Sunnahs of Eidul-Fitr

Eid ul-Fitr is one of the two major holidays celebrated by all Muslims of the world. It comes at the end of Ramadan- the fasting month. It is a day of celebration and giving thanks to Allah, our Creator and Cherisher. Most Muslims celebrate Eid for at three days.

Prophet Muhammad used to do the following on the day of Eid (Sunnah), May Allah's peace and blessings be upon him:

1. To rise early in the morning.
2. Take a full bath.
3. Clean the teeth.
4. Wear the best clothes that he had.
5. Wear perfume.
6. To eat something sweet like dates before leaving home.
7. Go to the Eid prayer location very early. (The Prophet used to offer Eid prayer in a central location instead of offerring it in a mosque of a locality without any legitimate excuse).
8. The Prophet used to go to the Eid Prayer location by one route and will return through another route.
9. He used to go for Eid on foot.
10. He used to chant slowly on the way to the Eid prayer location the following words: “Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar, Laa ilaaha illallahu Wallahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar, Wa lillahil Hamd." (Translation: Allah is the greatest, He is the greatest. There is no god except Allah. He is the greatest. All praises and thanks are for Him)
11. The Prophet used to give Sadqa-e-Fitr (zakatul fitr) before the Eid day. (Giving just before Eid is fine, but against the spirit and its purpose. Ask your local mosque about how much and where to pay)

Method of Eid prayers

Eid prayer consists of two units of prayer (Rakas) with six Takbeers (the raising of the hands while saying Allahu Akbar [God is the Greatest]) in congregation, followed by the Khutba (sermon) of Eid.

	Follow the Imam by raising both hands up to the ears, say Allahu Akbar, this is the first Takbeer to enter in the Salat.
	Then fold your hands in the front and recite the ‘Sanaa', ("subhaanakallahumma..). till the end, and
	Then say Allahu Akbar thrice, following you imam, each time raising both hands up to the ears and dropping them. After each takbeer there is going to be a slight pause in which Subhanallah may be recited thrice.
	After the third Takbeer the hands should be folded in front and listen to the imam reciting Aoozubillah, Bismillah, Surah Fateha and some other Surah and
	Then perform Ruku (bowing) as Imam says Allahu Akbar and
	Then go to Sajdah (prostration) as usual following your Imam's Takbeer.
	In the second Raka, the Imam will first recite Surah Fateha and some other Surah. Then he will say three Takbeers after it. In all of these three Takbeer's hands will not to be folded but dropped after each Takbeer. And
	Then go into the Ruku just after the fourth takbeer.
	Listening to the Khutbah after the Eid Salaat is Waajib (obligatory).

A Monument of beauty

By Velma Cook

A monument of beauty you stand
Gentleness and justice extend from your hands
Hands raised in prayer
Your eyes know no fear

Small children play at your feet
Open handed kindness which none can beat
Eyes that see through the shallow smiles
A mind that knows man's tricks and wiles

There can be no success without defeat
Overcoming one's lusts and desires
Until all that remains is a love and fear that ever burns
Seeking the pleasure of its Lord - for this alone it yearns

I'll stand beside you as long as you dare
To treat evil as falsehood and keep to the truth - so rare
I'll not betray you as long as your soul
Stands firm on goodness and Allah is your goal.

The sickness of this world

This world is full of darkness and light

Good days and bad days Full of good deeds and bad deeds

yet we seem to sin more than we do good

Lying becomes hobby

Telling the truth becomes something that was in that past that will never last

Spreading rumours amongst our brothers and sisters becomes must

The fool is the one who follow his lust

Praying salat becomes dust

Saying salaam amongst Muslims becomes like an old book full of rust

Being fully covered becomes religious

Saying the word jihad becomes dangerous

All you hear is people talk about sexual desire

This country they want to hire woman clothed yet naked

There is tight wire on my neck I can't bearth

Can you imagine how hot the blazing hell fire is

The Christian Missionary's Thinking Questions for the Muslim

(Article based on Gary Miller's Speech on Islam & Christianity)

Missionary: Does the Koran say that Jesus was sinless?

Muslim: Yes. Jesus was perfect man. Never sinned.

Missionary: Does the Koran tell Mohammad to repent?

Muslim: Yes. Quran tells Mohammad to repent.

Thats all. The missionary doesn't say anything else. He hopes now

that the Muslim would start thinking:

"Now, wait a minute, Jesus never sinned, but Mohammad was supposed

to repent. Maybe Jesus is better !"

Missionary wants the Muslim to start thinking that a sinless

man is better than a repentant sinner". Missionary is hoping,

but he dare not say it. Because if the Missionary

says that, he goes exactly against the teachigns of Jesus.

If the Missionary is foolish enough to say that a

sinless man is better than a repentant sinner, he's going

against the teachings of Jesus.

The reason why the Missionary is going against the teachigns of

Jesus is this:

Story of a lost sheep. Mathew Chapter 18, verse 12:

Jesus said, "If a man has a 100 sheep and one of them

has gone astray, does he not leave the 99 on the hills,

and go on the search of the one that went astray.

And if he finds it, truely I say to you, he rejoices over

it more than over the 99 that never went astray. "

Jesus was trying to hammer that point home to his disciples:

Don't you dare say, for example, because you've been a faithful follower

for many years that you're better than this one who just became a

believer just yesterday. The perfect man has no precedence over

the repentant sinner.

Missionary: Was Jesus the Messiah ?

Muslim: Yes.

Missionary: Was Mohammad the Messiah?

Muslim: No

Now, the Missionary stops there, and hopes that the Muslim would

start thinking, "now, wait a minute, Jesus is the Messiah, and

Mohammad is not the Messiah. Maybe Jesus is better!"

What the Muslim should ask the Missionary is about this word Messiah:

Jesus was the Messiah, but were there any other Messiahs besides

Jesus ?

Now you find out how well he knows his Bible. Because there were

many Messiahs: David, Solomon, and even Cyrus [sp?] the Persian

were called Messiah. Its hard to find it in the Bible because the

translators cover it over. Messiah means "annointed".

Messiah is somebody who has been picked to do a job.

Every king of ancient Israel was called Messiah. Now the word

doesn't sound so special anymore. It is a title, but it doesn't

particularly elevate one to some divine status.

Missnionary: Where's the body of Jesus ?

Muslim: God took it.

Missionary: Where's the body of Mohammad?

Muslim: Its in Medina. Its burried in ground.

Now the Missionary hopes that the Muslim would go away thinking,

"Now that's interesting! The body of Jesus is gone; Mohammad is in

the grave. Maybe Jesus is the true Messenger, Mohammad is false! "

Missionary's hoping the Muslim would think that, but he dare

not say it.

What the Muslim should ask the Missionary is this:

"Do you mean that a dead and burried

Prophet is a false prophet? Is that what you mean ?"

What does Missionary say about Abraham, for example ?

Abraham is burried. Jews and Muslims to this day, still go to the

the place where Abraham is burried, to visit his grave.

Is Abraham a false prophet because he's dead in the ground ?

Also, Bible says body of Moses was taken up by God. God

sent an angel to take the body away. So what does the

Missionary's question prove ?

Islam in the Western mirror

By Dr. Nasir Khan

Present-day images of Muslims and Islam in Western media vary considerably. However, since the collapse of the Soviet Union the general drift of Western concerns has been to portray Islam as the main enemy of the West and the Muslim world as a hotbed of terrorism that threatens Western civilisation and its democratic values. Thus in the present-day hegemonic world order -- under which all norms of civilised behaviour in the conduct of foreign policy have been discarded by the Bush Administration and its allies in London and Tel Aviv -- Muslims are associated with terrorism. We have seen over the last few years the expansion of President Bush’s destructive war, the inhuman treatment of captive population of Iraq and Afghanistan, rampant abuse of prisoners from Muslim countries by American and British forces, total indifference towards the human rights of prisoners of war or of those suspected of resisting or opposing the American occupation of their countries and false propaganda to cover up the real objectives and crimes against humanity of the neocon rulers in Washington and London.

Needless to say, the so-called ‘Islamic challenge’ is based on assumptions that have no basis in reality. They misrepresent, distort and mislead rather than enlighten and inform. Over the last fifteen years a number of publications have appeared that have borne sensational titles like ‘Sword of Islam’, ‘The Islamic Threat’, ‘The Roots of Muslim Rage’, ‘Islam’s New Battle Cry’ and ‘What went wrong with Islam?’. They reveal the sort of preconceived image of Islam their writers had intended to convey to their readers. According to such projections, Islam is a challenge to Western values as well as to West’s economic and political interests. But in view of the real power wielded by the West in general and America in particular throughout the Middle East and beyond, the so-called ‘threat of Islam’ is quite groundless.

But right-wing political manipulators and Christian fundamentalists can very easily provoke major crises between the Muslim world and the West; we have only to recall the case of the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. The real aim of some Danish and Norwegian right-wing newspapers to publish these cartoons was to provoke hostile reactions from Muslims and thus cause more bitterness and resentment between Muslims and Christians. They tried to cover up their anti-Islamic campaign behind the smokescreen of the argument that publishing the cartoons was a demonstration of the West’s freedom of expression. They were xenophobic, racist and disrespectful of immigrant cultures in Europe and the Islamic culture in particular. How could hurting the feelings of over one billion Muslims was to serve the interests of free Press, freedom of expression or civil liberties? An anti-Islam fundamentalist Christian by the name of Mr Selbekk, the Norwegian editor of Magazinet reprinted the cartoons which were first published in Denmark. He was asked if he would also publish any cartoons that insulted Jesus, said: No. Thus this gentleman’s vaunted ideal of ‘freedom of expression’ was limited to insulting the Prophet Muhammad and obviously did not extend to insulting the gods, prophets and spiritual avatars of any other major religion.

However, it is important to look at the strategic goals of such editors and publishers. They did succeed in their objective, which was to cause maximum provocation to Muslims worldwide and to create an atmosphere of contempt and hatred towards them among the followers of other religions. Muslims were predictably and understandably offended and their reactions led to some horrible incidents in various parts of the globe. What those who reacted violently did not realise was that they had fallen in the trap of anti-Muslim mischief-mongers, who, through provocation had achieved their goal. Now the stage was set to repeat the old charge: Muslims were fanatics, volatile and irrational — they were ‘terrorists’! The divide between ‘us’ and ‘them’ as cultural opposites was reinforced and widened.

The anti-Muslim media keep on churning out the common stereotypes that portray Muslims, compared to Westerners, as more prone to conflict and violence. These media publish accounts of conflicts in the Muslim countries as self-evident truths to reinforce the image. There is a general tendency to oversimplify or ignore altogether diverse trends and complex socio-economic factors that lead to instability and conflicts in various Muslim countries. The explanations offered and conclusions drawn sometimes are based on implicit, but more often, explicit assumptions about the superiority of Western, ‘Judaeo-Christian’ culture, while the Islamic world is thought to be an epicentre of brutality and disharmony.

A very common stereotype in the Western media is that Islamic countries are inherently prone to violence, fanaticism, medieval ideas and prejudices. This means that Islam, both as a religion and as a cultural influence, is to bear the responsibility for all such regional ills. The West is the harbinger of sweetness and light (but occasionally also darkness and misery), peace and civility (but occasionally predatory wars and barbarism), rationality and open-mindedness (but occasionally irrationality, racism and prejudice, and always is focused on its own interests). All those who have taken the trouble to look at the last few centuries’ history of Western colonialism, extending from the time of the so-called ‘discoveries’ of America by Columbus in 1492 and of India by Vasco de Gama in 1498 by sea routes, the ‘discovery’ of Africa by the European for slave trade show the ‘noble’ hands of Western nations that were extended to the people of Americas, Asia, Africa and Australia have left their marks on every continent. We cannot go into historical details here. But the global expansion of Western colonialism is the story of plunder and destruction across continents. No doubt, the seeds of Western civilisation were sown in this way. Within Western societies, the internal conflicts, violence and wars present us with a gory history. This superior culture when seen in the limited sphere of geopolitics and international relations in the last one hundred years only leaves a legacy of two World Wars, more wars (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq), invasions and coups (Guatemala, Grenada, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Chile, Argentina, Congo, southern Africa), concentration camps, racist massacres undertaken on a large scale by the flag-bearers of Western civilisation.

It is obvious that cultural differences between nations and peoples of the world are a fact of history. And in this context generalising about cultural differences is unavoidable. But in no way can such differences be equated with mutual exclusiveness or inevitable hostility between different cultures. Where the initial instinct is not to enter into an anthropological or historical study of comparative cultures, but rather to foment strife and hatred between nations and religions for ulterior motives the consequences can be disastrous. Let us take the events in the aftermath of the bombing of Oklahoma City in the United States on 19 April 1995. The media rushed to spread rumours that a ‘Middle Eastern man’ [i.e. a Muslim Arab] was responsible for the carnage. As a result Muslims throughout the United States were targeted for physical abuse, rough treatment and social ostracism. Their mosques were desecrated, Muslim women ere harassed and cars belonging to ‘Middle Easterns’ damaged. A British newspaper Today published on its front page a frightening picture of a fireman carrying the burnt remains of a dead child under the headline ‘In the name of Islam’. Identifying the perpetrator of such a reprehensible act alone would not be sufficient; Islam also had to be brought in to ignite the communal passions of people against members of another faith. However, it soon became evident that the bomber was a fair-haired American soldier, a decorated Gulf War (1991) veteran. The religion of this right-wing terrorist was not Islam but Christianity. But no one in either American or British media labelled him a ‘Christian terrorist’ or apologised to Muslims for the wrongs done to them. Once again the freedom to tell the truth and report events fairly had taken a back seat.

The second instance is the 11 September 2001 attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon by a few persons, most of whom came from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a close ally of America. They saw the policies pursued by the US in the Middle East and its support for the anachronistic rule by the House of Saud as the stumbling block towards a fair social order in their country as well as the rest of the Middle East. No matter what the nature of their grievances, I regard this attack terribly wrong. It provided ammunition to the neocons and right-wing fanatics in Washington to unleash the reign of terror, war, death and destruction in the Middle East and the petroleum regions in the general vicinity. At the same time, we ask a simple question: What had these bombings to do with millions of ordinary Muslim citizens of Europe and America? The answer is: nothing whatsoever. We witnessed that they were victimised everywhere by many white Westerners in the most grotesque and despicable ways.

During my stay in Europe for more than four decades, I have become acutely aware that the negative images of Islam and Islamic civilisation need a serious historical analysis for general readers as well as academic scholars that enables us to rise above oft-repeated and worn-out clichés of media and partisan scholarship and thus show the facts of the problematic relations between the two world religions and their civilisations. My book Perceptions of Islam in the Christendoms (2006) deals these themes and issues. It is clear that both Islam and the West suffer from the perceptual problems of adversary relationship going far back in history. Their mutual perceptions have been distorted by religious dogmas, political developments and traditional prejudices. If we take a look at the history of European colonial expansion in Americas, Australia and in the East (China, India, the Middle East and North Africa, etc.) the old balance of power between the East and the West had changed. The colonial power over other nations also strengthened the collective consciousness of the industrial West, or its assumption that it was more powerful and therefore superior to the rest of the world. The colonised and subjugated people also started to perceive the West as materially, culturally, and morally superior. It is true the West was superior in producing machines, modern weaponry and efficient armies to invade and subjugate other countries of the world. This made Western nations more powerful, but that did not mean they were morally or intellectually superior. But the subjugated races were not in a position to advance such challenging views. In such uneven power relations under colonialism no genuine communication was possible. The same is true of the current neo-colonial war in Iraq by the Bush Administration to achieve full control over the oil resources and assert political hegemony over the entire Middle East.

The Western ways to see Islam as a monolithic religious and political force is against all historical facts and contemporary political realities. Islam is not a monolithic force; the diversity within the Islamic world is wider than most Westerners think. Within three decades after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, Muslim community split into Sunni and Shia factions following a civil war. This division proved to be permanent, and further divisions within the two main branches have characterised Islamic faith and polity for fourteen centuries. The spread of Islam followed different paths in different countries and regions of the world. At present over one billion people of all races, languages, nationalities and cultures are Muslims. Their socio-cultural conditions as well as their doctrinal affiliations show much diversity and complexity. What this means is that Islam as a universal religion, like Christianity, is not a monolithic entity; this is despite the fact that Muslims share some fundamental beliefs in One God and His revelations through the prophets.

However, historical and religious traditions and myths have a life of their own. Once they have become part of a culture they continue to shape and restructure the collective consciousness of vast populations. The anti-Islamic tradition in the Christendoms has a long historical pedigree and it continues to be a dynamic factor affecting and determining international relations. The study of history helps us to see facts in their historical evolutionary process and thus lighten the cultural baggage that has often poisoned relationships between the two religious communities. An honest and balanced study of the past and the present-day geopolitical realities of the global hegemonic world order means that we no longer have to passively accept distorted legacies and close our eyes to what is happening in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, and also in Pakistan at the hands of the United States, its allies and the marionette Muslim ruling cliques.

The question of ‘Islamic terrorism’, the denial of women’s rights under Islam and the alleged irreconcilability of Islamic and Western values appear all the time in the Western media. But such accusations reveal a deep-rooted ignorance and confusion. They have no relationship to reality. We should bear in mind that a follower of a religion is not necessarily a true representative or spokesperson of that religion. Neither can the individual acts of terrorism, state-terrorism or superpower-terrorism be imputed to religion whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam or Hinduism. If an individual or group from a Muslim community resorts to extremism in political or religious spheres for whatever reason or commits a crime, the general tendency is to hold the whole Islamic tradition responsible. What happens if someone from Western culture or a Christian right-wing extremist resorts to violence or commits a crime? He is held responsible as an individual and no one blames the Western culture or Christianity for his actions. Do we not have some powerful leaders in the West who are Christian right-wingers and are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslim men, women and children? Does anyone blame Christianity for that? We ask these questions and expect our readers to ask these questions and then try to find some answers.

With regard to women, the Qur’an gave them legal rights of inheritance and divorce in the seventh-century, which Western women would not receive until the 19th or 20th century. There is nothing in Islam about obligatory veiling of women or their seclusion, either. In fact, such practices came into Islam about three generations after the death of the Prophet Muhammad under the influence of the Greek Christians of Byzantium. In fact there has been a high degree of cultural interaction between Christians and Muslims from the beginning of Islamic history.

The fundamental values of fraternity, respect, justice and peace are common in all the major civilisations and the five major religions. To call democracy ‘a Western value’ is simply bizarre; the monarchical system prevailed in Europe where the kings held absolute powers under the divine right to rule. The evolution of democratic and constitutional form of government took shape much later. Contrary to what the media and populist politicians assert, there is nothing in Islam that goes against democracy and democratic values.

Is there a flaw in women?

By the time the Lord made woman, he was into his sixth
day of working overtime.

An angel appeared and said,
"Why are you spending so much time on this one?"
And the Lord answered, "Have you seen my spec sheet on
her?
She has to be completely washable, but not plastic,
have over 200 movable parts, all replaceable and able
to run on diet coke and leftovers, have a lap that can
hold four children at one time, have a kiss that can
cure anything from a scraped knee to a broken heart -
and she will do everything with only two hands."

The angel was astounded at the requirements. "Only two
hands!? No way! And that's just on the standard
model? That's too much work for one day. Wait until
tomorrow to finish."

"But I won't," the Lord protested. "I am so close to
finishing this creation that is so close to my own
heart. She already heals herself when she is sick AND
can work 18 hour days."

The angel moved closer and touched the woman.
"But you have made her so soft, Lord."
"She is soft," the Lord agreed, "but I have also made
her tough. You have no idea what she can endure or
accomplish."

"Will she be able to think?", asked the angel.
The Lord replied, "Not only will she be able to think,
she will be able to reason and negotiate."

The angel then noticed something, and reaching out,
touched the woman's cheek. "Oops, it looks like you
have a leak in this model. I told you that you were
trying to put too much into this one."
"That's not a leak," the Lord corrected, "that's a
tear!"
"What's the tear for?" the angel asked.
The Lord said, "The tear is her way of expressing her
joy, her sorrow, her pain, her disappointment, her
love, her loneliness, her grief and her pride."

The angel was impressed. "You are a genius, Lord.
You thought of everything! Woman is truly amazing."

And she is! Women have strengths that amaze men.
They bear hardships and they carry burdens, but they
hold happiness, love and joy.
They smile when they want to scream.
They sing when they want to cry.
They cry when they are happy and laugh when they are
nervous.
They fight for what they believe in.
They stand up to injustice.
They don't take "no" for an answer when they believe
there is a better solution.
They go without so their family can have.
They go to the doctor with a frightened friend.
They love unconditionally.
They cry when their children excel and cheer when
their friends get awards.
They are happy when they hear about a birth or a
wedding.
Their hearts break when a friend dies.
They grieve at the loss of a family member, yet they
are strong when they think there is no strength left.
They know that a hug and a kiss can heal a broken
heart.
Women come in all shapes, sizes and colors. They'll
drive, fly, walk, run or e-mail you to show how much
they care about you.
The heart of a woman is what makes the world keep
turning.
They bring joy, hope and love. They have compassion
and ideals.
They give moral support to their family and friends.
Women have vital things to say and everything to give.

HOWEVER, IF THERE IS ONE FLAW IN WOMEN,
IT IS THAT THEY FORGET THEIR WORTH.

7 Rules of Motivation

#1 Set a major goal, but follow a path. The path has mini goals that go in many directions. When you learn to succeed at mini goals, you will be motivated to challenge grand goals.



#2 Finish what you start. A half finished project is of no use to anyone. Quitting is a habit. Develop the habit of finishing self-motivated projects.

#3 Socialize with others of similar interest. Mutual support is motivating. We will develop the attitudes of our five best friends. If they are losers, we will be a loser. If they are winners, we will be a winner. To be a cowboy we must associate with cowboys.

#4 Learn how to learn. Dependency on others for knowledge supports the habit of procrastination. Man has the ability to learn without instructors. In fact, when we learn the art of self-education we will find, if not create, opportunity to find success beyond our wildest dreams.

#5 Harmonize natural talent with interest that motivates. Natural talent creates motivation, motivation creates persistence and persistence gets the job done.

#6 Increase knowledge of subjects that inspires. The more we know about a subject, the more we want to learn about it. A self-propelled upward spiral develops.

#7 Take risk. Failure and bouncing back are elements of motivation. Failure is a learning tool. No one has ever succeeded at anything worthwhile without a string of failures.

PENDIDIKAN

Melucuti kemuliaan dan kecenderungan yang indah
dan menjadikan burung rajawali seperti burung puyuh
menundukkan para pengendara dengan nada yang terang
dan derasnya laut menenggelamkan bahtera
lagu-lagu meninarobokkan kesadaran kita
napasnya memadam cahaya kita....