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)
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Friday, August 31, 2007
The Reality of Jizyah
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.
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.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Female Circumcision in Islam
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).
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).
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
The Reality of Money and the Banking System
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
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
"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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)