Sulayman’s Stories

Pitch Black, now ex post facto titled “The Chronickes of Riddick: Pitch Black” is a B-scifi movie I suppose.

The plot is simple, a transport passenger ship crash lands on a foreign planet en route to its destination. The survivors try to figure out how to survive, and discover the planet isn’t empty of life. Ok, simple scifi plot.

Why bother to even discuss it then? It has a somewhat interesting addition of characters. I’m not talking about Vin Diesel (the convict Riddick) or the crewmember-turned-captain or the Frenchman, but rather the Muslims. Yes, there are Muslims in a futuristic SciFi movie. Apparently among the survivors are an imam and his sons making Hajj to “New Mecca” which is implied to be some other planet.

Ordinarily I hate depictions of Muslims in movies (they never pray realistically etc) but this time they did an OK job, even reciting the shahadah properly (or would they need to say “Labbayk” instead?) They even make a theme out of it as the imam and nihilist Riddick argue over faith when characters start to die off.

My rating? See it if you want to see a somewhat decent portrayal of Muslims, but avoid it if you don’t like lame mild horror movies or “people on alien world struggling to survive” movies. I didn’t really care for how the plot went, so I waver between “worth seeing once” or “a waste.”

I liked the sequel, The Chronicles of Riddick more, though I can only describe it as “Galactic Space Crusader Romans who attack planet Morocco” (at least in the beginning). The imam makes a minor appearance as well, but they left it so we won’t see more in any sequels. A shame, since he was my favorite and most interesting. I think the Chronicles of Riddick series is going somwhere and making a cool universe for the stories, but the rest of the episodes are either animated or in book form. A shame because the sequel leaves off at a fairly crucial point.

Share This

Plenty of Americans wonder why the US is so disliked internationally. Although many have a sense of why since the Iraq war began, people are quite oblivious as to what the US (and other Western countries) were doing before it. Plenty of knowledgeable people in America point out US failures like the Israeli-Palestinian struggle or quagmires like Vietnam. Those may be the most well-known examples, but there’s a list of countries, each with a strong case to make on how the US shares the blame for their troubles today. You could make a list, Iran, Afghanistan, Chile, Venezuela, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc.

Before the US was criticized for supporting the coup against the democratically elected Palestinian government, people were already saying the US deliberately overthrew democracies and installed dictatorships. Overthrowing the democracy of Iran in the 1950’s was one such case. One other country that seems to escape the attention of Americans and most Westerners is Algeria, Africa’s second largest country. Algeria; an Arab country that borders the Mediterranean Sea, Morocco, and Libya, was ruled by the French for over 100 years. This wasn’t just colonialism, the French considered it a part of France itself. In 1954, independence movements in the country erupted into warfare that lasted for eight years and resulted in over a million deaths. It was a brutal war against the French, which today mirrors that of the struggle in Iraq. (Even the US military privately admits the similarities, they have screened the film The Battle of Algiers at the Pentagon for top level leaders.)

In 1989, the military government in Algeria announced that it would hold free elections for parliament. A new constitution was set forth, calling for a multi-party system. In 1990, the first local and regional elections were held, where the surprise winners were the Islamic Salvation Front (which is known in French as FIS), winning with 54% of the votes cast. The party grew stronger as they announced their opposition to the then-current Gulf War, Desert Storm. They organized huge demonstrations to protest the government’s gerrymandering, which only ended when the government promised fair parliamentary elections. The government grew nervous, arresting the leaders, but the party itself remained legal and on the ballot.

Full National elections followed, when on December 26, 1991, the Islamic Salvation Front won 48% of all the votes across the country, winning 188 of the 231 seats offered in the first round. It was amazing, unanticipated, and clearly heading for an overwhelming majority. An FIS-dominated government seemed inevitable.

The largely secular military government in power became extremely nervous. This was clearly something they weren’t counting on. The problem, they saw, was that the Algerian constitution at the time allowed parliament to amend the constitution by a simple majority vote, which would then be approved in a popular referendum. This is unlike the US; the states or provinces in Algeria don’t ratify the Constitution, instead the population votes on it. The Algerian military could plainly see that the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) would soon get the majority once the rest of the elections took place, and could change the constitution at will.

This is what really made the military officers sweat, so to speak. The way they saw it; the FIS party could change the constitution so that there could never be another vote, if the FIS wanted. They could make Islamic law the rule of the land. They could have the Algerian military leaders executed if they liked (as it had happened in Iran during the revolution). Nobody knows if that would have happened, but the military wasn’t worried about their intentions, but what the FIS could do.

The military staged a coup, taking control of the country, forcing the President out, and canceling the election results on January, 11, 1992. They banned the FIS party, claiming the party was anti-democracy (but somehow fairly elected by the majority), and instituted the High State Council to rule over the country. This enraged the FIS, Islamic groups, and the majority who voted in favor of the FIS.

How did the USA react? What about France, the country who had colonized Algeria and still had interests in it? Did they send in peacekeepers like in Haiti? Did they put pressure on the current government to step aside and allow the democracy to take place? Did they even do as little as to condemn the Algerian military in a useless speech? No! In fact, France supported the coup. The US issued a formal but low-key statement on January 13 condemning the coup, but retracted it 24 hours later and offered support. Both countries opposed the FIS, which was anti-colonialist and thus anti-French and anti-American. As the US Assistant Secretary of State, Edward Djerejian said when he showed his support, he thought the FIS would cancel democracy (after getting fairly elected by the people) by making it “one man, one vote, one time.”

At the time, the Arab world hadn’t seen a populist democratic process like Algeria’s in quite a while. But still, the US willingly accepted the coup and the cancellation of that process. The FIS, which was a democratically elected Islamist government, was considered unacceptable in Washington. Why? Because the FIS was openly hostile to American dominance. The democratically elected FIS-led government was extremely unlikely to allow the US to use Algeria as part of its attempts to create a hegemony, but the army government was much more willing to cooperate with America’s ambitions.

So many FIS members were arrested- the government said 5,000 but the FIS said 30,000- that the jails had no room to hold them all. The government had to set up concentration camps in the Sahara desert where there were many reports of widespread torture. Men with beards became afraid to leave their houses lest the government arrest them as being “Islamist.” The government cracked down on protests, suspended many rights, and Amnesty International reported that the government frequently tortured many people. The army took power, democracy was ended, and the popular FIS was scattered.

For those FIS people who remained free after the initial mass arrests, many took it as a declaration of war. The FIS developed a sizable guerrilla army and fought, gaining back control of some territory. Barely a week after the coup, fighting began. They initially targeted the army and police, but some guerrillas launched a bloody campaign against any and all supporters of the military regime. Some Algerians turned to violence and terrorism, including the government, plunging Algeria into chaos. Factions fought one another, human rights abuses were committed, and the people suffered. The government forces routinely arrested, detained, and killed Algerian citizens accused of being members or supporters of the banned groups. Amnesty International reported in 1997 “Arbitrary and secret detention, unfair trial, torture and ill-treatment, including rape, ‘disappearances’, extrajudicial executions, deliberate and arbitrary killings of civilians, hostage-taking and death threats have become routine.”

The government claimed that many of the massacres of civilians were done by “Islamic terrorists,” yet many took place “within shouting distance of army barracks” and lasted for hours with no government intervention. The majority of these massacres took place in the capital, Algiers, in one of the most militarized areas of the country, yet the government didn’t stop the killing nor stop them from leaving. The most telling fact is that the vast majority of the victims weren’t non-Muslims; whom one would think “Islamic terrorists” would obviously target. Instead, the victims were almost entirely poor villagers; the Muslim people who voted overwhelmingly for the Islamic party. Rarely were officials or pro-army supporters targeted, both enemies of the FIS. Why would the FIS massacre its own supporters, its own popular base, rather than its real enemies?

According to the UK newspaper The Independent, one 23-year old soldier reported how some of the army soldiers wore fake beards and went into town to kill civilians, acting as “Islamic terrorists.” The government would “respond” to such attacks by arresting dissidents and using torture to get confessions. Several doctors of hospitals and morgues reported that “the dead from those who commit these horrible crimes were not circumcised.” Circumcision is the norm for all Algerian Muslim males, which implies that the perpetrators weren’t Muslim, despite what the military government insisted for years.

The war pitted secular and religious forces against one another, killing well over 100,000 persons since 1991, through constant village massacres and urban assassinations lasting more than a decade. The Algerian Civil war became a terrible internecine conflict. Only today, over a decade later, are the people trying to reconcile their differences and put an end to the ongoing bloodshed. It left Algeria in tatters, despite its promising economic future that was in store for them.

The US, despite all its public rhetoric on promoting democracy, didn’t help support democracy when Algeria came under the coup. They just did the same as they did in Venezuela when President Chavez was overthrown; they supported the undemocratic people doing the coup while the White House praised the dictators for helping to bring “democracy” to the country. The informed know that it’s actually the opposite, democracy is subverted by a dictator more friendly to the US, and thus green-lighted by US officials.

Actually, it’s far more similar to when Salvador Allende, a Marxist, won the 1970 Presidential election democratically in Chile. Henry Kissinger, the US Secretary of State (who later was accused of war crimes), said “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people.” Apparently democracy, the freedom of choosing your government, only matters to the US if you make a choice they like, otherwise you are “irresponsible.” As he also famously said, “The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.” As the US saw Communism as a threat to the world, they decided to take power out of the hands of the Chilean people. Kissinger’s CIA group sent a message to its operatives; “It is firm and continuing policy that [the democratically elected government of] Allende be overthrown by a coup…” The Chileans suffered when the US-staged coup succeeded, bringing Dictator Augusto Pinochet to power, who then ordered the murder of over 5,000 Chileans. Chile is still recovering from the effects.

Why did the US government support the coup in Algeria? Their stated official reason was because they feared the Islamic party would get too much of a majority and thus control the government completely and reshape it. That’s absurd when you think of it; the Republican Party in America controlled the White House, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and numerous state governments and legislatures with sizeable single-party majorities. Does that mean America was at risk of losing their democracy, and thus should be invaded and overthrown? Some argue that the Republicans don’t have the intention to get rid of democracy, but the GOP threatened the “nuclear option” in 2005. That plan was to use their majority votes in the Senate to remove the minority rights of Senators, imposing a “tyranny of the majority” against minority parties in the government. Did the FIS of Algeria ever threaten anything like that? Critics claim that some of the FIS leaders and preachers who backed the party were anti-democracy in their speeches, but they followed the Constitution and were voted for anyway by the people, winning the election fair and square.

As a Canadian official said, “the West supported the coup in Algeria in an effort to prevent Islamic fundamentalists coming to power through the ballot box.” This is a clear case of hypocrisy. The West claims to consider democracy its best form of government available, and works to promote it in their speeches and economic policies. However, when a democracy like Algeria allows a democracy that the West doesn’t agree with, they support its overthrow and even work to keep the dictators in power. Europe’s access to Algerian oil would have been jeopardized by an Islamic government, simply because a genuine Islamic government would use its resources for its population instead of allowing them to be owned by Western companies. Part of the Western support for the new Algerian (military-controlled) regime stems from its promises to open the country to foreign trade and liberalize its economy.

Algeria’s oil exports are over $33 Billion alone. It’s a member of OPEC and 90% of it goes to Europe; a pipeline is in the works. For a steady source of oil and Natural gas, of course a country like France is willing to turn a blind eye to the government’s human rights violations. France even contributed, quietly giving the Algerian army helicopters, aerial surveillance and night-vision equipment, and French spy agencies monitored all Algerian radio round-the-clock to help the Algerian military track the FIS. Considering the Algerian military was a corrupt and torturing tyranny, it makes the “pro-democracy” France all the more hypocritical. The UK gave nearly £5 Million in military equipment, knowing full well the atrocities the military committed. The US did similiarly, training the Algerian military and getting the use of Algerian ports in exchange. The fact that the Algerian military was implicated in the deaths of thousands seems not to have bothered anyone in the US government at all. The EU provided around $65 Million, provided the Algerian generals allowed Western involvement supervised by the IMF and World Bank.

Rather than pressuring the Algerian government to end the war, the West did the opposite. By giving weapons to the tyrannical regime, they are directly supporting the mass killing with the excuse of fighting “Islamic terrorists.” Of course it’s not mentioned that Algeria has oil or many companies want to get access to Algeria’s Billions of dollars in resources. Everyone wants a piece of Algeria; France wants to extend its culture and language to Algeria and get its oil, the US wants the Arab Maghreb markets to sell in. British journalist John Sweeney put it best when he called the 100,000 deaths in Algeria as “Europe’s gas bill.”

Of course, not only was oil a factor, but also the West’s distrust of Islam. If the FIS won, it would have put dedicated Muslims in power of a country nearby Europe. The West would rather have a corrupt, brutal junta in power than a cleaner and popular FIS which is not subservient to the West. When it comes to its interests, the West is quite prepared to abandon its self-proclaimed ‘principles’. It demands democracy in a country like Burma and criticizes the dictatorship for not respecting the wishes of the people, but backs the dictators in Algeria. This can be proven by hundreds of American engineers working on the oil areas in Algeria, and companies like Exxon, Mobil, and BP exploring the country for more oil fields, while the Algerian people’s income steadily decreases every year.

The US and West really showed its hypocrisy and betrayed its values when it came to Algeria, as well as elsewhere. Many hearts and minds were lost in the 1990’s by this, let alone after the 2003 Iraq war or toppling the popular Somali government. Supporters argue that the US acted pragmatically, but in doing so the US government lost all moral authority it sanctimoniously claims. The West proved that human rights are irrelevant or only selectively enforced when it comes to foreign policy, as a rich country like Algeria is too good to pass up in economic imperialism.

Share This

Note: I strongly believe that a lot of this changed, especially post-9/11 when the community became much more unified in the aftermath. I’ve never experienced anything like this in New York in the 5+ years I’ve been in the communities. However, the story has a good moral to it, and should be read for that reason.

Mosques and Islamic centers in Europs and America bring together a vast array of peoples from all over the Muslim world. Very often a masjid will contain many small cultural clusters with no one of them in the majority. This is especially true of the masjids run by Muslim student groups at western universities. Such a diverse assemblage of cultures will produce many differences of opinions, which can evolve quite easily into bitter arguments and community rifts.

Such a quarrel arose one night in the mosque at the University of San Francisco. I do not remember the precise cause of the fray; it had something to do with a pile of anti-Shiite tracts that someone left in the mosque. This happened at the height of the Iran-Iraq war, and a great deal of politico-religious propaganda was being disseminated by both sides of the conflict and by their allies. I recall vividly how explosive the scene became.

The Saudis raged against the Kuwaitis and Iranians, the Pakistani students allied themselves with the Saudis, the white Americans defended the Iranians, the African Americans were against the white Americans, the North African and Palestinian students seemed to be fighting each other and everyone else, the Malaysian students looked terrified. All sorts of bitter, malicious, racial and personal attacks flew back and forth.

“You Shiah are Kaffirs!”
“You Saudis worship your king!”
“What do Americans know about Islam?!”
“Pakistanis are nothing but the lackeys of the Saudis!”
“Our people were Muslims long before you white boys ever were!”
“You’re proud of following Elijah Muhammad?!”
“Palestinians got what they deserved!”

Faces were red with rage. Shouts become threatening roars. The American students were clenching their fists and tensing their arms, readying themselves for a fight. This was definitely going to be the end of our community.

From over in the corrner of the room a desperate cry rang out:
“LA ilaha illa Allah ! Muhamadan rasulu Allah !”
It was Ilyas, the always quiet, skinny, short student from Indonesia. He hardly ever spoke a word. The room quieted.
“What did he say?” Several persons asked each other.
Ilyas shouted again at the top of his lungs:
“La ilaha illa Allah ! Muhamadan rasulu Allah !”
“Say it!” Ilyas yelled, “Say it!”
Most of us murmured confusedly: “La ilaha illa Allah - Muhamadan rasulu Allah ?”
“What does he want?” someone whispered.
“Say it like you mean it!” Ilyas screamed.

Maybe it was because he said it with so much authority or with so much passion, but for some reason we now felt the need to obey this normally meek and inconspicuous member of our mosque. Our voices rose in unison with Ilyas leading us:
“La ilaha illa Allah ! Muhamadan rasulu Allah !”

You could feel the hate and anger dissipating. All eyes were fixed on Ilyas. The faces of the brothers looked mesmerized. Some of them showed sadness, some remorse, and others excitement. The whole company now needed Ilyas to lead them again.
“Again!” Ilyas bellowed. “Again!”
This time we all rang out in one passionate, thundering cry:
“La ilaha illa Allah ! Muhamadan rasulu Allah !”
Then again we cried out, following Ilyas’s lead:
“La ilaha illa Allah ! Muhamadan rasulu Allah !”

Ilyas stopped, froze there for a moment with tears in his eyes. He looked at us in the way a child looks at his parents when he wants them to stop fighting.
“That’s what it is all about, brothers!” Ilyas pleaded, his voice cracking. “That’s what binds us!”
“Just look at us!” He shouted, stretching out his arms.

At that, the brothers began to slowly approach one another with looks of great embarrassment on their faces. What easily could have exploded into a spectacle of complete pandemonium, was now a scene of handshakes, brotherly hugs, and sincere apologies. The next day, the mosque was back to normal, and I never heard anyone discuss the argument again.

—–
Taken from Even Angels Ask, by Jeffrey Lang, p157-158

Share This

I have nothing new to say about Darfur; something must be done.

In the meantime, let me show you a picture that really moved me.

The photo is the “Pulitzer Prize” winning photo taken in 1994 during the Sudan Famine.
The picture depicts stricken child crawling towards an United Nations food camp, located a kilometer away.

The vulture is waiting for the child to die so that it can eat her. This picture shocked the whole world. No one knows what happened to the child, including the photographer Kevin Carter, who left the place as soon as the photograph was taken.

Three months later he committed suicide due to depression.

Share This

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf made a very moving speech at ISNA 2007 where he pointed out that when rasoolullah SAW wanted to warn the people against one of the major aims, he would take an extreme example. All of the so-called 7 deadly sins can be explained in such a fashion;
instead of warning against anger, he warned against killing people, instead of warning against lust, he spoke against fornication, instead of focusing on greed he pointed out the evil of devouring the wealth of orphans.

That and the previous post can both be seen in the ISNA speech (Quicktime)

Share This

Imam Zaid Shakir gave a speech at 2007 ISNA where be started off discussing the sad fact tha he discovered many deaf brothers and sisters were leaving islam because they had trouble connecting with the community or being accepted. I’ve heard that blind Muslims have difficulties of their own, such as the difficulty of getting around and using a seeing eye dog to get to a masjid. He made a great point of encouraging us all to help our disabled brothers and sisters, of any sort of disability. He even had a sign language interpreter translate his speech for the audience and asked people to consider learning it to help their fellow Muslim.

Also, he didn’t mention it, but there’s a serious problem with a lack of wheelchair accessable masajid, at least in New York city. I understand the cash crunches islamic centers have (if they only have a little money, I’m sure they’ll spend it on better Wudu areas or parking or child nurseries) but we should consider it. Can’t governments give grant money or something?

Share This

Salman Al Farsi (may Allah be pleased with him) was known as a “sahaba” or ‘companion’ of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). His name translates to “Salman the Persian,” and he is considered one of the righteous Muslims in early Islamic History.

According to Arab historians and Salman’s own account, Salman grew up in the village of Jayyan in the land of Persia, which is now the present-day town of Isfahan in Iran. Historians say that he was born in or around the year 568 CE. His father was the chief of the village and a wealthy landlord, and was thus the richest man with the biggest house. Salman means “safe” in Arabic, and as his only son, he lavished all his love upon him, and was thus afraid to lose him and therefore kept him at home.

Most Persians (Iranians) in those days were Zoroastrians. He was raised to follow the religion; in his teens he became so devoted to it that he achieved the position of “Custodian of the Fire” which they worshipped. His duty was to see that the flames of the fire remained burning and didn’t go out, day or night. He became as knowledgable as the Zoroastrian priests, learning the complex doctrines and dogmas of the faith.

In those days in Persia, it was considered a great honor to be a priest in one of the fire-temples. Service in a fire-temple provided the priests with status, prestige and numerous perquisites. Since the priests in Persia could reach high position in local and “national” governments, Salman’s father managed to get him appointed as a priest in the local fire-temple while he was only sixteen years old. For three years, Salman played priest in the fire-temple of Jiyye but then he began to lose interest in his work; It had become too monotonous and wearisome for him. The priests were men of limited vision and limited knowledge and they were too dogmatic. If he posed any doctrinal question to them, they were, in most cases, unable to answer him; or, they spoke in a language of allusions and historical allegories.

His father had a vast estate and lots of crops. One day (around 586 CE), he asked his son to go look after the harvest for him. On the way there, he passed a Christian church. He was curious, and went in, whereupon he encountered a Christian service, and a choir singing a hymn in a foreign language. Salman had never met Christians before, nor any other religion for that matter, and their praying impressed him. “By God,” he said, “this is better than ours. I shall not leave them until the sun sets.” He stayed and listened to the Christians, who he said told him that the religion came from Syria. They told him about God and Judgement Day, and about the Messengers and Prophets of God. When he came home, he told his father what he had done, and how impressed he was by Christianity. This upset his father, who said, “My son, there is nothing good in that religion. Your religion and the religion of your forefathers is better.” “No, their religion is better than ours,” he insisted.

His father became worried that he would leave the religion of his family and locked him up in the house, in an attempt to make him swear that he did not and would not change his religion. Salman refused, and his father imprisoned him at home, even chaining his feet and keeping him hungry and thirsty. However, he managed to get a servant to send a message to the Christians asking when the next caravan left for Syria. Before long, they got in touch with him and told him that a caravan was leaving for Syria. He managed to escape and accompanied the caravan in disguise to Damascus. Once there, he immediately headed for the head of the church, which was a bishop. He went right up to him and said “I want to become a Christian and would like to attach myself to your service, learn from you and pray with you.” The Bishop agreed, and Salman converted to Christianity. He was 19.

Salman soon discovered that the Bishop was a corrupt man who ordered people to give money in charity in exchange for blessings. He stole their money and kept it all hidden for himself, with nothing to the poor. When the Bishop died, the Christian community gathered to bury him, but Salman showed them where the Bishop had been hiding all their donations. When they saw all the hoarded money, they instead nailed the body of the Bishop to a cross and stoned his corpse. The new bishop was an ascetic who longed for the Hereafter and engaged in worship day and night. Salman was greatly devoted to him and spent a long time in his company. After that Bishop’s death, Salman attached himself to various Christian religious figures, in Mosul (Iraq), Nisibis and elsewhere. The last one had told him about the future appearance of a Prophet in the land of the Arabs who would have a reputation for strict honesty; one who would accept a gift but would never consume sadaqah (charity) for himself.

Later, a group of Arab leaders from the Kalb tribe passed through Ammuriyah (in the Byzantine Empire, I think) and Salman asked them to take him with them to the land of the Arabs in return for whatever money he had. When they reached Wadi al-Qura (a place between Medina and Syria), they broke their agreement and sold Salman as a slave to a Jewish man. Salman worked as a servant for him but eventually he was sold to the slaveowner’s nephew belonging to the tribe of Banu Qurayzah. This nephew took Salman with him to Yathrib (now modern day Medina), the city of palm groves, which is how the Christian at Ammuriyah had described it. At that time, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was preaching Islam in the city of Mecca, but Salman did not hear anything about him because of his labor as a slave.

After the hegira, when Muhammad (pbuh) and his newly Muslim followers emigrated from Mecca to Yathrib, which thenceforth became known as Medina, Salman became aware of Muhammad (pbuh). He was at the top of a Palm tree of his master, doing some work, with his master sitting under the tree. The master’s nephew came up and said:

“May God declare war on the Aws and the Khazraj (the two main Arab tribes of Medina). By God, they are now gathering at Quba to meet a man who has today come from Mecca and who claims he is a Prophet.”

Upon hearing those words, Salman felt hot flushes and began to shiver so violently that he was afraid that he might fall out of the tree on his master. He quickly got down from the tree and spoke to his master’s nephew. “What did you say? Repeat the news for me.” His master became very angry and gave him a terrible blow. “What does this matter to you? Go back to what you were doing,” he shouted.

That evening, Salman took some dates that he had gathered and went to the place where the Prophet had alighted. He went up to him and said: “I have heard that you are a righteous man and that you have companions with you who are strangers and are in need. Here is something from me as sadaqah. I see that you are more deserving of it than others.”

The Prophet ordered his companions to eat but he himself did not eat of it. Salman gathered some more dates and when the Prophet left Quba for Medina he went to him and said: “I noticed that you did not eat of the sadaqah I gave. This however is a gift for you.” Of this gift of dates, both he and his companions ate. The strict honesty of the Prophet was one of the characteristics that led Salman to believe in him and accept Islam as his religion.

Soon after, Salman was released from slavery by Muhammad (pbuh) who paid his Jewish slaveowner a stipulated price and who himself planted an agreed number of date palms to secure his manumission. Supposedly, when the After accepting Islam, Salman would say when asked whose son he was: “I am Salman, the son of Islam from the children of Adam.”

Salman played an important role in the struggles of the growing Muslim state. The city of Medina was under threat of attack by the pagan Quraish, who sought to destroy the city and the new religion growing there. In a brilliant bit of military strategy, Salman suggested digging a ditch around Medina to keep the Quraysh army at bay. Within six days, a hastily dug moat surrounded the city. When Abu Sufyan, the leader of the Meccans, saw the ditch, he said, “This stratagem has not been employed by the Arabs before.” The ditch was wide enough that only one horse managed to jump the ditch, which was several feet across, but the rest of the army was held back. The army tried to lay siege to Medina, but time and a violent sandstorm broke them up.

Salman became known as “Salman the Good”. He was a scholar who lived a rough and ascetic life. He had one cloak which he wore and on which he slept. He would not seek the shelter of a roof but stayed under a tree or against a wall. A man once said to him: “Shall I not build you a house in which to live?” “I have no need of a house,” he replied. The man persisted and said, “I know the type of house that would suit you.” “Describe it to me,” said Salman. “I shall build you a house which if you stand up in it, its roof will hurt your head and if you stretch your legs the wall will hurt them.”

Later, as a governor of al-Madain (Ctesiphon) near Baghdad, Salman received a stipend of five thousand dirhams. This he would distribute as charity. He lived from the work of his own hands. When some people came to Madain and saw him working in the palm groves, they said, “You are the Emir (leader) here and your sustenance is guaranteed and you do this work!”

“I like to eat from the work of my own hands,” he replied. Salman however was not extreme in his asceticism. It is related that he once visited Abu ad-Dardaa with whom the Prophet had joined him in brotherhood. He found Abu ad-Dardaas wife in a miserable state and he asked, “What is the matter with you.” “Your brother has no need of anything in this world,” she replied. When Abu ad-Dardaa came, he welcomed Salman and gave him food. Salman told him to eat but Abu ad-Dardaa said, “I am fasting.” Salman replied, “I swear to you that I shall not eat until you eat also.” Salman spent the night there as well. During the night, Abu ad-Dardaa got up but Salman got hold of him and said: “O Abu ad-Dardaa, your Lord has a right over you. Your family has a right over you and your body has a right over you. Give to each its due.” In the morning, they prayed together and then went out to meet the Prophet, peace be upon him. The Prophet supported Salman in what he had said.

As a scholar, Salman was noted for his vast knowledge and wisdom. Ali’ ibn Abu Talib said of him that he was like Luqman the Wise. And Kab al-Ahbar said: “Salman is stuffed with knowledge and wisdom–an ocean that does not dry up.” Salman had a knowledge of both the Christian scriptures and the Quran in addition to his earlier knowledge of the Zoroastrian religion. Salman in fact translated parts of the Quran into Persian during the life-time of the Prophet. He was thus the first person to interpret the Quran into a foreign language. He was also a narrator for at least 10 hadith, due to being close to the Prophet (pbuh).

Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, have tremendous respect for Salman Al Farsi. He was a very close friend of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and Ali ibn Abu Talib. Because of the influential household in which he grew up, might easily have been a major figure in the sprawling Persian Empire of his time. His search for truth however led him, even before the Prophet had appeared, to renounce a comfortable and affluent life and even to suffer the indignities of slavery. According to the most reliable account, he died in the year thirty five after the hijrah, during the caliphate of Uthman, at Ctesiphon. He was 88. The Shias claim he is buried in Madaen, Iraq, and there is now a shrine and mausoleum for him.
Muslims draw many comparisons between him and the Prophets. He defied his father who was a fire-worshipper like Abraham defied his father who was an idolator, and Muahmmad (pbuh) defied the polytheists of Mecca. They all did it for the same reason, faith in Oneness of God. They all emigrated from the lands of their birth due to their faith; Abraham migrated from Iraq to Palestine to Mecca, Salman migrated from Persia to Syria to Medina, and Muhammad (pbuh) migrated from Mecca to Medina. Salman was sold into slavery, just like Prophet Joseph. It was painful, but they persevered in faith, knowing that God was with them. Their suffering didn’t blot out their awareness in God. He was similar to Luqman, they were both wise, considered “philosophical allies” of one another.
Much of the information is taken from his autobiography, from “Companions of The Prophet”, Vol.1, by: Abdul Wahid Hamid is availible at: www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/history/biographies/sahaabah/bio.SALMAN_AL_FARSI.html

www.ezsoftech.com/islamic/salman.asp (a Shia oriented piece)

Salman al Farsi, Friend of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh&hf) By Sayed A. A. Razwy

Share This

My heart is so small
it’s almost invisble.
How can You place
such big sorrows in it?
“Look,” He answered,
“your eyes are even smaller,
yet they behold the world.”
-Jalaluddin ar-Rumi

Share This

Bangladesh appeals for more aid - CNN.com

Please donate to Islamic Relief or the Red Crescent. Think of how you will be comfortable during this holiday with your family, but your brothers and sisters are suffering.

Share This

In Islam, the Qur’an says that every human being has two angels who follow us around throughout our whole lives. They are known as the “Kiraman Katibeen” which is Arabic for “The Noble Writers.”

The Qur’an says in Surah 50: “Behold, two (guardian angels), one sitting on the right and one on the left.”

Their only job is to write down and record every action, thought, or feeling we have each day. One figuratively sits on our right shoulder and records all our good deeds and the angel on the left shoulder and records all our bad deeds. It’s like God assigned someone to follow you around with a camcorder and record everything you do as evidence.

The Book in which the angels are writing is our cumulative record of deeds. After our death, on the Day of Judgement we will each be confronted with this record, and the two angels will be present with you to tell God of what you did.

God has given us time to repent before these two scribes record our deeds. Muhammad(saw) once said, “The (scribe) on the left hand raises his pen (i.e., delays writing) for six hours (this may refer to six hours of 60 minutes as measured by astronomers, or it may refer to short periods of time during the day or night, according to Lisan al-’Arab) before he records the sinful deed of a Muslim. If [the Muslim] regrets it and seeks God’s forgiveness, the deed is not recorded, otherwise it is recorded as one deed.” ¹. A further respite is granted after the deed has been recorded; up until the moment before death approaches, you are able to repent and ask for forgiveness.

The Prophet Muhammad once stated:

“After the death of the Muslim, they soar to the heaven and seek permission to live there, but Almighty God turns down their request saying, ‘My Heavens are full of Angels who are constantly engaged in Glorifying Me’. Then they will Reply, ‘Your creation has filled the earth, constantly glorifying You.’ Thereafter, Almighty God will command them to stand at the graveside of the Muslims and the servants of Almighty God to recite “Glory be to God” and prayers, and the reward of which is then bestowed upon the deceased person”.

When a Muslim concludes his prayer by turning to his or her right and left shoulders and says “Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah” (Peace and Mercy of God be upon you), they are greeting the angels, including the writers and any angels who have joined you in prayer.

Muslims often joke with their children that one of their two angels is busy writing. Which one is getting a tired hand?

1. (Reported by at-Tabarani in al-Kabeer and al-Bayhaqi in Shu’ab al-Emaan (The Branches of Faith); classed as hasan by al-Albani in Silsilat al-Ahadeeth al-Saheehah, 1209)

References:
www.lse.ac.uk/clubs/islamic/knowledge/tazkiyah/iwtrb.html
www.dawateislami.net/services/library/default.asp?bid=2&hid=0&chno=0
Surah al-Infitar (The Cleaving asunder)

Share This