished by its great impact on others and on yourself (like we said before a smile is known for its ability to deceive your body and make u feel happy even if you really aren’t due to the happy hormones that are spread in your bode when you smile) Source: WaKe Up UMMAH…LeT’s MaKe OuR SuNNaH AliVe @ FB Older posts BLOG AT WORDPRESS.COM.