Fawaz Turki in the Gulf News on Arabs and non-Arabs in Islam (Part 1) Bilal BS

One of the favorite themes of apologists for Islam is that the faith is open to people of all races and ethnicities, and that they are, within the umma, treated equally. The figure of Bilal, an Ethiopian born in 580 A.D., who became a slave in Mecca and then, after his conversion to Islam, was set free, is central to this narrative. For Bilal was not only one of the Companions of the Prophet, but was the very first muezzin, calling Muslims to prayer with his deep, melodious voice.

“Adhan, the call summoning the faithful to prayer, delivered by a muezzin, has rang [sic] out from atop the minarets of mosques around the world for the last 15 centuries, ever since the Islamic commonwealth of nations began in the seventh century to spread its wings to the West and East — where, indeed, the twain did actually meet, and meet in a communal sense of reference and devout compliance to [sic] a shared faith.

It is inaccurate to describe the peoples and lands conquered by the forces of Islam as a “commonwealth of nations,” an anachronism that does not adequately describe the Islamic state in which conquered nations are not joined as equals in a “commonwealth” but subsumed in a caliphate.

“At no time on the Muslim calendar does the adhan cohere [sic[ Muslims together more than during Ramadan, when even unobservant or lax Muslims find themselves, through fasting and prayer, truly close to the divine in their lives. It is with the muezzin’s call to prayer, heralding the advent of dawn, that they begin their fast, and with it, at sunset, that they end it.

“And here you cannot reflect on the genesis of adhan without evoking the name of Bilal Bin Rabah, or simply Bilal, as he is often referred to when his legacy as the first muezzin in Islam is evoked, a figure with an honoured place in modern Islamic Studies and, more recently, in the imagination of African-American Muslims.”

“The story of Bilal does not only fascinate us, it also points by implication to how Islam as a faith is steadfast in its refusal to attach significance to a human being’s skin color.

“Bilal, a former slave born in Makkah to Ethiopian (then known as Abyssinian) parents in 580AD, was freed soon after he embraced the Message, and from there on it was as if salvation imbued his bruised spirit, and the hero in him stepped towards grace out of the shadow of damnation. He went on to become one of the Companions of the Prophet (PBUH), engaging with him in every major military expedition launched by the then emergent faith, including the Battle of Badr in 630, where Muslims defeated an army three times the size of their own.

‘It was at that battle that Bilal reportedly faced his former slave master and put him to the sword. In the immediate aftermath of the liberation of Makkah, Bilal, who had long before been chosen by the Prophet (PBUH) to become the first muezzin, ascended to the top of the Ka’aba, in Islam’s holiest city, and called the Muslim faithful to prayer. Makkah would henceforth become the focal point of Islam’s new, zestful tense [sic] of reality.

“Muezzins are venerate [sic] in Islam, but the first in it to become one, in this case an African Arab, is held in special regard because he is viewed as a symbol of how Islam does not define human beings by their national, ethnic, racial or class background, but by their taqwa, or piety. Don’t dig deep into the Holy Texts for proof of that. Just read The Farewell Sermon. delivered by the Prophet (PBUH) at Mount Ararat in March 632. Various versions of it have been published (all thematically, though not textually the same), but I choose that of Imam Al Bukhari (d. 870): “Oh people/ your God is one and you share the same father/ There is no preference for Arabs over non-Arabs/nor for non-Arabs over Arabs/ Neither is there preference for white people over black people/ nor for black people over white people.”

Let’s limit ourselves here to discussing this first claim by Turki the “there is no preference for Arabs over non-Arabs” in Islam. This claim is flatly contradicted by the behavior of Muslims themselves, including both the Arabs, with their sense of superiority, and the non-Arabs, who keenly felt their lesser worth, with some falsely claiming an Arab lineage. It’s not hard to see why the late scholar of Islam, Anwar Shaikh, described Islam as the “vehicle for Arab supremacism.” Consider all the reasons why that should be so. The message of Allah was delivered to a 7th century Arab, and in his language, Arabic. The Qur’an should ideally be read, and recited, only in Arabic. Muslims all over the world, prostrate in prayer, face turn several times a day toward Mecca, in western Arabia. Muslims are supposed to go on hajj, at least once in their lives, again to Mecca, in Arabia. Many non-Arab Muslims long ago took Arab names, as many converts do today, so great is the prestige of the Arabs within Islam. Some non-Arabs, especially in Pakistan, assume false Arab lineages; there are many who call themselves “Sayyids,” signifying descent from the tribe of the Prophet.

Arab supremacism is also confirmed in statements by many Arabs, including the most reliable compilers of hadith (Al-Bukhari and Muslim), the most celebrated historians, and the most respected Qur’anic commentators.

“Arabs are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. We were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah’s helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in Allah’s Cause. Killing him is a small matter to us.( Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p. 69)

“A man married a maid-slave who bore him a child. Would that child be free or would he be an owned slave?” “Her child whom she bore from him would be the property of her master according to all the Imams (heads of the four Islamic schools of law) because the child follows the (status) of his mother in freedom or slavery. If the child is not of the race of Arabs, then he is definitely an owned slave according to the scholars, but the scholars disputed (his status) among themselves if he was from the Arabs – whether he must be enslaved or not because when A’isha (Muhammad’s wife) had a maid-slave who was an Arab, Muhammad said to A’isha, `Set this maid free because she is from the children of Ishmael.'” (Ibn Timiyya, Vol. 31, pp. 376-377)

“The fact that Allah Most High has chosen the Arabs over other nations is affirmed in rigorously authenticated hadiths of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and give him peace; related by Bukhari and Muslim in their “Sahih” in the beginning of the chapter of merits, # 5897, on the authority of Wathilah ibn al-Asqa` who said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, ‘Verily Allah has chosen Kinanah from the son of Isma`il, and He has chosen Quraysh from among Kinanah and He has chosen Has-him from among Quraysh and He has chosen me from the Bani Hashim.’” [These are all Arab tribes.]

“So this hadith [though not according to Fawaz Turki] is a primary text about the preference of Arabs over others and the preference of some Arabs over other Arabs.

“It is obligatory on a Muslim to believe that Arabs are preferred over other nations because there is a proof for it… But if one does reject this, one has sinned for not believing in it because it is an affirmed matter according to a clear rigorously authenticated hadith. Also, this issue is not something that is commonly known among most Muslims, so for this, one should not hasten to blame one who disagrees with it. It is necessary, rather, to tell him about the issue.

There are many similar hadith that describe the superiority of the Arabs over all non-Arabs. Fawaz Turki needs to brush up on his knowledge of these hadith before claiming that there is no distinction made between Arabs and non-Arabs in Islam; as Berbers and Kurds have been treated by Arabs, who have suppressed the linguistic and cultural expressions of the former in North Africa, and massacred outright nearly 200,000 of the latter in Iraq.

While there is ample evidence for the belief among Muslims that Arabs are superior to non-Arabs, there is also a great deal of evidence that in Islam, whites are considered to be superior to blacks, who are described shamelessly in deeply racist terms. That discussion will come in the next installment.

Arab muslims consider themselves not just superior but the Master Race - emulated and copied by A Hitler;

Bilal Bin Rabah one of the Companions of the Prophet, killed many, else he would not have been a Companion to a person whose motto/war cry was “kill, kill, kill”;

So now we are have more self-deception via some internal taqiyya. Load of ...

That’s a fascinating video from Mr. Wood - thank you for posting it, boycott!

—

I wish more could see it. We’ve got muslims targeting blacks telling them that Christianity is a “white man’s religion.” They’re especially effective in our prisons.

Islam’s War on the Christian Cross
American Thinker ^ | Raymond Ibrahim / FR Posted 6/7/19 / by RoosterRedux

When asked about Islam’s ruling on whether any person — in this case, Christians — is permitted to wear or pray before the cross, Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Tarifi, a Saudi expert on Islamic law, said, “Under no circumstances is a human permitted to wear the cross” nor “is anyone permitted to pray to the cross.” Why? “Because the prophet — peace and blessings on him — commanded the breaking of it [the cross].”

Islamic history is a reflection of these sentiments. For instance, the aforementioned Sheikh al-Tarifi also explained that if it is too difficult to break the cross — for instance, a large concrete statue — Muslims should at least try to disfigure one of its four arms “so that it no longer resembles a cross.” Historic and numismatic evidence confirms that, after the Umayyad caliphate seized the Byzantine treasury in the late seventh century, it ordered that one or two arms of the cross on the coins be effaced so that the image no longer resembled a crucifix (Sword and Scimitar, p. 54).

Testimonies from the very earliest invasions into Christian Syria and Egypt of Muslims systematically breaking every crucifix they encountered abound. According to Anastasius of Sinai, who lived during the seventh century Arab conquests, “the demons name the Saracens [Arabs/Muslims] as their companions. And it is with reason. The latter are perhaps even worse than the demons,” for whereas “the demons are frequently much afraid of the mysteries of Christ,” among which he mentions the cross, “these demons of flesh trample all that under their feet, mock it, set fire to it, destroy it” (Sword and Scimitar, p. 27).(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.