Islamic Culture & Photo Blog – Muslim Blog

Tafsir Surah al-Baqarah verses 6-7: The sealed hearts of the disbelievers

June 30th, 2011
by Sufia

quran Tafsir Surah al Baqarah verses 6 7: The sealed hearts of the disbelievers

The following is from the English translation of a section of the abridged tafsir based on the book ‘tayseer ila usul it-tafsir’ by Shaykh Ata bin Khalil Abu Rishta.

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا سَوَاءٌ عَلَيْهِمْ أَأَنْذَرْتَهُمْ أَمْ لَمْ تُنْذِرْهُمْ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ

خَتَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ وَعَلَىٰ سَمْعِهِمْ ۖ وَعَلَىٰ أَبْصَارِهِمْ غِشَاوَةٌ ۖ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ

“Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe.” {6}

“Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment.” {7}

Allah سبحانه وتعالى explained in the previous verses that the book is from Allah in truth and that there is no doubt in it. He سبحانه وتعالى explained the status of those who are guided by the book and have taqwa, as the successful ones. Then Allah سبحانه وتعالى explained in verses 6 and 7 the situation of those who reject; that warning them does not benefit them, because Allah has sealed their hearts.

These verses are like an answer to a question by one in confusion about his command, asking why did Allah not guide the disbelievers? This is because if the Arabs say “inna ‘Abdallah qaaim” “verily, Abdullah is standing”, then this is an answer to one who is doubtful about the standing and therefore questions Abdullah’s standing. So, when Allah سبحانه وتعالى begins the verse with إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ سَوَاءٌ , linguistically it will be according to what has just been mentioned.

“Abdullah qaaim” (Abdullah is standing) is information about his standing.

“inna Abdullah qaaim” (verily Abdullah is standing) is an answer to one questioning about his standing and he is doubtful about it.

“inna Abdullah la-qaaim” (verily Abdullah is not standing) is an answer to one questioning and he is denying the standing. Mubarad said this.

The appearance of the hamzat ut-tasweeyah (أ) along with أَمْ (or) makes them free from the meaning of enquiry, and establishes the equality between both of them, i.e. with regards to the disbelievers, it is the same whether you warn them or not, they won’t believe – thus, equalising between the two situations.

If the word سَوَاءٌ ‘whether’ has the alif al-istifhaam (alif of enquiry) after it, then it must come with أَمْ (or) e.g. سَوَاءٌ عليّ أقمت أم قعدت ‘it is the same to me whether you stood or sat’. If one of two names were joined (عطف) after it, they are عطف joined with و ‘and’, none other, e.g. سَوَاءٌ عندي زيد وعمرو ‘Zaid and Amr are the same to me’. If after it there were two verbs and no istifhaam, then they are عطف joined together with أَوْ (or) e.g. سَوَاءٌ عليّ قمت أو قعدت ‘it is the same to me whether you stood or sat’. If there were two verbal nouns after it, e.g. سَوَاءٌ عليّ قيامك و قعودك ‘it is the same to me whether your standing or your sitting’, then they are عطف joined with و ‘and’ or with أَوْ (or).

Some further issues arise from this discussion.

1. The term الَّذِينَ (those who) is from the forms of generality, so with this meaning Allah سبحانه وتعالى informs us that those who disbelieve will not become believers, whatever the warning or bringing Islam to them. So, is this matter left general or is it specified at all?

This matter is certainly not left general, as Rasul Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم was sent to bring Islam to the disbelievers. Whoever believed from them became a believer and whoever remained, remained on kufr. Therefore, this general text is specified, with the specification being completed here with the mind. The mind can specify the shariah text if the subject matter was the aqeedah, i.e. kufr and iman, because the mind is the way to iman. Similarly, the mind specifies His سبحانه وتعالى saying:

ذَٰلِكُمُ اللَّهُ رَبُّكُمْ خَالِقُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ ۖ فَأَنَّىٰ تُؤْفَكُونَ

“That is Allah, your Lord, the Creator of all things, none has the right to be worshipped but He, so how have you been turned away?” [Al-Ghaafir, 40:62]

So, كُلِّ شَيْءٍ “all things” is general, but it is specified by the mind to other than Allah سبحانه وتعالى. The verse إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ “those who disbelieve” is specified by the mind to the tribes of the disbelievers whom Rasul Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم was told would never become believers. It is authentically narrated from Ibn Abbas (ra) that he said: “this verse is about the learned Jews who were at the time of Rasul Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم and did not become believers.” Ar-Rabee’ bin Anas said: “it was sent down about some men from Quraysh who were killed at Badr.” Others said that it is about specific kuffar like Abu Lahab and Abu Jahl… [Tafsir at-Tabari 1:109]

2. Referring the ‘sealing’ back to Allah خَتَمَ اللّهُ عَلَى قُلُوبِهمْ is from the mutashabih (having more than one interpretation). The stronger opinion is that the meaning is that those specific kuffar insisted on their kufr, objecting to the truth, so that was cemented in their hearts, such that it was as if they were created with locked, closed hearts that do not accept iman or guidance. It follows then, that the meaning is majaz (metaphorical) for solidifying their hearts’ and insistence on kufr, is as though Allah created them with that attribute.

The الخَتَمَ (seal) and الغِشَاوَةٌ (the covering) can be used to indicate their dominant determination to disbelieve, so it is as though they are deaf, dumb and blind, as in the verse:

صُمٌّ بُكْمٌ عُمْيٌ فَهُمْ لاَ يَعْقِلُونَ

“deaf, dumb and blind. So they do not understand” [al-baqarah, 2:171]

Allah سبحانه وتعالى mentioned الخَتَمَ (the seal) for القلب (the heart) and السمع (the hearing), and mentioned الغِشَاوَةٌ (the covering) for the sight, due to the suitability of الخَتَمَ, which is locking and stamping with a seal for the heart (the mind).

Because of this, the complete pause after سَمْعِهِمْ:

خَتَمَ اللّهُ عَلَى قُلُوبِهمْ وَعَلَى سَمْعِهِمْ وَعَلَى أَبْصَارِهِمْ غِشَاوَةٌ

is preferred rather than continuing the recitation, because الخَتَمَ is for السمع and القلوب, with the و ‘and’ after it is for initiating a new statement, hence غِشَاوَةٌ has two damma (the grammatical indicator of the beginning part of a new sentence).

القلب is used metaphorically here to mean the mind, due to its similarity in importance to the body. In the language of the Arabs the heart is used metaphorically to mean the mind in more than one situation. The Qur’an was sent down in the language of the Arabs and this usage is in more than one verse. Allah talked of the mind by mentioning the heart in many verses. For example:

فَتَكُونَ لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ يَعْقِلُونَ بِهَا

“and have they hearts wherewith to understand” [al-hajj, 22:46]

Comprehension with the hearing and heart (mind) is not limited to only one angle as the sight is. You hear matters from more than one angle and understand them from more than one side, yet you see with your two eyes what is in front of you, i.e. only one angle. So, الخَتَمَ was suitable for القلب and السمع to lock from more than one angle, while الغِشَاوَةٌ (the covering) was suitable for الأبصار (the sight) to lock from one angle. Therefore, الخَتَمَ is not used to describe the eyes at all in the book of Allah, nor in the narrations of Rasul Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم, nor does it exist in the language of anyone of the Arabs, as far as I know.

3. Allah سبحانه وتعالى repeated the word عَلَى “upon”

خَتَمَ اللّهُ عَلَى قُلُوبِهمْ وَعَلَى سَمْعِهِمْ وَعَلَى أَبْصَارِهِمْ غِشَاوَةٌ

to emphasise the severity of الخَتَمَ, as though الخَتَمَ was completed in two places, القلب (the heart) and السمع (the hearing), which is stronger than الخَتَمَ in only one place. For example, the one who protects something by putting it into a locked container inside a locked house, is stronger protection than putting it into a locked container inside an unlocked house. It is the same in this verse. Repeating عَلَى necessitates noticing the meaning of the related action (خَتَمَ), as though it was mentioned twice (i.e. خَتَمَ اللّهُ عَلَى قُلُوبِهمْ وَعَلَى سَمْعِهِمْ). Therefore, they said about the sentence “مررتُ بزيد وعمرو I happened upon Zayd and Amr” that it is one occasion, whereas the sentence “مررتُ بزيد وبعمرو I happened upon Zayd and upon Amr” that they are two occasions, as though when you repeated the particle you said “مررتُ بزيد ومررتُ بعمرو I happened upon Zayd and I happened upon Amr.” The two occasions is stronger in meaning than just using the عطف joining together without repeating the genitive particle, due to what is in the عطف joining together of the meaning on one occasion or two.

4. Allah brought the words القلوب (hearts) and الأبصار (sight) in their plural forms, while He سبحانه وتعالى brought the word السمع (hearing) in the singular. The word السمع does not come in the whole of the Qur’an al-kareem except in the singular. Some said about that: “السمع is a verbal noun in origin: it is said سمعت الشيئ سمعا وسماعا and the verbal nouns do not come as plurals as they are the names of categories”, except that this is not precise, because “الاسماع” did come in the language of the Arabs, but it is rare and seldom heard.

The preferred opinion is that the differences between people’s thinking and minds in relation to matters, and also their differences in seeing things with the eyes, is more common than their differences in hearing these matters, so the hearts (minds) and sight were made plural, while the hearing was left singular.

Because of that, when العلم i.e. اليقين certainty is mentioned in another verse, such that العلم indicates the lack of differences, so, the hearing, sight and the heart all come in the singular:

وَلاَ تَقْفُ مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ إِنَّ السَّمْعَ وَالْبَصَرَ وَالْفُؤَادَ كُلُّ أُولـئِكَ كَانَ عَنْهُ مَسْؤُولاً

“And follow not that of which you have no knowledge of. Verily! The hearing, and the sight, and the heart, about each of those you will be questioned.” [Al-Israa, 17:36]

The subject of the heart, hearing and sight

1. In the Qur’an al-kareem comes the mentioning of the hearts first, then the hearing and then the sight when the matter is linked to iman, as the mind is its tool.

خَتَمَ اللّهُ عَلَى قُلُوبِهمْ وَعَلَى سَمْعِهِمْ وَعَلَى أَبْصَارِهِمْ غِشَاوَةٌ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عظِيمٌ

“Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment.” [al-Baqarah, 2:7]

After

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا سَوَاءٌ عَلَيْهِمْ أَأَنْذَرْتَهُمْ أَمْ لَمْ تُنْذِرْهُمْ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ

“Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe.” [al-baqarah, 2:6]

ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمُ اسْتَحَبُّوا الْحَيَاةَ الدُّنْيَا عَلَى الْآخِرَةِ وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْكَافِرِينَ

أُولَٰئِكَ الَّذِينَ طَبَعَ اللَّهُ عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ وَسَمْعِهِمْ وَأَبْصَارِهِمْ ۖ وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْغَافِلُونَ

“That is because they loved and preferred the life of this world over that of the Hereafter. And Allah guides not the people who disbelieve. They are those upon whose hearts, hearing and sight Allah has set a seal. And they are the heedless!” [an-Nahl, 16:107-108]

2. If the matter was about other than iman and was about following the warning and guidance, hearing was brought forward, because it is the direct tool for the transmission. Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:

أَفَرَأَيْتَ مَنِ اتَّخَذَ إِلَهَهُ هَوَاهُ وَأَضَلَّهُ اللَّهُ عَلَى عِلْمٍ وَخَتَمَ عَلَى سَمْعِهِ وَقَلْبِهِ وَجَعَلَ عَلَى بَصَرِهِ غِشَاوَةً فَمَن يَهْدِيهِ مِن بَعْدِ اللَّهِ أَفَلَا تَذَكَّرُونَ

“Have you seen him who takes his own lust as his god, and Allah knowingly, left him astray, and sealed his hearing and his heart, and put a cover on his sight. Who then will guide him after Allah? Will you not then remember?” [al-Jathiyah, 45:23]

It is transgression due to not heeding the warnings, therefore the end of the verse came with أَفَلَا تَذَكَّرُونَ, so it was suitable here to bring forward the hearing.

3. When Allah سبحانه وتعالى mentioned His favours for his servants, by creating them, He mentioned the hearing, the sight and the heart in order, which points to the order of creating these organs. He سبحانه وتعالى says:

وَاللّهُ أَخْرَجَكُم مِّن بُطُونِ أُمَّهَاتِكُمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ شَيْئًا وَجَعَلَ لَكُمُ الْسَّمْعَ وَالأَبْصَارَ وَالأَفْئِدَةَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ

“And Allah has brought you out from the wombs of your mothers while you know nothing. And He gave you hearing, sight, and hearts that you might give thanks.” [an-Nahl, 16:78]

وَهُوَ الَّذِي أَنشَأَ لَكُمُ السَّمْعَ وَالْأَبْصَارَ وَالْأَفْئِدَةَ قَلِيلًا مَّا تَشْكُرُونَ

“It is He, Who has created for you hearing, sight, and hearts. Little thanks you give.” [al-Mu'minoon, 23:78]

قُلْ هُوَ الَّذِي أَنشَأَكُمْ وَجَعَلَ لَكُمُ السَّمْعَ وَالْأَبْصَارَ وَالْأَفْئِدَةَ قَلِيلًا مَّا تَشْكُرُونَ

“Say it is He Who has created you, and endowed you with hearing, seeing, and hearts. Little thanks you give.” [al-Mulk, 67:23]

ثُمَّ سَوَّاهُ وَنَفَخَ فِيهِ مِن رُّوحِهِ وَجَعَلَ لَكُمُ السَّمْعَ وَالْأَبْصَارَ وَالْأَفْئِدَةَ قَلِيلًا مَّا تَشْكُرُونَ

“Then He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him the soul, and He gave you hearing, sight and hearts. Little is the thanks you give!” [Sajda, 32:9]

Source: khilafah

Preaching good sex, Muslim-inspired Obedient Wives Club spreads in Asia

June 27th, 2011
by Sufia

obedient Preaching good sex, Muslim inspired Obedient Wives Club spreads in Asia(Newly-wed Ummu Honey Lokman Hakim, 19, a member of “The Obedient Wife Club”, bows to her 23-year-old husband Mohd Syurahbil Amran, during a mass wedding ceremony in conjunction with the club’s launch in Kuala Lumpur June 4, 2011/Samsul Said )

Indonesian Gina Puspita traded a career in aircraft engineering for a mission to preach Islam and help young women build happy marriages through good sex. The French-educated mother of three hosts religious programmes through the Obedient Wives Club which is based on the belief that a fulfilling sex life is the cure for “Western-style” social problems such as divorce and abuse.

“Wives must obey the husbands in all aspect of life, such as serving food and drinks, giving calm and support for the husband, as well as in sex relations,” Pusipita, who shares her spouse with three other women, told Reuters.

A Muslim group which espouses good sex as a foundation for healthy marriages and a strong society, the Obedient Wives Club is gaining converts in the world’s most populous Muslim country after setting up in Jordan, Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore.

Founded by Global Ikhwan, a Malaysian firm involved in businesses ranging from laundromats to pharmacies, the club was initially intended to help the company’s female staff to be good wives as well as productive employees. Global Ikhwan’s officials have been linked to the now-defunct Malaysia-based Al-Arqam religious sect which was banned by the government in 1994. Before the Obedient Wives Club, Global Ikhwan had earlier established the Polygamy Club which encourages polygamy among Muslims.

The Obedient Wives Club is open to women of all faiths but says its teachings are based on the edicts of Islam which require wives to submit to their husbands and meet their needs. “When men cannot get satisfaction at home, they will seek it elsewhere,” said Nurul, an Obedient Wives Club spokesperson. “When your wife is cool towards you because your wife is busy and has no time to attend to you whereas you need it that day, what are you going to do?”

Read the full story by Olivia Rondonuwu and Razak Ahmad here.

San Mateo Woman: Store Fired Me for Wearing Headscarf

June 27th, 2011
by Sufia

 San Mateo Woman: Store Fired Me for Wearing HeadscarfA San Mateo woman is suing Abercrombie & Fitch after she was allegedly fired from her job at the company’s Hillsdale Shopping Center outlet for not removing her headscarf.

The woman, who has not been identified, is a Muslim, and “she was told that her headscarf, though worn based on a religious mandate, was not in compliance with the company’s ‘look policy,’” said those representing her in the lawsuit. She worked at Hollister Co., a subsidiary of Abercrombie & Fitch, in 2009 and 2010.

Some Muslim traditions require that women wear the headscarf, or hijab, when out in public.

Her case has been taken up by the Legal Aid Society of San Francisco – Employment Law Center, a group that works to defend the rights of the socially disadvantaged. Christopher Herrera, a spokesman for the group, said the case “came to us through the Council on American-Islamic Relations. They know that we work with employment issues and with discrimination issues regarding employment.”

The Legal Aid Society and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are filing the suit on Monday in San Francisco, after which a news conference will be held. The conference is scheduled for 10 a.m. at the legal group’s offices at 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600, San Francisco.

CAIR describes itself as “America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization.”

According to a press release issued by both groups, “The plaintiff worked for Hollister Co., a brand of Abercrombie & Fitch, for several months in 2009-10 while wearing a hijab. In February 2010, she was terminated from her position as a stockroom employee after refusing to remove her scarf.”

Herrera said he could not comment further on the case until the lawsuit is filed Monday.

The suit is being filed in conjunction with a lawsuit already filed against Abercrombie & Fitch by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the group said.

Abercrombie & Fitch representatives were not immediately available for comment.
Source: http://millbrae.patch.com/articles/san-mateo-woman-store-fired-me-for-wearing-headscarf-2

Muslim woman Carnita Matthews escapes jail by remaining behind her burqa

June 22nd, 2011
by Sufia

Court documents have revealed that she had been fined seven times for traffic infringements before she was stopped by police in June last year for not displaying her P-plates in the incident that sparked the row that spilled over to the District Court in NSW yesterday.

Since she first received her learner licence in 1998 at the age of 33, she has twice had her provisional licence suspended for totting up too many demerit points and twice had her licence suspended for non payment of fines.

The State Debt Recovery Office had to recover the fines. Both of those two suspensions for non payment of fines were later lifted.

It is not known how many times she was physically stopped by police and whether she had her face covered by a burqa or a niqab on those occasions.

A number of times she was caught on camera speeding and disobeying traffic lights.

After being stopped by NSW police last year for not displaying her P-plates, Ms Matthews was ordered to pay $276 in fines and court costs.

She claimed on Channel Seven and allegedly in a statutory declaration to Campbelltown police that the officer who stopped her had attempted to tear the burqa off her face, a claim that was proven untrue by the police patrol car video camera.

A magistrate last year found her guilty of making a deliberately false statement and sentenced her to jail for six months. Ms Matthews appealed, saying there was no proof she was the person in the burqa making the atatement and Judge Clive Jeffreys in the District Court yesterday upheld her appeal.

The news comes as women wearing a burqa may be ordered to remove it to identify themselves in the wake of the Carnita Matthews case.

Police Minister Mike Gallacher has revealed that police do not currently have the legal power to require women to show their face if the women refuse on religious or cultural grounds.

He said he wanted the law tightened up.

“Police powers in relation to face coverings are not clear,” Mr Gallacher said.

“It’s time to address that.”

He said he had spoken to rank and file police who wanted the situation clarified.

Any decision on whether to appeal the controversial judgment by Judge Clive Jeffreys would not be made until after the judge hands down the reason for his decision which is expected tomorrow.

The government is also considering passing new laws requiring people who make complaints against police, or in the case of witnesses giving evidence, to have to provide at least one fingerprint and their signature.

This follows the finding by the judge that he could not be certain that it was Ms Matthews who made the statutory declaration complaining about the officer who stopped her car because the person who handed the document in to the police station wore a burqa.

Mr Gallacher said he was waiting until Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione returned next week to discuss exactly what needed to be done.

He said he did not expect this to inflame community anger about women wearing full face coverings.

He said he had been told that there was nothing in Muslim culture or religion that stopped women from identifiying themselves in certain circumstances.

Yesterday, Ms Matthews avoided jail because her identity could not be proven.

Ms Matthews, 47, from Woodbine, in Sydney’s southwest, had been sentenced to six months in jail for making a deliberately false statement that a policeman tried to forcibly remove her burqa because he was a racist.

But judge Clive Jeffreys said yesterday he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was Mrs Matthews who made the racism accusation because the person who complained to police was wearing a burqa at the time.

The absurdity of the law is that, to reach the level of proof of identity to make the case, Mrs Matthews would have been required to identify herself by lifting her burqa at the police station – what started the uproar in the first place.

More than a dozen Muslim supporters linked arms and began chanting “Allah Akbar” as they stormed out of Downing Centre Court with Mrs Matthews concealed behind them.

Tempers rose and they began jostling with police after several members of the group attacked cameramen.

It marked a stark difference from their behaviour minutes earlier, when they had quietly assembled outside the lifts for prayer shortly after the judge’s decision.

Mrs Matthew’s lawyer Stephen Hopper defended their actions saying: “They are obviously happy with the result and are expressing it in a way that is culturally appropriate to them.”

Judge Jeffreys said yesterday that even if Mrs Matthews had made the complaint, he could not be sure she knew it was a “false” statement.

“I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she made the complaint,” he said.

“Even if I was satisfied that she made the complaint, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was knowingly false.”

Mrs Matthews made the claim in her court appearance last year, saying police could not prove it was her behind the burqa when the complaint was handed in to police. The local magistrate rejected it.

The case had lit up the religious debate when a magistrate found Mrs Matthews had deliberately made false complaints that Sergeant Paul Kearney was racist and had attempted to tear her burqa off her face when she declined to remove it on request.

She was pulled over for a random breath test last June, and accused Sgt Kearney of racism only after he booked her for failing to properly display her P-plates.

The incident was captured on a patrol car video camera and helped clear Sgt Kearney, prompting calls for all police cars to carry in-built cameras to avoid false claims.

“I’ve got my P-plates on my car … there was nothing wrong with how they were displayed,” Mrs Matthews says on the video.

“You look at me and see me wearing this and you couldn’t handle it. All cops are racist.”

She then threatens, “100 per cent”, that she will take the matter to court and fight the charge.

France was the first country in Europe to implement a full ban on covering up faces in public.

France’s burqa ban descended into farce when the first women to be summoned before a European court for illegally wearing the garments were refused entry, because they would not remove their face coverings.

Source: heraldsun.com.au

Court declines Muslim man’s plea for custody of son

June 18th, 2011
by Sufia

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has rejected a Muslim man’s petition for custody of his seven-year-old son from his former wife, who lives in Hyderabad.

The vacation judge bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Justice G.P. Mittal said: “We are not inclined to issue notice even in view of the arguments made by the petitioner counsel citing apex court judgment. And especially when the child is in custody of the mother for the last over two years, it will not be allowed.”

The bench also said: “Writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach for a competent authority to adjudicate custody matters.”

The court ruling came on a petition of habeas corpus filed by Shahid Khan, who was seeking production of his son from custody of his former wife Anjum Pasha and her brother and mother.

“The mother has no right to the custody of the minor and the petitioner being entitled in law to custody is entitled to enforce the said right through this petition for habeas corpus,” said Khan in petition.

The court rejected Khan’s plea. However, it enquired from the petitioner’s counsel as to how this petition was maintainable since a habeas corpus petition cannot be a substitute for a proceeding seeking guardianship of the minor child.

“We are unable to agree and are unwilling to entertain this habeas corpus petition to adjudicate competing claims of the petitioner as father and respondent as mother to the custody of the minor son and which adjudication shall necessarily entail questions of suitability and best interest of minor,” said the bench in its order given on June 15.

Citing an example from the Supreme Court in Gohar Begum (supra) case which dealt with a case where the respondent had no legal right to custody, the bench said: “Such is not the position here”.

Source: www.ummid.com

Leading Islamic Group’s Hit List Targets Specific Americans

June 17th, 2011
by Sufia

It’s coming, folks. Wake up the neighbors. I’ll be in Houston speaking tonight (go here for tickets). Bring everyone you know. Get armed with knowledge. It’s war, and it’s just beginning.

Possible Al-Qaida Hit List Targets Specific Americans NBC News hat tip Van

An al-Qaida-linked website has posted a potential hit list of targets that include names and photos of several U.S. officials and business leaders, calling for terrorists to target these Americans in their own homes, NBC New York has learned.

The FBI has sent out a new intelligence bulletin to law enforcement agencies, warning that this new web-based threat, while not a specific plot, is very detailed. The bulletin said the list includes leaders “in government, industry and media.”

The FBI has notified those individuals who are named.

NBC New York will not identify them or their companies. The list includes Wall Street firms, political leaders, leaders with think tanks and contractors who do business with the military.

The websites contain 40 specific names, 26 of them with photos attached, and they call for posting home addresses. One jihadist called for sending package bombs to any listed address as just one possibility.

Source: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/06/leading-islamic-groups-hit-list-targets-specific-americans.html

Page 4 of 23First...23456...Last