Lets talk about a lighter subject...

no, this is not important , nor funny.
Eh tak sengaja..

Selamat Pengantin Baru

Anita Sarawak sang this song back in the 70's.

Selamat Pengantin baru
semoga kekal abadi
bahagia ke anak cucu

da da da
( I dont remember)

Alhamdulilah bertemu jodohnya
( now i dont really remember)

Semoga bahagia ke anak cucu.

Heard this song, semoga bahagia ke anak cucu, so many times in my childhood. Wishing the bride and groom happy and their marriage ever lasting. To children and grandchildren.

Months of planning, a joyous day

A wedding normally takes months to plan. First the groom family must ask the bride has been spoken for, adat meminang. If the bride has not been spoken for, and the bride family is agreeable to the groom's family, as per future prospects, good family lineage etc. Then the pinangan diterima. From then on the future bride and groom "bertunang".

Menjadi Raja Sehari

Malay Wedding recreate the colorful royal like grandness for the day. The bride and groom wear their best clothes ever, more like Malay royalty. That is where the quote Raja Sehari came from.

An Occasion when Families get together

A Malay wedding is colorful in itself. This is the time when family members get together, getting to know each other, and renew acquintance. Renewing bonds of kinship. Sadly, I couldnt afford to go back and join the celebration.

Memories

You know what! This bring back memories some 25-30 years ago, (my memories doesnt function well) when my sister, (Fauziah's mother) Kak Sal aka Siti Salmiah Hamzah got married then. Yes Like mother then, like daughter now. My elder sister looks like her daughter now. How ones genes reappear again in ones progeny.

My Niece, Fauziah Mohd Nor got married over the weekend.
We wish her 'Selamat Pengantin Baru' semoga bahagia ke anak cucu with her new husband Syed Muhamad Iskandar.

Here are some photos that my sister Maslina emailed to me yesterday. She just been back from the village in Tanjong Karang.
Tempat: Kampung Sungai Tengi Kanan, Tanjong Karang, Selangor Darul Ehsan.

ala Grameen Bank

I admire the Nobel Prize winner Professor Muhammad Yunus, who started Grameen Bank. An idea worth emulating, in a world of needs and wants. As always, our individual needs is always greater than the next person, however dire the next person's is.
What I am going to suggest is just a simple idea, it doesnt matter if it doesnt work, or if the success rate is 50%.
Lately I have been corresponding with an old friend Zamri Baba who has been involved with charity work, distributing zakat funds, doing the running around and attending meetings etc.
What if we set up a cooperative bank, whereby we pool our little bit extras into an account aptly named cooperative account. Then we lend some money to the poor (small amounts) to help set themselves up in business, or to ease their burden or set them up to be able to apply for jobs. The word lending is important here, for we expect them to pay it back when they can afford, so that we can lend the money again to the next person.
The loan amount could be small, say RM200 to buy a bicycle so that he or she can apply for a job away from home, or RM50 to buy rice, anchovies and eggs to start a nasi lemak business.
As for interest charge, I would prefer that we dont charge any, make it interest free. Free from riba' - free from guilt.
Make it our work of charity.
We could start by setting up an account with a bank, then set up a committee who is responsible in approving loans and so on so forth. Where do we get the funds? Public donations of course.
How do we solicit donations? Well, to start with we could set up website, even just a simple blog, publish our intentions, account number for donations and update where the loans go to..
Please post comment here, do you think this simple idea is possible?

an article by Muhammad Yunus

NOBEL MEN

A Hand Up, Not a Handout
Why not microloans for Katrina victims?

BY MUHAMMAD YUNUS
Saturday, October 14, 2006 1:00 p.m. EDT

America's government and people brought charity to a new level last year in their response to Hurricane Katrina. The rebuilding has been particularly difficult, however, because it has involved lives as well as bricks and mortar. Many victims had been desperately poor all their lives. Helping them to self-sufficiency has proved just as difficult, if not harder, than putting homes and businesses back up again.

Having many very poor citizens, and more than its share of natural disasters, Bangladesh--my own country--has a great deal of experience facing both these challenges. We have a per capita gross national income of $440, with half the population living below the poverty line. We've little to start with, and much of that is repeatedly snatched away. In 1998, floods covered much of the country for over two months, affecting 30 million people; and a single cyclone killed 300,000 in 1970. Despite these catastrophes, more of our people are climbing out of poverty.

So at the risk of sounding presumptuous: What can the U.S. learn from Bangladesh about post-disaster economic recovery? Like many other countries, even Bangladeshis were quick with a handout after Katrina, giving the U.S. $1 million for the victims. But Americans might be surprised to learn that one of our most successful tools for rebuilding businesses is not government handouts, but rather, small loans packaged with practical business and social advice.

Microfinance is one of the biggest success stories of the developing world, and proponents like me believe it could be just as successful in helping the poor in wealthy countries such as the U.S. The basic philosophy behind microfinance is that the poor, although spurned by traditional banks because they can't provide collateral, are actually a great investment: No one works harder than someone who is striving to achieve life's basic necessities, particularly a woman with children to support. Sadly, it is also true that in catastrophic circumstances, very little of the cash so generously given ever gets all the way down to the very poor. There are too many "professionals" ahead of them in line, highly skilled at diverting funds into their own pockets. This is particularly regrettable because very poor people need only a little money to set up a business that can make a dramatic difference in the quality of their lives.

I started the Grameen Bank 30 years ago by distributing about $27 (no typo here!) worth of loans among 40 extremely poor Bangladeshis. Since the bank officially opened in 1983, it has loaned $5.7 billion in microfinance. Today, Grameen has 6.6 million borrowers in Bangladesh alone, borrowing $500 million a year in loans that average just over $100 each. The loans are entirely financed by borrowers' deposits and the bank recovers 98.85% of all money loaned. Notably, Grameen Bank has been profitable in all but three years since its launch. Our largely poor customers save $1.008 for every dollar they borrow, so the poor are truly funding the poor.

The bank supports businesses such as small services, stores, direct sales, furniture-making, cell phone stations and milling, all of which support the local economy. And it works. More than half of our borrowers have moved out of poverty, mainly through their own efforts. Most importantly, when you lend money to disadvantaged people, it gives them a sense of pride, rather than the humiliation they may feel over a handout. And just as helpful as the money is the guidance they get from the bank. Training and connecting poor, inexperienced workers to a reliable and ethical lending and savings service is a huge advantage for them that only gets stronger after a disaster. This is particularly true of women, who are often constrained by social and financial barriers. Grameen communities have also made tremendous strides on health and social issues, such as sanitation, and pushed aside discriminatory practices such as bridal dowries.





The impact of microfinance is spreading world-wide. As of December 2004, 3,100 microcredit institutions reported reaching 92,270,289 clients, 66,614,871 of whom were among the world's poorest when they took their first loan. Assuming five persons per family, the loans to the 54.8 million poorest clients affected some 330 million family members by the end of 2004.
Microfinance has worked so well that it has become a major instrument of reconstruction in post-tsunami Asia as well. A Sri Lankan conglomerate, Ceylinco, partnered with Grameen to provide small loans to 10,000 tsunami victims. These range from $300 to $10,000 and carry an interest rate of 6%, less than half the rate for similar small loans in Sri Lanka. The loans have a one-year grace-period, and Ceylinco takes no collateral, thereby heaping all the risk onto itself. But the company felt this was still a wise investment.

Because some countries that rely heavily on microfinance also happen to be disaster-prone, Grameen now has special disaster loan funds (DLFs) to help meet the urgent need for cash after a catastrophe. These funds also aim to offset the microlender's own losses. The funds were established in Bangladesh after the record flooding of 1998, which affected 20% of the population. Similar funds were set up in Central America in the wake of Hurricane Mitch, and in Poland after the floods of 1997. The DLFs are financial reserves and usually derived from the initial donor grant to the micro-credit lender.

Many people ask, Why not just give free cash, especially under such dire circumstances? In Bangladesh, we've learned that when aid is free, not only do the poor get the least of it, but everyone inflates their needs. While some handouts are clearly necessary in such times, we focus on lending small amounts of money. This lets us keep costs down and rebuild funds for the next disaster. Most importantly, our Grameen banks are ready to act at a moment's notice. They can respond to a disaster without waiting for anyone's permission, immediately becoming like humanitarian agencies by suspending loan payments, and providing cash, food and medicines. Once rebuilding starts, the bankers keep detailed records of the money lent, and people are allowed to repay bit by bit.

That is the strategy we followed after the 1998 flooding, which covered 50% of Bangladesh's land and affected customers at about 70% of our branches. More than 700 Grameen borrowers or their family members were killed and just over half (a million borrowers) were affected by the flooding. That represents a small percentage of the overall population affected, but the Bank and its staff where there right away to help with immediate needs. Later, microlenders helped people restructure their loans or gave out new loans on more favorable terms.

Microlending has already helped millions reach a better life through their own initiative. It has also given them valuable skills as well as crucial financial back-up in case they ever face a natural disaster like Katrina. So it might be time to think about another type of support for Katrina's victims: the microloan. As our small, flood-battered country has learned, giving someone a hand up doesn't always require a handout. The most important thing is to help people get back to work while letting them hold on to their self-respect. Microloans can do just that.

Mr. Yunus, who yesterday won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, is founder and managing director of the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh.

Nobel Peace Prize: Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank

Posted by Joerg W in International Economics, Fulbright on Friday, October 13. 2006

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2006 to Muhammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank for "their efforts to create economic and social development from below. Lasting peace can not be achieved unless large population groups find ways in which to break out of poverty. Micro-credit is one such means."

Muhammad Yunus was born in 1940 in Chittagong, the business centre of what was then Eastern Bengal and is now Bangladesh. He was the third of 14 children of whom five died in infancy. Educated in Chittagong, he was awarded a Fulbright scholarship and received his Ph.D. from Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. In 1972 he became head of the Economics Department at Chittagong University. He is the founder and managing director of the Grameen Bank. Prof. Yunus wrote the memoir Banker to the Poor: Micro-Lending and the Battle Against World Poverty (Amazon.com, Amazon.de).
According to the BBC, "Hillary Clinton, wife of former US President Bill Clinton, said in 2000 that Mr Yunus had helped the Clintons introduce micro-credit schemes to some of the poorest communities in Arkansas." Since Senator Fulbright was from Arkansas, one could conclude that the Fulbright program has made a full circle (in a positive sense) and America has benefited from awarding a Fulbright grant to Muhammad Yunus.

The CEO of Grameen Foundation USA is Alex Counts, who is also a Fulbright Alumnus. He will present the plenary luncheon address on Sunday, November 5, during the Fulbright Association's 29th Annual Conference "Fulbright Alumni: Expressions in Civil Society."
The Fulbright Academy lists in the right column here some Nobel Laureates, who are also Fulbright Scholars.

Dynamic Capitalism: Entrepreneurship is lucrative--and just

here is the latest writing by Edmund Phelps:

Dynamic Capitalism
Entrepreneurship is lucrative--and just.

BY EDMUND S. PHELPS
Tuesday, October 10, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

There are two economic systems in the West. Several nations--including the U.S., Canada and the U.K.--have a private-ownership system marked by great openness to the implementation of new commercial ideas coming from entrepreneurs, and by a pluralism of views among the financiers who select the ideas to nurture by providing the capital and incentives necessary for their development. Although much innovation comes from established companies, as in pharmaceuticals, much comes from start-ups, particularly the most novel innovations. This is free enterprise, a k a capitalism.

The other system--in Western Continental Europe--though also based on private ownership, has been modified by the introduction of institutions aimed at protecting the interests of "stakeholders" and "social partners." The system's institutions include big employer confederations, big unions and monopolistic banks. Since World War II, a great deal of liberalization has taken place. But new corporatist institutions have sprung up: Co-determination (cogestion, or Mitbestimmung) has brought "worker councils" (Betriebsrat); and in Germany, a union representative sits on the investment committee of corporations. The system operates to discourage changes such as relocations and the entry of new firms, and its performance depends on established companies in cooperation with local and national banks. What it lacks in flexibility it tries to compensate for with technological sophistication. So different is this system that it has its own name: the "social market economy" in Germany, "social democracy" in France and "concertazione" in Italy.

Dynamism and Fertility

The American and Continental systems are not operationally equivalent, contrary to some neoclassical views. Let me use the word "dynamism" to mean the fertility of the economy in coming up with innovative ideas believed to be technologically feasible and profitable--in short, the economy's talent at commercially successful innovating. In this terminology, the free enterprise system is structured in such a way that it facilitates and stimulates dynamism while the Continental system impedes and discourages it.

Wasn't the Continental system designed to stifle dynamism? When building the massive structures of corporatism in interwar Italy, theoreticians explained that their new system would be more dynamic than capitalism--maybe not more fertile in little ideas, such as might come to petit-bourgeois entrepreneurs, but certainly in big ideas. Not having to fear fluid market conditions, an entrenched company could afford to develop radical innovation. And with industrial confederations and state mediation available, such companies could arrange to avoid costly duplication of their investments. The state and its instruments, the big banks, could intervene to settle conflicts about the economy's direction. Thus the corporatist economy was expected to usher in a new futurismo that was famously symbolized by Severini's paintings of fast trains. (What was important was that the train was rushing forward, not that it ran on time.)

Friedrich Hayek, in the late 1930s and early '40s, began the modern theory of how a capitalist system, if pure enough, would possess the greatest dynamism--not socialism and not corporatism. First, virtually everyone right down to the humblest employees has "know-how," some of what Michael Polanyi called "personal knowledge" and some merely private knowledge, and out of that an idea may come that few others would have. In its openness to the ideas of all or most participants, the capitalist economy tends to generate a plethora of new ideas.

Second, the pluralism of experience that the financiers bring to bear in their decisions gives a wide range of entrepreneurial ideas a chance of insightful evaluation. And, importantly, the financier and the entrepreneur do not need the approval of the state or of social partners. Nor are they accountable later on to such social bodies if the project goes badly, not even to the financier's investors. So projects can be undertaken that would be too opaque and uncertain for the state or social partners to endorse. Lastly, the pluralism of knowledge and experience that managers and consumers bring to bear in deciding which innovations to try, and which to adopt, is crucial in giving a good chance to the most promising innovations launched. Where the Continental system convenes experts to set a product standard before any version is launched, capitalism gives market access to all versions.





The issues swirling around capitalism today concern the consequences of its dynamism. The main benefit of an innovative economy is commonly said to be a higher level of productivity--and thus higher hourly wages and a higher quality of life. There is a huge element of truth in this belief, no matter how many tens of qualifications might be in order. Much of the huge rise of productivity since the 1920s can be traced to new commercial products and business methods developed and launched in the U.S. and kindred economies. (These include household appliances, sound movies, frozen food, pasteurized orange juice, television, semiconductor chips, the Internet browser, the redesign of cinemas and recent retailing methods.) There were often engineering tasks along the way, yet business entrepreneurs were the drivers.
There is one conceivable qualification that ought to be addressed. Is productivity not finally at the point, after 150 years of growth, that having yet another year's growth would be of negligible value? D.H. Lawrence spoke of America's "everlasting slog." Whatever the answer, it is important to note that advances in productivity, in generally pulling up wage rates, make it affordable for low-wage people to avoid work that is tedious or grueling or dangerous in favor of work that is more interesting and formative.

Of course, productivity levels in the smaller countries will always owe more to innovations developed abroad than to those they develop themselves. Some might suspect that the domestic market is so tiny in a country such as Iceland, for instance, that even in per capita terms only a very small number of homemade innovations would bring a satisfactory productivity gain--and thus an adequate rate of return. In fact, most of the Continental economies, including the large ones, have been content to sail in the slipstream of a handful of economies that do the preponderance of the world's innovating. The late Harvard economist Zvi Griliches commented approvingly that in such a policy, the Europeans "are so smart."

I take a different view. For one thing, it is good business to be an innovative force in the "global economy." Globalization has diminished the importance of scale as well as distance. Tiny Denmark sets its sights on markets in the U.S., the EU and elsewhere. Iceland has entered into European banking and biogenetics. France has long done this--and can do more of it. But it could do so more successfully if it did not insulate its innovational decisions so much from evaluations by financial markets--including the stock market--as Airbus does. The U.S. is already demonstrably in the global innovation business. To date, there is an adequate rate of return to be expected from "investing" in the conception, development and marketing of innovations for the global economy--a return on a par with the return from investing in plant and equipment, software and other business capital. That is a better option for Americans than suffering diminished returns from investing solely in the classical avenue of fixed capital.





I would, however, stress a benefit of dynamism that I believe to be far more important. Instituting a high level of dynamism, so that the economy is fired by the new ideas of entrepreneurs, serves to transform the workplace--in the firms developing an innovation and also in the firms dealing with the innovations. The challenges that arise in developing a new idea and in gaining its acceptance in the marketplace provide the workforce with high levels of mental stimulation, problem-solving, employee-engagement and, thus, personal growth. Note that an individual working alone cannot easily create the continual arrival of new challenges. It "takes a village," preferably the whole society.
The concept that people need problem-solving and intellectual development originates in Europe: There is the classical Aristotle, who writes of the "development of talents"; later the Renaissance figure Cellini, who jubilates in achievement; and Cervantes, who evokes vitality and challenge. In the 20th century, Alfred Marshall observed that the job is in the worker's thoughts for most of the day. And Gunnar Myrdal wrote in 1933 that the time will soon come when more satisfaction derives from the job than from consuming. The American application of this Aristotelian perspective is the thesis that most, if not all, of such self-realization in modern societies can come only from a career. Today we cannot go tilting at windmills, but we can take on the challenges of a career. If a challenging career is not the main hope for self-realization, what else could be? Even to be a good mother, it helps to have the experience of work outside the home.

I must mention a "derived" benefit from dynamism that flows from its effects on productivity and self-realization. A more innovative economy tends to devote more resources to investing of all kinds--in new employees and customers as well as new office and factory space. And although this may come about through a shift of resources from the consumer-goods sector, it also comes through the recruitment of new participants to the labor force. Also, the resulting increase of employee-engagement serves to lower quit rates and, hence, to make possible a reduction of the "natural" unemployment rate. Thus, high dynamism tends to bring a pervasive prosperity to the economy on top of the productivity advances and all the self-realization going on. True, that may not be pronounced every month or year. Just as the creative artist does not create all the time, but rather in episodes and breaks, so the dynamic economy has heightened high-frequency volatility and may go through wide swings. Perhaps this volatility is not only normal but also productive from the point of view of creativity and, ultimately, achievement.

Ideals and Reality

I know I have drawn an idealized portrait of capitalism: The reality in the U.S. and elsewhere is much less impressive. But we can, nevertheless, ask whether there is any evidence in favor of these claims on behalf of dynamism. Do we find evidence of greater benefits of dynamism in the relatively capitalist economies than in the Continental economies as currently structured? In the Continent's Big Three, hourly labor productivity is lower than in the U.S. Labor-force participation is also generally lower. And here is new evidence: The World Values Survey indicates that the Continent's workers find less job satisfaction and derive less pride from the work they do in their job.

Dynamism does have its downside. The same capitalist dynamism that adds to the desirability of jobs also adds to their precariousness. The strong possibility of a general slump can cause anxiety. But we need some perspective. Even a market socialist economy might be unpredictable: In truth, the Continental economies are also susceptible to wide swings. In fact, it is the corporatist economies that have suffered the widest swings in recent decades. In the U.S. and the U.K., unemployment rates have been remarkably steady for 20 years. It may be that when the Continental economies are down, the paucity of their dynamism makes it harder for them to find something new on which to base a comeback.

The U.S. economy might be said to suffer from incomplete inclusion of the disadvantaged. But that is less a fault of capitalism than of electoral politics. The U.S. economy is not unambiguously worse than the Continental ones in this regard: Low-wage workers at least have access to jobs, which is of huge value to them in their efforts to be role models in their family and community. In any case, we can fix the problem.

Why, then, if the "downside" is so exaggerated, is capitalism so reviled in Western Continental Europe? It may be that elements of capitalism are seen by some in Europe as morally wrong in the same way that birth control or nuclear power or sweatshops are seen by some as simply wrong in spite of the consequences of barring them. And it appears that the recent street protesters associate business with established wealth; in their minds, giving greater latitude to businesses would increase the privileges of old wealth. By an "entrepreneur" they appear to mean a rich owner of a bank or factory, while for Schumpeter and Knight it meant a newcomer, a parvenu who is an outsider. A tremendous confusion is created by associating "capitalism" with entrenched wealth and power. The textbook capitalism of Schumpeter and Hayek means opening up the economy to new industries, opening industries to start-up companies, and opening existing companies to new owners and new managers. It is inseparable from an adequate degree of competition. Monopolies like Microsoft are a deviation from the model.

It would be unhistorical to say that capitalism in my textbook sense of the term does not and cannot exist. Tocqueville marveled at the relatively pure capitalism he found in America. The greater involvement of Americans in governing themselves, their broader education and their wider equality of opportunity, all encourage the emergence of the "man of action" with the "skill" to "grasp the chance of the moment."





I want to conclude by arguing that generating more dynamism through the injection of more capitalism does serve economic justice.
We all feel good to see people freed to pursue their dreams. Yet Hayek and Ayn Rand went too far in taking such freedom to be an absolute, the consequences be damned. In judging whether a nation's economic system is acceptable, its consequences for the prospects of the realization of people's dreams matter, too. Since the economy is a system in which people interact, the endeavors of some may damage the prospects of others. So a persuasive justification of well-functioning capitalism must be grounded on its all its consequences, not just those called freedoms.

To argue that the consequences of capitalism are just requires some conception of economic justice. I broadly subscribe to the conception of economic justice in the work by John Rawls. In any organization of the economy, the participants will score unequally in how far they manage to go in their personal growth. An organization that leaves the bottom score lower than it would be under another feasible organization is unjust. So a new organization that raised the scores of some, though at the expense of reducing scores at the bottom, would not be justified. Yet a high score is just if it does not hurt others. "Envy is the vice of mankind," said Kant, whom Rawls greatly admired.

The 'Least Advantaged'

What would be the consequence, from this Rawlsian point of view, of releasing entrepreneurs onto the economy? In the classic case to which Rawls devoted his attention, the lowest score is always that of workers with the lowest wage, whom he called the "least advantaged": Their self-realization lies mostly in marrying, raising children and participating in the community, and it will be greater the higher their wage. So if the increased dynamism created by liberating private entrepreneurs and financiers tends to raise productivity, as I argue--and if that in turn pulls up those bottom wages, or at any rate does not lower them--it is not unjust. Does anyone doubt that the past two centuries of commercial innovations have pulled up wage rates at the low end and everywhere else in the distribution?

Yet the tone here is wrong. As Kant also said, persons are not to be made instruments for the gain of others. Suppose the wage of the lowest- paid workers was foreseen to be reduced over the entire future by innovations conceived by entrepreneurs. Are those whose dream is to find personal development through a career as an entrepreneur not to be permitted to pursue their dream? To respond, we have to go outside Rawls's classical model, in which work is all about money. In an economy in which entrepreneurs are forbidden to pursue their self-realization, they have the bottom scores in self-realization--no matter if they take paying jobs instead--and that counts whether or not they were born the "least advantaged." So even if their activities did come at the expense of the lowest-paid workers, Rawlsian justice in this extended sense requires that entrepreneurs be accorded enough opportunity to raise their self-realization score up to the level of the lowest-paid workers--and higher, of course, if workers are not damaged by support for entrepreneurship. In this case, too, then, the introduction of entrepreneurial dynamism serves to raise Rawls's bottom scores.

Actual capitalism departs from well-functioning capitalism--monopolies too big to break up, undetected cartels, regulatory failures and political corruption. Capitalism in its innovations plants the seeds of its own encrustation with entrenched power. These departures weigh heavily on the rewards earned, particularly the wages of the least advantaged, and give a bad name to capitalism. But I must insist: It would be a non sequitur to give up on private entrepreneurs and financiers as the wellspring of dynamism merely because the fruits of their dynamism would likely be less than they could be in a less imperfect system. I conclude that capitalism is justified--normally by the expectable benefits to the lowest-paid workers but, failing that, by the injustice of depriving entrepreneurial types (as well as other creative people) of opportunities for their self-expression.

Mr. Phelps, the McVickar Professor of Political Economy at Columbia, was yesterday awarded the 2006 Nobel Prize for economics. Click here to read a selection of his previous articles from The Wall Street Journal.

Nobel prize for Economics: Edmund Phelps

So the Nobel Prize for Economics this year goes to Edmund Phelps for his explanation on inflation and unemployment.
Let me paste an article explaining his theory:

The 2006 Nobel Prize in Economics has been awarded to Edmund S. Phelps of Columbia University for his contributions to understanding the tradeoff between unemployment and inflation. Dr Phelps overturned the formerly accepted idea that inflation and unemployment are causally related.

In the 1950s and 1960s, policy economists virtually throughout the developed world came to believe that unemployment was influenced by inflation. This belief was based on the observed inverse correlation between the rate of inflation and the rate of unemployment: The higher the observed rate of inflation, the lower the unemployment rate. This relationship became known as the Phillips curve, after A. W. Phillips, the New Zealand economist who wrote the 1958 article that popularized this correlation.



Politicians in the 1950s and 1960s used the relationship to pick an acceptable level of unemployment and inflation. They adjusted taxes, public expenditure and interest rates to pick a desirable spot on the supposed unemployment and inflation trade-off.

Ultimately the relationship was to break down in the early 1970s, but before the facts proved its downfall, it had come under theoretical attack from Edmund Phelps and Milton Friedman in the late 1960s.

Prof Phelps was critical about the purely statistical nature of the Phillips curve, which was not grounded in economic theories of decisions made by people or companies. Nor was it related to any notion of stability in the labour market.

During the 1970s, politicians and policy makers tried to manipulate the perceived Phillips Curve relationship by pushing inflation higher in hopes that unemployment would thereby be reduced. In the event, however, that only set up a spiral of higher prices followed higher unemployment. Thus, the era of stagflation.

Edmund Phelps opposed this understanding of the Phillips Curve as simplistic, naïve, and without theoretical foundation.

Phelps challenged this view through a more fundamental analysis of the determination of wages and prices, taking into account problems of information in the economy. Individual agents have incomplete knowledge about the actions of others and must base their decisions on expectations. Phelps formulated the hypothesis of the expectations-augmented Phillips curve, according to which inflation depends on both unemployment and inflation expectations.

As a consequence, the long-run rate of unemployment is not affected by inflation but only determined by the functioning of the labor market. It follows that stabilization policy can only dampen short-term fluctuations in unemployment. Phelps showed how the possibilities of stabilization policy in the future depend on today's policy decisions: low inflation today leads to expectations of low inflation also in the future, thereby facilitating future policy making.

Dr Phelps’s macroeconomic model implies that inflation cannot have a lasting impact on unemployment. Rather, there exists a so-called “natural rate of unemployment” (more accurately called the “non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment”, or NAIRU). 1976 Nobel-Prize winner Milton Friedman also made important theoretical contributions to the development of the NAIRU concept.

Because the Phillips Curve justified government attempts to manipulate the economy, its invalidation by Phelps and Friedman was a major defeat for Keynesian macroeconomics. For that reason, perhaps, the New York Times seizes on a quote from Dr Phelps lamenting the very model for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize.

Mr. Phelps himself has become less than enchanted by his findings. “The ‘natural unemployment’ rate,” he said, “leaves people with the idea that there is no hope. It is an act of nature that cannot be repealed by man.”

I have to believe that the Times has quoted Dr Phelps out of context, for that statement is simply incorrect as it stands. Although the NAIRU is not altered by overall levels of taxing and spending, it can be influenced by microeconomic labour market policies, such as education and training programs and other incentives facing workers. It has also been shown to be related to unemployment benefits: the more generous the benefits, the higher the NAIRU. Many economists believe that Canada’s more generous benefits help explain why Canada’s unemployment rate is virtually always above that in the United States, indicating that Canada has a higher NAIRU.

Given that in Malaysia there is no unemployment benefit, whereby everybody has to work and participate in the economy OR starve, it would be natural that the NAIRU is very low, at 1-2%. Employers exploit that facts by offering low wages, and if there is no taker to the RM400 a month job on offer, they can approach Immigration Dept to apply for even cheaper foreign workers. (Cheap foreign workers is an illusion in my opinion, because you have to factor in the airfare cost, skill base in the economy and escalation in basic consumer demand that contribute to inflation.)

So the only solution for Malaysian workers is to upskill, and look for better job that pays more OR migrate.
And WHAT the Govt should do?
Invest in upskilling the labour force and some stabilization policies.

ke Enam

hey.. you read first.. I will try one of these days..

|
| || || | || |
| o_,_7 _|| . _o_7 _|| 4_|_|| o_w_, |
|( : / (_) / ( . |
|___________ _________ _________ _______|

More On Muawiyah

Here is more evidence on Muawiyah from the History and Hadith:

============ ====
On his Character
============ ====
al-Hasan al-Basri said:

Muawiyah had four flaws, and any one of them would have been a serious
offense:

1. His appointment of trouble makers for this community so that he
stole its rule without consultation with its members, while there
was a remnant of the Companions and possessors of virtue among
them.

2. His appointment of his son as his successor after him, a drunkard
and a winebibber who wears silk and plays tunburs.

3. His claim about Ziyad (as his son), while the Messenger of God
(PBUH&HF) has said: 'The child belongs to the bed, and the
adulterer should be stoned.'

4. His killing of Hujr and his companions. Woe unto him twice for Hujr
and his companions.

Sunni references :
- History of al-Tabari, English version, The Events of Year 51 AH, v8, p154
- History of Ibn al-Athir, v3, p242
- al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, by Ibn Kathir, v8, p130 who mentions the first
crime as: "His fighting Ali."
- History of Ibn Kathir, v3, p242
- Khilafat Mulukiyat, Syed Abul Ala Maududi, pp 165-166

Here is some background on the Tragedy of Hujr:

============ ========= =
Who was Hujr Ibn 'Adi?
============ ========= =
In an effort to eradicate freedom of _expression, Muawiyah started off with
the killing of Hujr, who was a famous Tabi'i and the respected Sahabi of
Imam Ali (AS). During the time of Muawiyah when Imam Ali (AS) was being
cursed from the pulpits of the mosques, it caused a lot of pain and grief
to the Muslims, but people were patient. However Hujr in Kufah could not
further bear this and in resistance Hujr used to praise Imam Ali (AS) and
curse Muawiyah. Mughairah who was the Governor of Kufah at that time was
considerate towards Hujr. However, during the Governership of Ziyad, when
Basra was also included with Kufah, differences emerged between Ziyad and
Hujr. Ziyad used to swear (say bad words) and Hujr used to reply to Ziyad.
During this period Hujr also corrected Ziyad when he delayed the Friday
Prayer. Eventually Hujr along with his twelve companions were arrested on
the following charges

- Hujr had organized a group and he used to swear at Muawiyah
- He instigates people to fight against Muawiyah
- He claims that the Caliphate belongs to Imam Ali and his
progeny (AS)
- He supports Abu Turab (nickname of Imam Ali (AS))
- He sends his blessings on Imam Ali (AS)

So under these charges, these personalities were sent to Muawiyah, and
Muawiyah ordered their killing. Before their execution, the executors said
to them:

We have been ordered that if you show negative feelings towards Ali
and curse him you shall be free to go, otherwise you shall have to die
(shall be killed).

Upon hearing this Hujr and his companions refused to do what they were
asked to do, and Hujr replied:

I can't utter those words from my tongue that would anger my Lord!

Following this they were killed, with the exception of Abdurrahman Ibn
Hassaan who was sent by Muawiyah to Ziyad with the order that Ziyad himself
should brutally kill him, and thereby, he was buried alive.

Sunni references :
- Histroy of al-Tabari, v4, pp 190-206
- al-Isti'ab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v1, p135
- History of Ibn Kathir, v3, pp 234-242
- al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, v8, pp 50-55
- History of Ibn Khaldoon, v3


============ ========= ========= ========
Reviving the Customs of the Jahiliyyah
============ ========= ========= ========
Amputations of the head and moving the heads from one place to another,
the mistreatment of the dead bodies out of sheer passion of revenge, that
was prevalent during the days of ignorance (al-Jahiliyyah) , started again
among the Muslims during this era.

Case 1:

The very first head that was amputated from the body during the
Islamic period was of Ammar Ibn Yasir (RA), the famous companion of
the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF). Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad
narrates a tradition as follows, that has also been mentioned in the
Tabaqat of Ibn Sa'd that:

In the Battle of Siffin, when the head of Ammar Yasir (RA) was
cut off and was taken to Muawiyah, two people were arguing over
it, each one claiming that he had killed Ammar.

Sunni references:
- Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Traditions #6538, #6929 Printed in Dar al-
Maarif, Egypt 1952
- al-Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd, v3, p253

Case 2:

The second head that was amputated from the body was for Umro Ibn al-
Hamaq, who was among the companions of the prophet (Allah's blessings
on him and his cleansed progeny). Muawiyah alleged that he has
participated in the assassination of Uthman. When efforts were carried
out for his arrest, he hid in a cave, where a snake bit him. The
people who were in his pursuit cut off the head from the dead body and
took it to Ziyad. He then sent it to Muawiyah in Damascus, where the
head was roamed around the city and was finally presented to his wife
in her lap.

Sunni references:
- al-Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd, v6, p25
- al-Isti'ab, v2, p440
- al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, v8, p48
- Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, v8, p24

Case 3:

The same atrocity was committed against Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr (RA) who
was the Governor for Imam Ali (AS) in Egypt. When Muawiyah captured
Egypt, he was arrested and was killed. His dead body was placed in a
belly of a dead donkey and then was brutally burnt.

Sunni references:
- al-Isti'ab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v1, p235
- History of al-Tabari, v4, p79
- History of Ibn Kathir, v3, p180
- History of Ibn Khaldoon, v2, p182

Case 4:

After this, it became a tradition for people who sought vengeance
after their enemies were killed. Imam Husain's (AS) head was
amputated, and was taken from Karbala to Kufah and from Kufah to
Damascus. The body of Imam Husain (AS) was brutally ruined by the
running of horses.

Sunni references
- History of al-Tabari, v4, pp 349-351,356
- History of Ibn Kathir, v3, pp 296-298
- al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, v8, pp 189-192


============ ========= ==
On Some of his Accounts
============ ========= ==
Jalaluddin al-Suyuti worte:

Ibn Asakir records on the authority of Hamid-b Hilal, that Akil the
son of Abu Talib begged of Ali and said , ' I am poor and needy,
therefore give unto me. ' He replied, ' wait untill my stipend cometh
with that of the other Muslims, and I will give unto thee with them,'
but he was importunate and Ali said to a man, ' take him by the hand
and go with him to the shops of the people of the market and say, '
break these locks and take what is in these shops, ' Akil said, ' dost
thou wish to make me a thief ?, ' Ali retorted, ' and dost thou wish
to make me a thief that I should take the property of the Muslims and
give it to thee, and not to them ?. ' He answered, ' I shall assuredly
go to Muawiya. ' He replied,' that as thou wilest, ' and he went to
Muawiya and begged of him, and he gave him a hundred thousand dirhams
and said, ' get up on the pulpit and mention what Ali hath given to
thee and what I have fiven thee.' Then he mounted, and praised God
and glorified him, and said,


O people I tell ye, verily I tempted Ali in regard to his
religion and he preferred his religion, and verily I tempted
^^^^^^^^^
Muawiyah in regard to his religion and he preferred me to his
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^!!!!!! !!! ^^^^^^^^^
religion.
^^^^^^^^^

Sunni refernce: History of the Caliphs, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, English
version, p208


al-Suyuti also recorded:

al-Sha'abi said that the first who preached seated to the people was
Muawiyah and that was when his flesh had increased and his stomach had
grown large. (Recorded by Ibn Abi Shaybah). Az Zuhri states that
Muawiya was the first who introduced the discourse before prayers on
the Eid. (Abdur Razzaq in his Musannaf). And Said-b-ul Musayyab says
that he was the first who introduced the call to prayers on the Eid,
(Ibn Abi Shaybah), and he who diminished the number of Takbirs.

Sunni refernce: History of the Caliphs, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, English
version, p204


============ ========= =
Raising Quran on Spear
============ ========= =
In addition to the atrocities commited by Muawiyah, perhaps his act of
raising the Quran on the spear against Imam Ali (AS) in the Battle of
Siffin undoubtedly reflects on his character as a ruler, a person that
would resort to any means to make his plan a success. He played with the
book of Allah in order to deceive the naive people. As a result of this
trick, al-Khawarij (those who believed Imam Ali is politheist and
unbeliever) emerged in the history of Islam.

Ibn Sa'd reports a tradition from al-Zuhri that:

At the eve of the Battle of Siffin when fight was at it's peak and
people had started to loose hope, Amr Ibn al-Aas said to Muawiyah:
Accept my proposal and order the people (i.e., army of Muawiyah) to
open the Quran (i.e., raise the Quran on spears) and say, O people of
Iraq, we call you towards the Quran, and we decide by virtue of what
is contained in it from al-Hamd to al-Naas.

This act will create dissension in the ranks and file of the Iraqis
and will create hopes for the people of Shaam. Thereby Muawiyah
accpeted his proposal. (to do as he said).

Sunni references:
- Tabaqat of Ibn Sa'd, v4, p255 as per
- Khilafat Mulikiyat, Abul Ala Maududi, p345

The same fact has been mentioned in great detail by al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir,
Ibn al-Athir, and Ibn Khaldoon. The purpose behind the propsal was to
create dissension in the ranks and file of Imam Ali's (as) army, and even
if they accept the proposal (of calling towards the Quran), Muawiya's army
would manage to buy time to delay the battle.

Sunni references:
- History of al-Tabari, v4, p34
- al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, by Ibn Katir, v7, p272
- Histoty of Ibn al-Athir, v3, p160
- History of Ibn Khaldoon, v2, p174
- Khilafat Mulukiyat, Maududi, p345


============ ========= ========= ========= =========
Muawiyah and the Origin of the word "al-Jama'ah"
============ ========= ========= ========= =========
al-Tabari recorded that:

Sajah remained with Banu Taghlib untill Muawiya transferred them in
his days on the "year of the union (al-Jama'ah) ". When the people of
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
Iraq agreed [to recognize] Muawiyah [as caliph] after Ali, Muawiyah
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^
took to expelling from al-Kufa those who had been vehement in the
cause of Ali, and to settle in their homes those people of Syrai and
al-Basrah and the Jazirah who were most vehement in his own cause; it
was they who were called the "transfers" in the garrison towns.

[ The translator of the work writes in reference to the year of the
union as follows: ]

Aam al-Jama'ah the year 40 A.H/A.D 660-661, so called because the
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
Muslim Community came together in recognizing Muawiyah, ending the
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
political division of the first civil war. Pace Caetani, 648; see Abu
Zahrah al-Dimashqi, Tarikh, 188 (no. 101) and 190 (no. 105)


Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v10, p97

Jalaluddin al-Suyuti mentions this very fact, with the utmost clarity in
his work, History of the Caliphs (Tarikhul Khulafa) with the following
words:

al-Dhahabi says that Ka'ab died before Muawiyah was made caliph, and
that Ka'ab was right in what he said, for Muawiyah continued for
twenty years, and none of the princess of the earth contended with
him, unlike others who came after him, for they had opponents and
portions of their dominions passed out of their sway. Muawiyah went
forth against Ali as has preceded, and assumed the title of Caliph.
Then he marched against al-Hasan, who abdicted in his favor. He
therefore became firmly eshtablished in his Caliphate from Rabi'iul
Akhir or Jumadal Awwal 41 AH. The year was therefore called the Year
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
of the Union (al-Jama'ah) , on account of the gathering of the people
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^
under one Caliph. During this year Muawiyah appointed Marwan Ibn al-
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
Hakam over Medina.

Sunni refernce: History of the Caliphs, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, English
version, p204 (Chapter of Muawiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan)

============ ========= ===
The Scribe of Revelation
============ ========= ===
A a pro-Umayad mentioned that:

Muawiyah was a scribe of the revelation. Is your character judgement
better then that of the Prophet?

In the previous parts, I have given the opinion of the Prophet (PBUH&HF)
about those who will fight Ahlul-Bayt based of the most authentic Sunni
collections of the traditions. According to the opinion of the Prophet,
such people were hypocrites and infidels.

Muawiyah and his father Abu Sufyan were among those who fought the Prophet
till last minutes and when they found that Mecca will be captured shortly
and their turn is over, they decided to go under the guise of Islam to save
their life and to destroy Islam from inside. This is what Abu Sufyan, his
son Muawiyah and his grandson Yazid were trying to achieve every day and
night. Now they suddenly became the Scribe of Revelation! Here is the
reason behind it:

>From the time the Caliphate fell into the hands of the Umayad, they strove
to distort the truth and turn everything head over heels. They, thus,
elevated to the zenith of power people who were, during the life of the
Prophet (PBUH&HF), ordinary, with no special standing, while they ignored
others who were at the peak of honor and nobility during the lifetime of
the Prophet (PBUH&HF).

Their sole criterion in for honor and dishonor, was their intense enmity
and excessive hatred for Muhammad (PBUH&HF) and the members of his
household, Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan and al-Husain, peace be upon them. The
Umayad elevated the status, and fabricated false traditions, on the merits
of every person who opposed the Prophet (PBUH&HF) and his Ahlul-Bayt whom
Allah has purified and from whom He removed all abomination in Quran. They
sought nearness to those who opposed the Prophet, accorded them high
positions and grants so that they enjoyed favors and respect among the
populace. They sought to denigrate, fabricate defects, falsify reports that
denied the superiority and merits of anyone who used to love the Prophet
(PBUH&HF) and would defend him.

Thus Umar Ibn al-Khattab, who used to dispute every command of the Prophet
of Allah (PBUH&HF), even accusing the latter of hallucination in his last
days, became the hero of Islam amongst the Muslims during the time of the
Umayad dynasty.

On the other hand, Ali Ibn Abi Talib who was, to him, what Aaron was to
Moses, and who loved him, and who was loved by Allah and His Prophet, he
who was the guardian of every believer, was cursed from the pulpits for
eighty years. The effect of false propaganda reached to the point that when
the news of assassination of Imam Ali (AS) during the Fajr prayer in Mosque
reached to the people of Syria, they were surprised and asked if Ali used
to pray!

Similarly Aisha, who caused the Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF) much torment and
disobeyed his instructions and the instructions of her Lord, rose against
the successor of the Messenger of Allah and caused the worst strife known
to the Muslims, a strife which resulted in the death of thousands of
Muslims, became the most famous lady in Islam, with religious rulings being
accepted from her. But Fatimah al-Zahra, the leader of the women of this
world and the world after, she for whom the Lord gets angry if she becomes
angry, and she for whom the Lord is happy when she is happy, became a
forgotten woman, and was buried in the secrecy of the night, after they had
threatened to burn her, and after they forced the door of her house against
her stomach, causing her to lose her child. You can hardly find one amongst
Sunnis who knows a single Hadith which she reported from her father. This
is while their books are replete with the traditions of Aisha simply
because she was the only woman who fought Imam Ali (AS).

Similarly, Yazid Ibn Muawiyah, Ziyad, the son of his father, Ibn Marjanah,
Marwan, al-Hajjaj, Ibn al-Aas, and others from the accursed tree mentioned
in Quran, and who were cursed by the tongue of the Prophet (PBUH&HF), they
became the commanders of the believers and the guardians of their affairs.
As for al-Hasan and al-Husain, the masters of the youths of paradise, the
delights of the Prophet of this nation, the Imams from the progeny of the
Prophet (PBUH&HF), the custodians of this Ummah, they were banished,
imprisoned, murdered, and poisoned. In this way, Abu Sufyan the hypocrite,
the leader in every battle that was waged against the Prophet, came to be
praised and thanked. As for Abu Talib, the protector and defender of the
Prophet (PBUH&HF) with all that he had, who passed his life in hostility
with his people and relatives for the sake of his nephew's call, so much so
that he spent three years in the enclave with the Prophet in the valley of
Mecca, keeping his belief secret, for the benefit of Islam, that some
bridges remained still open with the Quraish and so that they would not
persecute the Muslims as they wished (he was like the believer from the
family of Pharaoh who hid his belief; see Quran 40:28), Abu Talib's alleged
reward turns out to be a pair of slippers in the hellfire, his feet placed
into it and his brain is popping out from the pain!!!

In this way, Mu'awiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan, who was the freed man, son of the
freed man, the accursed one, and the son of an accursed one, he who used to
play with the injunctions of Allah and His Prophet, not attaching any
importance to it, he who used to murder the upright and innocent ones so as
to pursue his vile goals and would revile the Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF)
while the Muslims would see and hear, became known as the scribe of
revelation!! ! They say that Allah entrusted His revelation to Gabriel,
Muhammad and Muawiyah. He also came to be described as a man of wisdom,
political acumen and reflection.

As for Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, the earth did not carry nor the sky did put
its shadow on anyone more truthful in speech than him; he was treated as
a mischief monger. He was beaten, exiled and banished to Rabdha. Salman,
Miqdad, Ammar and Hudaifah and all the sincere companions who took Imam Ali
as their leader and followed him, they met with punishment, banishment and
murder.

Similarly, those who followed the school of the Caliphs, the followers of
Muawiyah and the companions of the schools founded by the tyrannical
rulers, they turned out to be Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama'a and they represented
Islam. Whoever opposed them was judged to be a disbeliever.

As for those who followed the school of the Ahlul-Bayt and followed the
gate to the city of knowledge and the first one to accept Islam, he whom
the truth revolved around wherever he was, those who followed the Ahlul-
Bayt and the infallible Imams came to be considered as the people of
innovation and misguidance, and whoever opposed and fought against them
came to be seen as a Muslim.

Surely there is no power and no strength except with Allah, the Highest,
and the most Powerful. Allah surely spoke the truth when He said:

"If it is said to them; 'Make not any mischief on earth', they say:
'We are the righteous ones'. Certainly they are indeed the corrupt
ones but they do not realize it. And if it is said to them: 'Believe
as other people have believed' they say: 'Shall we believe as the
stupid ones believe'? They are the stupid ones, though they know it
not.'" (Quran 2:13)

************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********
============ ==
A Side Comment
============ ==
A brother mentioned that one may kill another with good intention and with
love towrd each other and both (the killer and the killed one) would go to
Paradise. We have the example of Prophet Abraham (Ibrahim) who recieved
commandment to kill his son, Ismail, though it was just a test and Allah
wanted to test both of them, and finally they slaughtered a ship by Allah's
command.

The above incedent is true. However, there is a falacy hiden in the above
argument. Abraham (AS) was a prophet and the order (to sacrifice his
son) was given by God through revelation. Also he did not FIGHT with
Isma'il, nor Ismail FOUGHT back. It was the order of Allah, and both father
and son were SUBMESSIVE to that. There was NO dispute between them.

But let me ask you this question: Did Talha and Zubair received revelation
from God to kill people? Did Quran tell them to fight against their
legitimate Caliph? If so, why not against the first three Caliphs?

Did Muawiyah and Marwan received revelation of ordering people to curse
Imam Ali (AS) and make it a popular habit of people? ... And finally, they
slaughtered the whole household of Prophet (PBUH&HF) including his beloved
son (grandson) in the same way. Do You believe when somebody is ready to
kill the whole house-hold of prophet, he refrains or is afraid of cursing
them? LA WALLAH ...

- Is cursing Imam Ali a sign of love and good intention?
- Is shedding the blood of thousands of innocent Muslims a sign of
affection and obedience to Allah?
- Is erdicating the houshold of the Prophet a sign of love toward them?

ke Lima

| |
| || || | || |
| o_,_7 _|| . _o_7 _|| 4_|_|| o_w_, |
|( : / (_) / ( . |
|___________ _________ _________ _______|

Muawiyah and Abusing Imam Ali (AS)

============ ========= ========= =======
What the Prophet said about those who
fight, hate, or abuse his Ahlul-Bayt
============ ========= ========= =======
The Messenger of Allah said:

"Loving Ali is the sign of belief, and hating Ali is the sign of
hypocrasy."
^^^^^^^^^

Sunni references:
- Sahih Muslim, v1, p48;
- Sahih Tirmidhi, v5, p643;
- Sunan Ibn Majah, v1, p142;
- Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal v1, pp 84,95,128
- Tarikh al-Kabir, by al-Bukhari (the author of Sahih), v1, part 1, p202
- Hilyatul Awliya', by Abu Nu'aym, v4, p185
- Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v14, p462

This tradition of Prophet was popular to the extent that some of the
companions used to say:

"We recognized the hypocrites by their hatred of Ali."

Sunni references:
- Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p639, Tradition #1086
- al-Istiab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, p47
- al-Riyad al-Nadirah, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, v3, p242
- Dhakha'ir al-Uqba, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, p91


Also Muslim in his Sahih narrated on the authority of Zirr that:

Ali (RA) said: By him who split up the seed and created something
living, the Apostle (may peace and blessing be upon him) gave me a
promise that no one but a believer would love me, and none but a
hypocrite would nurse grudge against me.

- Sahih Muslim, English version, Chapter XXXIV, p46, Tradition #141


Abu Huraira narrated:

The Prophet (PBUH&HF) looked toward Ali, al-Hasan, al-Husain, and
Fatimah, and said: "I am in the state of war with those who will fight
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^
you, and in the state of peace with those who are peaceful to you."
^^^

Sunni references:
(1) Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, p699
(2) Sunan Ibn Majah, v1, p52
(3) Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p767, Tradition #1350
(4) al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p149
(5) Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v9, p169
(6) al-Kabir, by Tabarani, v3, p30, also in al-Awsat
(7) Jamius Saghir, by al-Ibani, v2, p17
(8) Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v7, p137
(9) Sawai'q al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p221
(10) Talkhis, by al-Dhahabi, v3, p149
(11) Dhakha'ir al-Uqba, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, p25
(12) Mishkat al-Masabih, by Khatib al-Tabrizi, English Version, Tdadition #6145
(13) Others such as Ibn Habban, etc.

It is the well-known fact in the history that Muawiyah fought Imam Ali
(AS). And based on the above tradition of the Prophet(PBUH&HF) the
Prophet has declared war on Muawiyah. How can we still love a person whom
the Prophet has declared war on him?

The Messenger of Allah said:

"Whoever hurts Ali, has hurt me"

Sunni references:
- Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, p483
- Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, p580, Tradition #981
- Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v9, p129
- al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p263
- Ibn Habban, Ibn Abd al-Barr, etc.

The Messenger of Allah said:

"Whoever reviles/curses Ali, has reviled/cursed me"

Sunni reference:
- al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p121, who mentioned this tradition is
Authentic.
- Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p323
- Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, p594, Tradition #1011
- Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v9, p130
- Mishkat al-Masabih, English version, Tradition #6092
- Tarikh al-Khulafa, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, p173
- and many others such as Tabarani, Abu Ya'la, etc.

============ ========= ========= ========= ========
Muawiyah Instituting the curse of Imam Ali (AS)
============ ========= ========= ========= ========
Muawiyah not only fought Imam Ali, he cursed Imam Ali as well. Furthermore,
he did force/make everybody to curse Ali (AS). To prove it, we begin with
Sahih Muslim:

Narrated Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas:

Muawiyah, the son of Abu Sufyan, give order to Sa'd, and told him:
"What prevents you that you are refraining from cursing Abu Turab
(nickname of Ali)?" Sa'd replied: "Don't you remember that the Prophet
said three things about (the virtue of) Ali? So I will never curse
Ali."

Sunni reference: Sahih Muslim, Chapter of Virtues of Companions, Section of
Virtues of Ali, Arabic, v4, p1871, Tradition #32.

For the English version of Sahih Muslim, see Chapter CMXCVI, p1284,
Tradition #5916

/ . | || : . | | . | : | |
(_)_e_,_o |_o ||_o_9 |]_e_w . |_,_9_w _,| . _, 4_, q |_e_o _o |
(_| (_) : (_S. (_). : / /

| ^ | | ^ .. / . | | | || : . | : || | | : |
|_, |_|_, .__, _) > |_o |_o | ||_o_9 .__,| _,_|| |_,| .__,_w_, . |
/ (_| . / . . (_)

| | . | || | | || :
4_,_w | . _|_9 4_|_|| | q_w 4_| . _8_||_o
. (_) (_| / / (_)


The above tradition, by the way, indicates that Muawiyah was surprised why
Sa'd does not follow his order of cursing Ali, like others do. This shows
that cursing Ali was a habit (Sunnah) for people at that time. Who made
this Sunnah? Was it Ali, or those who fought him? Now, who fought against
Ali? Wasn't he Muawiyah (the beloved companion of Wahhabis)? So this
implies that Muawiyah did innovate that habit (cursing Ali as Sunnah).

Below is more references in Sahih Muslim about Sunnah cursing Imam Ali
(AS), to prove that people were urged/forced to curse Ali in public,
otherwise they would face a costly sentence. It is narrated on the
authority of Abu Hazim that:

The Governor of Medina who was one of the members of the house of
Marwan called Sahl Ibn Sa'd, and ordered him to curse Ali. But Sahl
refused to do so. The governor said: "If you don't want to curse Ali,
just say God curse Abu Turab (the nickname of Ali)." Sahl said: "Ali
did not like any name for himself better than Abu Turab, and Ali used
to become very happy when somebody would call him Abu Turab."

Sunni reference: Sahih Muslim, Chapter of Virtues of Companions, Section of
Virtues of Ali, Arabic version, v4, p1874, Tradition #38.

Here is the Arabic text of the above tradition given by Sahih Muslim:

| | T | : . || | | : |
. | q _o | | . _o |_7 4_,_, ]_o_|| _|_c |_o_e_,_w |
(_) / / (_| (_) (_|. / : (_S (_|

| | : ^ | | . | | .
|_,_|_c o_,_w_, . | o _o |_9 ]_e_w . _, |_8_w |_c ]_9
: ( : (_) / (_). (_|

| || | | : . .. | . | | | | || : . | | .
4_|_|| . _e_| |_o_9 .__,_,_,| > | |_o | 4_| ||_o_9 |_8_w _,|_9
(_) (_| : . (_| (_| (_S.

|| | | | | /| | || : . | : ||| |
4_,_|| .__,_7| o_w | _|_e_, . |_)|_o |_8_w ||_o_9 .__,| _,_|||_,|
: . ( (_S . (_) (_| (_| . / .

| | . | . | | / | | : || |
|_8_, _c > | > | _7 _9_,_| . |_) . | q .__,| _,_|| _,| . _o
. (_S (_ / : (_) (_) / . / (_S. (_)


Cursing Imam Ali (AS) was an order from the beginning of Muawiyah's reign
for 65 years. He was Umar Ibn Abdil Aziz (may Allah be easy with him) who
canceled this order after more than half a century. Some historians even
believe that the Umayyah descendants themselves killed (poisoned) Umar Ibn
Abdil Aziz, because he changed their Sunnah, one of which was cursing Ali.
(See the Sunni book entitled "History of the Saracens," by Amir Ali,
Chapter X, pp 126-127).

One of the ugliest innovations that started during the reign of Muawiyah
was that Muawiyah himself, and through his order to his Governors, they
used to insult Imam Ali (AS) during the Sermons in the Mosques. This was
even done on the pulpit of the mosque of the Prophet in Medina in front of
the grave of the Prophet Muhammad (May Allah bless him and his Progeny),
so that even the dearest Companions of the Prophet (PBUH&HF), and Imam Ali
(AS), his family and his near relatives used to hear these swears with
their ears.

Sunni references :
- History of al-Tabari, v4, p188
- History of Ibn Kathir, v3, p234; v4, p154
- al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, v8, p259; v9, p80

On insulting Ali Ibn Abi Talib and cursing him during the Umayah period
starting in Muawiyah's reign, it is reported that:

"Ali Ibn Abi Talib (ra) was cursed on the pulpits (manabir) of the
east and west...", during the time of Muawiyah.

Sunni reference: Mu'jam al-Buldan, al-Hamawi, v5, p38

In her letter, Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) wrote to
Muawiyah: "...You are cursing Allah and His messenger on your minbar,
and that is because you are cursing Ali Ibn Abi Talib and whomever
loves him, and I am a witness that Allah and His messengerloved him."
But no one paid any attention to what she said.

Sunni reference: al-Aqd al-Fareed, v2, p300

"That it was in the days of Bani Umayyah, more than seventy thousand
minbar (in mosques) upon which they cursed Ali Ibn Abi-Talib, in some
of what Muawiyah made a Sunnah for them."

Sunni references:
- Rabeea' al-Abrar, al-Zamakhshari
- al-Hafidh Jalaluddin al-Suyuti


al-Shaikh Ahmad al-Hafdhi al-Shafi'i, composed 9 verses of poetry expanding
on what al-Suyuti has reported in the previous quote, I translated the
first three verses:

And Shaikh al-Suyuti told:
That it was what they made into a "Sunnah".
Seventy thousand mibar plus ten
from the top of which they cursed Haydara (Ali).
And next to this the greatest (sins) look small,
but blame ought to be directed.

Let us now see the opinion of the son of Yazid about his father and
his grandfather, who was the witness from within the royal family!

...When (Yazid) offered the kingdom (throne) to his son, Muawiyah the
second, in order that the flag of caliphate continues to wave in the
house of Abi Sufyan!!

After his death, Muawiyah the second, gathered the people on a well
known day, he stood in them preaching, he said:

"My grandfather Muawiyah stripped the command from those who deserved
it, and from one who is more justified of it, for his relation to the
Messenger of Allah and his being first in Islam, and that is Ali Ibn
Abi Talib, he (Muawiyah) took over it by your help as you are fully
aware."

"Then following it my father Yazid wore the command after him, and he
did not deserve it. He quarreled with the son of the daughter of the
Messenger of Allah, and by that he shortened his own life... He rode
his whim and hope left him behind." Then he cried and continued:

"Surely, the greatest problems of us is our knowledge of his bad
behavior and his awful ending, and that he killed the progeny (Itrah)
of the Messenger of Allah, and he permitted drinking alcohol, and he
fought in the sanctuary of Mecca, and destroyed the Ka'ba."

"And I am not the one who is dressing up for your command, nor the one
to be responsible for your followers... You choose for yourselves.. !!"

Sunni references:
- Khulafaa al-Rasool, by Khalid Mohammed Khalid, p531 (The above quote
includes author's punctuation. )
- Sawaiq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of Ch. 11, pp 336


Muawiyah and Yazid murdering Imam al-Hasan Ibn Ali (AS) by poison,
reported by many, here are a few Sunni references:

1. Tathkarat al-Khawass, Sibt ibn al-Jawzi al-Hanafi, pp 191-194.
2. Ibn Abd al-Barr, in his "Seera"
3. al-Suddi
4. al-Sha'bi
5. Abu Nu'aym


No reference is required that Yazid and his gang murdered the other son of
Ali Ibn Abi Talib, the grandson of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH): Imam al-
Husain (AS) along with 70+ of his family members and loyals.

More Sunni references on the mischief of Muawiyah:

It is reported from Abdullah, son of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal saying:

I asked my father about Ali and Muawiyah. He (Ahmad Ibn Hanbal)
answered: "Know that Ali had a lot of enemies who tried hard to find a
fault in him, but they found it not. As such, they joined a man (i.e.,
Muawiyah, as given in the footnotes) who verily fought him battled
him, and they praised him (Muawiyah) extravagantly setting a snare for
themselves for him.

Sunni references:
- al-Toyuriyyat, by al-Salafi, from Abdullah Ibn Ahmad Hanbal
- al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar, Ch. 9, section 4, p197
- History of the Caliphs, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, English version, p202

al-Tabari reported:

When Muawiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan put al-Mughairah Ibn Shubah in charge of
Kufah in Jumada 41 (September 2- October 30, 661), he summoned him.
After praising and glorifying God, he said:

"Now then, indeed a forbearing person has been admonished in the
past... The wise might do what you want without instruction. Although
I have wanted to advise you about many things, I left them alone,
trusting in your discernment of what pleases me, what helps my regime
and what sets my subjects [raiyyah] on the right path. I would
continue to advise you about a quality of yours- do not refrain from
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
abusing Ali and criticizing him, not from asking God's mercy upon
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^
Uthman and His forgiveness for him. Continue to shame the companions
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^
of Ali, keep at a distance, and don't listen to them. Praise the
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
faction of Uthman, bring them near, and listen to them."

Sunni reference: History of Tabari, English version, events of year 51 AH,
Execution of Hujr Ibn Adi, v18, pp 122-123

Also:

The Messenger of Muawiyah then came to them with orders to release six
and to kill eight, telling them:
We have been ordered to let you disavow Ali and curse him. If you do
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
so, we shall release you, and if you refuse, we shall kill you.
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
Sunni reference: History of Tabari, English version, events of year 51 AH,
v18, p149


More from Sahih Muslim:

Allah's messenger (PBUH) said to Ammar: "A group of rebels would kill
you."

- Sahih Muslim, English version, v4, chapter MCCV, Tradition #6968

Also:

Umm Salama narrated that Allah's messenger (may peace be upon him)
said: "A band of rebels would kill Ammar."

- Sahih Muslim, English version, v4, chapter MCCV, Tradition #6970

Do you know that Ammar, the great companion of the Prophet was martyred in
the battle of Siffin by Muawiyah soldiers, at the age of ninety-three? Is
it clear, now, that The gang of Muawiyah were rebels? Do you know what is
the sentence of rebels (Taghee) mentioned in Quran?

It is interesting to see that the English translator of Sahih Muslim (Abdul
Hamid Siddiqui) has written in the footnote of the above traditions that:

This narration is clearly indicative of the fact that in the conflict
between Hadrat Ali and his opponents, Hadrat Ali was on the right as
Ammar Ibn Yasir was killed in the Battle of Siffin fighting in the
camp of Hadrat Ali. (Footnote of Sahih Muslim, English version, v4,
p1508).

Do I need to comment?!

The very first head that was amputated from the body during the Islamic
period was of Ammar Ibn Yasir (RA). Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad
narrates a tradition which has also been mentioned in the
Tabaqat of Ibn Sa'd, and is as follows:

"In the Battle of Sifin, when the head of Ammar Yasir (RA) was cut
off and taken to Muawiyya, two people were arguing over it, each one
claimed that he had killed Ammar."

Sunni references:
- Musnad Ahmad (Pub. in Dar al-Maarif, Egypt 1952), Tradition #6538, #6929
- Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd, v3, p253

Finally, I would like to finish this article by the following two
traditions:

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: If one while praying between
the Rukn and Maqam (near Ka'bah) and fasting, dies but with the hate
of the family of Muhammad, he will enter the Fire. And he who abuses
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
my Ahlul-Bayt is verily an apostate and is driven out of Islam. And he
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
who inflicts pain on my progeny upon him is the curse of Allah. And he
who hurts me by hurting my progeny has verily hurt/angered Allah.
Certainly Allah has made Paradise forbidden to he who does injustice
to my Ahlul-Bayt, or kills them, or assists against them, or abuses
them.

Sunni reference: al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11,
p357 who said this tradition is authentic.
Also:

The Messenger of Allah said: "Whoever curses (or verbally abuses) Ali,
he has, in fact, cursed me, and whoever has cursed me, he has cursed
Allah, and whoever has cursed Allah, then Allah will throw him into
the Hell-fire."

Sunni reference: Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p33


Thus Muawiyah and his associates were, in fact, cursing the Prophet
(PBUH&HF), and by cursing the Prophet, they were cursing Allah (SWT), and
by cursing Allah, they shall enter the hellfire! By Allah, they will be
asked to account for what they've said! That is a promise by Allah (SWT)
which He shall not break!

"And do not think Allah to be heedless of what the unjust do; He only
respites them upto a day on which the eyes will be fixedly open."
(Quran 14:42)

Wassalam

ke Empat dalam Siri

this far, and I still hasnt read any of it....

| || || | || |
| o_,_7 _|| . _o_7 _|| 4_|_|| o_w_, |
|( : / (_) / ( . |
|___________ _________ _________ _______|

Developement of History and Hadith Collections

Let us read the following tradition very carefully and judge for ourselves
if we can ever give a possibility that such words have been uttered by the
messenger of Allah. The tradition is in Sahih Muslim, and is written in the
section of necessity of joining to the majority of people, and is as
follows:

Narrated Hudayfh Ibn al-Yaman:

Prophet said: "There will come rulers after me who do not guide to
my guidance and do not practice my Sunnah, and the hearts of some
them are the hearts of Satans but they are in the body of human."
I said: "What should we do at that time?" Prophet (PBUH) said:
"You should just listen to them and obey those rulers. No matter if
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
the hurt you and take your wealth, you should follow them and obey
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
them."

Sunni reference: Sahih Muslim, Chapter of al-Imaarah (chapter 33 for the
Arabic version), Section of necessity of joining the majority,
1980 Edition, Arabic version (Saudi Arabia), v3, p1476, Tradition #52.

This is the Arabic text of the above tradition narrated by Sahih Muslim:

| : | | : @ | / | | :
q |]_8_, . q ]_,_8_, |_| 4_o_, | ]_e_, . q_)_, | |_o
/ (_S . (_) / : (_S . (_) / : (_|

| : || . : : . . : | |
o_8_,q_|_o ||_7 o_8_,_9 o q_o_,_w q _,_,_w_, . q_,_,_w_, |_|
( . / (_| . / ( : ( / : / (_S . (_) / :

.. | : . | | ^ . | | ^ || | :
.__,_|_o w_, | . |_o_,_7 _9 . _,_D |_,_w_|| .__,q_|_o
(_/ (_) . (_S (_): : . /

/ |. .. / | | | || | | . | . /
? (_)_|> .__,_) > | . | 4_|_|| | q_w |_, e_,,_p | .__9_,_)
/ (_) (_| / / : (_ :

/ |. . | | | | | : : | | :
(_) _8_D .__, _,_p . | q _,_o |_|_| e_,_D_, q e_o_w_, | |_o
/ . / (_) / /: (_: / (_ (_|

| | | . / || . . |
e_D | q e_o_w |_9 (_)_||_o ]_7 | q
(_ / (_ /

The above was just one example. There are more than 12 traditions similar
to this in the same section of Sahih Muslim. Who sold such traditions as
Sahih (authentic) to us? Aren't they those who wanted to make their kingdom
strong and away from any possible opposition? Any complaint is against the
above alleged word of prophet, and those people are sentenced to death. In
another tradition in the following section in Sahih Muslim, prophet has
ordered to kill those who disobey these unjust rulers. Let us see where the
origins of these books are, and who controlled the writing of them.

Muawiyah was the first one who turned his attention to write the history
and collecting the fabricated Hadiths (traditions) . He got a history of the
ancients written by a person in the name of Ubayd whom he called him from
Yemen.

Marwan who had been exiled by the Prophet for his anti-Islamic
activities and who had a great influence with Uthman, was the implacable
foe of Ali. His son, Abdul Malik ascended the throne in year 65 AH,
reestablished himself in year 73, and died in year 86. Abdul Malik was the
one under whose funding finally a set of Islamic History, Hadith
(tradition), and Tafsir (interpretation of the Quran) was provided.

al-Zuhri was the first historian who wrote the history of Islam under the
direct order and fund of Abdul Malik. He also wrote Hadith collection. The
works of al-Zuhri was one of the main source for al-Bukhari. al-Zuhri was
attached to the royal family of Abdul Malik, and was the tutor of his sons.
(See "al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah, " by Shibli who is a great Sunni historian,
part I, pp.13-17).

Among the students of al-Zuhri, two persons, namely Musa Ibn Uqbah, and
Mohammad Ibn Ishaq became famous historians. The former was a slave of the
house of Zubair. Although his history is not available today, it had been
the most popular work on history for a long time. You will find its
references in many history books on different subjects.

The second student, Mohammad Ibn Ishaq is the most famous historian for
Sunnis. His biography of the Prophet, called "Sirah Rasul Allah", is still
the accredited authority on the subject in the shape that was given to it
by Ibn Hisham, and is known as "al-Sirah of Ibn Hisham".

al-Zuhri is the first who compiled the Hadith also. (See "al-Sirah al-
Nabawiyyah," by Shibli, part I, pp.13-17). All Sunni History and Hadith
books written afterwards by other people were in great influence of these
works.

The above gives evidence to the following facts:

1- Sunni Hadith and History books were first compiled under the
direct order of Umayyah Kings,
2- The first authors were al-Zuhri, and his two students Musa and
Mohammad Ibn Ishaq,
3- These authors were attached to the royal family of the Umayyah
kings.

The hatred of the house of Umayyah against Bani Hashim (the house of
Prophet and Ali) is well-known. The wars of Abu Sufyan and his son Muawiyah
against Prophet and Ali respectively, also the horrible massacre of the
grandson of prophet at Karbala by the grandson of Abu Sufyan, are only some
of top items among the long list of such crimes. These are the criminals
who FIRST wrote the history and Hadith books. (The books written afterwards
by other people were in great influence of these works.) They fabricated
many traditions to justify their deeds, and to say that prophet has
ordered us to obey them even if they are unjust. What I quoted above was
just one example of such traditions.

Who was the first one that used the term "Ahlussunnah and al-Jama'ah"?

If one searches through the history books, he will find that they agreed to
call the year in which Muawiyah seized the power as "The Year of al-
Jama'ah" meaning the majority of people. It was called so, because the
nation had already become divided into two factions after the death of
Uthman: The Shia of Ali and the followers of Muawiyah. When Imam Ali (AS)
was martyred and Muawiyah took over the power, the year was called "al-
Jama'ah". Out of these two parties, the majority leading by Muawiyah won
the throne, and the other party was considered as a dangerous rival.
Therefore the name of "Ahl al-Sunnah and al-Jama'ah" indicates the Sunnah
of Prophet merged by the innovations by Muawiyah, and the agreement on his
leadership.

The Imams and members of Ahlul-Bayt who are the descendants of the Prophet,
know more than anybody else about the Sunnah of their grandfather and what
it entails, for as the proverb goes: "The people of Mecca know its paths
better than anyone else". But the majority of people did/do not follow the
12 Imams whom prophet has mentioned their numbers (see Sahih al-Bukhari)
and their names (see Sunni books like "Yanabi'ul Mawaddah" by al-Qunduzi
al-Hanafi). Despite the acknowledgment of al-Bukhari and Muslim about 12
Imams, they always stop at the four Caliphs.

============ ========= ========= ====
Shia/Sunni and Scrutinizing Hadith
============ ========= ========= ====
One major difference between the Shia and the Sunnis is that Sunnis accept
any tradition from any companions no matter if these companions fought each
other, abused each other, rebelled against their righteous Caliph, and or
innovate new things in to the religion. The Shia, however, believe that all
the narrators in the chain of a document should have been JUST. If they
have done any injustice in the history (such as those mentioned above)
their narrations are void for us unless the same tradition has been
narrated with another chain of narrators who all of them are proven to be
trustworthy.

One of the Wahhabi friends said that Shia, when narrating a Hadith, only
say the Imam so and so said, one of our friends said...Now how we can
authenticise the Hadith?

If a person has heard something directly from the 12 Imams, and that person
is trustworthy for the Shia and his narration is not against Quran, then
the tradition is authentic for us, since we believe in the
infallibility of Imams as well as Prophets. The knowledge of Imam has been
derived from the knowledge of their fathers and forefathers up to the
Prophet (PBUH&HF).

However, the chain of narrators should be evaluated. If the chain turns out
to be broken (i.e., one element in the chain is missing), then the
tradition is considered weak in Isnad. Thus all the narrators should be
named, and this is the case for the majority of Shi'i collections of
traditions.

Nevertheless, there are only a number of traditions in Usul Kafi in which
the last element in the chain is missing, i.e., the name of the person who
reported to Kulaini in person. In stead of mentioning his name, Kulaini has
used the phrase "a group of our associates". But Kulaini has mentioned all
other elements in the chain.

The reason for this was that, as I mentioned, Shia have always been under
prosecution of unjust rulers including the Abbasids. If Kulaini (RA) have
mentioned the names of those who reported to him and were still alive, and
if the book could have found his way to the officials, then all those
reporters would have been killed. To protect them, he did not mention their
names and codified it by saying "a group of our associates". However he
mentioned the name of those who reported to him but died during Kulaini's
life.

But the good news is that since Kulaini knew the regulations of
scrutinizing of the traditions by the Shia, he told some of his students
how the names of the last narrators are codieifed. More specifically, it
was mentioned that:

I. Whenever you read in Usul Kafi, that "a group of our associates
narrated from Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Isa", then the group
here means the following five persons:

1.Abu Ja'far Muhammad Ibn Yahya al-Attar al-Qummi
2.Ali Ibn Musa Ibn Ja'far al-Kamandani
3.Abu Sulayman Dawud Ibn Kawrah al-Qummi
4.Abu Ali Ahmad Ibn Idris Ibn Ahmad al-Ash'ari al-Qummi
5.Abul Hasan Ali Ibn Ibrahim Ibn Hashim al-Qummi.

II. Whenever you read in Usul Kafi, that "a group of our associates
narrated from Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Khalid al-Barqi", then
the group here means the following four persons:

1.Abul Hasan Ali Ibn Ibrahim Ibn Hashim al-Qummi
2.Muhammad Ibn Abdillah Ibn Udhaynah
3.Ahmad Ibn Abillah Ibn Umayyah
4. Ali Ibn al-Husain al-Sa'd Abadi.

III. Whenever you read in Usul Kafi, that "a group of our associates
narrated from Sahl Ibn Ziyad", then the group here means
the following four persons:

1. Abul Hasan Ali Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim Ibn Aban al-Razi, who is
known as Allan al-Kulaini
2. Abul Husain Muhammad Ibn Abdillah Ja'far Ibn Muhammad Ibn Awn al-
Asadi al-Kufi, resident of ray.
3. Muhammad Ibn al-Husain Ibn Farrukh al-Saffar al-Qummi
4. Muhammad Ibn Aqil al-Kulaini.

IV. Whenever you read in Usul Kafi, that "a group of our associates
narrated from Ja'far Ibn Muhammad who narrated from al-Hasan
Ibn Ali Ibn al-Faddal", then the group here consists of the
following person:

1. Abu Abdillah al-Husain Ibn Muhammad Ibn Imran Ibn Abi Bakr al-
Ash'ari al-Qummi.

Thus the narrators of those traditions are known and can be evaluated
accordingly. Nontheless, we do not claim that al-Kafi is an all authentic
book of traditions for the Shia. There are certain traditions in al-Kafi
which are reported by weak narrators who are known to the Shia scholars of
Hadith.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ------
Imam Ali (AS) said: | || | | :
Be the enemy of the oppressor and : ( c ) _|_e_|| | |_o
the helper of the oppressed one. (_ (_S (_|
(Nahjul Balagha, the sayings of Imam Ali)

|. ||. | | | . |||. | | . /
|_, q_c o q_|_D_o_|_| q |_o,_p_7 o_||_D_| | q_, q_)
/ ( / / ( / /

Please compare this tradition of Imam Ali with the tradition of
Sahih Muslim given at the beginning of the article.