In the name of God, compassionate & merciful بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِ
Peace be with you السلام عليكم

The Flight of Time
Qur'an, Al-Asr - The Flight of Time (103:1-3)

"By the flight of time, man is in total loss. Except for those who have faith and do good works; who exhort each other to uphold the truth and to perseverance."
(Qur'an, 103:1-3)

This brief surah summarizes the essence and outcome of all human activity for all time.

Time goes on, and people live and die, generation after generation, and era after era. People of the same generation may live under similar circumstances and traditions, but their destinies may go in totally different directions, depending on their moral and religious beliefs. The moral quality of human life is far more important, and the truth is no less honourable or illustrious if it is recognized by a minority.

Those who deny the sovereignty and power of God shall end up as fuel of hell in the hereafter, whereas the believers who, despite the odds, persevere in upholding the truth shall be the real and final winners in the ordeal of life.

True believers are few and in some generations of human history may even seem odd, but they are promised great rewards.

This surah became a motto, a pledge of loyalty and brotherhood, among the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ (Allah's peace and blessings be upon him). It was traditional, according to reports, for Prophet Muhammad's ﷺ Companions to recite this surah together before they shook hands and departed.

To persevere for the sake of the truth could expose one to persecution and hardship, and therefore to uphold the true faith and triumph with it requires persistence, tenacity, and a strong will.

Compiled From:
"A Thematic Commentary on the Quran" - Muhammad Al-Ghazali, pp. 751, 752

Good Deeds

The Prophet ﷺ (Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) said:

"Make the orphan come close to you, and be nice to him, and wipe his head, and feed him from your food. That will cause your heart to be soft, and your needs to be fulfilled." [al-Tabarani]

Once Anas ibn Malik was asked by someone to make du`a (prayer) for him. He replied, "Verily, dua is raised up to Allah by good deeds", indicating that the questioner should strive to do good deeds if he wants his du`a to be answered. And Wahb ibn Munabbih said: "The example of the one who makes du`a without doing any deeds is like the one who tries to shoot arrows without a bow."

So the person who wishes to have his du`a responded to by Allah should increase the quantity and quality of the good deeds that he does.

Compiled From:
"Dua: The Weapon of the Believer"- Yasir Qadhi, pp. 151, 152

Roadblocks to Celebrating Differences

Although there are many, three of the largest roadblocks to celebrating differences are ignorance, cliques, and prejudice.

→ Ignorance. Ignorance means you're clueless. You don't know what other people believe, how they feel, or what they've been through.

→ Cliques. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be with those you're comfortable with; it becomes a problem only when your group of friends becomes so exclusive that they begin to reject everyone who isn't just like them. It's kind of hard to value differences in a close-knit clique. Those on the outside feel like second-class citizens, and those on the inside often suffer from superiority complexes.

→ Prejudice. Have you ever felt stereotyped, labelled, or pre-judged by someone because your skin's the wrong colour, your accent's too heavy, or you live on the wrong side of the tracks? Haven't we all, and isn't it a sick feeling? Although we are all created equally, unfortunately, we are not all treated equally. It's a sad fact that minorities of all types often have additional hurdles to leap in life because of prejudices held by so many. Racism is one of the world's oldest problems. We aren't born with prejudice. They're learned.

Compiled From:
"The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Teens" - Sean Covey, pp. 190-192

More Friday Nasiha:
The Finest Form - Why Hell? - Artistic Creativity
Wisdom & Admonition - Gathering Hadiths - Camera Obscura
The Light - Argumentation - Divine Measurement
Tenfold Reward - The Quest - Accomplishment
Moderate Community - The Meadows Of Heaven - Sunna & Sirat
Spouse & Children - Fasting For A Year - Fathers

By Mehreen Omer, Lahore, Pakistan | Find her on Facebook

According to the Oxford Dictionary, freedom of speech is the ‘liberty to express opinions and ideas without hindrance’. This also resonates in the statement of John Stuart Mills, the founding father of freedom of speech, that there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing ideas and opinions. In contemporary times, the “freedom to insult” and ridicule other people’s convictions have incited furor and rancor amongst religious and ethnic groups.

The recent protests in Egypt, sparked by Facebook, YouTube and Twitter can be taken as a case study. We see how freedom of expression in this context has been overlooked to protect the interests of the government. Tanks are used to repel the angry mobs. What happened to the freedom of speech? Unfortunately, this double-standard is nothing new.

The debate on freedom of speech has gained a lot of impetus after, the events of the Danish cartoons, Salman Rushdie’s book ‘Satanic Verses’ by, and the screening of the movie ‘Fitnah’ by Geert Wilders. The big question is: has the freedom of speech gone too far?

Those who challenge the imposition of any restriction on speech hold the viewpoint that a lot of arguments which say that religious blasphemy should be illegal are based on the premise that actually ‘offending’ people should be illegal. They say that the law in Britain is based on victimization i.e. being able to injure or harm others, and not just being able to offend them. So in order to prove defamation, three things have to be proved:
          (1) prove that accusation as a lie,
          (2) and that lie should harm someone’s reputation and
          (3) that allegation must be said publicly.
Therefore, critics of restrictions on speech argue that a deceased person cannot be victimized and therefore the attacks on the Prophet ﷺ (peace be upon him) of Islam are not statutory offenses.

They also try to rebut the argument that by insulting religion, you are inciting violence by arguing that generalizations are not to be made i.e. just because one Muslim is accused of a certain misdeed, not all Muslims are accused of the same, and therefore Muslims in general, do not need to be offended. And then again they stress that offending people is not against the law. They vilify those who behave like animals simply because they are offended. They also try their best to counter the arguments of those who say that religion is so important to society and so it should be given special treatment, by proposing that we are living in different times. We don’t see a total breakdown in society if religion is criticized. In ancient times, it may have been the case, but not today.

They also argue that freedom of speech has not gone far enough at all. They say that if you make it a criminal offense to offend someone, then you can make almost anything a criminal offense, since people could get offended by almost anything. So this argument, according to “them” is in effect, a two-edged sword. They further argue that religious beliefs do not require special protection since it will instead cause harm and deter us from being able to communicate your deeply held conviction to others.

So the underlying question surrounding the debate of freedom of speech is should blasphemy and religious insult be made illegal? This question has led to many emotional outbursts over the past century. The speaker’s corner, around the world, where people could come up and publicly debate about controversial issues, is a manifestation that it has all gone wrong. Jay Smith, famous for his debates in the speaker’s corner, openly attacks Islam there, which many Muslims consider as verbal abuse. The speaker’s corner undoubtedly then encourages disputes rather than sincere debates and dialogues.

But when the Western society talks about freedom of speech, they assume it to be already true; hence they create a discourse surrounding that presumption. The current debate of whether freedom of speech should be limited is a manifestation of the flaws in the freedom of speech in Western society - that we have to argue and insult, an accepted degradation etc. John Stuart Mill, the apostle of freedom of speech said that freedom of speech should be there because people want ‘truth, accountability, and facilitating of progress’. But there are several problems with this current model of ‘freedom of speech’. It exists only in the imaginary world; it is just an academic idea. There are several restrictions to freedom of speech such as slander, product defamation, threats, lying in court, speaking publicly without a permit, speaking about a trial outside the court after the judge forbids it, copyright infringement speech, hate-speech, profanity, noise-pollution, sedition, treason, speech exposing political secrets and campaign strategies!. There are pages and pages of legislation that define permissible and illegal “speech”. So this is not logically coherent, teaching us that “you are free to speak however, yet not free”. It doesn’t make sense. When the essence of something is removed from it, it doesn’t qualify to be recognized as itself. For example, if a human being is living because he is breathing, if he stops breathing, he is not alive. So freedom of speech does not exist. The rhetoric of freedom of speech can’t stand its own ground.

So a logically coherent definition of freedom of expression in society should be ‘expression within the context of the law and society’s values’. Freedom is in actuality, limited. The ‘freedom of speech’ principle in the Western societies is also based upon fluctuating secular liberal values. The two core liberal values of secular liberalism are that of individualism which is the belief in the primary importance of the individual and narcissism - a right to engage in self-profiting action without interference. But these are not cohesive values. If we throw garbage into a processor, we’ll get garbage from the output as well. William Burg, a famous social constructionist, says that 'a society affects the individual and the individual affects society'.

Liberals propose that freedom to speech goes hand in hand with freedom to insult and degrade. But they fail to realize that freedom to insult goes against the very reason freedom of speech is propagated in the first place. It must be reiterated that freedom of speech stands for facilitating truth, accountability and progress. Truth and progress develops by sincere debate and dialogue. Insults and degrading language do not facilitate debate and dialogue therefore insults should not be referred to because they go against the very reason of freedom of speech. Moreover, accountability requires good argumentation for example, you can’t prove that Tony Blair is an evil man by insulting and swearing and without proof, and so insults do not allow good argumentation as they go against the very reason of why freedom of speech is called for in the first place: Reason.

Even John Stuart Mill said that any speech violating good must be rightfully prohibited. It is not about tolerance; it is about preventing harm to the society. One should never underestimate the power of words. If some negative statements become predominant in a society, then it becomes a social norm. It happened with the Black people in the United States and it became a taboo to associate oneself with a black person. So conclusively, freedom to insult negates the reason for freedom of speech; hence “freedom to insult” should be restricted.

All the while the neo-liberals are going the complete wrong way round. They say that freedom of speech comes first and then truth, progress and accountability are accidental byproducts, or rather ‘intellectual excrements’. But the neo-liberals are relativists; they don’t believe anything has an intrinsic good value. They are relying on a blind assumption. They say that freedom of speech is a must for truth, accountability and progress, even though there are flaws in the system. But this is a result of their own historical baggage. The Catholic Church used to oppress the masses, and this led to the birth of the liberal tradition. So the West superimposes its historical narrative on everyone else, including the Muslims.

If one peels away the façade, it will become quite explicit that the West has used ‘freedom of speech’ as a smokescreen to attack Islam. Did you know the Danish criminal law actually prevents people from ridiculing other people’s beliefs? Geert Wilders said that the Quran should be banned to allow for freedom of speech. But then he caught himself in a paradox. Then again, it has been the intellectual dishonesty of the West with regards to ‘freedom of speech’ that they label anyone who criticizes Israel as anti-semitic, even though there are many Jews who criticize Israel.

It is imperative that we turn to an alternative model of expression; an Islamic paradigm, one that is based on intellectual and moral foundations to acquire truth. It must be indubitably realistic and must be couched in the socially cohesive values of respect, honor and dignity. The expression must be within the context of law and society’s values. In Islam, it is narrated that the greatest ‘Jihad’ (struggle) is a word of truth against a tyrant ruler. In a hypothetical scenario, if all bans are removed from free speech in a typical American classroom, foul words would be propagated like gas leaking from a hot air balloon. That is not to suggest that the American are any more inclined to bad language than are the British or the rest but that is the reality of the matter. How much will one censor? Even if we allow unrestricted use of obscene language, would we want our own children to be brought up with that? One has to look for the long-term impact.

The real problem is that people look at the symptoms, but they forget the cause. No one questions the underlying values of a contradictory limited-freedom to do as you like. The laws may or may not be the problem; it’s the secular liberal values that are deeply embedded in a society that need to be changed. As the values of individualism and freedom are not socially cohesive values they cause harm to a society. Allah says in the Qur’an, Surah Ibrahim,

“Have you not considered how Allah presents an example, (making) a good word like a good tree, whose root is firmly fixed and its branches (high) in the sky? It produces its fruit all the time, by permission of its Lord. And Allah presents examples for the people that perhaps they will be reminded. And the example of a bad word is like a bad tree, uprooted from the surface of the earth, not having any stability.” (Qur’an, 14:24-26)

So the very paradigm of the modern society needs to be shifted; and the Islamic model of expression should be applied, one that is based on social cohesion. It is unfortunate, however, that many still are bent upon treating the symptoms, without curing the cancer.
The assassination of the Governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, in Pakistan over allegations of blasphemy, calls for an urgent re-assessment of the definition of blasphemy. The fact that the law has been misapplied in Pakistan is causing a large number of people to rebel against the law itself. Some have even begun to doubt the existence of such a law in Islam. However, a verse in the Qur'an clarifies the issue;

''The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter. (Surah Al-Mai'dah, 5:33)

There is no doubt that blasphemy is a criminal offense, but what needs to be realized is what lies within its periphery and what lies outside it. To discuss what really is blasphemy is beyond the scope of this article; however, it must be understood that punishment is only for those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet ﷺ. We need to look back at the time of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ to understand the issue:

Indeed, Allah says in the Quran:

"He has already revealed to you in the Scripture, that when you hear the signs of Allah held in defiance and ridicule, you are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme. If you did, you would be like them..." (Qur'an 4:140)

Now, the issue is not whether Salman Taseer should’ve been murdered or not. The issue is whether Mumtaz Qadri, the assassinator, should’ve killed him or not. Again, such matters have always been understood by the Islamic scholars to be included in the jurisprudence of the state. An individual can never take such an action. So no! Mumtaz Qadri was not a hero. What he did was deeply abhorrent. Many people in Pakistan believe that he was motivated more by poverty than by religion. Again we have to carefully analyze which party has benefited the most from such an action. Who else? The Zionists just got another hot issue to defame Islam. Was it all by coincidence You decide!

Another important issue is if non-Muslims can openly preach their religion in a Muslim country. Is religion here a stumbling block to freedom of expression? Muslims are accused of double-standards. In this age of media warfare, every other ethnic group wants to use the likes of television and internet to promote their ideology. But why should falsehood be propagated? Shouldn’t it be the right of an ‘Islamic’ state, which is based on Islam, that it should protect the ideology on which it is founded? However, Islam does allow inter-faith dialogue done with the best intentions.
{watch Dr. Zakir Naik’s debate on YouTube}

Islam is also accused for allowing the killing of apostates if they leave Islam. Again, a reductionist approach is taken here where the actual circumstance is decontextualized from the ruling. We need to look back at the time of the first Caliph of Islam, Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra). The famous apostasy wars in which many refused to pay the Zakat (Wealth Tax), show that people are only to be killed when there is a rebellion against the state. An article on {Islamic Response} will further clarify the issue.

Special Thanks to {Hamza Andreas Tzortzis’s debate with Nikolai Segura, available on YouTube}.

Image:: flickr

More by sister Mehreen:
Narcissism Pandemic

More:
What To Take Away From The Egyptian Revolution
Report: Europe's Muslim Population Is Expected To Double By 2030, Don't Freak Out
Hijab Makes A Return To Tunisia, by Yvonne Ridley

In the name of Allah, compassionate & merciful بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِ
Peace be with you السلام عليكم

The Light
Surah Al-Nur, The Light, (Qur'an, 24:35)

Scholars, such as the eleventh-century philosopher al-Ghazali understood this "light," or "noor", to be the true quintessential light or the definitive source of all light in the universe. He goes on to explain that to describe God as Light puts Him above everything else in existence and points to His power to create living matter out of dark nothingness. The evidence of God's existence and power is so overwhelming and pervasive in the physical universe as well as in our own everyday lives, that only the ignorant or the arrogant can be blind to it.

Others interpret 'light' as the guidance God infuses into the hearts of believers that gives them the ability to discern right from wrong, good from evil, and gives them a strong belief and confidence in their faith and what they profess to be true.

On closer reflection, the two meanings of the word "noor" will be found to be complementary. As one marvels at the light observed in the physical world, it leads to guidance being imbued inside one's heart, drawing one closer to God. Those who fail to be aware of God and deny or ignore His power and role in the world will be deprived of the privilege of God's Light and guidance, no matter how materially fortunate or advanced or successful they may be.


Compiled From:
"A Thematic Commentary on the Quran" - Muhammad Al-Ghazali, pp. 380, 381

Argumentation

Khusamah (Argumentation), accompanied by a violation of the right of another and comprising discourteous and hostile speech, is undoubtedly reprehensible and must be avoided. The enormity of such argumentation is accentuated in the Hadith where the Prophet ﷺ (Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) proclaims,

"The most disliked of men before God Most High is one who is most stubborn during argumentation." [Tirmidhi]

This Hadith primarily applies to those who engage in disputes either in pursuit of falsehood, or over matters of which they have little knowledge. For example, the disputant may be a lawyer who has not studied a case, or has studied it and knows his side is in the wrong but still chooses to fight for it. Also included in this category are people who deliberately defend false views and beliefs in order to influence the feeble minded.

An individual who disputes on behalf of a good cause, and yet exceeds the limits of propriety by engaging in abusive language, is also blameworthy, although to a lesser degree than the one who argues in pursuit of falsehood.

Source:
"Freedom of Expression in Islam" - Mohammad Hashim Kamali, p. 153

Divine Measurement

Islam divides daily life into two spheres: what we have control over and what we do not. We have no control over the circumstances developing around us. The car breaks down; we get laid off at our job; an earthquake topples the city; we bump into a long-lost friend; and so on. These things just happen. We couldn't prevent them because we didn't know they were coming. Islam says all of these things are a test for us. They were predetermined challenges or merely things that, because of a complex confluence or events, just happened. They were a part of our Divine Measurement (Qadr).

Even though we often have no control over what happens to us, we do have control over how we feel and respond. When a tragedy strikes, do we blame God? When we see a diamond, does covetousness well up within us? When someone does evil to us, do we reciprocate or forgive? When we are alone, do we feel lonely or jubilant? Islam says we have control over our feelings, emotions and personal actions. Our test lies in how we respond to what happens around us. Do we exercise patience with life's challenges or do we panic and create disorder in our lives and in others? Now if we really think of the complex web of actions and reactions that go on every day in all of our lives, we can begin to appreciate how little our capacity is compared to God's.

Compiled From:
"The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Islam, 2nd Edition" - Yahiya Emerick, p. 103

More Friday Nasiha:
Diverse Lands - Cordial Relations - Ownership
Ingratitude - Oppression "dhulm" - Why Pray?
Secrets Exposed - Hypocrisy - Purdah & Islam
How to Co-Operate - Tribulation - Repentance

By Mehreen Omer, Lahore, Pakistan | Find her on Facebook

Indubitably, our society today is sponsoring a scum of bloated egos mostly in the name of carving out our self-esteem. The ‘Generation Me’ syndrome has plagued almost every individual. The world has not only headed towards but is more egocentric. Our culture encourages hubris in our work and behaviour, instead of keeping it in check. This narcissism outburst has turned out to be a pandemic from an epidemic. And it has diseased our global society. Through the realms of marketing, advertising and consumerism, heedless self-indulgence has become rather a common phenomenon, with people becoming more and more self-involved, despite their denials.

Take education: students today, in general, would like to attain at least a ‘B’ grade simply because they attended all the classes. At home, spoiled children would argue with and answer back their parents that they “will not drink milk, because they already ate veggies and they can’t obey their parents on both occasions!” This is unjust.. Here, the parents and education system themselves are at fault. In the attempt to build up the confidence of the younger generation, institutions have puffed up their selves with a lopsided sense of self-worth. Children have become ever more demanding and unscrupulous. Most teenagers, Muslim or not, They would be annoyed if their parents are were not able to get them the latest tech gadget, even if all their other wishes had been fulfilled.

A very intricate demonstratione of narcissism can be displayed in a “normal” college heterosexual relationship today. In seeking attention and/or approval people try to make the other person cognizant of their favors in the name of "love". In this case, the young woman will respond with stronger emotional attachment to her beloved – and so continues the cycle of ‘feeding the nafs’ (human desires). People simply want to be appreciated for what they do superficially. Nothing is earned, or worked for through struggle and sweat. We want, we want, we want. Even when we carry out doing something good for others whom we love, we have this expectation at the back of their mind that it is ultimately ourselves who will be benefitting.

Many advertisements and programs tell us that “We Are Special”. The famous brand slogan of L’Oreal “Because you are worth it” inflates one’s ego and makes him us feel that he we deserves to be treated in an extra special manner. What are we worth? Why are we worth ‘it’? Advertisements exploit our innate fondness with self-improvement with horrendous ideals and needs. The ‘Me, Myself and I’ thinking culture carries a dysfunctional omen to the proper functioning of the society. The value of individualism is not socially cohesive at all and rather acts as a breakdown. Self-obsession is one result. People would take thousands of snapshots of themselves in hopes of becoming the world’s next top model; anticipating ‘likes’ and for comments from their friends and families' approval to say, “yes, you meet the social standard of outer-beauty, yes you are worth it”.

The infamous book ‘The Secret’ by Rhonda Byrne explicitly tells people that they can be their own gods. They can make their own destinies. All the ‘magic lies in us’; we just need to explore it. Many critics say that the book makes us greedy and self-centered. So we do not simply buy a car because we have to travel – because of a need, we buy one simply because we want one, and because “they have one”. Believing in oneself as “the ultimate” is a delusion, but seeing things for what they are is believing in reality. Also websites like YouTube allow users to post their own videos and gain attention; everyone can be a star on YouTube. Everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame.

Narcissism is arguably a direct result of the ideology of evolution, which promotes the philosophy of ‘Survival of the Fittest’. In that race to survive, everyone has to take the cup for  him or herself. In the famous game of musical chairs, everyone runs to take the seat for himself. There is no such thing as sacrifice and selflessness in a narcissist world. People have become selfish. Most people, including Muslims, have become selfish. Even the syllabus of economics taught in schools and universities today highlights the importance of self-interest first - to beat the others - and so one must not surprised to see narcissism manifesting itself openly on educational platforms.

But we must ask ourselves, what is wrong in being a narcissist in the first place? People argue that as long as we are not causing any harm to others, what’s the big deal? This is the same as postulating that there is nothing wrong in being a criminal as long as we are being totally innocuous to the society. But there is a logical inconsistency here. A criminal is by his nature, bound to cause harm to the society. Hosting a ‘Me-Me-Me’ culture is in effect hurting social relationships. It is causing rift between spouses over trivial issues. Disputes are occurring between hardcore friends over some woman/guy. The concept of self-sacrifice and selflessness has totally disappeared. Everyone wants the trophy for himself, even if it means trampling others during the race. The ties of brotherhood and affection are becoming extinct. The so-called fraternities and sororities in popular culture are nothing but a manifestation of how lonely we have become, so that we need to affiliate ourselves with such groups in order to feel being part of a society. Then again a careful analysis of such organizations would show that it is rather more a need of affiliation that drives a person to join them rather than a result of development of conscious, or making them care about others.

So conclusively, this narcissism pandemic is here to stay unless there is a shift in the current paradigm which breeds ego-addled individuals. This must begin at home. Parents need to be develop discipline towards their children and tell them the rights of others, even animals, elders and children younger than them. Muslims should take more steps to be more integrated in their society and help the community in a positive manner. Whenever a difficult situation arises, we must not think only of ourselves, but of others too. The problem may be complicated, but the solution is simple.

But how can we turn to the secular paradigm to provide us with solution when it itself is their cause? In Richard Hawkins book ‘The Selfish Gene’, it is postulated that self-centered humans are the winners in the race of survival. So where exactly does the solution lie? Indeed, Islam comes forward teaching us humility in the best manner possible. It says in the Qur’an:

“Do not turn your nose up at people, nor walk about the place arrogantly, for Allah does not love arrogant or boastful people. Go at a moderate pace and lower your voice, for the ugliest of all voices is the braying of donkeys.” (Qur’an, 31:18-19)

Muslims especially need to be representatives of such a culture. But many Muslims today are sacrificing their family lives over their work and studies. Parents don’t have time for children; children don’t want to spend time with their parents. Each is concerned with his own work. Even in many religious lectures, there is an on-going competition to deliver the best lecture, not because they want to please Allah but because they want to earn name for themselves. Many Muslims today in the urge to earn rewards by converting someone to Islam are pushing boundaries. Islam teaches us intellectual humility and as the carriers of the truth, we Muslims are supposed to live Islam, not impose it on others. Anger is another direct ramification of narcissism. We grow angry because we feel our rights have been violated. We at that emotionally angering time do not even consider the situation that would have caused the other person to take such an action but become all boiled up because we want others to discharge their responsibilities towards ‘us’. In a nutshell, narcissism is a lethal disorder, we all need to fight.

Image:: Off Madison Ave

More:
Yes, Faith Schools Are A Good Thing
Dealing With Alien Culture Clashes
The Prophet Said: True Faith Brings Pleasure
US Event: Grand Mawlid 2011 Presents 'The Promised Prophet'
Seeing Islam In Avatar

In the name of God, compassionate & merciful بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِ Peace be with you السلام عليكم

 ★ www.Muslimness.com | Share & Subscribe to the Kingdom of Muslim Blogs

What: Productive Ramadan, a resourceful site packed with advice on how to make Ramadan 2010 and every one thereafter, a monster month of productive activities.

Content: One can get seriously addicted to Productive Ramadan's informative style and advice, which is a good thing. Articles cover personal development, time management, parenting with attitude to get the best out of children and yourself, to videos that are short and sweet - and how to learn dua's that are also bite-size. 

Our favourite pieces include: 

The ideas are practical, long term and can be applied outside of Ramadan. But as this the month of rehab, what better way to kick start activity than productivity? 

Our rating: 9★ 

There is much more action to follow. Keep updated on Productive Ramadan.