This account presents Mrs. Meer Hassan Ali, a Christian, conversing with the pious Meer Hadjee Shaah, and some of his parting words. Excerpted from “Observations on the Mussulmauns of India” pub 1917
===
The Mussulmauns of the present age discourse much on the subject of that
prophecy–particularly during the contest between the Greeks and Turks, of
which however they had no very correct information, yet they fancied the
time must be fast approaching, by these leading events, to the fuller
accomplishment; often, when in conversation with the most religious men of
the country, I have heard them declare it as their firm belief that the
time was fast approaching when there should be but one mind amongst all
men. ‘There is but little more to finish;’ ‘The time draws near;’ are
expressions of the Mussulmauns’ belief, when discoursing of the period
anticipated, as prophesied in their sacred writings;–so persuaded are
they of the nearness of that time. In relating the substance of my last
serious conversation with the devout Meer Hadjee Shaah, I shall disclose
the real sentiments of most, if not every religious reflecting, true
Mussulmaun of his sect in India.
Meer Hadjee Shaah delighted in religious conversations; it was his
happiest time when, in the quiet of night, the Meer, his son, translated,
as I read, the Holy Bible to him. We have often been thus engaged until
one or two, and even to a later hour in the morning; he remembered all he
heard, and drew comparisons, in his own mind, between the two authorities
of sacred writings–the Khoraun and Bible; the one he had studied through
his long life, the other, he was now equally satisfied, contained the word
of God; he received them both, and as the ‘two witnesses’ of God. The last
serious conversation I had with him, was a very few days before his death;
he was then nearly in as good health as he had been for the last year; his
great age had weakened his frame, but he walked about the grounds with his
staff, as erect as when I first saw him, and evinced nothing in his
general manner that could excite a suspicion that his hours had so nearly
run their course.
We had been talking of the time when peace on earth should be universal;
‘My time, dear baittie (daughter), is drawing to a quick conclusion.
You may live to see the events foretold, I shall be in my grave; but
remember, I tell you now, though I am dead, yet when Jesus Christ returns
to earth, at His coming, I shall rise again from my grave; and I shall be
with Him, and with Emaum Mhidhie also.’
This was the substance of his last serious conversation with me, and
within one short week he was removed from those who loved to hear his
voice; but he still lives in the memory of many, and those who knew his
worth are reconciled by reflecting on the ‘joy that awaits the righteous’.
‘Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring,
and they shall hear My voice; and there shall be one fold, and one
shepherd.’ Also, ‘In My Father’s house are many mansions’. These were
particularly pleasing passages to him, and often referred to in our
scriptural conversations.
For Muslims, the ultimate prerequisite towards discussion with people of other faiths has to be mutual respect of everyone’s beliefs. Muslims have always been uniquely positioned in this regard, as accepters of the validity of all prophets.
Muslims often repeat the concept of accepting Jesus (AS), Moses (AS), and 124,000 other Prophets when explaining their religion to others. It is indeed an important point to recognize when trying to understand Islam. But some might wonder, what is the real significance of the acceptance of Jesus (AS) as a Prophet, Moses (AS) as a Prophet, and thousands of other prophets, if Muslims believe (sometimes radically) different things about those personalities than Christians or Jews?
The answer is that acceptance of prophethood boils down to a practical reality of respect and tolerance on the part of Muslims towards people of other faiths. Christians believe Jesus (AS) was crucified and exists within a Trinity, Muslims do not. This leads to drastic differences of theology which are real and not to be ignored. But, if we agree Jesus (AS) existed, that he was a man of holy and spiritual significance, and that he brought a message from God of righteousness, we may begin to move the relationship past suspicion to one of neighborly acceptance and practical benefit.
Respect and tolerance, written right into the religion, that is what acceptance of Prophethood for Muslims means in terms of real world interactions with those of other faiths. In fact, this belief puts Muslims in the unique position of not only to being tolerant to other faiths, but to be the party to allow various factions and sects of other faiths to come together.
This experience comes to life in the case of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
When the Caliph and close companion of the Prophet Muhummad(S), Umar (R), obtained control of Jerusalem, he refused to pray within the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as a sign of respect towards the Christians, and as a sign of fear that later generations might turn it into a mosque. Rather, he prayed in the courtyard across from it, and eventually built a mosque there. Not soon thereafter the Crusades began, and again in 1187, Sultan Salidin maintained that decision and appointed Muslim families to be neutral keepers of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. His Sultanate lasted only 57 years after his demise, but the Ottomans revived and improved on this tradition of tolerance for hundreds of years. The wisdom they used in this regard resulted in a traditional division and acceptance of roles which are still practiced to this day.
Relationships between Christians were much more complicated in Ottoman times, with rival Christian factions looking to establish dominance over the Church.
The Ottoman Sultans upheld the Muslim custodianship of the Key to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. A second Muslim family was given custodianship over the opening of the gates themselves. The spiritual and political significance of these roles should not be missed by those who are not used to the subtle ways in which the Sultans often worked. By 1767 the responsibilities of religious duties within the church was split between Greek Orthodox, the Armenian Apostolic, and the Catholics. By the 1800′s, the Coptic Orthodox, the Ethiopian Orthodox and the Syriac Orthodox were included in the partitioning of religious duties. It was the Muslim families who, holding the key and gates, kept each of these parties satisfied with their rights to the church while keeping tensions between them to a minimum. The violence which threatened this land from the times of the Crusades has been carefully managed in this exact same manner until this day.
There is no doubt that the balance is delicate, violent incidents occurring well into the modern day when any of the groups perform out of sync with established guidelines. This incident in 2002 speaks volumes as to the conditions which the Sultans tread when dealing with the religious sects centuries ago:
Last Monday, chairs, iron bars, and fists flew on the roof of one of the most revered sites in Christianity, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. When the dust cleared, seven Ethiopian Orthodox monks and four Egyptian (Coptic) monks had been injured. The fight started when an Egyptian monk decided to move his chair into the shade—technically, argued the Ethiopians, encroaching on the latter’s jurisdiction. – Christianity Today – July 2002
This being just one of many modern day incidents, it is not hard to imagine the difficult waters the Sultans had to deal with to secure the Church and arbitrate between such bitter rivals, attempting to be just guardians of a site of utmost importance to a faith other than their own. It is clear that even when those espousing peace and love and forgiveness feel their rights have been breached, the result is never good.
In 1999 the government presently in Jerusalem decided these Ottoman laws were antiquitated and needed to be overhauled. They began by planning the relieving of the Muslim families of their duties, assuming ownership of the land, and the construction of a new door through the Ethiopian section of the Church. The BBC reported that year, “the Ethiopian Patriachate has already expressed unwillingness to cede its quiet little spot without a fight.” [ref] As can be imagined, numerous hostilities broke and the status quo was eventually restored.
The Muslims open the door to the Church to this day.
Christians are not the only ones who benefited from a tolerant Islamic empire, looking to maintain everyones rights. Jews also found safety and high positions within the Ottoman government, and were welcomed during the Inquisition.
For their part, Ottoman sultans, eager to expand, hailed Jewish immigration
and Jewish skills as an unexpected but welcome benefit. Sultan
Bayezit II (1481–1512) was quoted as saying: “Can you call such a king [as
Ferdinand of Spain] wise and intelligent? He is impoverishing his country
and enriching my kingdom.” During the early sixteenth century, when the
Ottoman Empire was at the peak of its success militarily, politically, and
economically, a positive attitude toward immigration continued
- Jewish Publication Society, Guide to Jewish Women 600 B.C.E. – 1900 C.E
Nor was tolerance limited to Christians and Jews. In the Ottoman influenced Mughal empire in India, Babur wrote the following will to his son inheriting a kingdom with a large number of people of the Hindu faith:
“My son take note of the following: Do not harbour religious prejudice in your heart. You should dispense justice while taking note of the people’s religious sensitivities, and rites. Avoid slaughtering cows in order that you could gain a place in the heart of natives. This will take you nearer to the people.
Do not demolish or damage places of worship of any faith and dispense full justice to all to ensure peace in the country. Islam can better be preached by the sword of love and affection, rather than the sword of tyranny and persecution. Avoid the differences between the shias and sunnis. Look at the various characteristics of your people just as characteristics of various seasons.”
This is the spirit of tolerance, respect, and value for justice that Muslims can and should bring to the table when discussing with those of other faiths. At least, those Muslims who are following in the footsteps of traditional Islamic leadership. Reform movements which seek to belittle the contribution of the Sultans are largely to blame for the cruelty which has infected the Muslim side of the equation of modern day dialogue.
Of course, there is an increased lack of tolerance which is playing out today by those who have an agenda to create strife and friction. This is largely occurring by rewriting history and attempting to choose a theoretical and literalistic approach towards religion rather than a practical one of tolerance, and this must be rejected at its core.
People like Robert Spencer have chosen to rely on picking and choosing from ancient texts to attempt to create a picture of an intolerant religion. One of the benefits of a traditional approach towards Islam is the various accusations against the Prophet (S) lose all weight, as one can readily see a strong Islamic character which caused the Sultans to hold such tolerant viewpoints as a matter of practical reality, not legalistic conjecture. Of course, history is not bloodless, and there were casualties of political motivations which gave us incidents of violence and the desire for all parties to determine their rights. However, to blame religion for what was the reality of a world clamoring to determine the boundaries of progressive civilization is beyond obtuse.
It is necessary for those of other faiths to respect Muslims and the Prophet Muhummad (S) for success in matters of interfaith dialogue and this is necessary for anyone who desires an end other than the complete extermination of the other. It is clear that the various churches of established religions did just that. The Catholic Church, specifically calls out for a respectful view of the Prophet Muhummad’s (S) “prophetic call”:
Gabriel Oussani in Catholic Encyclopedia states that the views of Luther and those who call Muhammad a ‘wicked impostor’, ‘dastardly liar’ and a ‘willful deceiver’ are an “indiscriminate abuse” and are “unsupported by facts: Instead, nineteenth-century Western scholars such as Sprenger, Noldeke, Weil, Muir, Koelle, Grimme and Margoliouth give us a more correct and unbiased estimate of Muhammad’s life and character, and substantially agree as to his motives, prophetic call, personal qualifications, and sincerity.”
This is what modern day interfaith discussions sometimes (if not often) lack, the fundamental agreement of respect. When one person holds that the others religious figures were motivated not by God but by their ego, discussion and dialogue is lacking a strong foundation.
By returning to a historical viewpoint, and specifically the most tolerant times of our history, we find lessons which have allowed us to avert a ‘clash of civilizations’ time and time again. As a people, we need to return to these lessons and re-think our approach to “interfaith” programs and events, making it less about making us all into one monolithic entity, and more about respecting each others holy sources. Part of that effort must include reviving the great legacy of tolerance that has existed in Islamic history, another part is acknowledging modern day forces which are the antithesis to that tradition of righteousness.
http://www.thedailystar.com/opinion/columns/2007/01/20/0120relc.html
Religion column: Declare your faith; live by it
In the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful:
A person who counts himself among obedient servants of the Lord must testify to faith in the One God and to acceptance of his prophet (Muhammad, Jesus or Moses, peace be upon them all, depending on the religion one follows sincerely). That person must live according to that faith, and go out from the world with faith in his heart. He protects faith by renewing it daily.
The Creator plants the seed of faith in everyone. If a person mistreats this gift, then he loses everything _ the world and the hereafter. He runs to anywhere that he finds material benefit. Ones words may say one thing, but the intention can be something else, and his actions in life becomes worldly. He may forget his faith easily and drop the lifestyle that Allah and his prophets are ordering.
Its not enough just to say, “I am a believer.” There are people who claim they are believers. But it is only words if they do not look at how they are living and adjust their actions according to intentions, asking why they are living and what is the purpose of life.
Why go to work? Why sleep? Why eat? Why pray? If we dont know the answer, our actions cannot reflect and support our faith.
Holy Prophet Muhammad said, “There is no difference in the Presence of Allah between Arab and non-Arab, except for those who have more taqwa (awareness of Gods presence throughout ones life).” Those who have taqwa are in higher stations and are closer to their Lord. Thats what we have to run after.
When the sun sets, the angels wrap up another page for that day. They close it, seal it and its gone. Whatever our intentions and actions were, we cannot change anything from yesterday. The angels closed that page until Judgement Day.
“How did I live today? What did I do? Where did I run? What did I earn? Did I earn only this world? Or did I earn for life hereafter? Or I didnt earn either one of them?” If we earned the world, and if Allah gives a chance later, maybe one day we will spend that gain in the way of Allah on something for Paradise. We were created as “Ahsani taqweem,” the most perfect creature on earth. If we earned neither the world nor eternity, then shame to us.
We have no guarantee that we will reach tomorrow. If Allah gave both strong spirit and strong physical form and we waste them in questionable places, we will regret later. Every breath is a chance given for another life. Once its ordered for us not to inhale the air, we go out with whatever we collected in life. If someone collected material only, he cannot take it with him. Everyone goes empty handed to the grave. If a person runs after empty goals, then he will find emptiness in the grave. If one runs after something valuable for hereafter, he will find that value in the grave.
And what is of value? To have declared ones faith, and to have lived by that faith. If you testify and you live according to faith, there is no worry. But if you are claiming and not living according to that faith, then you may not remember to hold onto that faith when the angel of death comes. In the end, many think that the doctor (or the president) is going to help. But that doctor and president are themselves in need of help.
Sheytan gives value to worldly attractions. Be careful. We must not see beauty in what Sheytan is directing. Beauty and value is in what Allah and his prophets ordered. That is Hakk (the Truth). What Allah and his prophets forbid, that is ugly and haram (forbidden). If admiring something forbidden, the heart is with Sheytan, not shining with faith. With faith, wrong things become apparent and you will live what you believe.
Even if Sheytan makes you dizzy and you arent faithful throughout your lifetime, when the death-rope is around your neck, you may say, “Well, I didnt live according to my faith, but at least let me go out with the faith.” When the angel of death comes, unexpectedly or not, the angels record the last words that come into your heart and out from your mouth.
The chance is given to us in this life to testify to faith and we must live by it. Billions of people sitting in their graves are wishing that this breath of life would be given back to them once more, just to come to this life momentarily and to be taken away again _ just one breath of life to be given to them to declare their faith.
Sheykh Abdul Kerim al-Hakkani al-Kibrisi is the imam and spiritual leader of the Osmanli Naks-Ibendi Muslim Dergah in Sidney Center.
An interesting article I found referenced on the ID blog, Uncommon Descent:
Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history
By Dinesh DSouza
RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIF. – In recent months, a spate of atheist books have
argued that religion represents, as End of Faith author Sam Harris puts
it, the most potent source of human conflict, past and present.
Columnist Robert Kuttner gives the familiar litany. The Crusades
slaughtered millions in the name of Jesus. The Inquisition brought the
torture and murder of millions more. After Martin Luther, Christians did
bloody battle with other Christians for another three centuries.
In his bestseller The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins contends that most of
the worlds recent conflicts – in the Middle East, in the Balkans, in
Northern Ireland, in Kashmir, and in Sri Lanka – show the vitality
of religions murderous impulse.
The problem with this critique is that it exaggerates the crimes attributed
to religion, while ignoring the greater crimes of secular fanaticism. The
best example of religious persecution in America is the Salem witch trials.
How many people were killed in those trials? Thousands? Hundreds? Actually,
fewer than 25. Yet the event still haunts the liberal imagination.
It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail
against the misdeeds of the Crusaders and Inquisitors more than 500 years
ago. The number sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition appears to be
about 10,000. Some historians contend that an additional 100,000 died in
jail due to malnutrition or illness.
These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower
at the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls
produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of
creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph
Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no
Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants
murdered more than 100 million people.
Moreover, many of the conflicts that are counted as religious wars were
not fought over religion. They were mainly fought over rival claims to
territory and power. Can the wars between England and France be called
religious wars because the English were Protestants and the French were
Catholics? Hardly.
The same is true today. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not, at its
core, a religious one. It arises out of a dispute over self-determination
and land. Hamas and the extreme orthodox parties in Israel may
advance theological claims – God gave us this land and so forth – but the
conflict would remain essentially the same even without these religious
motives. Ethnic rivalry, not religion, is the source of the tension in
Northern Ireland and the Balkans.
Yet todays atheists insist on making religion the culprit. Consider Mr.
Harriss analysis of the conflict in Sri Lanka. While the motivations of
the Tamil Tigers are not explicitly religious, he informs us, they are
Hindus who undoubtedly believe many improbable things about the nature of
life and death. In other words, while the Tigers see themselves as
combatants in a secular political struggle, Harris detects a religious
motive because these people happen to be Hindu and surely there must be
some underlying religious craziness that explains their fanaticism.
Harris can go on forever in this vein. Seeking to exonerate secularism and
atheism from the horrors perpetrated in their name, he argues that
Stalinism and Maoism were in reality little more than a political
religion. As for Nazism, while the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed
itself in a predominantly secular way, it was a direct inheritance from
medieval Christianity. Indeed, The holocaust marked the culmination of
two thousand years of Christian fulminating against the Jews.
One finds the same inanities in Mr. Dawkinss work. Dont be fooled by this
rhetorical legerdemain. Dawkins and Harris cannot explain why, if Nazism
was directly descended from medieval Christianity, medieval Christianity
did not produce a Hitler. How can a self-proclaimed atheist ideology,
advanced by Hitler as a repudiation of Christianity, be a culmination of
2,000 years of Christianity? Dawkins and Harris are employing a transparent
sleight of hand that holds Christianity responsible for the crimes
committed in its name, while exonerating secularism and atheism for the
greater crimes committed in their name.
Religious fanatics have done things that are impossible to defend, and some
of them, mostly in the Muslim world, are still performing horrors in the
name of their creed. But if religion sometimes disposes people to
self-righteousness and absolutism, it also provides a moral code that
condemns the slaughter of innocents. In particular, the moral teachings of
Jesus provide no support for – indeed they stand as a stern rebuke to – the
historical injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity.
Atheist hubris
The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic
ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest
techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create
a secular utopia here on earth. Of course if some people – the Jews, the
landowners, the unfit, or the handicapped – have to be eliminated in order
to achieve this utopia, this is a price the atheist tyrants and their
apologists have shown themselves quite willing to pay. Thus they confirm
the truth of Fyodor Dostoyevskys dictum, If God is not, everything is
permitted.
Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is
that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not
managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism
in the past few decades.
Its time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief
has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. Atheism, not
religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.
* Dinesh DSouza is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution. His new
book, The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for
9/11, will be published in January.
SOURCE: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html
Provided by Yasin from the Hakkani blog
Alhamdulillah, a couple of us attended a Thanksgiving night at the Church of Latter-Day Saints of Jesus Christ, also known as Mormons. We read the last section of Sura Yasin and translated it for them. In addition, our musicians played an Osmanli Nakshibendi song for the audience, who said the event was their first and one they cannot forget. Representatives of other houses of worship read from their scriptures and sang a few hymns too.
Other pictures available on his blog.
the truth on 
m.a.kidwai,CME/IND.RLY.(retd.) on 