Hi friends,
While dining out at Fuddruckers today evening, conversation swayed towards the fate of King Fahd. Is he dead? Is he alive? Has he really recovered? Is his state of being well and recovered a cover-up? If you are looking for answers, you won't find them here because I don't know. What I do have here are insider's stories and speculations.
Saudi friends of ours were sharing that they understand the King is brain-dead and is being kept alive on the respirator machine. If you recall, Yasser Arafat was dead before an official announcement was made publicly of his death. Maybe they would do the same with King Fahd. I believe that the recent visit to the hospital only 'stabilized' his sick condition, and did not make him better than before: just stabilization.
It would be interesting to see what happens in future. I think one thing that everyone, even the Saudis themselves, would agree on is that King Fahd has been rendered inactive in politics for some time while the Crown Prince has been running the show. King Fahd's death could be both good and bad news. Good news could mean more liberty in the country,and bad news could mean a power struggle between the liberals and the conservatives.
There is certainly a sense of confusion about the fate of King Fahd's. The local papers will not talk about whats 'really' happening. Let's pray for a better and more stable future for the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Let's also pray that in the event of the King's death, the country doesnt descend into instability in any ways.
Mansur
6 comments:
I doubt that his death would lead to instability because his death will not be announced until all disputes have been resolved between the senior members of the royal family. That's the way it has always been done. Al-Saud always make sure that they seem united in public.
Thats what I feel will happen as well. They will try to create a stable situation, and have everything under control, and then publicly announce his death. But, I do think there will be an internal struggle when there is a new King.
M
Oh yes definitly. The fact that the Crown Prince has not been given complete control and power all these years with the king being literally brain dead says it all...
I don't think King Fahad's death would be as devastating. Those who will be upset are likely to be people around him who benefited from his reign and maybe be a small proportion of Saudis. But I think most Saudi are anxious to know what will happen and how Prince Abdullah's reign will differ from that of Fahad's. InshAllah it will be one of greater reform.
I think people have already come to accept that King Fahd is really sick, not actively ruling and are ready for a change. Like jo mentioned, I am also looking for reforms to take place. I am praying for a better future for the kingdom.
Mansur
With regard to your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and an Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, answers:
"Photography as a medium of communication or for the simple, innocent retention of memories without the taint of reverence/shirk does not fall under the category of forbidden Tasweer.
One finds a number of traditions from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, condemning people who make Tasweer, which denotes painting or carving images or statues. It was closely associated with paganism or shirk. People were in the habit of carving images and statues for the sake of worship. Islam, therefore, declared Tasweer forbidden because of its close association with shirk (association of partners with Allah). One of the stated principles of usul-u-Fiqh (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence) is that if anything directly leads to haram, it is likewise haram. In other words, Tasweer was forbidden precisely for the reason that it was a means leading to shirk.
The function of photography today does not fall under the above category. Even some of the scholars who had been once vehemently opposed to photography under the pretext that it was a form of forbidden Tasweer have later changed their position on it - as they allow even for their own pictures to be taken and published in newspapers, for videotaping lectures and for presentations; whereas in the past, they would only allow it in exceptional cases such as passports, drivers’ licenses, etc. The change in their view of photography is based on their assessment of the role of photography.
Having said this, one must add a word of caution: To take pictures of leaders and heroes and hang them on the walls may not belong to the same category of permission. This may give rise to a feeling of reverence and hero worship, which was precisely the main thrust of the prohibition of Tasweer. Therefore, one cannot make an unqualified statement to the effect that all photography is halal. It all depends on the use and function of it. If it is for educational purpose and has not been tainted with the motive of reverence and hero worship, there is nothing in the sources to prohibit it."
Post a Comment