First, you will need to gain the tools in order to learn. In order to self-study, you will need at least the basic understanding of the Arabic language. The alphabet and how to read it; you can learn this in several weekends with a teacher.

After gaining a rudimentary understanding of Arabic, at least the ability to read the Qur’an slowly, you can here are two great things you can learn in a short amount of time:

1. You can memorize the entire Qur’an in approximately twenty years. That is more than a juz per year. Indeed, by memorizing one verse of the Qur’an a day, one can be a hafiz. Two verses a day, then a hafiz in ten and so on. Likely, if you dedicate yourself, you would memorize much more, remember, “wal Asr” is an entire verse. One verse, in my personal experience can be memorized in thirty minutes, and then solidified by reciting it in every salah. Ensure your excellence by reciting for you imam or just listening to the Qur’an in your car. For a good method please read: Memorizar el Corán, una empresa posible biidhnillah at http://www.webislam.com/?idt=14880.

2. If you read two pages a day of the Madinah Arabic Series, you would have finished the entire series in less than a year. Try to do two pages every day for five days, then on one day watch the corresponding lectures online. In my experience, two pages take about half an hour. Think about it: less than a year and you will understand the book of Allah. Lectures are available at http://forseekersofknowledge.com/adult_education/Madina-Arabic-Course-VIDEOS.

Needless to say, there is much more that we could learn. It is necessary to go to the halaqat and take notes; in that way we can learn the seerah, and hear the ahadith. However, is the ummah generally ignorant in their religion because they have not all of Sahih Al Bukhari, or because they have not heard this or that lecture online? No, rather the great majority of us have not made the small sacrifice necessary to acquire the most basic tools to become literate in the Deen, i.e. the Qur’an and Arabic.

Speaking towards decision making, Mr. Cohen stated that as a government official, who advocates democracy, one cannot support democracy; one cannot do what is right because when making decisions an official’s purpose is to protect his interests. Speaking to that point, he said that it is understandable, especially for the youth, to look at the government as hypocritical. He then explains that for example, in Egypt, it was better to support a dictator rather than democracy in order to protect government interests. He said that what the U.S. government received was 1) assurance against Arab expansionism; 2) stability in the region; and 3) no support for groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Weighing against that, he says, is that the president was a dictator that repressed the Egyptian people.

For the sake of discussion, ignore your beliefs as to the legitimacy of the above goals. “Repression”, though an ugly word, is a euphemism when used to describe what the Egyptian people went through. As a man in the mix, I assume that Mr. Cohen is more aware of that then me, but according to him, the suffering of millions of people and the loss of credibility of the U.S. (me and you), was the correct decision in order to protect the three above-mentioned interests.

This is scary. For example, when Pharaoh made the decision to kill the sons of the Children of Israel, he was only protecting his interests, but …  he was killing kids, surely that is not in anyone’s interests. Well, not exactly. People make the decision to kill an innocent everyday to protect their interests. As Mr. Cohen was lecturing to a group of corporate governance students, let us take for example the mission of the corporate director. The mission of the corporate director is to protect the interests of the shareholders. So, according to the lesson of Mr. Cohen, corporate decisions such as the testing of drugs by Pfizer on West African children, causing deaths and deformities, was an interests-based decision. It was not wrong, just, at worst, a misbalancing of interests. To an extent, I do not fault them; this is the weakness of secularism.

Allah gives us an alternative. And Allah says, “…And whoever fears Allah, He will make for him a way out. And He will provide him from (sources) he never could imagine. And whosoever puts his trust in Allah, then He will suffice him. Verily, Allah will accomplish his purpose …” (At-Talaq 65: 2-3) We all have interests and, I admonish myself, we justify doing wrong in order to satisfy those interests. This is how Allah tests us; so the correct path is that when a difficult decision arises, we should veer towards morality. Ask, “would I accept this for myself?”

When a man robs a bank, he balances interest. When someone lies, he balances interests. When someone sells crack, he balances interests. When someone plays his music too loud, he balances interests. And when someone lets his dog poop on the sidewalk, he balances interests.

The likely argument is that supporting repression is legal, but these examples are all against the law. However, the law is self-imposed. It can change tomorrow. Therefore, for the one that does not owe allegiance to a law that prohibits the above, no distinction can be made. But, Allah gives us an alternative: Ask, “would I accept this for myself?”

-Isbani

We live in a world of laws, and although immigration rules can be arbitrary and even unfair to some, mistakes should be dealt with. It is part of being fair. However, the issue is not guilt or innocence; rather it is the manner in which a man was arrested.

It should be kept in mind that this is an administrative issue, and while a person can be detained for immigration matters, this was not a criminal offense. Yet our law enforcement officials completed this arrest like as if it was a combat mission. Furthermore, the blocking off of the street, the gang of armed men, and the violence employed were also uncalled for on safety grounds, as Sheikh Dremali has no criminal background. He is a licensed geologist and former university professor. Real scary…

For some people, the use of violence and intimidation by our law enforcement is justified in order to project an image of strength and control on the community. To show us who is boss. This is a mistake. The use of violence and intimidation only serves to lower the credibility of all law enforcement. A personal anecdote…

Years ago, as a twenty year old I was walking across the street to a barbecue in good old Killeen, Texas. The apartment building was at a dead-end, down the hill from the main road, Veterans Memorial. It was a beautiful afternoon, sun shining, birds chirping, people smiling, and rims glistening. And lo! What is that coming down the hill? About eight police vehicles speeding like bats out of Hell. I paused in shock, watching police pour out of these cars and vans, grabbing and throwing people on the floor. One nearly tried to run over a teenager, but was stopped by crashing into a steel clothes pole. I froze, and watched a police officer jump out of a car flailing a large weapon, yelling at someone. I looked behind me and no one was there, I turned back around staring down the barrel of gun. The officer threw me on the floor and cuffed me; I don’t know if I was hit, but my back hurt for days.

When everything calmed down, about 18 men were in cuffs, all but one were Hispanic, all employed or students, and about half were active duty military. No arrests were made, nor were any apologies given. I still remember the grimace and anger of the officer uncuffing me. Despite the facts, the news story was that Killeen law enforcement accomplished a great drug raid that day. What was the end result besides the loss of credibility of law enforcement? I have tens of stories like this, and generally I cannot look at law enforcement as friendly anymore.

So what about when law enforcement, armed to the teeth, assault and arrest a middle-aged professional at his own home for such a trivial offense? Do we accept this as a community? I hope not, and there is no reason why we should continue to stay silent on these issues. Most of the victims are youth, African Americans, and Latinos, but there is extra sting when intimidation by law enforcement happens to a member of the religious community.

Isbani

Not too long ago I was practicing reciting the Qur’an with a teacher and he says to me, “you forgot the ikhfa”. I was puzzled for a few moments, and then realized that he was talking about what I had always termed “ghunna”. However, these two terms signify different things completely.

Well what is ikhfa and what is the proper way to do it? Ikhfa is a techinical term in tajweed. Literally, ikhfa means “hiding” or “concealment”.

See, when a noon sakinah or tanween is followed by a letter of ikhfa, the noon sound will not be produced. Instead, as the tongue approaches the makhraj of the the following letter (the place of articulation of the letter), you will hold it for a moment and pronounce ghunna, or nasalization (the humming type sound heard when reciting). Essentially, you are “hiding” the noon or tanween. This takes practice, and many of us just end up pronouncing ghunna with the tip of the tongue on the front teeth, as if to pronounce noon. Keep practicing and you might sound like Al Huthaifi soon….

Also, there is ghunna, but ghunna simply denotes the nazalization, which is also pronounced when idgham is made on certain letters.

So on what letters do you pronounce ikhfa? They are taa, thaa, jeem, daal, dhaal, zaa, seen, sheen, saad, daad, TAh, ZHAa, faa, qaaf, and kaaf. This is according to all the ten qiraa’t, except that of Imam Abu Ja’far who will generally make ikhfa on khaa and ghayn as well, with some exceptions.

There are some really good (and short) articles on this subject here at the following website, including a really good one on ikhfa.

http://www.abouttajweed.com/the_noon_saakinah_and_tanween.htm

Salaam