Orientalists (Part 3)

Qur’an and Hadith

A cursory examination reveals that the two, Qur’an and Hadith, belong to completely different orders. So that, if someone doubts the authenticity of Hadith, whether or not they are the Prophet’s words, then the question that arises is - the two being literally so different - if the Hadith is not the Prophet’s words, whose words are they? This should explain why the Orientalists took great pains to prove that the reported Traditions were not the words of the Prophet. It was a simple plan. If they could prove that the Hadith statements were false attribution to the Prophet, fastened upon him by later generation Muslims, the Qur’an could not be left without an author. Prophet Muhammad would be its author, and Islam could be declared a non-revealed religion.

But the efforts, lasting well over several hundred years, did not yield the desired results. It was an impossible task and had not been taken up with sufficient consideration. The Orientalists did not foresee the insurmountable difficulties they would face a few decades later, appearing one after another, as the time passed, making it more and more difficult to sustain the theory. At the start, problems had remained hidden, like storms behind the pleasant morning breeze, to appear late in the afternoon and wreck havoc on their plans. But, once they had started the process of falsification, they arrived at a point where they found themselves, so to say, trapped. It was a point where full light of evidences glared upon them exposing the hollowness of their scholarship and integrity of their class.

Problems

The following are a few problems the Orientalists did not foresee when they began their crusade against the Hadith. For example, what would happen after Hadith was proven as not the words of the Prophet? Yes, then the Qur’an could be attributed to him; but, why should it become Muhammad’s making? How could it be, when the Prophet himself denied any role in its production, and a quarter million souls contemporary to him not only bore witness to his denial but also believed that he could not have in fact produced it, even if he tried to? The problem is quite serious. It is like saying Bertrand Russell was the author of the Theory of Relativity. It will not work because, Russell himself made no such claim. In fact, he wrote a book to explain it, and attributed the theory to someone else.

The Orientalists were aware of this problem, i.e., their attribution of the Qur’an to the Prophet, while he denied it, and so maintained – in earlier stages - that somebody else was involved in it. That is: admitted the Prophet could not have produced the Qur’an, somebody else had been behind the scene dictating it to him. Subsequently, this theory had to be discarded. Historical evidence did not yield a shred of evidence. The identity, for instance, of the person who supplied the material – for well over 23 years - became an unresolved problem. After all, Jewish and Christian scholars contemporary to the Prophet (saws) were part and parcel of the body-politic of the time and knew every man of importance around. Why did they fail to identify the man who helped the Prophet in his making of the Qur’an? Again, why was the man hiding? Why did he not claim the credit for himself? How did Muhammad pay him off for his services? Why did the man not speak out when Muhammad had emerged triumphant over the rest of the Arabs to become head of a state? Finally, why did he not surface up after the Prophet’s death, when no less than five men and women claimed prophethood? He could have produced some more of the Qur’an and claimed prophethood for himself, with greater chances of success. Such were the questions that remained unresolved and so the suggestion was quietly taken off their writings.

With the assumption that the Qur’an was Muhammad’s production another problem arose. Admitted the Hadith literature is a compilation of later generation Muslims, but, where are the Prophet’s own non-Qur’anic utterances? Where are his sermons? Where are the details of his everyday life? When an ordinary politician, who happens to be a known liar, evokes such interest about himself, that people wish to know how he spends his hours, how he treats his family and children, and so on, why were Muhammad’s followers, who, immediately after his death, laid their lives in thousands in defense of the religion he gave them, were not interested to know anything about him? Were they not interested in knowing and preserving for their progeny anything about a man they believed was a Messenger of God for whom lives could be laid down at a time when, immediately after his death, his message seemed to be a lost cause? With the entire Arab world of the time including what is today UAE, Qatar, Yemen, and the best part of Saudi Arabia, (barring Makkah and Madinah), having apostatized, did it not look like the days of Islam had ended? Yet, the Companions (perhaps 2-3 percent of the entire population), stood up and fought it out. Did these 20-25000 men and women not care to pass on to their progeny something about the Prophet? Obviously, this is unthinkable. So, it must be assumed that what is known today as Hadith literature, cannot be entirely fabrications of the later generation Muslims, but also contain materials that are truly the statements of and about the Prophet. If so, which part of it is it? In other words, the whole cannot be rejected as spurious, as some Orientalists maintained, (as do the Muslim Hadith-deniers of today maintain), but only a part. It is merely a question of identification.

Yet another complication consisted in not considering that if the Hadith are not the Prophet’s words, rather, those of his followers, then whose words are those that are separately preserved as the words, statements, speeches or writings of his followers? This question arises for the same logical reason as the question about the Hadith when compared to the Qur’an. The words and statements of his followers, immediate or later generations, are also very different in their style, diction, language and composition from those of the Hadith. The Hadith too, like the Qur’an, though in a lesser degree, is unique in its style, diction, language and composition. Barring a few phrases, statements of the Prophet’s followers do not match at all with the words of the Hadith. We have for instance Qur’anic interpretations offered by the Companions and their first and second generation followers. We also have the letters of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman, written to the government officials. The speeches of ‘Ali as well as several other kinds of recorded material is also available for comparison.

For example, one could compare the following passages of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman in the choice of words and ways of expression with those of the Prophet. A rudimentary knowledge of Arabic language should be enough to mark the differences.

Indeed, if one were to compare the style and expression used by the companions, with those that are found in the traditions of the Prophet as narrated by the same persons - Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman – it is easy to note differences in diction and style.

Further, since the standard Arabic – lugha fus-ha – was undergoing changes at a fast pace during the early Islamic centuries, the language used by later generation Muslims, is once again very different from what we have quoted above. The difficulty continues down the generations. To recapitulate: if the Qur’an is by Prophet Muhammad, whose words are of the Hadith? If the Hadith is by the Companions and their immediate followers, whose are the words attributed to the Companions and their followers? If the words attributed to the Companions and their followers are of third-fourth generation Muslims, whose are the words attributed to third-fourth generation Muslims?... until perhaps down to several centuries.

Contradictory Positions

A third problem unfolded itself but so gradually that by the time the Orientalists became cognizant of it, it was too late for any corrective action. From the earliest times the Orientalists were trying to row two boats at a time. One was stout denial of the words of the Prophet as his, and another, a scintillating criticism of what he said and did. This led to complications and left the Orientalists trapped in a mesh of their own creation.

Reported acts such as the following were accepted as authentic: he had nine wives; he married ‘A’isha when she was nine; he fought dozens of battles; he did not prevent the killing of the Jews of Banu Qurayza; he married his adopted son’s divorced wife; he allowed his Companions to collect booty; and so on. All these are in Hadith and not denied by the Orientalists as authentic. Sale wrote: “It is certainly one of the most convincing proofs that Mohammadenism was no other than a human invention, that it owed its progress and establishment almost entirely to the sword.” He also wrote, “That Muhammad was, as Arabs are by complexion, a great lover of women, we are assured by his own confession.” So Sale had confessions of the Prophet! Where is it but in the Hadith?

There were many other things that the Prophet said or did that the Jews and Christians would not approve of. To the Orientalists they were so horrendous to hear that the Prophet cast shadows on his own authenticity therewith. To give a few other examples, Paradise is under the shade of swords; women were dear to him; two religions were not to co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula; he married Zaynab under questionable circumstances, he married the evening that saw the culmination of the death sentence of some 150 people, etc. In short, there were many statements and events of the Prophet’s life that the Orientalists accepted as his words and deeds that deserved systematic and unrelenting criticism. Those were the reports that helped them write his biographies – trusted by all Orientalists as reflecting the truth, and to be quoted as authoritative opinions.

For every accusation leveled against the Prophet, the Western scholars had proofs and evidences that went back to a source. If he committed rape and indulged in adultery, how could it be substantiated? Well, was it not there in biographical accounts produced by believers in him: Waqidi, Ibn Sa‘d, Ibn Ishaq and others? Similarly, when they wrote that the Prophet committed incest, they had first-hand knowledge from Hadith books that say that he married the divorced wife of his adopted son after he had accidentally seen her in a revealing situation.

In other words, not all Hadith material was fabrication. Some were true reports. But, if these reports were taken from Hadith compilations, then, what were the rules of acceptance and rejection? This question the Orientalists would not discuss. In fact, they never discussed the Principles of Hadith Criticism that had been formulated by the earliest Hadith scholars. It was plain that they had a specific agenda when they attacked the Hadith literature as unauthentic. What they liked – whether they were in trusted works (Bukhari, Muslim and others) or distrusted collections - were Muhammad’s words and deeds; and what they did not like – although in trusted collections - were not his words and deeds! Indeed, the honesty of Western scholars and writers was of such order that some reports were both true as well as untrue at the same time. For example the following statement of the Prophet,

“O people! Do not wish to meet the enemy. Seek Allah’s protection. However, if you meet the enemy then be patient and know that Paradise is under the shadows of the swords.”

In the above example, the first part was ignored while the second part was often quoted to prove that Muhammad was a warrior-prophet.

Another interesting example is of Bahira the Monk. During the early attack on Islam, to all the experts in the West, the story was authentic. Here was proof that the Prophet had been taught by a Christian monk during his journey to Syria. The Prophet was around 12 year old at that time. Where was the story? It was in history books. In fact, earliest Christian writers condemned Bahira as a heretic for having taught religious truths to Muhammad – so trustworthy was the report. But the interesting aspect is that to the Western scholars, the implications of the story were true, though the narrative itself was not. To explain: that the Prophet had met the Monk was true. But that the Monk foretold that this lad was a future Prophet was untrue. Further, the miracles that the Monk witnessed were also untrue. But the implication that the Prophet had learnt from him was true. That is, since the Prophet had met Bahira, the implication that he learnt from him was a reliable conclusion, even if the story says nothing about the leaning sessions. It was only after several centuries – when such ridiculous rules of acceptance and rejection came to light, and researches confirmed that there was something fishy in the story, if all versions were accepted - that the report as a tool of attack on Islam was discarded.

Similarly, narrators were both trustworthy as well as untrustworthy. Generally speaking, Abu Hurayrah is considered untrustworthy. But when Abu Hurayrah narrates that the Prophet forbid that Hadith be written down, then he becomes trustworthy. What was reported by others as allowing Hadith to be written down, was summarily dismissed as not worthy of consideration.

At the root of such kind of behavior was that the Orientalists were never ready to give any credit to the Prophet, not even as much as they would to one of his followers. This led them to strange anomalies. For example, while discussing the issue of injustice done to Sufism by the Orientalists, Martin Lings wrote that “.. when his (Arberry’s) attention was drawn to the Shaykh Ahmad al-`Alawi who only died in 1934, he freely admitted that ‘here was a man whose sanctity recalled the golden age of mediaeval mystics.’” (What is Sufism, Martin Lings, p. 124, Suhail Academy 1999). But it did not perhaps occur to Arberry, or to others, that if one of the Prophet’s followers deserved such praise, then, what is the quality of praise that his Master deserves who exerted such influence even after 1400 years? Further, could someone gain such eminence as to remind of the “golden age of mediaeval mystics” although the foundation on which he laid his structure happens to be spurious viz., the Hadith?

Another Trap

The Orientalists maintained that the Qur’an was most reliably the Prophet’s own words. But, this led them to another trap. On occasions they disregarded Qur’anic statements in favor of Hadith statements. For example, the Qur’an states that the Prophet and his Companions had gone out in 2 A.H. to Badr to face the pagan army, and that they were fearful on that account. The Qur’an said:

“As your Lord brought you out of your dwellings with truth, although a section of the believers were reluctant, arguing with you (O Muhammad) concerning the truth after it had become clear, as if they were being driven into death while they were looking on”

(Al-Anfal: 5,6)

To explain: Some of the Muslims were hoping dearly that they would not meet with any enemy force, but rather, get their hands on the trade caravan. But that was only a wish. That they will meet the enemy in battle-field, was clearly understood, and so “as if they were being driven to death.” The Qur’an said,

“When Allah was promising you that one of the two parties will be yours while you were wishing that the one unarmed should be yours. But Allah was wishing that He demonstrate the Truth by His Words, and cut off the roots of the unbelievers”

(Al-Anfal, verses 5-7)

But the Orientalists ignored the Qur’anic statement, and accepted the Hadith version, which leads to the conclusion that the intention at the beginning was to waylay the Abu Sufyan trade caravan. The preference of hadith over the Qur’an in this instance was to maintain that the Prophet had sought to loot a caravan and that his early associates were looters.

In short, whatever Hadith came in handy to prove that the Prophet was not genuine, who had succeeded in recruiting thugs for loot, or did things that, according to the Orientalists, a Prophet should not have done, it was acceptable. Otherwise, the Qur’an was more reliable.

Such were the standards of scholarship and integrity of those who rejected the Hadith. And such has been the scholarship and integrity of those of the Muslims who follow the Orientalists in rejecting the Hadith.

It must be admitted though that if the Orientalists failed to prove that the Hadith was entirely a fabrication of later generation Muslims, they did not fail in their second objective which was to plant doubts about the authenticity of the Hadith. Here their efforts paid off handsomely. Those who came under their influence, and who had not read any Islamic literature from their original sources, believed in them as they believed in their scientists, thinkers, reformers and statesmen. The results were disastrous, both for the Islamic world as well as the non-Islamic. One of the consequences was that Islam as a system of life and government was abandoned by those Western trained Muslims who assumed political power at home, while a vigorous spread of Islam in the West was made impossible. Western peoples are not as deficient in wisdom, as is assumed and even propagated by the Westerners themselves, but the fact is, they were never allowed encounter with Islam in its true form. And the credit goes to the Orientalists.

Bible?Who wrote it!!!

Bible

This is a documentary.

http://whowrotethebible.wordpress.com/

Enjoy

Al-Qu'ran

Definition of Al-Qu'ran

It is necessary to define the Quran, from this definition we will know what is allowed to be read in prayer and what is not. What is a proof in Hukm Shari and what is not. Also it will tell us what will make somebody go into Disbelief by denying and what does not constitute disbelief. So when we define Quran we mean the Quran as evidence in Fiqh.

It is the word of Allah that is revealed upon his slave Muhammad in the Arabic tongue It is a miracle (Ijaaz) in even the shortest Surah, it is written down and narrated to us through Tawattur (multiple chains of transmission), through which we worship Allah by reading it, it starts with Surat al-Fatiha and ends with Surat Al-Naas. (See Al-Ihkaam by Sayf ul-Deen al-Aamidi 1/28 and Rawdat al-Nathir by Ibn- Qudama al-Maqdisi 1/178).

From this definition many points come to mind. The definition excludes any Book that is not the word of Allah, or revealed in the Arabic tongue. It also excludes any narration that has not reached us via a Mutawattir chain of transmission. Also it excludes anything that is not miraculous or beyond human ability because of this other forms of revelation is not considered a miracle such as the Sunnah.

Firstly: It is the word of Allah. The evidence that it is the Word of Allah is the fact it is miraculous i.e. Ijaz. The Ijaz in the Quran is outstanding eloquence that is beyond human ability. Now as it is from Allah it becomes a proof, to follow in rulings. Also when we say it is the word of Allah it excludes other forms of revelation such as the Hadith Qudsi or other statements of the Prophet.

Secondly: All the Quran is in Arabic. It is completely Arabic and contains no foreign tongue. Imaam Shafi says in his Risaala, “The Quran indicates that there is no portion in the Book of Allah that is not in the Arab tongue. He who expressed such an opinion [concerning foreign words in the Quran] may have found some [men] who accepted it by [sheer] submission (taqlid) to his authority, leaving the matter of proof up to him and to those who have disagreed with him. However, by mere submission they have neglected [their duty]; Allah forgive them and us. But, perhaps, he who expressed the opinion that there are in the Quran [words] which are not of the Arab tongue-and his opinion was accepted by others meant that there are certain particular [words] which are not understood by some Arabs.”

Furthermore the ignorance of the Arabs about some words of the Quran is not an evidence that the Quran contains foreign words. Rather there is a possibility that some non-Arabs learned some Arabic words and then it became wide spread in their language. Because of this some of their words may correspond to some words mentioned in the Quran, or maybe some foreign words entered in the Arabic language. And hence it became part of the Arabic language itself and therefore cannot be considered a foreign word anymore as the Arabs used it as part of their language, even if its root is foreign.

Many verses point that the Quran is completely in Arabic such as:

"Verily it is the revelation of the Lord of the world, brought down by the faithful spirit, upon thy heart, that thou mayest be of those who warn, in a clear Arabic tongue"

( 36: 192-195)

“Thus We sent it down as an Arabic Law”

( 13:37)

“And so We have revealed to thee an Arabic Quran in order that thou mayest warn the Mother of the towns and the people of its vicinity”

[ 42: 7]

“An Arabic Quran with no crookedness in it, perchance they will be God fearing”

[ 39: 29)

“If We made it a foreign Quran, they would have said: Why are not its communications made distinct? What, foreign and Arabic”

[ 41: 44]

Also the Book of every prophet is in the tongue of his people, as for non-Arabs they they have to learn the Arabic language. Imaam Al-Shafi says,

“It is obligatory upon every Muslim to learn the Arab tongue to the utmost of his power in order [to be able] to profess through it that there is no God at all but God and Muhammad is His servant and Apostle and to recite in it [i.e. the Arabic tongue] the Book of God, and to utter in mentioning what is incumbent upon him, the Takbir, and what is commanded, the tasbih, the tashahhud and others.”

The translation of the Quran is also not considered the Quran however accurate it is. Because of this we cannot use the translation to derive rules from verses, also there is no prayer reading the translation, nor is there worship by reading the translation.

Thirdly: The Quran is narrated to us via Tawattur i.e. the transmission that benefits certainty, it has come to us by oral and written transmission since its revelation to the prophet of Allah until this day. When the revelation began to come there was those who use to write the revelation and at the same time it was memorized by many companions. This continued and was passed down from one generation to another and hence it is impossible that they can all conspire to lie, add, change or remove anything from the Quran.

This is unique to the Quran in comparison to previously revealed books such as the Torah and Injeel. As the Quran completely has come through Tawattur it hence means that it benefits certainty and therefore it is definite proof. As for the Shaath readings of the Quran or the Hadith Qudsi then they are not considered Quran. Also the definition states that the Quran is only what has come through Mutawattir transmission which removes any narration that has come through Ahad narration (single narrator).

Understanding the Quran requires understanding Arabic language or at least the ability to appreciate the qualities of Arabic language.

Ummah Wasat

The Meaning Is Not Lost In Translation

It is important that some people do not fall into a trap, whether their intentions are good or bad, of taking Western meanings and applying them on Islamic words by twisting their necks and contrived interpretation.

"Ummah Wasat" is a word used in the Qur'an by Allah regarding the Islamic Ummah, and hence it is the best Ummah brought forth for mankind.

"Ummah Wasat" is an honorable Qur'anic description bestowed by Allah upon His believing slaves through the message of Islam, and made it their duty to inform the world about its message.

"Ummah Wasat" is a specific Shar'iee (legal) criterion, upon which the Ummah of Islam's performance is judged, so we see if it is in a state of trying to please people, or pleasing Allah.

Ummah Wasat is this specific criterion; it is this honorable Qur'anic description; and it is this important Qur'anic word. But today, this word no longer holds that important meaning with the people in their daily lives, since the meaning of it has become mixed up in the minds of some, and was corrupted by others. Some people removed its true meaning, and inserted new meanings that do not come from the Shari' (Islam), but rather come from man's mind and human desires.

Some have interpreted it based on modern interpretations, that give in to the current reality, and that emanate from a defeated mindset and from the culture of surrender to the enemy. They said that "Wasat" means to be somewhere between extremism and giving in. Some said that "Wasat" is meant in a geographical sense, related to our physical location, atmosphere and bearings. And some even established "Wasat" political parties, called "Hizb Al-Wasat", where their policies were somewhere between being "religious" and secular.

In this manner, the meaning of this word became confused amongst the people, and the correct could not be distinguished from the incorrect, and thus the matter now requires re-explanation and clarification. We need to set the spotlight on it once again, so that we can know its reality clearly, and understand its meaning correctly, where it's image in one's mind becomes clear, accurate, and removes all misunderstandings from it.

Allah, subhanahu wa ta'ala, said: "And thus We have made you an "Ummatann Wasata", so that you may be witnesses over mankind, and the Messenger a witness over you". In this honorable Ayah, the word "Wasat", which was used to describe the "Ummah" of Islam, is attached to two additional realities: The witnessing of the Ummah over other nations, and the witnessing of the Messenger Muhammed, sallAllahu 'alayhi wasallam, over the Ummah of Islam.

Linguistically, the word "Wasat" means the just, the best (in goodness), the top choice, the finest, the best (in quality), and the most honorable. It was stated in Lisaan Al-Arab: "The most 'Wasat' of a thing is the best of it, the finest of it and the most just of it". Ibn Katheer said: "The 'Wasat' is the top choice and the best quality", as it was said: "Quraysh is the most 'Wasat' of the Arabs in lineage and in quality of living", i.e. the best. And it is said: "Muhammed, the Messenger of Allah, sallAllahu 'alayhi wasallam, was the 'Wasat' amongst his people", i.e. the most honorable amongst them in lineage.

The meaning of 'Wasat' linguistically is very similar to its legislative (Shar'iee) meaning. It was narrated by Al-Tirmithi of Abi Sa'eed Al-Khudree of the Prophet, sallAllahu 'alayhi wasallam, regarding the Ayah "And thus we have made you an 'Ummatan Wasata'", he said: "(meaning) a just (Ummah)", and he said this Hadith is Hasan Saheeh. As for Al-Qurtubi, he said "Al-Wasat: is what is below the Prophets and above other nations, and Al-Wasat means 'the just'. And the origin of this is that the most thankful of all things is the most "Wasat" of them." And it was mentioned by the 'Ataa Abu Rashta, the author of the book "Al-Tayseer Fee Usool At-Tafseer" (Making the Fundamentals of Tafseer Easier to Understand), regarding the meaning of the above Ayah, he said: "The wording here, in the form of 'notification' (Seeghat Al-Ikhbaar), comes as a request (Talab), meaning a request for us to call to Islam" and he added: "Justice is a condition to being witnesses (over other nations), therefore the 'Wasat' Ummah are the ones who are fit for the role of being witnesses over other nations. This is an honor from Allah (subhanahu wa Ta'ala), and a privilege for the Muslims, that He made them a 'Wasat Ummah'."

To apply this meaning to reality, it is necessary for the Islamic Ummah - seeking to fulfill the meaning of "Wasat" - to speak out to the world, and be in a position of addressing and leading them, so that they can clearly establish the proof (Hujja) for them.

From this we can see that the meaning of "Wasat" is unrelated to being extreme or moderate, or finding a middle solution, or having a geographical or material meaning, or anything similar. The word "Wasat", as mentioned in the Ayah, is a level of justice and goodness that the Ummah must reach, not some level of "moderation", or finding a balance between two contradictions, or some compromise that the West calls to; rather it is clear to see that what is meant by this word here is a level of justice that allows us to be witnesses over mankind, and a level of goodness that allows us to carry the guidance of Islam to the world. Goodness here is a simile to justice, and they are both required when calling to Islam, ordering the Ma'roof (good), and forbidding the Munkar (evil).

This meaning is further supported by the Ayah: "You are the best nation brought forth to mankind, you order the Ma'roof, you forbid the Munkar, and you believe in Allah", and the Ayah: "And let there come from amongst you a group that calls to The Good, orders the Ma'roof, and forbids the Munkar, and they are the successful ones", as well as the Hadith: "Goodness is in me and my Ummah until the Day of Judgment".

These evidences match the Shar'iee meaning of "Wasat", and match the meaning of "witnesses over mankind" mentioned in the Ayah "…so that you may be witnesses over mankind", so the core relationship between "being witnesses" and "Wasat" becomes apparent, meaning "just".

The author of the book "Al-Tayseer Fee Usool At-Tafseer" said: "This is in the meaning that the Islamic Ummah is a just witness over all other nations after Islam, from their calling them to Islam. On the other hand, they are also just witnesses over all other nations before Islam from their knowledge of previous prophets having informed their people of the Message of their Lord, as mentioned in the Hadith narrated by Al-Bukhari and Ahmed: "On the Day of Judgment, a prophet is brought forth with one man, or two, or more, and then his people are called forth and are asked 'Did this man inform you (of the Message of Allah)?' and they will reply 'No.' (The prophet) will be asked 'Did you inform them (of the Message of Allah)?' and he will reply 'Yes.' He will be asked 'And who is your witness?' and he will reply 'Muhammed and his Ummah.' So Muhammed and his Ummah will be brought forth and they will be asked 'Did this man inform his people?' and they will reply 'Yes.' They will be asked 'What is your knowledge (of this matter)?' and they will reply 'Our prophet Muhammed, sallAllahu 'alayhi wasallam, came to us and informed us that the (previous) prophets had informed their people. This is in the Words of Allah (And thus We have made you an Ummatann Wasata, so that you may be witnesses over mankind, and the Messenger a witness over you)'." And in another version of the Hadith: "…so Muhammed, sallAllahu 'alayhi wasallam, is brought forth and is asked about his Ummah, and he says good things about them and bears witness regarding their just qualities, and this is in the Words of Allah (And thus We have made you an Ummatann Wasata, so that you may be witnesses over mankind, and the Messenger a witness over you)."

It was narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim that Anas said: "They passed a funeral and said good things about it, so the Prophet, sallAllahu 'alayhi wasallam, said "It has become and obligation, it has become an obligation, it has become an obligation". Then they walked past another funeral and said bad things about it, so the Prophet, sallAllahu 'alayhi wasallam said "It has become and obligation, it has become an obligation, it has become an obligation". Umar, radhiAllahu 'anhu, then asked what this meant, and the Prophet, sallAllahu 'alayhi wasallam, replied: "Whoever you spoke well of, Jannah (Heaven) is an obligation for them, and whoever you spoke badly about, Jahannam (the Hellfire) is an obligation for them. You are the witnesses of Allah on earth, you are the witnesses of Allah on earth, you are the witnesses of Allah on earth." And Al-Tirmithi added in his version of the Hadith: "Then the Messenger recited the Ayah "And thus we have made you an Ummatann Wasata".

Being an Ummah Wasat is also affirmed in the third part of the Ayah "…and the Messenger (be) a witness over you", which includes the present, the past and the future of the Ummah. Added to this is the Hadith of the Prophet, sallAllahu 'alayhi wasallam, "Oh Allah, have I conveyed (the message of Islam)? Oh Allah witness (that I have)", where he made conveying Islam a pre-requisite to bearing witness, hence conveying Islam is the subject of bearing witness, which will continue until the Day of Judgment.

This meaning is further confirmed by the Ayah "And fight in Allah's Cause as you ought to fight. He has chosen you (to convey His Message), and has not laid upon you in the Deen any hardship. It is the path (Millah) of your father Ibrahim. It is He (Allah) who has named you Muslims, both before and in this (the Qur'an), that the Messenger (Muhammed) may be a witness over you and you be witnesses over mankind"

From this, we can see that these attempts to confuse the meaning of "Wasat" mentioned in the honorable Ayah by using new and strange terms related to extremism or moderation are all rejected, for they only lead to dividing the Ummah into categories that fight amongst each other, causing Fitnahs (tribulations) and civil wars. The meaning of "Wasat" in the Ayah is referring to all Muslims and all categories, and it is not permitted for any one category, group, or school of thought to monopolize it. This word is one of the firmly establishing principles of Islam, and measures must be taken to ensure that it applies to the whole of the Ummah. Describing one group or another, this can only lead to internal conflict within the Ummah, and submitting the Ummah to their enemies. Therefore, it is a duty upon all groups within the Ummah, their scholars, and their schools of thought, to restrict their definition of the word "Wasat" to "justice" alone, as was defined by the Messenger of Allah, sallAllahu 'alayhi wasallam, and defined by the great scholars of old. Regardless of one's good or bad intentions, we must not fall into the trap of borrowing Western meanings and applying them to Islamic words by twisting them and using contrived interpretation to force them to match up.

The Messenger of Allah, sallAllahu 'alayhi wasallam, cried when he heard a Companion reciting the Ayah "And how will it be when We bring forth from each Ummah a witness, and we bring you (oh Muhammed) as a witness on them (the Muslims)?" He said: "Hasbuk", while tears rolled down his cheeks. It was as if the Messenger of Allah, sallAllahu 'alayhi wasallam, was expecting what was to come of news of the Muslims; what they invented of Bid'ahs, what they let go to waste, what laws they transgressed, and how they caused the Muslims to become weak, losing their honorable position that is suitable for them, after the fall of their true Islamic State, the Khilafah. Their lands were torn into pathetic, weak, small countries, incapable of defending themselves against even the smallest foreign threat, and they lost the resources they needed to spread guidance and Islam to the world.

Thus, the shortest path to returning the Islamic Ummah to implementing the true meaning of "Wasat" is through their return to ruling with what Allah has revealed, resuming the Islamic way of life by re-establishing the true State of Islam, the Khilafah; only then can this honorable Ummah be described as the best Ummah, the Ummatann Wasata, the Ummah of Justice, the carrier of the true and great message of Islam to the world.

Where disagreement can exist in Islam

This is a Audio dicussion about, Where disagreement can exist in Islam.


001_A_004 Islam...

Enjoy

Excavating Evolution

Evolution

Evolution has become a fact that is worshipped at all levels. Since Darwin proposed his theory, the concept of evolution has become so institutionalized that it is regarded as an indisputable fact that is above questioning, doubt, or criticism. Those who even suggest an alternative are either censored or labeled as freaks who go against the tide of everything advanced, modern, and civilized. Even the Church, regarded by many as the ''Last stand against Evolution,'' has given to defeat and has accepted evolution as a fact.

It is clear that the Theory of Evolution contradicts Islam clearly; Evolution claims that life emerged from material and evolved into its different forms through random mutation and selective environmental pressures, while Islam states that life originated from Allah (swt) and that Allah (swt), and not randomness or natural selection, created all the diversity of the living world. Yet the idea of the Theory of Evolution, and its foundation of ''Scientific Ideology'' is so pervasive that even Muslims have become institutionalized with them. Many Muslims are at a loss when it comes to confronting the Theory of Evolution, and this lack of understanding may result in Muslims giving way to the ideas and thoughts of the Kufr culture, which may ultimately result in Muslims trying to reconcile between those Kufr ideas and Islam. As a result, the Muslims have been bombarded and cultured with ideas such as Evolution and Scientific Ideology to such an extent that many Muslims would be led to believe that Islam is a ''scientific'' way of life or that Evolution does not contradict Islam.

Today the scientific thinking represents the prevailing thought of the West which it is trying to propagate to the world, and the West takes a great amount of pride in this ''scientific thought.'' Furthermore, the Theory of Evolution is a concept -- perhaps the most pervasive concept -- that has emerged as a byproduct of this method of thinking. This concept has become so dear and respected in the eyes of the people that even the slightest challenge to either the Scientific thinking or to the Theory of Evolution will strike at the very emotions of the people.

The Muslims must understand every arm of Kufr if they are to be able to address the people and present Islam to them in an effective way. When Muhammed (saw) carried the Daw'ah, he addressed the prevailing thoughts and ideas of the people, he attacked their method of thinking and challenged their ideas, and he presented Islam to them in an effective manner. The Muslims are obliged to carry the Daw'ah in the same manner, and not understanding the thoughts and ideas of the Kuffar makes carrying the Daw'ah impossible. The prevailing thought among the West is that the scientific method can be used at the ideological level in order to address the human being and to present solutions to human problems and to the problems of human societies. Also, the West has pushed for the idea that the scientific method or thought can be used to arrive at a doctrine of belief and prove the existence of what was before and after the life, as well as to prove the origins of man, life, and the universe. As a result, the Theory of Evolution has emerged as a byproduct of this thinking in order to provide a doctrine of belief, or an Aqeedah, based on scientific thought. Because the scientific thought and method are used by the Kuffar to arrive at the doctrine of belief and to address human beings and human problems at the level of the ideology, and the Theory of Evolution represents this view of scientific thought. Thus, it becomes imperative for the Muslims to understand what is the scientific thought and method, what are the limits of science, and what is the basis of the Theory of Evolution in order to put things in their proper perspective and address the Theory of Evolution in the proper perspective.

Building Belief

Because the scientific thought is believed by many to be a basis for thought and building belief, and the Theory of Evolution is a result of this thinking, then it is important to discuss the criterion for establishing belief and arriving at the doctrine of belief, or the Aqeedah. Human beings perceive their surroundings directly and, through their perceptions, they acquire information about their surroundings. By linking this information with previous information they have through use of the mind, human beings arrive at certain facts and conclusions, which provides the basis for thoughts, concepts and ideas about life and the universe. This process, called the intellectual or rational process, is what distinguishes human beings from all other creations, and it is the only way in which thoughts and ideas are arrived at, and these thoughts and ideas form the basis of belief.

For a belief or thought to be definite and correct, it must be established upon definite facts. In the absence of definite facts, one can only speculate or make assumptions, which leads to doubt because speculation and assumptions cannot be proven as correct. Only through the rational or intellectual approach, which depends upon the process of thinking to arrive at definite facts, can the correct belief or thoughts be established.

The question that comes is: What sources provide information which human beings, through the rational approach, can arrive at definite facts? The only sources of information are:

Directly through sensory perception of the surroundingsInformation from a credible source for things that are beyond the senses and the comprehension of the human mind.

Realities that lay beyond the realm of sensory perception and comprehension cannot be proven conclusively based on observation through the senses because they are beyond the realm of perception. Such things include: Past events, the origin of life and the universe, what was before life and the universe, and what will come after life and the universe. Information for such things can only come from a credible source, and the validity of the information will depend upon whether the source of the information – whether it is the Bible, or the Qur'an – can prove itself to be a credible source. From these two sources, definite facts are derived, and from these facts, thoughts and ideas are arrived at, which form the building blocks of belief and the foundation of the ideology.

The Limits of Science

Based upon the process of building belief, it is evident that science has its limits. The scientific method is a specific method in research used to find the reality of something by subjecting the thing to experimental conditions and environments other than its original conditions, and then comparing the original and the imposed conditions in order to deduce facts. Through this process a tangible reality is deduced. This process can only be employed in research on the tangible things that can be subjected to experimental conditions. Furthermore, the result that is obtained by the scientific method is not absolute, but indefinite and subject to error or the possibility of error. The possibility of error in the scientific method is one of its principles as laid down in scientific research.

These facts show plainly that science cannot be used to build belief or thoughts and concepts about man, life and the universe, nor can science be used to address human problems and needs because such things cannot be subjected to experimental conditions. One cannot put human problems, human societies, and the issues that human beings face and subjugate them to laboratory or experimental conditions and derive conclusions or solutions to such realities based on the scientific method. Similarly, one cannot observe things beyond perception or beyond the comprehension of the human mind, such as what existed before life and the universe, what will come after life and the universe, or the origins of man, life, and the universe, and subjugate these things to the scientific method because the scientific method only deals with tangible objects that can be subjected to scientific experimentation. Furthermore, the possibility of error is inherent in the scientific method. A fundamental precept of the conclusions that are deduced through the scientific method is that they are subject to error or to the possibility of error, and this fact eliminates the possibility of science to be used as a basis for building define facts about man, life and the universe.

Also, the scientific method is an offshoot of the rational method and is not a basis of thought. The rational method deals with things that are within the realm of sensory perception and comprehension by the human mind and senses, while the scientific method is restricted to those things among the perceivable and comprehensible that can be subjected to experimental conditions. Therefore, the scientific method cannot be made as a basis of thought because it is not an origin that could be built upon, but a branch of an origin. There are many things that lay within the comprehension of the human mind and the perception of the human senses – such as human problems, the issues that human beings face, the fields of language, fiqh (jurisprudence), and linguistics, and the political movements of nations and societies – that are sources of knowledge and facts but cannot be subjected to experimental conditions and the scientific thought. Treating the scientific method as an origin would exclude a great deal of information and sources of facts from research, and would lead to the absence of a large number of branches of knowledge which contain facts, even though they definitely exist and are felt through the senses and reality.

A person can expose water to extreme heat or cold and observe that it freezes at a particular temperature and boils at another temperature using measuring devices, but the same person cannot use such a procedure for taking an angel or a piece of Hell-Fire and deriving certain conclusions through observations. Similarly, a person can analyze a distant star by using instruments that can measure its energy output, but there is no instrument that can detect the Creator and measure the Creator's dimensions and composition. Similarly, a person can study enzymatic reactions in a cell or observe through a microscope the physical features of cell tissue cultures, but he cannot do the same with the economic and social problems of human beings and deduce facts based on scientific experimentation.The correct method of discussing ideas is not through the scientific thinking because scientific thought is restricted in studying materials and laws of the universe and understanding the processes and systems that organize and govern the universe and its components. If science extends beyond its limitations to attempt to answer questions that are beyond its scope, then the end result will completely contradict science. Those who observe the universe expanding and wish to propose a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe are forced to make a silly assumption that everything started with a ''Big Bang,'' without any means of testing such a phenomenon or observing it to know with certainty whether it actually happened. Furthermore, the attempt to bring scientific thinking to the level of the ideology and to use it as a basis for solving human problems (what is called ''Scientific Ideology''), as the Communists attempted, would result in an ideology incapable of providing any correct foundation of belief that agrees with the human nature and would lead to a system devoid of addressing the human needs, resulting in countless suffering and oppression as a result of treating human beings and human problems and issues as subjects of laboratory experimentation. The correct method arriving at a belief as a foundation for the ideology is through the intellectual method which relies upon the thinking process to arrive at definite, conclusive facts.

Science cannot be used to build belief or as a basis or thought, nor can it be used as an ideology capable of addressing human problems and human needs because such things, though they are within the realm of sensory perception, cannot be subjected to the scientific method or experimentation. Because the Theory of Evolution is an attempt to build belief based on the scientific method, which science cannot do, then it is invalid from this perspective. However, because of the pervasiveness of Evolution, this fact is not enough for many, and therefore, a more in-depth study of Evolution becomes necessary.

Evolution Defined

The Modern Theory of Evolution is believed by many to have had its origins in Charles Darwin, but the concept of Dialectic Evolution existed even before Darwin. Many intellectuals and scientists abandoned the idea of Creationism, more as a negative reaction to the Church during the Middle Ages in Europe than out of sincere conviction, and the idea that life emerged into its great diversity as a result of some kind of evolutionary process was adopted. It was Darwin who was the first to propose an explanation of a mechanism by which such a process was supposed to take place.

Through both observation as well as through scientific experimentation, one observes the great diversity that exists throughout the living world. At the same time, there exist many similarities that exist between the different shades of life, and these scientifically deduced similarities form the basis of the idea among modern day scientists that life evolved from one another through an evolutionary process and that the different variants of life are related to one another through an ''Evolutionary Tree.'' Based upon this ''Evolutionary Tree,'' the scientists correlate the similarities that exist between the living organisms to an evolutionary sequence. Greater similarities between two forms of life would imply a recent evolutionary relationship, whereas a lesser degree of similarity would imply a more distant relationship. However, the central idea remains the same: All life evolved from one another, and the diversity of the living world had its origins from the process of gradual evolution.

The central concept of the Modern Theory of Evolution is the term natural selection, which Darwin coined as a process by which, through selective pressures imposed by the environment, certain species who are best adapted to live in the environment are selected for by a sorting process of elimination of the weak and continuation of the strong. In summary, the Modern Theory of Evolution is based upon three principles fundamental to it:

Principle of Variation: Among individuals within any population, there exists variation in all aspects.

Principle of Heredity: Offspring resemble their parents more than they resemble unrelated individuals.

Principle of Selection: Some forms are more successful at surviving and reproducing than other forms in a given environment, and these forms are selected for and continue to reproduce, conferring their traits to their offspring. This concept is also termed as ''Survival of the fittest,'' in which those that are ''more fit'' are selected for and continue to reproduce whereas those that are ''less fit'' are gradually eliminated.

According to this theory, new environmental selection pressures will emerge throughout time, and those organisms that carry the more successful adaptations are selected for and the less successful ones are weeded out along with their traits and characteristics. The new adaptations result from random changes, or mutations, in the genome of the living organism, which confers new physiological, behavioral, and other features. Upon these concepts of random mutation and natural selection rests the Theory of Evolution.

The Fallacy of Evolution

In spite of its glamour, the Theory of Evolution cannot be proven definitely because it is based on information of events that cannot be reached either scientifically or rationally. The scientists observe the similarities between organisms, and the question then comes: How did life emerge with its tremendous diversity and yet retain so many similarities between the different shades of life? To answer such a question, one needs to either subject the origins of life and the universe, or what was before the life and the universe, to experimental conditions, or the observer must have existed at the time of the creation and ''evolution'' of life and the universe to perceive the events. The only other source of information would have to be a credible source. As for subjecting such things to the scientific method, it is beyond the scope of science to subject what preceded life or to confine millions of years of events to experimental conditions. As for observing the process of evolution of life that the scientific community claims to have occurred, one must have lived several million years ago and had several thousand years to observe such events to see what really happened. Because no human being can make such a claim, the only other source of such information regarding the origin of man and life is from a credible source.

The question that comes is: How do the scientists reach their conclusion that life came about through evolution? The answer is that they do not reach a definite conclusion because they cannot – such events that they claim to have occurred are beyond the senses as well as beyond the process of scientific experimentation, and they have no credible source of information that they can claim to exist, other than what they perceive. Because they cannot perceive what they claim to have occurred, they are forced to make an assumption based on their observation of the similarities that they observe – such as the biochemical, anatomical and molecular similarities – that life evolved from one another through gradual evolution caused by chance mutations in the genomes of living things and through the pressures of natural selection.

Thus, the Theory of Evolution cannot be taken as a basis for thought or ideas because it is an assumption of an event that happened in the past based upon direct observations. There is no way to prove an assumption conclusively; it is just speculation. Also, if the assumption is incorrect, then everything based upon that assumption is invalid. Speculation and forging guesses on the basis of events that may have happened is an incorrect way to build any belief or thought or idea; it must be built upon definite, conclusive facts arrived at through the rational method based on observations of things within the realm of perception, and not based on speculation on things beyond the perception of the human mind and senses.As was discussed before, the scientific method has its limits; it is confined to those things that are tangible and can be subjected to experimental conditions, from which certain conclusions and realities are arrived at. By extending this notion to include events that cannot be subjected to experimental conditions – such as the origins of life, man and the universe – the scientists not only break their own rules, but they are unscientific as possible when they are forced to resort to speculation and making assumptions. As a result, the scientific community, while claiming to have a reputation of civility against the ''medieval Creationists,'' has become a premier in the art of stupidity when it consigns itself to explain how the universe started with a ''Big Bang'' or how life originated and evolved into its many variant forms based on a mysterious force called ''Mother nature.''

The justification that Evolution's proponents use to push their idea is the existence of different traits and attributes within similar organisms that result from genetic mutations and confer certain adaptations. First, they confuse between ''Evolution'' and adaptation and try to use the existence of one to assume the existence of the other, making another assumption that they both describe the same process, whereas they are different. Evolution is a process by which one life form with unique attributes would change into a totally different life form with its own unique attributes, such as a monkey changing into a human being or a dolphin changing into a snake. Adaptation is a process that occurs within a species by which one individual develops certain characteristics to help it adapt to changes in the environment, but the organism still maintains its unique attributes characteristic of its original species. Adaptation is a process that occurs all the time. For example, human beings who live in certain parts in Africa which receive more sunlight and radiation have darker skin, whereas human beings who live at high elevation have other adaptations, such as increased lung capacity and larger chests. Yet they are still human beings. Also, when the scientists study the fruit fly Drosophilae, or strains of yeast and mice, and they confer different traits through genetic mutation or recombinant technology, they are conferring adaptations, yet the Drosophilae remain as Drosophilae, the yeast remains yeast, and the mice remain mice.

Such observations of these different characteristics and adaptations cannot be used to assume that the process of evolution in which a mouse would change into a dog or a cat would change into a fox occurs because they are totally different. What Darwin observed was different adaptations of the same bird, and based upon his observation of the process of adaptation he assumed that the diversity of life resulted from a different process which he referred to as evolution through random mutations and natural selection. The question that comes is: Could all the great diversity of life emerge from adaptation alone? Such a process is unlimited in the amount of diversity it can create. Human beings could take literally thousands of different adaptations and characteristics, and they would all be considered human beings.

Second, they assume that mutations in the gene would result in transforming the life form into a completely different organism. The scientists, through recombinant technology and other techniques, have been able to literally delete ENTIRE GENES and add completely new genes from one life form to another, a process known as transgenics, or the science of transferring genes from one organism to another. For instance, genes from human beings have been introduced into bacteria and mice. This goes far above and beyond the simple point mutations and changes that the scientists claim to have happened throughout the course of time by chance which resulted in a complete overhaul of one organism into another, yet still the mice stay mice, and the bacteria stay as bacteria, even with large segments of their genomes cut out and replaced with human equivalents. Thus, the justification that Evolution's proponents use to justify their stance has no basis.

Those who are pushing for Evolution might wish to consider what basis they are standing on before they attempt to push for any solution to humanity's problems. Evolution is based on the concept of Dialectics, which states that the origin of man, life, and the universe was based on the continuous change and evolution of material, and this basis was the foundation of an ideology that was implemented by a state. The ideology was Communism and its patron state was the Soviet Union, and it is well known that such an ideology was totally devoid of any human quality and failed completely in its ability to deal with human problems, in its ability to address the human being, and in its ability to productively settle the core problem of humanity in a manner agreeing with the rational evidence and with the human nature. Because the Communist ideology was based on Materialism, they claimed that everything could be explained scientifically – including the origins of man, life and the universe, and including human problems and human needs. As a result of trying to implement such an idea, Soviet Communism took the meaning of pain, suffering, and oppression to new levels never witnessed before in human history. There are many things that cannot be subjected to science and explained on the basis of material alone; as a result, Communism was alien to the human being and the human needs, and it was devoid of any solution for human problems or answers to the questions of human existence. Such a failure shows that the doctrine of Dialectic Materialism is incorrect and invalid, and anything based upon this doctrine – including Evolution – is also incorrect. Thus, for those who champion Evolution as a solution to humanity's questions or pride themselves into thinking that science can be used as an ideology or as a solution to human problems and issues, they should first look to their example in the former Soviet Union and to the miserable track record of Communism and take a lesson before they give one.

The Islamic Verdict on Evolution

Because of the influence of the Western educational curriculum, many Muslims have become enchanted with the Theory of Evolution even though it diametrically opposes Islam. In their vain attempts to reconcile between the two, many Muslims are unable to find an answer to the questions that many proponents of Evolution commonly raise. Eventually, the end result is despair and resignation to the idea that the Theory of Evolution is a reality.

For example, the Evolutionists would continue to point out the immense diversity of life, claiming that their idea explains the richness of living organisms on the earth. Such persons would raise questions such as, ''How did all these different animals, plants, and other organisms, come about,'' or ''Where did all the anatomical, physiological, and biochemical similarities that are universal among all life forms come from,'' or ''How is it that all the life forms, as different and distinct as they are, are subject to the same laws, constants, and processes?'' Without trying to dig deep into details, the Islamic answer is very simple and straightforward: They all came from the same Creator.

Allah (swt) mentions in many ayahs that He created things in great diversity:

''With it He causes to grow for you the crops, the olives, the date-palms, the grapes, and every kind of fruit. Verily! In this is indeed an evident proof and a manifest sign for people who give thought.''

[ 16:11]

''And whatsoever He has created for you on this earth of varying colors [and qualities from vegetation and fruits, etc. (botanical life) and from animal (zoological life)]. Verily! In this is a sign for people who remember.''

[ 16:13]

''Allah has created every moving (living) creature from water. Of them are some that creep on their legs, some that walk on two legs, and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills. Verily! Allah is Able to do all things.''

[ 24:45]

''See you not that Allah sends down water (rain) from the sky, and We produce therewith fruits of varying colors, and among the mountains are streaks white and red, of varying colors and (others) very black. And of men and Ad-Dawab (moving, living creatures, beasts, etc.), and cattle, in like manner of various colors.''

[ 35:27-28]

Because Allah (swt) created the universe, then the entire universe and everything within it submit to Allah's Laws. The fact that all the living organisms of the earth share a wide spectrum of physical and chemical similarities only stands as further proof of the fact that they all emanated from the same source. This fact should push the intellectual person towards this realization that all things had their origin from Allah (swt), and the result of sharing the same origin is the many similarities that exist among both the living and the non-living world.

Evolution and Western Culture

Many people think that the Theory of Evolution stems purely from science; thus, the assumption that is made is that any attack on the idea of Evolution is a direct assault upon science and the scientific culture itself. Based upon this assumption, Islam would be an anti-scientific way of life because the Islamic viewpoint is diametrically opposed to the Evolutionist viewpoint. The assumption that the Theory of Evolution and Science embody the same entity is false. Science is a tool by which human beings understand the laws and phenomenon that the Creator has made to organize and govern the universe with, while Evolution is an idea that is based upon a specific point of view of life. In fact, the Theory of Evolution is an abnormality which attempts to push science beyond its boundaries into the realm of the ideology, which is something that is beyond the scope of science. The Theory of Evolution, as well as the idea of ''Scientific Ideology'' which states that science can be used as a basis of thought and a foundation of ideology, came from the Communist ideology and is used by the West in order to push its Capitalist ideology and culture into the minds of the people.

Throughout the ages, science has been, and still remains, a respected institution, but the West has done a great injustice to science by using it to propagate its ideas and concepts. The West has failed in all aspects to provide solutions to the ever-increasing problems that exist within its societies. Crime, poverty, behavioral abominations such as homosexuality, child molestation, and depression, as well as the deteriorating moral fabric and decaying family structure, are just a few of the long list of problems that characterize the dismal failure of Western Capitalism and its Secular foundation in providing any solution. To conceal this fact from the people that the cause of all of these problems stems from the failure of the ideology and its incorrect foundation, to conceal this reality for fear that the people may begin to question the very foundation of the West and look for an alternative, the West uses the scientific institution to cover its mess. For example, through the concept of Fatalism, the West is claiming that human problems such as homosexuality and criminal behavior are predetermined by the genes and, therefore, are ''fated'' to be a scientific reality of human beings as well as human societies. Because science is a respected institution, then the people are fooled into adopting this concept as a scientific fact that cannot be disputed or questioned, and that the problems that have resulted from the Capitalist ideology and the incorrect thoughts and ideas are not a result of the incorrectness of Western Capitalism but a fact of life that must be accepted. As a result, the Western culture and ideology is free from questioning, and the motivation to look for an alternative is silenced.

Similarly, the West uses science through the Theory of Evolution. Because the question of what is before this life is fundamental to the existence of humanity, then human beings will continue to ask this question, and ultimately this question will evolve into the public opinion and in the affairs of life. Because the West is based upon the concept of Secularism, which attempts to detach the question of what is before and after the life from the worldly affairs, then the West would use any means necessary to remove this question as far away from the public opinion in order to safeguard its ideology. Thus, whenever questions such as, ''What was before all of this?'' or ''Who created the universe?'' or ''Where did we all come from?'' are raised, the Theory of Evolution comes with a glamorous explanation that it all happened by chance or by a probability occurrence.

Such tactics by which the ruling establishment would protect itself by using a respected institution to propagate its ideas and culture is not unique to Western Capitalism. During the Middle Ages, the Church was very much respected by the people, and the clergy used the Church to propagate its ideas and justify its policies, which were merely the opinions of the clergy and had nothing to do with the revelation. Thus, when oppression, poverty, disease, backwardness, and stagnation were characteristic of life in the Middle Ages and the people would attempt to search for the cause of this misery, the papacy promoted the concept of Fatalism by using the Church as a front to propagate the concept that everything was fated by ''God's Will,'' in the same manner that the West today uses the scientific institution to promote the same concept that the oppression and misery caused by the dominance of Capitalism are ''fated'' by the Genetic Code and are scientific facts that must be accepted, even though such problems are unique to the failure of Capitalism and have nothing to do with science. Even today, the rulers and regimes in the Muslim World use Islam, which is more respected among the Muslims than anything else, in order to justify their policies and claim that their actions are ''Islamic,'' although their policies have nothing to do with Islam.

Such a method ultimately results in the people rebelling against the institution itself that they once respected. During the Middle Ages, the Church was respected in the eyes of the people. When the clergy used the Church to impose its own point of view, the people eventually rejected the Church, and this resentment escalated to a bitter intellectual revolt against religion altogether which resulted in the birth of Secularism and subsequent removal of the Church from the lives of the people. In the Muslim World, the regimes and rulers who use Islam to justify their existence and their policies have resulted in a feeling of resentment among Muslims towards Islam as a political solution to their problems. Similarly, the scientific institution is respected by all human beings, but the West's attempt to use science to impose its culture and point of view is resulting in many people rejecting science and scientific culture as something evil and alien to human beings. There is a feeling among many people in the West that scientific advancement will change their lives for the worst and is interfering with their lives. As a result, the West has done a great injustice to science, and the Theory of Evolution has succeeded only in alienating the people from the scientific culture.

Islam, on the other hand, provides a comprehensive doctrine to the fundamental questions of existence which frees the human mind to pursue science. Islam is the correct doctrine which agrees fully with the rationally-deduced reality that everything in the universe, including the universe itself, has a beginning in its creation by Allah (swt) and it depends upon the Creator for its sustenance. In addition, Islam establishes through decisive facts that the Qur'an is the speech of Allah (swt), which is a conclusive proof that Muhammed (saw) is the Messenger of Allah (swt). Because Islam is the correct creed, then the system which emanates from this creed is correct, and its implementation will organize humanity at all levels and will lead to a progressive society based upon justice. Thus, Islam does not need to hide behind an institution to prove its correctness because Islam is based upon the conclusive facts arrived at through the rational method, and anyone who observes the reality will come to the intellectual realization that the Islamic Aqeedah is correct. In addition, Islam does not need to be glamorized by media hype and sensationalism to make it more attractive to the people because the Islamic system is established upon the correct foundation of belief, which will result in justice and progress in all facets of life a s result of its implementation. It was under the Islamic System that the scientific culture reached its zenith, and many of the discoveries that exist today can be attributed to the achievements of those who lived under Islamic rule. Many sciences under Islam were purified from superstitious beliefs and false concepts. For example, astrology and astronomy were very well-known to the Arabs before Islam. Upon the arrival of Islam, astronomy was purified from such corrupt ideas as astrology and made into a pure science. No other ideology has done so much for science that Islam, and it is often stated that Islam made the greatest contribution to science by putting science in its rightful place. By recognizing that science has its limitations, Islam maintains the distinction between the ideology as a basis for providing answers and solutions to human problems and science as a tool that is used to observe the physical universe. In addition, Islam protects science from mixing with the ideology – as the Capitalists and the Communists have done – and maintains the scientific culture as a pure science.

Reconciling Secularism and Evolution

The West has used the Theory of Evolution in order to propagate its point of view of life. However, the Theory of Evolution has as its origins the Communist doctrine of Dialectics which denies the existence of the Creator. Because Secularism does not deny the existence of the Creator, then the Theory of Evolution is a thought alien to the Secular doctrine, which forces the West to reconcile Evolution and its Secular doctrine. To do this they rely on the ''Ticking Clock'' Theory, which states that the Creator created the universe and life and left them to evolve without any intervention. In the same manner that a clock maker manufactures a clock and leaves it to tick on its own, the proponents of Evolution, in order to avoid the label of being Communists, claim that the Creator ''set the clock'' for the universe to run and evolve, and left the universe to evolve and run on its own like the ticking clock runs on its own without the clock maker.

Such an argument is pure speculation because those people who claim such an idea have no way of proving the Creator's plans in the Way He designed the universe. They would either have to claim that they are Messengers of God that the Creator communicated with them and conveyed that information to them, or they would have to prove that the source of this information comes from the Creator. Because they have no proof for either, they must resign themselves to such stupid, idiotic theories that compares the origins of the universe and life to a ticking clock which no one can prove.

Conclusion

The Theory of Evolution is incorrect because it is established upon an incorrect basis of ''Scientific Ideology'' which attempts to use the scientific method as a basis of building belief and a foundation for the ideology. Because science cannot answer such questions as what is before or after life, or what is the origin of man, life and the universe, attempting to use the scientific method for something that science cannot be used for - such as establishing belief - results in speculation and assumption from which definite facts cannot be reached.

One mistake that the Muslims make is trying to disprove the Theory of Evolution from a scientific perspective. Science cannot be used to either prove or disprove any thought or belief about the origins of man, life, and the universe because the origins of man, life and the universe is beyond the scope of the scientific method. The scientific method can only be used to prove or disprove facts relating to tangible things that can be subjected to the scientific process of experimentation. Neither the origin of man, life, and the universe, nor the question of what is before or after life, can be subjected to experimental conditions and validated or falsified using the scientific method.

One question that comes: If Evolution is incorrect in its foundation, then why has it become so institutionalized? The answer is the same answer to the question of why Islam, which is correct and has a legacy of thirteen centuries of unparalleled justice and progress under the dominance of Islam, is perceived in such a negative light. It is also the same answer to the question of why concepts like Democracy, Freedom, and International Law - even though they contradict reality and do not exist - are cherished by the people as sacred: Evolution has a system behind it, as does Democracy, Freedom, and all of Western ideology and culture, whereas Islam does not have a system to stand behind it. Because of the support of the Western establishment, which now controls the entire world, the Theory of Evolution is protected and propagated to the world, but the pervasiveness of Evolution does not give it any credibility or validity, in the same manner that the dominance of Capitalism does not change the fact that Capitalism is an incorrect ideology.

Muslim Women

Careers for the Muslim Women

The topic of what constitutes a successful woman has been a hotly debated issue over the past century. The current dominant view held in the West is that the successful woman is the one who has achieved a successful career, who is financially independent, and who owns her own house and car. Personalities such as Cherie Blair, who has apparently managed to juggle achieving a successful law career with being a mother of four and wife to the Prime Minister, are often quoted as role models. Alongside this is the belief that to be dependent upon a husband or father gives the woman an inferior status within society. There is the sentiment that a woman who is a mother or wife with no career has sold herself short in life or is even a failure. This may not be expressed openly but is evident in the manner by which many women feel about themselves when asked the question, ''What is your occupation?'' and the uneasiness they feel when they respond, ''I'm just a mother'' or '' I'm only a housewife''.

There is also an increasing shift in attitudes towards the gender roles in society, with the belief that the woman should have as much right to be the breadwinner within a family as the husband. A 1996 Cambridge University study, found that the belief within society that it was the man's role to earn the money in a family fell from 65% in 1984 to 43% in 1994. 45% of British mothers are in paid work and in the US, 78.7% of women with children between 6 and 17 are in the labour force. Such a view of success is encouraged within the society by the western governments who both praise those women who have achieved successful careers in their life and provide financial incentives for mothers to enter the workforce. The current UK Labour Government introduced a ''National Childcare Strategy'' in 1998 to provide thousands more child care places that would provide the mothers of the society a place to leave their children while they pursued their careers. They have also provided financial benefits such as the working families tax credit to make childcare more affordable. Jill Kirby of the ''Full-Time Mothers'' organisation commented, ''There are financial incentives to go out to work but no financial incentives to stay at home.''

Unfortunately, many Muslim women living in the West, having been affected by this mindset, have set their aspirations in life to pursue a successful career above all other goals. The belief is that it is a career that gives her status and respect within the society, so she will delay marriage or avoid marriage, seeing it as a hindrance to her career objectives. She will delay having children, have fewer children, or not have any at all with the belief that they will prevent her chances of promotion or excelling in her career. Those who do not work feel a consistent pressure from society to do so. The larger Muslim community has also been affected to a certain degree by this idea of what constitutes the successful woman, the result being, many parents pressurising their daughters to pursue a successful career, while the girl may want to seek an early marriage and the rewards of motherhood.

THE EFFECT OF THE WESTERN VIEW OF THE SUCCESSFUL WOMAN IN THE MUSLIM WORLD

A number of Muslim women living in the Muslim world have also been affected by this belief that career defines the successful woman. A recent edition of the magazine, ''Working Mother'' contained an article entitled, ''Courageous Afghan Moms Reclaim Career''. The editor in chief of the magazine wrote, ''Many women are pulled back to work by economic need. But, a growing group of Afghan women...are returning to their careers to regain the sense of accomplishment...they were forced to give up under Taleban rule.'' One sister interviewed for the article commented that she encourages Afghan women to fight for their rights, ''I try and tell women to stand on their feet, that they are equal to men. I tell them, 'Don't sit under your burqa. Don't sit inside the house. Get out and show your husband and children that you are a woman. You can work and make your own decisions'''. Such a view is encouraged in the Muslim world by organisations such as UNIFEM, the UN Population Fund, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and other Non-Governmental Organisations. In a survey performed by UNDP in 2001 on the ''Portrayal of women in the media'' in Pakistan, they commented that women need to be portrayed and projected in bold and assertive roles in drama and other programmes on television and to breakdown the idea that the successful career woman is incompatible with the ideal wife and mother.

SOURCE OF THE WESTERN VIEWPOINT OF THE SUCCESSFUL WOMAN

This view that the successful woman is the one who holds a successful career emanates from the capitalist way of life that evaluates actions upon materialistic benefit and profit. Hence the woman who is a business woman, doctor, lawyer or accountant is seen as a success as she contributes economically to the society either in the service that she provides or the taxes that she pays to the state. However, the role of mother and wife does not directly contribute financially to the society and therefore is viewed in a negative light and not as a success. This is clearly reflected by a report published by the Institute of Fiscal studies in 2002 (a body that provides advice to the UK government) that commented ''…having children remains a significant barrier to the employment opportunities of mothers; and the lack of accessible and affordable childcare is having an adverse impact on mothers returning to the labour market. Put more bluntly - the current strategy is not working and there is a significant economic cost.''

The re-definition of gender roles corresponds to the understanding that the woman in society should have the right to pursue a career even as a mother and wife as much as the men in society and the husband and father. This view has its route in the concept of equality. Inherent in this idea is the belief that gender should not have an impact on how the roles of men and women in society are defined but that the roles should be equal and decided by the individual. The idea is that the women should have equal access to employment as the man, be able to perform the same types of jobs and duties as the man, and even decide for herself the role that she wants to take on within marriage - the breadwinner or nurturer of the children. The concept of equality in itself arose as a result of the oppression that women faced under the man-made laws of capitalism that were biased towards the man and treated the woman harshly. She was subject to dire living conditions, violence, and poverty and was not even viewed as a citizen under English law until 1850. As a consequence, a call for women's rights and equality arose with the belief that a woman could only achieve a better standard of living if she was able to have her own career and become financially independent as well as adopt equal roles with the men of the society. Around the Second World War, women were encouraged to enter the workforce to contribute to the economy of the country. Even in the Muslim world, the original call for liberation and equality of the Muslim woman by the western powers in the Uthmani Khilafah and following the destruction of the Islamic State was less to do with improving her status and welfare, and more to do with improving the economy of colonised lands. Bernard Lewis in his book, ''The Middle East'', writes in the Chapter entitled, ''From Freedom to Freedom'', ''A major factor in the emancipation of women was economic need...Economic modernization brought a need for female labour, which was augmented by mobilization for modern war... The economic involvement of women and the social changes resulting from it continued in the inter-war period and after, and even brought a few legislative changes in favour of women. These had some effect in social and family life.''

EFFECT OF THIS VIEW OF THE SUCCESSFUL WOMAN UPON THE FAMILY STRUCTURE

Placing the pursuit of a career as the main goal in a woman's life has resulted in a number of problems within the western societies. It has caused a strain on marriages and increased divorce due to the limited time the husband and wife spend with one another. Such a view has also caused problems in the rearing of children and the parent-child relationship within families due to the limited time the parents spend with their children. These problems have also affected Muslim families. The lack of clarity of the role of the husband and wife within the family has led to frequent arguments within many marriages unfortunately leading to divorce in a number of cases. With regards to children, the development of the close bond that should exist between mother and child and the nurturing of the Islamic personality is compromised. This is due to the limited time the mother spends with them and the parents having to resort to child care facilities as they both pursue their careers. The consequence is dire: the children adopting a non-Islamic identity, disobeying and neglecting the parents, and even engaging in actions such as drinking alcohol and drug abuse as they grow older

SUFFERINGS OF THE SUPERWOMAN

Those who originally formulated the concept of equality between men and women believed that it would raise the woman out of the misery that she had been living in for years. However, the career woman today is no less miserable - only the reasons are different. The decision to delay having children or to not to have children at all due to career does not agree with the procreation instinct present in every woman and produces misery. The career woman, who does have children, feels constantly guilty about the limited time spent with them. In addition, she finds her life is a continual juggling act between being a wife, mother, and her work. In most families, her status as a career woman has not reduced her household duties. The sociologist, Joseph H. Pleck comments, ''All scholars agree that even in studies suggesting that husbands of employed wives do statistically more (housework), the increase is small in absolute magnitude and employed wives continue to do the bulk of the family work''. Her day is spent rushing from one responsibility to another: making breakfast for her family, preparing lunch for her husband and children to take to school, getting the children washed and dressed, doing the school run, rushing off to her job, performing a full days strenuous work, rushing to school to pick up the kids, taking them to after school classes, making the dinner, getting the children ready for bed and then the routine starts all over again. She feels that she is not able to perform any of her duties to the best of her ability because she is so tired, stressed, and miserable. In a book by Lisa Belkin called ''Life's Work: Confessions of an Unbalanced Mom'', she writes, ''Not a one of us seems to be able to give 100% of themselves to their job and 100% of themselves to their family, and 100% of themselves to taking care of themselves''.

EVALUATING THE CONCEPT OF EQUALITY

The idea that equality of gender roles in society should be viewed as the way forward for the woman is a grave mistake. The equality of rights of individuals under any governing system that is man-made can never be achieved whether it is between men and women, black or white, young or old. This is because when the human being makes the laws it will always be biased towards himself over others. So we see that even though Equal Pay Legislation has been in place for thirty years in the developed countries, women still continue to earn less for doing the same work as men. It also explains why after over a century of calling for equality and women's rights, the twentieth century in the UK ended with only 4% of judges being women, 11% of managers, and 2% of FTSE 100 directors being women. In addition, how can equality of roles be applied to the man and woman who are physiologically and anatomically different in their nature. As one writer wrote, ''A built-in tension exists between this concept of equality, which presupposes sameness, and this concept of sex which presupposes difference. Sex equality becomes a contradiction in terms, something of an oxymoron.'' It is like suggesting that the sun and the earth should have the same roles even though they are different in nature. When roles and duties in life are set in a manner that does not take into consideration the differing nature of the man and woman then this would cause oppression and misery as already discussed.

ISLAM AND THE CORRECT VIEW OF THE SUCCESSFUL WOMAN

Islam does not evaluate an action, a duty or an individual on the basis of how much they can contribute to the economy of the state. It evaluates an individual male or female based upon whether their action conforms to the command of the Creator (swt) and their level of taqwa (obedience to the Creator (swt)). The Prophet (saw) said in his final sermon,

''An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over a white except by taqwa and good action.''

The successful woman is therefore the one who is devoutly obedient to the commands of her Creator (swt). Considering the fact that it will be our deeds that will be the deciding factor of our destiny after death - paradise or hellfire - this is the correct view of success. In Islam, where the man and the woman share similar qualities in their nature, the obligation prescribed to both is the same such as the prayer, fasting, and Hajj. However, where the nature differs then different duties have been prescribed. So, the husband or father has been obligated with the responsibility of protecting the family and providing for them financially. The woman has been obligated with the primary role of looking after the house of the husband and his children - looking after their welfare and nurturing them with the Islamic culture. Allah (swt) has said:

''Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because God has given one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what God would have them guard''

[ An-Nisa: 34].

Hence, in Islam the duty prescribed to the man is not viewed as better than the role of being a mother and wife but rather as a responsibility that needs to be fulfilled for which the man will be accountable to Allah (swt). Both duties compliment one another and are crucial for the family and society to function properly and with tranquillity. Allah (swt) says:

''And wish not the things in which Allah has made some of you excel others. For man is allotted from what they have earned, (and likewise) from the woman there is allotted from what they have earned''

[An-Nisa: 32].

With regards to the idea of equality, as discussed above, this is a concept that arose from the human being making the law with his biased nature. Such a concept is therefore irrelevant and alien in Islam where all commands have been ordained by the Creator (swt) who is unbiased towards the man or woman. Furthermore, Islam does not allow the human being to decide for him or herself the roles in society that they adopt but rather it is prescribed byAllah (swt). Allah (swt) says:

''It is not fitting for a believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger, to have any option about their decision. If anyone disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong path.''

[ Al-Ahzab:3 6 ]

RULING ON PERMITTED CAREERS FOR THE WOMAN

It is a well known fact that a Muslim woman can have a career if she wishes as long as she does not compromise her primary duty as a mother and wife. However, Islam has defined certain jobs or careers that the woman is not allowed to perform:

Positions of ruling such as the Khalifah, Wali (governor), and Amil (mayor).

This is not because the woman is inferior to the man in the Islamic society but because there is a specific Islamic evidence forbidding it. In a hadith narrated by Abu Bakra (ra), the Prophet (saw) said, ''People who appoint (with the authority of ruling) a woman on them will never succeed''. The position of ruling in Islam is not viewed as one of honour and superiority but rather one of guardianship, responsibility, and accountability.

Profession that exploits her femininity.

The woman cannot engage in certain careers such as modelling and advertising where her femininity is the basis upon which the job is performed. Nor can she engage in any profession that involves her revealing her awrah (anything apart from the hands and face) or attracting attention to her beauty to those who are non-mahram to her (those she can legally marry). This is because the woman is viewed as an honour in Islam to be protected and her beauty or femininity is therefore not viewed as an economic commodity or a subject of discussion.

In addition to these two points, the Muslim woman should ensure that any job or career that she adopts is in line with all the other ahkam (rules) of Islam including the other limits of the Islamic social system. She should ensure that it does not involve being in khulwa (isolation) with a non-mahram man, that it does not bring doubt upon her reputation, that it does not involve socialising with men, and that as far as possible it does not require a close working relationship with the men of the society. Other than these restrictions, the woman is allowed to engage in various professions such as a businesswoman, doctor, nurse, engineer, scientist, teacher, or lecturer. Furthermore, within a community Muslim women have a great role to play with regards to caring for the interests of the community. How ironic it is that those men, who are uncomfortable about allowing their womenfolk to study and work, then complain about the lack of female Muslim doctors. Thus it would be incorrect for husbands and fathers to prohibit their womenfolk from working especially since this is a right given to them by Allah (swt) and if these sisters have intelligence, abilities and skills which would be of great service to the community.

There were many Muslim women who performed various jobs during the time of the Prophet (saw). Saudah (ra), the wife of the Prophet (saw) used to tan the skins of animals and sell them making a considerable profit. There was a woman called Qilah who would buy and sell goods and was reported to have asked the Prophet (saw) a number of questions on the economic transactions permitted in Islam. Jabir ibn Abdullah's aunt used to perform farming and harvesting. There were various women who would nurse the injured during the battles. During the Khilafah of Umar (ra), he appointed a woman called Ash Shifa as the Qadi Hisba (judge of the market place).

CONCLUSION

The career woman in the west is viewed as no more than an economic commodity and is valued according to what she can financially contribute to the economy. Islam does not evaluate the woman in such a belittling manner but rather according to her obedience to the Creator (swt). She does not view herself as inferior to the man and therefore aspire to adopt his role and duties in society. Yes, she can have a career but she will not define her identity, success, self-worth nor measure her status by her career. In addition, she will not seek employment due to the pressure of the negative stigma in society associated with women who are mothers and do not have a career. She does not have to be a superwoman. Surely it is then the identity of the woman defined by Islam which is the choice of the intelligent woman.