View allAll Photos Tagged Question,
...have patience with everything unresolved in your heart and to try to love the questions themselves as if they were locked rooms or books written in a very foreign language. Don't search for the answers, which could not be given to you now, because you would not be able to live them. And the point is to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps then, someday far in the future, you will gradually, without even noticing it, live your way into the answer
I am not sure which Barbie she is and her head is very loose. Should I rebody her or what? Can someone identify the steffie head, I might rebody her on a fashionista body.
Événement lors du califat de Muawiya Ier
La mort de Moughirah Ibn Shou’bah et la nomination de Samourah Ibn Joundoub pour Basra
Cette même année, en l’an 49 de l’Hégire (669), décéda le respectable Compagnon et le général héros al-Moughirah Ibn Shou’bah Ibn Abi ‘Amir Ibn Mas’oud ath-Thaqafi, qu’Allah soit satisfait de lui. Il est mort poignardé et fut enterré à Koufa. D’autres ont rapporté que sa mort fut en l’an 50 (669) et d’autres en l’an 51 de l’Hégire (670).
Il est connu que Moughirah Ibn Shou’bah devint musulman l’année de la bataille de la Tranchée. Il était présent à Houdaybiyah et au pacte de Ridwan. Il combattit lors des batailles des Apostats, à Yamamah. Il participa à la conquête de la Syrie, à Yarmouk et à la conquête de la Perse et de l’Iraq à Qadissiyah. Il resta à l’écart de la Fitnah et lors de l’appel au Jugement par le Livre d’Allah sous ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib (qu’Allah soit satisfait de lui), il rejoignit les rangs de Mou’awiyah, qu’Allah soit satisfait d’eux.
Lorsque Moughirah Ibn Shou’bah mourut, Mou’awiyah rajouta à Ziyad Ibn Abi Soufyan la gouvernance de Basra et de Koufa. Ziyad Ibn Abi Soufyan nomma Samourah Ibn Joundoub al-Khazari (qu’Allah soit satisfait de lui) gouverneur de Basra.
Samourah Ibn Joundoub combattit en compagnie du Messager d’Allah (Saluts et Bénédictions d’Allah sur lui) et il était implacable envers les khawarije. S’il était informé de la présence de l’un d’entre eux, il se chargeait de le tuer lui-même tellement il les détestait et disait : « Les pires créatures vivant sous le ciel, ils jettent la mécréance sur les Musulmans et rendent licite leur sang ». Samourah mourut en l’an 59 de l’Hégire (678), puisse Allah lui faire miséricorde.
Quand Samourah prit son poste en charge, il alla directement à la mosquée de Koufa, monta sur la chair de prêche et fit un discours. Lorsqu’il eut finit certaines personnes se levèrent et le haranguèrent. Il s’assit le temps de les laisser finir tout en ordonnant à sa garde de se mettre aux portes de la mosquée. Puis il demanda aux gens de Koufa présent de sortir de la mosquée quatre par quatre. Il leur dit : « Quiconque d’entre vous jurera par Allah qu’il n’a pas cherché à me juger sera libre. Quiconque ne jurera pas sera emprisonné et expulsé ».
Certains ont rapporté que le nombre de personnes n’ayant pas juré s’éleva à trois tandis que d’autres ont rapporté le nombre de huit. Il ordonna que leurs mains soient tranchées. Le crime de ces gens est d’avoir manqué de respect et de considérer celui en charge de leurs affaires comme moins que rien.
A ceux qui se poseront la question, pourquoi une telle violence, il faut se rappeler les graves évènements qui secouèrent la nation islamique de l’époque ou plus de soixante-dix-mille Musulmans trouvèrent la mort suite à la grande Fitnah qui débuta avec l’assassinat du troisième Calife Bien Guidé ‘Uthman Ibn ‘Affan (qu’Allah soit satisfait de lui). Samourah voulut empêcher dès son arrivée la résurgence de tels troubles en appliquant à ceux qui seraient tentés et aux fauteurs de troubles un dur châtiment afin qu’ils soient une leçon pour tous.
Si le gouverneur perdait le contrôle des évènements, ils pourraient s’ensuivre à nouveau d’inquiétants évènements. Samourah voulut immédiatement couper court à cette éventualité connaissant sa haine des khawarije.
Ceci doit servir d’exemple pour faite face à de tels évènements dans le futur. L’histoire des Omeyyades est pleine de révoltes, de guerres, de divisions, de rebellions et de luttes fratricides.
Il fallait mettre fin aux troubles, dont les effets furent extrêmement néfastes pour les Musulmans, d’une manière impitoyable et appliquer aux subversifs un très dur châtiment. Il n’y a aucun intérêt à laisser faire les gens d’innovations, de convoitises et les révolutionnaires. Ils ne doivent pas être abandonnés mais traités obligatoirement comme il se doit et rapidement pour éviter les effets funestes qu’entrainent leurs actions, ceci bien évidemment dans l’état islamique ou la Loi d’Allah est appliquée dans son intégralité. Mais vous êtes-vous jamais demandé si vous étiez prêts pour un état islamique ou bien les cœurs cacheraient quelques hypocrisies ?
En l’an 50 de l’Hégire (670), décéda le respectable Compagnon Abou Moussa al-Asha’i. Il est ‘Abdallah Ibn Qays Ibn Soulaym des Ash’ariyine qui sont des tribus Kahlan et Qahtaniyah. Abou Moussa al-Asha’i (qu’Allah soit satisfait de lui) a une grande histoire. Il est le conquérant d’Ispahan, d’al-Ahwaz et un des deux juges lors du conflit suite à l’assassinat de ‘Uthman Ibn ‘Affan (qu’Allah soit satisfait de lui). D’autres ont rapporté que sa mort eut lieu en l’an 53 de l’Hégire (673). Nous avons rapporté les deux versions sur lesquels les historiens sont en désaccord et qui ne sont que des désaccords minimes.
Durant cette année, Bousr Ibn Abi Artat et Soufyan Ibn Awf al-Azdi attaquèrent conjointement les territoires byzantins tandis que Fadalah Ibn ‘Oubayd al-Ansari les attaqua par mer.
La conquête de Tunis et la construction de la ville de Kairouan
Durant cette même année, Mou’awiyah Ibn Houdayj, le gouverneur d’Egypte et d’Ifriqiyah[1], fut désisté par Mou’awiyah Ibn Abi Soufyan et remplacé par ‘Ouqbah Ibn Nafi’ al-Fihri pour l’Ifriqiyah et Maslamah pour l’Egypte et ensuite pour Ifriqiyah. ‘Ouqbah conquit Tunis (ifriqiyah) et la ville de Kairouan (qayrawan). Muhammad Ibn ‘Omar a rapporté que l’emplacement de la ville était mauvais à cause du grand nombre de serpents, de fauves, et d’autres animaux du même genre. Quand Allah Exalté Tout Puissant et Grand les appela, aucun animal ne resta et les bêtes de proies emportèrent leurs petits. ‘Ouqbah Ibn Nafi a dit : « Lorsque nous nous sommes installé, les animaux s’enfuirent de leurs repaires en nous blâmant ».
Zayd Ibn Abi Habib, un homme de l’armée égyptienne dit : « Nous arrivâmes avec ‘Ouqbah Ibn Nafi’ qui fut la première personne à faire un plan de la ville. Il l’a divisa en quartiers, construisit des maisons pour les gens et la mosquée. Nous restâmes avec lui jusqu’à ce qu’il fut désisté. Il était le meilleur des gouverneurs et le meilleur commandant ».
Puis, Mou’awiyah désista Mou’awiyah Ibn Houdayj d’Egypte et ‘Ouqbah Ibn Nafi’ d’Ifriqiyah et nomma à leur place, Maslamah Ibn Moukhallad pour toute l’Afrique du Nord et l’Egypte à l’ouest. Il fut le premier gouverneur pour qui l’ouest entier, l’Egypte, Barqah, Tripoli (tarablous) et Tunis fut combiné. Maslamah Ibn Moukhallad nomma son domestique al-Mouhajir pour Tunis et démit ‘Ouqbah Ibn Nafi’ de ses fonctions. Maslamah resta gouverneur d’Egypte et de l’ouest jusqu’à la mort de Mou’awiyah Ibn Abi Soufyan.
Certains ont dit que cette même année, al-Hakam Ibn ‘Amr al-Ghifari décéda à Merv après son retour d’une razzia contre les gens de la montagne d’al-Ashall.
Le raid d’al-Hakam Ibn ‘Amr contre al-Ashall
Alors qu’al-Hakam Ibn ‘Amr se trouvait au Khorasan. Ziyad lui écrivit : « Les armes des gens de la montagne d’al-Ashall sont de feutre et leurs vaisselles d’or ». Ibn ‘Amr les attaqua, puis se retira et lorsque ses forces atteignirent le milieu du défilé, l’ennemi prit des pistes secrètes et l’encercla. Ne sachant que faire, il délégua le commandement de l’armée à al-Mouhallab qui résista et finit par capturer un de leurs chefs à qui il dit : « Choisis : sois je te tue ou alors tu nous sors de cette passe ». L’homme lui dit alors : « Allume un feu sur l’une de ces routes, ordonne que les bagages soient amenés, et tourne toi vers cette route afin que les gens pensent que tu as commencé à voyager le long de celle-ci. Alors, ils vont se rassembler sur cette route et vous abandonneront les autres. Alors laisse-les, prends une autre route et ils ne pourront vous attaquer avant que vous ayez quitté le défilé. Il fit ainsi et ils purent s’échapper avec un immense butin jusqu’à Hérat avant de retourner à Merv.
Ziyad écrivit à al-Hakam et lui dit : « Par Allah, si tu survie, je te décapiterais certainement ! » Parce que Ziyad lui écrivit précédemment lorsqu’il fut informé de l’immense quantité qu’il avait pris, lui disant : « L’émir des croyants m’a écrit pour lui demander de lui choisir de l’or, de l’argent et des objets précieux pour son usage personnel. Ne fait rien avant d’avoir procéder à sa demande. » Al-Hakam lui répondit au dos de sa lettre : « Ta lettre vient de me parvenir dans laquelle tu mentionnes que l’émir des croyants t’a ordonné ceci et cela. Mais sache que le Livre d’Allah Exalté, Tout-Puissant et Grand, est prioritaire au désir de l’émir des croyants. Par Allah, si « les cieux et la terre formaient une masse compacte[2] » un serviteur doit craindre Allah à Lui les Louanges et la Gloire. Allah Exalté et Loué soit-Il, lui fournira une sortie ». Il dit alors aux soldats d’aller prendre leur part du butin, après qu’il eut mis de côté le cinquième, il le divisa équitablement entre eux. Al-Hakam dit alors : « O Grand Seigneur, si Tu considères que ce que j’ai fait est juste alors prends-moi ». Et, il mourut peu après dans la capitale du Khorasan à Merv après avoir nommé Anas Ibn Abi Ounas son successeur.
Les Musulmans s’installent au Khorasan
En l’an 51 de l’Hégire (671), Fadalah Ibn ‘Oubayd attaqua en hiver le territoire byzantin et Bousr Ibn Abi Artat, en été.
Ziyad nomma ar-Rabi’ Ibn Ziyad al-Harithi gouverneur du Khorasan après la mort d’al-Hakam Ibn ‘Amr al-Ghifari. Al-Hakam nomma Anas Ibn Abi Ounas pour lui succéder dans sa juridiction après sa mort et Anas conduisit la prière sur al-Hakam à sa mort et avant de mourir, al-Hakam écrivit à Ziyad pour l’informer de la nomination d’Anas. Ziyad le désista et le remplaça par Khoulayd Ibn ‘AbdAllah al- Hanafi avant d’être remplacé à son tour, après n’être resté qu’un mois gouverneur, par Rabi’ Ibn Ziyad al-Harithi. Les gens partirent avec leurs familles au Khorasan ou ils s’établirent de manière permanente tandis que peu après Ziyad désista ar-Rabi’.
Quand ar-Rabi’ arriva au Khorasan, il conquit pacifiquement Balkh après que les gens de la ville l’ai fermée[3] suite au traité de paix conclut avec al-Ahnaf Ibn Qays. Il conquit le Qouhistan par la force et comme il y avait des Turcs dans ses régions, il les combattit. Il en tua certains avant que les autres ne s’enfuient. L’un des survivants étaient Nizak Tarkhan que Qoutaybah Ibn Mouslim tua quand il fut gouverneur. Certains ont rapporté que lors de sa campagne ar-Rabi’ traversa le fleuve Oxus avec son domestique, Farroukh et sa servante Sharifah. Il pilla et revint sans avoir été inquiété si bien qu’il libéra Farroukh.
Le premier Musulman qui but de l’eau du fleuve fut un domestique d’al-Hakam à l’aide de son bouclier. Il en donna à al-Hakam qui en but et fit ses ablutions avant d’exécuter deux unités de prières au-delà du fleuve et il fut la première personne à le faire.
La mort de Houjr Ibn ‘Adiyy Ibn Jaballah al-Kindi
Toujours en l’an 51 de l’Hégire (670) fut tué Houjr Ibn ‘Adiyy Ibn Jaballah al-Kindi. Houjr Ibn ‘Adiyy comme certains l’ont dit était un respectable Compagnon (qu’Allah soit satisfait de lui) mais la plupart des rapporteurs de Hadith, comme l’a signalé al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir, ne lui reconnaissent pas de mérite.
Houjr Ibn ‘Adiyy était un adorateur ascète, un général héros qui prit le parti de ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib (qu’Allah soit satisfait de lui). Il était à l’époque de Moughirah Ibn Shou’bah (qu’Allah soit satisfait de lui), émir de Koufa et un de ceux qui le critiquèrent. Moughirah qui était un homme lucide le mit plusieurs fois en garde contre les conséquences néfastes de tels propos alors que l’obéissance et le respect sont dus au Sultan.
Un jour Moughirah lui dit : « O Houjr, soit perdu, crains le Seigneur ! O Houjr, soit perdu, crains le sultan ! Crains sa colère, crains son rang car parfois la colère du sultan met fin à des individus tels que toi ! »
Moughirah le mettait en garde mais il l’excusait et lui pardonnait.
L’Imam Tabari a rapporté dans son livre d’Histoire que Moughirah, alors qu’il approchait de sa fin, implora le pardon pour ‘Uthman Ibn ‘Affan (qu’Allah soit satisfait d’eux). Il dit : « O Seigneur pardonne à ‘Uthman Ibn ‘Affan et récompense le des meilleurs récompenses pour ses actions. Il appliqua Tes Lois et suivit la Sounnah de Ton Messager (Saluts et Bénédictions d’Allah sur lui). Il nous unifia, nous protégea et fut tué injustement. O grand Seigneur pardonne à ses partisans, à ses amis, à ceux qui l’aiment et le protégèrent et à ceux qui cherchèrent à le venger puis il implora contre ceux qui l’avait tué ».
Houjr se leva un jour dans la mosquée et se mit à crier en mal contre Moughirah si bien que tous ceux qui étaient présents et à l’extérieur l’entendirent. Il dit : « Tu ne fais pas attention à ceux à qui tu portes préjudices par tes actes. Ou sont nos bien que tu as arrêté de nous donner. Viens nous voir et distribuent nous les car ils ne t’appartiennent pas. Tu es devenu renommé avec la mort de l’Emir des Croyants (sous-entendu ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib (qu’Allah soit satisfait de lui)) et un support pour les criminels (sous-entendu les partisans de Mou’awiyah (qu’Allah soit satisfait d’eux) ».
At-Tabari a rapporté qu’un tiers de l’assistance s’est levé avec lui et se mirent à scander : « Houjr a dit la vérité ».
Al-Moughirah descendit du Minbar et rentra chez lui. Ses gens le rejoignirent et le critiquèrent à propos des sa réaction aux propos de Houjr. Cela allait conduire à deux évènements :
- Le premier, l’habitude des gens à se rebeller contre les dirigeants et l’autre la colère du calife à Damas contre Moughirah. Les gens lui demandèrent :
- « Après qui tu en as ? » Il répondit :
- « Moughirah ! Car je l’ai tué. Comment l’ai-je tué ? Il viendra un émir après moi et il le considérera comme moi et il lui fera comme il a fait avec moi. Il le tuera à sa première remarque. Ma fin approche et je ne veux pas pousser les gens de Syrie à tuer les meilleurs d’entre eux et à faire couler leur sang. Eux seront content tandis que moi je serais perdu. Afin que dans ce monde Mou’awiyah en tire de l’honneur tandis que Moughirah sera humilié le jour de Qiyamah ».
Lorsque Ziyad Ibn Abi Soufyan prit en charge son poste, il mit en garde Houjr Ibn ‘Adiyy et lui conseilla de ne pas répéter ce qu’il faisait lors du vivant de Moughirah. Ziyad lui dit : « Sache que je te connais, j’étais en compagnie de ton père pour une affaire que tu connais (sous-entendu qu’ils étaient des partisans de ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib (qu’Allah soit satisfait de lui). Si ton sang venait à couler une seule goutte, sache alors que je te viderais de tout ton sang. Retiens ta langue et reste à l’écart des problèmes afin que les ignorants ne te suivent pas ». Et Houjr qui connaissait Ziyad comprit bien ses paroles menaçantes.
Ziyad partageait son temps entre Koufa et Basra ou il restait six mois dans chacune des villes pour gérer les affaires des Musulmans.
Lorsqu’il partit pour Basra, les shiites de Koufa vinrent trouver Houjr et ils se réunirent régulièrement chez lui ou ils insultaient Mou’awiyah (qu’Allah soit satisfait de lui) et le reniaient.
Le secrétaire de Ziyad à Koufa, ‘Amr Ibn Hourayth, le mit en garde contre ses activités et lui envoya un messager qui lui dit :
- « Qui sont ces gens qui se réunissent chez toi alors que l’émir t’a mis en garde ? » Houjr Ibn ‘Adiyy lui répondit :
- « Ils critiquent ce que vous faites. Maintenant va-t’en ! » Et il le renvoya durement en lui disant :
- « Fait attention à toi et surveille ton dos ! »
Lorsque l’homme revint à ‘Amr et l’informa, celui-ci fit envoyer un messager à Ziyad lui demandant de revenir sur le champ à Koufa à cause de la gravité de la situation pouvant engendrer rapidement une révolte.
Lorsque Ziyad entendu le messager et les graves nouvelles, il revint sur le champ et dit : « Par Allah je vais couper le fil du coup du traitre obtus ».
Puis il envoya à Houjr trois compagnons du Messager d’Allah (Saluts et Bénédictions d’Allah sur lui) : ‘Adiyy Ibn Hatim at-Tahi, Jarir Ibn ‘Abdillah al-Bajali et Khalid Ibn ‘Ourfouta al-Leythi, Leythi des Bani Bakr Ibn ‘Abdel Manaf Ibn Kinanah, (qu’Allah soit satisfait d’eux).
D’autres ont dit que c’était Khalid Ibn ‘Ourfouta Ibn Sou’ayr al- ‘Oudri : Hanif Ibn Zouhra (qu’Allah soit satisfait d’eux) et cela n’a pas d’importance.
Lorsqu’ils rencontrèrent Houjr, ils parlèrent avec lui mais il ne leur répondit pas. Plutôt, il dit à son serviteur :
- « O ghoulam, as-tu attaché le chamelon ? » ‘Adiyy Ibn Hatim lui dit :
- « Es-tu possédé ? Nous te parlons de choses sérieuses et tu nous dit : « O ghoulam, as-tu attaché le chamelon ? »
Puis, ils retournèrent à Ziyad et ne l’informèrent que de choses légères pour qu’il ne se mette pas en colère contre eux et lui demandèrent d’avoir pitié de lui.
Et il lui arriva ce que personne des Arabes n’attendait ni même Moughirah. Ziyad envoya la police mettre de nouveau en garde Houjr et son clan ne lui fut d’aucune utilité comme l’a rapporté Ibn Kathir. La police le ramena à Ziyad qui l’emprisonna dix jours.
Lorsque Houjr sortit, il rejoignit ses amis. Ziyad les envoya à Mou’awiyah en Syrie, en compagnie de soixante-dix personnes qui témoigneraient que :
- Houjr et ses partisans encourageaient les gens à la désobéissance, à la révolte et à la guerre contre l’émir,
- Qu’ils avaient rompu le pacte d’obéissance à l’émir,
- Qu’ils s’étaient mis à l’écart de la communauté,
- Qu’ils cherchaient à semer la division parmi les Musulmans,
- Qu’ils insultaient le calife, et chacune de ces accusations était passible de la peine de mort !
Houjr Ibn ‘Adiyy fut emmené en Syrie avec treize de ses compagnons à Mardj Adra près de Damas. Le motif d’accusation de Ziyad fut lue à Mou’awiyah puis les gens témoignèrent. Lorsqu’ils eurent finit, Mou’awiyah étonné de leur comportement leur demanda :
- « Que pensez-vous de ces accusations des vôtres ? »
Puis il écrivit à Ziyad et lui dit : « Parfois je pense que leur mise à mort est meilleure que leur libération et parfois, je pense que leur pardon est meilleur que leur mise à mort ».
Lorsque le message parvint à Ziyad, il lui répondit : « Je reste perplexe des choix qui se sont imposés à toi. Si tu penses qu’ils ont un quelconque intérêt ne me renvoie pas Houjr et ses compagnons ».
Les gens du peuple de Syrie de la famille de certains des accusés se levèrent pour intercéder en leur faveur. Mou’awiyah pardonna à six d’entre eux mais il refusa l’intercession de Malik Ibn Houbayrah as-Sakouni al-Kindi en faveur de Houjr, Houjr al-Kindi.
Mou’awiyah lui dit je ne peux accepter ton intercession parce que ce membre de ta tribu est leur chef et j’ai peur que la ville de Koufa échappe à mon contrôle à cause de ses agissements. Mou’awiyah ordonna que les six soient relâchés et que tous les autres soient exécutés.
Les tombes furent creusées et les linceuls préparés. Houjr demanda à faire ses ablutions puis pria deux unités de prières tandis que Houdbah Ibn Khayad se présenta avec son sabre pour l’exécuter. On lui dit :
- « Peut-être n’es-tu pas encore prêt ». Houjr répondit :
- « Comment ne serais-je pas encore prêt alors que je vois la tombe creusée, le linceul et le sabre affûté (sous-entendu la mort) ».
Lorsque la mère des croyants Saydah ‘Ayshah (qu’Allah soit satisfait d’elle), qui se trouvait à Médine l’Illuminée, entendit parler de ces révoltes orchestrés par Houjr et son transfert en Syrie, elle envoya ‘AbderRahmane Ibn al-Harith al-Makhzoumi (qu’Allah soit satisfait de lui) à Mou’awiyah pour lui demander de libérer Houjr. Mais ‘AbderRahmane Ibn al-Harith arriva trop tard et ‘Ayshah fut très fâchée par la mort de Houjr.
Lorsque Mou’awiyah vint à Médine et demanda à entrer pour saluer la Mère des croyants, ‘Ayshah refusa de le recevoir alors qu’il était le calife des Musulmans. Et elle dit : « Il ne rentrera jamais chez moi. »
Ibn Kathir (puisse Allah lui faire miséricorde) a dit dans « al-Bidayah wal Nihayah » que Mou’awiyah se justifia longuement et réussit à rentrer chez elle et que ‘Ayshah (qu’Allah soit satisfait d’elle) lui pardonna.
Il est aussi rapporté que Mou’awiyah (qu’Allah soit satisfait de lui) lui dit qu’il avait tué cet homme pour l’intérêt général des gens et que c’était préférable à leur corruption.
Il est aussi rapporté que ‘AbdAllah Ibn ‘Omar (qu’Allah soit satisfait d’eux) se trouvait assit au marché lorsqu’il entendit les nouvelles de la mort de Houjr, il pleura et sanglota longuement.
Lorsque ‘AbderRahmane Ibn al-Harith al-Makhzoumi rencontra Mou’awiyah, il lui demanda :
- « As-tu tué Houjr Ibn al-Abdar ? » Mou’awiyah lui répondit :
- « Sa mort m’est préférable que je tue avec lui des gens que tu ne connais pas (sous-entendu : il vaut mieux tuer un seul homme que d’en tuer des milliers) ».
La mort de Houjr fut aussi un des évènements douloureux du règne des Omeyyades.
La mort de plusieurs Compagnons du Prophète en l’an 51
En l’an 51 de l’Hégire (670), mourut un grand nombre de Compagnons. Nous ne pouvons pas tous les nommer ici mais nous allons en citer seulement quelqu’un.
- Sa’id Ibn Zayd Ibn ‘Amr Ibn Noufayl (qu’Allah soit satisfait de lui), un des grands Compagnons et l’un des dix compagnons à qui fut annoncé le Paradis de leur vivant par le Messager d’Allah (Saluts et Bénédictions d’Allah sur lui). Il mourut à Médine.
- ‘AbdAllah Ibn Ounays al-Jouhani (qu’Allah soit satisfait de lui). Il participa à tous les évènements excepté Badr. Il fut témoin à al-‘Aqabah.
- Abou Bakra, le respectable Compagnon (qu’Allah soit satisfait de lui).
- Jarir Ibn ‘AbdAllah al-Bajali (qu’Allah soit satisfait de lui) qui devint musulman au mois de Ramadan de l’année 10 de l’Hégire (631).
Boukhari a rapporté dans son Sahih que Jarir a dit : « Chaque fois que le Prophète (Saluts et Bénédictions d’Allah sur lui) m’a vu, il m’a vu le sourire au lèvre. Je me suis plain auprès de lui de ma difficulté à tenir sur un cheval. Alors il frappa ma poitrine du plat de la main et dit « O Grand Seigneur rends le ferme et un guide qui guide » ».
Ahmad a aussi rapporté de lui dans son Mousnad que le Prophète (Saluts et Bénédictions d’Allah sur lui) lui dit : « N’allez-vous pas me débarrasser de Dzoul Khalassah[4] ! »
Jarir dit : « Nous sortîmes au nombre de cinquante cavaliers et nous l’avons détruit ou brûlé jusqu’à la laisser comme un chameau galeux. Puis, j’envoyais un messager en informer le Messager d’Allah (Saluts et Bénédictions d’Allah sur lui) qui lui dit : « O Prophète d’Allah ! Par Celui qui t’a envoyé avec la vérité, je ne suis pas venu avant de l’avoir détruit et laissé comme un chameau galeux ! Alors le Prophète (Saluts et Bénédictions d’Allah sur lui) dit cinq fois de suite : « Puisse Allah bénir les chevaux d’Ahmas[5] et leurs hommes. » Alors je lui dis : « O Messager d’Allah, je suis un homme qui a du mal à se tenir sur un cheval ». Alors il (Saluts et Bénédictions d’Allah sur lui) mit sa main sur ma figure si bien que je senti la fraicheur de sa main et il dit : « O Grand Seigneur ! Fais un de lui un guide qui guide ».
Jarir Ibn ‘Abdallah al-Bajali participa aux conquêtes d’Iraq et combattit lors de la bataille d’al-Qadissiyah (qu’Allah soit satisfait de lui).
En l’an 52 de l’Hégire (672), Soufyan Ibn ‘Awf al-Azdi attaqua le territoire byzantin. Al-Waqidi a aussi affirmé qu’il trouva la mort et qu’il désigna ‘AbdAllah Ibn Mas’adah al-Fazari comme son successeur avant de mourir.
D’autres ont dit que cette année aussi, Bousr Ibn Abi Artat accompagné de Soufyan Ibn ‘Awf al-Azdi razzièrent le territoire byzantin. Tandis que d’autres ont dit que ce fut Muhammad Ibn ‘AbdAllah ath-Thaqafi qui commanda l’attaque.
La conquête de Rhodes et la mort de Ziyad Ibn Abi Soufyan
En l’an 53 de l’Hégire (672), ‘AbderRahmane Ibn Oumm al-Hakam ath-Thaqafi attaqua le territoire byzantin.
Jounadah Ibn Abi Oumayyah al-Azdi conquis Rhodes[6], une île dans la mer. Les Musulmans s’y établirent, l’a cultivèrent et acquirent des biens. Le bétail paissait la journée dans les prairies avant d’être rentrés dans la forteresse à la tombée de la nuit. Ils établirent aussi un guet pour les prévenir de toutes surprises venant de mer. Ils causèrent un grand désarroi aux Byzantins parce qu’ils bloquaient leurs navires. Mou’awiyah leur envoyait régulièrement des vivres et dépensait pour eux tandis que l’ennemi les craignaient. Quand Mou’awiyah décéda, Yazid Ibn Mou’awiyah les rapatria.
Il est n’est pas inutile de préciser que sous le règne de Mou’awiyah (qu’Allah soit satisfait de lui), les conquêtes ne cessèrent pas.
Au mois de Ramadan de cette même année décéda Ziyad Ibn Abi Soufyan. Juste auparavant, il envoya un message à Mou’awiyah lui disant : « Je t’ai assujetti l’Iraq avec ma gauche, donne-moi le Hijaz que j’occupe ma droite ».
Lorsque les gens du Hijaz furent informés, ils en parlèrent au respectable Compagnon ‘AbdAllah Ibn ‘Omar Ibn al-Khattab (qu’Allah soit satisfait d’eux) qui leur dit : « Invoquez Allah qu’Il nous en débarrasse ». Puis tous ensemble, ils s’orientèrent vers la Qiblah pour implorer le Seigneur contre lui.
Et comme l’a mentionné Ibn Kathir, Ziyad fut poignardé par la permission d’Allah peu de temps après et Allah Exalté soit-Il écarta son mal du Hijaz et de La Mecque.
En l’an 54 de l’Hégire (673), Muhammad Ibn Malik attaqua le territoire byzantin en hiver et Ma’n Ibn Yazid as-Soulami en été.
Waqidi a rapporté que Jounadah Ibn Abi Oumayyah captura une île proche de Constantinople nommée Arwad. Muhammad Ibn ‘Omar a rapporté que les Musulmans, dont Moujahid Ibn Jabr, y restèrent durant sept années. Toubay, le fils de la femme de Ka’b dit un jour : « Voyez-vous cette marche (darajah) ? Lorsqu’elle sera enlevée, l’heure de notre retour arrivera ». Un jour de vent fort, la marche fut emportée et quelqu’un arriva, annonça la mort de Mou’awiyah avec une lettre de Yazid. Alors, nous sommes revenus. L’île devint inhabitée et après cela les habitations tombèrent en ruine tandis que les Byzantins se réjouirent de leur départ.
‘Oubaydillah Ibn Ziyad nommé gouverneur du Khorasan
‘Oubaydillah partit de Syrie pour le Khorasan à la fin de l’année 53 de l’Hégire (673) alors qu’il était âgé de vingt-cinq ans. Il envoya devant lui Aslam Ibn Zour‘ah al-Kilabi au Khorasan. ‘Oubaydillah parti accompagné par al-Ja’d Ibn Qays an-Namari qui récita des vers dans une élégie pour Ziyad. ‘Oubaydillah pleura ce jour jusqu’à ce que son turban tombe de sa tête.
Du Khorasan, il traversa sur un chameau l’Oxus et marcha vers les montagnes de Boukhara, Il fut donc le premier atteindre les gens de Boukhara en traversant la montagne avec une armée. Il conquit les villes de Ramithan et Baykand[7] qui dépendent de Boukhara et qu’il atteignit à partir d’elles. ‘Oubaydillah Ibn Ziyad affronta les Turcs à Boukhara alors que Qabj Khatoun, l’épouse du roi était avec son mari. Quand Allah Exalté les vainquit, les Turcs lui conseillèrent vivement de remettre ses pantoufles. Elle mit l’un d’eux tandis que l’autre fut laissé en arrière que les Musulmans acquirent et qui valait deux-cents-mille dirhams.
Quelqu’un a rapporté : Je n’ai jamais vu personne de plus courageux que ‘Oubaydillah Ibn Ziyad. Une armée de Turcs nous attaqua au Khorasan, et je l’ai vu combattre. Il les chargea, pénétra leurs rangs et disparu de vue puis, il éleva sa bannière ruisselante de sang.
‘Oubaydillah Ibn Ziyad rapporta à Basra deux-mille personnes de Boukhara. Ils étaient tous d’excellents archers. L’armée des Turcs à Boukhara était une des nombreuses armées du Khorasan qui étaient au nombre de cinq. Al-Ahnaf Ibn Qays rencontra l’une d’entre elle entre Qouhistan et Abrashahr[8], et les trois à Marghab. La cinquième armée de Qarin fut détruite par ‘AbdAllah Ibn Khazim. ‘Oubaydillah Ibn Ziyad resta deux années au Khorasan.
Puis à la fin de l’année 55 de l’Hégire (674), Mou’awiyah le nomma gouverneur de Basra à la place de ‘Abdallah Ibn ‘Amr Ibn Ghaylan.
En l’an 55 de l’Hégire (674), Soufyan Ibn ‘Awf al-Azdi razzia le territoire byzantin. D’autres ont dit que c’était ‘Amr Ibn Mouhriz, et d’autres ont dit ‘AbdAllah Ibn Qays al-Fazari et d’autres Malik Ibn ‘AbdAllah.
Les raisons qui poussèrent Mou’awiyah à l’engagement de Yazid Ibn Mou’awiyah à prendre en charge le mandat
En l’an 56 de l’Hégire (675), Mou’awiyah demanda aux gens de porter allégeance à son fils Yazid après lui et le nomma responsable des affaires des Musulmans. Tous les gens lui portèrent allégeance excepté cinq personnes :
- Al-Houssayn Ibn ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib,
- ‘AbdAllah Ibn ‘Omar,
- ‘AbdAllah Ibn Zoubayr,
-’AbdAllah Ibn ‘Abbas Ibn ‘Abdel Moutalib et
- ‘AbderRahmane Ibn Abou Bakr as-Siddiq (qu’Allah soit satisfait d’eux).
L’on peut se demander pourquoi Mou’awiyah nomma Yazid calife des Musulmans ? Cette question est de prime importance. Mou’awiyah dut réfléchit prudemment à la question et il en tira plusieurs conclusions.
- La grande Fitnah était toujours présente dans l’esprit des Musulmans et il était impératif pour eux de s’unifier auprès de leur émir et de ne pas se diviser une nouvelle fois.
Mais n’y avait-il pas pour Mou’awiyah Ibn Abi Soufyan des gens meilleurs que son fils Yazid pour la nomination ?
Certes, il ne fait aucun doute qu’il y avait des milliers de Compagnons et des dizaines de milliers de compagnon des Compagnons meilleurs que Yazid dont il ne prit même pas la peine de consulter.
Et il ne fait aussi aucun doute que du côté politique et juridique, que Mou’awiyah vit derrière son fils Yazid l’assurance de l’armée de Syrie et c’est un point très important que d’avoir une armée dévouée car les soldats de Syrie étaient les piliers de l’état omeyyade et ce depuis ses premiers jours. Ces soldats avaient la particularité d’écouter et d’obéir à Mou’awiyah au doigt et à l’œil mais aussi de ne jamais lui avoir désobéi !
Quant à Yazid, il avait l’expérience militaire. Il fut le premier commandant à avoir attaqué Constantinople, la capitale de César (qayssar) à la tête d’une armée comportant des compagnons que nous avons déjà mentionné.
Il fut aussi nommé émir du Hajj des Musulmans durant les années 51, 52 et 53 de l’Hégire.
Ainsi Mou’awiyah le nomma émir des Musulmans du fait qu’il avait de l’expérience dans les affaires des Musulmans et une stabilité politique ferme derrière lui. S’il avait abandonné les Musulmans sans émir cela aurait pu conduire à des évènements bien plus graves.
Avec la porte de la Fitnah ouverte avec l’assassinat du troisième Calife Martyr ‘Uthman Ibn ‘Affan (qu’Allah soit satisfait de lui), Mou’awiyah voulut prendre des précautions pour protéger les Musulmans et éviter que la porte ne s’ouvre de nouveau.
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action formed in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Yaverland, Isle of Wight. Photographed: 14/03/2019
This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Rapid strata formation and rapid erosion at Mount St Helens.
slideplayer.com/slide/5703217/18/images/28/Rapid+Strata+F...
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life'
This is a manipulated photo for the Down Under Challenge Group See the other entries Here
I've been doing "Text on a Path" Tutorials the past few days......can't get out of the habit.
This Tutorial is Here
I did this one at a request from contacts from photos I had posted. Sadly, it only works on the CS Photoshop versions, and not on PS Elements
Image via flickr photo by Kaptain Kobold flickr.com/photos/kaptainkobold/5181464194 shared under a Creative Commons (BY-NC-SA) license
Quote via Peter Skillen's post theconstructionzone.wordpress.com/2014/06/18/project-base...
Statue outside kindergarten on the outskirts of Chernobyl.
The Chernobyl contamination was divided into four exclusion zones based on radiation amounts. The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone with highest contamination is officially uninhabited. In truth, over 2,000 elderly villagers illegally resettled their homes and farms inside the Zone. Today nearly 400 remain. More than 3,000 workers manage the Zone, living in Chernobyl town during 4-day and 15-day shifts. Another 3,800 personnel commute daily to work at the Chernobyl plant from their new home in Slavutych.
After the accident in 1986, over 160 towns and villages nearby were evacuated. Many were demolished, some were simply abandoned. This village that is beyond the main zone of exclusion where radiation fell but evacuation was not mandatory. In Ukraine, this included over two thousand villages. The accident and indirect consequences continue to affect these residents physically, economically, socially and psychologically.
A 35 man (plus guides) trip to the Ukraine exploring Chernobyl, the village, Duga 3, Pripyat and Kiev including Maidan (Independence Square) and observing the peaceful protests underway.
Some new faces, some old, made new friends and generally we were in our elements.
Rhetorical question but did we have a blast? You bet!
Amazing group, top guys. Till the next time!
My blog:
timster1973.wordpress.com
Also on Facebook
www.Facebook.com/TimKniftonPhotography
online store: www.artfinder.com/tim-knifton
Through the glass.
Through the mask.
Through the monitor.
Through the screen.
How are we enjoying our human made environment?
Will we take responsibility this time?
Will we learn?
Are we truly...intelligent?
That remains to be seen, doesn't it...
From the series "TOTEM"
This picture was taken over 5 years ago. I love it because it captures my "essence".
50 Questions
Tagged by ShePuppy
Post a pic of yourself & answer the questions.
1: What are you doing?
Watching America's Next Top Model...
2: Something about you that nobody ever knew?
I've never been kissed. I've never had a "true" relationship.
3: Biggest phobias?
I am so scared of the dark.
4: How tall are you?
5ft 3
5: Ever been in love?
Yes
6: Any tattoos that you want?
I'm actually getting a tattoo of my fave girl, Alice next Saturday!
7: Any piercings that you want?
I really want a tragus piercing but I have terrbily sensitive ears.
8: Makeouts or cuddling?
No.
9: Shoe size?
8 1/2
10: Favorite bands?
Pink Floyd, Nine Inch Nails, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Switchblade Symphony, Rasputina...things of that sort.
11: Something you miss?
My friends. I have none outside of my house right now. (My sister, my cat and Alice are literally my friends...so sad)
12: Favourite song?
The Great Below by NIN
13: How old are you?
26
14: Zodiac sign?
Pisces
15: Hair Color?
White with a hint of pale green.
16: Favourite Quote?
"..I listened to the old brag of my heart, I am, I am, Iam." ~Sylvia Plath from the Bell Jar
17: Favourite singer?
Trent Reznor
18: Favourite colour?
Pink
19: Loud music or soft?
What does loud music consist of? I hate lite rock and easy listening...so I guess loud?
20: Where do you go when you're sad?
My bed.
21: What's your grail stock Blythe? Goldie
22: What are some of your grail custom Blythes?
I really REALLY want a Calvera girl but it has to be perfect.
23:How many kids do you have? None.
24: Turn on?
An open mind, a sense of humor, good taste in music and a big...nose.
25: Turn off?
Guys who KNOW they're good looking.
26: The reason I joined Flickr?
Blythe
27: Most recent Blythe obsession:
Mimsy Beuno hats.
28: Last thing that made you cry?
Talking about my inability to drive.
29: Last time you cried?
A couple days ago.
30: Meaning behind your url:
Daifuku is a type of mochi (asian bean cake) that I used to eat. I got really sick one time from eating too much and now I can't eat it any more. Darling is just one of my favorite nick names.
31: Last book you read?
Good grief...Its been a while since I've ready anything. I have severe ADD so reading is a problem.
32: Last song you listened to?
"Folksom Prison Blues" by Johnny Cash
33: Last show you watched?
America's Next Top Model
34: Last person you talked to?
My sister, Melissa
35: The relationship between you and the person you last texted?
Father
36: Favourite food?
Unagi Sushi roll (eel)
37: Place you want to visit?
The Daikenyama (sp?) district in Japan. Blythe shopping!!
38: Last place you were?
Outside of the house-Party City, inside the house-My bedroom
39: Do you have a crush?
Does Trent Reznor count?
40: Last time you kissed someone?
I already told you, I've never been kissed...
41: Last time you were insulted and what was it?
My sister told me I need to plan things out better about an hour ago...but it's true.
42: What are you looking forward to?
Next Saturday's tattoo appointment!
43: Any dolly plans today? Straightening up the doll house.
44: Are you tired?
Ermgerd..So very tired
45: Wearing any bracelets?
No.
46: Last sport you played?
......
47: Last song you sang?
"Freedom" by George Micheal
48: Last prank call you remember doing?
I Pony-fied my sister's computer so that everything she ready said "Call Me Maybe" lyrics.
49: Last time you hung out with anyone?
Maybe a month or two ago. Unless you count my sister, which was yesterday.
50: Do you consider yourself to be approachable?
Hmm...Personality wise, yes. Image wise, I'm a bit intimidating.
Is this stuff ok? I pre-soaked the film, in the developer tank, in 102F water before developing. Instructions said not to agitate it so I didn't. The clear developer came out of the tank this bright orange. I didn't rinse after the BLIX as it was not recommended. The stabilizer (mislabled "FIX") came out pink.
Are these chemicals ok to reuse?
Gautama Buddha, also known as Siddhārtha Gautama,[note 3] Shakyamuni,[note 4] or simply the Buddha, was a sage[3] on whose teachings Buddhism was founded.[web 2] He is believed to have lived and taught mostly in eastern India sometime between the sixth and fourth centuries BCE.[4][note 5]
The word Buddha means "awakened one" or "the enlightened one". "Buddha" is also used as a title for the first awakened being in an era. In most Buddhist traditions, Siddhartha Gautama is regarded as the Supreme Buddha (Pali sammāsambuddha, Sanskrit samyaksaṃbuddha) of our age.[note 6] Gautama taught a Middle Way between sensual indulgence and the severe asceticism found in the Sramana (renunciation) movement[5] common in his region. He later taught throughout regions of eastern India such as Magadha and Kośala.[4][6]
Gautama is the primary figure in Buddhism and accounts of his life, discourses, and monastic rules are believed by Buddhists to have been summarized after his death and memorized by his followers. Various collections of teachings attributed to him were passed down by oral tradition and first committed to writing about 400 years later.Scholars are hesitant to make unqualified claims about the historical facts of the Buddha's life. Most accept that he lived, taught and founded a monastic order during the Mahajanapada era in India during the reign of Bimbisara, the ruler of the Magadha empire, and died during the early years of the reign of Ajatshatru who was the successor of Bimbisara, thus making him a younger contemporary of Mahavira, the Jain teacher.[7] Apart from the Vedic Brahmins, Buddha's lifetime coincided with the flourishing of other influential sramana schools of thoughts like Ājīvika, Cārvāka, Jain, and Ajñana. It was also the age of influential thinkers like Mahāvīra, Pūraṇa Kassapa , Makkhali Gosāla, Ajita Kesakambalī, Pakudha Kaccāyana, and Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta, whose viewpoints Buddha most certainly must have been acquainted with and influenced by.[8][9][note 7] There is also evidence to suggest that the two masters, Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta, were indeed historical figures and they most probably taught Buddha two different forms of meditative techniques.[10] While the most general outline of "birth, maturity, renunciation, search, awakening and liberation, teaching, death" must be true,[11] most scholars do not consistently accept all of the details contained in traditional biographies.[12][13]
The times of Gautama's birth and death are uncertain. Most historians in the early 20th century dated his lifetime as circa 563 BCE to 483 BCE.[1][14] More recently his death is dated later, between 411 and 400 BCE, while at a symposium on this question held in 1988, the majority of those who presented definite opinions gave dates within 20 years either side of 400 BCE for the Buddha's death.[1][15][note 5] These alternative chronologies, however, have not yet been accepted by all historians.[20][21][note 9]
The evidence of the early texts suggests that Siddhārtha Gautama was born into the Shakya clan, a community that was on the periphery, both geographically and culturally, of the northeastern Indian subcontinent in the 5th century BCE.[23] It was either a small republic, in which case his father was an elected chieftain, or an oligarchy, in which case his father was an oligarch.[23] According to the Buddhist tradition, Gautama was born in Lumbini, nowadays in modern-day Nepal, and raised in Kapilavastu, which may either be in present day Tilaurakot, Nepal or Piprahwa, India.[note 1] He obtained his enlightenment in Bodh Gaya, gave his first sermon in Sarnath, and died in Kushinagara.
No written records about Gautama have been found from his lifetime or some centuries thereafter. One edict of Emperor Ashoka, who reigned from circa 269 BCE to 232 BCE, commemorates the Emperor's pilgrimage to the Buddha's birthplace in Lumbini. Another one of his edict mentions several Dhamma texts, establishing the existence of a written Buddhist tradition at least by the time of the Mauryan era and which may be the precursors of the Pāli Canon.[34][note 11] The oldest surviving Buddhist manuscripts are the Gandhāran Buddhist texts, reported to have been found in or around Haḍḍa near Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan and now preserved in the British Library. They are written in the Kharoṣṭhī script and the Gāndhārī language on twenty-seven birch bark scrolls, and they date from the first century BCE to the third century CE.[web 10]The sources for the life of Siddhārtha Gautama are a variety of different, and sometimes conflicting, traditional biographies. These include the Buddhacarita, Lalitavistara Sūtra, Mahāvastu, and the Nidānakathā.[35] Of these, the Buddhacarita[36][37][38] is the earliest full biography, an epic poem written by the poet Aśvaghoṣa, and dating around the beginning of the 2nd century CE.[35] The Lalitavistara Sūtra is the next oldest biography, a Mahāyāna/Sarvāstivāda biography dating to the 3rd century CE.[39] The Mahāvastu from the Mahāsāṃghika Lokottaravāda tradition is another major biography, composed incrementally until perhaps the 4th century CE.[39] The Dharmaguptaka biography of the Buddha is the most exhaustive, and is entitled the Abhiniṣkramaṇa Sūtra,[40] and various Chinese translations of this date between the 3rd and 6th century CE. Lastly, the Nidānakathā is from the Theravāda tradition in Sri Lanka and was composed in the 5th century CE by Buddhaghoṣa.[41]
From canonical sources, the Jātakas, the Mahapadana Sutta (DN 14), and the Achariyabhuta Sutta (MN 123) which include selective accounts that may be older, but are not full biographies. The Jātakas retell previous lives of Gautama as a bodhisattva, and the first collection of these can be dated among the earliest Buddhist texts.[42] The Mahāpadāna Sutta and Achariyabhuta Sutta both recount miraculous events surrounding Gautama's birth, such as the bodhisattva's descent from Tuṣita Heaven into his mother's womb.Traditional biographies of Gautama generally include numerous miracles, omens, and supernatural events. The character of the Buddha in these traditional biographies is often that of a fully transcendent (Skt. lokottara) and perfected being who is unencumbered by the mundane world. In the Mahāvastu, over the course of many lives, Gautama is said to have developed supramundane abilities including: a painless birth conceived without intercourse; no need for sleep, food, medicine, or bathing, although engaging in such "in conformity with the world"; omniscience, and the ability to "suppress karma".[43][44][45] Nevertheless, some of the more ordinary details of his life have been gathered from these traditional sources. In modern times there has been an attempt to form a secular understanding of Siddhārtha Gautama's life by omitting the traditional supernatural elements of his early biographies.
Andrew Skilton writes that the Buddha was never historically regarded by Buddhist traditions as being merely human:[46]
It is important to stress that, despite modern Theravada teachings to the contrary (often a sop to skeptical Western pupils), he was never seen as being merely human. For instance, he is often described as having the thirty-two major and eighty minor marks or signs of a mahāpuruṣa, "superman"; the Buddha himself denied that he was either a man or a god; and in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta he states that he could live for an aeon were he asked to do so.
The ancient Indians were generally unconcerned with chronologies, being more focused on philosophy. Buddhist texts reflect this tendency, providing a clearer picture of what Gautama may have taught than of the dates of the events in his life. These texts contain descriptions of the culture and daily life of ancient India which can be corroborated from the Jain scriptures, and make the Buddha's time the earliest period in Indian history for which significant accounts exist.[47] British author Karen Armstrong writes that although there is very little information that can be considered historically sound, we can be reasonably confident that Siddhārtha Gautama did exist as a historical figure.[48] Michael Carrithers goes a bit further by stating that the most general outline of "birth, maturity, renunciation, search, awakening and liberation, teaching, death" must be true.[11]The Buddhist tradition regards Lumbini, present-day Nepal, to be the birthplace of the Buddha.[49][note 1] He grew up in Kapilavastu.[note 1] The exact site of ancient Kapilavastu is unknown. It may have been either Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, present-day India,[32] or Tilaurakot, present-day Nepal.[50] Both places belonged to the Sakya territory, and are located only 15 miles apart from each other.[50]
Siddharta Gautama was born as a Kshatriya,[51][note 13] the son of Śuddhodana, "an elected chief of the Shakya clan",[4] whose capital was Kapilavastu, and who were later annexed by the growing Kingdom of Kosala during the Buddha's lifetime. Gautama was the family name. His mother, Queen Maha Maya (Māyādevī) and Suddhodana's wife, was a Koliyan princess. Legend has it that, on the night Siddhartha was conceived, Queen Maya dreamt that a white elephant with six white tusks entered her right side,[53][54] and ten months later[55] Siddhartha was born. As was the Shakya tradition, when his mother Queen Maya became pregnant, she left Kapilvastu for her father's kingdom to give birth. However, her son is said to have been born on the way, at Lumbini, in a garden beneath a sal tree.
The day of the Buddha's birth is widely celebrated in Theravada countries as Vesak.[56] Buddha's birth anniversary holiday is called "Buddha Purnima" in Nepal and India as Buddha is believed to have been born on a full moon day. Various sources hold that the Buddha's mother died at his birth, a few days or seven days later. The infant was given the name Siddhartha (Pāli: Siddhattha), meaning "he who achieves his aim". During the birth celebrations, the hermit seer Asita journeyed from his mountain abode and announced that the child would either become a great king (chakravartin) or a great holy man.[57] By traditional account,[which?] this occurred after Siddhartha placed his feet in Asita's hair and Asita examined the birthmarks. Suddhodana held a naming ceremony on the fifth day, and invited eight Brahmin scholars to read the future. All gave a dual prediction that the baby would either become a great king or a great holy man.[57] Kaundinya (Pali: Kondañña), the youngest, and later to be the first arahant other than the Buddha, was reputed to be the only one who unequivocally predicted that Siddhartha would become a Buddha.[58]
While later tradition and legend characterized Śuddhodana as a hereditary monarch, the descendant of the Solar Dynasty of Ikṣvāku (Pāli: Okkāka), many scholars think that Śuddhodana was the elected chief of a tribal confederacy.
Early texts suggest that Gautama was not familiar with the dominant religious teachings of his time until he left on his religious quest, which is said to have been motivated by existential concern for the human condition.[59] The state of the Shakya clan was not a monarchy, and seems to have been structured either as an oligarchy, or as a form of republic.[60] The more egalitarian gana-sangha form of government, as a political alternative to the strongly hierarchical kingdoms, may have influenced the development of the Shramana-type Jain and Buddhist sanghas, where monarchies tended toward Vedic Brahmanism.[61]Siddhartha was brought up by his mother's younger sister, Maha Pajapati.[62] By tradition, he is said to have been destined by birth to the life of a prince, and had three palaces (for seasonal occupation) built for him. Although more recent scholarship doubts this status, his father, said to be King Śuddhodana, wishing for his son to be a great king, is said to have shielded him from religious teachings and from knowledge of human suffering.
When he reached the age of 16, his father reputedly arranged his marriage to a cousin of the same age named Yaśodharā (Pāli: Yasodharā). According to the traditional account,[which?] she gave birth to a son, named Rāhula. Siddhartha is said to have spent 29 years as a prince in Kapilavastu. Although his father ensured that Siddhartha was provided with everything he could want or need, Buddhist scriptures say that the future Buddha felt that material wealth was not life's ultimate goal.[62]According to the early Buddhist texts,[web 11] after realizing that meditative dhyana was the right path to awakening, but that extreme asceticism didn't work, Gautama discovered what Buddhists call the Middle Way[web 11]—a path of moderation away from the extremes of self-indulgence and self-mortification, or the Noble Eightfold Path, as was identified and described by the Buddha in his first discourse, the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta.[web 11] In a famous incident, after becoming starved and weakened, he is said to have accepted milk and rice pudding from a village girl named Sujata.[web 12] Such was his emaciated appearance that she wrongly believed him to be a spirit that had granted her a wish.[web 12]
Following this incident, Gautama was famously seated under a pipal tree—now known as the Bodhi tree—in Bodh Gaya, India, when he vowed never to arise until he had found the truth.[70] Kaundinya and four other companions, believing that he had abandoned his search and become undisciplined, left. After a reputed 49 days of meditation, at the age of 35, he is said to have attained Enlightenment.[70][web 13] According to some traditions, this occurred in approximately the fifth lunar month, while, according to others, it was in the twelfth month. From that time, Gautama was known to his followers as the Buddha or "Awakened One" ("Buddha" is also sometimes translated as "The Enlightened One").
According to Buddhism, at the time of his awakening he realized complete insight into the cause of suffering, and the steps necessary to eliminate it. These discoveries became known as the "Four Noble Truths",[web 13] which are at the heart of Buddhist teaching. Through mastery of these truths, a state of supreme liberation, or Nirvana, is believed to be possible for any being. The Buddha described Nirvāna as the perfect peace of a mind that's free from ignorance, greed, hatred and other afflictive states,[web 13] or "defilements" (kilesas). Nirvana is also regarded as the "end of the world", in that no personal identity or boundaries of the mind remain. In such a state, a being is said to possess the Ten Characteristics, belonging to every Buddha.
According to a story in the Āyācana Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya VI.1) — a scripture found in the Pāli and other canons — immediately after his awakening, the Buddha debated whether or not he should teach the Dharma to others. He was concerned that humans were so overpowered by ignorance, greed and hatred that they could never recognise the path, which is subtle, deep and hard to grasp. However, in the story, Brahmā Sahampati convinced him, arguing that at least some will understand it. The Buddha relented, and agreed to teach.After his awakening, the Buddha met Taphussa and Bhallika — two merchant brothers from the city of Balkh in what is currently Afghanistan — who became his first lay disciples. It is said that each was given hairs from his head, which are now claimed to be enshrined as relics in the Shwe Dagon Temple in Rangoon, Burma. The Buddha intended to visit Asita, and his former teachers, Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta, to explain his findings, but they had already died.
He then travelled to the Deer Park near Varanasi (Benares) in northern India, where he set in motion what Buddhists call the Wheel of Dharma by delivering his first sermon to the five companions with whom he had sought enlightenment. Together with him, they formed the first saṅgha: the company of Buddhist monks.
All five become arahants, and within the first two months, with the conversion of Yasa and fifty four of his friends, the number of such arahants is said to have grown to 60. The conversion of three brothers named Kassapa followed, with their reputed 200, 300 and 500 disciples, respectively. This swelled the sangha to more than 1,000.For the remaining 45 years of his life, the Buddha is said to have traveled in the Gangetic Plain, in what is now Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and southern Nepal, teaching a diverse range of people: from nobles to servants, murderers such as Angulimala, and cannibals such as Alavaka. Although the Buddha's language remains unknown, it's likely that he taught in one or more of a variety of closely related Middle Indo-Aryan dialects, of which Pali may be a standardization.
The sangha traveled through the subcontinent, expounding the dharma. This continued throughout the year, except during the four months of the Vāsanā rainy season when ascetics of all religions rarely traveled. One reason was that it was more difficult to do so without causing harm to animal life. At this time of year, the sangha would retreat to monasteries, public parks or forests, where people would come to them.The first vassana was spent at Varanasi when the sangha was formed. After this, the Buddha kept a promise to travel to Rajagaha, capital of Magadha, to visit King Bimbisara. During this visit, Sariputta and Maudgalyayana were converted by Assaji, one of the first five disciples, after which they were to become the Buddha's two foremost followers. The Buddha spent the next three seasons at Veluvana Bamboo Grove monastery in Rajagaha, capital of Magadha.
Upon hearing of his son's awakening, Suddhodana sent, over a period, ten delegations to ask him to return to Kapilavastu. On the first nine occasions, the delegates failed to deliver the message, and instead joined the sangha to become arahants. The tenth delegation, led by Kaludayi, a childhood friend of Gautama's (who also became an arahant), however, delivered the message.
Now two years after his awakening, the Buddha agreed to return, and made a two-month journey by foot to Kapilavastu, teaching the dharma as he went. At his return, the royal palace prepared a midday meal, but the sangha was making an alms round in Kapilavastu. Hearing this, Suddhodana approached his son, the Buddha, saying:
"Ours is the warrior lineage of Mahamassata, and not a single warrior has gone seeking alms."
The Buddha is said to have replied:
"That is not the custom of your royal lineage. But it is the custom of my Buddha lineage. Several thousands of Buddhas have gone by seeking alms."
Buddhist texts say that Suddhodana invited the sangha into the palace for the meal, followed by a dharma talk. After this he is said to have become a sotapanna. During the visit, many members of the royal family joined the sangha. The Buddha's cousins Ananda and Anuruddha became two of his five chief disciples. At the age of seven, his son Rahula also joined, and became one of his ten chief disciples. His half-brother Nanda also joined and became an arahant.
Of the Buddha's disciples, Sariputta, Maudgalyayana, Mahakasyapa, Ananda and Anuruddha are believed to have been the five closest to him. His ten foremost disciples were reputedly completed by the quintet of Upali, Subhoti, Rahula, Mahakaccana and Punna.
In the fifth vassana, the Buddha was staying at Mahavana near Vesali when he heard news of the impending death of his father. He is said to have gone to Suddhodana and taught the dharma, after which his father became an arahant.
The king's death and cremation was to inspire the creation of an order of nuns. Buddhist texts record that the Buddha was reluctant to ordain women. His foster mother Maha Pajapati, for example, approached him, asking to join the sangha, but he refused. Maha Pajapati, however, was so intent on the path of awakening that she led a group of royal Sakyan and Koliyan ladies, which followed the sangha on a long journey to Rajagaha. In time, after Ananda championed their cause, the Buddha is said to have reconsidered and, five years after the formation of the sangha, agreed to the ordination of women as nuns. He reasoned that males and females had an equal capacity for awakening. But he gave women additional rules (Vinaya) to follow.Dhyana and insight[edit]
A core problem in the study of early Buddhism is the relation between dhyana and insight.[82][95][84] Schmithausen, in his often-cited article On some Aspects of Descriptions or Theories of 'Liberating Insight' and 'Enlightenment' in Early Buddhism notes that the mention of the four noble truths as constituting "liberating insight", which is attained after mastering the Rupa Jhanas, is a later addition to texts such as Majjhima Nikaya 36.[85][81][82]
Trabajo realizado sobre la extracción del libro de preguntas de Pablo Neruda:
"Dime ¿Está la rosa desnuda o tiene un solo vestido?"
-
Extract from The book of questions, by Pablo Neruda:
"Tell me, is the rose naked or is that her only dress?"
Modelo: Fredy (muchas gracias!)
Still spraying on the 2nd December 2021 67027 tnt 67023 pass Bredicot with the village of Tibberton in the background, with the 67s in filthy condition bodily but their reliability cannot be questioned this Autumn!! They were working RHTT 3S32, the 22.01 (previous night) Swindon Transfer to Cheltenham Lansdown Loop, and running 48 minutes early.
Part of the Question of the Moment bulletin board set, “If You Could Only Choose One, Which Would You Rather Use: Texting or Facebook?”
Chris asked Faith the question, she said yes and now the wedding weekend is nearly here. Hooray! I'm finalizing ceremony details including this mosaic which is naturally FEST themed.
OLD 97's - “Question”
She woke from a dream
Her head was on fire
Why was he so nervous?
He took her to the park
She crossed her arms
And lowered her eyelids
Someday, somebody's gonna ask you
A question that you should say "yes" to
Once in your life
Baby, tonight I've got a question for you
She'd had no idea
And started to cry
She said "in a good way"
He took her by the hand
Walked her back home
And they took the long way
Someday, somebody's gonna ask you
The question that you should say "yes" to
Once in your life
Maybe tonight I've got a question for you
I've got a question for you...
Kamera: Zenza Bronica SQ-Ai
Linse: Zenzanon PS 50mm + extension tube
Film: Rollei Retro 400S @ ISO 400
Kjemi: Rodinal (1:25 / 10:30 min. @ 20°C)
-Monday 19 February 2024: I have just watched the whole proceedings of today’s opening statements by Palestine in the International Court of Justice in Den Haag, where in this new case the legality, policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are in question.
This is truly an historic moment. And the presentation today was immensely powerful. I was so impressed by the whole legal team and the entire presentation of the case. In particular, I was blown away by the sharp and precise presentation by the lawyer Paul Reichler and the emotional appeal of Riyad Mansour. This was monumental.
Together with South Africa’s separate genocide case against Israel, I am certain we are finally witnessing the beginning of the end of the Zionist regime and justice at last for the Palestinian people. Today Palestine had 3 hours of presentation. In the next few days, more than 50 additional countries will also present their statements.
Here is history in the making.
International Court of Justice: Opening hearing on the legal consequences of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories (publ. 19 February 2024) [Video]
International Court of Justice: Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem [Transcripts and Documents]
Mr REICHLER:
3. THE ILLEGALITY OF ISRAEL’S PROLONGED OCCUPATION, ANNEXATION AND SETTLEMENT OF THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY
1. Mr President, Members of the Court, it is an honour for me to appear before you, and a privilege to speak on behalf of the State of Palestine.
2. I will address the legality of Israel’s prolonged occupation, annexation and settlement of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In so doing, I will identify the elements that determine whether, and in what circumstances, a belligerent occupation is, or becomes, unlawful under international law; I will then review the evidence to assess whether those elements are present here; and I will show that, based on the applicable law and the well-established and undisputed facts, Israel’s 56-year occupation of Palestinian territory is manifestly and gravely unlawful, and that international law requires that it be brought to an end, completely and unconditionally.
I. The applicable rule of law
3. The applicable rule of law is straightforward. As Pictet wrote in 1958, “occupation . . . is essentially a temporary . . . situation”. This remains the law. In December 2022, the General Assembly, in resolution 77/126, recognized that “the occupation of a territory is to be a temporary, de facto situation, whereby the occupying Power can neither claim possession nor exert its sovereignty over the territory it occupies”. This rule is neatly explained in the Written Statement of Switzerland:
“The laws of occupation are built on the idea that occupation is only a temporary situation. They are based on four fundamental principles . . .: 1) the occupying power does not acquire sovereignty over the territory it occupies . . . 2) the occupying power must maintain the status quo ante and must not take any measures which might bring about permanent changes”.
The law is thus crystal clear: occupation can only be a temporary state of affairs. A permanent occupation is a legal oxymoron.
II. The permanent character of the Israeli occupation
4. Mr President, what makes Israel’s ongoing occupation of the Palestinian territory unlawful is precisely its permanent character, and what demonstrates its permanence are:
(i) Israel’s de jure and de facto annexation of Jerusalem and the West Bank;
(ii) its claims of sovereignty over these areas, which it refers to by their biblical names, Judea and Samaria, and considers integral parts of the State of Israel;
(iii) its establishment of hundreds of permanent Israeli settlements, with over 700,000 Israeli settlers, who have been promised by successive Israeli governments that they will never be removed; and
(iv) the multitude of official statements and documents that openly declare Israel’s intention to incorporate all of the occupied territory east of the Green Line into the State of Israel as a permanent part of a single Jewish State extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
A. Declarations of permanence by Israel’s highest authorities
5. As I will show you, the evidence is overwhelming and leaves no room for serious dispute about Israel’s actions or its intentions. As Israel’s Cabinet Secretary wrote in June of last year:
“Judea and Samaria were not seized from a sovereign state recognized by international law, and the State of Israel has a right to impose its sovereignty over these areas as they comprise the cradle of history of the Jewish people and are an inseparable part of the Land of Israel.”
As purported legal authority, the Cabinet Secretary invoked the First Book of Maccabees, written in the year 100 BC, chapter 15, verse 33:
“It is not a foreign land we have taken nor have we seized the property of foreigners, but only our ancestral heritage, which for a time had been unjustly occupied by our enemies.”
6. This was followed in August of last year by a message broadcast on Israel’s Army Radio by Israel’s Heritage Minister:
“Sovereignty must be extended within the borders of the West
Bank . . . and in the most prudent way, to create international recognition that this place is ours . . . There is no Green Line, it is a fictitious line that creates a distorted reality and must be erased.”
7. In September 2023, Israel’s Prime Minister literally erased the Green Line, in his presentation to the United Nations General Assembly. As you saw earlier, he depicted the State of Israel as extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, eliminating not only the Green Line but all traces of Palestine. This was no oversight; it was an act of the Head of Government, with all the attribution that it implies. The same message was delivered by Israel’s Finance Minister in Paris, six months earlier, when he denied the existence of Palestine and declared that Palestinians do not constitute a people. Previously, he said:
“We are here to stay. We will make it clear that our national ambition for a Jewish State from the river to the sea is an accomplished fact, a fact not open to discussion or negotiation.”
This has been Israel’s consistent position. Here is the map of Israel produced by its armed forces and published by the Government in 2021. One State, Israel, from the river to the sea. There is no Green Line; there is no Palestine. Instead, Palestine has been replaced by “Judea” and “Samaria”, which, according to Israel’s highest officials, are now integral parts of the State of Israel.
B. Annexation and settlement of Jerusalem
8. As these official statements and maps demonstrate, Israel makes no secret of its intention to retain permanently the entire area east of the Green Line. Its annexation of occupied Palestinian territory began in 1967 with legislation annexing East Jerusalem, which Israel increased eleven-fold in size to incorporate not only the Holy City but also vast areas of the West Bank surrounding the City. Its Defence Minister, Moshe Dayan, declared at the time:
“The Israel Defence Forces have liberated Jerusalem . . . We have returned to this most sacred shrine, never to part from it again.”
In 1990, the Israeli Cabinet instructed the Foreign Minister to notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations that
“Jerusalem is not, in any part, ‘occupied territory’; it is the sovereign capital of Israel”.
In June 1996, the Guidelines of the incoming Israeli Government stated:
“Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, is one city, whole and undivided, and will remain forever under Israel’s sovereignty.”
More recently, in assuming office in December 2022, the current Prime Minister declared that
“[t]he Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land nor occupiers in our eternal capital Jerusalem”.
As these official statements make clear, Israel’s dominion over Jerusalem and the incorporated area of the West Bank is not intended to be temporary. It has been repeatedly proclaimed by Israel’s highest authorities to be “eternal”.
9. In furtherance of this end, more than 230,000 Israeli Jewish settlers - encouraged, subsidized and protected by the Israeli Government and occupation forces - have been installed in East Jerusalem, dramatically altering the demographic composition of the Holy City by creating an Israeli Jewish majority.
C. Annexation and settlement of the West Bank
10. Israel has been equally clear in declaring its permanence in the West Bank, where more than 465,000 Israeli Jewish settlers have been implanted with the support of every Israeli government since 1967, in over 270 ever-expanding settlements, spread throughout this territory, in what can only be described as a vast colonial enterprise. These settlements, whose accelerated growth and distribution over the years are illustrated on your screens now, are a key instrument of Israel’s annexation of the West Bank; this is both their purpose and their effect.
11. As the Secretary-General reported to the General Assembly in 2015:
“Occupation is supposed to be temporary because the annexation or acquisition of territory by force is strictly prohibited under international law . . . In the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, the establishment and maintenance of the settlements amount to a slow, but steady annexation of the occupied Palestinian territory.”
12. Israel has made no secret of the intended permanence of these settlements. In 2010, Prime Minister Netanyahu told Israeli settlers in the West Bank:
“Our message is clear. ‘We are planting here, we will stay here, we will build here. This place will be an inseparable part of the State of Israel for eternity.’”
In August 2019, the Prime Minister announced that:
“The time has come to apply Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and to also arrange the status of all Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria . . . They will be part of the State of Israel.”
In January 2020, Israel’s Defence Minister, Naftali Bennett, declared:
“Our objective is that within a short amount of time . . . we will apply sovereignty to all of Area C, not just the settlements, not just this bloc or another.”
13. This area, which is depicted in red on your screens now, comprises over 61 per cent of the West Bank. The Defence Minister proclaimed:
“I solemnly declare that Area C belongs to Israel.”
This area includes the Jordan Valley, which is the water reservoir, the breadbasket and the source of life for the entire West Bank.
14. In December 2022, the Guiding Principles of the incoming Israeli Government declared:
“The Jewish people have an exclusive and indisputable right to all parts of the Land of Israel. The Government will promote and develop the settlement of all parts of the Land of Israel - the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan and Judea and Samaria.”
The coalition agreement between the political parties that formed the Government included this pledge:
“[T]he Prime Minister will lead the formulation and promotion of policy in which sovereignty will be applied in Judea and Samaria, while choosing the timing and weighing all the national and international interests of the State of Israel.”
III. Israel’s defiance of the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Court
15. General Assembly resolution 77/126 was adopted on 12 December 2022, just as the current Israeli Government was assuming office. The resolution pointedly recalled:
“[T]he principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of land by force and therefore the illegality of the annexation of any part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, which constitutes a breach of international law” and the resolution condemned Israel’s “annexation of land, whether de facto or through national legislation”.
16. Israel has thoroughly disregarded resolution 77/126, just as it disregarded all prior General Assembly and Security Council resolutions declaring illegal the annexation of any part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the establishment of Israeli settlements there. These include but are by no means limited to:
* - Security Council resolution 252 of 1968, declaring Israel’s acquisition of territory by military conquest “inadmissible”;
* - resolution 476 of 1980, which “[r]eaffirm[ed] the overriding necessity for ending the prolonged occupation of Arab territories” in 1980 and “[s]trongly deplore[d] the refusal of Israel . . . to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly”;
* - resolution 478 of 1980, which “determine[d] that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel . . . to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the ‘basic law’ on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith”;
* - resolution 2334 of 2016, which “reaffirm[ed] . . . the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force”, and condemned “all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967 . . . including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians”; and
* - at least 28 General Assembly resolutions, which expressly condemned Israel’s “annexation” of Jerusalem and the West Bank.
* 17. Israel has also blatantly disregarded the obligations reflected in the Court’s 2004 Advisory Opinion in the Wall case. Since then, instead of dismantling the wall, Israel has extended it from a length of 190 km to more than 460 km38, encompassing hundreds of additional square kilometres of Palestinian land, and incorporating it into the State of Israel. In its Advisory Opinion, the Court expressed concern lest
“the construction of the wall and its associated régime create a ‘fait accompli’ on the ground that could well become permanent, in which case, and notwithstanding the formal characterization of the wall by Israel, it would be tantamount to de facto annexation”
18. And that is precisely what has happened over the past 20 years, not only within the expanded confines of the wall, but all across the West Bank, most of which has now been annexed de facto by Israel. In 2022, the report of the United Nations International Commission of Inquiry concluded:
“Israel treats the occupation as a permanent fixture and has - for all intents and purposes - annexed parts of the West Bank . . . The International Court of Justice anticipated such a scenario in its 2004 advisory opinion . . . This has now become the reality.”
19. The Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory reached the same conclusion:
“The occupation by Israel has been conducted in profound defiance of international law . . . Its 55-year-old occupation burst through the restraints of temporariness long ago. Israel has progressively engaged in the de jure and de facto annexation of occupied territory.”
IV. Recent acceleration of Israel’s annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory
20. Mr President, Israel’s ongoing annexation of the West Bank accelerated in 2023, with the largest ever expansion of settlements in the territory. Twenty-two new settlements were authorized and more than 16,000 new housing units were built, funded or planned by Israeli authorities. As explained by Israel’s Finance Minister:
“The construction boom in Judea and Samaria and all over our country continues . . . We will continue to develop the settlement[s] and strengthen the Israeli hold on the territory.”
21. In developing its settlements, Israel has invested heavily in the infrastructure needed to supply them with water and electric power, as well as a network of roads and highways to connect them to one another and to Israel itself. These investments, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, attest to the intended permanent character of the settlements. The roads, which Palestinians are forbidden to use, and a pervasive system of roadblocks and checkpoints, prevent Palestinians - but not Israeli settlers - from moving from place to place in the West Bank, and they isolate Palestinian communities by cutting them off from one another. Israel’s settlement expansion has thus both uprooted Palestinians from their homes to make room for new settlements, and forced them to live in disconnected and non-contiguous enclaves, which the Special Rapporteur has called
“a fragmented archipelago of 165 disparate patches of land”. This achieves the fundamental objective of the occupation: permanent acquisition of the maximum amount of Palestinian territory, with the minimum number of Palestinians in it.
22. In furtherance of this objective, and with increasing frequency, armed groups of settlers, supported by Israel’s occupation forces and encouraged by government ministers, have violently expelled thousands of peaceful Palestinian civilians from their ancestral villages and lands. A United Nations Fact Finding Mission confirmed:
“[T]he motivation behind this violence and the intimidation against the Palestinians and their properties is to drive the local populations away from their lands and allow the settlements to expand.”
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reported in March 2023:
“[S]ettler violence further intensified, reaching the highest levels ever recorded by the United Nations.”
In November 2023, the High Commissioner warned that the situation had further deteriorated with “a sharp increase in settler violence and takeover of land across the West Bank. Since 7 October,” he continued, “nearly 1,000 Palestinians from at least 15 herding communities have been forced from their homes”.
23. The Secretary-General, in his most recent report, issued on 25 October 2023, expressly linked the expansion of Israeli settlements to the permanent acquisition of Palestinian territory:
“[S]uccessive Israeli Governments have consistently advanced and implemented policies of settlement expansion and takeover of Palestinian land.
The policies of the current Government in this regard are aligned, to an unprecedented extent, with the goals of the Israeli settler movement to expand long- term control over the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and, in practice, to further integrate those areas within the territory of the State of Israel.”
V. Application of the law to the facts
24. Mr President, Members of the Court, taking account of this evidence, as well as that described in the State of Palestine’s two written submissions, I turn to the law and how it applies to this occupation. The Written Statement of Switzerland is, once again, directly on point. It highlights the distinction between the law of occupation and the legality of a particular occupation:
“The law of occupation and the legality of occupation are two different questions. The law of occupation applies independently of the question of the legality of the occupation. Occupation is a situation subject to international humanitarian law, whereas its legality is covered by the United Nations Charter.”
25. In relation to the legality of the occupation under the Charter, Switzerland observes:
“The United Nations has consistently reaffirmed the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, and condemned Israeli measures aimed at modifying the demographic composition, the character and the status of Jerusalem and the Occupied Palestinian Territory as a whole, notably the construction and extension of settlements, the transfer of Israeli settlers, the confiscation of land, the demolition of homes and the displacement of Palestinian civilians.”
In Switzerland’s view:
“The measures taken by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory lead to fundamental changes, particularly demographic changes, that can have a permanent character.” In such circumstances, Switzerland expressly invites the Court “to rule on the consequences of the permanent character of the measures taken by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as to the status of the occupation under general international law, in particular the Charter of the United Nations”.
26. Many States agree with this approach. France, too, underscores the temporary character of lawful occupation. This is a requirement that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory plainly fails to meet. As France states:
“[I]f the restrictions authorised by a regime of occupation were justifiable in the period following the military operations, they are not any more today. These points have been reiterated by the Security Council and the General Assembly on numerous occasions concerning Israel’s obligation to withdraw from the ‘occupied’ territories.”
27. France calls out, in particular, Israel’s annexation of occupied territory:
“The status of occupying power does not confer any legal title justifying annexation . . . The passage of time is not sufficient, as regards the acquisition of territory by force, to render lawful a situation that is gravely unlawful.”
On Israel’s vast network of settlements and hundreds of thousands of settlers in the occupied territory, France states:
“These permanent establishments are obviously incompatible with the necessarily temporary character of the occupation.”
28. Thirty-five of the States and international organizations that submitted written statements have addressed the legality of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. Only two of these 35, to which I will come, argued that the occupation is not unlawful. Key excerpts reflecting the views expressed by the overwhelming majority - that the occupation is unlawful as a whole and must be brought to an end - are collected in Chapter 2 of the State of Palestine’s Written Comments. Here are three brief but emblematic examples:
29. The African Union
“invites the Court to conclude that the prolonged Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories is, in itself, unlawful . . . [T]he policies and practices associated with it amount to de facto and de jure annexation of the Palestinian territories, which violates the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force.”
30. Brazil observes that:
“Occupation is inherently temporary. This is the basic distinction between occupation and annexation.”
Brazil, here, hits the nail right on the head: unlike occupation, annexation is intended to be permanent, and it makes the occupation itself unlawful. In Brazil’s words, Israel’s policies and practices
“render the occupation unlawful as a whole, inasmuch as it would be tantamount to the acquisition of territory by force”.
31. Japan, too, emphasizes that the annexation of occupied territory is unlawful, referring to Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter:
“As the ICJ clarified in the Wall Advisory Opinion, the illegality of the acquisition of territory by force is a corollary of the prohibition of use of force incorporated in the UN Charter”,
which Japan calls
“the most fundamental rule of the post-war regime for peace based on the rule of law among nations”.
VI. The indefensibility of Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory
32. The two outliers are Fiji and the United States. Of all the States that submitted written statements to the Court, only Fiji attempted to defend the occupation as lawful. But even Fiji conceded that Israel has annexed East Jerusalem de jure and that the application of an occupying Power’s laws to the occupied territory, which is the case in the West Bank, constitutes an annexation de facto. Nor did Israel itself deny its annexations of Jerusalem and the West Bank. Its abbreviated written statement is mainly an attack on the General Assembly for its alleged bias. It makes no attempt to defend the legality of its occupation under international law.
33. The only State besides Fiji to defend Israel is the United States. This is not surprising. Whatever offences against international law Israel commits, the United States comes forward to shield it from accountability. Here, the United States attempts to defend Israel, not by arguing that the occupation is lawful, but that it is neither lawful nor unlawful. To reach this conclusion, the United States argues that belligerent occupation is governed exclusively by international humanitarian law and not by the United Nations Charter or general international law. In its own words:
“Although international humanitarian law imposes obligations on belligerents in their conduct of an occupation, it does not provide for the legal status of an occupation to be lawful or unlawful.”
34. Even assuming, arguendo, that this is a correct reading of international humanitarian law, which we dispute, it does not lead to the conclusion that an occupation cannot be unlawful under international law. What about Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter, and general international law, including the prohibition on acquisition of territory by force? For the United States, apparently, this peremptory norm does not exist when it comes to Israel’s annexation and settlement of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Only in such a lawless - and United Nations Charter-less - world could the Israeli occupation be described as “not unlawful”.
35. Notably, the United States ignores the part of the General Assembly’s request that the Court determine the legal status of the occupation under the United Nations Charter, in addition to international humanitarian law and other sources of law; and the United States fails to mention, let alone respond to, Switzerland’s Written Statement, asserting that belligerent occupation is covered both by international humanitarian law and by the United Nations Charter and general international law; and that the legality of the occupation itself is governed by the latter. The United States also ignores the written statements of the many other States which conclude that the Israeli occupation is unlawful as a whole, precisely because its annexation and settlement of the occupied territory constitute a permanent acquisition of territory by force in violation of Article 2 (4) and general international law.
36. Instead, in a single footnote, the United States responds only to those States which submitted that the Israeli occupation is unlawful under Articles 40 and 41 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. Remarkably, the United States contends that neither of those two articles reflects general international law. This is truly stunning! A persistent failure of a State to fulfil an obligation arising under a peremptory norm is not unlawful under general international law, as provided in Article 40? The injunction in Article 41 - that no State shall recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach of a peremptory norm - is not part of general international law? Just how far in disregarding the international legal order will the United States go to exempt Israel from the consequences of its ongoing violation of peremptory norms, including the prohibition on acquisition of territory by force?
37. Apparently, very far indeed. According to former US President Barack Obama, in the
memoir he published in 2020:
“[J]ust about every country in the world considered Israel’s continued occupation of the Palestinian territories to be a violation of international law. As a result, our diplomats found themselves in the awkward position of having to defend Israel for actions that we ourselves opposed.”
This is exactly what the United States is doing - again - in these proceedings.
VII. The occupation is unlawful and must be brought to an end
38. Mr President, Members of the Court, the evidence is before you - in the written submissions of the State of Palestine and dozens of other States and international organizations, and in the voluminous materials supplied to you by the Secretary-General - and it is indisputable. Under the umbrella of its prolonged military occupation, Israel has been steadily annexing the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and it continues to do so. Its undisguised objective is the permanent acquisition of this territory, and the exercise of sovereignty over it, in defiance of the prohibition on acquisition of territory by force.
39. The evidence is not only indisputable, it is of the highest probative value: investigative reports of authoritative United Nations agencies; reports of the Secretary-General; resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly; legislative and administrative acts by the Israeli Government; and public statements against interest by the most senior government officials admitting that Israel’s objective is sovereignty over all the territory east of the Green Line and its incorporation into a single Jewish State from the river to the sea. In this case, there is no reason not to take them at their word, because their deeds have been entirely consistent with it.
40. For Israel, as its successive governments have made clear, there is no Palestine. It simply does not exist. In November 2023, Prime Minister Netanyahu declared that his Government would never agree to a Palestinian State in the occupied territory. He later declared:
“I will not compromise on full security control over all the territory west of Jordan - and this is contrary to a Palestinian state.”
Israel’s intransigence was confirmed by its staunchest ally in December 2023, when US President Joe Biden publicly lamented that Israel’s leaders “don’t want anything remotely approaching a two-state solution”.
41. That is the very solution demanded by the Security Council, the General Assembly, the overwhelming majority of States and the State of Palestine itself. It is, in fact, the only solution that can lead to lasting peace and security for the Israeli people as well as the Palestinian people. And it is this very solution that has been frustrated by Israel’s defiant insistence on maintaining its dominion over Palestinian territory in perpetuity. This is why the Court’s advisory opinion is so critical and so urgent. The best, and possibly the last, hope for the two-State solution that is so vital to the needs of both peoples is for the Court to declare illegal the main obstacle to that solution - the ongoing Israeli occupation of Palestine - and for it to pronounce, in the clearest possible terms, that international law requires that this entire illegal enterprise be terminated: completely, unconditionally and immediately.
42. Mr President, the law is clear and it demands nothing less. A permanent occupation - one that is founded upon annexation and massive settlement of the occupied territory, and which aims to exercise sovereignty over it - is manifestly and gravely unlawful; it is an ongoing international wrong that must be brought to an immediate end. As the Court ruled in 1971:
“[T]he continued presence of South Africa in Namibia being illegal, South Africa is under obligation to withdraw its administration from Namibia immediately and thus put an end to its occupation of the Territory”.
43. The Secretary-General applied this principle directly to Palestine in his remarks to the Security Council one month ago:
“Palestinians must see their legitimate aspirations for a fully independent, viable and sovereign State realized, in line with United Nations resolutions, international law and previous agreements. Israel’s occupation must end.”
44. Mr President, the proverbial ball is now in your court. The General Assembly has asked you the critical questions. It is now your responsibility to answer them. Silence is not an option. As the immortal Palestinian poet, Mahmoud Darwish, wrote: “In silence we become accomplices.” But, he assured us, when we speak: “Every word has the power to change the world.”
45. Mr President, Members of the Court, your words have such power. In 2004, the Court affirmed the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. In 2024, it is time for you to enable them finally to exercise that right, by freeing them from the unlawful Israeli occupation of their territory, so that they may live in a sovereign and fully independent State of their own, in peaceful and secure coexistence with all their neighbours, including Israel. By upholding international law, which is all the State of Palestine asks you to do, your powerful words will change the world.
46. I thank you Mr President, Members of the Court, for your kind courtesy and patient attention. We are in your hands, Mr President, whether you would like to take the mid-morning break now or call our next speaker.
The PRESIDENT: I thank Mr Reichler. I will invite the next speaker to take the floor after a coffee break of ten minutes. The sitting is suspended.
The Court adjourned from 11.25 a.m. to 11.45 a.m.
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2019 WASHINGTON DC. 2019 ANNUAL MEETINGS. DECODING DEBT: GETTING TRANSPARENCY RIGHT.
The panel addresses three key questions: 1) Why is debt transparency important? 2) Why is it lacking in so many low-income countries? 3) What must be done to create the right incentives for greater debt transparency? David R. Malpass President, World Bank Group; Antoinette Sayeh Visiting Fellow at the Center for Global Development; Kenneth Rogoff Thomas D. Cabot Professor at Harvard University; Zainab Ahmed Minister of Finance, Budget and National Planning, Nigeria; Julie Monaco Managing Director Global Head Public Sector Banking, Capital Markets and Advisory Division Citi. Photo: World Bank / Simone D. McCourtie
Photo ID: 101719-DecodingDebt-0159F
Time to start preparing for Alex's arrival! I want to make sure he has some goodies waiting for him when he gets home. Thanks for your help!
I posed the question the night before, that I wondered if the bells of the Minster would chime all night, and so would they be made silent after, say, eleven? I can now reveal that the bells did chime all night. I would like to say it was kind of re-assuring, but the ringing, not only of the hours but an attractive peal before the hours were chimed, was loud, loud enough to wake me from my slumber on a few occasions.
We arranged to meet Bradey at eight for breakfast, and in an unusual move we had to exit the guesthouse and go in the front door for the breakfast room. It worked, and soon we were tucking into toast, cereal and a huge cup of coffee or two.
Before breakfast, Jools and I walked round the monster, and saw that it opened at nine, so we hoped to load the car and be at the doors at the final stroke of nine so we could hit toe road as soon as we, or rather, I had my shots.
And this is what happened. The car loaded, we walked to the monster to find the door unlocked, but the church deserted. So, I rushed round getting my shots, it is always wonderful to have a building to oneself, but one as grand and as special as Beverley Minster was a rare treat.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beverley Minster, in Beverley, East Riding of Yorkshire, is a parish church in the Church of England. It is one of the largest parish churches in the UK, larger than one third of all English cathedrals and regarded as a gothic masterpiece by many.
Originally a collegiate church, it was not selected as a bishop's seat during the Dissolution of the Monasteries; nevertheless it survived as a parish church and the chapter house was the only major part of the building to be lost. It is part of the Greater Churches Group and a Grade I listed building.[1] Every year it hosts events in association with local schools. Including the Beverley Minster Primary School Nativity Performance and the Beverley Grammar School Speech Night.
The minster owes its origin and much of its subsequent importance to Saint John of Beverley, who founded a monastery locally around 700 AD and whose bones still lie beneath a plaque in the nave. The institution grew after his death and underwent several rebuildings. After a serious fire in 1188, the subsequent reconstruction was overambitious; the newly heightened central tower collapsed c. 1213 bringing down much of the surrounding church. Work on the present structure began around 1220.
It took 200 years to complete building work but, despite the time scale involved, the whole building has coherent form and detail and is regarded[who?] as one of the finest examples of Perpendicular design, the twin towers of the west front being a superlative example. These formed the inspiration for the design of the present Westminster Abbey.
Saint Thomas Becket of Canterbury, (c. 1118–29 December 1170) was named Provost of Beverley in 1154.
Henry Percy, 4th Earl of Northumberland (1449–1489), was buried in the church after being murdered by the citizens of York in 1489 during the Yorkshire Rebellion over high taxes imposed by King Henry VII.
As with many English churches during the wars of religion in the 16th century, Beverley Minster was not immune to dissension. Church authorities cracked down hard on those they felt were part of the "Popish" conspiracy contrary to Royal decrees. "Among those holding traditional beliefs were three of the clergy at the minster, who were charged with Popish practices in 1567; John Levet was a former member of the college and Richard Levet was presumably his brother. Both Levetts were suspended from the priesthood for keeping prohibited equipment and books and when restored were ordered not to minister in Beverley or its neighbourhood."[2]
In the 18th century the present central tower replaced an original lantern tower that was in danger of collapse. This central tower now houses the largest surviving treadwheel crane in England, which is used when raising building materials to a workshop located in the roof. A distinctive feature of both the north and south transepts is the presence of rose windows, and a White Rose of York, with ten equal parts. Daily tours to the crane and rose windows are available to the general public, subject to other church commitments.
Features of the interior include columns of Purbeck Marble, stiff-leaf carving and the tomb of Lady Eleanor Percy, dating from around 1340 and covered with a richly-decorated canopy, regarded[who?] as one of the best surviving examples of Gothic art. A total of 68 16th century misericords are located in the quire of the minster and nearby is a sanctuary or frith stool dating back to Anglo-Saxon times.
The misericords were probably carved by the Ripon school of carvers and bear a strong family resemblance to those at Manchester Cathedral and Ripon Cathedral.
The church contains one of the few remaining Frith Stools (also known as Frid Stools, meaning "peace chairs") in England. Anyone wanting to claim sanctuary from the law would sit in the chair. The chair dates from Saxon times before 1066.[3][4][5][6]
The organ is mounted above a richly carved wooden screen dating from the late 19th century. There is a staircase in the north aisle which would have been used in collegiate times to gain access from and to the chapter house.
Improvements to the choir were made during the 16th and 18th centuries and medieval glass, which was shattered by a storm in 1608, was meticulously collected and installed in the East Window in 1725. The Thornton family, great craftsmen of the early 18th century, were responsible for the font cover and the west door. Another notable feature is the series of carvings of musicians which adorn the nave.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverley_Minster
Beverley Minster is the Parish Church of St. John and St. Martin
John, bishop of York, founded a monastery on the site where Beverley Minster stands.
John died in 721 and his body was buried in a chapel of the Saxon church.
He was canonised in 1037.
The present church was built around his tomb.
Building work began in 1220 and was completed in 1425.
Throughout the Middle Ages miracles which took place at his tomb attracted pilgrims from far and wide.
Today the church is still a place of pilgrimage for visitors. It also continues to be a place of prayer and worship at the heart of the community.