The End is Nigh

Weekly Hadith

2011-10-20T23:51:00.002+10:00

Please Join Weekly Hadith page on Facebook (and let your friends know about it as well): http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Weekly-Hadith/125060577528305

The link is also provided under the Links heading on the right side of this blog.

A Few Prophecies before the End Times

2011-06-26T23:49:00.005+10:00

The audio lecture I have attached is in Urdu.

According to the Mufti Muhammad Saeed Khan we are now seeing the following ahadith (in Sahih Muslim Kitab Al-Fitan wa Ashrat As-Sa`ah) being fulfilled:

Book 041, Number 6961:
Abu Nadra (Radi Allahu anhu) reported: “We were in the company of Jabir b. 'Abdullah (Radi Allahu anhu) that he said it may happen that the people of Iraq may not send their qafiz and dirhams (their measures of food stuff and their money). We said: Who would be responsible for it? He said: The non Arabs would prevent them. He again said: There is the possibility that the people of Syria may not send their dinar and mudd. We said: Who would be responsible for it? He said this prevention would be made by the Romans. He (Jabir b. Abdullah) kept quiet for a while and then reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said, 'There would be a caliph in the last (period) of my Ummah who would freely give handfuls of wealth to the people without counting it.' I said to Abu Nadra and Abu al-'Ala: Do you mean 'Umar bin Abd al-Aziz? They said: No.” [Muslim]

Book 041, Number 6923:
Abu Hurairah (Radi Allahu anhu) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: “Iraq would withhold its dirhams and qafiz; Syria would withhold its mudd and dinar and Egypt would withhold its irdab and dinar and you would recoil to that position from where you started and you would recoil to that position from where you started and you would recoil to that position from where you started, the bones and the flesh of Abu Hurairah (Radi Allahu anhu) would bear testimony to it.” [Muslim]

Mufti Saeed Khan believes that the sanctions on Iraq in the gulf war was foretold in the ahadith mentioned above; and now after 20 years sanctions on Syria (which started a few years ago and are ongoing) are what was prophesised in the ahadith. The final step will be sanctions on Eygpt, and after that very strict warning is there for the Muslims as the hadith tells us that “and you would recoil to that position from where you started.” So that might mean that Muslim countries (except for Arabia, from where Islam started) will be wiped out (i.e. they will come under the control of non Muslims such as Israel and others).

Muslim Contribution to Science

2008-10-06T14:22:00.007+10:00

Prince Charles, Heir to the British Monarchy in a recent public speech at Oxford University stated:

"If there is much misunderstanding in the West about the nature of Islam, there is also much ignorance about the debt our own culture and civilisation owe to the Islamic world. It is a failure, which stems, I think, from the straight-jacket of history, which we have inherited. The medieval Islamic world, from central Asia to the shores of the Atlantic, was a world where scholars and men of learning flourished. But because we have tended to see Islam as the enemy of the West, as an alien culture, society, and system of belief, we have tended to ignore or erase its great relevance to our own history."

When Europe was going through dark ages, in the Muslim world, the period from circa 600-1600 CE was a prolific era of creative enquiry into science, technology and engineering and a time of advancement in civilisation, which would later act as a catalyst for the Western Renaissance.

To learn more about Muslim contributions to Science please watch the following documentaries:

What the Ancients Did For Us - The Islamic World
[BBC Documentary: Running Time 57min]

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=9151565736298805805

Ancient Discoveries: Machines of the East
[History Channel Documentary: Running Time 50min]

Part 1
http://www.tubeislam.com/video/4066/Ancient-Discoveries-Islamic-Science-Part1

Part 2
http://www.tubeislam.com/video/4067/Ancient-Discoveries-Islamic-Science-Part2

Part 3
http://www.tubeislam.com/video/4068/Ancient-Discoveries-Islamic-Science-Part3

Part 4
http://www.tubeislam.com/video/4069/Ancient-Discoveries-Islamic-Science-Part4

Part 5
http://www.tubeislam.com/video/4070/Ancient-Discoveries-Islamic-Science-Part5

For more documentaries please visit:
http://www.1001inventions.com/media/documentaries

If you would like more information on this subject then I would recommend visiting the following websites:

http://www.muslimheritage.com/Default.aspx
http://www.1001inventions.com/
http://www.islamicmedicine.org/history.htm
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/science.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac20.htm
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0310-Exhibition.html

Response to Geert Wilders' Video "Fitna"

2008-03-31T15:23:00.008+10:00

I think a very good response to this video is the lecture delivered by Dr. Jamal Badawi in Ottawa, Canada: Commonly Misunderstood Qur'anic Texts - Dr Jamal Badawi.

This lecture is available on YouTube in 7 parts. The links are given below:

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMfWURGcvBI

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HXGRYaUy6g

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyMD_tE6U68

Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AixgiXpAFTY

Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WUgbgLgMXM

Part 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3VLRoQ3qUw

Part 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5UvvkCDrm4

In addition, please watch the video Is Terrorism A Muslim Monopoly? - by Dr. Zakir Naik

The entire video can be downloaded from the following website:
http://islam.thetruecall.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=352

You can also watch it on YouTube in 17 Parts. The link for part 1 is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utHBJmQIz7g

The link for the next part is on the right of the video. If you want to skip the speech by the guest speaker and listen to Dr. Zakir Naik's lecture, then start from Part 4.

Please also read the following articles on this website:

The Reality of Jizyah
http://haroonbaloch.blogspot.com/2007/08/reality-of-jizyah.html

Female Circumcision in Islam
http://haroonbaloch.blogspot.com/2007/08/female-circumcision-in-islam.html

The Future is Islam
http://haroonbaloch.blogspot.com/2007/05/future-is-islam.html

Did Prophet (peace be upon him) Massacred the Jews?
http://haroonbaloch.blogspot.com/2007/05/did-prophet-peace-be-upon-him-massacred.html

Islam Spread by Sword?
http://haroonbaloch.blogspot.com/2007/03/islam-spread-by-sword.html

Meaning of Jihad
http://haroonbaloch.blogspot.com/2007/02/meaning-of-jihad.html

Explanation of Verse 5 of Surah Taubah (Chapter 9)
http://haroonbaloch.blogspot.com/2007/02/explanation-of-verse-5-of-surah-taubah.html

Logic of Hudood In Islam
http://haroonbaloch.blogspot.com/2006/11/logic-of-hudood-in-islam.html

Striking Women in Islam?
http://haroonbaloch.blogspot.com/2006/11/striking-women-in-islam.html

Logic behind the Prohibition of Alcohol

2008-01-30T05:35:00.001+10:00

Some of the reasons behind the prohibition of alcohol are discussed in the article “Logic of Hudood in Islam” on this website. To further elaborate the horrors it has brought to humanity, I have put together a few more facts.

In the USA, no other substance (in comparison with alcohol) has caused nearly the amount of deaths, chaos, crime, and pain; and to make matters much worse, alcohol is almost completely ignored as a poison, or even as a drug.

The most devastating effect of alcohol is its addictiveness. In 1992, an estimated 27 ½ million people were addicted to alcohol. This ended up costing the affected, their families, and taxpayers over $148 billion (NIAAA). Besides the costs, alcoholism has ruined the lives of millions. The number one cause of child abuse always has, and always will be alcoholism. A study found that the number of abused and neglected children had more than doubled from 1986 to 1997 to 3 million. A rise more than eight times that of the rise of the population of children (Elrod). 915 child welfare professionals were surveyed, and 90% said that alcohol alone is the main cause of child abuse and neglect (Elrod).

We can also thank alcohol and the alcohol industry for over 110,000 deaths in 1996. Deaths from cirrhosis of the liver, drink driving, alcohol induced fights and accidents, and cancer just to name a few (NIAAA). Over 300 people die every day in America of something alcohol related. But how does the average American look at alcohol? Most people will say that it is a “safe” and “social” activity. Unless you consider 110,000 deaths “safe” and unless you consider rape and assault as being “social” then these are simply misnomers created largely by the alcohol industry.

Most Americans are unfortunately unaware that alcohol is the most common and widely used date rape drug. A study of the urine samples of 578 rape victims showed that 36% of them had alcohol in their system. Less than 1%, 5 victims, showed evidence of the “date rape drug” Rohypnol (ElSohly). In more than half the cases, the man was drunk.

Alcohol has also had a phenomenal impact on the crime world. A study by the British Medical Association showed that alcohol was present in 64% of all public offences and 40% of all violent assaults. Alcohol was also present in 60-70% of homicides, 75% of stabbings, 70% of beatings, and 50% fights (IAS). How can one look at that and say that alcohol is safe and social? It is obvious that people are not responsible with their drinking, and are bringing it onto the people around them. Alcohol remains one of the main cause of crime.

The way I look at a person who supports alcohol and buys alcohol, is a person that supports rape, child abuse and violence. You cannot say that you are against these issues while at the same time supporting them. If you were truly against these issues then you would not be supporting the number one cause of it. Every year the alcohol industry makes 100’s of billions of dollars that go right back out into society to keep killing and ruining lives.

The social cost of alcohol in Australia in 1998/99 was estimated at $7.5 billion (Counting the cost: estimates of the social costs of drug abuse in Australia in 1998-9 Collins, D and Lapsley, H, Commonwealth of Australia, 2002).

This includes costs associated with:
§ health and medical services - $225 million net cost
§ road accidents - $1.8 billion
§ lost productivity in the workplace - $1.9 billion
§ alcohol related crime - $1.2 billion

Approximately $3.9 billion of these costs or 62.1 percent were estimated by the authors to be potentially preventable and amenable to public policy initiatives (allowing time for such interventions to be effective).

Preliminary estimates indicate that the NSW Government spends almost $1 billion annually on drug and alcohol services and dealing with associated problems in the community (including some tobacco associated costs).

Various recent studies show:
§ Around 3,300 deaths per annum in Australia are attributed to alcohol use, second only to tobacco as a preventable cause of death and hospitalisation.
§ More than 72,000 hospital admissions per annum in Australia are estimated to be caused by high-risk drinking.
§ Main alcohol-related causes of death and hospitalisation are cirrhosis of the liver, cancers, stroke, falls and motor vehicle accidents.
§ Regular consumption of large quantities of alcohol by pregnant women, may be associated with a variety of adverse foetal consequences, including congenital abnormalities and foetal alcohol syndrome (foetal alcohol syndrome includes physical abnormalities, slow growth and neurological dysfunction).
§ One third of all driver and pedestrian deaths are alcohol related.
§ 12 percent of suicides, 16 percent of child abuse cases, 44 percent of fire injuries, 34 percent of falls and drowning, are associated with alcohol consumption.
§ Alcohol and drugs contribute to between 3 and 11 percent of workplace injuries and fatalities. Alcohol is also implicated in impaired work performance and productivity, and absenteeism.
§ Between 41 and 70 percent of violent crimes are committed under the influence of alcohol; in NSW alcohol was estimated to be prevalent in 42 percent of homicide incidents (although the exact role of alcohol in homicide is under debate).
§ Prisoners and offenders, prior to incarceration, show higher levels of alcohol consumption than the general population, with between 32 percent and 50 percent of offenders classified as alcohol dependent or heavy users.
§ Rates of deaths that can be wholly attributed to excessive use of alcohol are higher in non-metropolitan areas.
§ About 5-10 percent of the population drink amounts that are considered harmful or hazardous.
§ There are clear gender differences in patterns of consumption (e.g. men usually drink at an earlier age and generally drink more than women with consequent shorter life expectancy rates).
§ Women are more vulnerable to both the acute and chronic effects of alcohol misuse.
§ Misuse of alcohol is a particular concern to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) communities. Research has shown that although the proportion of ATSI people who drink is smaller than in the general population, those who drink tend to consume higher quantities – 68 percent of Aboriginal people consume alcohol at harmful levels compared to around 10 percent of drinkers in the general population.

Organisational records of the NSW Police indicate that an estimated 70 percent of incidents attended by police each year are alcohol related.

Other research indicates that almost 80 percent of domestic violence and street incidents (assaults, offensive behaviour or conduct, malicious damage and noise complaints) are alcohol related.

Alcohol reduces the size of testicles overtime. It also reduces the sperm count and increases the size of mammary glands in males, and hence his chest takes shape of a woman’s breasts over a period of time.

With hangover (even when the blood alcohol level is zero) a person cannot properly concentrate and is prone to a major error (e.g. if driving). The hangover sometimes takes many hours to clear. Alcohol acts as a diuretic and thus takes more water out of the body and therefore dehydrates a person.

Alcoholism, also known as alcohol dependence, is a disease that includes the following four symptoms:

Craving--A strong need, or urge, to drink.
Loss of control--Not being able to stop drinking once drinking has begun.
Physical dependence--Withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety after stopping drinking.
Tolerance--The need to drink greater amounts of alcohol to get "high."

Yes, alcoholism is a disease. The craving that an alcoholic feels for alcohol can be as strong as the need for food or water. An alcoholic will continue to drink despite serious family, health, or legal problems.

Like many other diseases, alcoholism is chronic, meaning that it lasts a person's lifetime; it usually follows a predictable course; and it has symptoms. The risk for developing alcoholism is influenced both by a person's genes and by his or her lifestyle. (See also "Publications," Alcohol Alert No. 30: Diagnostic Criteria for Alcohol Abuse and Dependence.)

There are several scientific reasons for the prohibition of consumption of intoxicants i.e. alcohol. The maximum number of deaths in the world related to any one particular cause is due to the consumption of alcohol. Millions of people die every year only because of intake of alcohol. I need not go into the details of all the ill-effects of alcohol since most of them are commonly known. Below is a simple list of few of the alcohol related illnesses:
1. Cirrhosis of Liver is the most well known alcohol associated disease.
2. Others are Cancer of Oesophagus, Cancer of Head and Neck, Cancer of Liver (Hepatoma), Cancer of Bowel, etc.
3. Oesophagitis, Gastritis, Pancreatitis and Hepatitis are linked with alcohol consumption.
4. Cardiomyopathy, Hypertension, Coronary Artherosclerosis, Angina and Heart Attacks are linked with heavy alcohol intakes.
5. Strokes, Apoplexy, Fits and different types of Paralysis are linked with alcohol intake.
6. Peripheral Neuropathy, Cortical Atrophy, Cerebellar Atrophy are well-known syndromes caused by alcohol consumption.
7. Wernicke – Korsakoff syndrome with amnesia of recent events, confabulations and retainment of memory to old events with different types of paralysis are mainly due to thiamine deficiency due to excessive alcohol intake.
8. Beriberi and other deficiencies are not uncommon among alcoholics. Even Pellagra occurs in alcoholics.
9. Delerium Tremens is a serious complication that may occur during recurrent infection of alcoholics or post operatively. It also occurs during abstention as a sign of withdrawal effect. It is quite serious and may cause death even if treated in well equipped centres.
10. Numerous Endocrine Disorders have been associated with alcoholism ranging from Myxodema to Hyperthyroidism and Florid Cushing Syndrome.
11. Hematological ill effects are long and variable. Folic acid deficiency, however, is the most common manifestation of alcoholic abuse resulting in Macrocytic Anemia. Zeive’s syndrome is a triad of Hemolytic Anemia, Jaundice and Hyperlipaedemia that follows alcoholic binges.
12. Thrombocytopenia and other platelet abnormalities are not rare in alcoholics.
13. The commonly used tablet metronidazole (flagyl) interacts badly with alcohol.
14. Recurrent infection is very common among chronic alcoholics. The resistance to disease and the immunological defense system are compromised by alcohol intake.
15. Chest infections are notorious in alcoholics. Pneumonia, Lung Abcess, Emphysema and Pulmonary Tuberculosis are all common in alcoholics.
16. During acute alcoholic intoxication, the drunk person usually vomits, the cough reflexes which are protective are paralysed. The vomitus thus easily pass to the lung causing Pneumonia or Lung Abscess. Occasionally it may even cause suffocation and death.
17. The ill effects of alcohol consumption on women deserves special mention. Females are more vulnerable to alcohol-related Cirrhosis than men. During pregnancy alcohol consumption has a severe detrimental effect on the foetus. Foetal Alcohol Syndrome is being recognised more and more in the medical profession.
18. Skin diseases are also related to alcohol indulgence.
19. Eczema, Alopecia, Nail Dystrophy, Paronychia (infection around the nails) and Angular Stomatitis (inflammation of the angle of the mouth) are common diseases among alcoholics.

Alcoholism is a ‘disease’ Medical doctors have now turned liberal towards alcoholics and call alcoholism a disease rather than an addiction.

The Islamic Research Foundation has published a pamphlet that says:
If alcohol is a disease, it is the only disease that:
- Is sold in bottles
- Is advertised in newspapers, magazines, on radio and television
- Has licensed outlets to spread it
- Produces revenue for the government
- Brings violent deaths on the highways
- Destroys family life and increases crime
- Has no germs or viral cause

How can we stop this epidemic of poison? Simple. For one, stop drinking alcohol. It’s easy to do it if you are not addicted. Secondly, educate people about alcohol; show alcohol for what it really is. People today are blind from the truth about alcohol. Stop supporting an industry that kills thousands of people. You wouldn’t pay an assassin to kill people you don’t know, don’t pay a multi-billion dollar industry to do it either. Educate people about what alcohol really is. The alcohol industry refuses to take the responsibility of informing people about the gross amounts of death and violence that they are responsible for. They love the fact that people think that alcohol is a fun and social activity that makes you more attractive. Make yourself better than the industry of death. Don’t swallow the garbage they try to shove down your throat. Educate yourself and others about alcohol. Also, if you know someone who is an alcoholic, don’t be afraid to help him or her. Giving up alcohol could save their life.

If you are a person who is against rape, violence, disease, and crime, then I urge you to not support the number one cause of it. When you throw money down on the counter of a liquor store, that money could very well be the money that produces the alcohol responsible for another person’s death. I would be devastated if I paid money to kill someone.

Logic behind the Prohibition of Gambling

2008-01-15T14:38:00.000+10:00

Allah says in the Glorious Quran “O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, [sacrificing on] stone alters [to other than Allah], and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful. Satan only wants to cause between you animosity and hatred through intoxicants and gambling and to avert you from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer. So will you not desist?” [Al-Quran 5:90-91]

Gambling’s basic attraction for the individual has always been the lure of “getting something for nothing.” In its simplest form gambling is the act of risking something of value on the outcome of a game or event that may be determined in part or entirely by chance.

Gambling is an old evil, long recognised as such. Some Oriental gambling games have been traced back to 2100 B.C. In ancient Egypt persons convicted of gambling were sent to the quarries. Gambling is denounced in the Hindu code, the Quran, and the Talmudic law. Aristotle denounced gamblers.

Gambling was widespread in the Middle Ages, especially among the nobility. But even those who practiced games of chance were willing to recognise evil in the games, at least for others. Legislation in England and France attempted to counteract the detrimental effects of gambling on servants, because it induced them to idleness or caused them to neglect archery practice, thus endangering national security.

One of the most popular forms of gambling was the lottery, which was permitted among working-class people and was common in the English-speaking world in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Queen Elizabeth proclaimed the first state lottery in England in 1576. Lotteries were so widespread in the United States in the early 1800s that there were almost two hundred lottery offices in the state of New York alone. In 1832 the gross sale of lottery tickets was over $60 million, which was five times the total national budget of the U.S. government.

Opposition to lotteries first came in England in 1773, when the city of London petitioned the House of Commons to abolish lotteries because they were hurting the commerce of the kingdom and threatening the welfare and prosperity of the people. In 1808 the Commons appointed a select committee to inquire into the evils attending lotteries. The committee report, which helped to abolish lotteries in England a few years later, is so current that it could have been written last week instead of over 160 years ago.

The committee reported cases in which people living in comfort and respectability had been reduced to poverty and distress; cases of domestic quarrels, assaults, and the ruin of family peace; and cases of fathers deserting their families, mothers neglecting their children, wives robbing their husbands of the earnings of months and years, and people pawning clothes, beds, and wedding rings, in order to indulge in the speculation.

“In other cases,” the committee reported, “children had robbed their parents, servants their masters; suicides had been committed, and almost every crime that can be imagined had been occasioned, either directly or indirectly, through the baneful influence of lotteries. …”

In its final report the committee concluded that the foundation of the lottery system was so radically vicious that no method of regulation could be devised that would permit Parliament to adopt it as an efficacious source of revenue and at the same time divest it of all its attendant evils.

At a time when state lotteries are being touted as an attractive way to raise badly needed public funds, it is well to recall that a lottery is the most regressive of all revenue measures. Even more than the unpopular sales tax, its burden falls most heavily on the poor, who are the principal patrons of this type of gambling.

In 1962 United States Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy called attention to the overwhelming cost of gambling:

“… the American people are spending more on gambling than on medical care or education; … in so doing, they are putting up the money for the corruption of public officials and the vicious activities of the dope peddlers, loan sharks, bootleggers, white slave traders, and slick confidence men. Investigation this past year by the FBI, Internal Revenue Service, the Narcotics Bureau, the Post Office Department, and all other federal investigative units has disclosed without any shadow of a doubt that corruption and racketeering, financed largely by gambling, are weakening the vitality and strength of this nation.”

Lotteries harmful nature was widely understood before 1963, when New Hampshire organised the first modern-day lottery. Now, 37 states operate these highly profitable gambling monopolies, which prohibit competition while profiting from the desperation of the poor. In 1997, statewide lotteries extracted $16 billion from ordinary people hoping and praying for the jackpot! How times have changed. Historically, governments have outlawed or tightly regulated gambling. Now they promote it with vigour. Indeed, today's politicians love lotteries because they allow them to feed their voracious appetites for revenues without having to pay the political price for raising taxes. Truly, the fox is in the henhouse.

Lottery administrators are concerned about a phenomenon they call "jackpot fatigue," meaning gamblers no longer get excited at the prospect of winning only a few million dollars. Therefore, greater prizes are needed to get their money. Lottery officials defend their livelihood by asking what harm is there if someone who can afford to bet chooses to throw away a dollar on an 80-million-to-one long shot. But that is not where Powerball and other lotteries make their money. They rake it in from "players" such as Ernie Kovic, a 28-year-old Bronx waiter studying aircraft design at a trade school. Last summer, Kovic stood in line to buy $3,000 worth of Powerball tickets-money he had been saving for tuition. Kovic told The New York Times: "If I win, I won't have to go to school. Heck, I can buy my own aircraft." Guess what? Kovic lost, as did 79,999,999 other gullible betters.

There are a multitude of Ernie Kovics wasting their savings, their families and their futures chasing the tantalising but false hopes hawked by state lotteries. Ten percent of lottery players account for half of all lottery purchases.' The Washington Post, after examining lotteries in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., concluded that they rely on a hard core of heavy players, who, on average, have less education and lower incomes than the population as a whole."

Lottery administrators know exactly who their customers are, which is why they often target the poor with their marketing schemes. An advertising plan for the Ohio lottery recommended that "promotional pushes" take place at the beginning of the month. Why? Because government benefits, payroll and Social Security payments are released on the first Tuesday of each calendar month. An infamous Illinois Lottery billboard campaign in a Chicago ghetto showed a picture of a lottery ticket with the caption: "This could be your ticket out." Fat chance!

Lotteries also foster a get-rich-quick mentality while belittling the work ethic. A Massachusetts Lottery ad offered two options for how to "make millions." Let me quote: "Plan A: Start studying when you're about 7 years old, real hard. Then grow up and get a good job. From then on, get up at dawn every day. Flatter [your] boss. Crush competition ruthlessly. Climb over backs of co-workers. Be the last one to leave every night. Squirrel away every cent. Avoid having a nervous breakdown. Avoid having a premature heart attack. Get a face lift. Do this every day for 30 years, holidays and weekends included. By the time you're ready to retire you should have your money." Or "Plan B": Play the lottery."

Today there are many proposals to legalise gambling. Some urge this as a way to obtain new tax revenues, citing the examples of Spain, Norway, Sweden, France, Australia, and twenty other governments whose national lotteries provide significant revenues to state treasuries. Others propose to legalise gambling because they contend that this would weaken organised crime by drying up one of its principal sources of financial support. It is also urged that legalised gambling would reduce the amount of graft and illegal payoffs to public officials.

Closely examined, none of these arguments for legalised gambling is persuasive. When the late Thomas E. Dewey was governor of New York, he answered these arguments, declaring:

“The entire history of legalised gambling in this country and abroad shows that it has brought nothing but poverty, crime and corruption, demoralisation of moral standards, and ultimately lower living standards and misery for all the people.”

The late J. Edgar Hoover, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is quoted as saying: “If you think legalising games of chance starves out the criminals, look at Las Vegas, where the games are legal, yet the hoods still deal themselves in and related vices flourish.”

In urging the state of Alaska not to legalise gambling as an economic panacea, Senator Alexander Wiley of Wisconsin gave these additional financial reasons: the idea that gambling would increase revenues is an illusion. Every dollar raised from gambling would mean five dollars spent in “higher police costs, higher court costs, higher penitentiary costs, and higher relief costs.”

Another evil of gambling is that it promotes greed and covetousness and inevitably involves and encourages the base practice of overreaching and taking from one’s neighbour.

In addition, gambling has a tendency to corrupt the participant. We are all familiar with cases in which trusted employees have ruined their lives and brought disgrace and tragedy upon themselves and their families by stealing their employer’s money. All too often the sordid story is traceable to a desperate attempt to pay gambling debts or to finance further gambling activities.

The temptations of the gambler are such that persons in responsible positions in government and private industry will not hire or retain as employees those who are known to gamble. In recounting the undesirable side effects of gambling, mention must also be made of the fact that gambling is often accompanied by indulgence in alcohol and other vices.

Also, one disadvantage cited by persons not concerned with the moral effects of gambling, is the extraordinary waste of time involved in it. Those who while away their hours gambling frequently do so to the neglect of family and work.

Time wasted in gambling becomes more significant when we reflect that many persons who indulge in gambling become addicted to it. The late Elder Richard L. Evans of the Council of the Twelve (1906–1971) made this statement:

“The spirit of gambling is a progressive thing. Usually it begins modestly; and then, like many other hazardous habits, it often grows beyond control. At best it wastes time and produces nothing. At worst it becomes a ruinous obsession and fosters false living by encouraging the futile belief that we can continually get something for nothing.”

In the USA Studies show that about two-thirds of teens have gambled in the past year. Sometimes they are betting on sports or cards with their friends, but a staggering percentage are gambling on legal activities despite their ages. In Massachusetts, 47 percent of seventh-graders, and three-quarters of high school seniors, have played the lottery! Massachusetts' attorney general found that two-thirds of underage teens who tried were able to bet on keno games run by the lottery. In a survey of 12,000 Louisiana adolescents, one-quarter reported playing video poker, 17 percent had gambled on slot machines and one in 10 had bet on horse or dog racing.

Even more significant is what is happening to these young people as a result of their involvement with gambling. The same survey of Massachusetts high school students found that one in 20 had already been arrested for a gambling-related offense; 10 percent experienced family problems due to gambling; and eight percent had gotten in trouble at work or school because of gambling.' A new Louisiana State University study shows that Louisiana youngsters in juvenile detention are roughly four times as likely to have a serious gambling problem as their peers. Two-thirds of the hard-core gamblers in detention admitted stealing specifically to finance their gambling.'

As for gambling at the college level, Sports Illustrated produced an in depth three part series that described gambling as "the dirty little secret on college campuses, where it [gambling] is rampant and prospering." Betting also threatens the integrity of collegiate athletics. A national study by the University of Michigan earlier this year found that 45 percent of male college football and basketball players admit to gambling on sports, despite rules explicitly prohibiting such activities. More than five percent admit shaving points, leaking inside information for gambling purposes or betting on their own games.

Studies indicate as many as eight percent of teens are already hooked on gambling!' For all their pious talk about wanting to prevent underage gambling, many operators actively attempt to cultivate betting habits in the next generation. That's why casinos in Louisiana have donated computer equipment and library books along with cards, dice and T-shirts emblazoned with casino logos to schoolchildren there (and why a grateful superintendent repaid their generosity by making a television commercial for a casino!)." That's why games in children's arcades inside casinos are virtual copies of adult casino games." That's why casino complexes now appeal to children with amusement rides, theme parks and movie theaters often forcing kids to walk through the casino floor to get to these attractions!

Gambling promoters try to downplay the high rates of gambling addiction among young people, saying they will grow out of such behaviour. Some undoubtedly will, but many will not. For millions, the hold of a gambling addiction is every bit as powerful as illegal drugs or any other addiction. A study of Gamblers Anonymous members found that only eight percent were able to stop their gambling even after attending GA for two years. Many of these young troubled gamblers will remain mired in the cesspool of gambling addiction for years and years to come.

Using the 2002 Canadian Community Health Survey, Cycle 1.2 on Mental Health and Well-being, the study estimates that 1.2 million adult Canadians were at risk of experiencing a problem with gambling, or were problem gamblers.

Of these, an estimated 700,000 were at low risk, another 370,000 at moderate risk, and 120,000 were already problem gamblers. That is, they had suffered adverse effects from their gambling behaviour, such as financial or social problems, anxiety or depression, or dependence on alcohol.

These 1.2 million individuals represented 5% of the total adult population, and 6% of all gamblers.

According to the study, those most likely to be in the at risk or problem categories were men, Aboriginal persons, those with less education, individuals who played video lottery terminals (VLTs), and people who gambled frequently.

One of four people whose gambling included VLTs were at risk or problem gamblers, confirming the much reported notion that VLTs are the "crack cocaine" of gambling. Those who bought only lottery tickets had the lowest chance of becoming problem gamblers.

Manitoba and Saskatchewan had considerably higher proportions of at risk gamblers than other provinces. This may be because they have the highest VLT participation rates in the country, above-average Aboriginal populations, and, along with Ontario, the highest attendance rates at casinos.

Constant gambling and excessive spending can take its toll in many facets of life, particularly personal and family finances, as well as an individual's health.

Half of all problem gamblers reported that their gambling caused difficulties in relationships with family or friends. Four in 10 obsessive gamblers (42%) reported a high level of stress in their life, compared with 23% of gamblers who reported no problems.

About 18% of problem gamblers reported that they had contemplated suicide in the year prior to the survey, six times the proportion (3%) of non-problem gamblers.

The insidiousness of excess gambling is revealed by the 27% of moderate-risk gamblers and 64% of problem gamblers who wanted to stop gambling in the year prior to the survey, but believed they could not. About 56% of problem gamblers had tried to quit, but couldn't.

Frequent gambling quickly lightens the wallet. About 62% of problem gamblers spent more than $1,000 a year on gambling, compared with only 4% of people who gambled with no problem.

The following facts regarding problem gambling have been obtained from the Report of the Productivity Commissions Inquiry into Australia's Gambling Industries (26 November 1999):
About 290,000 people in Australia (that is approximately 2% of all adult Australians) are considered to be experiencing significant problems associated with gambling.

The average duration of gambling problems is nine years.

It is estimated that in 1997/98 problem gamblers spent (lost) $M2 673, 80 per cent of which was expended on gaming machines.

Between five and ten "other" people are affected by the behaviour of a person who has a gambling problem.

If a gambler "reinvests" their winnings, he or she will eventually lose the lot.

Around 130 000 Australians (about 1 per cent of the adult population) are estimated to have severe problems with their gambling. A further 160 000 adults are estimated to have moderate problems, which may not require ‘treatment’ but warrant policy concern.

Taken together, ‘problem gamblers’ represent just over 290 000 people, or 2.1 per cent of Australian adults.

Problem gamblers comprise 15 per cent of regular (non-lottery) gamblers and account for about $3.5 billion in expenditure annually — about one-third of the gambling industries’ market.

They lose on average around $12 000 each per year, compared with just under $650 for other gamblers.

The costs include financial and emotional impacts on the gamblers and on others, with on average at least five other people affected to varying degrees. For example:

– one in ten said they have contemplated suicide due to gambling; and
– nearly half those in counselling reported losing time from work or study in the past year due to gambling.

The adverse impacts on individuals and the community help explain the ambivalence of most Australians about the gambling industries, despite their widespread involvement:

– around 70 per cent of people surveyed believed that gambling did more harm than good; and
– 92 per cent did not want to see further expansion of gaming machines.

Economists agree that wealth is created by manufacturing. Those economies which perform well, e.g. china, are manufacturing economies. Gambling only ends up in transferring wealth from the masses to a few hands. The more you play the more you will lose. As the odds are in casino's favour.

All in all, gambling is the main cause of serious economic and social problems. Gambling destroys marriages, undermines the work ethic, increases crime, motivates suicide, destroys the financial security of families and is related to a number of other social issues. It is now time for us to stand up against this evil practice and eliminate it from our lives.

The Issue of Slavery

2008-01-15T14:30:00.001+10:00

This article is aimed to answer some of the objections raised by Non-Muslims on the issue of slavery in Islam. A lot of books have been written on this topic, and if one is interested, one should read those books so as to get the complete picture. I have only attempted to discuss this topic briefly, but hopefully this should suffice for those who are genuinely seeking the answers to the objections raised against Islam.

First thing one must understand is that Prophet (peace be upon him) did not start slavery. This system was in place centuries before Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was even born.

The next thing to keep in mind is that Shariah abolished all systems of slavery except one. Before the advent of Islamic Law, free men and women were captured and forcibly sold as slaves. Islam removed this tyranny and Prophet (peace be upon him) cursed those who sold a free person as a slave. Islam has clearly and categorically forbidden the primitive practice of capturing a person, and to make him or her as a slave or to sell that person into slavery. On this point the clear and unequivocal words of the Prophet (peace be upon him) are as follow:

"There are three categories of people against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgement. Of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man, then sells him and devours this money" (al-Bukhari and Ibn Majah).

The only thing which Shariah did not eradicate about slavery was the issue of prisoners of war. The question was what should be done with the male and female prisoners of war who were captured.

These prisoners of war were retained by the Muslim Government until their government agreed to receive them back in exchange for Muslim soldiers captured by them, or arranged the payment of ransom on their behalf. If the soldiers they captured were not exchanged with Muslim prisoners of war, or their people did not pay their ransom money to purchase their liberty, then the Muslim Government used to distribute them among the soldiers of the army which had captured them. This was a more humane and proper way of disposing of them than retaining them like cattle in concentration camps and taking forced labour from them and, if their women folk were also captured, setting them aside for prostitution. In place of such a cruel and outrageous way of disposing of the prisoners of war, Islam preferred to spread them in the population, and thus brought them in contact with individual human beings. Over and above, their guardians were ordered to treat them well.

The result of this humane policy was that most of the men who were captured on foreign battlefields and brought to the Muslim countries as slaves embraced Islam and their descendants produced great scholars, imams, jurists, commentators, statesmen and generals of the army. So much so that later on they became the rulers of the Muslim world.

The solution of this problem which has been proposed in the present age is that after the cessation of hostilities the prisoners of war of the combatant countries should be exchanged. Whereas Muslims have been practicing it from the very beginning and whenever the adversary accepted the exchange of prisoners of war from both sides, it was implemented without the least hesitation or delay.

In modern warfare we also find that if one government is completely routed leaving her in no position of bargaining for the prisoners of war and the winning party gets its prisoners easily, then experience has shown that the prisoners of war of the vanquished army are kept in conditions which are much worse than the conditions of slaves.

Can anyone tell me what has been the fate of the thousands of prisoners of war captured by Russia from the defeated armies of Germany and Japan in the Second World War? No one has given their account so far. No one knows how many thousands of them are still alive and how many thousands of them have perished due to the hardship of the Russian concentration and labour camps.

The forced labour which has been taken from them is much worse than the service one can exact from slaves. Even perhaps in the times of ancient Pharaohs of Egypt such harsh labour might not have been exacted from the slaves in building the pyramids of Egypt, as has been exacted from the prisoners of war in Russia in developing Siberia and other backward areas of Russia, or working in coal and other mines in below zero temperatures, ill-clad, ill-fed and brutally treated by their supervisors.

The Europeans take great pride in claiming that they abolished slavery from the world, though they had the decency to do so only in the middle of the second last century. Before this, these Western powers had been raiding Africa on a very large scale, capturing their free men and women, putting them in bondage and transporting them to their new colonies. The treatment which they have meted out to these unfortunate people has been worse than the treatment given to animals. The books written by the Western writers themselves bear testimony to this fact.

After the occupation of America and the West Indies, for three hundred and fifty years, traffic in slave trade continued. The African coasts where the black-skinned captured Africans were brought from the interior of Africa and put on the ships sailing out from those ports, came to be known as the Slave Coast.

Only in one century (from 1680 to 1786) the total number of free people who were captured and enslaved only for British Colonies amounts, according to the estimate of British authors, to 20 million human beings. Over the period of only one year (1790) we are told that 75,000 human beings were captured and sent for slave labour in the Colonies. The ships which were used for transporting the slaves were small and dirty. These unfortunate Africans were thrust into the holds of these ships like cattle right up to the top and many of them were chained to the wooden shelves on which they could hardly move because these were only eighteen inches apart, kept one on top of the other. They were not provided with suitable food, and if they fell ill or were injured, no attempt was made to provide them with medical treatment.

The Western writers themselves state that at least 20% of the total number of people who were captured for slavery and forced labour perished during their transportation from the African coast to America. It has also been estimated that the total number of people who were captured for slavery by the various European nations during the heyday of the slave trade comes to at least one hundred million. This is the record of the people who denounce Muslims day and night for recognising the institution of slavery. It is as if a criminal is holding his finger of blame towards an innocent man.

If you read the Christian and Jewish history until the 18th century, you will find that whenever they got dominance they used to kill civilians and the prisoners captured. They did not recognise the skills of a particular person i.e. whether he was a scholar, engineer, doctor etc. and how these skills benefit the humanity; in addition, they did not consider if a woman was a mother and has young children or she has got other responsibilities. All these factors were ignored and generally people captured were killed. Even in this day and age, the number of people killed by USA and Israel is far greater than by any other nation.

Islam, on the other hand, forbade the killing of those who became captives when a war was over. So if someone is not killed what should be done with that person? Should he or she be kept as prisoner? If they were incarcerated then their skills and abilities are wasted. For example, if a person is an architect then by sitting in a prison that person’s abilities would rot over a period of time. Secondly, the state would have to bear the burden of expenses for these prisoners which can get expensive overtime. Thirdly, should they be sent back: there was a great chance that these prisoners of war will use their skills against you again once they got together with their tribe or nation. This would further lead to wars and hence peace cannot be achieved.

Shariah says that you should keep them with you. If someone is illiterate, he or she should be educated and cultured. Those who are skilled should be utilised for the betterment of society. In addition, Shariah encouraged the freeing of slaves gradually. Briefly I would like to tell you about the position and nature of slavery in Islam. Islam tried to solve the problem of the slaves that were in Arabia by encouraging the people in different ways to set their slaves free. The Muslims were ordered that in expiation of some of their sins they should set their slaves free. Freeing a slave by one's own free will was declared to be an act of great merit, so much so that it was said that every limb of the man who manumits a slave will be protected from hell-fire in lieu of the limb of the slave freed by him. The companions of Prophet (peace be upon him) even bought those slaves who came in the market (who were not captured in the war [as it was common in those times]) and set them free.

The result of this policy was that by the time the period of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs was reached, all the old slaves of Arabia were liberated. The Prophet (peace be upon him) alone liberated as many as 63 slaves. The number of slaves freed by 'Aishah was 67, 'Abbas liberated 70, 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar liberated one thousand, and 'Abd al-Rahman purchased thirty thousand and set them free (may Allah be pleased with them all). Similarly other Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) liberated a large number of slaves, the details of which are given in the Traditions and books of history of that period. Thus, the problem of the slaves of Arabia was solved in a short period of thirty or forty years.

Now the question arose about the females: i.e. those females who came as prisoners in war. The Shariah condemned the killing of those females. The Quran refer to them as what your right hand possesses. When the Ameer (leader) of war e.g. General of the army declared that I give that female to a particular soldier, it was equivalent to marriage (and her previous marriage was annulled). Hence, a person was allowed to have intimate relationship with that woman after a waiting period of one menstrual cycle (so as to make sure that she was not pregnant) and this was done with the woman’s consent.

What else could have been done? Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) enjoined his followers to treat the slaves kindly, gently, and, above all, to regard them as members of the family.

In this way, they were made to feel wanted; which was far better than treating them as outcasts and leaving them to wander the streets of a strange society in a peniless, destitute condition. Such treatment would have ultimately forced them to take up evil occupations such as prostitution in the case of slave woman in order to fill their hungry stomachs. The First World War in 1914 was a clear reflection of the evils involved in setting captive women free to roam about in a strange society with strange surroundings. During that war, German and English women prisoners on either side were set free to roam the streets with no one to feed them. The result was obvious that they resorted to other unrefined and uncivilised methods of income on the streets. Thus, it is evident that the Islamic treatment of women prisoners of war was conducive towards better social relations and led to the refinement of their overall social lives.

With regards to the objection that you can have unlimited number of female slaves in marriage, it must be understood that a number was not fixed in case of an emergency i.e. if there were a situation where a lot of females were captured. Generally speaking, it would not happen as the females who were captured would not outnumber the soldiers. Also, the soldiers would have to take care of them financially. Not many can afford to take care of a big number of slaves in any case. Hence, this attack on Islam that you can have as many slaves in marriage as you want is not justified.

One advantage which came out of the marriage with these women was that many people of high caliber married these women and many high quality individuals were born: Qasim bin Muhammad bin Abu Bakr, Salim bin Abdullah bin Umar, Imam Zain-ul-Aabideen are just a few examples. Lot of big scholars and Jurists were born from these women and because of this many preferred to marry a slave women rather than a free female.

When in 18th century all the nations of the world signed an agreement to end slavery, then Muslim nations were also bound by this agreement as well. The reason being that Muslims are bound by their international contracts as mentioned in Surah Taubah (chapter 9) of the Glorious Quran.

Islam is against the killing and making free people slaves by force. It is so much against slavery that Jurists have written that it is forbidden to do such actions which will cause Jinns to become your captive (which is the practice of a few even in this day and age).

Those who think that slavery of prisoners of war is tyranny have a false concept of slavery in their mind (they are probably brainwashed from USA’s treatment of black slaves). Islam gave such beautiful teachings regarding the treatment of slaves that the Islamic system of slavery reduced injustice in the world. A couple of narrations are as follow:

Abu Hurairah reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: "When the slave of anyone amongst you prepares food for him and he serves him after having sat close to (and undergoing the hardship of) heat and smoke, he should make him (the slave) sit along with him and make him eat (along with him), and if the food seems to run short, then he should spare some portion for him (from his own share) - (another narrator) Dawud said:" i. e. a morsel or two". 4097. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4096)"

Narrated Al-Ma'rur: "At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He replied, "I abused a person by calling his mother with bad names." The Prophet said to me, 'O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names You still have some characteristics of ignorance. Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if you do so, then help them." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29)

Well if someone objects as to why Islam did not eradicate all forms of slavery once in for all (i.e. why they kept the slavery of Prisoners intact), then I would have to remind that person (apart from the reasons mentioned above) that the world does not function in such a simple way where you can bring changes overnight. Almost every household had a slave in those times. It was not feasible to introduce a policy which would finish slavery all at once. On the contrary, Islam gave a system whereby freedom of slaves was encouraged and slowly slavery was tackled with.

If Islam would have introduced a policy to finish slavery all at once, there would have been chaos and massive resistance from almost every household. It must be understood that Prophets of Allah (may peace be upon them all) gradually change incorrect teachings in a society while they keep rest of the system in place. For example, Prophet (peace be upon him) did not change the law regarding compensation for murder (i.e. 100 camels), but he gradually abolished seven forms (out of eight) of marriage and kept only one which is practiced among the Muslims all over the world.

I hope the above mentioned explanation must have cleared some of the misconceptions spread by those who have got extreme hatred in their hearts for the religion of Islam. My humble request to those who genuinely seek answers to these misconceptions is to do thorough research before reaching a conclusion.

The Case For Single-Sex Education

2008-01-15T14:04:00.000+10:00

This article was published in Jumuah Magazine about a year ago. I thought I should publish it on my blog: since it is further evidence that revelation is far superior than intelligence.

By Gohar Mushtaq (Ph.D., Biochemistry, Rutgers University, USA)
When Islamic civilization was at its zenith, non-Muslim students from all across Europe sought education at Islamic universities in places like Muslim Spain, Turkey, and Egypt. Their impression of the Islamic civilization was such that they would imitate most of its aspects. When Roger Bacon (one of the founding fathers of British educational system) returned to Britain after studying at the Islamic universities, he was so fond of Muslim dress and Arabic books some of his contemporaries called him "Muhammad Bacon". However, with the passage of time the wheel of history turned leading to the decline of the Muslim power and civilization. Not only did Muslims loose their freedom, they also had to go through one of the most damaging experiences forced upon them losing the right to educate themselves the way they believe they should. Neil Postman (an American writer and intellectual) writes in his book Conscientious Objections that: "Every age has its own special forms of imperialism. And so does each conqueror. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when the British mastered the art, their method of invasion was to send their navy, then their army, then their administrators, and finally their educational system."1

Using this methodology, and claiming that its purpose was to help Muslims achieve modernity since they are not capable of achieving it on their own, Britain dismantled the educational systems of its Muslim colonies. Hence, the Islamic schools in these countries, where both Islamic and secular sciences used to be taught simultaneously, were rendered ineffective. Some Muslim historians indicate that Al-Jami'ah al-Yusufiyah (Yusufiyah University) of Marrakech, Morocco, was the last Muslim educational institution to be ‘conquered' by the Western imperialism. Ever since, a network of schools and colleges based on the British educational system spread throughout the Muslim lands.

In all those schools and colleges, sooner or later, the same moral diseases, which had already infested the British and then, American schools and colleges, started to emerge. Chief among those illnesses is the malady of coeducation, which refers to the educational system in which boys and girls are taught in the same classroom in schools and colleges. On the other hand, some Muslim countries in their blind imitation of the Western educational models, adopted coeducation and implemented it in their school systems a trend prophesized by Prophet Muhammad, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, in an authentic hadeeth narrated by Abu Sa'id al-Khudri: "You will surely follow in the ways of those before you, inch by inch and step by step, so much so that if they were to enter an iguana's [a large lizard] hole, you would follow after them." (Muslim)

In the following discussion, the negative effects of coeducation and the benefits of single-sex education will be briefly presented in light of religion and modern science.

Coeducation: An Islamic View
Islam has given the Muslims a superior and comprehensive social system in which there is no room for unnecessary and reckless mixed gatherings. And based on its realistic approach to the human nature, Islam is perfectly aware of the fact that free mixing of men and women breeds moral vices which are significantly culpable in the destruction of the moral fabric of many societies, as past and present societal experiences reveal. In the Qur'an, Allah says the following to the believing men and women: "Tell the believing men to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and guard their modesty. That is purer for them. Verily, Allah is All-Aware of what they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and guard their modesty and not to reveal their adornment." [24: 30-31] After these verses in the surah of an-Noor, details of women's modesty inside the home are provided. Similarly, in the surah of al-Ahzab (verse 59), the commandments regarding a Muslim female's dress outside the home or Hijab are given. Likewise, Allah gave the commandment in the surah of al-Israa (verse 32): "And come not near to adultery (or fornication), verily, it is a shameful deed and an evil way (that leads to other evils)," which clearly closes all back-doors to deviant human desires and illicit behavior.

Prophet Muhammad, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, said, "Verily, I have been sent as a teacher." (Tirmithi) The Companion Muawiyah ibnul Hakam as-Sulami said about the Prophet: "I have neither seen any teacher before Prophet Muhammad, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, nor after him, who could teach better than him." (Muslim) For sure, the Prophet Muhammad, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, was the most successful teacher in the human history-who raised great students like Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, Umar ibnul Khattab, Ali ibn Abi Talib, Ibn Abbas, Aisha and many others who followed, and remained faithful to, his guidance in the field of education as well as in other walks of life. The teaching method of the Prophet did not include coeducation; for we learn from his Sunnah that he had appointed a separate day for the education of male Companions and another for the education of female Companions.

Moreover, the teaching method of Aisha, the mother of the believers, involved teaching male students from behind a curtain. In fact, a look at the Islamic history shows that the Islamic learning institutions, up to the university level, were separate for males and females or, at least, there used to be a separation between the two.

Islam is deeply aware of the differences between males and females with respect to psychological development. The Qur'an has clearly stated that males and females are not the same: "And the male is not like the female." [3:36]
The difference to which this verse refers is of wide range. Essentially, it refers to the biological, emotional and psychological differences between the two genders. There is no doubt that men and women have different biological traits that results in a number of differences in their respective developmental and learning patterns throughout their lives. The growth spurt of girls in the adolescent stage has been showed to be faster than that of boys. Biological processes do really affect and influence psychological tendencies. Due to the inherent biological differences between males and females, variation in their psychological tendencies and dispositions is inevitable.

An Alien Idea
Coeducation is an alien idea to the Islamic society. In fact coeducation is a by-product of the Western thought and its educational system. This system of education originated in the earlier part of the twentieth century in Scotland and was then taken up by several private and state-aided schools in England. Later, it was also adopted by the schools and colleges in the United States of America. In the 1950's, followers of the feminist movement started to propagate a broad-based idea of coeducation that will allow women to not only work with men side-by-side in the society, but to sit with them cheek by jowl in the schools and colleges. Today, this task has been taken up by many of the NGO's (Non-Governmental Organizations) working in the Muslim countries. Meanwhile, in the West, the continuous failures that have characterized its experimentation with the idea of coeducation over the previous 30 years have prompted some Western intellectuals to seriously consider the option of single-sex education.

Benefits of Coeducation as Advanced by its Advocates
Before discussing the problem with coeducation and highlighting the merits of single-sex education, it is necessary to consider coeducation in light of modern science, to present a more complete picture of the issue at hand. So, what do the advocates of coeducation say regarding the benefits of mixed-gender education?

In a five-year longitudinal study of single-sex schools becoming coeducational, reported in the 1989 issue of the Journal of Educational Psychology (vol. 81), Australian researcher Prof. H.W. Marsh looked at the advantages of coeducation and found out that there appeared to be some socialization benefits that can be achieved from coeducation. In addition, those benefits were not at the expense of academic achievement for either girls or boys.

In the same vein, in a study conducted by the Australian Research Council, researcher Ian David Smith of the School of Education Psychology (University of Sydney) measured academic achievement of both boys and girls at two Sydney high schools which had turned into coeducational schools. The study found that the academic performance of boys and girls did not change when they went from single-sex schools to mixed-sex schools. Similarly, researchers Robinson & Smithers (Research Papers in Education, 1999, vol. 14) argued in favor of coeducation on the basis that it is more realistic to everyday life when they stated: "It has been suggested that educating the sexes together is more like real life, and the experience of growing up with the opposite sex makes it easier to move on to the mixed environments of university and employment."

In addition, advocates of coeducation claim that educating girls side by side with boys does not harm the fundamental traits of the girls' feminine nature. A girl will not become masculine because she has been educated in a boys' school. The presence of both genders together in the class will have a wholesome effect on their character. According to the supporters of coeducation, mixed-gender education leads to improved social and personal development. Both girls and boys meet regularly to discuss their progress in a co-ed class. In so doing they learn that ‘equality' does not mean ‘sameness'- that men and women often have different perspectives on the same issues and that each gender has a great deal to offer the other. There may be some truth in the claims made by the proponents of coeducation. Nothing in this world is one hundred percent evil. Everything has harms and benefits associated with it. However, the approach of Islamic Shari'ah includes, among other things, weighing out the benefits and harms of things. This has been mentioned in the Qur'an clearly in the case of alcohol-drinking and gambling: "They ask you (O Muhammad) concerning alcoholic drink and gambling. Say:

‘In them is a great sin, and (some) benefit for men, but the sin of them is greater than their benefit.'" [2:219] Hence, in the case of alcohol and gambling, the Qur'an acknowledges that there are some benefits for people but at the same time, asserts that there are much more harms to the individuals as well as the society than these benefits. It is for this reason that Islamic law does not make alcohol and gambling permissible. Similarly, in the case of coeducation, there may be benefits such as socialization and self-confidence in the presence of the members of opposite sex, but the harms of mixed-gender education are much more than its benefits. This belief of ours will be further substantiated and furnished by corroborating facts and statistics below.

Psychological Harms of Coeducation
Placing boys and girls in the same class can be disadvantageous and harmful for both, psychologically as well as biologically. Famous Islamic scholar and theologian, Imam Ibn Hazm (d. 456 AH), in his book Tawq al-Hamamah (The Neck-Ring of the Dove), which is about the art, practice and psychology of love and lovers, describes some of the things that take place in mixed gatherings of women and men as "strange and uncommon" to imply a change in the psyche and attitude (thus behavior) prompted by the situation. Although they might seem simplistic, Ibn Hazm's observations and findings are supported and elaborated by modern scientific research.

In his book Men and Marriage, the American author and intellectual, George Gilder, notes that boys and girls attain puberty earlier when they are in coeducation environment.

The production of male hormone, testosterone, is increased to 20 times than normal in male adolescents and, as a consequence, they suffer from severe mental and sexual agitation. Similarly, female hormones production increases in adolescent girls and as a consequence, they suffer from lethargy and depression. At puberty, the limbic system (area of the brain) is stimulated by the surge of those sex hormones, which affects the behavior of both sexes. In such conditions, most of them think perpetually about the opposite sex. In the words of George Gilder, "First and most important, most of the boys and a good number of the girls are thinking about the opposite sex most of the time. If you do not believe this, you are a dreamer." It is interesting to note that feelings of men and women toward each other stay the same in colleges and universities. In the learning institutions where there is coeducation, love affairs and courtships are common.

Structural Differences in the Brains of Boys and Girls
Science has shown that long before the birth of the child, the sex hormones released in the womb of his/her mother induce specific, permanent and different developmental effects on the growing brains of the male and female child. For example, during pregnancy, the testicles of a developing baby-boy release as much testosterone (male sex hormone) as the amount produced by a young adult man. These sex hormones bind to the brain tissue of the fetus and permanently and irreversibly transform his brain. Furthermore, researchers Reuwen and Anat Achiron showed in a research paper, published in the medical journal, Prenatal Diagnosis (2001 issue), that the brain of an unborn baby-girl can be distinguished from a male brain during a regular ultrasound exam of women who are 26 weeks pregnant. Similarly, when a group of scientists compared the brain tissues of infant children, they found significant differences between the brains of boys and the brains of girls. So striking are the differences in the photomicrographs of the brain tissues of male and female children they are easily visible to the naked human eye. Interestingly, this research which was published in the year 2000 issue of Developmental Brain Research Journal was headed by a female research scientist Dr. Maria Cordero.

In the same vein, female researcher Dr.Tracey Shors of Rutgers University (U.S.A.) and her associates concluded, based on a study they conducted on male and female brains, that the nature of male brain is such that when it is under stress, its learning ability increases, whereas the learning ability of a female brain is impaired and reduced when it is exposed to stress (PNAS, Oct. 15, 2002). This finding indicates that boys need discipline and separate-sex environment for their abilities to be sharpened. Conversely, girls require a lenient environment for studying. This is also due to the fact that girls, whether children or grown ups, are very adept at face-reading. In a research published in the Journal of Genetic Psychology (vol. 154), a group of researchers at Wellesley College did a study on young children and found that 3-year old girls have the ability to interpret facial expressions better than the 5-year old boys. Obviously, this result indicates that girls can judge the signs of anger and irritation on the teacher's face. Boys, on the other hand, are very poor in this ability and, therefore, need admonishment.

Boys and Girls Learn Differently
Dr. Harriot Hanlan, a female scientist at Virginia Tech University, analyzed the male and female brain activity in a research conducted on 284 boys and 224 girls ranging from age 6 months to 16 years. Dr. Hanlan came to a conclusion that in girls, the brain centers that are related to language abilities are six (6) years more advanced as compared to those centers in boys. On the other hand, the spatial memory of boys is 4 years more advanced as compared to girls. It is for this reason that boys and girls learn languages, mathematics and geography differently. Similarly, boys develop digital coordination of hands nine months after girls. This is so because the nerves in the boys' fingers develop later as compared to the nerves in girls' fingers. Digital coordination of hands is important in activities such as holding the pencil and good hand-writing. To sum up, what really matters here is that these developmental differences often leads educators, teachers, and parents to unfairly sidelining boys as slow or dumb and planting a seed of distaste for school in those boys as early as the first grade. But the gulf of learning differences between boys and girls increases with time more evidently so in the coeducation environment. Under such circumstances, one wonders how could the two sexes be placed in the same classroom for learning?!

Different Hearing Abilities of Boys and Girls
In researches carried out over the past 40 years, scientists have shown that right from childhood, the female sense of hearing is about four times better than the hearing ability in males. This finding has been affirmed in a recent research conducted by two female scientists, Dr. Jane Cassidy and Dr. Karen Ditty, and published in the Journal of Music Therapy in 2001. When these two female scientists conducted a study on 350 newborns, they found that young girls have better hearing ability than boys of same age. This difference in the male and female hearing capacities has deep implications during their education. For example, in a mixed-gender classroom in which girls are sitting in the front rows and boys in the back rows, if the teacher speaks in a gentle and low voice, boys will engage in acts of naughtiness because they cannot hear the teacher. Conversely, if the teacher speaks with a loud voice so that the boys could hear him, the girls (whose sense of hearing is already four times stronger than boys) sitting in the front rows will feel as if the teacher is drilling in their ears.

Leonard Sax, M.D., Ph.D., founder and director of the National Association for Single-Sex Public Education, author of "Why Gender Matters", a family doctor and psychologist, argues that due to the hard-wired differences between boys and girls, it can become impossible for both genders to learn successfully in the classroom together. In one interview, Dr. Sax noted: "Almost every substantial choice you have to make will benefit one gender and disadvantage another." He further added that "girls hear better than boys and that part of boys' reasons for falling behind is simply that they can't hear the teacher." Needless to say, such problems do not exist in single-sex classrooms.

Long-Range Harmful Effects of Coeducation
On May 26, 2003, Business Week (one of the most prestigious magazines in the U.S.) printed a powerful article under the title, "The New Gender Gap" written by Michelle Collins, a female journalist. In that article, Michele noted the fact that there has been a continuous decline in the education of men in the past 20 years. Actually, she wrote, in the Western countries, a wide section of boys do not make it to college after finishing their high schools. The reason, she explains, lies in the fact that coeducation provides an unnatural and often feminine educational environment, and as a result, many boys get disappointed and lose their focus on education, some even react in negative ways as they try to show their manhood by committing crimes and resorting to violence. Furthermore, since 1970 as the number of coeducation schools increased in the U.S.A., suicide rates amongst young boys rose by three folds.

To add insult to injury, when teachers in the coeducation environment observe that boys (in comparison to girls) usually have hard time sitting in one place to learn, they commonly identify them as having the disease known as ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) and some of these children end up taking drugs such as "Ritalin". In fact, about 80% of the Ritalin used in the whole world is given to children "diagnosed" with ADD in the U.S.A. Of course this is what the reality is, but lest we forget, this is also happening while the U.S.A. is leading the world in the area of coeducation. What is more important is that Ritalin use has increased 500% over the past decade, leading some to call it the new K-12 management tool. According to Paul R. Wolpe, a psychiatry professor at the University of Pennsylvania, there are school districts where 20% to 25% of the boys are on that drug. Wolpe notes, "Ritalin is a response to an artificial social context that we've created for children." The fact of the matter remains that, I believe, the children are not the ones who are sick, rather, it is the mixed-gender educational system that is sick and is in need of treatment. What most of us are not aware of is the appalling situation of children with similar psychological and emotional conditions in the many third world countries that follow coeducation systems.

Because coeducation environment creates similar cases of depression and lack of focus in these children, they show similar behavior to that of the children in American schools, but instead of getting Ritalin, they end up getting harsh physical punishment. The teachers assume that these children just do not like to learn and respect school's discipline so they punish them to enforce discipline and change their behavior.

In summarizing the harmful effects of coeducation, George Gilder has this to say in his book Men and Marriage:

"Adolescent boys are radically different from adolescent girls. The boys, for example, are at the pinnacle of sexual desire and aggressiveness. In school, what they chiefly need is male discipline and challenge; ideally, without girls present to distract them. Girls, on the other hand, are less aggressive and sexually compulsive at this stage and are more willing to study without rigid policing and supervision. Thus a classroom that contains both boys and girls will hurt both." And a question remains to be answered: to what extent this harm may go and at what expense, when this system of education is forced upon the children for their lifelong schooling? Especially for parents and educators, before giving any answers, there is much for them to learn and reflect upon.

The Success of Single-Sex Education: Practical Evidence
Apart from Muslim countries-where education is still mostly a single-sex-classroom-based system (same curricula but separate classrooms) and after experiencing the deleterious effects of coeducation, many countries in the West have recently started experimenting with the single-sex education system. An overwhelming majority of the people affected by this change indicated that seeing and experiencing the changes brought by applying single-sex education system in their schools helped them truly appreciate the idea and understand it better. Benjamin Wright, principal of the Thurgood Marshall Elementary School in Seattle, Washington, turned his previously co-ed school into one with separate-sex classrooms. Mr. Wright stated that previously in coeducation, most of the teachers' time was wasted in resolving issues arising from boys teasing the girls and vice versa. However, now in separate-sex environment, they are in fact teaching knowledge to the children. Mr. Wright also noted that in the state-level exams which were held in Washington in 2002 (The Washington Assessment of Student Learning), their school boys who were previously being taught under the coeducation system and were scoring 10%, increased their scores to 73%, courtesy of single-sex education, an outstanding success indeed.

Testimonials from Around the World
Jamaica
Single-sex education is quite common in the Caribbean country, Jamaica. In a large study of Jamaican schools published in the 1985 issue of the International Journal of Science Education, it was shown that girls at single-sex high schools performed much better in mathematics and science as compared to those girls who were studying at co-ed high schools. The study concluded that "the effects of sex stereotyping are more sharply apparent in the coeducational setting, for here there appears to be a stronger need to differentiate between the sexes. Thus, even if subjects such as mathematics and sciences are technically available to girls in this type of school [mixed gender school], they are more likely than their single-sex institutional counterparts to get the message that such subjects are unfeminine and beyond their grasp intellectually." Another very interesting study which confirms this contention is conducted in Britain by Lawrie and Brown who surveyed 284 students of the age group 14-15. The study findings, which were published in the 1992 issue of the British Journal of Educational Psychology, arrived at similar results as the above-mentioned research. Lawrie and Brown found that students at all-girls' schools reported enjoying math more, and found math less difficult, as compared to the girls who attended co-ed schools. Girls at the all-girls schools were more than twice as likely to say that they planned to take advanced math, compared to girls at co-ed schools.

Canada
Another shining example of the success of single-sex education comes from the inner-city James Lyng High School in Montreal, Canada that was a coeducational institution in the past. Five years ago, single-sex classrooms were introduced in the school and since then, students' absenteeism has declined, pass scores are higher and the number of students going on from this school to college has nearly doubled. All this is due to the blessings of single-sex education. Our next testimony from Canada is taken from a report published by the Montreal Gazette, the most widely circulated newspaper in Montreal, Canada, in its October 1999 issue titled: "Let's Separate Boys, Girls in Classes". This article reports on research conducted by the Superior Educational Council of Quebec and its final recommendation to the Canadian government advising it to end coeducation in its public schools and have them adopt the old system of the 1940s when schools separated males from females and even had separate entrances for boys and girls to the school buildings. The head of this educational council Celine Saint-Pierre (a female) was quoted as saying: "There is plenty of evidence that boys and girls learn differently." Celine further added that education should be separate-gender based, otherwise boys and girls will keep on getting weaker in their studying and the Quebec society will have to suffer its bitter consequences in the future. In addition, the article reported the council as being very concerned about the state of education in the province; quoting their statement that "Quebec is headed for a social crisis, a situation where males won't be able to get jobs in a knowledge-based economy."

Australia
In July 2003, a conference of educational experts was held in Sydney, Australia, where several speakers presented evidence that the boys who are educated in single-sex schools may do far better in terms of maturity and social adjustment than boys who attend coeducation schools. Dr. Bruce Cook, principal of the Southport School on the Gold Coast, told the audience of his experiences and observations that boys educated in single-sex schools prove to be better husbands in the future because, due to absence of girls around them in schools and colleges, they do not have to adopt a ‘masculine' attitude. Hence, boys in single-sex schools "become more sensitive men."

Personal Testimonials
We conclude this telling reportage of the news the development and growth of the single-sex educational systems is making by the following personal testifications to the benefits of single-sex education.

The first anecdote and good example is found in the personal experience of a known contemporary Western historian, Steven Miles. Dr. Miles put in plain words, in an interview, how attending a single-sex high school was a turning point in his life. He believes his attendance of a separate-gender school to be the main reason his abilities flourished and, eventually, he did his Ph.D in history. He said: "I began high school more shy than most adolescents. But I did take the enormous step of joining the speech team, and that opened a new world to me. It led me to other activities...I strongly believe that they made possible the development of interests and skills that led me to undertake a Ph.D in history. When I think back on the catalyst joining the speech team and I consider the fact that forensics in Illinois is dominated by girls, about 70/30, I cannot imagine that I would have joined the team in a co-ed school...I needed the chance to explore my own potential without worrying about looking foolish in front of the girls."

In a recent Newsweek article (October 24, 2005) titled, "With No Boys to Ogle, We Had Time To Learn," Christine Flowers wrote of her experiences as an undergraduate student at Bryn Mawr College (which follows separate-sex education at undergraduate level). She was exceedingly happy to get admission at Bryn Mawr, especially because it gave her the opportunity to extend her 12 years of single-sex education into 16. According to Flowers, "...it's far too distracting to have a member of the opposite sex sitting in class beside you." She went on, describing her female college mates: "At Bryn Mawr, the women I encountered were brilliant, independent and focused. Not all of them arrived that way, as this writer can confirm, but all of them exited confident of success in whichever fields they chose to enter." Studying at a separate-gender educational institution encouraged Christine Flowers to concentrate on her studies as she points out: "I immersed myself in French and Italian, history and philosophy, fencing and swimming. I never once worried about whether I was going to have a date on Friday night (I never once did), nor did I hesitate to contribute a comment in class because I felt intimidated by the attractive young man to my left...Bryn Mawr [college] helped me to understand that excellence has no gender preference." Flowers further clarifies that females are not the only ones who benefit from single-sex education. Educating the two genders in separate classes is beneficial for boys as well, and Christine Flowers' experience as a school teacher stands testimony to this fact as she writes: "I used to teach at a boys' school in suburban Philadelphia, and while I'm certain that my teenage scholars weren't completely unaware of female charms, they did seem to focus admirably on their schoolwork between the hours of 8 and 3...The ability to spend a few hours concentrating on developing their minds and not their social skills should take precedence over some misguided urge to integrate."

Summary and Conclusion
Evidence based on scientific research and empirical studies has been briefly presented and discussed in this article to support the claim that single-sex educational systems are best suited to the human fitrah and the function of education in the human life. The article also pointed out the negative effects of coeducation and the fact that it is an unnatural and artificial social construct with more harms than advantages. Boys and girls need separate training to suit their different rates of physical, intellectual and emotional growth. Research has shown that this gender gap in education extends from primary school to undergraduate levels at university. However, it becomes much more intense when boys and girls reach their adolescent age and then it continues in the higher classes. Single-sex schools provide better environments for young people where they remain free from the pull of the opposite sex. This difference in the psychological make-up results in a huge difference in the way the two sexes learn in a class and in the way members of the two genders influence the learning of one another while present in the same classroom. It must be noted that Islam cares much for the preservation of morals and the maintenance of modesty and chastity in the Muslim society. To achieve this goal, Islam requires the highest degree of cautiousness when dealing with the members of the opposite sex. A Muslim is always asked to distance himself from anything that stirs his sexual urge. Islam forbids free intermingling of sexes in the society. Islam has the basic requirement of young men and women maintaining the purity of their sexual lives from the very beginning. Muslim adolescents are specifically asked to maintain a safe distance from the opposite sex for their own benefit. Islam is a religion that is in complete accordance with human nature. Islam emphasizes the upbringing of children in an environment that would preserve their ‘fitrah' (inherent Islamic nature) state. If children or youth attend mixed-gender classes in education, there are good chances they will be exposed to acts that may tarnish their whole worldview of sexual morality. They may even lose the ability to distinguish between modesty and indecency, morality and immorality, chastity and promiscuity.

The Islamic approach to dealing with vice and corruption in the society is, as we stated above, to nip the evil in the bud.

This can be better understood by learning about the well known principle of Islamic law called: sadd baab ath-Tharai' (i.e., blocking or narrowing means/ways that lead to commission of sins). According to this principle, if an act or event is capable of leading you to sin, you should avoid it even if it were not a sin in itself. It is due to this principle that Islam always discourages free-mixing of the sexes, which includes coeducation as well. Imam Ibnul Qayyim writes in his I'lamul Muwaqieen (vol. 2) about this Islamic principle thus: "The Islamic principle known as sadd baab ath-tharai', means that some of the permissible acts (mubahat) are sometimes forbidden lest they serve as back doors for commission of prohibited acts. For instance, exchanging gifts among Muslims is a recommended Sunnah act, but it is forbidden to present gifts to a government official for fear that it might lead to bribery and corruption. Also, to ogle the face of a woman (who is not one's mahram) is prohibited because such intense staring is capable of sowing the germs of fornication in the heart."

In coeducation environments, students have more opportunity and temptations to go astray. They cannot maintain the right etiquette of intermingling as prescribed by the Islamic Shari'ah, at all times during school hours. Also, students in coeducation schools might become more consumed by how they appear or present themselves to the opposite sex than by their studies. Perhaps this is what many sociologists refer to on the subject of friendship between man and woman: that it is difficult to have pure friendship between the two, because the more friendship deepens, the more the instincts find their way to physical expression between the man and the woman.

Educational systems should not overlook the fundamental differences, in nature and role, between men and women. Ignorance of these differences has led the advocates of Feminism to believe that both sexes should have the same responsibilities, and hence the same type of education. Nothing can be more absurd. A man may learn cooking but he cannot bear a child. Similarly, a woman may handle a machine-gun but she cannot replace the role of men in real combat situations. God has meant for human beings, males and females, to be effective and creative soul nurturers and nation builders each in his/her own capacity and in ways that are most effective and best fitting to his/her innate nature.

References
1.Postman, Neil (1992). Conscientious Objections: Stirring up Trouble about
Language, Technology and Education. New York,Vintage Books
2. Tawq al-Hamamah quoted in:Abu Zahra, Muhammad (1989). Life of
Imam Ibn Hazm. Lahore, Sheikh Ghulam Ali & Sons Ltd
3. Gilder, George (2001). Men and Marriage. Louisiana, Pelican
Publishing Company
4. Shores, Tracey J. & Miesegaes, George (Oct. 15, 2002)."Testosterone in utero and at birth dictates how stressful experience will affect learning in adulthood." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99: 13955- 13960
5. Boyatzis, Chris, Chazan, E. & Ting, C.Z. (1993)."Preschool children's decoding of facial emotions." Journal of Genetic Psychology 154: 375-382
6. Cassidy, Jane & Ditty, Karen (2001)."Gender differences among newborns on a transient otoacoustic emissions test for hearing." Journal of
Music Therapy 38: 28-35
7. Horsey, Jen "Boys continue to struggle with reading and writing".
(Toronto (CP) Quoted in: (http://www.singlesexschools.org/)
8. Conlin, Michelle (March 26, 2003).The New Gender Gap: From kindergarten to grad school, boys are becoming the second sex. (Cover story)
BusinessWeek online
9. Conlin, Michelle (March 26, 2003).The New Gender Gap: From kindergarten to grad school, boys are becoming the second sex. (Cover story)
BusinessWeek online
10. Gilder, George (2001). Men and Marriage. Louisiana, Pelican
Publishing Company
11. Hamilton, Harriet (1985)."Performance levels in science and other subjects for Jamaican adolescents attending single-sex and Coeducation al high schools." International Journal of Science Education 69(4): 535-547.
12. Lawrie, L. & Brown, R. (1992)."Sex stereotypes, school subject preferences and career aspirations as a function of single/mixed-sex schooling and preference/absence of an opposite sex sibling." British Journal of Educational Psychology 62: 132-138.
13. Horsey, Jen "Boys continue to struggle with reading and writing".
(Toronto (CP) Quoted in: (http://www.singlesexschools.org/)
14. Sydney Morning Herald (July 6, 2003). Quoted in: (http://www.singlesexschools.org)
15. Single-Sex Education. (http://www.singlesexschools.org/)
16. Flowers, Christine (October 24, 2005). With No Boys to Ogle,We Had
Time to Learn. Newsweek.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Zacharias,Yvonne (Oct. 14, 1999). Let's separate boys, girls in classes: report. The Montreal Gazette. (www.montrealgazette.com/news)

The Reality of Jizyah

2007-08-31T15:54:00.000+10:00

Most of the material for this article has been taken from the lectures of Mufti Muhammad Saeed Khan. If there is a point, in your opinion, that does not carry weight, it is due to the shortcomings of my translation skills, and not because of the material in the Lectures of Mufti Saeed.

One of the objections raised by some Non-Muslims on Islam is that whenever Muslims got power to rule over Non-Muslims they imposed a discriminatory tax on them, i.e. Jizyah.

Basically, the propaganda against Islam is that if an Islamic state is formed somewhere in the world, the Muslims would impose Jizyah on Non-Muslims just because they have not converted to Islam. So this tax is forced upon on people of different faiths because of their religion, and thus discrimination takes place, and freedom of religion is taken away. The only choice remains is that either one converts to Islam or pays this unjust tax.

In Sha Allah (God Willing) after reading this article the misconceptions raised against Islam on the aspect of Jizyah will be removed.

What is the reality of Jizyah? Islam teaches us that everyone has a right to defend himself; and there is protection of life and wealth for all human beings irrespective of their race, colour, religion or gender. For example, if a robber attacks someone, and that person while defending his life and wealth kills that robber, even then no one has the right to file criminal charges against him. So, the relatives of that robber cannot take the defender to court. The same principle when taken on a larger scale gives Muslims the right to defend the entire state.

It is the obligation of an Islamic Government to provide certain things free of charge to the public. For example, medical and education should be free for everyone under Islamic rule. Similarly the Islamic Government should provide jobs for the unemployed; otherwise the state is obliged to take care of the people in need financially. This was the case during the rule of the rightly guided caliphs.

Therefore, unemployment benefits, medical and education are free for everyone regardless of their religion. In addition, free residence and transport is also to be provided for the government employees.

On the other hand, if an Islamic State is being attacked by a foreign nation then it should be the duty of every citizen, regardless of their religion to defend their land, since the state provided so many facilities to them free of charge.

Usually a Muslim State is attacked by Non-Muslims. What Islam says is that it is not correct for a person to fight against his own brothers in religion: i.e. a Christian should not fight a Christian or a Hindu should not fight a Hindu (in case India attacks Pakistan, for instance). The logic behind this is that there is a chance that treason will take place. The reason being that a soldier may not be happy fighting against people of his own faith (there were instances of this in the Iraq war). Islam does not force Non-Muslims killing the people of their own faith in the battlefield.

So an Islamic Government provides the above mentioned facilities and gives its citizens protection; in addition, the life of a Non-Muslim is more precious as compared to a life of a Muslim in an Islamic state (as Prophet peace be upon him said that if under Muslim rule a Non-Muslim dies and justice is not done in that instance then I will argue for that person on the day of Judgement). The Islamic Government for the protection provided imposes a tax on Non-Muslims. It is a trade off: i.e. they will not be drafted to fight, and the government will collect a tax and use it for their security.

The other thing to note is that if this tax was just imposed because a person is not a Muslim, then every Non-Muslim would have had to pay Jizyah. On the contrary, there is no Jizyah on women, children, retired elderly, disabled, umemployed, poor and religious leaders who pray and meditate in their places of worship.

The Muslims were very careful and honest in all regards and especially when it came to the affairs of the Non-Muslims. Abu Yusuf gives the following report:

After getting on peaceful terms with the people of Syria and collecting the dues of the Jizyah, news reached Abu ‘Ubeida that the Emperor Heraclius has raised an enormous army to attack. The Muslims had to concentrate all their energies on the impending encounter. The effect of this was great on Abu ‘Ubeida and the Muslims. He sent messages to the governors of cities with whose citizens he had made peace, asking them to return to their subjects the paid dues of the Jizyah with an instruction to tell them: ‘We hereby return to you the money you have paid us, because of the news of the enemy troops amassed to attack us. The agreement between us was that we should protect you, and as this is not now in our power, we return you that all we took. But if we are victorious we shall consider ourselves bound to you by the old terms of the agreement.’ When this was delivered to the Non-Muslims and their money returned to them, they told the Muslims: ‘May God bring you back to us and grant you victory over the Romans had it been they, they would not have given us back anything, but would have taken all that remained with us.’ [Kitab Al-Kharaj]

In short, Non-Muslims (males who are employed and are financially stable) are required to pay Jizyah to the Islamic State. In return, the State promises to protect them. It is unfortunate that certain individuals try to portray Jizyah as an unjust tax; they only paint one aspect of the picture and ignore the rest.

Female Circumcision in Islam

2007-08-25T09:54:00.000+10:00

It is important to clarify the position of Islam on female circumcision, especially after Pauline Hanson's recent comments: "Maybe we should look at the female genital mutilation that happens to young girls in this country ... if people want to live by these ways then go back to the Muslim countries."

Circumcision is prescribed for both males and females. The correct view is that circumcision is obligatory for males and that it is one of the symbols of Islam, and that circumcision for women is mustahab (desirable) but not obligatory.

While the exact origin of female circumcision is not known, "it preceded Christianity and Islam." The most radical form of female circumcision (infibulation) is known as the Pharaonic Procedure. This may signify that it may have been practiced long before the rise of Islam, Christianity and possibly Judaism. It is not clear, however, whether this practice originated in Egypt or in some other African countries then spread to Egypt.

It is common knowledge that in some countries like Egypt, female circumcision has been practiced by both Muslims and Christians. In the meantime, this practice is not known in most Muslim countries including Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc.

No mention of female circumcision is to be found in the Qur'an either directly or indirectly. There is no known Hadith which makes female circumcision compulsory. Some argued, however, that one Hadith, while not requiring female circumcision, appears to accept it: "Circumcision is a commendable act for men and is an honourable thing for women."

There are two observations on this Hadith:

a) A distinction is made between male circumcision which is described in a stronger religious term or commendable while another weaker description is given to female circumcision which implies no religious obligation.

b) This Hadith is of weak authenticity (dha'eef) according to Hadith scholars.

There is, however, a more authentic Hadith in which Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have passed by a woman performing circumcision on a young girl. He instructed the woman by saying: "Cut off only the foreskin (outer fold of skin over the clitoris; the prepuce) but do not cut off deeply (i.e. the clitoris itself), for this is brighter for the face (of the girl) and more favourable with the husband."

While the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not explicitly ban this practice, his words project a great deal of sensitivity to the instinctive needs of females and their matrimonial happiness and legitimate enjoyment. References to the brightness of the face and to better relationship with the husband are clear indications of his sensitivity and compassion. They also stand in contrast to the arguments that female circumcision "controls" the woman's sexual appetite and hence contributes to sexual morality and virtue in society. It is true that Islam requires adherents of both genders to be chaste. Yet, there is no text in the Qur'an or Sunnah which requires selective curtailment or control of the sexual desire of one specific gender. Furthermore, chastity and virtue are not contingent on "cutting off" part of any sensitive and crucial human organ. Rather, they are contingent on spiritual and moral values of the person and the supporting virtuous environments.

Shariah (Islamic law) broadly divides actions into five categories: mandatory, commendable, permissible, detestable and strictly forbidden. Female circumcision falls within the category of the permissible (some scholars are of the opinion that it is commendable). It was probably on this basis that some scholars opposed a sweeping ban of this practice. Before discussing this view, it is important to distinguish between different types of procedures that were and still are called circumcision.

a) Removal of the hood (or prepuce) of the clitoris. This procedure is, to some degree, analogous to male circumcision since in both cases, no part of the sexual organ is cut off. In both cases also, it is only the foreskin, or outer fold of the skin, which is cut off. Properly done, it is not likely to cause any "matrimonial" problem.

b) Removal of the entire clitoris (clitorectomy) along with part of the labia minora, which is sutured together leaving an opening. This is a form of mutilation.

c) Removal of the entire clitoris, labia minora and medial part of the labia majora, with both sides of the female organ stitched together leaving a small opening. This procedure requires tying together the child's legs of nearly three weeks. It is called the Pharaonic procedure but may as well be called "mutilation".

It is obvious that the second and third procedures were never mandated, encouraged or even consented to by the Prophet (peace be upon him). They even violate a known rule in Shariah prohibiting the cutting off of any part of the human body except for unavoidable reasons (e.g. medical treatment, trimming nails or hair, or for an explicitly specified reason such as male circumcision). Such necessity or need does not exist in female circumcision. Nothing justifies genital mutilation. In fact, no mutilation is allowed by Islam even in the battlefield. Not only are these two procedures unjustifiable, they are brutal, inhumane and in violation of Islam. Therefore, only the first procedure is allowed and even that is no mandatory.

Apart from this, female circumcision has not been prescribed without any reason, rather there is wisdom behind it and it brings many benefits.

Mentioning some of these benefits, Dr. Haamid al-Ghawaabi says:

The secretions of the labia minora accumulate in uncircumcised women and turn rancid, so they develop an unpleasant odour which may lead to infections of the vagina or urethra. I have seen many cases of sickness caused by the lack of circumcision.

Circumcision reduces excessive sensitivity of the clitoris which may cause it to increase in size to 3 centimeters when aroused, which is very annoying to the husband, especially at the time of intercourse.

Another benefit of circumcision is that it prevents stimulation of the clitoris which makes it grow large in such a manner that it causes pain.

Circumcision prevents spasms of the clitoris which are a kind of inflammation.

Circumcision reduces excessive sexual desire.

Then Dr al-Ghawaabi refutes those who claim that female circumcision leads to frigidity by noting:

Frigidity has many causes, and this claim is not based on any sound statistics comparing circumcised women with uncircumcised women, except in the case of Pharaonic circumcision which is where the clitoris is excised completely. This does in fact lead to frigidity but it is contrary to the kind of circumcision enjoined by the Prophet of mercy (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) when he said: “Do not destroy” i.e., do not uproot or excise. This alone is evidence that speaks for itself, because medicine at that time knew very little about this sensitive organ (the clitoris) and its nerves.

The female gynaecologist Sitt al-Banaat Khaalid mentioned in an article entitled Khitaan al-Banaat Ru’yah Sihhiyyah (Female circumcision from a health point of view) some of the health benefits of female circumcision and said:

It takes away excessive libido from women.

It prevents unpleasant odours which result from foul secretions beneath the prepuce.

It reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections.

It reduces the incidence of infections of the reproductive system.

In addition, in the book on Traditions that affect the health of women and children, which was published by the World Health Organization in 1979 says:

With regard to the type of female circumcision which involves removal of the prepuce of the clitoris, which is similar to male circumcision, no harmful health effects have been noted.

From Liwa’ al-Islam magazine, issue 8 and 10; article entitled Khitaan al-Banaat (circumcision of girls).

The Reality of Money and the Banking System

2007-05-01T11:08:00.001+10:00

Before reading this, please read the article “Modern Economy: Progress or Destruction” on this website (I have added some video links and if you have time please watch them too, as they further illustrate the points made in the article).

I got this interesting article from the internet. It is a must read to understand the economic system we are living under today.

Please also watch the video “Money as Debt” (the link for the video is at the end of the article). I highly recommend it.

MONEY & BANKS ….

THE HIDDEN TRUTH BEHIND GLOBAL DEBT .

1) What is money... how is it created and who creates it?

2) Why is almost everyone up to their eyeballs in debt... individuals, businesses and whole nations?

3) Why can’t we provide for our daily needs - homes, furnishings cars etc. without borrowing?

4) How much could prices fall and wages increase if businesses did not have to pay huge sums in interest payments which have to be added to the cost of goods and services they supply...?

5) How much could taxes be reduced and spending on public services such as health and education be increased if governments created money themselves instead of borrowing it at interest from private banks…?

"If you want to be the slaves of banks and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the banks create money…" Josiah Stamp, Governor of the Bank of England 1920.

WHAT IS MONEY....?
It is simply the medium we use to exchange goods and services.

Without it, buying and selling would be impossible except by direct exchange.
Notes and coins are virtually worthless in their own right. They take on value as money because we all accept them when we buy and sell.
To keep trade and economic activity going, there has to be enough of this medium of exchange called money in existence to allow it all to take place.
When there is plenty, the economy booms. When there is a shortage, there is a slump.
In the Great Depression, people wanted to work, they wanted goods and services, all the raw materials for industry were available etc. yet national economies collapsed because there was far too little money in existence.
The only difference between boom and bust, growth and recession is money supply.
Someone has to be responsible for making sure that there is enough money in existence to cover all the buying and selling that people want to engage in.
Each nation has a Central Bank to do this - in Britain, it is the Bank of England, in the United States, the Federal Reserve.
Central Banks act as banker for commercial banks and the government - just as individuals and businesses in Britain keep accounts at commercial banks, so commercial banks and government keep accounts at the Bank of England.

TODAY’S "MONEY"... CREATED BY PRIVATE INTERESTS FOR PRIVATE PROFIT
"Let me issue and control a nation’s money, and I care not who writes its laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild (Banker) 1790

Central banks are controlled not by elected governments but largely by PRIVATE INTERESTS from the world of commercial banking.
In Britain today, notes and coins now account for only 3% of our total money supply, down from 50% in 1948.
The remaining 97% is supplied and regulated as credit - personal and business loans, mortgages, overdrafts etc. provided by commercial banks and financial institutions - on which INTEREST is payable. This pattern is repeated across the globe.
Banks are businesses out to make profits from the interest on the loans they make. Since they alone decide to whom they will lend, they effectively decide what is produced, where it is produced and who produces it, all on the basis of profitability to the bank, rather than what is beneficial to the community.
With bank created credit now at 97% of money supply, entire economies are run for the profit of financial institutions. This is the real power, rarely recognised or acknowledged, to which all of us including governments the world over are subject.
Our money, instead of being supplied interest free as a means of exchange, now comes as a debt owed to bankers providing them with vast profits, power and control, as the rest of us struggle with an increasing burden of debt....
By supplying credit to those of whom they approve and denying it to those of whom they disapprove international bankers can create boom or bust and support or undermine governments.
There is much less risk to making loans than investing in a business. Interest is payable regardless of the success of the venture. If it fails or cannot meet the interest payments, the bank seizes the borrower’s property.
Borrowing is extremely costly to borrowers who may end up paying back 2 or 3 times the sum lent.
The money loaned by banks is created by them out of nothing – the concept that all a bank does is to lend out money deposited by other people is very misleading.

MONEY CREATED AS A DEBT
We don’t distinguish between the £25 billion in circulation as notes and coins (issued by the government) and £680 billion in the form of loan accounts, overdrafts etc. (created by banks etc,).
£100 cash in your wallet is treated no differently from £100 in your current account, or an overdraft facility allowing you to spend £100. You can still buy goods with it.
In 1948 we had £1.1 billion of notes and coins and £1.2 billion of loans etc. created by banks – by 1963 it was £3 billion in cash and £14 billion bank created loans etc.
The government has simply issued more notes and coins over the years to cover inflation, but today’s £680 billion of bank created loans etc. represents an enormous increase, even allowing for inflation.
This new "money" in the form of loans etc, which ranks equally with notes and coins – how has it come into existence?
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled." Professor. J. K. Galbraith

This is how it’s done…. a simplified example...
Let’s take a small hypothetical bank. It has ten depositors/savers who have just deposited £500 each.
The bank owes them £5000 and it has £5000 to pay out what it owes. (It will keep that £5000 in an account at the Bank of England – what it has in this account are called its liquid assets).
Sid, an entrepreneur, now approaches the bank for a £5000 loan to help him to set up a business.
This is granted on the basis of repayment in 12 months - plus 10% interest – more on that later. A new account is opened in Sid’s name. It has nothing in it, nevertheless the bank allows Sid to withdraw and spend £5000.
The depositors are not consulted about the loan. They are not told that their money is no longer available to them– The amounts shown in their accounts are not reduced and transferred to Sid’s account.
In granting this loan, the bank has increased its obligations to £10,000. Sid is entitled to £5000, but the depositors can still claim their £5000.
If the bank now has obligations of £10,000, then isn’t it insolvent, because it only had £5000 of deposits in the first place? Not exactly…
The bank treats the loan to Sid as an ASSET, not a liability, on the basis that Sid now owes the bank £5000.
The bank’s balance sheet will show that it owes its depositors £5000, and it is now owed £5000 by Sid. It has created for itself a new asset of £5000 in the form of a debt owed by Sid where nothing existed before - this on top of any of the original deposits still in its account at the Bank of England. - it is solvent - at least for accounting purposes!
(At this stage the bank is gambling that as Sid is spending his loan, the depositors won’t all want to withdraw their deposits!)
The bank had a completely free hand in the creation of this £5000 loan which, as we shall see, represents new "money", where nothing existed before. It was done at the stroke of a pen or the pressing of a computer key.
The idea that banks create something out of nothing and then charge interest on it for private profit might seem pretty repellent. Anyone else doing it would be guilty of fraud or counterfeiting!

New "money" into the economy...
Sid’s loan effectively becomes new "money" as it is spent by him to pay for equipment, rent and wages etc. in connection with his new business.
This new "money" is thus distributed to other people, who will in turn use it to pay for goods and services - soon it will be circulating throughout the economy.
As it circulates, it inevitably ends up in other people’s bank accounts.
When it is paid into someone’s account which is not overdrawn, it is a further deposit - Sid pays his secretary £100 and she opens an account at our hypothetical bank – it now has £5100 of deposits.
If we assume for a moment that the remaining £4900 ends up in the accounts of the original depositors of our hypothetical bank, it now has another £4900 in deposits - £10000 in total if the depositors have not touched their original deposits. In practice much of it would end up in depositors accounts at other banks, but either way there is now £5000 of new "money" in circulation.
Thus in reality, all deposits with banks and elsewhere actually come from "money" originally created as loans – (except where the deposits are made in cash – more on cash very shortly).
If you have £500 in your bank account, the fact is someone else like Sid went into debt to provide it.

The key to the whole thing is the fact that :-
[1] Cash withdrawals account for only a tiny percentage of a bank’s business.
[2] Bank customers today make almost all payments between themselves by cheque, switch, direct debit or electronic transfer etc. Their individual accounts are adjusted accordingly by changing a few figures in computer databases – just book keeping entries. No actual money/cash changes hands. The whole thing is basically an accounting process that takes place within the banking system.

THE ROLE OF CASH
The state is responsible for the production of cash in the form of notes and coins.
These are then issued by the Bank of England to the high street banks - the banks buy them at face value from the government to meet their customers’ demands for cash.
The banks must pay for this cash and they do so out of what they have in the accounts which they hold at the Bank of England – their liquid assets. Their accounts are debited accordingly.
The state (through the Treasury) also keeps an account at the Bank of England which is credited with the face value of the notes and coins as they are paid for by the banks. (This is now money in the public purse available for spending on public services etc.)
This is how all banks acquire their stocks of notes and coins, but the cash a bank can buy is limited to the amount it holds in its account at the Bank of England – its liquid assets.
As this cash is withdrawn by banks’ customers, it enters circulation in the economy.
Unlike bank created loans etc, cash is interest free and can circulate indefinitely.

NON CASH PAYMENTS - Book keeping entries
With so little cash being withdrawn, and from experience knowing that large amounts of deposits remain untouched by depositors for reasonable periods of time, banks just hope that their liquid assets will be sufficient to enable them to buy up the cash necessary to meet the relatively very small amounts of cash that are normally withdrawn.
A bank has serious problems if demands for cash withdrawals by depositors, and indeed borrowers who want to draw some of their loans in cash, exceed what the bank holds in its account at the Bank of England.
In practice it would probably try to get a loan itself from the Bank of England or another bank, to tide itself over. Failing that it would have to call in some loans and seize the property of borrowers unable to pay.

DEPOSITORS’ CLAIMS AGAINST BANKS …
Once you have made a deposit at the bank (in cash or by cheque), all you then have is a claim against the bank for the amount in your account. You are simply an unsecured creditor. Your bank statement is a record of how much the bank owes you. (If you are overdrawn, it is a record of what you owe the bank). It will pay you what it owes you by allowing you to withdraw cash, provided it has sufficient cash to do so.
If customers are trying to withdraw too much cash, this is a run on the bank, which will soon refuse further withdrawals. So it’s first come first served!
Should you want to make a payment by cheque, this is less likely to be a problem – you are simply transferring part of your claim against the bank to someone else – the person to whom your cheque is payable - just a book keeping entry.
If the person to whom your cheque is payable has an account at the same bank as you do, the deposit stays with that bank – overall the bank is in exactly the same position as it was before.
I give you a cheque for £50 – we both have accounts in credit at Barclays – what Barclays owes me is reduced by £50, what Barclays owes you increases by £50 – but nothing has left Barclays – the total deposits or claims against Barclays remain the same…..

BANKS’ CLAIMS AGAINST EACH OTHER
….BUT if you keep your account at Lloyds, deposits at Barclays are reduced by £50, whilst deposits at Lloyds increase by £50.
Millions of transactions like this take place every day between customers of the various banks, using switch cards, direct debits, electronic transfers as well as cheques – deposits are therefore constantly moving between the banks.
All these cheques and electronic transfers pass through a central clearing house (which is why we refer to a cheque being "cleared").
The transactions are set off against one another, but at the end of each day, a relatively small balance will always be owed by one bank to another.
A bank must always be ready to settle such debts.
To do this, it makes a payment from its account at the Bank of England to the creditor bank’s account at the Bank of England.
Thus a bank faces claims from two sources (which it meets out of its liquid assets) – its customers wanting cash, and other banks when it has a clearing house debt to settle.

Unless all the banks are faced with big demands for cash at the same time, the banking system as a whole is safe, although an individual bank is vulnerable, should a large number of depositors for some reason withdraw their deposits in cash or transfer their deposits to other banks.

We now see how today the whole system is basically a book keeping exercise where millions of claims pass between the banks and their borrowers and depositors every day with relatively very little real money or cash changing hands – backed by tiny reserves of liquid assets.
The system is known as FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKNG and banks are sometimes accurately referred to as dealers in debts.
Barclays Bank’s 1999 accounts illustrate the whole thing very well - it had loans owing to it of £217 billion, it owed £191 billion to its depositors – backed by just £2.2 billion in liquid assets!
A bank’s level of lending is geared to the amount of cash it has or can buy up – its liquid assets - rather than the amount of its customers’ deposits.
But if a bank can attract customer deposits from other banks, it will add to its liquid assets, as other banks settle the resulting clearing house debts in its favour – hence there is tremendous competition between banks to attract deposits.

INTEREST…. Big Profits for the bank...
Let’s now return to Sid – he has to pay our bank 10% interest on his loan - £500. These interest payments are money coming into the bank, they are profits and they end up in its account at the Bank of England - additional liquid assets for the bank.
It now has an extra £500 to meet its depositors’ withdrawals. If Sid manages to repay the original loan as well, it will have an extra £5500.
Our bank created for itself out of nothing an asset of £5000 in the form of a loan to Sid. It is no longer owed anything by Sid, but in repaying his loan with interest, Sid turned a mere debt into £5500 of liquid assets for the bank – a tidy profit for the bank…. and the basis on which more loans can be made.
Banks today risk creating loans 100 times or more in excess of their liquid assets as Barclays Bank’s 1999 accounts show – (see above).
Thus our bank will soon be making many more loans. Thus, the deposits it receives back will increase and so will interest payments and therefore profits.
With more loans and more deposits, there will be a greater demand to withdraw cash – but increasing profits means more cash can bought by the bank. (This is how the amount of cash in circulation has been increasing to reach £25 billion by 1997.)
It is a myth to think that when you borrow money from a bank, you are borrowing money that other people have deposited – you are not – you are borrowing the bank’s money which it created and made available to you in the form of a loan.

MORE DEBT FOR THE REST OF US...
Sid’s interest payments and any repayment of the loan itself to the bank means, however, that this "money" is no longer circulating in the economy.
Any payment into an overdrawn account reduces that overdraft. It operates as a repayment to the bank and the "money" is lost to the economy.
More money must be lent out to keep the economy going. If people don’t borrow or banks don’t lend, there will be a fall in the amount of money circulating, resulting in a reduction in buying and selling - a recession, slump or total collapse will follow depending on how severe the shortage is.
The increase in bank created loans over the years is additional conclusive proof that banks do create "money" out of nothing - £1.2 billion in 1948 up to £14 billion by 1963 up to £680 billion by 1997.
Today’s supply of notes and coins after taking inflation into account, has similar buying power to the supply in 1948 (£1.1 billion) but since then, there has been a tenfold plus increase in real terms in money supply made up of credit created by banks.
This has enabled the economy to expand enormously, and as a result living standards for many people have improved substantially.... but it has been done on borrowed money! What is credit to the bank is debt to the rest of us.
The banks are acquiring an ever increasing stake in our land, housing and other assets through the indebtedness of individuals, industry, agriculture, services and government - to the extent that Britain and the world are today effectively owned by them.

THE REPERCUSSIONS OF OUR DEBT BASED MONEY SYSTEM...
1) Goods and services are much more expensive...
The cost of borrowing by producers, manufacturers, transporters, retailers etc. all has to be added to the price of the final product.
2) Consumers’ have much less money to spend...
They are burdened by the cost of mortgages, overdrafts, credit cards, personal loans etc. As a result of 1) and 2) there is...
3) A surplus of goods and services...
...because the population overall can’t afford to buy up all the goods and services being produced. This in turn creates.....
4) Cut throat competition...
Businesses try to cut prices and costs to grab a share of this limited purchasing power in the economy, as illustrated by:
(i) Wages being held down as much as possible.
(ii) Shedding of jobs.
(These both reduce people’s spending power even more.)
(iii) Retailers importing cheap products from abroad where wages are much lower.
(iv) Production of cheaper goods that don’t last as long.
(v) Protection of the environment a low priority.
(vi) Mergers and takeovers - corporations get bigger and bigger, driven to search out new markets.
(vii) Big companies shifting production to poorer countries which have cheap non-unionised labour and the least stringent safety and environmental laws or....
(viii) Demanding large government subsidies and tax free incentives as the price for setting up new production or not relocating abroad.
5) Ever increasing indebtedness...
When a bank creates money by making a loan, it does not create the money needed to pay the interest on that loan.
The bank lent Sid £5000, but it demands £5500 back. Sid has to go out into the business world and compete and sell to get that extra £500 from his customers. It can only come from money already circulating in the economy - made up of loans other people have taken out – so soon someone will be left short of money and have to borrow more.
Thus the only way for interest payments to be kept up is for more loans to be taken out. Although a few individuals and businesses may pay off their debts or get by without additional borrowing, OVERALL people and industry must keep borrowing MORE AND MORE to provide the money in the economy needed to keep up interest payments on the overall volume of debt.
The present level of debt at £680 billion means we are borrowing about £60 billion of new "money" into existence each year to pay the interest on it.
But people and industry can’t go on borrowing indefinitely - they will no longer be able to afford to, and will gradually stop borrowing more money into existence. When this happens, the economy will go into decline. The system thus contains the seeds of its own destruction.
When loan repayments and interest payments are made to banks, this is money taken out of circulation. If it went on indefinitely, in an economy where the money supply is largely made up of loans etc. created by banks, there would eventually be almost no "money" left in circulation and with it no economy.
Under the present system, if the economy is to be kept going, money must be constantly lent out again. It would be possible simply re-circulate the existing money supply without creating new money were it not for the fact that extra money is needed to cover interest payments and also to enable the economy to grow.
6) Inflation....
is guaranteed because producers constantly have to borrow more, and must add the cost of that increased borrowing to the price of the goods produced.
Why is it that when the moneylenders hike their prices (i.e. put up interest rates) this is supposed to reduce inflation?
It doesn’t....
It’s just that there is a delay in industry putting up prices.
Initially industry is forced to hold or even reduce its prices with profits down, or even sustaining losses in a desperate bid to sell its products in an economy where money available for spending is reduced because of higher interest payments being made to the banks.
Inflation may be held in check or even reduced temporarily, but eventually industry must put its prices up in order to recover these higher costs.
This most readily happens when interest rates come down, more people borrow, and money supply and consumer spending increases. Inflation then races ahead.
The fact that levels of borrowing/money creation have to keep on rising as already explained, adding to the overall burden of interest payments, guarantees that inflation will be present as long as we have an economy based on an increasing burden of debt.

EFFECTS ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Surplus goods in the national economy have to be disposed of somehow. The obvious way to do this is to try to export them!
The absurdity is that every nation is trying to do this, because of the same fundamental problem at home.
This creates frenzied competition in world markets and masses of near identical goods madly criss-crossing the globe in search of an outlet.
Instead of international trade being based on reciprocal mutually beneficial arrangements where nations supply each others’ genuine needs and wants, the whole thing becomes a cut-throat competition to grab market share in order to stay solvent in a debt based economy.
Big corporations demand unrestricted access to every nation’s market – so called "free" trade.
The European Union "single market", the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organisation are the best examples of the drive to open up all national markets.

Exporting is good for a nation’s economy...
Because when exported goods are paid for, this brings money into the exporting nation’s economy free of debt.
The money to pay for them was borrowed from banks in the importing nation.
That money is lost to the importing nation’s economy, but the debt that created that money still has to be repaid by the importer out of the remaining money in the importing nation’s economy.
If a nation can become a big net exporter, for a time it’s economy will boom with all the interest free money coming in - a trade surplus will exist.

Importing is not so good for a nation’s economy...
If some nations are building up trade surpluses in this way, others must be net importers and building up trade deficits.
Ultimately, those with big deficits can no longer afford to import, since so much money is sucked out of their economies leaving a proportionally increasing burden of debt behind.

THIRD WORLD DEBT AND THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (IMF)
The IMF was set up to provide an international reserve of money supposedly to help nations with big deficits.
In practice it makes matters worse.
A nation with a big deficit has to seek a bail out from the IMF.
BUT this comes in the form of a loan, repayable with interest.
Like loans from a commercial bank, IMF loans are money created out of nothing, based on a cash reserve pool, which is provided by western nations who go into debt to provide it (see National Debt).
The nation with the deficit goes even more heavily into debt.
It will however be able to carry on trading and importing goods from the wealthier nations.
As a result, much of this borrowed IMF loan money flows into the economies of wealthier western nations.
However, the repayment obligation including the interest payments remains with the debtor nation.
This is the true horror of third world debt - the poorest nations borrow money to bolster the money supply of the richer nations.
In order to secure income to pay the interest, and redress the trade balance, these poorest nations must export whatever they can produce. Thus they exploit every possible resource - stripping forests for timber, mining, giving over their best agricultural land to providing luxury foodstuffs for the west, rather than providing for local needs.
Today, for nations in Africa, Central and South America and elsewhere, the revenue from their exports does not even meet the interest payments on these IMF loans (and other loans from western banks).
The sums paid in interest over the years far exceed the amounts of the original loans themselves.
The result is a desperate shortage of money in their economies - resulting in cutbacks in basic health and education programmes etc.
Grinding poverty exists in nations with great wealth in terms of natural resources.
Structural Adjustment Programmes - these are now attached to IMF loans and include conditions that recipient countries will reduce or remove tariff barriers and "open up their markets to foreign competition" - in other words take surplus goods off another country that can’t be sold at home.

NATIONAL DEBT
British national debt now stands at £400 billion - the annual interest on that debt is around £25 -30 billion. The government can only pay it by taxing the population as a whole, so we pay! National debt is up from £26 billion in 1960 and £90 billion in 1980.
Successive governments have borrowed this money into existence over the years.
Instead of creating it themselves and spending it into the economy on public services and projects boosting the economy and providing jobs, they get banks to create it for them and then borrow it at interest.
It all started in 1694 when King William needed money to fight a war against France.
He borrowed £1.2 million from a group of London bankers and goldsmiths.
In return for the loan, they were incorporated by royal charter as the Bank of England which became the government’s banker.
Interest at 8% was payable on the loan and immediately taxes were imposed on a whole range of goods to pay the interest.
This marked the birth of national debt.
Ever since then the world over, governments have borrowed money from private banking interests and taxed the population as a whole to pay the interest.

How the Government Borrows Money
When governments borrow money, in return they issue to the lender, exchequer or treasury bonds - otherwise known as government stocks or securities.
These are basically IOU’s - promises by government to repay the loan by a particular date, and to pay interest in the meantime.
They are taken up chiefly by banks, but also by individuals with money to spare including very wealthy ones in the banking fraternity and, in more recent years, pension and other investment funds.
When government securities are taken up by banks, this is money creation at the stroke of a pen by the banks out of nothing.
Banks are creating money as loans out of nothing by lending it into existence to the government in very much the same way as they do to individuals and companies.
The government now has new money in the form of loans to spend on public services etc.
If this money was not borrowed into existence in this way, there would be that much less economic activity as a result.
Under this system NATIONAL DEBT IS CREDIT ISSUED TO THE GOVERNMENT AND AS SUCH HAS BECOME A VITAL PART OF THE TOTAL MONEY SUPPLY OF ANY MODERN NATION.
The government constantly tells us that there isn’t enough money for this that and the other, because it knows that the cost of borrowing any money it needs has to be passed on to the taxpayer.
Instead, it sells off state assets and now gets the private sector to fund public services instead.

War…...
enormous increases in national debt...
enormous profits for the banks...
Massive government borrowing and money creation by banks is required to fund a war effort.
The same international bankers have covertly funded both sides in both world wars and many other conflicts before and since.
Having profited from war leaving nations with massive debts and more beholden than ever to them, the banks then fund reconstruction.
Bankers have even helped bring wars about. The calling in of loans to the German Weimar republic largely created the conditions for the rise of Hitler.
The pattern was well established by the mid 19th. century - by then international banker and speculator Nathan Rothschild could boast a personal fortune of £50 million.

The Constant Increase in National Debt
In the same way that under the present system, industry and individuals must keep borrowing more and more to enable interest payments to be kept up on their existing loans, so government must constantly borrow more and more to keep up interest payments on its existing loans.
Furthermore, when a particular government stock is due for repayment, the government simply borrows more by issuing new government stocks.

Phasing out of National Debt...
"If the government can issue a dollar bond, it can just as easily issue a dollar bill." Thomas Edison.

Government could stop borrowing money at interest, and start creating it itself by spending it into the economy on public projects and services, at the same time creating jobs and stimulating the economy. It already does this to a very limited extent – the amount it receives from the banks when it sells cash to them is added to the public purse and is available for spending on public services and projects.

Please watch this informative video to gain further insight into the modern banking system: Money as Debt http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=5352106773770802849&hl=en

In addition, for history of the banking system and analyses of our modern economy please watch The Money Masters Part 1 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1583154561904832383 and The Money Masters Part 2 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7336845760512239683

I would also recommend that you read the book "The Final Crash" by Hugo Bouleau http://www.finalcrash.com/. In addition, please read "The Web of Debt" By Ellen Hodgson Brown" (http://www.webofdebt.com/)

The Future is Islam

2007-05-01T10:50:00.001+10:00

Allah Says in the Holy Quran:

"They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it. It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religions, although they who associate others with Allah dislike it." [Al-Quran 9:32-33]

A New York Times article, "Islam Attracts Converts by the Thousands," contains interviews with converts, analyses Islam's rapid rise in America, and states:

With some 6 million adherents in the United States, Islam is said to be the nation's fastest-growing religion, fueled by immigration, high birth rates and widespread conversion. One expert estimates that 25,000 people a year become Muslims in this country; some clerics say they have seen conversion rates quadruple since Sept. 11.

Between July 2004 and June 2005, some 4,000 Germans converted to Islam, four times more cases than in the year before, German news magazine Der Spiegel said in its latest issue, citing a study on Islamic life in Germany financed by the Interior Ministry.

Islam is the future. If present trends do not change dramatically, Islam will bypass Christianity for the title of the world’s largest religion very shortly. In fact, according to most statistics, this may take place in less than twenty years. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, growing at a rate four times faster than Christianity. Presently those who practice Islam make up approximately one fifth of the world’s population. One seasoned Bible teacher from England after reviewing the statistics recently commented that, “if present trends continue, half of all global births will be in Muslim families by the year 2055”. [Pawson, The Challenge of Islam to Christians (London, Hodder and Stoughton, 2003)]

Not only is Islam the fastest growing religion in the world, but also in the United States, Canada and Europe [Bruce a. Mcdowell and Anees Zaka, Muslims and Christians at The Table (Phillipsburg, P& R Publishing, 1999)] The annual growth rate of Islam in the US is approximately 4%, but there are also strong reasons to believe that it may have risen to as high as 8% over the past few years. Every year, tens of thousands of Americans convert to Islam. Prior to 2001 most reports seem to have the number roughly around 25,000 American converts per year. This may not sound like that much, but this yearly figure according to some Muslim American clerics has quadrupled since 9-11. Since 9-11 the numbers of American converts to Islam has skyrocketed. As early as one month after the World Trade Center attacks, the reports were flowing in from Mosques all over America. Ala Bayumi, the Director of Arab affairs at the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) on November 11, 2001, in the London daily newspaper, Al-Hayat said this:

Non-Muslim Americans are now interested in getting to know Islam. There are a number of signs... Libraries have run out of books on Islam... English translations of the Koran head the American best-seller list... The Americans are showing increasing willingness to convert to Islam since September 11... Thousands of non-Muslim Americans have responded to invitations to visit mosques, resembling the waves of the sea crashing on the shore one after another...[ Al-Hayat Newspaper (London), November 12, 2001, as quoted in Middle East Media & Research Institute, November 16, 2001, Muslim American Leaders: A Wave of Conversion to Islam in the U.S. Following September 11]

After testifying to the dramatic strides that Islam had taken as a result of the 9-11 attacks, Bayumi goes on to say that:

Proselytizing in the name of Allah has not been undermined, and has not been set back 50 years, as we thought in the first days after September 11. On the contrary, the 11 days that have passed are like 11 years in the history of proselytizing in the name of Allah.

In an article from the British newspaper, The Times of London, January 7, 2002 just four months after 9-11 we read:

There is compelling anecdotal evidence of a surge in conversions to Islam since September 11, not just in Britain, but across Europe and America. One Dutch Islamic centre claims a tenfold increase, while the New Muslims Project, based in Leicester, [England] and run by a former Irish Roman Catholic housewife, reports a “steady stream” of new converts. [The Times, (UK) January 7 2002, Giles Whittell, Allah Came Knocking At My Heart]

Shortly after 9-11, National Public Radio did a special on Islam and those who had converted after 9-11:

One of the most important topics [in an NPR broadcast] was an interview with several young women at American universities who recently converted to Islam through the Islamic Society of Boston. They hold advanced degrees from universities in Boston, such as Harvard, and they spoke of the power and the greatness of Islam, of the elevated status of women in Islam, and of why they converted to Islam. The program was broadcasted several times across the entire U.S...[Middle East Media & Research Institute, November 16, 2001, Muslim American Leaders: A Wave of Conversion to Islam in the U.S. Following September 11]

From an article in The New York Times, October 22, 2001, we read a portion of Jim Hacking’s story:

Nine years ago, Jim Hacking was in training to be a Jesuit priest. Now, he is an admiralty lawyer in St. Louis who has spent much of the last month explaining Islam at interfaith gatherings… He made the Shahadah [Muslim Conversion ceremony] on June 6, 1998. "The thing I've always latched to is that there's one God, he doesn't have equals, he doesn't need a son to come do his work,"

A typical testimony of a former Christian convert reads:
As a child, Jennifer Harrell attended church and Sunday school. In high school, she was on the drill team and dated a football player. After college, she became a Methodist youth minister. At age 23, she became a single parent. At age 26, she became a Muslim. "I grew up in Plano doing all the things I thought I was supposed to do," said Ms. Harrell, 29, of Dallas. "I went to church. I went to parties. But I wasn't concerned about heaven or hell. I took it all for granted." Eventually, she took a job in sales, where she was introduced to Islam by Muslim co-workers. One of them loved to debate religion, which stirred Ms. Harrell to rethink her Christian faith. She studied the Bible, but also Islam in order to do a better job of defending her faith. Instead, she became intrigued that Muslims prayed five times a day, fasted and gave alms as a way of life. "I wasn't the type of Christian who prayed every morning," she said. She said Muslim beliefs about Jesus made more sense to her because they revere him as a prophet and not God's son. "When I was a Christian, I never understood why Jesus had to die for my sins," Ms. Harrell said. "I mean, they're my sins." Before becoming a Muslim, she visited a Christian minister. She said she asked why Christians ate pork, why women didn't cover their heads in church, and why Christians dated. "I wanted him to defend the Bible," she said. "I gave him everything that I had found wrong with Christian interpretation." His answers didn't satisfy her [The Dallas Morning News – November 3, 2001, Susan Hogan]

Please also watch these videos of Non-Muslims coming into the fold of Islam:

Funny Aussie Revert http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23063

Ladies Converting to Islam Live http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=6081773249800257847&q=women+to+islam+live&total=219&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Reverts from around the world http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10823

Turning Muslim in Texas - People reverting to Islam in Texas. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9184353144432289069

European SCIENTIST Converts To ISLAM http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-5789309721856178863

Turning Muslim in Australia!?! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiXYlO4Fbzk

135 Enter Islam http://www.watchislam.com/videos/index.php?catid=18

Science student finds peace and Logic in Islam http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9130

For a whole lot more videos of new Muslims please go to http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=6

Did Prophet (peace be upon him) Massacred the Jews?

2007-05-01T10:19:00.000+10:00

The information for this article has been taken from Dr. Jamal Badawi’s lecture.

One of the criticism of Prophet (peace be upon him) mentioned by the orientalists is that he persecuted the Jews of Medina because they refused to accept his message. This article will discuss Prophet’s (peace be upon him) treatment of the Non-Muslims. After you have read the article in its entirety (if Allah wills) you will realise how unjust the above mentioned criticism is. Even though the Scholars of Islam have answered this and many other similar objections in great detail, these objections keep on getting recycled for the last few centuries in the polemic literature and now on the internet.

First of all, we have to distinguish between two periods, the Makkan period (13 years of his mission) when Muslims were persecuted and the Medinan period (the remaining 10 years of his mission).

In Makkah, he encountered at least two groups: idolatrous Arabs and the Christians. As far as the encounter with idolatrous Arabs go, we find that it is subdivided into two types: positive and negative. By positive, I mean his encounter with those who rejected Islam, but did not seek to hurt or undermine Islam or the Prophet (peace be upon him), and how he dealt with them.

The best example for this is his uncle Abu Talib. Abu Talib did not accept Islam, but he never put obstacles before the Prophet (peace be upon him), he even defended the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his right to preach what he believed in or claimed to have received as revelation. For that type of relationship, Prophet (peace be upon him) more than reciprocated that courtesy. He loved his uncle, in spite of his idolatrous beliefs; he respected him and treated him with all kindness that is owed to a peaceful Non-Muslim.

But we have also the encounters with those who showed aggressiveness; they not only hurt the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Muslims, but also tortured them. There are many examples, let me give you two.

The first is of one of his uncle Abu Jahal. It is reported that one time Abu Jahal passed Prophet (peace be upon him) and he started abusing him verbally in a very ugly way. There was a young lady who was overhearing this conversation, she kept watching and after Abu Jahal had said his vile words the Prophet (peace be upon him) simply looked at him and did not respond. A few minutes later one of his uncle Hamza (may Allah be pleased with him) came from his hunting trip. He did not accept Islam or follow Prophet (peace be upon him) at that time. When he passed by that young lady and she told him that do you realise what happened to your nephew Muhammad (peace be upon him)? He said what? She replied that Abu Jahal abused him in a bad manner. He asked what did Muhammad (peace be upon him) do? She replied that he did not reciprocate with words; he just left him (moved away from him). It was that nobility of Prophet (peace be upon him) in the face of abuse (which is one of his characteristics) that softened the heart of Hamza (may Allah be pleased with him) and that was the turning point in his life. Hamza (may Allah be pleased with him) by nature was strong, aggressive and husky person. He walked right up to the Kaaba where Abu Jahal was sitting with the chiefs of Quraish, and he hit him with his bow on his head. He then said that you abused Muhammad (peace be upon him); I say what he says and I follow his religion. The point here is the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) kind behaviour towards those who were evil.

The second example was when Prophet (peace be upon him) was being persecuted and rejected in Makkah, he sought to find some followers and secure a base to preach the word of God as he received it and believed in it. So he goes to the nearby township known as Taif. He goes there to talk to people and invite them to Islam. But he was mocked, first by adults (e.g. one of them said “ha, you are telling me that you are a prophet, it is either you are a liar or truthful. If you are a liar I do not want to listen to a liar, and if you are truthful and indeed if you are a prophet then you are too big for me to listen too”); it did not stop at that and they sent their children who pelted Prophet (peace be upon him) with stones. He started to bleed, as a result, and blood seeped into his sandals. Then he took refuge in a garden which belonged to a couple of Christians. He sits there making earnest prayer to Allah that if You are not angry with me O Allah, then I do not care (meaning I do not care for this suffering). In the middle of all of that pain and psychological trauma an angel of God came to him and said that for those arrogant people, if it is okay with you, God has permitted me to crush them between these two mountains. Most humans perhaps would be thinking of vengeance but the Prophet (peace be upon him) answered that angel and said no, because I hope to Allah that out of the descendents these people there will be people who will worship Allah (that was very prophetic and that is what happened later, and as we know Muhammad bin Qasim was one of those descendents). [Similar statement has been recorded about Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) which shows they were not copying each other but receiving the same message and inspiration from God]. Prophet (peace be upon him) said to Allah to forgive my people for they know not what they are doing.

The second encounter is with the Christians. Even before migration to Medina, Prophet (peace be upon him) told his companions to migrate to Abyssinia and he stated that there is a king in whose realm people are not wronged. Now one observation; that good relationship and courtesy continued not only when Muslims were persecuted, but when Muslims became powerful and had their own state and base in Medina, we never hear about Prophet (peace be upon him) ordering the invasion of Abyssinia. That fly in the face of mistaken interpretation that some Muslims may have as well, that it is the duty of Muslims to fight all people in the world until they accept Islam or come under the rule of Islam. If this were the true, the first implementation of that would have been done by the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself. There is no record whatsoever that shows when Islam allowed fighting either for self defense or against oppression, it was not meant for people who are not Muslims but coexisting peacefully with the Muslims. This is clear lesson from the life of Prophet (peace be upon him).

Now we go to his encounters in Medina. Here we find multiple encounters with Non-Muslims (Jews, Christians and idolatrous Arabs). With Jews one of the major act of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in Medina (beside the buddy system between the migrants and the settlers and building of a mosque as a centre for Muslims) was known as the As-Saheefah (which can be described as perhaps the first multicultural, multi religious and pluralistic Constitution in the world that guaranteed equal rights to everybody irrespective of their faith). In this Saheefah or Constitution, of which everybody was a signatory to, it was agreed that Muslims irrespective of their tribes, irrespective whether they are migrants or settlers in Medina, are to be regarded as one community united by faith. The same equal treatment would be given to various Jewish tribes as well, and all Jews in Medina irrespective of their tribes are to be regarded as one community of faith united by Judaism. Secondly, the constitution guaranteed full rights and autonomy and freedom of worship and belief to Jews, Muslims and everyone else for that matter. Thirdly, it was agreed that Jews and Muslims should be co-defenders of Medina. Should any enemy attack Medina, both are obligated as two communities to stand together against aggression and never to help any enemy attacking Medina. Fourthly, no side should give refuge to someone who committed a crime. That was an amazing liberal treatment, approach and reaching out to what the Quran called the people of the book (applying to Jews and Christians). Also, all parties (including the Jews) agreed that the head of the whole community would be the Prophet (peace be upon him).

Now what happened later, unfortunately, was that three tribes (one tribe after the other) broke this agreement of peaceful co-existence and mutual respect and engaged in hostilities towards Muslims to some degree or the other. The Prophet (peace be upon him) in his position and responsibility as the enforcer of the law of constitution of Medina (to which everybody signed) had the power to enforce fair and proportionate punishment for a crime committed by the offending party. However, there are a number of observations in approach and fairness of Prophet (peace be upon him) in dealing with the offending people. Firstly, it is impossible to think against any punitive action against those who broke the law as anti Semitism, as Prophet (peace be upon him) himself is a pure Semite as he was the descendant of Prophet Ishmael (peace be upon him). Secondly, it is impossible to think that this punitive action against the offenses was anti Jewish, as the Quran mentions the name of Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) more times than Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself. The Quran describes the original Torah given to Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) as light and guidance. Thirdly, it is impossible to think of these punishments as revenge because they rejected him as a prophet. Why? Because the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions are prohibited by the text of the Quran in many verses (e.g. the verse 2:256 says “There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion”). The freedom of worship is guaranteed in several places in the Quran.

With this background let’s see what was the proper approach to the enforcement of the law. Firstly, the Prophet (peace be upon him) never stereotyped and lumped all the Jews together when it came to punishments. Only the offending tribe was punished not the others. This is significant because if you are anti Jewish you would lump them all together, as Hitler did, and this was not the case at all. Secondly, the punishment was ALWAYS proportionate to the offense that was committed. For example, in the case of Banu Kainuka it was a major offense but in the case of Banu Nazir in the next instance the offense was much greater (including the conspiracy to kill the Prophet peace be upon him) and in the case of Banu Quraizah it was what we call today, in modern Legal language, as high treason at the time of war.

As mentioned earlier, one of the clause in the constitution was that both Jews and Muslims will defend Medina against the invaders, and none should cooperate with the enemy against their fellow Medinites. And we know historically, and you can read this in the most authentic reference (in Seerah of Ibn Ishaaq) that the Arabs when they lost hope of really trying to destroy the Prophet (peace be upon him) they tried to gather a huge army, a coalition of various tribes (and not limited to the Makkan people); they surrounded Medina with the intention of wiping out the Muslims from the face of the earth. Now Muslims and Jews were living side by side in Medina. Yet information was relayed to Prophet (peace be upon him) that there have been contacts between the invading army and the chief of the tribe of Banu Quraizah in order to get rid of Muhammad as a problem for the pagan arabs and as well for the Jews. In fairness, Ibn Ishaaq says that in the beginning when that offer was made to the chief of the tribe of Banu Quraizah, he hesitated; and look at his words and acknowledgement (even when another fellow Jew of another tribe said that this is your opportunity, as Muslims do not stand any chance and they would be finished, so you better join) he said no, we have never seen from Muhammad except faithfulness (meaning respect of his agreement). But apparently he was tempted and you know in these tribes it was not only the decision of the chief, they were quiet democratic and the people of fighting age would discuss the issue, and in the end the consensus was that yes Prophet (peace be upon him) never broke the treaty but he does not stand a chance so let us finish the Muslims once in for all and join hands. The Prophet (peace be upon him) wanted to make sure not to jump to conclusions and he sent an emissary to the Jews and when they were asked that is it true about the treaty and the reply was what treaty? So it was coming from the horse’s mouth that treaty was not acknowledged by that tribe.

But then the critics say that it was the Prophet (peace be upon him) who ordered the execution of the fighting men. In fact, this is great falsification of history. Even if the Prophet (peace be upon him) did that it would have been perfectly his authority being the head of the state. And here we have a case of high treason at the time of war when the life of everybody was in danger and you get a stab in the back from within. What would any head of the state do in a case like this? But the fact is that he did not even use that authority. He was beseeched by the head of the hypocrites, Ibn Salun, that the offending tribe should choose its own arbitrator and whatever decision he comes up with is binding.

In the legal profession when you talk about arbitration as opposed to conciliation or mediation, it means that you are accepted mutually by both parties. Yet the Prophet (peace be upon him) was so generous and so lenient that he said to Banu Quraizah that you choose your own arbitrator; and they did. And you know who they choose? They choose a man by the name of Saad Ibn Muaz; and why they choose him? Because he was their ally before Islam came to Medina. He was very close to them. He was familiar with their Torah and their system even though he was not a Jew himself, still they choose him. Saad then addresses both the Muslims and Jews of the tribe of Banu Quraizah and said that if I come up with a decision will everybody abide by it? By the way, he need not asked that question as anyone in industrial relations or law would know that arbitration is final and binding. There could be no challenge for the arbitrator’s decision even in modern legal systems, unless there is a proof of bribery or violation of law like refusing to hear evidence, for example.

So Saad said to the tribe of Banu Quraizah I am going to rule in accordance of your own Torah (which of course provided for capital punishment for fighting men; women and children were spared). Yet the critics keep on repeating the Prophet’s Massacre. It is true that Prophet (peace be upon him) agreed with Saad’s judgement but he did not have a choice as it was an arbitration decision that everyone agreed to accept. So I hope this clarifies some of the distortions we hear on the media and some other writings of those who have enmity in their hearts against Islam.

Please also watch the video "Muhammad A to Z" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhzSxf9iugE

Comments

2007-04-01T13:15:00.003+10:00

No comments will be published on this blog from now on.

I have come to realise after a discussion with a brother that I do not have the time, energy and, especially, the expertise to do extensive research on certain articles on this blog. I am not an authority on any of the subject matter that I have published here. I have only endeavoured to take material from those who have done research on these topics. If you do not agree with something on this blog that is fine with me; my purpose is not to push something down your throat, but to let you know of a certain position which I am inclined towards.

I would like to apologise if there is certain material on this website which is incorrect, and I would urge others to do further research in their own time. One thing I have come to understand is that there is lot of good material and also a lot of junk on the internet. The best option is to go back to the Scholars who have spent most part of their lives in their field of expertise.

But something good did come out of the discussion. Four articles on this blog were written because of it:

The Issue of Slavery
The Reality of Jizyah
The Future is Islam
Did Prophet (peace be upon him) Massacred the Jews?

In addition, I got the idea to add video links at the end of the articles after the discussion. All praise is due to Allah, and because of Allah's bounty all this came about.

I cannot help but recite the verse of the Quran again and again in my mind:

"And the disbelievers planned, but Allah planned. And Allah is the best of planners." [Al-Quran 3:54]

Modern Economy: Progress or Destruction

2007-04-01T13:07:00.000+10:00

Most of the material in this article has been taken from a lecture delivered by a Scholar in Australia a few years ago. Before reading this article please read the article “Interest and the Modern Banking System” in November 2006 archives on this website to get the full value out of this article.

Allah says in the glorious Quran “O you who have believed, fear Allah and give up what remains [due to you] of Riba (interest), if you should be believers. And if you do not, then be informed of a war [against you] from Allah and His Messenger. But if you repent, you may have your principal – [thus] you do no wrong, nor are you wronged” [Al Quran, 2: 278-279].

Narrated by Abu Hurayrah The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “A time is certainly coming to mankind when only the receiver of Riba will remain, and if he does not receive it, some of its vapour will reach him”. Ibn Isa said: “Some of its dust will reach him.” (Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 3325)

Riba is generally translated as Interest. But the fact is that Riba is a broad term (and there is no single word in the English language to describe it correctly hence it is translated as Interest) and the consensus prevailing among Muslims throughout history has been, and continues to be, that Riba among other things, includes interest. In this article, I will only concentrate on two aspects of Riba: Interest due to time and Riba due to deception.

If Allah and his Messenger are at war and we are sleeping then something is wrong. It is obligatory for an Islamic state to eradicate Riba (interest) from the society, otherwise they will be at war with Allah and his Messenger; and that is exactly what is happening today.

Why Allah has given such a stern warning. The answer is in the fact that Allah has told us that herein lies the greatest danger of all: if you allow this door to be opened (i.e. the door of interest) the poison of Riba (whoever will be injected with it) will paralyse you. The enemy will be able to take control of you. Do not let this door to be opened.

To understand one of the aspect of Riba let’s take an example: I pass on $200 to you and you are obliged to return $400 to me in five years; time is what is responsible for the increase. Today this is known as lending money on interest. In other words, the money lender argues that time equals money.

What the modern day banker does is that he reaps what others plant. He is like a pimp who lives of the sweat of others. This is oppression that some people sit down very comfortably in their beachfront homes and drive Mercedes Benz while the rest of humanity work like jackasses in order to allow them to live the affluent life.

When interest enters into a society, the bloodsucking predatory (a predator lives of the flesh of other animals) elite will now take control of the market and they will suck the blood of the masses. So when an economy is based on Riba, the rich will keep on getting richer while the masses will keep on growing poorer and poorer.

The banker might argue that he is running a business but as Allah Says in the glorious Quran “But Allah has permitted trade and has forbidden interest” [Al Quran, 2:275]. What is the difference between business and Riba? The brief answer to this question is that it is in the essence of a business transaction that you must accept the possibility of either a profit or a loss, but if this possibility is not there then it is not business; and so risk free investments are not business transactions. It is in the essence of the Riba (Interest) transaction that the possibility of loss is eliminated. The money lender is immunised from loss. He can only make a profit, he cannot suffer a loss. That is why Riba does not qualify as business.

An economy in which the rich will permanently remain rich (barring exceptions) and the wealth does not justly circulate means that poor will remain poor. If the rich is permanently rich and the poor is permanently poor, that is slavery; it is economic oppression. That is why Islamic economics is designed in such a way that wealth circulates in the economy in which this type of economic oppression (in the world we are living today) is eliminated.

What happens when money is lent on interest? It’s not only the case where the elite live of the sweat of the masses, it is more than that. When the money lender is immunised from loss, the implication would be that wealth will no longer circulate justly through the economy. Around the world today for those who have eyes to see, and who do not spend their days and nights eating Halwa, watching movies and partying, the modern economy is precisely this economy. And they call it the best model of economy ever experienced by humanity. This is the best model? Have you no shame? Do you think we have the brains of a Jackass? An economy in which wealth no longer circulates, an economy in which rich are permanently rich and the poor are permanently imprisoned in poverty, and you call that progress! This is not progress; it is new economic slavery which has descended upon mankind.

Another aspect of Riba is which is based on deception as narrated by Anas ibn Malik: The Prophet, peace be on him, said: "Deceiving a mustarsal [an unknowing entrant into the market] is Riba (Suyuti, al-Jami al-Saghir, under the word ghabn; Kanz al Ummal, Kitab al-Buyu, al-Bab al-thani, al-fasl al-thani, on the authority of Sunan al-Bayhaqi)

The biggest ripoff is what is taking place in our times.

The currency used at the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) time was mainly gold and silver. The well known hadith states "Gold is to be paid for by gold, silver by silver, wheat by wheat, barley by barley, dates by dates, and salt by salt - like for like, equal for equal, payment being made on the spot. If the species differ, sell as you wish provided that payment is made on the spot". (Muslim)

So if it is not like for like it is Riba (as explained in the hadith of Bilal [may Allah be pleased with him] bringing dates to the Prophet peace be upon him). What is common to all the six things mentioned in this hadith? They were all used for some time or the other for money. The second thing which is common among all of them is that the value of the money is in the money i.e. they all have intrinsic value.

One day Europe was attacked from the inside and the Europe which was Christian lost its Christianity. The Christian Europe fought a ferocious battle against interest. When French Revolution occurred, the back of the Christian Church was broken in Western Europe, while the Back of Christian Church in Eastern Europe was broken after Bolshevik Revolution. When Church lost its stronghold the Jews were delighted. Because the Christians were waging war for centuries against the Jews: they were not allowing the Jews to lend money on Interest. The Jews always wanted to lend money on Interest; because they had changed the Torah (in which Riba was prohibited) and the Torah now says (in context): “do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite, so that the LORD your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess.[Deuteronomy 23:18-21].

Now with the French Revolution, economy based on Riba emerges in Europe for the first time. And of course after Bolshevik Revolution this possibility was also open in Eastern Europe. The banks not only started to lend money on interest, they started to issue paper as money. When the governments saw banks were getting richer by issuing paper as money, the governments took over the paper. Then gradually Europe started to conquer rest of the world at the point of the sword. So a white world order emerged at the point of a sword in which Europe now ruled the world. When they took over most of the world, one of the most important things they wanted to do was to dismantle the system of real money (e.g. gold and silver) and replace it with paper money. They achieved this eventually. Europe would not decolonise and handover, for example, Pakistan to Muhammad Ali Jinnah or Indonesia to Sukarno unless Europe was insured that the new financial system was in place in which real money was replaced with paper money.

At the beginning when paper money was introduced it was redeemable for Gold. In USA until 1920’s you could take $20.67 in notes to the bank and ask for one ounce of gold in return and you would get it. When the banks and the governments issued paper money, they gave their word that this is the value of the paper and they even printed on Dollar bills “In God We Trust” (in other words when we give our word to you that $20.67 is equivalent to one ounce of gold, our word is as good and as solid as the word of God). But in 1933 something strange happened: Uncle Sam (i.e. US Government) was broke. So guess what Uncle Sam did? In April 1933 Uncle Sam enacted legislation prohibiting all Americans from keeping gold. Americans had to return any gold they had (not jewellary but coins and bullion) to Uncle Sam and he will give you paper in return, and you have to trust in Uncle Sam that his word is as good as the word of God. So Americans gave their gold to Uncle Sam. If they caught you with gold after a certain date then you could be fined $10,000 and could spend a maximum of 10 years as a guest of Uncle Sam in one of his prisons. So Americans took their gold and got back paper in return. After Uncle Sam had collected the gold, he changed his word (these are values of those who economically rule the world today). Uncle Sam changed the price of gold from $20.67 to $35 an ounce of gold (the catch was that only foreigners could sell their gold at the new higher price). American people woke up that morning realising that their own government had ripped them off of nearly half their wealth.

This is a transaction based on deception which Prophet (peace be upon him) described as Riba. Why did all this happen? It is because the value of the real money is in the money. The definition of the paper money is that value of the money in the paper money is not in the money, therefore, the value can be CHANGED. Every time the value of the money is changed the value of the money goes down. What happens when the value of money goes down? The first thing is that there is a massive transfer of wealth from the masses to the predatory elite (which in the above mentioned case was the US Government). What is the second thing that happens? The answer is this: I worked for the whole month I got my salary in gold I could buy a camel; after ten years I could still buy a camel with that salary, after fifty years I could still buy a camel, but when I get my salary in paper I could buy a camel, few years later with my salary I can’t buy a camel with that money anymore (it will only buy a jackass now), so now I am beginning to feel like a jackass because someone has ripped me off. Where did my money go? If you can answer this question (i.e. who took my money and where did it go and how did they take it?) you would understand the game that they are playing. A few years later I cannot even buy a jackass anymore, I can only buy a goat; a few years later I cannot even buy a goat, I can only buy a chicken with that money.

How is this taking place? They started with paper being redeemable for gold and then came 1933 where they ripped people off of almost half their wealth. In 1944 after the end of World War II they consolidated the system with the creation of international monetary system. The new international monetary system now emerges from upstate New York in the form of Bretton Woods agreement. At Bretton Woods they decided that no longer paper will be redeemable for gold; only one paper will be chosen to be redeemable for gold. The one paper which was chosen was the US Dollar. So this was a major blow to the integrity of money. The second thing they did was that the only people who can come to Uncle Sam to redeem money for gold would be governments (through Central Banks). So now the entire system lost 99% of its integrity (because the masses cannot redeem paper for gold). Nobody from 1944 to 1971 redeemed their paper for gold. The Vietnam War took place in the late sixties and Uncle Sam printed a lot of paper to finance the war, and Uncle Sam did not have gold to back the paper. At Bretton Woods they had fixed the price of gold at $35 an ounce. So in September 1971 the British Government came with 3 Billion US Dollars and asked for gold. Uncle Sam knew that the game was up. Because in the coming months other governments would start coming in and demanding gold for the US Dollars they had in their Central Banks. So Richard Nixon addressed the American nation and said (in context), we gave our word but we do not have to keep our word, and we will no longer honour our obligation under Bretton Woods to redeem paper for gold from Central Banks. Therefore, since September 1971 there is no legal link between paper and gold.

Now all they have to do (those who want to rule the world) is to take control of money. Anyone who can take control of the money can control the world. The elites can attack paper so it goes down and down and down. When paper goes down and down, there is a massive transfer of wealth to that bloodsucking predatory elite, the second thing that happens is that wages lose their value because prices go up and up. As wages lose their value, the masses are now imprisoned in something called slave wages. When masses are imprisoned in slave wages you can now control them, you can now rule them.

The rip off has taken place. The thieves have looted our money. The rich have now grown filthy rich and the masses are now in miserable poverty from which there is no way out.

Do you know what happened to Indonesian Rupiah? IMF had issued Indonesia a clean bill of health (an economy which is strong). Indonesia is a major oil producing country. It has land which is very fertile. It has a big and energetic population. It has abundance of mineral resources. There is no reason why Indonesia should be poor. The IMF concurred that Indonesia has a healthy economy. Suddenly the Indonesian Rupiah was attacked by the bloodsucking predatory elite and the banking centres around the world. As a result, the Rupiah falls. Before the crisis, the exchange rate between the rupiah and the dollar was roughly 2000 Rupiah to 1 USD. The rate had plunged to over 18000 Rupiah to 1 USD at times during the crisis. Indonesia lost 13.5% of its GDP that year. In the process of bringing down the Indonesian money, they robbed the Indonesian people of probably more than half of their wealth. Half of Indonesia is instantaneously reduced to below the poverty line. Guess what is the poverty line: $29 a month. All this is happening because we accepted paper as money.

This economic system is driving some of our sisters to sell their bodies for a few dollars. They have no choice in order to get bread to feed their children. It is driving many to live a life of crime. Others are dying every day of hunger (please check out the statistics in the article “Interest and the Modern Banking System"). What will Allah do on the day of Judgement to those who are still eating Halwa and living a carefree life, while the predatory elite have gone filthy rich?

Now that Riba has engulfed the entire world what is going to happen? There is no certain answer to this question, but economists are coming up with certain predictions:

[1] The paper money (fiat currency) system will eventually collapse. First of all the US Dollar will collapse and this disease will slowly spread throughout the world. This would mean that Governments will not be able to print paper anymore.
[2] The likely scenario is that future money will be electronic money. And who creates electronic money? The banks; this would mean that whoever controls the banking system will control the world.
[3] Because governments will lose power, and commodity prices will soar after the collapse of the US dollar, there is a chance that centrally planned systems (in which bureaucrats decide everything) will come into existence. This could in turn result in wars breaking out to take control over the resources.

To get further insight into how this debt based economic system works, I would recommend the following books (they can be purchased from the internet):

The Problem with Interest by Tarek El Diwany
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins
Empire of Debt by Bill Bonner and Addison Wiggin
The Coming Collapse of the Dollar and How to Profit from it by James Turk and John Rubino
The Final Crash by Hugo Bouleau http://www.finalcrash.com/
The Web of Debt by Ellen Hodgson Brown (http://www.webofdebt.com/)

I would also recommend that you read the article “The Other Kind of Terrorism” http://www.islamic-finance.com/item115_f.htm

Please also watch the documentaries by John Pilger "War by Other Means" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-5399796928596929639 "The New Rulers of the World" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-7932485454526581006 and "Apartheid Did Not Die" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-6343784518626528037

In addition, watch these interesting analyses by Ron Paul: "The End of Dollar Hegemony" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-8327695139643041382 ; "Federal Reserve, Banking and Economy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8

All this has happened because the humanity, with its limited intelligence, opened the door of Riba. The revelation had told us long before not to open this door, but now after hundreds of years later we are realising what a big mistake this was!

Homosexuality and the Logic behind its Prohibition

2007-04-01T13:02:00.001+10:00

I would request that (along with this article) you also read the article “Sexually Transmitted Diseases” on this website, because both these articles are interlinked. Thanks.

Born Gay?
The majority of homosexuals believe that they were born "gay." This belief often supplies them with comfort, relieving them of any responsibility to change. However, there is no solid scientific evidence that people are born homosexuals. The overwhelming majority of gay people are completely normal genetically. They are fully male or female. The thing to note is that it is only a theory (and not a scientific fact such as moon reflects light or heart pumps blood), so unless someone can prove it is a scientific fact it will remain in question. Theories and researches have a history of taking u-turns. For example, a report published almost eight years ago in Science magazine refuted earlier claims by scientists to have discovered the so-called "gay gene." Those who argue that there is genetic predisposition to homosexuality fail to read the evidence which demonstrate the contrary. The point is that if someone says I am a born gay or I developed into a homosexual due to my genetic makeup, is basing his argument on theories and researches (and he does not realise that there is evidence contrary to his claims as well).

Learned Behaviour
Homosexuality is learned behaviour which is influenced by a number of factors: a disrupted family life in early years, a lack of unconditional love on the part of either parent, a failure to identify with the same-sex parent. Later, these problems can result in a search for love and acceptance, envy of the same or the opposite sex, a life controlled by various fears and feelings of isolation. (Please note that someone might object that what is the fault of that person if say, for example, his father was unloving and that drove him to homosexuality; I would like to remind him or her that if someone murders or steals and then a psychological analysis reveals that this criminal behaviour was a result of an unloving parent, will they still consider that criminal innocent). One thing that does seem clear is that homosexuality is brought about by a multitude of root causes. It is simplistic thinking to lay the blame on any single area. Fears of the opposite sex, incest, molestation, dominant mothers and weak fathers, demonic oppression: all of these may play a part in causing homosexuality, but no individual factor alone can cause it. Along with outside factors in a person's life (e.g. influence of the media), his own personal choices have played a key role in forming and shaping his homosexual identity, though few will admit this.

The Four Components of Homosexuality
Homosexuality involves much more than simply a sexual act. Those caught up in this usually have entered the homosexual lifestyle to some degree. To better understand the circumstances of the homosexual person seeking help, homosexuality can be divided into four components: behaviour, psychic response, identity and lifestyle.

Behaviour
Often, it is assumed that all homosexual people engage in homosexual acts, but this is not always the case. Because of fears or strong religious convictions, some may refrain from sexual behaviour, yet experience an intense battle with homosexual attractions. Another wrong assumption is that all people who engage in homosexual acts are homosexuals. There are a huge number of heterosexual men who engage in homosexual acts for a variety of reasons, such as being in prison or anywhere where heterosexual sex is unavailable (such as an all male hostel where children have just entered puberty and sexual desires are abundant).

Also, a child who is involved in homosexual acts early in his life will not necessarily become a homosexual unless these acts fulfill needs that are not being met in other ways, such as needs for love, acceptance, security and significance. In these cases, the child's involvement in the act is viewed as a "trade-off" for the non-sexual needs he is obtaining. It is possible that the act and the fulfilled needs could become synonymous, which could lead to the development of a homosexual orientation. However, statistics have shown most children who experience homosexual acts leave them behind, growing up to lead a normal heterosexual life.

Psychic Response
A brief definition of this term is, "sexual excitation (stimulation) caused by visual perception or fantasy speculation." Psychic response is also what people refer to as a "homosexual orientation." Though many people claim that they have experienced visual or sexual attraction for the same sex "as long as they can remember," there is a progression in a person's life that leads to a homosexual psychic response. A child may start out with a need to compare himself with others to see if he measures up to societal standards. When he feels he doesn't compare favourably with others, he develops admiration for those traits and physical characteristics he feels he does not possess. Admiration, which is normal, may turn to envy. Envy leads to the desire to possess others and finally, to consume others. This strong desire becomes eroticised somewhere along the way, eventually leading to homosexual psychic response. As psychic response begins to grip someone's life, a certain amount of scheming takes place; sexual situations are pictured in the mind. When the first sexual encounter takes place, it may be the result of several years of planning and fantasy. However, homosexual behaviour can precede psychic response, which may develop as a conditioned response to pleasant encounters with those of the same sex.

Identity
Some people enter into homosexuality through "identity". These are people who may not have experienced sexual attraction for the same sex or have had any homosexual encounters. However, from an early age, they have felt they were "different" from other people. They feel abnormal, like they do not fit into the heterosexual world. They reason, "If I'm not heterosexual, then I must be gay" and they accept the homosexual label onto their lives. Of course, this is a misinterpretation. A person troubled with shyness, fear of the opposite sex, lack of athletic or social skills need not accept the label "homosexual." However, people do grow into labels. Once a label is accepted, the implied characteristics of that label begin to develop in a person's life. What we believe about ourselves is of extreme importance.

Lifestyle
A homosexual may insist that he bears no responsibility for his identity, his psychic response or even his first sexual encounter, which may have been forced upon him. However, every homosexual person must bear the responsibility for his or her choice to enter the homosexual lifestyle. People enter this lifestyle to varying degrees. Some live in the heterosexual world for the most part, seeking out only sporadic, impersonal sexual encounters. Others immerse themselves in the total "gay subculture," a setting in which the person works, lives and socialises in a totally gay environment. There are all the varying degrees in between these two extremes, but the gay lifestyle, for many people, is the first place where they have experienced any form of acceptance on a below-the-surface level. In spite of the acceptance that is available, however, the homosexual lifestyle often proves to be a painful and unrewarding way of life, particularly for older gays who are no longer desirable sexually.

As you can see from looking at these four components, homosexuality is a complex problem with many definitions and variations. If someone tells you, "I am a homosexual," he has really told you very little about himself. It takes a deeper look into his life to determine the degree to which homosexuality has become a part of his identity. This also illustrates why homosexuality can be a difficult problem to overcome.

In fact, the common belief that one is ‘either a heterosexual or a homosexual’ and that physical or other clear reasons for this difference usually exist is not supported by research. The empirical research evidence indicates that for most people the sexual drive exists in a diffused state in the early stages, solidifying only much later. Sexual development occurs primarily between the second year of life and the onset of puberty. During the first few years it is rather undefined and can develop through learning so that it can be stimulated, or at least influenced, by a wide variety of objects, although at first the primary stimulus is tactile stimulation of the genital area.

Thus children’s sexual development is highly influenced by early experiences in a process similar to imprinting. This system enables a person to become sexually attracted to their own race, national group or culture. Thus, Chinese men generally find Chinese women most erotic. Black men relate to black women in the same way, etc. This is not to say that people cannot find those in other groups attractive, but that the general preference tends to be towards one’s own national and cultural group. Because the original sexual drive is diffused, it can thus be conditioned in many different directions.

For this reason, a variety of experiences, many of which have little to do with the person himself, can cause one to become a homosexual, depending on the degree that one’s early diffuse sex drive is conditioned toward persons of the same sex and away from persons of the opposite sex. Holmes noted that “In many women, particularly, sexual attraction tends to follow on the heels of strong emotional attachments with partners of either sex.”

Furthermore, Masters’ and Johnson’s scientific studies of those labelled homosexuals and lesbians have found that both groups consistently listed heterosexual encounters as highly erotic, actually at the top of a list of their erotic fantasies. In one study both male and female homosexuals listed a ‘heterosexual encounter’ as their third most common sexual fantasy! This finding also supports the conclusion that most of those persons labelled gay are, at best, in varying degrees bisexual—especially in view of the fact that many also have heterosexual relations, and many were once married and had families (but a pure heterosexual will feel disgusted even at the thought of a homosexual encounter).

The level of the population that is exclusively homosexual has traditionally been placed at 10%, partly as a result of the 1940s Kinsey studies. Numerous new empirical studies in the United States, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Britain and other countries reveal the rate is less than 3% and as little as below 1%.That the number varies from 0.9% of males in Norway to 2.8% found by the national opinion research centre at the University of Chicago for the United States of America, indicates that cultural factors are likely very influential. Further, according to a Minnesota adolescent health survey, only 0.6% of the boys and 0.2% of the girls surveyed identified themselves as ‘most of 100% homosexual’, 0.7% males and 0.8% females as bisexual, and 10.1% of the males and 11.3% of the females were ‘unsure’. This indicates that many individuals do not have a firm sexual orientation as an adolescent, and reveals the importance of social and sexual experiences in development.

Although many factors are involved, a person is not a prisoner to his or her sexuality and to a large degree chooses a homosexual lifestyle. The unfortunate factor in this debate is that it is very difficult to reason about this topic with those who advocate that a ‘sexual orientation’ called ‘homosexual’ exists. They simply reject, ignore or distort the enormous amount of empirical data against their position. A clear need exists to understand the reasons why people adopt this lifestyle, and the difficulties of doing so in our, or any, society.

The claim is often made that those who involve themselves in homosexual behaviour cannot help the way that they are, and are biologically attracted to the same sex, not the opposite sex. Despite claims, no gene causing homosexuality has yet been shown to unambiguously exist, nor has any clear evidence of a biological basis yet been located. This argument that homosexuality is biological also provides other perverts (e.g. pedophiles) a justification for their behaviour. You sometimes hear from drug addicts, alcoholics etc, that they have no control over what they do (in other words it is biological): which is an untrue and lame justification for their acts.

Further, it is not only homosexual behaviour that is objectionable, but also much of the sexual behaviour that is common among homosexuals. Bell et al. found that 43% of white male homosexuals reported having sex with more than 500 partners and a whopping 28% with over 1,000 partners. Also, the sexual practices that homosexuals engage in (a major one is labelled sodomy, from the scriptural example of Sodom and Gomorrah) are generally regarded as unacceptable in Christian or Muslim societies even for heterosexuals (i.e. anal sex is not allowed between married couples).

Logic behind Prohibition of Homosexuality

A major problem relative to homosexuality is that many venereal and other diseases are far more a problem with homosexual behaviour than heterosexual. For non-promiscuous couples who take proper cleanliness measures, the transmission of disease among heterosexuals is extremely rare, and then usually almost always due to lack of hygiene. During homosexual behaviour, sperm can penetrate the partner’s colon wall. When inside the body, the sperm adversely affects the immune system, resulting in the person being more vulnerable to disease. This is especially a problem, in that homosexual practices commonly transmit many diseases which are uncommon among heterosexuals. For example, homosexuals as a group are far more apt to have rare bowel diseases, which are generally lumped together under the designation ‘gay bowel syndrome’. One study indicated that one half of homosexuals eventually contract the colon disease parasitic amebiasis, while rectal gonorrhea and infectious hepatitis A are far higher among the homosexual population. Fox, in response to this concern, noted: ‘First, the colon and rectum are made for the elimination of fecal matter and not for sexual experience. Fecal matter is eliminated because it is indigestible and contains disease-causing materials. With sexual penetration, the rectal muscles are often torn or over-expanded, and the fragile lining of the colon is almost always torn. The tearing of the colon allows fecal matter to penetrate into the body, bringing with it infectious disease.’

Many homosexuals frequent medical doctors who specialise in treating homosexuals in order to best deal with their special health concerns. While these doctors may not advertise themselves as such in the telephone book, the homosexual social network as well as the homosexual press is a common source patients use to contact these specialised physicians. Estimates of the infectious disease rate among homosexuals is about ten times higher than that of the general population—not only venereal diseases, but also hepatitis B and others. Other common diseases include AIDS, urethritis, viral herpes, pediculosis infestation and others. Of course, it is not only the type of behaviour that they indulge in which puts them at a much higher risk, but also their high level of promiscuity—one survey indicated that homosexual males have an average of over 50 sexual partners in their lifetime. Another study found that 28% had more than 1,000 partners, 15% had 500 to 1,000, 32% from 100 to 500, and only 25% had less than 100 partners in their lifetime. While surveys in this area vary, depending upon the sampling population, sample size and specific questions asked, all reveal that an enormous amount of promiscuity is a normal part of the gay lifestyle.

From a medical standpoint, they are fraught with health dangers, including infections, bleeding and disease transmission problems. While promiscuity among heterosexuals also carries many dangers, they are generally far less than sodomy, and infections from sexual relations are actually relatively rare in monogamous couples who practice appropriate hygiene. A major reason why this is true is that numerous genital secretions produce high levels of germicides which minimise enormously the chances of infection from heterosexual relations. On the other hand, no such secretions are produced for sodomy relations, which would be expected if heterosexual behaviour were designed and sodomy were not (meaning it is biologically wrong and God did not create us that way). Consequently, studies reveal that homosexual behaviour produces a rate of venereal disease 22 times higher than the national average. The major anatomical problems with sodomy (for example, tearing of mucosa) are generally not a problem in heterosexual relationships.

Let’s say for the sake of argument that all gays start to go into monogamous relationships (which is highly unlikely as statistics have shown) after their rights are recognised and they have the right to marry and get divorced. A number of problems will arise in a society due to this scenario in the years to come. Firstly, it is estimated that gays outnumber Lesbians in the ratio of four to one: i.e. for every four gays there is one lesbian. This means that millions of women all over the world will never find a partner for themselves. Secondly, in many societies the population growth will start to slow down and go into negative (which west is facing now because people are not willing to marry because of unfair divorce laws or have more than two children as more and more women are going into the workforce, and therefore, they are unable to take care of a lot of children, and hence many countries like Australia and Canada have relaxed their immigration laws so that their population can grow steadily and the skill shortages are minimised. Note that there are many other reasons why majority of western women are not having more than two children or why more and more couples are not marrying which is beyond the scope of this article). This will also result in an increase in ageing population (which is already the case in the west, but with the introduction of homosexual marriage laws this problem will get worse). Why is increasing ageing population a problem? To get a general idea please visit http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/study/ageing/docs/finalreport I do not want to discuss this here as this topic requires an article of its own.

Finally, gay argument is illogical and self destructive: if everyone becomes homosexual, then the human race will cease to exist in 150 years. If you argue that people can artificially inseminate and produce babies to keep the population going, then you have to realise that the population growth will be negative which will result in all sorts of problems (such as lack of skill shortages in many fields).

All in All, God did not design human beings to be homosexuals. It is a lifestyle which many adopt because of external factors. This confirms that revelation guides people in the right path and if humans turn away from it, they eventually learn it through their intelligence (but this learning comes at a much higher cost).

Sexually Transmitted Diseases

2007-04-01T12:59:00.000+10:00

Since the western values have taken over most of the world and religion has gone out of the lives of the majority, homosexuality and sex out of wedlock have grown many folds. People are more promiscuous then ever before. In Britain, The National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles 2000 (Natsal 2000) found that men and women have more sexual partners than they did 10 years ago and are more likely to be unfaithful. Details of the survey also reveal that more men are paying for sex.

The study of 11,161 people between the ages of 16 and 44 from across the UK found that a minority - one in five men and one in four women - have had one sexual partner over the course of their lives. This compares with one in 12 men and one in 28 women who have had more than 10 partners in the last five years. This figure rises sharply among those aged between 16 and 24. One in seven young men and one in 10 young women have had more than 10 partners in the last five years. The survey also found a sizeable number of people who have had concurrent relationships or have "two-timed" during the past year. Some 15% of men and 7% of women admitted to this. The figure jumps for those in the 16 to 24 age group. Some 21% of young men and 15% of young women said they had "two-timed" during the past year. The survey also shows that the number of men who have paid for sex in the past five years has doubled since 1990 to one in 23, rising to one in 11 in London.

Durex in their 2004 Global Sex Survey reported that people around the world have had an average number of 10.5 sexual partners. More than a quarter (27%) had only one partner while 21% have had sex with more than 10 people. Men have had more sexual partners than women - 12.4 compared to 7.2.

The numbers are more astounding among the homosexuals. One survey indicated that homosexual males have an average of over 50 sexual partners in their lifetime. Another study found that 28% had more than 1,000 partners, 15% had 500 to 1,000, 32% from 100 to 500, and only 25% had less than 100 partners in their lifetime. While surveys in this area vary, depending upon the sampling population, sample size and specific questions asked, all reveal that an enormous amount of promiscuity is a normal part of the gay lifestyle.

Because of all this, the number of the dreaded sexually transmitted infections has skyrocketed.

In a part of a Hadith reported by Abdullah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "If lewdness exists among people and then appears as a common and open practice, plagues and NEW DISEASES which did not exist before will spread among them. (Ibn Maajah; Al Hakim)"

The statistics on STDs are shocking. In the UK, the estimated overall prevalence of HIV infection in adults increased over 12 months by 20%, so that by the end of 2002 there were an estimated 49,500 people living with HIV in the country. At the end of 2001, chlamydia was the most diagnosed sexually transmitted infection in the UK. Last year, 708,083 people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland were diagnosed with an STI (Sexually Transmitted Infection). Marked geographic variations in disease occurrence exist, with a concentration of the HIV and STI epidemics in Greater London.

Between 2002 and 2003, new episodes of STIs seen in genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics in England, Wales and Northern Ireland increased from 1,546,812 to 2,125,243.
Individually:

Genital chlamydial infection increased by 9%
Syphilis increased by 28%
Gonorrhoea decreased by 3%
Genital herpes simplex infection decreased by 2%
Genital warts increased by 2%
Diagnoses increased by 4%
Workload increased by 63%

Figures show 1 in 10 young people have already had sex by the time they are 14. About 10% of UK adults have had an STI and 13% have visited a genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinic. Overall, 708,083 people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland were diagnosed with an STI in 2003.

The United States leads the world in many areas. Unfortunately, sexually transmitted diseases is one of them. USA has the highest rate of curable STD's in the world. There are 12 million NEW cases of STD's each year in the US, and 2/3 of these are in people under the age of 25. This means that 1-in-4 Americans will get an STD during their lifetime!

The estimated total number of people living in the US with an incurable STD is over 65 million. Every year, there are approximately 15 million new cases of STDs, a few of which are curable.

Two-thirds of all STDs occur in people 25 years of age or younger. One in four new STD infections occur in teenagers. Cervical cancer in women is linked to high-risk types of HPV. Of the STDs that are diagnosed, only four - gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia and hepatitis B - are required to be reported to state health departments and the CDC for statistical purposes. Hepatitis B is recent addition to that list. Hepatitis B is 100 times more infectious than HIV. STDs, other than HIV, cost more than $8 billion each year to diagnose and treat - both the disease and their complications.

At least 80 percent of those with herpes are unaware they have it. At least one in four Americans will contract an STD at some point in their lives. Overall, herpes is the most common STD in the United States, with more than 45 million individuals having this lifelong virus. In a given year, however, it is estimated that more people will become infected with HPV than with herpes. More than 1 million people acquire herpes each year and over 5 million people acquire HPV each year. Some researchers believe that HPV infections may self-resolve and may not be lifelong like herpes.

Less than half of adults ages 18 to 44 have ever been tested for an STD other than HIV / AIDS. At least 15 percent of all infertile American women are infertile because of tubal damage caused by pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), the result of an untreated STD. Approximately two-thirds of Hepatitis B (HBV) infections are transmitted sexually; HBV is linked to chronic liver disease, including cirrhosis and liver cancer.

Increasing numbers of chlamydia infections have made it the most widespread STD in the USA. In 1996 there were 492,631 reported diagnoses, corresponding to a rate of 190.6 per 100,000 population. However, by 2003 the annual total had increased by 78% to 877,478 and the rate per 100,000 had risen to 304.3.

Genital warts accounts for 1 million new infections each year, but at least 24 million people are infected. Gonorrhea infects at least 800,000 people each year. There are 120,000 cases of syphilis each year.

Some STD's can be cured, but not all. Genital warts, herpes, HIV/AIDS, and some cases of hepatitis B CANNOT BE CURED! Once you've got them, you've got them for life. Left untreated, STD's can have serious health consequences. Not only can they be embarrassing, STD's can lead to infertility, cancer, heart trouble, blindness, other infections, and damage to reproductive organs. And they can even kill you. In fact, AIDS is the leading cause of death for all Americans ages 25-44.

All these statistics prove beyond any doubt that western values of free and liberal society are the worst principles ever given to the humankind in the recorded history.

Allah says in the glorious Quran "And do not approach unlawful sexual intercourse. Indeed, it is ever an immorality and is evil as a way." [Al-Quran 17:32] But the humanity with its limited intelligence opened the door of unlawful sexual intercourse and now after many years we are realising how big a mistake this was. It is time that we go back to the morals and ethics revealed to us by God Almighty in the Holy Quran. If we do not, then we should be ready to accept the disastrous consequences.

Logic of Growing a Beard

2007-04-01T12:55:00.000+10:00

Fashions change over the generations. At the turn of the 20th century beards were very popular; in modern times they are the exception rather than the rule. The fact that we readily accept clean-shaven culture (without questioning its logic) is a clear indication that how influenced we are from the modern western culture and how western values have taken over our lives. This article focuses on research done on the subject of beard (unfortunately, not a lot of research has been done on this subject and a lot more needs to be carried out); in addition, the article consists of logical arguments for growing a beard.

Shah Wali Ullah in his famous book (Hujjat Allah al-Balighah) writes that it is due to the beard that a distinction is made between adults and children. The beard is a beauty for men and its presence completes the personality of man. That is why it is obligatory (in Islam) to grow the beard and to shave the beard is an act of Zoroastrians.

Dr. Daniel G. Freedman, of the University of Chicago, did research on the reproductive value of male beardedness. To test his theory, Dr. Freedman and his graduate students asked a group of undergraduates of their feelings about beardedness by giving them questionnaires and interviewing them. Furthermore, one of the graduate students interviewed seven women about their feelings toward men with beards. The female students rated a bearded male face as more masculine, independent, sophisticated and mature compared to a clean-shaven male face. They concluded from their studies that a beard increases “sexual magnetism” and attractiveness and makes men more appealing to women. The presence of a beard makes a man appear more masculine to a woman, and she feels more feminine towards him.

Psychologist Robert J. Pellegrini reported in Psychology, 1973, Volume 10, No. 1, the results of an experiment on the perception of male personality as a function of varying states of beardedness. To carry out the experiment, Pellegrini hired eight full-bearded young men who were willing to have their beards fully shaved off for a payment of ten dollars. All of the full-bearded men were Caucasians. Their ages ranged from 22 to 25 years. The tabulation of the results showed a generally positive correlation between the amount of hair on the object person's face and his being perceived as masculine, mature, good-looking, dominant, self-confident, courageous, liberal, non-conforming, and older. The results also suggested a similar correlation regarding perceptions of intelligence, strength, health, and likableness. In view of the results, Pellegrini suggested that the presence of hair on a young man's face is associated with an idealised image of the male personality. In discussing the results of his experiment, Pellegrini wrote:

“Judging from the data in the present research, the male beard communicates a heroic image of independent, sturdy, and resourceful pioneer, ready, willing and able to do manly things.”

Pelligrini summed up his discussion by stating:

“In conclusion, it may very well be true that inside every clean-shaven man there is beard screaming to be let out. If so, the results of the present study provide a strong rationale for indulging that demand.”

Beards serve as secondary male sex characteristic. Secondary sex characteristics are those physical features which develop when human beings reach the age of puberty. Primary sex characteristics are the genitals, but the beard is a secondary sex characteristic in males. The purpose of secondary sex characteristics is to distinguish males from females. In addition, secondary sex characteristics serve the purpose of attracting the opposite sex.

A very interesting relationship between the male hormone testosterone, sexual activity and beard growth was published in the May, 30 1970 issue of the magazine Nature. The author and subject of this research carried out a detailed study to measure the rate of growth of his beard by shaving his beard everyday and weighing the hair which he collected in his electric razor. The author supplemented his article with scientific data in forms of charts and graphs. He concluded that, based on the results of his research, “the stimulus for increased beard growth is related to the resumption of sexual activity.” It was also shown in his research that as the weekend approached with the prospect of spending free time with his female companion, there was great increase in the beard growth. The author further writes: “Even the presence of particular female company in the absence of intercourse, after a period of separation, usually caused an obvious increase in beard growth.” Since the beard is a secondary sex characteristic, its growth is influenced by the levels of testosterone in the male body. The rate of production and the level of testosterone in body are affected by a man’s sexual behaviour. More interestingly, it has been shown by research that whereas testosterone stimulates the growth of beard, it has almost no effect on scalp hair. This further shows that the beard is, in fact, a secondary sex characteristic and our intelligent body does not grow the beard on our face in order for it to be removed with a razor everyday.

According to research of herbalists, allowing the beard to grow prevents a person from contracting diseases of the throat and of the gums. Similarly, some medical doctors of western medicine are also aware of the medical benefits of allowing the beard to grow. Physicians tell us that if we allow a beard to grow, we are less likely to suffer throat diseases. Recently, a medical specialist from Harley Street prescribed as treatment for a man suffering from a chronic cough that he allow his beard to grow. When the patient acted upon the advice of the doctor, his cough disappeared. Chronic coughs may be major indications of asthma and, hence, they may be activated by the same factors as for asthma, which include sudden changes in temperature or exposure to cold air. In this case, a beard acts as a preventive measure by keeping the neck warm.

People who frequently travel by sea are quite aware of the harmful effects of sea weather. Sea winds contain small quantities of salt. In addition to that, sometimes there are strong winds at sea. That is the reason that, in the past, most people who travelled by sea used to grow beards in order to protect their faces from the harmful effects of sea weather. It is interesting to note here that scientific research has shown that compared with the hair of the head, the hair of the beard has a faster swelling rate and higher reaction rate with a variety of reagents due to the less extensive disulphide bonding in it. This may suggest that the hair of the beard has more capacity to absorb harmful vapours in the air before they affect the face.

What is the total time spent in shaving by a man in his whole lifetime? Dr. Herbert Mescon from Boston University did research to give an answer to this question. Dr. Mescon calculated that if a teenager begin shaving at the age of 15, then in his 55 or so years of shaving, he is likely to spend about 3350 hours (which are equivalent to about 139 full days) at this task in his lifetime. That is an incredible amount of time which literally goes down the drain. You can add to it thousands of dollars one spends during his lifetime on products for shaving (razors, shaving gels, after-shave lotions etc).

Apart from the commercial media promoting the clean-shaven men culture, it is the fashion industry, many of whom are homosexuals, try to blur the difference between males and females. By doing so, they want to promote their own ideology of homosexuality (to understand what is wrong with homosexuality please read the article “Homosexuality and the Logic behind its Prohibition” on this website). It is clear that a beard is a big obstacle in the way of homosexuality, because a beard is an outward indication that men and women are different sexes. The reality is that men and women are different biologically as well as psychologically. Again, to achieve these goals, the fashion industry utilises advertising in television and in the print media. As “a picture is worth a thousand words”, it appears that fashion industry advertisements depicting clean-shaven men have the ability to deeply influence their viewers’ perception.

It is important to understand that the culture of clean-shaven faces is a Western culture. Daniel G. Freedman noted that “an emphasis on shaving creates a culture that worships youth, neglects the elderly and places less importance of differences between the sexes.” One consequence of this is that when a woman grows old she is more respected in an Islamic society. In western culture, woman receives more attention from society when she is at the peak of her youth and, hence, beauty.

Some other reasons men give to grow a beard are as follow:

I wanted to change my appearance
I look better, more handsome, with a beard
It is the natural thing to do
It is the manly thing to do
It suits my personality
I wanted to look older
I wanted to look more distinguished
Growing a beard is a family tradition
It is something that women cannot do
Saves from sunburn in summer and protects from cold in the winter.
Sign of piety
All the Prophets (peace be upon them all) had beards
It hides facial defects of a person
It is a cure for razor bumps on the face
To keep my facial hair down I have to shave twice a day. It is so irritating to have to constantly shave, so that is one reason I have facial hair
I think that having a goatee makes me look my age, and people take me more seriously
The fact that men can grow beards is a characteristic that nature has given us to distinguish ourselves from the female gender. I thought it would be interesting and fulfilling for me to grow one. I also have red hair and thought a red beard on my face would add more character
To me, it makes a man look even manlier, and handsome. Men should look as masculine as they can in my opinion. It's one of those things that separate the men from the boys (or girls).
You don't have to worry about the 5 o'clock shadow
Women wear makeup; men grow beards

It is evident that our creator has intended for us to grow the beard. Therefore, we should think twice before propagating clean-shaven values to others.

If you are interested in reading more about this subject, I would recommend that you to read “Growing a Beard: In the light of Quran, Sunnah and modern Science” by Dr. Gohar Mushtaq (this book can be purchased from http://www.islamicbookstore.com/). May Allah guide us all to the straight path, Ameen.

Logic behind the Prohibition of Music in Islam

2007-03-02T06:04:00.001+10:00

Before we delve into the logic of prohibition of music, we must first consider the evidence from Quran and Sunnah which makes music haraam.

Music has been condemned strongly in the Quran and Hadith. In Surah Luqmaan, Allah Taala states, And from mankind are those that purchase futile speech in order to mislead others from the path of Allah. Under the commentary of this verse, ibn Abbaas [Radhiallaahu anhu] states, futile speech refers to music and things related to it. (Durrul Manthoor vol.5 pg.307)

In Surah Bani Israaeel, Allah Taala states, And excite any of whom you can with your voice. Imaam Mujaahid mentions, voice refers to music. (Roohul Maaani)

Prohibition of music is recorded in many authentic Ahadith.

Narrated Abu Malik Al-Ashari: The Messenger (peace be upon him) of Allah said, "Some people of my Ummah will drink wine, calling it by other than its real name, merriment will be made for them through the playing of musical instruments and the singing of lady singers. Allah will cleave the earth under them and turn others into monkeys and swines.” [Ibn Ma'jah Vol.5 Hadith No.4020]

Narrated Abu Amir or Abu Malik Al Ashari that he heard the Prophet (peace be upon him) saying, "From among my followers there will be some people who will consider illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks and the use of musical instruments, as lawful. And there will be some people who will stay near the side of a mountain and in the evening their shepherd will come to them with their sheep and ask them for something, but they will say to him, 'Return to us tomorrow.' Allah will destroy them during the night and will let the mountain fall on them, and He will transform the rest of them into monkeys and pigs and they will remain so till the Day of Resurrection." [Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol.7 Hadith No.5590]

Prophet (peace be upon him) further mentions, “Music grows hypocrisy in the heart just as water causes crops to grow.” (Bayhaqi vol.10 pg.222)

However, there are some Ahadith which indicate that it is permissible to beat the ‘daff’ i.e. the tambourine (which is open on one side and covered on the other).

Narrated Urwa on the authority of Aisha “On the days of Mina, (11th, 12th, and 13th of Dhul-Hijjah) Abu Bakr came to her while two young girls were beating the tambourine (daff) and the Prophet (peace be upon him) was lying covered with his clothes. Abu Bakr scolded them. The Prophet uncovered his face and said to Abu Bakr, 'Leave them, for these days are the days of Eid and the days of Mina.' [Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol.2 Hadith No.987]

Narrated Ar Rabi (the daughter of Muawwidh bin Afra): “After the consummation of my marriage, the Prophet came and sat on my bed as far from me as you are sitting now, and our little girls started beating the tambourines (daff) and reciting elegiac verses mourning my father, who had been killed in the battle of Badr. One of them said, ‘Among us is a Prophet (peace be upon him) who knows what will happen tomorrow.’ On that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "Leave this (saying) and keep on saying the verses which you had been saying before." [Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol.7 Hadith No.5147]

Therefore from the above evidence it is concluded that the use of musical instruments in general is forbidden in Islam, with the exception of the 'Daff'. Furthermore, singing without music is permissible on condition that the song does not contain anything un-Islamic in it. For example, it must not be a song that is normally played with music, it must not have a tone of a music song. There must not be any immoral contents in the song. Poetry (She’r) and Nazms (songs) are meant to refresh a person’s Imaan and enhance one’s love for Islam, Allah and His Rasul [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam].

Logic
In Islam an individual’s personality is constructed on the basis of principles and not on emotions. Islam is primarily an intellectual and not an emotional proposition. The reason being that emotions, however profound, are far more liable to be swayed by subjective desires and fears than reason. Music inflames emotions and it has an emotional control over a person’s mood: it can make someone happy (if one listens to a few cheerful songs), or sad (if one listens to depressing tunes), or even violent (certain songs have that affect on some people as well in the short and long term). The teachings of Islam are designed to develop a human being whose logic and reason control his emotions, and not the other way around where one’s emotions control one’s logic and reason. In case where a person makes his decisions in life based on emotions, he is more likely to err than a person who has control over his feelings and makes choices based on his reasoning.

Music usually intoxicates a person and takes one away from the path of Allah. Music engages a person’s mind and takes him away from the remembrance of his Creator and from realising and focusing his attention on the purpose of his creation. In musical songs, most of the times the listeners even appreciate illogical, incorrect and blasphemous matter and content. A person will realise this when he starts pondering over the meaning of many Hindi and English songs, lyrics and ghazals. Here we find that it is because of music that the person’s mind is intoxicated and the person deviates from the straight path.

In a society where music is prevalent, immodesty increases many folds. Music encourages the avenues where immodest behaviour is commonplace, such as night clubs and strip clubs. Furthermore, these avenues in turn promote intermingling of sexes which eventually leads to fornication and adultery (to understand what is wrong with fornication and adultery please read my articles "Logic of Hudood in Islam" and "Sexually Transmitted Diseases"). Therefore, if you eliminate music, you also get rid of that party culture where all these vices take place.

We do not have to look far to see evidence of moral decay around us. We can see it and hear it in entertainment like rap music, in songs that glorify violence or suicide or exploitation of others. Rap music also encourages gangster culture (since many rappers belong to different gangs).

Moreover, many heavy metal and rock bands promote certain destructive ideologies through their form of music. For example, some bands are associated with the promotion of Satan worship. Similarly these rock bands encourage, especially teenagers, to be rebellious (one of the reason many teenagers are disobedient to their parents).

Out of all this a very clear, indisputable fact emerges: music leads to social degradation and disintegration. The Quran warns us of this. And the evidence proves this. Some of the lyrics are extremely vulgar and mainly focus on lurid and explicit descriptions of sexual acts and promiscuity. The marketing of these songs is undertaken by screening video performances of the songs. Vulgar scenes are graphically depicted. That is followed by live pop concerts where all this filth and debauchery is performed in front of thousands of young people caught up in a wild, demonic frenzy.

An example of the disgusting behaviour that music can lead to can be seen from the article published by Sunday Independent (on 07/09/1997) and its title was “Ban lifted on Lesbian Rockers”. The first paragraph of the article reads

“Munich – German authorities lifted a ban on Friday on a performance by a British pornographic lesbian rock group. A court ruled that seven-girl group could perform, but that their concert, scheduled for last night, should not include sexual acts or urinating on the audience.”

Certain music is such that merely by listening to it one can fall into a different state of mind and even into a trance. So the music itself is mind-altering. Then an almost inseparable aspect is drugs. The music already puts the person in an altered state of mind. To enhance that condition many at a party or nightclub resort to taking ecstasy or other drugs. At many parties along with music, dancing, drugs and drinking (to understand what is wrong with drinking please read my articles "Logic of Hudood in Islam" and "Logic behind the Prohibition of Alcohol") goes on and that leads to human beings acting like animals. Your mind gets taken over. You are deceived into thinking that you have become free. In fact, you are becoming a slave of drugs and a slave of the barbaric culture.

Moreover, the youth are influenced by singers in the music videos. They try to emulate them as the singers have become their role models. This in turn leads to the moral decay of the youth.

All in all, music is Satan’s handiwork. The disadvantages brought by music to the society far outweigh its advantages. If we want to save ourselves from immorality and immodesty we will have to stay away from this evil.

Islam Spread by Sword?

2007-03-02T05:54:00.000+10:00

The material for this article has been taken from the articles of Dr. Zakir Naik, Gush Shalom and Chandra Muzaffar.

For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamise them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.

In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants started to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith - and they were the forefathers of most of today's Palestinians.

There is no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet (peace be upon him) decreed the "spreading of the faith by the sword"?

Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.

When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the thousands of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi ("Spanish") Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.

Why? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the "people of the book". In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special tax, but were exempted from military service - a trade-off that was quite welcomed by many Jews. It has been said that some Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion - because it entailed the loss of taxes.

Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith.

The story about "spreading the faith by the sword" is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.

In the case of Islam, trade also played an important role in the spread of the faith especially between the 8th and 15th centuries. Traders assumed the mantle of missionaries. Some historians have observed that the honesty and integrity of these traders attracted a lot of people to their religion. In Southeast Asia, as in East and West Africa, trade was perhaps the most effective channel for the propagation of the religion.

Perhaps more than any of these influences, it is the socio-political and socio-economic environment that prevailed in various parts of the world in the centuries immediately after the advent of Islam that explains its rapid and dramatic growth. In settings dominated by hierarchical and often oppressive structures, the egalitarian justice offered by Islam came as a breath of fresh air. As the famous H.G. Wells put it, "Islam prevailed because it was the best social and political order the times could offer. It prevailed because everywhere it found politically apathetic peoples, robbed, oppressed, bullied, uneducated and unorganized and it found selfish and unsound governments out of touch with any people at all. It was the broadest, freshest and cleanest political idea that had yet come into actual activity in the world and it offered better terms than any other to the masses of mankind."

It was partly because of what it offered humankind, that even when Muslims were conquered, their conquerors eventually adopted the religion of the conquered. Thus, the descendants of Hulagu, the Mongol conqueror of Baghdad in the 13th century, chose to embrace Islam. In this regard, it is significant that Islam today is spreading most rapidly in societies where Muslims are in a minority, in North America and Europe—and not in Muslim majority countries where they exercise power.

Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.

The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.

Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, “Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?”

Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if Islam was spread by the sword, “Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?”

Why has the lie about the sword and violence persisted for so long? The elites in the West who for the last few centuries have exercised overwhelming influence on the thinking of the rest of humankind have succeeded in transferring their terrible guilt about perpetrating unspeakable violence upon people everywhere through perpetual wars, conquests and persecutions on to their adversaries. Thus, their enemies have become the epitome and the embodiment of their own violence. Islam and Muslims--- the perennial nemesis of the West--- have borne the brunt of this transference of guilt.

There is no better example of this than the crusades blessed by the popes. When the crusaders conquered Jerusalem in 1099, they massacred 30,000 Muslims and Jews. Contrast this with the compassion and magnanimity of the illustrious Salahuddin when he recaptured Jerusalem in 1187. He not only protected the Christian community---along with the Jews--- but also their places of worship.

And yet in medieval Christian literature it was the Muslim who was portrayed as a bloodthirsty warrior eager to embark upon 'holy wars'. The truth is the term 'holy war' does not even belong to Islam. As the Austrian Catholic philosopher, Hans Koechler points out, “Literally, "holy war" is the translation of the Latin term bellum sanctum which was used to describe a " crusade " against the "Saracens" in the Middle Ages; thus, this notion was part of the doctrine of the Roman-Catholic Church over many centuries."

The crusades are but one gory entry in the long and sordid catalogue of violent wars and conquests associated with elites in the West. There was the merciless slaughter of perhaps 30 million indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australasia; there was Western colonialism which claimed at least 40 million lives; there was the slave trade which robbed 25 million souls of their freedom; and there was the cruel violence of Apartheid in South Africa which stripped generations of human beings of their basic dignity. It is sad that in each and every one of these colossal catastrophes the Church had some role or the other. At the same time, however, there were some notable Christian figures who spoke out against the monumental crimes committed in their name.

The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book “Islam at the cross road” (Page 8): “History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated.”

With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Qur’an says in the following verse: “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error” [Al-Qur’an 2:256]

It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qur’an says in Surah Nahl, “Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious.” [Al-Qur’an 16:125]

An article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac’, year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in ‘The Plain Truth’ magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam?

Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe in Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?

Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson rightly says, “People who worry that nuclear weaponry will one day fall in the hands of the Arabs, fail to realise that the Islamic bomb has been dropped already, it fell the day MUHAMMAD (peace be upon him) was born”.

Plan of Action for Muslims

2007-03-02T05:52:00.000+10:00

If Muslims can change their direction (i.e. the way they think and act) a big change can take place in a few decades. In this article, I just want to relay some of the points the scholars of Islam have been making for some time, but unfortunately the majority of Muslims have no intention of acting upon them.

One thing which amazes me is the careless attitude of the Muslims. You may be surprised to know that a few years ago the number of full time Christian missionaries was sixty thousand. These missionaries have devoted their whole lives in spreading Christianity all over the world. There are a lot more working part time as well.

The claim of the missionaries in the sub-continent is that they have converted more Muslims to Christianity after the independence in 1947 of Pakistan and Bangladesh, than the whole time British ruled over India. They also claim that they are now especially targeting Kashmir, and they have already converted ten thousand Muslims to Christians.

Furthermore, the Christians have translated Bible into over two thousand languages. They believe that they have only reached 80% of the world population with this effort. On the contrary, Quran has been translated in less than two hundred languages (you can imagine how much of the world population we have reached with this).

Islam is supposed to be a missionary religion, as Prophet (peace be upon him) said in a narration which, more or less, means that even if we know one verse of the Quran we must convey it to others. But the situation is opposite: we have probably less than five hundred full time missionaries who are working on an international level to spread Islam. Most of the Muslims have not even read the translation of the Quran, let alone the tafseer (exegesis). Muslims live a life which is carefree when it comes to the matters of religion. Whatever of the religion suits them, they implement it in their lives, but the rest of it (perhaps 90%) is discarded by them.

Why is all this happening? The scholars tell us that this did not happen overnight. For the last three hundred years, more or less, Muslims have gradually left Quran and the teachings of Prophet (peace be upon him), and this in turn has led to the dismal situation we are facing today. Muslims have no say in the world issues. The interest based economic system has engulfed the world. If someone wants to attack a Muslim nation, Muslims cannot do much about it.

How can we undo the damage which has been done in the last three hundred years? Well my friends there is no quick fix. Neither suicide bombings nor cursing the Jews and Christians is going to solve the issues. It will require years of planning and relentless hard work.

One of the things which we can do is that those families among us who are well off should at least make one of their children an Islamic scholar. The current situation is that majority of Muslims who study Islam are from poor families, and when they become learned they have no means to support themselves. That is why many of them are afraid to tell the truth. If a person is from a prosperous family, he will speak what is right and will not be worried that the committee of the mosque will fire him.

Moreover, the scholars we need must be the cream of the Muslims and not the other way around. The reality is that majority of those who study religion are not very bright. Most of the intelligent youth have chosen different fields for themselves: business, law, IT, Science, Medicine etc. The end result is that many who cannot even pass high school are send to study Islam. If the raw material has defects, the end product will have deficiencies. The result is in front of us to see. If we start sending the finest of Muslims to learn Islam then Abu Hanifa, Shaafi, Malik, Razi and Ghazali (may Allah have mercy on them all) will be born again. When the elite will study Islam they will understand the logics and wisdom of the religion, and they will guide the whole nation towards the right path. Muslims can regain their lost ground within a hundred years if the leaders of Islam are the best amongst us.

Another thing which needs to be done is that we need to make institutions, especially the religious ones, of international standards. Currently twenty students in a madrassah sleep in one room. So how can you expect a scholar to be born in these circumstances. We need the best of facilities in these institutions: modern libraries, computers and the latest research equipment available to each and every student.

All this will have to be achieved by the private sector. Do not for a second think that our governments will help us. It is the general public who must work on these projects.

The problem among the Muslim societies is that billions of dollars every year are spend on marriage ceremonies, funerals and other unnecessary functions. Muslims will have to adopt a simpler lifestyle, and the savings achieved (in billions) will need to be spent on the projects like schools, universities etc.

To produce scholars who, at an international level, can answer the objections raised by the critics and spread Islam among the masses, we need to make changes in our lives and spend our wealth in the path of Allah.

If we implement the above mentioned strategies, we will start to see a big change among the Islamic community. If we do not act (and repeat the mistakes of the past three hundred years) the Muslims as a whole will continue to live a life of misery.

Meaning of Jihad

2007-02-02T05:36:00.000+10:00

As far as the word Jihad is concerned there is a misconception not only among the Non-Muslims, but also among some Muslims. What most people think is that any war fought by any Muslim for any reason, whether it be for his personal gains, whether it be for political gains, whether it be for language or whether it be for colour, it is called as Jihad. Jihad does not mean any war fought by any Muslim; Jihad comes from Arabic word “Jahada” which means to strive to struggle; so Jihad basically means to strive or struggle.

In Islamic context it means to strive against one’s own evil inclinations, it also means to strive to make the society better, it even includes striving in the battlefield to fight in self-defense and it also means to fight against oppression and tyranny. Therefore, it means to strive or struggle.

Many people have the misconception that Jihad means ‘Holy War’. The Arabic word for Holy War is “Harbum Muqaddasah”. If you read the Holy Quran, no where in the Quran, not even a single verse, and no where in the authentic Ahadith of Prophet (peace be upon him) is the word “Harbum Muqaddasah” mentioned. There is no “Harbum Muqaddasah” at all. The translation of Jihad is not ‘Holy War’ at all.

This word ‘Holy War’ was first used by the historians to describe the Crusades of the Christians: who spread Christianity and who killed thousands of people in the name of Christianity. As the Austrian Catholic philosopher, Hans Koechler points out, “Literally, "holy war" is the translation of the Latin term bellum sanctum which was used to describe a " crusade " against the "Saracens" in the Middle Ages; thus, this notion was part of the doctrine of the Roman-Catholic Church over many centuries." Unfortunately many (such as the western media, Non-Muslims and even some Muslims) translate Jihad as ‘Holy War’. It is a mistranslation and this mistake needs to be rectified.

Explanation of Verse 5 of Surah Taubah (Chapter 9)

2007-02-02T05:32:00.000+10:00

One of the objections raised against Islam by the critics is on the verse 5 of Surah Taubah (Chapter 9): Allah says in the glorious Quran “And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” The allegation is that Quran says that kill the Non-Muslims wherever you find them. This is the verse which is often quoted to show that Islam is a ruthless religion and it teaches its followers extremism.

It has been mentioned by Islamic Scholars again and again that Quran cannot be understood just by reading the verses; one has to read the exegesis of Quran or study from an authentic scholar. This verse is thrown at Muslims time and again without proper research being done; even if the critics read from the first verse until around the thirteenth verse, it would have still clarified few of their doubts. But it looks like that some of them knowingly keep quoting this verse out of context just to throw dirt on the religion of Islam.

In this article, the whole background of this verse will be discussed and after a thorough analysis of the explanation of the first few verses of Surah Taubah (chapter 9), Insha’Allah (God willing), the readers will understand how the critics of Islam are mistaken.

The first thing to keep in mind is that the word mentioned in the verse 5 is Mushrikeen which means polytheists and thus it does not include all the Non-Muslims. Secondly, God has mentioned different types of polytheists in this chapter. If one does not understand the different types of polytheists then two major problems occur: firstly, one does not know in which verse God is talking about which group of polytheists, and secondly one who has not read the exegesis of Quran puts all the polytheists in one category as a whole, and thus thinks that God has commanded to kill all the polytheists.

It is imperative to understand some of the historical incidences which took place after five Hijri (five years after the Muslims migrated to Medina). After the unsuccessful attempt of the Non-Muslims in the war of Khandaq (in which the Non-Muslims tried to annihilate Muslims) they returned back to Makkah. Prophet (peace be upon him) told his companions that now the Makkans will never attack us again. Some time later the Prophet (peace be upon him) also saw a dream that Muslims are doing Umrah (small pilgrimage). Since the dream of the Prophet (peace be upon him) was always a revelation, it was decided that Muslims will go for Umrah. Muslims had left Makkah for six years and they yearned to go back to their birthplace and to the place where the Holy Kaaba was present (as the polytheists had forbidden their entry into Makkah and it was impossible for them to go there).

Consequently the Muslims departed for Makkah (without any ammunition to show that they had no intention to fight, and they just wanted to perform the Umrah), but they were stopped by the polytheists at a place called Hudabiyyah. They did not allow them to perform Umrah. The Polytheists had intentions to fight, but at that time Prophet (peace be upon him) said that I would make peace with them if they want to make peace with us, and I would accept any condition put forth (no matter how unjust so that a peace treaty could be signed; this further shows that Islam is not a religion of violence but peace). So in the end Muslims signed a peace treaty even though the conditions were extremely unjust.

The first condition Quraish (main tribe of the polytheists) put forth was that Muslims cannot perform Umrah this year. The Prophet (peace be upon him) accepted this condition (and when asked that your dream was a revelation and how is it possible that we cannot perform Umrah, he replied that the dream did not necessarily mean that we will do Umrah this year; we will do it eventually in the near future). The second condition they put forth was that if anyone turns away from your religion (Islam) and comes to us we will not return that person; on the other hand, if someone from one of us immigrates to Medina, the Muslims will return that person to us. The Prophet (peace be upon him) accepted this as well. It was also decided that Muslims and Polytheists will not fight each other for the next ten years. The fourth condition was that any Arab tribe is free to join either Muslims or the Polytheists if they wish. Along with this condition it was decided that if some tribe joins with Quraish or the Muslims, and if someone fights with that tribe then it will be considered an act of war on Quraish or the Muslims (as they have joined with either of them and thus are considered a part of them). The fifth condition was that next year Muslims will come for Umrah. The sixth term was that Muslims will come next year for Umrah for three days only without any ammunition. Hence, the treaty was signed on these conditions and next year in seventh Hijri Muslims came for three days and performed their Umrah.

There were two Arab tribes (Banu Bakr and Banu khuza’a) who used to fight each other a lot. Banu khuza’a joined the Muslims and Banu Bakr joined the Quraish in Makkah. After a while, there arose a conflict between these two tribes regarding a stream of water. The conflict was pre-planned by Banu Bakr and they used this excuse to carry out their plot. A lot of people from Banu khuza’a were killed in that conflict. The Quraish were not only aware of this plan of Banu Bakr, but they provided Banu Bakr with ammunition as well. So knowing that Quraish were on their side, Banu Bakr settled some of their previous scores with Banu Khuza’a.

When this news reached Prophet (peace be upon him) he conducted an investigation and when this incidence was confirmed, he sent a delegation to Quraish with the message that you have three options: the Quraish must pay compensation for the murders committed (hundred camels for one life), or the Quraish should clearly declare that they have broken their ties with Banu Bakr and then the Muslims will deal with them, or the Muslims should be allowed to kill same number of people from a sub tribe of Banu Bakr (i.e. Banu Nafaasa) on the principle of life for life. Quraish rejected this proposal and said if Muslims attack any of our allies we will take action against them with equal might. They further said that Muslims can do whatever they want with us (meaning we are not afraid of them and we will take care of them). Because of this act of Quraish, the treaty of Hudabiyyah was annulled (as the fourth condition of the treaty was not honoured).

When the treaty was null and void, Muslims conquered Makkah in eighth Hijri, and Prophet (peace be upon him) assured Banu Khuza’a that appropriate action will be taken. In ninth Hijri some Muslims went for pilgrimage and then these verses of Surah Taubah were revealed. Prophet (peace be upon him) sent Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) to Makkah to recite these verses to the Polytheists (one of the reason being that from next year only Muslims will be allowed to perform pilgrimage and not the polytheists). Now in Makkah there were four types of Polytheists.

The first type of Polytheists was of those with whom Muslims had a treaty of peace without mention of any timeframe. The second type was of those with whom there was no treaty at all as they used to live far away and there was no need for any treaty with them. The first, second and third verse of Surah Taubah talks about these polytheists and Allah says “[This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists. So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers. And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away – then know that you will not cause failure to Allah. And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment” [Al Quran 9:1-3]. God has commanded here that the treaty will be honoured, but from next year only Muslims will be allowed to perform pilgrimage. It is further stated in the narrations of the Prophet (peace be upon him) that he told Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) to announce that from now on no one will circle the Kaaba in nude (as was the practice in the days gone by) and that no polytheist will enter paradise unless they repent.

The third type of polytheists was of those with whom Muslims had treaty for a certain amount of time: they were the two tribes of Banu Kanaana (Banu Zamaara and Banu Madlij). The verse revealed in the Quran was in the month of Shawaal 9th Hijri and so the treaty with them was valid until nine more months. Allah says “Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]” [Al Quran 9:4]. The Muslims were commanded to fulfill their treaty and not to renew it with those who did not break their treaty or supported anyone against the Muslims.

Fourth type was of the ones who broke the treaty of Hudabiyyah (i.e. Quraish, Banu Bakr and Banu Nafaasa). Allah gave them permission that for four months you can stay here but after that time you must leave this area. This is mentioned in the verse five which says “And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” [Al Quran 9:5]. Basically if they leave then they will not be harmed but if they do not, then God allowed Muslims to fight them, and in the battlefield kill those who broke the treaty (as their act of killing people of Banu Khuza’a was equivalent to the act of war on the Muslims). So verse 5 speaks about killing those polytheists who did not honour the treaty of Hudabiyyah in the battlefield, and the critics of Islam try to project that Muslims are allowed to kill all the Non-Muslims. Note that God says if they repent then let them go (even after their horrendous acts Islam teaches forgiveness and peace and not fighting).

Furthermore, one has to combine this verse with the next verse which says “And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know” [Al Quran 9:6]. Meaning that in the battlefield if someone asks for asylum, not only give them protection but also escort them to a place of security. The question here is that which army General in the battlefield can give this type of command? This clearly proves that the main emphasis of Islam is on peace.

I hope after the above mentioned explanation it would be clear that it is incorrect to state that Islam is violent religion and commands its followers to kill all the Non-Muslims. This is a gross misconception and it is used by those who do not understand the Quran or those who have enmity in their hearts against Islam. May Allah guide us all and show us the right path.

Causing Difficulties for Others

2007-02-02T05:29:00.000+10:00

This material for this article has been taken from the Lecture of Mufti Taqi Usmani.

A famous hadith states, "A Muslim is the one from whose hands and tongue other Muslims are safe." [Tirmidhi] Keeping others safe from our hands and tongues does not only mean that we do not hurl stones or abuses at them, it also means that we do not say or do anything that will hurt them.

These days, among majority of the Muslims, there is a misconception that reduces Islam to only the performance of the ritual acts of worship - the pillars - thus robbing it of much of the rest of the building. A very important and integral section of that building deals with our social relations. It is concerned with how we behave in the family, how we interact with relatives, friends, neighbours, colleagues, and all the rest of humanity. The cornerstone of Islamic teachings in this area is the requirement that we do not cause anyone any hurt through our words or actions.

The above mentioned hadith clearly describes this as a defining trait of a Muslim. While it refers to "other Muslims," scholars agree that it is a general requirement that equally applies to Non-Muslims except those who are at war with the Muslims. A person who, through his intentional or careless actions or words, inflicts unjustified pain on others is not worthy of being called a Muslim.

The importance of social relations can be understood from the fact that Quran has described some of its aspects in great detail. For example, Quran has gone in detail to explain how a person should take permission when entering someone’s place; whereas there is no mention of the details of how one should pray. Similarly most of the Surah Hujaraat discusses the aspects regarding our social relations.

Islam wants to build a society, which is a model of civility, courtesy, and consideration for others. It does so by emphasising these attributes as a matter of faith. One hadith says that Iman (faith) has more than seventy branches. The highest one is the declaration that there is no God except Allah and the lowest one is the removal of harmful objects from the pathway.

We see this consideration for others throughout the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him). For example, whenever the Prophet (peace be upon him) visited a group where some people were asleep and others were not, he would greet them with a low enough voice so those awake could hear him while those asleep would not be disturbed. Every night when he used to get up for Tahajjud (midnight prayer) - a voluntary prayer for the rest of us - he would walk out of the bed very quietly so as not to disturb his sleeping wife.

Whenever he saw someone committing a wrong deed that needed to be corrected in public for the education of others, he would mention it in general terms, not naming the person who did it. This last practice also shows the two extremes in this regard that must be avoided. On the one hand is the temptation to compromise on the issue of right and wrong to avoid hurting feelings of others. On the other is the temptation to correct the wrong with total disregard to the fact that one might be insulting or injuring the other person. While we may see these extreme attitudes in people who seem to be poles apart in terms of their practice of religion, both stem from the same narrow vision of religion that holds our dealings with others as worldly affairs, outside the realm of Islam!

We all know how much stress has been laid upon by Prophet (peace be upon him) on praying in congregation for men. The importance of praying in congregation can be realised from the fact that Prophet (peace be upon him) used to come to the mosque (with the help of two men) even when he was extremely ill. On the other hand, jurists agree on the fact that if a person has acquired such an illness which causes others to feel disgusted, then that person should not come to the mosque and he must pray at home. If that person comes to the mosque, he will be sinful as he becomes a cause of difficulty for others.

Moreover, most of us are aware of the rewards of kissing the black stone in the Holy Kaaba. Prophet (peace be upon him) himself kissed it and thus it is a sunnah. But the jurists have written that if kissing the black stone is a cause of hurt for others (e.g. one has to push others and thus causing inconvenience to others) then it would not be permissible to kiss the stone. Those of us who have visited Makkah know very well what happens around the black stone. Because of the lack of knowledge of Islam, people are pushing and shoving others to get to the black stone. So just to perform a sunnah (it is not compulsory to kiss the black stone) act, the people indulge themselves in haraam (prohibited or forbidden). As a result, in the end, instead of getting a reward they end up being sinful.

Another example of this is wrong parking and blocking the way of others. Once Prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions came back from a Gazwa (a war fought in which Prophet peace be upon him himself took part), and some companions left their stuff on the road which blocked some or all part of the pathway. When Prophet (peace be upon him) was informed of this, he said to announce that there is no reward of Jihad for those who blocked the way of others. Can you imagine the reward of Jihad with Prophet (peace be upon him)? However, because of causing hassle to others this huge reward was lost. Unfortunately it is common practice among some of the Muslims to double park, or park in front of the driveway or block part of the road for some other reason. They do not realise how big a sin they are committing.

Likewise, we should not use our tongues in such a manner which will hurt feelings of others. Even if someone has to be criticised, it should be done in such a way which does not demean that person at all.

There are numerous other examples, but for the sake of brevity I will stop here. If all the Muslims start to check their actions, and think beforehand (whether their action will hurt others in any way whatsoever), most of our social problems will disappear. It is good to remember that Islam is a way of life. We must submit our whole life, not a small subset of our choosing, to the commands and teachings of Allah and the Prophet (peace be upon him).

Polygamy and the Wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him)

2007-01-01T19:28:00.002+10:00

The material for this article has been taken from the lecture of Dr. Jamal Badawi. I have also taken some material from Dr. Zakir Naik’s book as well.

Polygamy means a system of marriage whereby one person has more than one spouse. Polygamy can be of two types. One is polygyny, where a man marries more than one woman, and the other is polyandry, where a woman marries more than one man. In Islam, limited polygyny is permitted; whereas polyandry is completely prohibited.

A lot of objections over the years have been made on Islamic teachings, practices and also on the personality of the prophet (peace be upon him). One of these criticism is that how could the prophet (peace be upon him) be accepted as a prophet if he married several women; this act alone excludes someone from being a prophet, because this is not a characteristic of a prophet, but rather a trait of someone who is obsessed with women.

This objection is hypocritical in nature. The reason being that those who protest against polygamy believe in scriptures which allows a man to have more than one wife. The Quran is the only religious book, on the face of this earth, that contains the phrase ‘marry only one’. There is no other religious book that instructs men to have only one wife. In none of the other religious scriptures, whether it is the Vedas, the Ramayan, the Mahabharat, the Geeta, the Talmud or the Bible does one find a restriction on the number of wives. According to these scriptures, one can marry as many as one wishes. It was only later, that the Hindu priests and the Christian Church restricted the number of wives to one. Many Hindu religious personalities, according to their scriptures, had multiple wives. King Dashrat, the father of Rama, had more than one wife. Krishna had several wives. In earlier times, Christian men were permitted as many wives as they wished, since the Bible puts no restriction on the number of wives. It was only a few centuries ago that the Church restricted the number of wives to one. Polygyny is permitted in Judaism. According to Talmudic law, Abraham had three wives, and Solomon had hundreds of wives. The practice of polygyny continued till Rabbi Gershom ben Yehudah (960 C.E to 1030 C.E) issued an edict against it. The Jewish Sephardic communities living in Muslim countries continued the practice till as late as 1950, until an Act of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel extended the ban on marrying more than one wife.

So if you disqualify someone from prophethood on this basis, then you should disqualify others as well.

Generally speaking, Quran assumes monogamy, but under certain conditions it becomes imperative that polygyny is practiced. For example, ten thousand people were killed in Bosnia; 1 million died in Afghanistan. In these situations, where there are a lot of widows and young girls looking for partners, polygyny is the only moral and humane solution. It is much more moral than the practice in west, where people have multiple partners at one time with no protection or legal recognition, and a person can walk away from a relationship anytime he wants.

We now focus on the life of prophet (peace be upon him). It is interesting to note that not even the worst critics of Islam can even point out a single sexual indiscretion in the entire life of prophet (peace be upon him) whereas these critics overlook the fact (which Islam totally rejects) that some prophets in the bible committed incest and others were guilty of adultery.

Furthermore, it defies logic to describe him as a polyandrous prophet as out of thirty seven years of his marital life, for twenty five years at least (some add two more) he was monogamous (i.e. more than two-thirds of his marital life). So all the monogamous period is forgotten and only the last few years of his life are remembered.

If someone is obsessed with women, the time for that is not in the mid fifties or early sixties, it is much earlier.

Also, it must not be forgotten that his first wife with whom he was married for twenty five years was fifteen years older than him. Hence, anyone fixated on women tries to find younger girls in his youth and not an older lady.

The prophet (peace be upon him) was known for his chastity even before he got married, and no one (he had a lot of enemies in his lifetime) could raise a single point about his chastity.

Anyway, if you look at the nature of the marriages of prophet (peace be upon him) you will be amazed at the humane aspect of it. The marriages could be classified into four aspects. First, he married and gave his daughters in marriage to those who were his closest supporters. For example he married Ayesha (daughter of Abu Bakr) and Hafsa the daughter of Umar and he gave his daughters in marriage to Usman and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them all).

Second, the marriages were to give example to other Muslims to care for those women who lost their husbands and had orphan children. For example, Umme-Salama’s (may Allah be pleased with her) husband died due to injuries sustained in one the defensive battles Muslims fought. The woman was left with four orphan children to look after. At first, Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) goes to her and ask her hand in marriage and she declines (she was a dignified woman and she realized that who would want to marry a woman in her menopause, and the proposal was more out of sympathy than anything else). Then Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) sent her a marriage proposal and she refused again. When prophet (peace be upon him) heard this he asked her hand in marriage and she declined his offer as well. When asked why? She replied that there are three reasons for this: firstly, I am an old woman, secondly, I have four orphan children, and lastly I am a jealous woman (she cannot be blamed as no woman would like to share her husband). So the prophet (peace be upon him) with his decency and kindness tells her that as far as age is concerned, I am older than you; and the orphan children will be like my own and I will be responsible for them, and as for you jealousy I pray to Allah to remove it from you. And Allah indeed removed the jealousy from her and she accepted the proposal.

The third category was commonplace in the tribal society, where the prophet (peace be upon him), in order to remove hatred and conflict in other tribes, married from a particular tribe. It is like a political marriage to save people from further conflict and bloodshed. There are a number of examples of this facet of his marriages. For instance, he married Umme-Habiba (may Allah be pleased with her), daughter of Abu Sufyan (who at that time had not accepted Islam and was an arch enemy of Islam). When he heard that his daughter was married, he became happy because in his heart he knew that prophet (peace be upon him) was a good man (and this might eventually have led to his conversion to Islam). He also married a Christian woman and more than one Jewish woman (after he freed them and they accepted to marry him). What is the problem with this? Some historians say that because of these marriages, some tribes accepted Islam and others’ enmity was neutralised. What is wrong with removing the possibility of bloodshed? Finally, there was a case of legal precedence and removal of a taboo which will be discussed later.

Another objection by the critics of Islam is that it is mentioned in the Muslim sources that prophet (peace be upon him) had a marital contract with Ayesha (may Allah be pleased with her) at the age of six and she moved into his household at the age of nine. The obvious objection is that an older person marrying such a young girl; some of the nasty words said cannot be repeated in this article.

First of all, the issue of difference in age is not a problem, there are examples, even in this day and age (where divorce rates in the west have sky-rocketed), of very happy and productive marriages with a big age difference; but, of course, lesser age difference is more desirable. In many cultures it is acceptable to have considerable age difference, unless it is an extreme case where a ninety nine years old marries a sixteen years old. The issue raised by the critics is that how abominable it is that such an old man marries a young girl, and she moves into his house at the age of nine.

If it was such an abominable act, a lot of criticisms and questions would have been raised by the enemies of prophet (peace be upon him) in Makkah. To the surprise of many of you, are you aware that Ayesha (may Allah be pleased with her) was engaged to be married to another man before the prophet (peace be upon him). What this means is that marriage in the Arabian society at an earlier age does not mean consummation. It was accepted in that society that a three year old son of someone can be married to a two year old daughter of someone else. The reason was that it was a gesture which said that we are close as tribes, clans or friends and we want to reserve your son for our daughter at a later age. What Islam did was that it made enhancements to this contract and said that one can marry at a young age, but when the couple reaches (or one of them) puberty, they can reject or accept the marriage contract. In case the adolescent person does not agree, the marriage contract was terminated. Therefore, it is a conditional agreement; that is why no one raised any issue on this matter.

Further, Ayesha (may Allah be pleased with her) was not kidnapped or molested (or whatever term they use), she was married with the approval and blessings of her parents. Would anyone give his daughter to anyone to molest her; and Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) was a rich, powerful and wise person (he was not a person whom you could walk all over).

In addition, people object that it is illegal because the age was less than sixteen or eighteen. The question is according to whose law? In the western countries, e.g. in America even until the end of nineteenth century, it was acceptable to marry at a younger age (girls sometimes got married at the age of twelve). It was later that states began to introduce some limits to the marital age to fourteen and then it increased to sixteen. In some places it went up to eighteen, or sixteen with the approval of the guardian. These are secular laws and Islamic law requires that both parties reach adolescence and if both parties are content with the arrangement then the marriage contract remains intact, otherwise it is ended. Also, to say that a girl cannot reach puberty in that age (in the days gone by) is incorrect.

In the era of Prophet (peace be upon him), it was perfectly normal for girls to get married at the age of puberty. This was a norm in all Semitic cultures from the Israelites to the Arabs, and all nations in between. According to some books of the Jews, it is preferable for a woman to be married when she has her first menstrual cycle. In another Jewish book, there are rules regarding sexual intercourse with girls who have not yet menstruated. Throughout history, puberty has always been a symbol of adulthood. It is extremely unfair for us to judge Prophet (peace be upon him) by the standards set by the people of today. In certain countries like China and Japan, the age of sexual consent is 12 and 13 respectively. In the United States, men who have sexual intercourse with young women will be termed as pedophiles. Would it be correct for the United States to label the Chinese and Japanese as paedophiles according to the United States’ standards? These are all standards set by the western world. Shall we judge our beloved Prophet (peace be upon him) by the standards of today or by the standards set in his era? It is also proven that in those countries which have hot climates, people mature faster. This further indicates the maturity of Ayesha (may Allah be pleased with her) since the Arabian Peninsula has a very hot climate.

For a detailed discussion on the marriage of Ayesha (may Allah be pleased with her) please read the article on http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/aishah.html

Finally, some people object that prophet (peace be upon him) married the divorcee of her son. His name was Zayd (may Allah be pleased with him) and her name was Zainab (may Allah be pleased with her). To reply to this objection we first have know who were Zayd and Zainab? What really happened? Furthermore, why was prophet (peace be upon him) finally commanded to marry her?

Zayd was adopted (he was a slave and was freed) and not prophet’s real son. Moreover, Zainab was the cousin of the prophet (peace be upon him). She was not discovered suddenly; as some people imply, that the prophet (peace be upon him) discovered her beauty and then wanted to marry her. The point to remember is that they grew up together as children, and he had seen her before hijab was prescribed later in Medina. It was actually prophet (peace be upon him) who wanted Zainab to marry Zayd (as he wanted to change the aristocratic thinking, since she was from an elite class of Quraish while Zayd was a slave) to make the point that one should look at the character of a person and not only the lineage. So she accepted to marry Zayd. Later, problems emerged in the marriage and they did not get along well. Zayd complained to prophet (peace be upon him), but as any good marriage counsellor would do, he advised him to be patient.

Afterwards, through revelation the prophet (peace be upon him) was told that this marriage will end up in divorce and you will be commanded to marry her (after the mandatory waiting period of a divorced woman) to break the taboo in the Arab society, where the adopted son was considered even closer than the biological son. Even at that time he told Zayd (when he again came and complained about the marriage) that keep your wife and fear Allah; because he was commanded by Allah that he should not reveal this to anyone.

Zayd finally divorced Zainab, and then the verse was revealed where the prophet (peace be upon him) was married to her. Ayesha (may Allah be pleased with her) used to say that if prophet (peace be upon him) wanted to hide any verse of the Quran, it would have been this verse. The reason being that it was a taboo, and it was considered incest to marry the wife of your adopted son. But Allah finished this taboo through his Messenger, as adopted son in Islam is not the same as the biological son (the biological son keeps the family name and gets a part from the inheritance).

To conclude, my appeal to the Non-Muslims is that please try to be objective and try not to get influenced from people who do not know what they are talking about. Those who object have enmity in their hearts against Islam or they are unaware of the facts.

Please also watch the video "Women in Islam" at http://www.watchislam.com/videos/index.php?catid=-1

In addition, please listen to the lectures on Prophet's Marriages (from L42 to L50) delivered by Dr. Jamal Badawi at http://www.islamicity.com/multimedia/radio/ch200/default.asp?inc=7.htm#Series-L:_Muhammad_(P):_The_Last__Messenger_of_Allah

Responsibilities of Scholars Regarding Contemporary Issues

2007-01-01T19:26:00.000+10:00

The material for this article has been taken from the lecture delivered by Mufti Taqi Usmani.

It is now common knowledge, especially among the scholars, that since the values of western civilisation have taken hold of the entire world, religion is reduced to only places of worship, educational institutes and private homes. Religion has lost its grip in politics as well as economic issues of almost every nation. This is due to the fact that the concept of religion is different in the west.

In the west, religion is considered to be a person’s private matter and whether a person adopts a religion or not, it is not of any particular importance. In addition, west views religion as means to achieve spiritual satisfaction, and that is why there is no notion of right and wrong religion among the majority in the west. Consequently, a person can adopt any faith he likes: if he thinks that his pleasure lies in idol worshipping then that faith is suitable for him, and if he feels that worshipping one God brings him contentment then that faith is appropriate for him. Since it is a private matter, religion should not interfere in other facets of life. All this is the basis for secularism; the philosophy is that human beings have got intelligence, and combined with their observation and experience, humankind can make decisions to run all aspects of life: issues such as economic, political, social etc and religion should be restricted to private life.

Now it is even being said that all the systems in the world have failed, and after the collapse of USSR, only secular democracy will last forever.

Islam, on the other hand, totally disagrees with this ideology. Islam is not restricted to beliefs and worship; it also provides a comprehensive system pertaining to politics, economy, social matters etc. Islam is not only limited to the betterment of private life, but it provides a complete set of rules and regulations for all facets of life on a global scale.

Among the Muslim countries, this secular philosophy has taken hold, and religion, nowadays, is restricted to beliefs and worship only. Anyone, who prays five times a day, has a beard or a woman who wears the hijab is considered religious, even though that person’s other aspects of life are totally devoid of Islamic teachings.

Forget about the masses, our religious institutions (the madaaris) have fallen in this trap to some extent. A lot of stress is laid on the issues of beliefs and worship (prayers, fasting, hajj etc) and not much is taught with respect to business and political matters.

The end result of all this is that even some of our learned scholars are not aware of what is happening in matters of economy and politics. Some of our esteemed scholars are totally unaware of the modern problems regarding trade, business and economy. Most of their research is restricted in this regard, and they lack the understanding of modern finance.

Due to this, the gap between the modern educated businessmen and the religious scholars has widened. Even those who consider themselves very religious (i.e. pray and fast regularly) do not employ Islamic practices in their trade. Some of them have big beards, but if you look at their business transactions, they are totally against Islamic teachings.

Some of the scholars cannot satisfy the modern man in regards to issues concerning commerce. It is difficult even for a normal person to make them understand of what is happening in the market place. That is why majority of the questions the scholars are asked concern the matters about prayers, fasting, divorce, marriage etc. Not many go to them and inquire about the share market or modern interest based economy. I am not saying that everyone falls into this category; there are some very knowledgeable scholars in the matters concerning the world economy and finance (but they are a minority). That's why many in the business community are of the opinion that it is a waste of time to go to the religious scholars and ask them about our day to day business transactions (and this mentality has given rise to the idea that Islam does not possess answers to the intricate issues of the modern economics).

The need of the hour is that our scholars should understand what is really happening in this world. The requirement is to be aware of the contemporary issues. The old jurists used to say that those who are not aware of the matters of their time are not scholars but are ignorant. That is why our scholars need to understand that until they do not comprehend the day to day issues, they can never come up with the correct solutions. One of our great scholars of the past, Imam Muhammad (may Allah blessing be on him) used to spend almost everyday in the marketplace. When someone enquired of his presence in the bazaar, he said that I cannot give the correct fatwa (ruling) if I am not aware of what is happening in the markets.

If someone hands over the government to our religious leaders and tells them to run the country, it would not be an exaggeration to say that our scholars will not be able to change the situation a great deal in years. Unless one is not aware of the modern day problems, how can one expect to implement solutions for these issues.

So, it is my humble request to the Islamic scholars to spend a lot of time researching the contemporary issues. Not only should they learn about them by reading books, but they should spend time in the markets as well. They must learn how the share market works, how our banks function and how the modern economy as a whole operates.

Islam is the religion which has provided solutions for the whole mankind until the Day of Judgement. Unfortunately, there are not enough of us who have thoroughly researched and learned about the modern world. We need people who are well versed with not only beliefs and worship, but all aspects of life. If Islam is to provide a global system in this day and age, we would require scholars of immense knowledge in the current matters. Otherwise, this unjust capitalist system will continue to ruin the lives of the majority of the world for some time to come.

Signs of a Depraved Government

2007-01-01T19:25:00.002+10:00

The material for this article has been from taken from the lecture of Mufti Taqi Usmani.

Saeed bin Sumaan, who was from the Tabieen (the believers who saw one or more Sahabah), used to say that I heard Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) seeking refuge from the regime of inexperienced and the foolish (the implication of Abu Hurairah [may Allah be pleased with him] was that there will be a time when young, inexperienced and imprudent people will take the reigns of administration, and thus he asked for refuge from Allah from that period).

So Saeed bin Sumaan asked Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) about the signs of those times when this will happen. He told of the three signs of that era: first sign being that people will not fulfill the rights of their relatives (also they will break ties with them), secondly, people will obey those who will lead others astray and finally people will refuse to comply with those who will show them the right path (the entire hadith is recorded in Imam Bukhari’s Al-Adab Al-Mufrad). So, when these three signs are present at a certain time then certain individuals will be the heads of state who are not eligible to rule.

In another narration Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) told of one of the signs of the day of judgement: naked, destitute, barefoot shepherds will compete in building tall buildings. Meaning that people whose past will not be bright nor their habits and manners will be decent; and those below average people whose upbringing won’t be good nor they would have been properly trained by anyone will become rulers, and they will compete in the construction of tall buildings.

Anyway, from the narration Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) we know that one should seek refuge from Allah from these dark ages. What should a believer do if he finds himself in these times (as majority of us are living under corrupt governments in this day and age)? We know from the narrations of Prophet (peace be upon him) that basically Allah will force ineligible administrators over us when our deeds will be evil. Therefore, if Muslims as a whole follow Quran and Sunnah, Allah will place over them good and decent administrators, but if they follow the footsteps of the satan as a whole (like the majority of us are doing) then Allah will put on top us those who will be unfit to govern.

In another hadith, the meaning of which more or less is that, prophet (peace be upon him) told us that when the believers find themselves in these times where they have incompetent rulers, they should not curse the government. So, the Muslims should not indulge in verbal abuse, but rather ask Allah to remove these tyrannical rulers who have been enforced upon them due to their bad actions. That is why rather than verbally cursing the government, Muslims should repent from their sins, correct their deeds and ask Allah (morning and evening) to save them from awful leaders.

But if we look at ourselves in the mirror, we find that, day and night, we are engaged in discussing the faults of our leaders. Whenever a few people get together, they start cursing the leaders and the government as a whole. Rather than engaging ourselves in this, if we are so fed up with our rulers, we should follow the advice of Prophet (peace be upon him) and start supplicating from Allah and correct our own evil deeds.

In another narration, the meaning of the hadith, more or less is that, Prophet (peace be upon him) told us that Allah controls the hearts of the rulers. If we please Allah, then Allah will change the hearts of the heads of state, or Allah will replace them with just rulers.

Now let us turn back to the signs which were mentioned at the beginning of the article. The first indication was that population of that era (majority of them) will not fulfill the rights of the relatives and will also break ties with them. Therefore, we should try our level best to fulfill the rights of others, and try to make up with those who try to break ties with us.

The second sign was that people will follow those who will lead others astray. This is so evident in this day and age: the more off track a person is the more people follow that person. For example, we see that in Muslim countries people flock behind the ignorant Sufis who themselves have no idea of the Quran and Sunnah. The reason for this is that they show people easy ways to attain paradise, and they have certain tricks up their sleeves which generally impress the public.
The third sign of that era would be that people will refuse to comply with those who will show them the right path. The reason for this is simple: a God fearing person will state the plain truth and that does not go down the throat of the masses. This is because it goes against their desires. So anyone who shows them a path which is easy and does not affect their wishes, the masses have no hesitation in accepting that message. On the other hand, if a person invites them to Islam, they will accuse that person of being a fundamentalist. I have heard many times from our fellow Muslims that Scholars have made the religion very difficult. They argue that Islam is not that rigid (basically people want a green light to keep on doing what they want, and if anyone clashes with this philosophy then he becomes a fundamentalist).

Hence, we should try to mend our ways and not become one of those who fall into the three categories of the hadith. Only those people should be our role models and teachers who follow the Quran, and their lives are led according the way of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

Evolution or Creation

2006-12-01T19:40:00.001+10:00

In the west, especially in the USA, there is a debate going on about Evolution or Intelligent Design. To summarise the nature of the arguments, scientists in favour of the theory of evolution claim that life came into existence by chance, while the scientists who disagree, say that there is a creator behind all the life on earth.

In this article, I do not want to go into the scientific arguments (the readers can study the books written for and against evolution and make up their own minds); I just want to discuss some basic common sense points concerning the validity of Darwinism.

I want to start with an incident which occurred approximately thirteen hundred years ago. An atheist came to Imam Abu Hanifa (a great scholar of Islam) and challenged him to a debate (to be held in front of the caliph of that time). The atheist said that he will prove that there is no God; Imam Abu Hanifa accepted his challenge.

A time was set, and they were to come and debate in the presence of the caliph. When the day came, the atheist reached at the rendezvous on time, while Imam Abu Hanifa was no where to be seen. After waiting for a long time, Abu Hanifa finally showed up. When enquired about his late appearance, he replied that a mysterious thing happened to him on the way. He elaborated that he was waiting for a boat to take him across the river and there was none in sight. Suddenly the branches of a tree (at the bank of the river) started to fall, and the wood from the branches formed into a boat; he sat into the boat and it automatically took him across the river without any outside help whatsoever.

The atheist had an incredulous expression on his face, and he said that are you out of your mind, how can such a thing happen? Abu Hanifa replied that well my friend the debate is over. The atheist enquired how? He answered that if you cannot believe that a boat can be formed and driven without any external help, how can you believe that the entire universe came into existence, and is functioning, on its own. By this argument, Abu Hanifa won the debate.

If we look around, all the millions of living species on this planet possess miraculous features, unique behavioural patterns and flawless physical structures. If one just looks at the human body alone, one can only admire the complex mechanisms, structures and processes which take place inside ones body. Some of the scientists are astonished as they discover the miraculous aspects of these structures they study and the intelligence behind that coming into existence, and they witness infinite knowledge and wisdom involved. Others, however, surprisingly claim that all these miraculous features are the product of chance.

According to these scientists, a number of simple chemical processes came together and formed a protein, which is no more possible than a randomly scattered collection of letters coming together to form a poem. In addition, the other coincidences led to the emergence of other proteins. These then also combined by chance in an organised manner, not just proteins, but DNA, RNA, enzymes etc (all of which are very intricate structures within the cell). As a result of billions of coincidences the first cell was formed. The ability of blind chance did not stop there, as these cells just happened to multiply. Afterwards, because of these coincidences these cells organised in such a way as to produce the first living thing.

So basically it required billions of coincidences for one life form to come into existence. Then afterwards trillions of other coincidences took place and other life forms were formed in the water. Later they evolved into other creatures. Then from water, according to the evolutionists, they evolved onto the land and further evolved into other creatures such as reptiles, birds, mammals and some of them later evolved into human beings.

Let us say that we place a computer in a room. We let the program Microsoft Word run on it. Then we let twenty monkeys into the room. The monkeys run wildly and jump on the keyboard, and bang on the keypads for days. Afterwards, when we study the computer, we find that a book has been written without any grammatical errors in flawless English. Moreover, the book is organised into chapters, there are page numbers, headings and an index at the end as well. If you can believe this story then you will not have any problem in believing the theory of evolution. Of course, any reasonable person will never believe this fantastic tale. So how can one believe that trillions upon trillions of coincidences took place and produced life on this earth.

In short, evolutionists, regard chance as an intelligent, conscious and powerful enough force to create living things and all the sensitive balances on this earth. The fact that educated, intelligent and knowledgeable people can, as a group, believe in the most irrational and illogical claim in the recorded history is really a great miracle. If you put a carved stone or wooden idol in front of these people and tell them “look this idol created this room and everything in it,” they would reply that it is utterly stupid and refuse to believe it. Yet they declare that “the unconscious process known as chance gradually brought the world and the billion of living things into being with enormous planning” to be the greatest scientific explanation.

The more I study the theory of evolution, the harder it gets for me to swallow this philosophy. Darwinism certainly does not go down my throat, does it go down yours?

Please also go to http://www.harunyahya.com/html/m_book_index.htm and read ATLAS OF CREATION - Volume 1 and ATLAS OF CREATION - Volume 2; and see for yourselves the evidence of creation.

I would also recommend that you watch the following videos:
BIOMIMETICS: TECHNOLOGY IMITATES NATURE http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6869583920990256801
THE MIRACLE OF THE HONEYBEE http://harunyahya.com/presentation/miracle_of_the_honeybee/index.html
THE MIRACLE OF LEAFCUTTER ANT http://www.harunyahya.com/presentation/leafcutters/
THE CREATION OF CAMEL http://www.harunyahya.com/camel/index.html
CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE http://harunyahya.com/presentation/creation_of_universe/index.html

Also please read the article "The Disasters Darwanism brought to Humanity" on this website to understand what is the problem with Atheism.

Further, I would also urge you to read "What is the Origin of Man? by Dr. Maurice Bucaille.

The Problems with the Theory of Evolution

2006-12-01T19:32:00.006+10:00

The material for this article has been taken from Harun Yahya’s book Evolution Deceit.

According to Darwin, different living species were not created by God, but they rather came from a common ancestor and became differentiated from each other as a result of natural conditions. Darwin called this process “Evolution by Natural Selection”.

Darwin was himself conscious of the fact that his theory faced a lot of problems. He confessed this in his book (The Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection) in the chapter “Difficulties of the Theory”.

The theory of evolution fails at its very first step: i.e. how life first appeared on earth? According to the claims of the theory, life started with a cell that formed by coincidence.

The scenario put forth is that four billion years ago various lifeless chemical compounds underwent a reaction in the primordial atmosphere on the earth in which the effects of thunderbolts and atmospheric pressure led to the formation of the first living cell.

First of all, lifeless materials can come together to form life is an unscientific assertion, and it has never been verified by any experiment or observation. Life is only generated from life. No scientist in the world has ever succeeded in forming a living cell by bringing inanimate materials together, not even in the most advanced laboratories.

The claim of the evolutionists that living cells – which cannot be produced even when all the power of the human intellect, knowledge and technology are brought together – nevertheless managed to form by chance under primordial conditions on earth does not carry any weight. The million dollar point to be taken into consideration is that if any one step in the evolutionary process is proven to be impossible, this is sufficient to prove that the whole theory is totally false and invalid. Keeping this in mind, the theory of evolution collapses at its very beginning, so it becomes meaningless to take some human and ape skull and engage in speculation about them.

Furthermore, evolutionists claim that species living in water somehow stepped onto land and were transformed into land-dwelling species. There are a number of facts which make such transition impossible:

For example, fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. They cannot live more than a few minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would have to acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden.

In addition, sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment. On land, water has to be used economically. This is why these living beings have a kidney system. Thanks to the kidneys, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea and the minimum amount of water is used during its excretion. In addition, new systems are needed to provide the kidney's functioning. In short, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once.

There are numerous other points, but for the sake of brevity I will have stop here. Thus, it is impossible that all these dramatic physiological changes could have happened in the same organisms at some time, and all by chance.

The scenario that amphibians evolved into reptiles is implausible as well. For example, the amphibian egg is designed for developing in water whereas the amniotic egg is designed for developing on land. A "step by step" evolution of an amphibian is out of the question, because without a perfect and fully-designed egg, it is not possible for a species to survive. Evolutionist paleontologist and an authority on vertebrate paleontology, Robert L. Carroll has to accept that "the early reptiles were very different from amphibians and that their ancestors could not be found yet.”

Evolutionists’ tales are not over yet. There still remains the problem of making these creatures fly! Since evolutionists believe that birds must somehow have been evolved, they assert that they were transformed from reptiles. The gradual evolution cannot explain this scenario. Firstly, the wings, which are the exceptional traits of birds, are a great impasse for the evolutionists. One of the Turkish evolutionists, Engin Korur, confesses the impossibility of the evolution of wings:

The common trait of the eyes and the wings is that they can only function if they are fully developed. In other words, a halfway-developed eye cannot see; a bird with half-formed wings cannot fly. How these organs came into being has remained one of the mysteries of nature that needs to be enlightened.

The question of how the perfect structure of wings came into being as a result of consecutive haphazard mutations remains completely unanswered. There is no way to explain how the front arms of a reptile could have changed into perfectly functioning wings as a result of a distortion in its genes (mutation).

Moreover, just having wings is not sufficient for a land organism to fly. Land-dwelling organisms are devoid of many other structural mechanisms that birds use for flying. For example, the bones of birds are much lighter than those of land-dwelling organisms. Their lungs function in a very different way. They have a different muscular and skeletal system and a very specialised heart-circulatory system. All these mechanisms had to exist at the same time and altogether; they could not have formed gradually by being "accumulated". This is why the theory asserting that land organisms evolved into aerial organisms is completely fallacious.

As we have stated before, the theory of evolution proposes that some imaginary creatures that came out of the sea turned into reptiles, and that birds evolved from reptiles, according to the same scenario, reptiles are the ancestors not only of birds but also of mammals. However, there are great differences between these two classes. Mammals are warm-blooded animals (this means they can generate their own heat and maintain it at a steady level), they give live birth, they suckle their young, and their bodies are covered in fur or hair. Reptiles, on the other hand, are cold-blooded (i.e., they cannot generate heat, and their body temperature changes according to the external temperature), they lay eggs, they do not suckle their young, and their bodies are covered in scales.

One example of the structural barriers between reptiles and mammals is their jaw structure. Mammal jaws consist of only one mandibular bone containing the teeth. In reptiles, there are three little bones on both sides of the mandible. Another basic difference is that all mammals have three bones in their middle ear (hammer, anvil, and stirrup). Reptiles have but a single bone in the middle ear. Evolutionists claim that the reptile jaw and middle ear gradually evolved into the mammal jaw and ear. The question of how an ear with a single bone evolved into one with three bones, and how the sense of hearing kept on functioning in the meantime can never be explained. Not surprisingly, not one single fossil linking reptiles and mammals has been found. This is why evolutionist science writer Roger Lewin was forced to say, "The transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma.”

George Gaylord Simpson, one of the most popular evolutionary authorities and a founder of the neo-Darwinist theory, makes the following comment regarding this perplexing difficulty for evolutionists:

The most puzzling event in the history of life on earth is the change from the Mesozoic, the Age of Reptiles, to the Age of Mammals. It is as if the curtain were rung down suddenly on the stage where all the leading roles were taken by reptiles, especially dinosaurs, in great numbers and bewildering variety, and rose again immediately to reveal the same setting but an entirely new cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs do not appear at all, other reptiles are supernumeraries, and all the leading parts are played by mammals of sorts barely hinted at in the preceding acts.

Furthermore, when mammals suddenly made their appearance, they were already very different from each other. Such dissimilar animals as bats, horses, mice, and whales are all mammals, and they all emerged during the same geological period. Establishing an evolutionary relationship among them is impossible even by the broadest stretch of the imagination. The evolutionist zoologist R. Eric Lombard makes this point in an article that appeared in the leading journal Evolution:

Those searching for specific information useful in constructing phylogenies of mammalian taxa will be disappointed.

All of these demonstrate that all living beings appeared on earth suddenly and fully formed, without any evolutionary process. This is concrete evidence of the fact that they were created. Evolutionists, however, try to interpret the fact that living species came into existence in a particular order as an indication of evolution. Yet the sequence by which living things emerged is the "order of creation", since it is not possible to speak of an evolutionary process. With a superior and flawless creation, oceans and then lands were filled with living things and finally man was created.

Contrary to the "ape man" story that is imposed on the masses with intense media propaganda, man also emerged on earth suddenly and fully formed.

Another subject that remains unanswered by evolutionary theory is the excellent quality of perception in the eye.

Before passing on to the subject of the eye, let us briefly answer the question of "how we see". Light rays coming from an object fall oppositely on the retina of the eye. Here, these light rays are transmitted into electric signals by cells and they reach a tiny spot at the back of the brain called the centre of vision. These electric signals are perceived in this centre of the brain as an image after a series of processes. With this technical background, let us do some thinking.

The brain is insulated from light. That means that the inside of the brain is solid dark, and light does not reach the location where the brain is situated. The place called the centre of vision is a solid dark place where no light ever reaches; it may even be the darkest place you have ever known. However, you observe a luminous, bright world in this pitch darkness. The image formed in the eye is so sharp and distinct that even the technology of the 20th century has not been able to attain it.

For many years, thousands of engineers have tried to make a three-dimensional TV, and reach the vision quality of the eye. Yes, they have made a three-dimensional television system but it is not possible to watch it without putting on glasses; moreover, it is only an artificial three dimension. The background is more blurred, the foreground appears like a paper setting. Never has it been possible to produce a sharp and distinct vision like that of the eye. In both the camera and the television, there is a loss of image quality.

Evolutionists claim that the mechanism producing this sharp and distinct image has been formed by chance. Now, if somebody told you that the television in your room was formed as a result of chance, that all its atoms just happened to come together and make up this device that produces an image, what would you think? How can atoms do what thousands of people cannot? For nearly a century, tens of thousands of engineers have been researching and striving in high-tech laboratories and great industrial complexes using the most advanced technological devices, and they have been able to do no more than this. If a device producing a more primitive image than the eye could not have been formed by chance, then it is very evident that the eye and the image seen by the eye could not have been formed by chance. It requires a much more detailed and wise planning and design than the one in the TV. The plan and design of the image as distinct and sharp as this one belongs to God, who has power over all things.

Briefly, the technology in our body is far superior to the technology mankind has produced using its accumulated information, experience, and opportunities. No one would say that a HI-FI or a camera came into being as a result of chance. So how can it be claimed that the technologies that exist in the human body, which are superior even to these, could have come into being as a result of a chain of coincidences called evolution?

Even Darwin, in his letter to Asa Gray on April 3rd 1860, wrote that "the thought of the eye made him cold all over" and he confessed the desperation of the evolutionists in the face of the excellent design of living things.

There are a lot more arguments one can put forth, and if anyone is interested I would recommend him to read Harun Yahya’s books (especially “The Evolution Deceit” and “Darwinism Refuted”) or visit http://www.harunyahya.com/.

All in all the theory of evolution is a dogmatic belief and not a scientific one. The evolutionists somehow want to deny the existence of God, because belief in a Creator would open the door to religion and that does not go down the throats of the atheists.

The fact that church committed a lot of atrocities in the name of religion in the past and even murdered anyone who contradicted the church, caused many educated people of that time in the west to believe that religion is bad (it is illogical and unscientific). This type of thinking has spread to the majority who live in the west and that is why they do not believe in religion at all.

I would like to invite all these atheists to study Islam. We never murdered any scientists, but rather encouraged development of science and technology (history is a witness to this fact). The reason being that the last and the final testament, The Holy Quran, has remained uncorrupted from any changes, and there are no scientific errors in the Quran as opposed to other religious scriptures of our time (even the scholars of other religions confess that the scriptures are not the same now as at the time of revelation). I would recommend the atheists to go to http://www.scienceislam.com/scientists_quran.php and watch the videos where scientists have themselves confessed that Quran could not have been the work of a human. In addition, please listen to the lecture "Amazing Quran" by Dr. Gary Miller http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTMPBDcDov0 Further, I humbly request that you read the short book "QUR'AN AND MODERN SCIENCE - Compatible Or Incompatible" which can be downloaded from http://www.esnips.com/doc/218f1013-8fac-4fd3-9a89-27f42fe6e493/QURAN-AND-MODERN-SCIENCE---Compatible-Or-Incompatible---Dr-Zakir-Naik May Allah show us the right path and save our minds from being corrupted by false ideologies. Ameen.

Please also read the article "The Disasters Darwinism Brought to Humanity" on this website to understand why Atheism is such a dangerous philosphy. I would also recommend the article "New Fossil Discovery Sinks Evolutionary Theories" on http://www.albalagh.net/general/evolution_theory_sinks.shtml

Please also go to http://www.harunyahya.com/html/m_book_index.htm and read ATLAS OF CREATION - Volume 1 and ATLAS OF CREATION - Volume 2; and see for yourselves the evidence of creation.

Furthermore, please go to http://www.evolutionisdead.com/downloads.php and watch the video "From a Frog to a Prince." This video is the best reply to the evolutionist propaganda I have ever seen (contains exclusive interview with Dr. Richard Dawkins).

In addition, please watch the following videos:
Major Problems with Theory of Evolution (This video is a must watch) http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-4510168987472200892&hl=en
Hidden History of the Human Race Authors Tour 1994 http://krishnatube.com/video/295/Hidden-History-of-the-Human-Race-Authors-Tour-1994
Mysterious Origins of Man http://krishnatube.com/video/269/The-Mysterious-Origins-of-Man
Living Fossils http://www.harunyahya.com/presentation/living_fossils/index.html
The Collapse of Evolution http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6836937496535487075
Questioning evolution theory THIS IS INCREDIBLE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1iCjKWzeEE&mode=related&search=
Questioning Darwinian Evolution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R5lfTPwct4
Questioning Evolutionary Origins: Abiogenesis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t45wxUddOaM
Yusuf Estes talks about Evolution http://video.google.com.au/videosearch?q=yusuf+estes+and+evolution

Further, I would also urge you to read "What is the Origin of Man? by Dr. Maurice Bucaille.

The Disasters Darwinism Brought to the Humanity

2006-12-01T19:29:00.002+10:00

The material for this article has been taken from Harun Yahya’s book “The Evolution Deceit”.

One of the basic principles of Darwin behind the theory of evolution was a great deception: “The development of living things depends on the fight for survival. The strong win the struggle. The weak are condemned to defeat and oblivion.”

According to Darwin, there is a cruel tussle for continued existence and an ongoing conflict in nature. The strong always overcome the weak, and this enables development to take place. Darwin did not stop there: he further proposed that the fight for survival also applied between human racial groups. What this means is that favoured races were victorious in the struggle.

In his book the “The Descent of Man” (which he published after the “The Origin of Species”) he boldly claims that blacks and Australian Aborigines are equal to gorillas and then concludes that they would be done away with by civilised races. He said in his book: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes… will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

These ludicrous ideas were not only theorised, but also brought into a position where they provided the scientific grounds for racism. Supposing that the living beings evolved in the struggle for life, Darwinism was even adapted to the social sciences, and turned into a conception that came to be called “Social Darwinism”.

Social Darwinism argues that existing human races are located at different rungs of the evolutionary ladder, that the European races were the most advanced of all, and that many other races still bear simian features.

The Indian anthropologist Lalita Vidyarthi explains how Darwin's theory of evolution imposed racism on the social sciences:

His (Darwin's) theory of the survival of the fittest was warmly welcomed by the social scientists of the day, and they believed mankind had achieved various levels of evolution culminating in the white man's civilization. By the second half of the nineteenth century racism was accepted as fact by the vast majority of Western scientists.

As Darwinism fed racism in the 19th century, it formed the basis of an ideology that would develop and drown the world in blood in the 20th century: Nazism.

A strong Darwinist influence can be seen in Nazi ideologues. When one examines this theory, which was given shape by Adolf Hitler and Alfred Rosenberg, one comes across such concepts as "natural selection", "selective mating", and "the struggle for survival between the races", which are repeated dozens of time in the works of Darwin. When calling his book Mein Kampf (My Struggle), Hitler was inspired by the Darwinist struggle for survival and the principle that victory went to the fittest. He particularly talks about the struggle between the races:

“History would culminate in a new millennial empire of unparalleled splendour, based on a new racial hierarchy ordained by nature herself.”

In the 1933 Nuremberg party rally, Hitler proclaimed that "a higher race subjects to itself a lower race… a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right".

That the Nazis were influenced by Darwinism is a fact that almost all historians who are expert in the matter accept. The historian Hickman describes Darwinism's influence on Hitler as follows:

(Hitler) was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because]… his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasising struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.

Hitler, who emerged with these views, dragged the world to violence that had never been seen before. Many ethnic and political groups, and especially the Jews, were exposed to terrible cruelty and slaughter in the Nazi concentration camps. World War II, which began with the Nazi invasion, cost 55 million lives. What lay behind the greatest tragedy in world history was Darwinism's concept of the "struggle for survival."

While fascists are found on the right wing of Social Darwinism, the left wing is occupied by communists. Communists have always been among the fiercest defenders of Darwin's theory.

This relationship between Darwinism and communism goes right back to the founders of both these "isms". Marx and Engels, the founders of communism, read Darwin's book The Origin of Species as soon as it came out, and were amazed at its 'dialectical materialist' attitude. The correspondence between Marx and Engels showed that they saw Darwin's theory as "containing the basis in natural history for communism". In his book The Dialectics of Nature, which he wrote under the influence of Darwin, Engels was full of praise for Darwin, and tried to make his own contribution to the theory in the chapter "The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man".

Russian communists who followed in the footsteps of Marx and Engels, such as Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, all agreed with Darwin's theory of evolution. Plekhanov, who is seen as the founder of Russian communism, regarded Marxism as "Darwinism in its application to social science.”

Trotsky said, "Darwin's discovery is the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter."

'Darwinist education' had a major role in the formation of communist cadres. For instance, historians note the fact that Stalin was religious in his youth, but became an atheist primarily because of Darwin's books.

Mao, who established communist rule in China and killed millions of people, openly stated that "Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution."

In short, there is a clear link between the theory of evolution and communism. The theory claims that living things are the product of chance, and provides a so-called scientific support for atheism. Communism, an atheist ideology, is for that reason firmly tied to Darwinism. Moreover, the theory of evolution proposes that development in nature is possible thanks to conflict (in other words "the struggle for survival") and supports the concept of "dialectics" which is fundamental to communism.

If we think of the communist concept of "dialectical conflict", which killed some 120 million people during the 20th century, as a "killing machine" then we can better understand the dimensions of the disaster that Darwinism visited on the planet.

It is clear that Darwinism clearly inculcated in the minds of many that man is a fighting animal, and in this world only the strong will survive and the weak will perish. In other words, this atheistic philosophy subconsciously teaches humans that they can use oppression to achieve their goals. The concept that there is no life after death is an extremely dangerous one, as anyone with power will commit limitless oppression onto the others for his survival. Also, this philosophy gives impetus to selfishness and gives ordinary humans the green light to break the law (lie, cheat, deceive etc.) if they think that they can get away with it.

Please watch the video "THE DISASTERS DARWINISM BROUGHT TO HUMANITY" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-5938600797075743578

In addition, watch the video "Trouble with Atheism" where award winning journalist Rod Liddle argues against those who turn to atheism for a rational and moderate approach to today's problems. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7760032578363901913 #

The Proof for God

2006-12-01T19:18:00.002+10:00

I got this article from a friend, and I am grateful for his email.

Many of us at some point or another in our lives start to question: Where did we come from? Why are we here? What happens to us after we die? Is death the grim end, or is it but a gate that leads into a different kind of existence? We often wonder how did it all come to be? Is there some kind of power responsible for the creation of the vast universe and all that’s in it, or did everything around us just happen to be?

Is there a God? To some people, the affirmative answer is the only one there can be, while to others belief in it is no more than a calculated bet. The French Philosopher Pascal concluded that belief was the wisest bet because the believer will either have bliss if he is right or oblivion if he is wrong, whereas the atheist has the less attractive alternatives of oblivion or damnation. (The case against God, Gerald Priestland, Page: 14)

To some people the word “Nature” is some kind of force responsible for shaping life, but can there be justification in saying that “Nature” is a concrete intelligent force responsible for creating as well as shaping life? Or, is ‘Nature’ merely an abstract man-made label that acts as a convenient coat hanger to the more urgent questions in our attempt to explain the cause of things?

If we were to trace the age of the earth we would have to go back in time 4.5 billion years. The age of our Galaxy, the Milky Way, would take us even further back 12 billion years, while as the estimated age of the entire universe is somewhere between 12 to 20 billion years.

If the ‘terrestrial nature’ represents the earth and everything on it, there would still remain a very long period of time prior to the formation of the earth when there would have been no meaning to the word ‘Nature’. Still, some force had to account for what occurred before.

Clearly, then the school of thought that claims that God is not an external being but is to be found inside each of us is both naïve and pretentious. It is naïve because if we were to claim that God exists only inside us then we would have to believe that before human walked on earth there was no God. Even if one employs Darwin’s theory of evolution to suggest some kind of link between man and ape, and as a result associate an older age for mankind, one would still have to say that God did not exist before 30 million years ago, that is when the first apes walked on earth. It is also pretentious because no matter how clever we think we are, we are only one species of creatures on one planet that revolves around one star. The star, being the sun, is merely one star among 100 million other similar stars that belong to our galaxy the ‘Milky Way’. In the universe there are billions of other galaxies!

The failure of science to provide adequate answers to these questions, and in the quest for the truth, many people seek the answers in religion.

Through their adopted faith, whether it is researched or most commonly inherited, they seek to find God. However, it may make better sense to reverse the procedure. It may be wiser to seek God first and then search for His true word. After all God has always existed while as the establishment of any faith or religion is a time related event.

Compare this logic to the case of the patient and the doctor, how can one believe in a medical treatment and as a result have faith in the doctor? It would naturally make better sense to have faith in a doctor and because of that faith to follow his medication. Finding God and accepting His existence is not necessarily a matter related to any particular religious belief. The subject of article is to argue the case why God exists in a purely intellectual and rational manner without referring to any religious beliefs.

In order to be able to present the argument it is essential to refer to various fields of scientific knowledge. A fact must be stressed here, whilst reference is made to some established scientific theories in as far as they serve the argument, it is not the intention of this article to question validity of these theories.

Generally speaking there are two types of scientific knowledge:

1) Scientific knowledge that is unlikely to change and is thus taken for granted (e.g. Water is composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen, or that gravity exists between any two bodies…. etc.).
2) Scientific knowledge that is not yet confirmed and is open to change (e.g. what triggered off the ‘Big Bang’? What is gravity made of? How many universes are there? Or how did such gigantic energy come to be trapped within the minute space inside the atom?)

Throughout this article, all reference made will be made to the first type only.

There are those who will completely do without an intellectual approach to belief insisting that for them belief is in the heart and not the mind. Whilst one must understand and respect this point of view so far as the first part of the search goes, and that is the initial belief in God, it is of prime importance that the process of selecting a faith to believe in should not be left to the heart alone, but is a matter that should be researched thoroughly by taking time to consider and debate all points of view. This is necessary because of the unfortunate yet intentional misguidance and misrepresentation conducted by various religious organisations. Sadly, all major religions in the world today can be accused of corruption in one way or another.

Furthermore, one tends to be more inclined to the view that even though a spiritual or emotional belief may appear to be of great strength, yet if it is not supported intellectually; it may often be vulnerable to crack. One has often come across people who have suddenly acquired a very intense faith only to completely lose it after a period of time. For as the saying goes ‘easy come easy go’. On the other hand, a slow contemplated intellectual approach has a better chance of endurance because it is built on reason.

Today we live in an age of reason and not of blind faith. It is thus necessary for any intelligent person to debate all matters and not succumb to the influence of their native environment alone. One should not rely on the religious background passed on through parents or the society alone. One often hears the saying ‘this is the religion of my father and my fore-fathers, they cannot all be wrong!’

We have no choice as to which faith we were born into but we all have the free will to seek the Truth. One should adopt a faith only when one is totally convinced that it is the Truth. There are other people who follow a certain faith because they say it suits them! It is very ironic that they could adopt a faith that affects their entire life in the same way they would go shopping in a super-market! Look and see what is on display and then opt for the faith that would not place too many sacrifices on their normal way of life!

Instead, if one is convinced beyond any doubt that a certain faith is the true word of God, one should accept it in its entire form. One should follow its teachings even if it means altering one’s way of life, and not as is sadly happening today within some well-established religions, regarding the constant bending and reshaping of the faith in an attempt to conform to modern values.

There may be those who will complain that a certain faith or another is too rigid and does not conform to modern standards, but they must, if they are honest with themselves, stop and question how well do modern standards conform to virtue and morality.

WHY THERE IS ONE GOD

The purpose of this section is to argue how modern science testifies to the existence of a sole creator, a supreme force far superior to anything we know, a power responsible for the creation of the universe and of sustaining it.

Moreover, at that moment of creation, it can be demonstrated how all the various laws that govern the behaviour of everything in the universe were initiated. In order to arrive at these conclusions three sets of possibilities are debated:

First debate:

Did the universe has a beginning or was it always there?
Here we refer to the laws of ‘thermal dynamics’, which govern the movement of heat between different bodies.

The second law of ‘thermal dynamics’ states that heat travels from hot bodies to cooler bodies and not the opposite.

If for example a hot oven is placed in a cold room the oven will warm the room, this is because heat will be transferred from the hot oven to the cold room. Never will the amount of heat originally in the room cause the oven to get hotter. This transfer of heat between the oven and the room will continue until the oven has used up all its fuel source (e.g. a gas cylinder). When that point is reached the oven will start to cool until such a point when the temperatures of both the oven and the room become equal.

To calculate the amount of time during which the oven will continue to warm the room we need to know two things:

1- The amount of gas left in the cylinder.
2- The rate at which gas is consumed.

If for example there is 500 c.c. (cubic centimeters) of gas is left in the cylinder and the oven uses up 10 c.c. every hour, with a simple division we find that the oven will continue to warm the room for 50 hours (call this stage A).
After 50 hours the oven will start to cool till the point is reached where the temperatures of the oven and the room equal (call this stage B).

Now let us apply this to the universe as a whole. We know that the total amount of energy in the universe is equal to the sum of energy in all the stars, galaxies, etc… This is a finite amount no matter how large it is. These stars will continue to radiate heat, light and other types of radiation into the vast space of the universe, in the same way in which the oven would warm the space inside the room. So if we think of all the stars and all other active bodies in the universe as the ovens and the vast empty space as the empty room we can deduce the following:

From what is known about the life and death of stars in modern theories of cosmology, it is known that they would continue to radiate energy until they consume all their resources. To be precise, when all the hydrogen, that constitutes the vast majority of the mass of stars, has been converted into helium and other heavier elements in a process of continuous nuclear reactions. After that stage the stars start to collapse and end up as cold dead bodies.

Since the amount of matter in the universe (in the form of stars, nebula, quasars…etc.) is finite, then these energy sources will radiate energy into the universe for a finite length of time. In our example of the oven and the room we calculated that time to be 50 hours. Theoretically, and if we can calculate the total amount of energy in the universe, and also the rate of consumption of energy, we can also calculate the length of time (although obviously not as accurately as in the case of the oven) in which the stars will continue to radiate energy. For argument’s sake, let us assume that the universe will continue to radiate energy for another 50 billion years. Since there is still plenty of energy available in the universe we are still in stage A.

Now if we go back to our original debate, and try to decide whether the universe had a beginning or has it always been there, we can quickly reach the conclusion that if it had always been there, or in mathematical terms if the age of the universe goes back to infinity, it should have been a cold and dead place by now simply because infinity, is older than 50 billion years. If the age of the universe is infinity, we should have been at stage B a long time ago.
The accuracy of the figure 50 billion is of no importance to the result, for whatever figure we chose to make it, it will always be less than infinity.

What that means is that the universe had a definite beginning (that beginning, for arguments sake, being less than 50 billion years ago). The birth of new stars in the universe does not affect our analysis, they are not born out of the void, they are merely a conversion of hot gases into hot new stars. Their birth is not an addition to the total amount of matter that already exists in the universe. The total amount of matter remains constant. After a time all the hot gases in the universe will be used up and no new stars will be born. As for the newly born stars, they too will eventually consume all their energy and die.

But ‘thermal dynamics’ is not the only branch of science to provide evidence in support of a beginning to the universe, for recent discoveries in space and cosmology also confirm that the universe had a definite beginning called the Big Bang, first by the discovery of the background radiation in 1965 by two American astronomers and then later by COBE (Cosmic background explorer satellite) that proved beyond any doubt the theory of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang theory states that sometimes between 15 to 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe originated from an extremely dense concentration of matter and space that exploded outwards giving birth to all the galaxies and other heavenly bodies that comprise the universe as we know it today.

Another very important discovery that supported the theory of the Big Bang was the discovery that the universe is expanding, every day the universe gets bigger. This necessarily means that if we were to go back in time the universe would be contracting until it would reach a point from which it started, and that takes us back to the Big Bang.

Now if we accept that the universe had a definite beginning, the next step would be to debate whether that beginning was caused by an intelligent power or by mere chance.

Second debate:

A Creator or mere chance?
If bigbang is indeed the case then where did intelligence come from, how did life come out of inanimate substances (or in other words, out of death)? How does a rock suddenly sprout tree leaves?

What is the origin of the genetic code and the accumulation of the information it contains (a phenomenon that has been constant over the course of time)?

If you are happening to walk on the beach and you see some foot prints, you do not say that the ocean did that or they just happened to be there.

We have also shown that all matter had a definite beginning or a moment in time when it came to exist, the moment when the universe was created.

Since the universe had a definite beginning, we can say that it was created.

Therefore, it is only rational to say that the universe was created by a power that is above and independent of the laws of physics, as we know them. That power is clearly not restricted or confined to the basic laws of physics but far superior. Neither can this power be of a physical essence. It is also justifiable to expect this power not to have had a beginning because the concept of a beginning and for that matter time in general, has been shown to be a dimension of the physical universe only. In his ‘Theory of relativity’, Einstein stated that time, space and matter were all created when the universe was born, and that before that moment time did not exist. It is not easy for the human mind to envisage the concept of no time, but if one accepts that time is only a dimension of the physical world the idea becomes more acceptable. Further still, and since the universe had a definite beginning before which nothing existed, then such an awesome event (the creation of the universe) cannot be attributed to chance, since before that initial moment of creation nothing existed, not even chance!

A superior non-physical power and creator is the only possible explanation to this argument.

People say that if we do not see, hear, smell or feel something we do not believe in it. In other words, there is no perception of God so why should I believe in a God. If someone sees a map in an atlas will he say that I do not believe in these maps, as I have not seen the artist do this work (e.g. drawing of the map).

The laws of probabilities
The laws of probability offer another interesting argument:

If we throw the dice, the chance of obtaining double 6 is (1 in 36). What this means is that on average if we throw the dice 1000 times, the chances are that we should get double 6 around 27 times. Now if we throw the dice 1000 times and we obtain double 6 every single throw then there is a design, a system or a controlling force behind the throws. We can hardly call it chance.

The science of Genetics offers vivid evidence that chance could not be a factor in the process of creation due to the very precise combinations necessary in the building of cells. These requisite combinations defy all laws of probabilities.

On a large scale, we only need to look at the universe to be able to marvel at the endless examples of precision and beautiful design. Every field of scientific knowledge seems to testify to the existence of a master creator. It does not seem difficult to dismiss the possibility of chance.

The mechanical argument
The mechanical argument is also in support of the concept of a creator.

‘For every action there is a reaction, equal to it and opposite in direction.’

Everything that has moved was moved by something else. If we go back in time, tracing everything to its original mover, we would ultimately arrive at that which was not moved by anything else. That analysis will also lead us to the unavoidable conclusion of an initial Creator.

The Development vs. Destruction argument
Everything left unattended gradually disintegrates. If one builds a house and leaves it unattended, in a few weeks it will become full of dust. In thirty years or so the paint will start falling off. After two hundred years or so some of the walls will start to weaken and fall, and maybe in a thousand years or so the whole house will be flat to the ground. In other words, and if left unattended, any organized structure or system will eventually become one of chaos.

Never will chaos suddenly spring into a system. A house will never spring into being of its own doing.

If we try to analyse what has actually happened on earth we realize that it was quite remarkable. When the earth was first formed it was very hostile hot planet with no form of life whatsoever. The trend has been reversed, instead of things crumbling they have in fact developed all the time to higher forms of being. Chaos has developed into a system.

It is amusing, to put it mildly, to observe man so full of vanity thinking he is the master of everything merely because he is given some intelligence to discover some of the laws of the universe. In reality, man has no authority in setting or altering such laws. With the aid of the physical senses, man is given a view over a divine masterpiece, but considering the human being is a mere spectator within the huge universe, he can indeed be very pompous!

There is so much symmetry in the universe to be able to go through all of it, but one particular design has special appeal. And that is Macro/Micro pattern.

The Macro/Micro pattern
If we look at the universe at large we find that it is composed of vast areas of empty space and also other areas containing shapeless matter in the form of hot gasses, dark matter and formed stars. These stars group together to form galaxies. Our galaxy, ‘The Milky Way’ has within it no less than 100 billion individual stars. Our star, the sun, has nine planets in orbit around it. Most of these planets have a number of moons again in orbit. The basic force that governs the movement of all these bodies is gravity. The moons rotate around their planets, which all rotate around the mother star, which in our case is the sun. Similarly, all these stars revolve round the center of gravity of the galaxy.

Galaxies group together to form clusters of galaxies and once again individual galaxies revolve round the center of gravity of the cluster. Clusters group together to form super-clusters, and these obey the same laws. These are the largest units in the universe, as we know it today.

However, and if we proceed in the opposite direction, we notice that the similarity is truly remarkable. If we look at the other end of the scale and examine the atom which is the smallest form of substance able to exist in a chemical reaction, we find that it is compose of electrons revolving round a nucleus, in the same way as stars revolve round the center of gravity of their galaxies. Are we but seeing the fingerprints of the creator?

If one searches one can surely find God. God’s marvels are all around us. It was very naïve when the first man in space, the Soviet astronaut Yuri Gagarin, said when he was high in orbit around the earth:
“Where is God? I do not see him!”

It seems ironic though that he met his death in a helicopter accident, still in the air, where he could not find his maker! No doubt he found Him now!!!!!!

If we accept that the creation of the universe must have been the work of a supreme intelligent power, we are faced with another puzzle and that is: How many gods are there? Is God one, or could there be more than one god?

Third debate:

If God exists, how many gods are there?
Here the reference is made to some basic word definitions. The words absolute and relative are quite straightforward in what they mean. Anything relative is that which can be compared to or related to other things. Whenever we describe that object we are always describing it in relation to other things. On the other hand an absolute is that which is self-existent and conceivable without relation to other things.

If we return to our example of the room and the oven we can say that the oven is hotter than the room but that does not mean that the oven is hot in an absolute sense, for if we were to place this oven inside an active volcano it would seem very cool in comparison. An athlete is a very fast runner compared to road pedestrians but is indeed very slow compared to a motor car, and so on until it becomes clear that anything we see in life is relative because there will always be something that is cooler, bigger, older ….etc.

If we go back to our Big Bang theory we realize that what brought it about must have been a power that is above all the laws of physics that govern the universe. When scientists study the evolution of the universe they trace it back to the moment of creation or the Big Bang, but when they reach that point they find that all the laws of physics cease to be. Had they considered the same situation in a forward direction they would have realized that the Big Bang was the moment when all the laws of physics have actually began to be!

We have also noted that the force that brought about the Big Bang, and in effect the creation of the universe, could not have been related to this universe in any physical sense, for it is clearly the cause and not the effect of the universe. Since this supreme power is the cause then it must have been existent prior to and independent of the universe. Thus we can say that nothing in this universe can be related to that and if nothing can be compared or related to that power, then by definition that power is absolute.

The absolute God then means that nothing is like or akin to Him, but if we were to consider the possibility of the existence of more than one god, immediately the question will arise as to: which god came first, which god is more powerful and so on, and that would ultimately reduce these gods to being relative because comparisons will arise.

If God is absolute, by definition, He must be One.

Please also watch the videos "No Brainer!" and "Truth Seekers" at http://www.watchislam.com/videos/index.php?catid=-1

Interest and the Modern Banking System

2006-11-01T20:20:00.000+10:00

Most of the material in this article has been taken from the lecture on Riba (Interest) delivered by Mufti Taqi Usmani in England.

After the world has experienced the two conflicting economic ideologies (i.e. Capitalism and Socialism) without any success (as they have failed to provide a just and equitable economic system for the whole humankind), it is time to come back to the economic system provided by Allah Almighty in his last and final revelation, the Holy Quran.

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) has told us that earning halal is obligatory upon us after five time prayers. So, a lot of importance has been attached to the economic activity by the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). But at the same time, Allah has told us in the Holy Quran that economic pursuit should not be the ultimate goal of a Muslim. Economic activities are the means and not the end in itself. The main aim of a person is to be successful in the life hereafter. Nevertheless economic activities are a means to achieve this objective. Therefore, Islam has laid down some rules regarding our economics and Muslims are required to abide by them.

One of those principles is related to Interest (or Riba) and Allah Says “But Allah has permitted trade and has forbidden interest” [Al Quran, 2:275]. Trading and interest are different and not the same as some try their level best to prove.

This prohibition has become so evident in this day and age that it has never been the case in the recorded history. The horrors brought by interest based economy were unimaginable some centuries ago.

The banks make most of their money through interest. All the people deposit their money into the banks, and thus the banks have the wealth of the entire nation (plus they create money by fractional reserve banking). Now who benefits from this wealth in the banks? If you analyse, you will find that if a poor person goes to a bank to borrow money (for a business venture even if his idea is feasible) he will be kicked out of the bank. The reason being, unless he has collateral he cannot be given any money. The loan is only offered to the rich people (basically meaning that banks give business loans to those who can show that they do not need it). These rich people who obtain loans from the banks are of very small percentage of the total population. According to the statistics of 1997 from the State Bank of Pakistan, it was only 0.06% of all the depositors who borrowed this money from the banks. This means that the wealth of the whole nation is being utilised by a handful of people.

These entrepreneurs invest this wealth into profitable projects. Sometimes they earn huge profits out of their investments, and this occasionally reaches 100%. Taking an extreme example, if an industrialist has earned 100% profit, he will pass only a small amount of interest to the bank, and the bank after deducting its own share will pass the rest to the depositors. The layman is very happy that he deposited e.g. Rs.1000 and got back Rs.1050 in one year. But the poor person does not know that his wealth was utilised by the capitalist and he has earned enormous profits out of it (i.e. Rs.1000 in the above example). The Rs.50 which the depositor has earned is again taken back by the industrialist community, because whenever a borrower takes a loan from the bank, whatever interest he pays is included in the cost of his product. Thus, the prices of commodities that are sold in the market include the rate of interest that has to be paid to the banks. So when this poor person (who has earned Rs.50 on his Rs.1000) goes to the market and buys stuff, he pays this Rs.50 back to the industrialist community who used his money to earn Rs.1000 of profit. In reality, the depositors earn nothing. The whole profit has gone into the pocket of the entrepreneur.

On the other hand, if there is a loss, and if you take an extreme example, banks sometimes go bankrupt. So, then the money invested by the businessman was only 10% or 20%. It will be the depositors who will lose their entire wealth. In other words, if there is a profit, the whole earnings go to the capitalist, but if there is a loss, the depositors will have to bear the brunt of it.

There are other destructive aspects of Interest, and if anyone is interested, he or she can read the book “The Problem with Interest” by Tarek El Diwany (this book can be purchased from http://www.theproblemwithinterest.com/).

In addition, please read "The Web of Debt" By Ellen Hodgson Brown" (http://www.webofdebt.com/)

The interest based economic system was not so damaging in the past, but now its effects have engulfed the entire world. Some of the effects of the modern interest based economy are shown by the following statistics:

225 people own more wealth than the poorest 2.5 billion people (UNDP Human Development Report 1998).

24000 people die every single day because they are unable to obtain life sustaining food (UN World Food Programme, 2003).

Relieved of their annual debt repayments, the severely indebted countries could use the funds for investments that in Africa alone would save the lives of about 21 million children by 2000 and provide 90 million girls and women with access to basic education (UNDP Human Development Report 1997, p. 93).

According to the United Kingdom's Department for International Development in 2000, 1.2 billion people live in "abject poverty", meaning that they have no basic medical care, nutrition or housing. In the sub-Sahara, 48% of people go without health services, 48% of people are without safe water and 42% are illiterate, whilst in south-Asia the corresponding figures are 22%, 18% and 49.5%. Measured in 1987 US Dollars, GDP per capita in sub Sahara was $520 and in South Asia $521, whilst in the Industrialised Countries it was $12,764 (1995 figures compiled in (UNDP Human Development Report, 1998 ).

The income ratio of the one-fifth of the world's population in the wealthiest countries to the one-fifth in the poorest went from 30 to 1 in 1960 to 74 to 1 in 1995 (UN Human Development Report, 1999).

Now the meaning of the verse in the Quran has become crystal clear: Allah says “O you who have believed, fear Allah and give up what remains [due to you] of interest, if you should be believers. And if you do not, then be informed of a war [against you] from Allah and His Messenger. But if you repent, you may have your principal – [thus] you do no wrong, nor are you wronged” [Al Quran, 2: 278-279].

Logic of Hudood In Islam

2006-11-01T20:14:00.000+10:00

Most of the material in this article has been taken from the lectures of Mufti Muhammad Saeed Khan. The lectures were delivered in Urdu and I have translated them into English. If there is a point, in your opinion, that does not carry weight, it is due to the shortcomings of my translation skills, and not because of the material in the Lectures of Mufti Saeed.

I have also taken some material from Dr. Zakir Naik’s book “Answers to the Non-Muslims’ Common Questions about Islam” (the entire book which is 49 pages long can be downloaded from www.irf.net).

The System of Punishments in Islam

All crimes bring about inconvenience to humans in one way or the other; so Shariah (Islamic Law) prescribes punishments for the pain and hassle caused. In addition, Allah’s (God’s) disobedience takes place; hence, an offense has two aspects: it either violates both the rights of human beings and Allah or just Allah’s rights.

Before we go into the logic of punishments in Islam, it is important to understand the categories of law under which these sentences are carried out. There are three main categories under which a Qadhi (Judge) can convict a person for a crime and then the penalty for that felony takes place: Tazeer, Hudood and Qisaas.

Tazeer
Where there is no prescribed punishment in the Shariah, it is left upon the government and the Qadhi (Judge) to impose appropriate penalty (Tazeer) for that crime. Tazeer can change with time, place and circumstances. For example, in 19th century it may not be a big deal to jaywalk, but in this day and age where circumstances have changed, a government can impose a certain penalty for jaywalking (e.g. community service).

The chapter of Tazeer is vast, and hence Shariah has given a lot of power to the Qadhi. Though, the government can put restrictions on the Qadhi’s authority: for example, state can say that for a certain crime a Judge cannot imprison a person for more than a certain period. So it is left upon the Judge whether to implement the maximum punishment or not. Also, a government can prescribe a lenient or stern Tazeer (even death according to some Jurists) to deter people from carrying out that crime (if a certain offense at that particular time is on the rise).

Hudood
In certain crimes where violation of Allah’s rights is more than the human beings, a Hadd (the plural for Hadd is Hudood) is carried out. On the other hand, where individual rights take precedence, the crime comes under Qisaas (which will be discussed later).

In case of Tazeer, a government or Judge can pardon the criminal or accept a recommendation on a person’s behalf (and reduce sentence), but this is not the situation in Hudood.

There are five types of crimes for which Hudood are carried out: Robbery, Theft, Zina (fornication or adultery), Slandering of a chaste person and Drinking of intoxicants.

Four reliable witnesses will be required to carry out the punishment for Zina. If a person slanders a chaste women (e.g. saying her character is doubtful) he must provide 4 witnesses otherwise, he will himself be punished.

It is also important to note that a Hadd will not take place if there is any doubt whatsoever whether that person committed a particular crime or not (in that instance a tazeer will take effect). Hence, Hadd is no small matter and the advantage of doubt goes to the party or person accused.

Another point to be noted is that the second Caliph of Islam Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) temporarily cancelled Hadd for theft because of the drought. This proves that if the government cannot provide for the basic necessities of public (or certain pre-requisites are not fulfilled), Hudood will not be implemented for those crimes.

The sentence for robbery in Quran is in the verse of Surah Maidah: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” [Al Quran 5:33-34] Some Fuqaha (Jurists) are of the opinion that any one of these punishments can be given, others believe that the judgement will depend upon the circumstances (details can be found in the books of Jurisprudence).

The penalty for a thief is prescribed in the Quran. The Glorious Quran says in Surah Maidah: “As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power, full of wisdom.” [Al-Quran 5:38]
There are certain conditions for which this Hadd is to be carried out: if someone takes away something (a minimum of around 33 grams of silver’s worth) from a safe place without permission, secretly, then Hadd will be applied. Also, the stolen possessions should be someone’s private goods. In addition, there should be no share of the thief in the stolen goods whatsoever: for example, if a son steals from his father (there is some right of the son in that wealth and after the death of his father when inheritance will be divided son will get some part of that wealth) or a person steals from public property, say a chair from a public park (the person has some right on that chair even though it may be minute e.g. 0.0001%), in these cases, Hadd will not apply. In the above mentioned instances Tazeer will take place.

In the instance of Zina (fornication or Adultery) if a person is not married Allah has prescribed the punishment in Surah Noor: Allah says “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, - flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment” [Al-Quran 24:2] and if that person is married he or she will be stoned to death provided there are four witnesses for that crime.

If someone Slanders a chaste person and cannot provide witnesses he or she will get the punishment as mentioned in Quran in Surah Noor: Allah says “And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors Unless they repent thereafter and mend (their conduct); for Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful" [Al-Quran 24:4-5]

Lastly, if somebody is found guilty of being intoxicated he or she will be flogged with 80 lashes.

How to implement a Hadd
Firstly, it should be carried out in public. The hand will be chopped from the wrist and the foot from the ankle.

There are certain conditions for flogging with a whip. The clothes of that person will not be removed (if they are very thick there is some leeway). The notion which exists about whipping among the masses (that a well built barbaric person lashes as hard as he can) is false. The prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) used to implement Hudood through very knowledgeable Fuqahah (Jurists) Sahaba (companions of the prophet): Umar, Ali and Abdullah ibn Masood (may Allah be pleased with them).

According to the narrations of Abdullah ibn Masood (may Allah be pleased with him), a person cannot be whipped at the same spot all the time. The person who is carrying out the flogging should keep his upper part of the arm (shoulder to elbow) in contact with his body. After applying the stroke he must not pull the whip but raise it. The whip should not be too hard or too soft.

When these conditions are fulfilled the criminal feels the pain, but there are no wounds on his body, and he also feels embarrassed as the beating is carried out in the public.

Qisaas
The principle of Qisaas is explained by Allah in the verse of Surah Maidah: And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the wrongdoers [Al-Quran 5:45]. In Qisaas, the principle of life for life and injury for injury (same injury will be inflicted on the offender) will apply. If the victim or victim’s family (in case of murder) forgives the defendant, a compensation will be paid by the criminal (details can be found in books of Jurisprudence). The convict will not go free (otherwise he may commit the same crime again) and a Tazeer will be applied.

Logic of Hudood

One of the biggest objection on Islam is that the system of punishments in Islamic law is barbaric. According to the protesters, there is no need for stoning, chopping of hands or whipping, and that these penalties are old fashioned and out of date, hence, Muslims should leave them in these modern times.

Some Muslims, who are influenced by western thinking, also agree with the west’s objections and they suggest that we should keep Islam limited only to beliefs and worship, and when it comes to the matter of courts, secular law should take effect.

There are other Muslims who listen to these objections and keep quiet because they do not have any answer for the points raised, and therefore a doubt remains in their minds, although they do not doubt in the authenticity of Islam. But still they want answers to these questions in order to remove their doubt.

We start by saying that why is there existence of sins in the world, and why a person commits a sin? And what is a sin? Sin in Islam is breaking of a commandment of God: the bigger the breach of a directive the bigger the offense. So why does one violates an order from God? Is it because the person has no money or means to earn a living? Is it because of hunger that a person robs or steals or a woman is forced into prostitution?

In a society where there is unjust distribution of wealth and because of that there is hunger and poverty, this can cause someone to commit a sin. The Shariah (as mentioned earlier) will not implement Hudood (for robbery, theft and fornication and adultery) under these circumstances.

Wherever in the world (Islamic country or a western country) basic needs of people are not fulfilled crimes will take place. So what are the basic needs of a person? In Islam (from the narrations of Muaaz may Allah be pleased with him) the Prophet (peace be upon him) told us that the basic needs consist of a place to stay, clothes, a bed to sleep in, utensils for eating and drinking, transport (if not private then public transport provided by the government), instruments from which one earns their living (in the instance where a person is self employed, if not self employed then a job to earn a living) and a slave (this won’t be applicable in this day and age).

When administration of a country fulfills these necessities, what right a person has to commit a crime and disturb the peace of the society.

On the other hand, if wealth is more than the basic needs, is it a cause of crime? Sometimes it does, for example, a person did not drink alcohol because after expenses he did not have any savings left, but as soon as he starts to earn more he goes to a bottle shop and purchases a bottle of wine for himself. Hence, sometimes increase in wealth can take a person towards sin. That is why wealth either too little or too much can cause one to disobey God.

What else can be a cause of sin? At times, occupation (the power and authority which comes with it) becomes a cause of sin. Occupation is similar to wealth in the sense if there are no jobs in the society then crimes will increase. You can put this in the category of occupation or wealth it is up to you. The other side of occupation or authority is that it brings oppression (either on a smaller level or a larger scale) with itself. Only those who are proper human beings (who are God fearing and morally not corrupted) can stay away from tyranny, otherwise the rule of thumb is that the more power a person has the bigger his oppression will become. For example, when someone was the governor of the state he did not commit much oppression, but as soon as he becomes the president of the country, his cruelty increases many folds. The amount of oppression is also dependant upon the haughtiness of a person and that is why Quran, in many places, has combined tyranny with arrogance (kibr). The purpose of Islamic teachings is to create people who will stay on the right path and do not get affected by wealth and power (many examples of these people can be found in the history, especially among the companions of the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him).

So wealth and occupation are causes of sin.

When a government wants to stop crimes in a state, what are the things the people of that country should be protected from or should protect? Will certain things get more protection than others? If a woman drops a ring worth $3 at her friend’s place, she may not worry about it, but if it is valued at $1000 then, without any doubt, she will do her best to get the ring back. This means that certain things require more protection than others, and certain articles require little or no safeguarding at all.

Which things need to be protected in a society is the million dollar question where Islam and west clash and disagree.

When it comes to the protection of wealth, Islam is slightly lenient than the west. If a son steals from his father in a western country the consequences can be dire, but in an Islamic state it will not be that big a deal, since the son has some right to that wealth and later after the death of the father some of that money is going to come the son’s way. Therefore, west, in certain instances, is stricter than Islam when it comes to the protection of wealth.

But when it comes to punishments, Islam is stricter. Islam asks the question that what right a person has to steal someone’s wealth (whether someone commits a fraud because he abuses his power and authority, or an ordinary person wants to increase his possessions, or it is just pure arrogance that why a certain person has more wealth than I have; because I am the head of a tribe or I have more power or prestigious occupation so I should have more wealth) after his basic necessities are being fulfilled? Islam says that first the money should be returned to its owner, and then we should stick such a humiliation with that person for the rest of his life (i.e. chopping off his hand) that not only that person but his generations to come will remember that their father, grandfather or great grandfather was a crook and they will think seriously before deciding to steal from someone else. They will never be proud of their criminal ancestor no matter how prestigious an occupation that person had or how arrogant or powerful that person was, and they will think twice before stealing just because of their power, authority and arrogance (and they will not think of themselves as superiors to others and on those basis take away others’ money). The society will remember for generations to come that certain family had an ancestor whose hand was chopped off, and it will act as a great deterrent no matter how much power, authority or prestige that family achieves later in their lives; and they will think again and again before stealing purely based on the occupation. If we only give the offender a minor punishment or just take away the stolen money from him, he or someone in the generations to come might again commit the same offense. I am asking you the question when a public execution will be carried out and whenever that criminal walks in that society without a hand (which will act as reminder to others) will theft and robbery increase, stay the same or decrease in that society?

The second thing that needs protection is self-esteem. Islam stresses it a great deal more than the west. Even the self-esteem of child is significant in Islam. For example, if a father embarrasses his daughter in front of her friends, then Islam says that the parent will be answerable to God on the day of judgement. Children are not possessions of the parents but rather they are like a trust. Islam teaches that self-esteem is of such importance that no one has the right even to verbally swear, abuse or insult a person (no matter how tiny the abuse). On the contrary, in the west it may be considered insignificant (for example, if someone calls a woman a “slut”).

So no one is permitted to play with someone’s self-esteem on the basis of wealth, authority, power or haughtiness. Therefore, no one can utter a sentence which will make others feel insulted. At the time of the rightly guided caliphs, people could take those to court who in some way have made them feel inferior or bad because of misuse of their tongue. For this reason, any slander especially a remark made to degrade a chaste women (e.g. saying her character is doubtful or she is a slut) or a chaste man is prohibited, because such a remark from an authoritative figure can ruin life of someone in the society or at least cause psychological stress (e.g. depression), and thus the life of that person is affected.

Hurting someone’s feelings is a big sin in Islam, and anyone who slanders a chaste person and does not provide evidence for their remarks will be punished severely under Islamic law. Ideally everyone will be safe from the tongue of others in a true Islamic society.

Islam is extremely sensitive on this issue and preaches that there is no reason why one utters a remark which can cause sleepless nights for others, and it affects their performance at the work place. Even today in certain tribes, the leader of the tribe can print in the newspaper that certain woman’s character is not good, and then that woman’s life is ruined. West in this regard recognises that no one should be verbally abused, but it does not go all the way as Islam does in uprooting this vice from the society.

The third thing which needs protection in Islam is religion. West is of the opinion that it does not matter whatever your beliefs are, and you can change them if you wish. Islam stresses that if you do not protect the religion of a person, on what grounds are you going to ensure the protection of good conduct, morals and ethics of a society. If religion is gone from someone’s life, then what force is there to tie up a person so that his morals and ethics remain intact, and that he will not lie, cheat or be dishonest or will not abuse his authority? What influence is there to prevent a person from doing all of the above mentioned things if he thinks that he can get away with it?

If you think that a law of a country will make sure of that, well what happens if the grip of the law becomes weak (it is the case in the third world countries in these times) who will prevent a person from breaking the law (whether it is breaking a traffic signal or swindling millions from a company) if he thinks he can get away with it. Religion is the only force which will prevent someone from committing a sin or a crime whether he is alone or in public or he thinks he won’t be caught by the authorities.

Nehru, a former Prime Minister of India, used to say that I am a communist (and do not believe in religion) and I also want people of India to have the highest moral standards. But there is no way other than religion to guarantee the highest moral character in a nation.

Fear of God in someone’s mind is a great deterrent against sins and a person who is a practicing Muslim will not indulge himself in immoral acts even if he thinks no one is watching and that he will never get caught. If you do not guard religion of a person you will create a society in which sooner or later people will engage in acts which will be harmful to themselves and to the society as a whole. For this reason, Islam lays great significance on the protection of religion and anyone who renegades from Islam will be severely punished (in Islam there is no compulsion to become a Muslim but if someone wants to become a Muslim then that person enters into a contract with the Islamic state that he will not leave Islam).

Someone might say well why Islam and why not the protection of any other religion? Well then I have to start a whole new topic of discussion. To keep things concise, we must recognize that all the major religions of the world have their basis on revelation from God (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc). The Muslims ask the question well whose revelation is protected in its original language? No other religion can claim that their manuscripts are the same as the day they were revealed. Even the languages in which they were revealed have been lost in majority of the cases. If the revelation is protected in its original form then the religion is protected in its original form, otherwise the true teachings of that religion are lost. It is only Quran which is still in its original state and no one can prove that a single word has been changed since it was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Not only the original text is the same, but Arabic is a living language as well. So the final edition of revelation from God, according to the Muslims, is Quran, and that is why God will protect it from corruption until the day of Judgement.

For a detailed answer to the question "Do you really kill people if they leave Islam?" please visit http://www.islamnewsroom.com/content/view/92/26/

The fourth thing which needs to be protected in Islam is Lineage. If the family-line is not safeguarded and people do not know who is the father of whom and who is the son of whom, then in that society the number illegitimate children (children born out of wedlock) will rise to a great extent. Who will then be responsible for the proper upbringing (raising children with good moral values) and who will be responsible for the children financially? If you say the mother, well then she will have to work and will never be able to devote her time needed for appropriate upbringing. If you say that the state will look after those children financially, well what happens if the government goes bankrupt or financially weak?

Moreover, Psychologists tell us that children who do not know their parents, especially their father undergo severe mental trauma and disturbances. Often they have an unhappy childhood. It is for this reason that the children of prostitutes do not have a healthy childhood.

Another evil which rises in some countries because of this is fighting (especially among teenagers and even adults) for girlfriends. In some instances, even murder takes place. Along with that, adultery is one of the reasons for divorce rates being on the rise.

In the west you can see teenage girls carrying their children born out of wedlock, and these young girls are solely responsible for them. This also gives rise to abortion and many lives are lost just because west does not care whether a child is born out of wedlock or not.

I do not want to go into the details of the evils of sexually transmitted diseases (such as AIDS, Herpes, Genital Warts etc…) which until 100 years ago were unheard of. Just because of sex out of marriage is on the rise, so are the sexually transmitted infections. If I start writing just on the evils of STD’s, then a whole new article will need to be written (please read the article "Sexually Transmitted Diseases" on this website to get the complete picture).

Those of us who come through a proper family system can imagine what it would be like if we were raised without a father. People who have done some good in the society on a large scale, 99% of them come through a proper family system. And those who were born out of wedlock, not many of them are recognised by the nation for their achievements.

So how can west deny that protection of lineage is not necessary, and those of us who live in the west know that the western governments encourage people to marry and raise a family. Anyway, Islam in this regard lays great stress, and thus discourages any sexual relations out of matrimony.

The fifth thing which Islam stresses on being protected is intelligence. Islam does not permit that any drugs or intoxicants be used in the society which influences the intelligence either temporarily or permanently. West also believes in the protection of intelligence, but it is partial. That is why drink driving is prohibited, there are age limits and certain places are dry (alcohol-free). However, west says that you can lose your intelligence temporarily at a pub or at your own home, while Islam preaches that a person should be in control of their intelligence for the whole time. The reason being that attaining of heaven and hell is based on intelligence; as Allah says in Surah Mulk “They will further say: "Had we but listened or used our intelligence, we should not (now) be among the Companions of the Blazing Fire [Al-Quran 67:10]

Alcohol has been the scourge of human society since time immemorial. It continues to cost countless human lives, and causes terrible misery to millions throughout the world. Alcohol is the root cause of several problems facing society. The statistics of soaring crime rates, increasing instances of mental illnesses and millions of broken homes throughout the world bear mute testimony to the destructive power of alcohol.

The human beings possess an inhibitory centre in their brains. This inhibitory centre prevents the person from doing things that he considers wrong. For instance a person does not normally use abusive language while addressing his parents or elders. If he has to answer the call of nature, his inhibitory centre will prevent him from doing so in public. Therefore he uses the toilet. When a person consumes alcohol, the inhibitory centre itself is inhibited. That is precisely the reason that an inebriated person is often found to be indulging in behaviour that is completely uncharacteristic of him. For instance, the intoxicated person is found to use abusive and foul language and does not realise his mistake even if he is addressing his parents. Many even urinate in their clothes. Neither do they talk nor walk properly. They even misbehave.

According to National Crime Victimisation Survey Bureau of Justice (U.S. Department of Justice) in the year 1996 alone everyday on an average 2,713 rapes took place. The statistics tell us that the majority of the rapists were intoxicated while committing the crime. The same is true in cases of molestation.

According to statistics, 8% of Americans commit incest i.e. one in every twelve to thirteen persons in America is involved in incest. Almost all the cases of incest are due to intoxication of one or both the persons involved. One of the major factors associated with the spread of AIDS, the most dreaded disease, is alcoholism.

Due to these vices, Islam prohibits consumption of intoxicants and anyone found guilty of drinking alcohol is penalised severely.

So after wealth, self-esteem, religion, lineage and intelligence are protected, and still there is crime in the society, it could be related to the unjust distribution of wealth. Islam has provided a complete economic system which ensures just and fair distribution of wealth, and thus it eradicates poverty from the society. If crime is because of authority, Islam provides a person with morals and ethics and makes the person a proper human being.

Well you might say why is that Muslim countries are among the poorest and morally corrupt in world? This is a fair question and those of us who have some knowledge of Islam know that majority of Muslims have left the teachings of Islam. They are Muslims because their parents were Muslims, otherwise their lives are totally devoid of Islam. That is why Muslim countries are suffering the disastrous consequences in this era. History bears testimony that when Muslim majority was following the teachings of Islam, they were not only financially sound but also peace and harmony existed in their societies. If Muslims are again to rise as a nation, the only solution for them is Islam, otherwise majority of them will have to keep on living the life of misery.

I would also like you to read the article "Making Pakistan Safe for Rapists" by visiting the following website: http://www.albalagh.net/women/0096.shtml

May Allah guide us to all to the straight path.

Intelligence versus Revelation

2006-11-01T20:03:00.001+10:00

Most of the material in this article has been taken from Mufti Taqi Usmani’s lecture.

There is a small percentage of Muslims who say that we should Islamise all facets of the law, but majority of the world does not support this view.

Almost all the countries of the world are secular states. The main argument behind this form of government is that human beings have got intelligence, and combined with their observation and experience, humankind can make decisions to run all aspects of life: issues such as economic, political, social etc.

The question is that how strong an argument is this? Is intelligence unlimited? Of course not, we know that there is limit to our intelligence, and beyond that it will start to err. A similar analogy is that of a computer program; e.g. a software is designed for a certain purpose, and if you feed certain information into the computer it will give you the desired results. On the other hand, if you input data for which it is not programmed to answer, then it will give you an error.

History is full of examples where human intelligence has lead many astray, and now after hundred of years later, we realise that how intelligence has deceived humanity.

Over eight hundred years ago there was a sect called Batni Sect; their leader Ubaidullah bin Hasan Kiranwi, had an interesting ideology. He wrote to his followers that when someone has a beautiful, intelligent girl at home (i.e. your sister) and she understands the psychology of her brother (as she has lived with his brother for years) then why that man should marry someone from outside who may not comprehend fully his needs and wants (as compared to his sister). If your sister can cook, clean and do other chores for you, then why cannot she go a step further and fulfill your sexual desires as well.

If one looks at this argument through pure rationalism, then one has to admit that it is very logical. That is the reason why some of Ubaidullah’s followers married their sisters.

Because of this rational thinking, these days we see that many western countries are passing legislations for gay marriages. The logic behind this is that the government should not interfere with a person’s private life; what someone does with their own time is that person’s private matter. To understand what is wrong with homosexuality, please the read the article "Homosexuality and the Logic Behind its Prohibition" on this website.

Furthermore, in this day and age, people curse Fascism, and therefore, Hitler and Mussolini have extremely bad reputation among the masses. But if an average person reads their literature, he will have to agree that their philosophy sounds very logical.

There are numerous examples where intelligence has led civilisations astray, but for the sake of brevity, I will have to stop here. Please the read the article "The Disasters Darwinism Brought to the Humanity" on this website to understand how our intelligence deceived us once again. I would also recommend the articles "Interest and the Modern Banking System" and "Modern Economy: Progress or Destruction" as further reading where human intelligence has again caused horrors for the masses.

It is evident that intelligence or rationalism can take people off track, and this can be proven even for the current times through statistics. The damage which has been caused by these secular philosophies is there to see for those who have got brains and are well read.

If intelligence is not unlimited then who will decide what is right and what is wrong. If we leave everything to our intellect, then different people, nations and cultures will have different ideas about right and wrong. Islam says that there is something beyond intelligence and that is revelation. It is the creator who should decide what is the correct track to follow, and where we should draw the line. The reason being that our creator (and not our intellect) best understands what is good for the humanity as a whole.

Revelation does not tell us how to build a house or a nuclear plant. It is left upon humans, because these are things within the realms of our brain. Where the jurisdiction of intelligence fails for the human kind as a whole, there revelation guides us and tells us that if we take a certain path the whole human race will benefit, but if we do not, then majority of human beings will be at a disadvantage.

Unfortunately, most of us have left the teachings of our creator and have chosen rationality over His teachings; because of this, most of the world is suffering from the terrible consequences: extreme poverty, hunger, lack of education, lack of health care etc. Below are some statistics to further convey my point:

225 people own more wealth than the poorest 2.5 billion people (UNDP Human Development Report 1998).
24000 people die every single day because they are unable to obtain life sustaining food (UN World Food Programme, 2003).
Relieved of their annual debt repayments, the severely indebted countries could use the funds for investments that in Africa alone would save the lives of about 21 million children by 2000 and provide 90 million girls and women with access to basic education (UNDP Human Development Report 1997, p. 93).

Now that our intelligence has failed in providing for even the basic rights for the entire humanity, it is time that we turn back to the system which our Sustainer has chosen for us. As history has shown, when Muslims used to follow the teachings of Quran and the way of the Prophet (peace be upon him), the society as a whole was just, peaceful and thriving. If we do not mend our ways and keep guiding ourselves through our intelligence, then we should brace ourselves for worse things to come.

Striking Women in Islam?

2006-11-01T19:27:00.007+10:00

The Quran cannot be understood correctly unless you read or learn the explanation of the Quran from an authentic scholar. The tafseer or exegesis of the Quran is generally based on the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him). Just reading the translation of the Quran is not enough, because people’s intelligence and level of knowledge are different, therefore different individuals will reach different conclusions if they read the same verse of the Quran. A related analogy is if an ordinary person reads a medical book and starts prescribing medicines for the sick. Of course, the results would be disastrous. Similar is the case with the Quran. In order to understand it we have to go back to the knowledgeable scholars who have spent most parts of their lives in learning and teaching about Islam.

The verse which is sometimes quoted by non-Muslims is in Surah Nisa. It says, “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct (or arrogance), admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, Most Great (above you all)” (Al Quran, Surah Nisa 4:34).

The objections raised by non-Muslims are generally based on the lack of knowledge of the tafseer of this verse. The word used in the verse is qawwaam, which means protectors. Allah has given most men more physical strength than women, and also men are more protective by nature. That is why we see more men in the armies than women. Men will generally protect their women, and if necessary, will fight for them as well. Allah has kept this quality of protection among men. Men generally are less fearful than women. That is why most women demand more security whenever they go out of their homes. I know there are exceptions, but rules and regulations are not made on exceptions but on generalities. The second meaning of qawwaam is maintainers. It is the responsibility laid by Allah upon men to take care of the majority of administrative matters outside of the home, e.g. earning livelihood. It should also be noted that the word qawwaam implies one degree higher in responsibility, not one degree higher in superiority. And this responsibility should be carried out by mutual consent of both husband and wife.

Afterwards, Allah explains the reasons behind assigning these responsibilities to men. The first rationale is that men usually have more strength than women and also Allah has created men and women for different purposes (in some aspects of life). This is the reason why God created them physically and psychologically different (as scientific research has shown). Hence, in some facets of life, men and women have equal rights, while in other aspects women have more rights than men and in certain cases men have more rights than women. Islam believes in equality of men and women — ‘equality’ does not mean ‘being identical’.

Suppose in a classroom of 100 there are two students, ‘A’ and ‘B’. During an examination both came first — both secured 80 per cent marks. Out of the hundred students, both A and B came first. When you analyse the question paper, the question paper had 10 different questions, each carrying 10 marks. In question No. 1 student A got nine out of 10, and student B got 7 out of 10. So in question 1 student A scored higher than student B. In question No. 2, student A got seven out of 10 and student B got nine out of 10; student B scored higher than student A in question No. 2. In question No. 3 both of them got eight out of 10, both were equal. So when we add up the marks of all the 10 questions, both student A and B got 80 out of 100. In short, the two students were equal, but in some questions A is better than B, while in others B is better than A, in still others both are equal. In the same fashion, taking the example that since Allah has given man more strength — suppose a thief enters the house, will you tell your mother, sister and your daughter, to go and fight the thief since you believe in women’s right? No, naturally you’ll fight him; if required the women may interfere. Under normal circumstances since Allah has given men more physical strength, men have to go and tackle the thief. So here, in physical strength, man is one degree higher than the woman. Let us take another example where it comes to giving respect to the parents. The children are supposed to respect the mother three times more than the father. Here the women are three degrees higher than men — over all both are equal. Therefore, Islam believes in equality, not being identical. In Islam, the role of men and women is complementary, it is not conflicting. It is that of partnership, not to strive for supremacy.

The second reason is that they spend from their wealth. In Islamic teachings, the life of a woman has been made very easy as compared to the women in the West. When a woman is living with her parents, her father takes care of her expenses. If the father dies, her brother (if she has one) takes care of her. When she becomes a wife, her husband is responsible for her expenses. She also gets the mehr (marital gift or money paid by the husband to his wife after they get married). If her father-in-law dies, she receives a part from his inheritance as well. So basically, in an Islamic state, a woman does not have to worry about earning a living as that is the responsibility laid upon men by Allah. But this does not mean that she cannot work. A true Islamic society requires women to take up professions such as doctors. We do require female gynecologists, nurses and teachers, but a woman in Islam has no financial obligations. The financial obligation is laid on the shoulders of the man in the family. Therefore, a woman need not work for her livelihood. But in cases where there is financial crisis in which the family cannot make both ends meet, she has the option of working. Here too, no one can force her to work — she works out of her own, absolute free will. She can work if the need arises. But if she has children and is financially secure, then it would be her responsibility to bring up her children properly, and teach them Islamic morals and ethics so that they become proper human beings and an asset to the human race.

Women play an important role in society. If a person achieves something in his or her lifetime (and is a benefit to society), it is generally because of the upbringing of his or her mother. Also, as a wife she plays an important role. If the system of the house is not working properly, men will not be able to carry out their jobs at the workplace, and hence the productivity in society is affected. Even Mikhail Gorbachev (former president of the USSR), in the fourth chapter of his book Perestroika admits that one of the reasons for the downfall of the USSR was that Russian women went to the workplace, and thus, the children’s upbringing was not proper, which resulted in the downfall of Russian society. He warns Europe that if they repeat this mistake, a similar fate will await them.

Now after Allah has explained the reasons for men being protectors and maintainers of women, Allah starts to praise women who are righteous, devoutly obedient to Allah or her husband (in matters which are not against the teachings of Islam) and finally those women who guard (when her husband or father is not at home) their chastity. These women will get huge rewards in the hereafter.

Even in this day and age (where the majority of Muslims do not practice Islam), Muslim women are a lot more loyal to their husbands than their Western counterparts. They guard their modesty and chastity even if the husband is away for years (overseas to earn a living). That is why the cases of adultery are considerably less among the Muslims than in the West. This is one of the reasons why the divorce rates among Muslims are negligible as compared to the West (where in some countries 50 to 60 percent of marriages end in divorce).

In Islam, a lot of rights have been given to women. For example, even if she says to her husband that a certain friend or relative of his cannot come to visit their house (e.g. because in her opinion that person is a bad influence on her children), then the husband must oblige and he will have to meet that person somewhere else. Unfortunately, because of lack of knowledge, Muslims do not follow the teachings of Islam.

After praising women with certain qualities, Allah talks about the strategies to deal with those women with whom men might have some disagreements at home. As Allah says, with those women whom you fear (here scholars have stressed that one has to be absolutely sure and it should not be based on a mere doubt) are guilty of ill conduct, these are the women who are arrogant or do not respect others (the respect they deserve) properly, are outspoken (or in colloquial terms loud mouth) and disregard the feelings of others to some extent. For these women, Allah says that the first thing a man should do is to advise them. Talk to them and explain to them what the matter is. Experience has shown that most of the times this approach will work if someone talks out a problem with his spouse. And if a man is 100 percent sure that this plan of action is not working and further talking with the wife will not be of any use, then the husband should refuse to share the bed with her. If she sleeps in the bedroom, he should sleep in another room (jurists say that one thing which should be kept in mind is that if either the wife or the husband ask for sexual relationship, even in these circumstances, then the other person has to oblige, otherwise there is a chance that adultery might take place). Moreover, after the husband is certain that this approach is not working, then he is allowed to strike within the prescribed limits of Islam.

A lot of people have objections to this word in the Quran, because they have some other ideas in their minds of beating a person. In Islam, it is forbidden to hit someone on the face (even in the battlefield, Prophet Muhammad Peace Be Upon Him forbade his companions to hit a person on the face). In addition, Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) told us that no one should beat his wife in a manner which would leave a single mark on her body. Furthermore, Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) said to Muslims that the worst husbands are those who behave like donkeys and beat their wives during the daytime and sleep (have sexual relations) with them during the night. When Abullah ibn Abbas, a great scholar of Islam, was asked about the meaning of beating in this verse, he said that you can strike her with your siwaak (twig used for brushing teeth) in a way which is not demeaning and does not affect her self-esteem, just to caution her and that is it. In another narration, Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) told us that the best husbands are those who never strike their wives. Unfortunately, because of lack of understanding of the Quran and conduct of some bad Muslims, this verse gives people the wrong impression.

So, in the light of all this, it is allowed in Islam, as a last resort, to strike one’s wife once in a while with as little an object as a twig, just to admonish (and not to insult or demean) her. And it would be preferable if he abstains even from this act.

Lastly, Allah says if any of the aforementioned strategies work, then do not seek ways to oppress them by any means whatsoever (because a husband could still be angry at his wife even after she patches up with him), and thus transgress the limits set by Allah. As it is Allah who has made you the protector and maintainer over her, and if you abuse your rights over her, then Allah is Most High and Most Great (in every respect over you, and you will be answerable to him on the Day of Judgment).

Before I finish this article, I want to quote some statistics on domestic violence in the West. In the West too, women’s abuse is very high. While the exact numbers on domestic violence incidents differ, because this is an under-reported crime, there are statistics on which most experts agree.

1. In 1984, the US Surgeon General declared domestic violence as this nation’s number one health problem.
2. A woman is beaten every 15 seconds by her partner; it happens at some time in 25-35 percent of American homes; 4,000 women die from such abuse each year (FBI).
3. Physical abuse by male social partners is the single most common source of injury among women aged 15 to 44, more common than auto accidents, muggings, and rape by a stranger combined (US Surgeon General, 1989).
4. In the US, medical costs from domestic violence total at least $ 3-5 billion annually. At least another $ 100 million can be added to the cost to businesses in lost wages, sick leave and absenteeism (Sylvia Porter, For Your Money’s Worth).
5. Women of all cultures, races, occupations, income levels and ages are battered — by husbands, boyfriends, lovers and partners (Surgeon General Antonia Novello, as quoted in Domestic Violence: Battered Women, publication of the Reference Department of the Cambridge Public Library, Cambridge, MA).
6. Approximately one-third of the men counselled (for battering) are professional men who are well-respected in their jobs and their communities. These have included doctors, psychologists, lawyers, ministers, and business executives (For Shelter and Beyond, Massachusetts Coalition of Battered Women Service Groups, Boston, MA, 1990).
7. According to the Council of Europe's member states, almost a quarter of women in Europe have suffered physical or sexual attack. In Spain, some two million women say they have been the victims of psychological or physical abuse.

Statistics such as these should awaken all those in denial of the fact that wife beating and abuse is an endemic disease in all different cultures, religions and communities. It is as common in Western as it is in Eastern societies.

Men in Western (and Eastern) societies do not abuse their wives because of scriptural teachings, but because of a natural instinct of domination and aggression. God, knowing this, has therefore decreed a perfect law to help men control their temper and to solve any problems.These statistics reflect the failure of modern societies in treating this perilous condition in men. Despite advances in modern psychology and improved understanding of behavioural patterns of men, civilised and uncivilised, a successful solution to this aggressive behaviour has not been found by mankind. A solution has however been presented to the world in the Quran, the final testament, more than 1400 years ago, in the verse 4:34.

Please also watch the video Women in Islam, Liberated or Subjugated?