New Jersey Muslims' service after bombings

First topic message reminder :

ELIZABETH, N.J. — Nearly 200 people gathered at the Muslim Community Center of Union County Friday afternoon for the first jumah prayer — Islam’s largest weekly gathering — since Elizabeth resident Ahmad Khan Rahami was arrested in connection to mostly unsuccessful bomb attacks in New York and New Jersey last weekend.

“I was shocked,” said a man named Faisal, reflecting on the incidents that rocked his community just days earlier before heading inside for Friday prayer. “This is a peaceful masjid.”

Like Faisal, the suspect’s father, Mohammad Rahami, is a longtime member of MCCUC, and is known to pray regularly at the red brick mosque, which sits on the leafy corner of a charming, residential enclave less than two miles from Elizabeth’s gritty downtown.

The elder Rahami reportedly came to pray at the mosque earlier this week, but today he was nowhere to be seen. His son was charged Tuesday in connection to a bomb that injured 29 in Manhattan, another that went off before a Jersey Shore charity race took off and two other attempted bombings. He was arrested Monday after a shootout with Linden, N.J., police officers.

And while Friday’s jumah prayer also coincided with the funeral service of an MCCUC member, it was clear that Imam Syed Fakhruddin Alvi’s sermon was inspired by the younger Rahami’s alleged crimes.

“What is Islam?” Alvi asked, a small microphone on his lapel carrying his deep voice over the sound of ceiling fans attempting to cool the mosque’s sun-soaked second floor. It was an exceptionally warm day in late September, summer’s last gasp before giving into autumn. One congregant, seated with his back to an open window, lightly wiped sweat from his neck as he listened to the imam outline the tenets of Islam.

“If you want to be a Muslim, take care of those who are needy, deprived of basic necessities,” Alvi said, adding that “hunger has no religion.”

About 35 men were seated on their knees on the mosque’s red and gold patterned carpet when the imam began speaking. The men appeared to be in their late 20s and older, with just a few younger ones mixed in. Their attire was just as varied, with some dressed in traditional Muslim robes but many more sporting jeans and button-downs, flannels and polo shirts. A few wore sweatpants.

People continued to trickle in throughout the service, and by the time it ended, the room was filled with more than 100 men. More women were located behind the partition that separates the sexes.

For each hadith, or Islamic scripture, he referenced, Alvi provided the name of the book, chapter and page number. “I know after this, many people will do Google,” he said.

After going through the basics of what it means to be a Muslim, Alvi asked, “What does the Quran say about those who are not Muslim?” He transitioned seamlessly to the subject of terrorism without ever directly referring to the previous weekend’s bombing incidents, or the fact that the man authorities believe is responsible is the son of a longtime congregant.

“If anyone kills a non-Muslim citizen, almighty Allah will make paradise forbidden from him,” he said, his voice growing louder as he sternly urged those listening: “Write this down.”

“No one has any right to kill any non-Muslim,” he said. “We are living here as citizens. It is our job, our duty, to respect the law of the land.”

“Islam has no justification for terrorism or extremism,” he continued, arguing that those who carry out “barbaric” actions like suicide bombings and other violence in the name of Islam, are motivated by misinformation found on the Internet in the form of “Imam Google” or “Shiekh YouTube.”

Not only is it “our civic and religious duty to support law enforcement,” Alvi argued, but as parents, “it’s your job to take care of your children” and to “keep children from evil activities.”

Not long after law enforcement officials named Rahami as the main suspect in last weekend’s bombing incidents, MCCUC released a statement on its website denouncing “the acts of this misguided individual whose action does not represent law abiding peaceful Muslims of our area congregations.”

On Tuesday, MCCUC President Nawaz Sheikh joined fellow New Jersey Muslim leaders at a press conference in Elizabeth to reiterate this message. Sheikh read from the statement once more on Friday following the imam’s sermon, emphasizing that the mosque would continue to be open as usual for all five daily prayers as well as Sunday school for the children.

“Please, we need your support in this rough and tough time,” Sheikh said, asking the congregation to “pray for this center, pray for our young brothers and sisters who are misguided, to get them on the right path.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/elizabeth-nj-mosque-services-ahmad-khan-rahami-225314209.html

Even the Muslim who wrote it says it is rubbish in his disclaimer included in the bullshit....


From your posted wall of waffle...


"...Disclaimer: Whatever is given in this article is just showing of the mirror to the Liars/deceivers and other missionary haters of Islam, otherwise neither I nor any Muslim can ever think of anything close to it. Christian brethren and sisters do understand that this article is in no way attacking the Christian faith. The article was mainly written in response to the double standards of Christian missionaries. No Muslim can be a Muslim if he/she has any such imagination about Mary, the purest and greatest woman of all..."

Oh dear, you obviously don't understand plain English.   His disclaimer is just saying that he is presenting the facts, not attacking Christianity.

Wrong...

Why not answer the points raised instead of trying to divert away from them...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Why not answer the points raised instead of trying to divert away from them...!?

Why no explain why you think she is wrong? You keep making claims without support or even explaining.

Still waiting for anyone to show what I have posted to be wrong...


Sassy is just trying to divert away from it all with waffle...

Poor Tommy, a little education for you:


Writing about Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, the Orientalist scholar W Montgomery Watt wrote: "Of all the world's great men, none has been so much maligned as Muhammad." His quote seems all the more poignant in light of the Islamophobic film Innocence of Muslims, which has sparked riots from Yemen to Libya and which, among other slanders, depicts Muhammad as a paedophile.
This claim is a recurring one among critics of Islam, so its foundation deserves close scrutiny.
Critics allege that Aisha was just six years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad, himself in his 50s, and only nine when the marriage was consummated. They base this on a saying attributed to Aisha herself (Sahih Bukhari volume 5, book 58, number 234), and the debate on this issue is further complicated by the fact that some Muslims believe this to be a historically accurate account. Although most Muslims would not consider marrying off their nine-year-old daughters, those who accept this saying argue that since the Qur'an states that marriage is void unless entered into by consenting adults, Aisha must have entered puberty early.
They point out that, in seventh-century Arabia, adulthood was defined as the onset of puberty. (This much is true, and was also the case in Europe: five centuries after Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, 33-year-old King John of England married 12-year-old Isabella of Angoulême.) Interestingly, of the many criticisms of Muhammad made at the time by his opponents, none focused on Aisha's age at marriage.
According to this perspective, Aisha may have been young, but she was not younger than was the norm at the time. Other Muslims doubt the very idea that Aisha was six at the time of marriage, referring to historians who have questioned the reliability of Aisha's age as given in the saying. In a society without a birth registry and where people did not celebrate birthdays, most people estimated their own age and that of others. Aisha would have been no different. What's more, Aisha had already been engaged to someone else before she married Muhammad, suggesting she had already been mature enough by the standards of her society to consider marriage for a while. It seems difficult to reconcile this with her being six.
In addition, some modern Muslim scholars have more recently cast doubt on the veracity of the saying, or hadith, used to assert Aisha's young age. In Islam, the hadith literature (sayings of the prophet) is considered secondary to the Qur'an. While the Qur'an is considered to be the verbatim word of God, the hadiths were transmitted over time through a rigorous but not infallible methodology. Taking all known accounts and records of Aisha's age at marriage, estimates of her age range from nine to 19.
Because of this, it is impossible to know with any certainty how old Aisha was. What we do know is what the Qur'an says about marriage: that it is valid only between consenting adults, and that a woman has the right to choose her own spouse. As the living embodiment of Islam, Muhammad's actions reflect the Qur'an's teachings on marriage, even if the actions of some Muslim regimes and individuals do not.
Sadly, in many countries, the imperatives motivating the marriage of young girls are typically economic. In others, they are political. The fact that Iran and Saudi Arabia have both sought to use the saying concerning Aisha's age as a justification for lowering the legal age of marriage tells us a great deal about the patriarchal and oppressive nature of those regimes, and nothing about Muhammad, or the essential nature of Islam. The stridency of those who lend credence to these literalist interpretations by concurring with their warped view of Islam does not help those Muslims who seek to challenge these aberrations.
The Islamophobic depiction of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha as motivated by misplaced desire fits within a broader Orientalist depiction of Muhammad as a philanderer. This idea dates back to the crusades. According to the academic Kecia Ali: "Accusations of lust and sensuality were a regular feature of medieval attacks on the prophet's character and, by extension, on the authenticity of Islam."
Since the early Christians heralded Christ as a model of celibate virtue, Muhammad – who had married several times – was deemed to be driven by sinful lust. This portrayal ignored the fact that before his marriage to Aisha, Muhammad had been married to Khadija, a powerful businesswoman 15 years his senior, for 25 years. When she died, he was devastated and friends encouraged him to remarry. A female acquaintance suggested Aisha, a bright and vivacious character.
Aisha's union would also have cemented Muhammad's longstanding friendship with her father, Abu Bakr. As was the tradition in Arabia (and still is in some parts of the world today), marriage typically served a social and political function – a way of uniting tribes, resolving feuds, caring for widows and orphans, and generally strengthening bonds in a highly unstable and changing political environment. Of the women Muhammad married, the majority were widows. To consider the marriages of the prophet outside of these calculations is profoundly ahistorical.
What the records are clear on is that Muhammad and Aisha had a loving and egalitarian relationship, which set the standard for reciprocity, tenderness and respect enjoined by the Qur'an. Insights into their relationship, such as the fact they liked to drink out of the same cup or race one another, are indicative of a deep connection which belies any misrepresentation of their relationship.
To paint Aisha as a victim is completely at odds with her persona. She was certainly no wallflower. During a controversial battle in Muslim history, she emerged riding a camel to lead the troops. She was known for her assertive temperament and mischievous sense of humour – with Muhammad sometimes bearing the brunt of the jokes. During his lifetime, he established her authority by telling Muslims to consult her in his absence; after his death, she went to be become one of the most prolific and distinguished scholars of her time.
A stateswoman, scholar, mufti, and judge, Aisha combined spirituality, activism and knowledge and remains a role model for many Muslim women today. The gulf between her true legacy and her depiction in Islamophobic materials is not merely historically inaccurate, it is an insult to the memory of a pioneering woman.
Those who manipulate her story to justify the abuse of young girls, and those who manipulate it in order to depict Islam as a religion that legitimises such abuse have more in common than they think. Both demonstrate a disregard for what we know about the times in which Muhammad lived, and for the affirmation of female autonomy which her story illustrates.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth

Read, learn and inwardly digest the truth Tommy, I'm for bed, been up since 5.

Guardian... truth...!?






The sources I posted are from the Islamists guide books!!!



Are you saying the Muslims guide books are wrong...!!!???

Also... the age of the child is just one part of the stuff I posted...


Anything to say about any of the rest of it...!?


And that the quotes are also straight from the Muslims guide books...!?

Anybody want to sum up sassy's reeeaaaaallllyyy loooong post?

Tommy Monk wrote:

"According to Sunni scriptural Hadith sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was married to Muhammad with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached puberty at the age of nine or ten years old.
Aisha"

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


He was in his 50's...


And when we say 'married'... what we are really saying is taken hostage...


And when we say 'consummated'... what we are really saying is 'raped'...


But he would have been forcing himself on her all along with 'thighing' and other sexual activity...


Widely available facts for all to find with a little bit of research!!!

No those events happen in between and as he had Multipule wives and it never said Aisha it is exactly as i said the Author of that Blog is trying to MISS translate it as bad as possible so brain dead hicks like yourself repeat it until you think it is true CAUSE way to hard for you to just go and read the source!!!!

AND same with EVERY OTHER WOMEN in that time period! it was fucking WORSE under the Anglo saxon Christans for Women. You want womens rigths back then You needed to be a fucking Viking!!

eddie wrote:Anybody want to sum up sassy's reeeaaaaallllyyy loooong post?

That it is well known and document fact that Christian scholars have been Missinterperting the Islamic scriptures for centuries so Hillshepherd rabble like tommy can get all riled up and go on crusades

Bullshit... the quotes are from the Islamists guide books...!!!

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:Anybody want to sum up sassy's reeeaaaaallllyyy loooong post?

That it is well known and document fact that Christian scholars have been Missinterperting the Islamic scriptures for centuries so Hillshepherd rabble like tommy can get all riled up and go on crusades

Mis-interpreting the Islamic Scriptures? Now, that's a can of worms.

HoratioTarr wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:Anybody want to sum up sassy's reeeaaaaallllyyy loooong post?

That it is well known and document fact that Christian scholars have been Missinterperting the Islamic scriptures for centuries so Hillshepherd rabble like tommy can get all riled up and go on crusades

Mis-interpreting the Islamic Scriptures?   Now, that's a can of worms.

Well Like any of the Abrahamic Scriptures it is incorrect.

But to do as that blogger does as take a word that clearly translates to wife, with no further desciption
and Claim it is specifically his child wife.
the whole lot is translated into the harshest langauge with the most negative meaning

although not perfect the 'peguin publisher' translation is a fairly netural translation.

Rubbish!!!



And it's not just about the girls age... what about all the rest of the stuff...!!!???

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Why not answer the points raised instead of trying to divert away from them...!?

Why no explain why you think she is wrong?  You keep making claims without support or even explaining.

IT'S BEEN a long, long time since Tommy has made any sensible or rational comments in any of his posts...

The three or four remaining supporters that T.M. still has on here only embarrass themselves all the more, whenever they speak up in support of his increasingly nonsencical rants..        

Why must people have "supporters"? Perhaps people simply agree with him or perhaps they simply like to hear another view - that's what a debate is.

Your label-maker must be overworked.