Nothing can give more joy to a woman than the birth of a child. All the pain and strain disappear at the first sight of the baby. Tiny yawns and sleepy sighs, a brand new life, a bundle of joy for all the family! You would think that this is true whether the newborn is a baby girl or boy. Unfortunately, in every family this is not always the case.

Although most of us are fortunate enough to have never been discriminated against for being girls, whose parents have loved us unconditionally, whose husbands respect us, and children value us, there are people out there who still perceive the girl no more than a burden and often shame is expected and felt by those women who do not successfully give birth to a boy.

Though discrimination against women is considered a universal phenomenon, this is more marked in the Asian region. In countries where boy children are still valued economically and socially above girls, such as India and China, female infanticide and sex selective abortion has been practiced as a brutal method of family planning. In these Third World countries male children are preferred over female because boys provide more labour, whereas girls require a dowry. Outright, boys bring the dowry in, while girls take one out, putting an economic burden on the family.

Some surveys in the United States revealed a clear preference for masculine babies as the first child. According to a famous anecdote, when Mohammed Ali, the ex-world boxing champion was asked how many children he had, he answered, “one boy and seven errors.” For centuries, sayings and habits worldwide have spread these prejudices. In China the implementation of the “one child per couple” policy in 1978 left many Chinese parents unwilling to invest their one opportunity for parenthood on a daughter. Female babies have been described as “worms in the rice” and some experts contend that within a few years 90 million Chinese men will be unable to find wives. In one hospital an investigation of 700 individuals sought prenatal sex determination. Of these foetuses, 250 were determined to be male and 450 female.While all of the male foetuses were kept to term, 430 of the 450 female foetuses were aborted. Subhanallah!

Typical also is India, where despite the government outlawing prenatal sex determination tests in 1994, evidence suggests that female infanticide is rife. A study carried out in 1995 illustrates that the 1994 law is widely flouted. In a sample of 700 pregnant women, only 4% of those expecting a girl decided to bring the pregnancy to term. The small number of foetuses kept to term would also be subject to discrimination on the basis of their sex at the early stages of their life and through adulthood. This skewed sex ratio may have enormous implications for the future of these countries. This is a huge cause for concern especially when these countries are home to a large population of Muslims.

But what is the stance in Britain. Under the UK’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) rules, abortions also cannot be granted on the grounds that the foetus is the wrong gender. Although medically assisted sex selection is illegal in this country, there is nothing to prevent women flying overseas, to countries where the practice is not illegal to have a procedure undertaken which will tell them the sex of their baby. A recent article in a British newspaper, shows how some British couples have visited the clinic of a US based Scientist where the sex of embryos can be screened to ensure couples have a child of the desired sex. The article also mentions“that it is privately acknowledged by abortion specialists in Britain that women unhappy with the sex of their unborn child are being granted terminations for “social reasons”.

The evidence for women going overseas was provided by another British newspaper recently, which found that pregnant British Asian women barred by the NHS after numerous abortions, were going to India for gender defining ultrasounds, to ensure they have a male child. With many clinics refusing to declare the sex of unborn babies in the UK, particularly in Asian communities, Asian women flying abroad, where it costs little and the procedure is over in an hour is on the increase. A gender rights expert from New Delhi, reported that “aborting healthy baby girls was well documented among British Asians, and multiple abortions in Britain had become increasingly common. The desire for boys transcends caste, social, educational and economic status. One in seven girls in Delhi is killed in the womb and the situation goes on in Britain, where the belief systems are identical.”

The question is, is this happening amongst the muslim population and if yes, Why? Why is this, when gender equality is an intrinsic part of Islamic belief and when time and time again the importance of the woman and her equal if not high status to man is mentioned in the Holy Qur’an. Practices such as female infanticide and forced marriages show how Islamic teachings can be superseded by local culture, tradition and customs.

Certainly the status of the woman in the pre-Islamic era began as inferior at the time of birth when unwanted baby girls were buried alive. The history of human civilisation testifies that the woman was treated harshly, degraded and was denied basic human dignity.

The 7^th century dawn of Islam ushered in a new era of morality and divine law, improving the status of the woman and elevating their position in both family and society. Through the teachings of Islam, beloved Prophet Muhammad may Allah bless him and grant him peace, put a swift and resounding end to this evil practice. Not only did he (peace be upon him) severely discourage and condemn this act but he also used to teach them to respect and cherish their daughters and mothers as partners and sources of salvation for the men of their family. Islam gave women equal rights, rights that the West fails to give even today. According to Islam, men and women have the same religious and moral duties and responsibilities. Each human being shall face the consequences of his or her deeds. In the interpretation Allah (swt) says in the meaning of the Quran: 

“And their Lord responded to them (saying): Never will I allow to be lost the work of (any) worker among you, whether male or female; you are of one another…” [Quran, 3:195.]

Women’s full and equal humanity is attested to on the final judgement day. The Qur’an makes it clear that both men and women are called upon by God to uphold God’s commandments, and that both men and women are accountable to God for their righteousness (Surah 3:Al-Imran: 195: Surah 4:An-Nisa’:124: Surah 9:At-Taubah:71-72).

Despite the social acceptance of female infanticide among some Arabian tribes, the Qur’an forbade this custom, and considered it a crime like any other murder. 

“And when the girl (who was) buried alive is asked, for what sin she was killed” [Quran,81:8-9.]

The Quran went further to rebuke the unwelcoming attitude of some parents upon hearing the news of the birth of a baby girl, instead of a baby boy. Allah SWT has said in the interpretation of the meaning of the Quran: 

“And when one of them is informed of (the birth of) a female, his face becomes dark, and he suppresses grief. He hides himself from the people because of the ill of which he has been informed. Should he keep it in humiliation or bury it in the ground? Certainly, evil is what they decide.” [Quran 16:58-59.]

 Far from saving the girl’s life so that she may later suffer injustice and inequality, Islam requires kind and just treatment for her.  

Among the sayings of

 the Prophet PBUH in this regard are the following hadith: “Whosoever supports three daughters until they mature, he and I will come on the Day of Judgment as this (and he pointed with his fingers held together).” [Musnad, Imam Ahmad]

The Prophet (PBUH) further said: “Whosoever has a daughter and does not bury her alive, does not insult her, and does not favor his son over her, Allah will enter him into Paradise.” [Ahmad]

Islam considered kindness to parents next to the worship of God. Mothers in Islam are highly honoured. Islam recommends treating them in the best way.

A man came to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and said, “O Messenger of God! Who among the people is the most worthy of my good companionship?” The Prophet (PBUH) said: {Your mother.} The man said, “Then who?” The Prophet (PBUH) said: {Then your mother.} The man further asked, “Then who?” The Prophet (PBUH) said: {Then your mother.} The man asked again, “Then who?” The Prophet (PBUH) said: {Then your father.}” [Al-Bukhari.] 

Furthermore, marriage in Islam is based on mutual peace, love, and compassion, and not just the mere satisfying of human sexual desire. Among the most impressive verses in the interpretation of the meaning of the Quran about marriage is the following: 

“And of His signs is: that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquility in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought.” [Quran, 30:21.]

Islam encourages the husband to treat his wife well, as the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said: “The best among you are those who are best to their wives.” [Tirmidhi, Sahih.] 

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said: “The best of you is the best to his family and I am the best among you to my family.” [Tirmidhi, Sahih.]

He (PBUH) also told the Muslims: “Fear Allah in respect of women.” And: “The best of you are they who behave best to their wives.” [Tirmidhi, Sahih.]

Indeed the Qur’an goes beyond insisting that individual women and men are to be treated identically. Instead it insists that men and women recognize their interconnectedness and interdependence. The Qur’an affirms that men and women in the umma are members and protectors of each other (Surah 3:Al- Imran:195; Surah 9:At-Tawbah: 71). The Qur’an’s vision of the relationship between men and women within society is therefore neither hierarchical nor adversarial but one of equality and mutuality.

Subhan’Allah this is truly what a productive Muslim is mash’Allah! Always inspiring to read the stories of Ibn Taymiyyah and the great scholars of this deen that really gave it 110% fisabillah! Well worth a quick read because it is both short and simply remarkable in how he utelised his time very efficiently subhan’Allah! BTW he didnt have a family of his own, partly due to the fact that he was thrown in jail several times by the enemies of the truth… Also reminds those who truly reflect and ponder, the beautiful name of Allah The Most-High, Al-Qawi (The Supremely-Strong)…..Laillahaillah

al-Imam al-Bazzar wrote a long, first hand account of the life of Ibn Taymiyyah, who was his personal friend and companion. The book is called‘al-A’lam al-’Aliyyah fi Manaqib Ibn Taymiyyah,’ and this is a very, very small glimpse from it:

“During the nights, he would separate himself from everybody, secluding himself with his Lord, strictly maintaining his recitation of the MightyQur’an, and repeating the various types of daily and nightly worship.

When the night was over, he would rejoin the people for the Fajr prayer, praying the optional prayer before meeting them. When he would begin the prayer, your heart would want to fly from its place just from the way in which he would make takbirat al-ihram. When he would begin the prayer, his limbs would shake, moving him left and right. When he would recite, he would elongate his recitation, just as was authentically reported in regards to the recitation of the Messenger of Allah. His bowing and prostration, as well as his coming up from them, are from the most complete of what has ever been reported in regards to the obligatory prayer. And he would severely lighten his sitting for the first tashahhud, and would say the first taslim out loud, to the point that everyone who was present would hear it…

…And I came to know that it was his habit that nobody would speak to him unless absolutely necessary after the morning prayer. He would remain in a state of dhikr of Allah, listening to himself. Sometimes, he would let those sitting next to him listen to his dhikr, all the while constantly turning his eyesight to the sky. He would remain in such a state until the Sun rose, and the time in which prayer is forbidden had passed.

During my stay in Damascus with him, I would spend some of the day and most of the night with him. He would draw me near to him, sitting me beside him. I would hear what he would recite and repeat, and I saw that he would repeat ‘al-Fatihah’ over and over again, and would spend all of his time between Fajr and sunrise doing this.

So, I kept thinking to myself, wondering: why would he recite this specific chapter of the Qur’an in exclusion to the others? Eventually, it became clear to me – and Allah Knows best – that his intention in doing so was to combine with his recitation between what was narrated in the ahadith and what was discussed by the scholars, in regards to whether the narratedadhkar should take precedence over recitation of the Qur’an, or vice versa. So, he saw that in repeating ‘al-Fatihah,’ he could combine between both opinions, and reap the benefits of both actions, and this was from his strength in logic and depth of insight.

After this, he would pray Duha, and if he wanted to hear Hadith in another place, he would rush to that place with whoever was with him at the time.

It was rare that any intelligent person would see him and not come and kiss his hands. Even the busiest of businessmen would walk from what they were doing to greet him and seek his blessings. With all of this, he would give everyone of them their share of time, greetings, etc.

If he saw any evil in the street, he would work to remove it, and if he heard of a funeral taking place, he would rush to pray in it, or would apologize for missing it. Sometimes, he would go to the grave of the deceased after he finished listening to Hadith and pray over it (Asking Allah The Most Merciful to forgive the deceased et al).

Afterwards, he would return to his mosque, where he would remain either giving fatawa to the people or fulfilling their needs, until it was time to pray Dhuhr in congregation. He would spend the rest of the day in such a manner.

His classes were general for the old, the young, the wealthy, the poor, the free, the slave, males, and females. He appealed to everyone that would pass by him of the people, and everyone of them would feel that Ibn Taymiyyah was treating them better than he was treating anyone else present [as was the great sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)].

He would then pray Maghrib, and would follow it up with as much optional prayer as Allah made possible. I, or someone else, would then read his writings to him, and he would benefit us with various points and notes. We would do this until we prayed ‘Isha’, after which we would continue as we were before, delving into the various fields of knowledge. We would do this until much of the night had passed. During this entire time – night and day – Ibn Taymiyyah would constantly remember Allah, mention His Oneness, and seek His forgiveness.

And he would constantly raise his eyesight to the sky, and would not stop doing this, as if he saw something there that kept his eyesight hooked. He would do this for as long as I was staying with him.

So, Subhan Allah! How short were these days! If only they were longer! By Allah, until this day, there has never been a time in my life that is more beloved to me than the time I spent with him, and I was never seen in a better state than I was at that time, and this was for no other reason than the barakah of the Shaykh, may Allah be Pleased with him.

Every week, he would visit the sick, especially those at the hospital.

I have been informed by more than one person – whose trustworthiness I do not doubt – that the entire life of the Shaykh was spent in the way that I witnessed (and described above). So, what worship, and what jihad is better than this?”

Why Sufyan Would Urinate Blood

By Adnan Rashid

‘What is there now, I ask of delight in this world? Everywhere we observe strife; fields are depopulated, the land has returned to solitude…And yet the blows of Divine justice have no end, because among the blows those guilty of evil acts are not corrected…’ [1]

These are the words of Pope Gregory the Great (c. 594) who was a contemporary of the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him). He was clearly wishing for divine justice to emerge in order to correct the evildoers i.e. the Lombard tyrants in this case. The Divine intervention was at hand:

“And We have sent you (O Muhammad [SA]) not but as a mercy to mankind”[2]

And mercy he was. The Messenger of Allah received the above revelation not long after the disturbing plea of the Pope and this revelation was a signal for the Prophet to initiate a war against terror and tyranny. Islam emerged as a power and in a very short period of time took over large portions of land from the surrounding establishments. Prophet Muhammad died in 632 CE and exactly a century later in 732 CE the Muslims had reached as far as Southern France and Northern China. This was the largest and the fastest expansion the world had ever known and it was made possible only by the justice and mercy the Muslims had to offer, as will be amply demonstrated in the following paragraphs.

It may be puzzling to some who may question how the Muslims were able to conquer such a large portion of land so rapidly without much difficulty? A Muslim believer would give an easy and simple answer to this question by quoting the Qur’an:

“Allah has promised those among you who believe and do righteous good deeds, that he will certainly grant them succession (to the present rulers) in the land, as He granted it to those before them, and that He will grant them authority to practise their religion which he has chosen for them(Islam).”[3]

History testifies that this is precisely what occurred and here one must note that the Arabs, at the time, were the least able people to achieve this, primarily, due to the lack of military equipment and resources. Carole Hillenbrand, a leading Arabist/historian from the University of Edinburgh, confirms this:

‘Much ink has been spilt on the phenomenon of the Islamic conquest, but few firm conclusions can be drawn…It seems unlikely that the Arabs possessed military superiority over their opponents. Certainly, they had no secret weapon, no new techniques. Indeed, in some military spheres they were inexperienced; they allegedly learned siege warfare, for example, from the Persians. They were also unfamiliar with how to fight naval engagements.’[4]

Even the contemporary Christian writers could not offer a reasonable explanation and attributed this rapid expansion of the Islamic governance to Divine intervention. John Bar Penkaye (690 CE), a contemporary of the early Islamic conquest, had this to say:

‘We should not think of the advent (of the children of Hagar) as something ordinary, but as due to divine working. Before calling them, (God) had prepared them beforehand to hold Christians in honour; thus they also had a special commandment from God concerning our monastic station, that they should hold it in honour. Now when these people came, at God’s command, and took over as it were both kingdoms, not with any war or battle, but in a menial fashion, such as when a brand is rescued out of the fire, not using weapons of war or human means, God put victory into their hands in such a way that the words written them might be fulfilled, namely, “One man chased a thousand and two routed ten thousand.” How otherwise, could naked men, riding without armour or shield, have been able to win, apart from divine aid, God having called them from the ends of the earth so as to destroy, by them “a sinful kingdom” and to bring low, through them, the proud spirit of the Persians.’[5]

Byzantines and the Persians were utterly uprooted by these ill-equipped nomads. European scholarship is still perplexed about the causes that led to the early Islamic conquest. To a sceptical historian or a conditioned rationalist, Divine intervention could never be entertained as a logical or even a scientific hypothesis. Such people require a historical justification, which is based upon political and socio-economic factors.

Tolerance or Terror

In light of this there is a very reasonable explanation: The Muslims, when expanding, treated the non-Muslim inhabitants of vanquished nations with a previously uncharted level of tolerance, which in consequence encouraged the non-Muslim societies to embrace the approaching armies with open arms. Professor Thomas Walker Arnold gives an interesting account of such an occurrence. He states:

‘When the Muslim army reached the valley of the Jordan and Abu Ubaydah pitched his camp at Fihl, the Christian inhabitants of the country wrote to the Arabs, saying: “O Muslims, we prefer you to the Byzantines, though they are of our own faith, because you keep better faith with us and are more merciful to us and refrain from doing us injustice and your rule over us is better than theirs, for they have robbed us of our goods and our homes.” The people of Emessa closed the gates of their city against the army of Heraclius and told the Muslims that they preferred their government and justice to the injustice and oppression of the Greeks…The fear of religious compulsion on the part of the heretical emperor made the promise of Muslim toleration appear more attractive than the connection with the Roman Empire and a Christian government…’[6]

Perhaps, it was these facts, which persuaded Thomas Arnold to conclude:

‘Of forced conversion or anything like persecution in the early days of the Arab conquest, we hear nothing. Indeed, it was probably in a great measure their tolerant attitude towards the Christian religion that facilitated their rapid acquisition of the country.’[7]

So the Muslims were in fact seen as liberators from the Roman/Byzantine tyranny. As far as the Syrian Christians were concerned, the Muslims were carrying out a noble war on terror.

Syria rescued from the Byzantine terror

Dionysius of Tel-Mahre, a Jacobite (or a Syrian Orthodox Christian) patriarch from 818 to 845 CE, also gave some reasons of this preference of the Muslims over Romans by the people of Syria. He stated in his chronicle, which covers the period from 582 to 842 CE, that Heraclius mustered 300,000 troops from Armenia, Syria and the Roman heartlands to expel the Muslims out of Syria. Muslims decided to withdraw to reform their war strategy. However, whilst withdrawing, the Muslims decided, out of fairness, to refund the money, which they had taken as tribute from the Syrian Christians to protect them from any form of oppression:

‘Abu Ubaydah, whom Umar had put in command of the Arabs, ordered Habib b. Maslama to return to the Emesenes the tribute which he had exacted from them with this message: “We are both bound by our mutual oaths. Now we are going to do battle with the Romans. If we return, this tribute is ours; but if we 

are defeated and do not return, we are absolved of our oaths.” So they left Emessa for Damascus; and the emir Abu Ubaydah ordered Saeed b. Kulthum to return the tribute to the Damascenes likewise…To them he said: “ If we return victorious we shall take it back. But if we are defeated and prove powerless to save you from the Romans, here is your tribute, keep it. We for our part shall be absolved of the oaths which we have sworn to you.”’[8]

One must note that this was taking place in 7th century Syria where plunder, robbery and injustice were a common occurrence and what is mentioned above is quoted from a mid 9th century Christian source (which testifies that the Muslims did not abuse power and they did not betray the trust Christians bestowed upon them). Thomas Arnold adds, from an Islamic source (Abu Yusuf, Kitabul Khiraj [The Book of Taxes]), that

‘In accordance with this order, enormous sums were paid back out of the state treasury, and the Christians called down blessings on the heads of the Muslims, saying, “May God give you rule over us again and make you victorious over the Romans; had it been they, they would not have given us back anything, but would have taken all that remained with us”’[9]

It would be fair to assert here that those Muslims acted in accordance with the teachings of the Qur’an:

‘Verily, Allah commands that you should render back the trusts to those, to whom they are due; and that when you judge between men, you judge with justice. Verily, how excellent is the teaching, which He gives you! Truly, Allah is ever all- Hearer, all-Seer.’[10]

Dionysius of Tel-Mahre confirms the accuracy of Abu Yusuf:

‘So the Arabs left Damascus and pitched camp by the river Yarmuk. As the Romans marched towards the Arab camp every city and village on their way which had surrendered to the Arabs shouted threats at them. As for crimes the Romans committed on their passage, they are unspeakable, and 

their unseemliness ought not even to be brought to mind…The Arabs returned, elated with their great victory, to Damascus; and the Damascenes greeted them outside the city and welcomed them joyfully in, and all treaties and assurances were reaffirmed. ’[11]

It is very clear from Dionysius’ testimony that the Romans were extremely oppressive towards the non-Chalcedonian Christian population of Syria, which caused this population to prefer the Muslim tolerance over the Byzantine terror. Muslims, in most, cases treated the minor Christian sects of Syria with maximum justice and sympathy, which enabled all parties to live in peace for the first time for a long time. For most of the Jacobite and Nestorian Christians in Syria, Muslim arrival was a God sent retribution against the Byzantine terrorist establishment.

Egypt saved from the Chalcedonian persecution

The same seems to have taken place in Egypt where, according to Dionysius, the Coptic Patriarch submitted Egypt voluntarily to the Muslims:

‘We have found in the tales and stories of Egyptians that Benjamin, the Patriarch of the Orthodox in Egypt at the time, delivered the country to the Arab general Amr b. al-As out of antipathy, that is enmity, towards Cyrus, the Chalcedonian (Byzantine) Patriarch in Egypt.’[12]

This enmity, however, was due to the persecution of the Orthodox Church in Egypt at the hands of the Byzantine Church. John of Nikiou (690 CE), who was a Coptic bishop in Nikiu (Egypt), confirmed the testimony of Dionysius:

‘When Muslims saw the weakness of the Romans and the hostility of the people to the emperor Heraclius because of the persecution wherewith he had visited all the land of Egypt in regard to the orthodox faith at the instigation of Cyrus the Chalcedonian Patriarch [in office 631/2-41], they became bolder and stronger in the war…And people began to help the Muslims.’[13]

And in some cases the Egyptians refused to fight the Muslims at all [14]. One must keep in mind that these are contemporary Christian sources testifying that the Muslims were actually being helped by the Egyptian Orthodox Coptic Christians to put the Chalcedonian Byzantine Christian persecution to rest. Alfred J. Butler, a leading authority on the history of Egypt, believed that the Muslim arrival benefited both Christian factions by enabling them to live in peace together under the Islamic protection:

‘After all that the Copts had suffered at the hands of the Romans and the Patriarch Cyrus, it would not have been unnatural if they had desired to retaliate upon the Melkites [the Romans]. But any such design, if they cherished it, was sternly discountenanced by ‘Amr, [the Muslim conqueror of Egypt] whose government was wisely tolerant but perfectly impartial between the two forms of religion. Many facts might be cited in proof of this contention…So that the two forms of Christianity must be imagined as subsisting side by side under the equal protection of the conquerors.’[15]

It is evident from the testimonies cited above that the Muslims came as a mercy for the wider Egyptian population. The Coptic Christians in Egypt were also a target for the Byzantine terror and it was this terror which caused the Copts to join the Muslims against their co-religionists. ‘Amr bin al-‘Aas (may Allah be pleased with him) had established a peaceful abode for all parties and this he did by implementing the Shariah Law in Egypt. Thus the real operation “Enduring Freedom” was accomplished successfully in the land of Pharaohs.

Spain liberated from the Visigothic tyranny

Muslims landed in Spain in 711 CE and many sources testify that they were welcomed by the population, as their reputation preceded them. This was due to the severe persecution afflicted upon certain communities by the Visigothic Kings. Under these kings’ rule (following their conversion to Catholicism from Arianism), the Jewish community, in particular, was severely oppressed. The Catholic hierarchy in Spain held many ecumenical councils to solve political and religious disputes and in these councils (many held in Toledo), severe edicts were issued against the Jews of Spain. One of the clauses in the text of the proceedings of the 4th Council of Toledo (633 CE) states,

‘We decree that the sons and daughters of the Jews should be separated from the company of their parents in order that they should not become further entangled in their deviation, and entrusted either to monasteries or to Christian, God fearing men and women, in order that they should learn from their way of life to venerate the faith and, educated on better things, progress in their morals as well as their faith.’[16]

Zion Zohar, an American Jewish historian, confirms the Jewish appreciation of the Muslim arrival in this way:

‘Thus, when Muslims crossed the straits of Gibraltar from North Africa in 711 CE and invaded the Iberian Peninsula, Jews welcomed them as liberators from Christian Persecution’. [17]

And what did this liberty bring for the Jews in the subsequent centuries? Was this liberty similar to the one the U.S government has delivered to the Iraqis, resulting in mass murder and abuse of prisoners, or was it a freedom that was deeply ingrained in Islamic values such as justice and tolerance? Zion Zohar has an answer:

‘Born during this era of Islamic rule, the famous Golden Age of Spanish Jewry (circa 900-1200) produced such luminaries as: statesman and diplomat Hasdai ibn Shaprut, vizier and army commander Shmuel ha-Nagid, poet-philosophers Solomon Ibn Gabriol and Judah Halevi, and at the apex of them all, Moses Ben Maimon, also known among the Spaniards as Maimonides [who is Known as the second Moses among the Jews].’[18]

Thus the Jews were treated with fairness and Justice in Islamic Spain unlike the rest of Europe and it was this fair treatment which produced the famous Golden Age for the House of Jacob, which they appreciate to this day.

Heinrich Graetz, a 19th century Jewish historian expressed similar sentiments regarding Muslims in Spain:

‘It was in these favourable circumstances that the Spanish Jews came under the rule of Mahometans, as whose allies they esteemed themselves the equals of their co-religionists in Babylonia and Persia. They were kindly treated, obtained religious liberty, of which they had so long been deprived, were permitted to exercise jurisdiction over their co-religionists, and were only obliged, like the conquered Christians, to pay poll tax (Dsimma)’[19]…Jewish Spain became “the place of civilization and of spiritual activity- a garden of fragrant, joyous, and happy poetry, as well as the seat of earnest research and clear thought.” Like the Arabian Christians (the Christians who lived amongst the Mahometans) the Jews made themselves acquainted with the language and literature of their conquerors, and often got precedence over them. But whilst Arabian Christians gave up their own individuality, forgot their own language- Gothic Latin- and could not even read the creeds, and were ashamed of Christianity, the Jews of Spain were so little affected through this contact with Arabs, that it only served to increase their love and enthusiasm for their mother tongue, their holy law, and their religion. Through favourable circumstances Jewish Spain was in a position at first to rival Babylonia, then to supersede it, and finally to maintain its superiority for nearly five hundred years.’[20]

In Islamic Spain, even the Christians preferred Islamic government (based upon Shariah Law) over that of the Franks. This assertion appears to be quite reasonable when the views of Reinhart Dozy, an authority on the early Islamic Spain, are taken into consideration:

‘The unbounded tolerance of the Arabs must also be taken into account. In religious matters they put pressure on no man…Christians preferred their rule to that of the Franks.’[21]

Ulick R. Burke, a prominent historian specializing in the history of Spain, reached a similar conclusion:

‘Christians did not suffer in any way, on account of their religion, at the hands of Moors…not only perfect toleration but nominal equality was the rule of the Arabs in Spain.’[22]

This tolerance had an immense impact on the Christian population of Spain, many of them converted to Islam and those who did not adopted the Islamic culture in regards to literature and lifestyle. This is emphatically substantiated by the 9th century Spanish Christian writer, Paul Alvarus (who was writing in the 850’s at Cordova):

‘The Christians love to read the poems and romances of the Arabs; they study the Arab theologians and philosophers, not to refute them but to form a correct and elegant Arabic. Where is the layman who now reads the Latin commentaries on the Holy Scriptures, or who studies the Gospels, prophets or apostles? Alas! All talented young Christians read and study with enthusiasm the Arab books; they gather immense libraries at great expense; they despise the Christian literature as unworthy of attention. They have forgotten their own language. For every one who can write a letter in Latin to a friend, there are a thousand who can express themselves in Arabic with elegance, and write better poems in his language then the Arabs themselves.’[23]

Most of the aforementioned opinions indicate that the Muslim arrival in Spain liberated the masses from a deep slumber of ignorance and oppression. Prior to the Islamic emergence, the Catholic Spanish establishment was known for persecuting the Jews and minor Christian sects. The Muslims changed all of that and what followed was the appearance of a true renaissance that enabled Jews, Muslims and Christians to live in peace for centuries. Maria Rosa Menocal, one of the authorities on medieval European literature, decided to title her work (which describes how the Abrahamic faiths co-existed peacefully during the Islamic era) the “Ornament of the world”[24]; the phrase was used by Hroswitha (a 10th century German nun) to describe Islamic Spain[25]. Thus, Islam came as a mercy for the people of Iberian Peninsula, who welcomed the new rulers as liberators for the tyranny of the Visigoths.

A 7th century War on Terror

One may question as to why was it that the Muslims were invading these lands and removing the already existing governments from power? It must be recognized that most of the 7th/8th century powers were guilty of oppression against their own subjects. The Qur’an provides one of the reasons, which caused the early Muslims to intervene:

‘And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah, and for those weak, ill-treated and oppressed among men, women and children, whose cry is: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will help”’[26]

The Muslims were thus charged to carry out a war on terror in order to liberate the weak and oppressed and they duly fulfilled the Qur’anic injunction (it has been substantiated above that the populations of some of the countries Muslims took were severely oppressed by their rulers and it was due to this reason that they welcomed the Muslims as liberators). However, in this 7th century war against terror there was no oil or re-construction/destruction contracts involved. An objective approach to the subject will lead to similar findings. Perhaps the views of the Nestorian Patriarch of Khurasan in the 7th century, Ishoyabh III, will help elucidate upon this more. He addressed a letter to Simeon, the Primate of Persia, where he wrote:

‘and the Arabs, to whom God at this time has given the empire of the world, behold, they are among you, as ye know well: and yet they attack not the Christian faith, but, on the contrary, they favour our religion, do honour to our priests and the saints of the Lord, and confer benefits on churches and monasteries.’[27]

Usually exploitation and plunder of resources follows an invasion, as can clearly be seen in the case of the colonial period and modern day Iraq (Iraq’s most precious Baghdad museum was plundered following the US invasion (2003) and the 7000 years history of Mesopotamian civilisation was lost). Did Muslims follow the same precedence? Adam Smith, the 18th century founding father of modern capitalism (whose portrait is illustrated on the back of the current £20 note), did not think so:

‘The ruin of the empire of the Romans, and, along with it the subversion of all law and order, which happened a few centuries afterwards, produced the entire neglect of that study of the connecting principles of nature, to which leisure and security can alone give occasion. After the fall of those great conquerors and the civilisers of mankind, the empire of the Caliphs seems to have been the first state under which the world enjoyed that degree of tranquillity, which the cultivation of the sciences requires. It was under the protection of those generous and magnificent princes, that the ancient philosophy and astronomy of the Greeks were restored and established in the East; that tranquillity, which their mild, just and religious government diffused over their vast empire, revived the curiosity of mankind, to inquire into the connecting principles of nature.’[28]

Adam Smith (1723-1790) was one of the most outstandingly intelligent economists of his time. His works such as “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” and “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” are thought to be among the cornerstones of Western literature. The latter work (which is the most popular work in the field of economics to this day) seems to be very much concerned with an inquiry into how certain nations acquire prosperity. Some of the ways of acquiring prosperity and scientific advancement, which he expressed in the aforementioned quote, are security, the sense of tranquillity and justice; and Adam Smith believed that the mild, just and religious government of the Muslim Caliphs (who governed with Shariah Law) revived the curiosity of mankind to attain all kind of benefits from nature. The critics and the so called modern reformers of Islam need to pay heed to Adam Smith’s words and see whether he was reasonable in his conclusion in this regard. If Islam enabled mankind to achieve a high level of prosperity in those days, it still contains the potential to repeat the same today. One has to observe, in the light of history and contemporary reports, whether the present war on terror really is a war on terror or the 7th century Islamic war on terror better qualifies to be called “a war on terror”. If one was to examine objectively, one will find the 7th century war on terror to be a better choice, as today we do not see any positive outcome of the so called “21st century war on terror” but in the 7th century Muslims weakened the Byzantine, Persian and Visigothic terror to replace it by what, in the case of Spain, Adam Smith describes as scientific enlightenment for Europe:

“The victorious arms of the Saracens [Latin synonym for a Muslim] carried into Spain the learning as well as the gallantry, of the East; and along with it, the tables of Almamon, and the Arabian translations of Ptolemy and Aristotle; and thus Europe received a second time, from Babylon, the rudiments of the sciences of the heavens. The writings of Ptolemy were translated from Arabic into Latin; and the Peripatetic philosophy was studied  in Averroes [Ibn Rushd] and Avicenna [Ibn Sina] with as much eagerness and as much submission to its doctrines in the West, as it had been in the East.”[29]

[1] Pope Gregory I quoted by Mohammad Farooq Kemal, The Crescent vs The Cross, Lahore, 1997, P. 7.
[2] The Quran, Surah AL-Anbiya 21, verse 107.
[3] The Quran, Surah an-Noor 24, verse 55.
[4] Carole Hillenbrand, Muhammad and the rise of Islam, The New Cambridge Medieval History, 2005, vol 1, p. 340.
[5] John Bar Penkaye, quoted by Walter E. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquest, Cambirdge, 2000, p. 216.
[6] T. W. Arnold, Preaching of Islam, London, 1913, p. 55.
[7] Ibid, p. 132-4.
[8] Dionysius of Tel-Mahre, The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles, tr by Palmer, Liverpool, 1993, p. 156-7.
[9] T. W. Arnold, Preaching of Islam, London, 1913, p. 61.
[10] The Quran, Surah 4 An-Nisa, Verse 58.
[11] Dionysius of Tel-Mahre, The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles, tr by Palmer, Liverpool, 1993, p. 157.
[12] Ibid, p. 158
[13] John of Nikiou, quoted by Petra M. Sijpesteijn, Egypt in the Byzantine World, Cambridge, 2007, p. 442.
[14] Ibid, see footnote 28.
[15] Alfred J. Butler, The Arab Conquest of Egypt and the Last Thirty Years of the Roman Dominion, 1902, Oxford, p. 447-8.
[16] The Jews in the Legal Sources of the Early Middle Ages, edited by Amnon Linder, New York, 1997, p.488.
[17] Zion Zohar, Sephardic & Mizrahi Jewry, New York, 2005, p. 8-9.
[18]  Ibid, p. 9.
[19] H. Graetz, History of the Jews, London, 1892, Vol 3, p. 112.
[20] Ibid, p. 220.
[21] Reinhart Dozy, A History of Muslims in Spain, 1861 (reprinted 1913, 2002), Delhi, p.235.
[22] Ulick R. Burke, A History of Spain, London, 1900, vol I, p. 129.
[23] Paul Alvarus quoted by Maria Rosa Menocal, Ornament of the world, New York, 2003, p.66.
[24] Maria Rosa Menocal, Ornament of the world, New York, 2003.
[25] Stanley Lane-Poole, The Moors in Spain, London, 1920, p. 144.
[26] The Quran, Surah An-Nisa 4, verse 75.
[27] Ishoyabh III quoted by T. W. Arnold, Preaching of Islam, London, 1913, p. 81-82.
[28] The Essays of Adam Smith, London, 1869, p. 353.
[29] Ibid, p. 354.

Long ago in the city of Baghdad, On one side of the River Tigris were the royal palaces and on the other side was the city. The Muslims were gathered in the Royal Palace when an athiest approached them. He said to them, ‘I don’t believe in God, there cannot be a God, you cannot hear Him or see Him, you’re wasting your time! Bring me your best debator and I will debate this issue with him.’

The best debator at the time was Imam Abu Hanifah Rahimullah. A messenger from amongst the Muslims was sent over the River Tigris to the city, where Abu Hanifah Rahimullah was, in order to tell him about the athiest who was awaiting him. On crossing the River Tigris, the messenger conveyed the message to Abu Hanifah Rahimullah saying, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah, an athiest is waiting for you, to debate you, please come!’ Abu Hanifah Rahimullah told the messeneger that he would be on his way.

The messenger went over the River Tigris once again and to the Royal Palaces, where everyone including the athiest awaited the arrival of Abu Hanifah Rahimullah. It was sunset at the time and one hour had passed, but Abu Hanifah Rahimullah still hadn’t arrived. Another hour had passed, but still there was no sign of him. The Muslims started to become tense and worried about his late arrival. They did not want the athiest to think that they were too scared to debate him, yet they did not want to take up the challenge themselves as Abu Hanifah Rahimullah was the best of Debators from amongst the Muslims. Another hour passed, and suddenly the athiest started laughing and said, ‘ Your best debator is too scared! He knows he’s wrong, he is too frightened to come and debate with me. I gurantee he will not turn up today.’

The Muslims increased in apprehension and eventually it had passed midnight, and the athiest had a smile on his face. The clock ticked on, and finally Abu Hanifah Rahimullah had arrived. The Muslims inquired about his lateness and remarked, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah, a messenger sent for you hours ago, and you arrive now, explain your lateness to us.’

Abu Hanifah Rahimullah apologises for his lateness and begins to explain, while the atheist listens to his story.

‘Once the messenger delivered the message to me, I began to make my way to the River Tigris, and on reaching the river bank I realised there was no boat, in order to cross the river. It was getting dark, and I looked around, there was no boat anywhere nor was there a navigator or a sailor in order for me to cross the river to get to the Royal Palaces. I continued to look around for a boat, as I did not want the athiest to think I was running away and did not want to debate with him.

I was standing on the river bank looking for a navigator or a boat when something caught my attention in the middle of the river. I looked forward, and to my amazement I saw planks of wood rising to the surface from the sea bed. I was shocked, amazed, I couldn’t believe what I saw seeing. Ready made planks of wood were rising up to the surface and joining together. They were all the same width and length, I was astounded at what I saw.

I continued to look into the middle of the river, and then I saw nails coming up from the sea floor. They positioned themselves onto the boat and held the planks together, without them being banged. I stood in amazement and thought to myself, ‘Oh Allah, how can this happen, planks of wood rising to the surface by itself, and then nails positioning themselves onto the boat without being banged?’ I could not undertsand what was happening before my eyes.’

The athiest meanwhile was listening with a smile on his face. Abu Hanifah Rahimullah continued, ‘I was still standing on the river bank watching these planks of wood join together with nails. I could see water seeping through the gaps in the wood, and suddenly I saw a sealant appear from the river and it began sealing the gaps without someone having poured it, again I thought, ‘Ya Allah, how is this possible, how can sealant appear and seal the gaps without someone having poured it, and nails appear without someone having banged them.’ I looked closer and I could see a boat forming before my eyes, I stood in amazement and was filled with shock. All of a sudden a sail appeared and I thought to myself, ‘How is this happening, a boat has appeared before my eyes by itself, planks of wood, nails, sealant and now a sail, but how can I use this boat in order to cross the river to the Royal Palaces?’

I stood staring in wonderment and suddenly the boat began to move. It came towards me against the current. It stood floating beside me while I was on the river bank, as if telling me to embark onto it. I went on the boat and yet again it began to move. There was no navigator or sailor on the boat, and the boat began to travel towards the direction of the royal palaces, without anyone having programmed it as to where to go. I could not understand what was happening, and how this boat had formed and was taking me to my destination against the flow of water. The boat eventually reached the other side of the River Tigris and I disembarked. I turned around and the boat had disappeared, and that is why I am late.’

At this moment, the athiest brust out laughing and remarked, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah, I heard that you were the best debator from amongst the Muslims, I heard that you were the wisest, the most knowledgable from amongst your people. From seeing you today, I can say that you show none of these qualities. You speak of a boat appearing from nowhere, without someone having built it. Nails positioning themselves without someone having banged them, sealant being poured without someone having poured it, and the boat taking you to your destination without a navigator against the tide, your taking childish, your talking rediculous, I swear I do not belive a word of it!’

Abu Hanifah Rahimullah turned to the athiest and replied, ‘You don’t believe a word of it? You dont believe that nails can appear by themselves? You dont believe sealant can be poured by itself? You dont believe that a boat can move without a navigator, hence you don’t believe that a boat can appear without a boat maker?’

The athiest remarked defiantly, ‘Yes I dont believe a word of it!’

Abu Hanifah Rahimullah replied, ‘If you cannot believe that a boat came into being without a boat maker, than this is only a boat, how can you believe that the whole world, the universe, the stars, the oceans, and the planets came into being without a creator?

The athiest astonished at his reply got up and fled.

This is an excellent leaflet by iERA media production One Reason which can be visited here, Kudos to Br Hamza Andreas Tzortzis (May Allah SWT bless & protect him) who is a legend mash’Allah!

Do We Have Good Reasons to Believe?

Why is the universe the way it is?

One of the most important questions that almost all thinkers, philosophers and people like you and I have asked is “Why does the universe exist at all? And why is it the way it is?” In response to this question there are those who say that the universe is uncaused, in other words it is eternal, meaning it has no beginning and no end. If this is true, there should be an infinite history of past events.  However, the infinite in the real world is not possible as it implies a quantity that is limitless. Let’s take the following examples into consideration: if there were an infinite number of books in a room and two were taken away, how many would be left? The response may be “infinity” or for those who are logically inclined “infinity minus two”. In any case, the responses don’t make sense because although two have been taken away from infinity there still remains infinity! Consequently, we’re not able to count the remaining books left in the room. Therefore the infinite leads to contradictions and simply doesn’t exist in the real world (although it exists in mathematical discourse; however it is based upon certain axioms and conventions). Therefore, it logically follows that the universe must have a finite history of past events, which indicates that it must have begun to exist at some point in time.

The above may sound too philosophical, but it is also supported by scientific evidence, for instance, Stephen Hawking, in his lecture The Beginning of Time states, “The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.”i According to contemporary cosmologists, the universe began at time zero with the event commonly called the “Big Bang”. The theory postulates that the universe began as a “singularity”, an extremely hot and dense entity that expanded and subsequently cooled, going from something incredibly small and hot to the current size and temperature of our universe. In light of these facts, it is interesting to note that there is no scientific explanation as to what happened before time zero. In addition to this, the Big Bang theory can only postulate what happened 1 x 10-34 seconds after the Big Bang but not anytime before it. What happened before this particular point in time is unknown.

In the context of the above discussion, it can be concluded that generally physicists agree that as a result of the Big Bang, physical time and space were created as were energy and matter. So two premises can be drawn from all the above: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause 2. The universe began to exist – Therefore the universe has a cause. How do we get to this conclusion? Well, if everything we know and see that begins to exist has a cause, for example a noise in the room or the pyramids at Giza, then the universe – which also began to exist - must also have a cause.

The Cause for the Universe = God?

Our discussion so far has provided good reasons to believe that there must have been a cause for the universe. However, this doesn’t tell us much about what the cause is, but if we think deeply about the nature of the cause - also known as conceptual analysis – we can conclude that it must be very powerful as it brought into existence the entire universe, and it must be:

One…

The cause for the universe must be a single cause for several reasons. An attractive argument to substantiate this claim includes the use of the rational principle called Occam’s razor. This principle is commonly summarised as “the simplest explanation is the best explanation”. In philosophical terms the principle enjoins that we should not multiply entities beyond necessity. What this basically means is that we should stick to explanations that do not create more questions than it answers. In the case of the cause for the universe we have no evidence to claim multiplicity, in other words more than one, and if we did it would create more questions than it answers.

Uncaused & Eternal…

This cause must also be uncaused due to the absurdity of an infinite regress, in other words an indefinite chain of causes. To illustrate this better, if the cause of the universe had a cause and that cause had a cause ad infinitum, then there wouldn’t be a universe to talk about in the first place. For example, imagine if a Stock Trader on a trading floor at the Stock Exchange was not able to buy or sell his stocks or bonds before asking permission from the investor, and then this investor had to check with his, and this went on forever, would the Stock Trader ever buy or sell his stocks or bonds? The answer is no. In similar light, if we apply this to the universe we would have to posit an uncaused cause due to this rational necessity.

However, some philosophers and scientists claim that “why doesn’t the cause be the universe itself?” and “why can’t the cause stop at the universe?” Well, the problem with these claims is that they would imply the universe created itself, which is absurd because how can anything exist and not exist at the same time? Finally, it would be irrational to claim that whatever begins to exist causes itself!

Immaterial…

The cause has to be immaterial since it created everything. If you were to take any state of physical existence, you would come to the conclusion that, that state of physical existence owes itself to another state of physical existence. And that state of physical existence, owes itself to another state of physical existence. But you can’t go back states of physical existences ad infinitum. There has to be a beginning to the entire state of physical existences. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that the origin of all creation has to be a non- physical state.

After thinking about the nature of the cause for the universe we come to the remarkable realisation that it has all the basic attributes of the traditional monotheistic God, namely that He is one, eternal and immaterial. But what reasons do we have to start claiming that a particular religion is true? This leads us to discuss the Qur’an, the book of the Muslims.

The Qur’an

The Qur’an is no ordinary book. It has been described by many, who engage with the book, as an imposing text, but the way it imposes itself on the reader is not negative, rather it is positive. This is because it seeks to positively engage with your mind and your emotions, and it achieves this by asking profound questions, such as “So where are you people going? This is a message for all people; for those who wish to take the straight path.”ii and “Have they not thought about their own selves?”iii

However, the Qur’an doesn’t stop there, it actually challenges the whole of mankind with regards to its divine authorship, it boldly states “If you have doubts about the revelation we have sent down to Our servant, then produce a single chapter like it – enlist whatever supporters you have other than God – if you truly think you can.

If you cannot do this – and you never will – then beware of the fire prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones.”iv This challenge refers to the various wonders in the Qur’an, even within its smallest chapter, that give us good reasons to believe it is from God. Some of these reasons are historical and scientific.

Historical…

There are many historical statements in the Qur’an that show us good reasons that it is from God. One of them is that the Qur’an is the only religious text to use different titles for the rulers of Egypt at different times. For instance while addressing the Egyptian ruler, at the time of Prophet Yusuf (Joseph), the word “Al-Malik” is used which refers to a king (note: that during the middle old kingdom Hyksos Asiatic families were governing Egypt and they did not use the title Pharaoh, as the Qur’an mentions “The King said, ‘Bring him to me straight away!’”).v

In contrast, the ruler of Egypt at the time of the Prophet Musa (Moses) is referred to as Pharaoh, in Arabic “Firaown”. This particular title began to be employed in the 14th century B.C., during the reign of Amenhotep IV. This is confirmed by the Encyclopaedia Britannica which states that the word Pharaoh was a title of respect used from the New Kingdom (beginning with the 18th dynasty; B.C. 1539-1292) until the 22nd dynasty (B.C. 945-730).

So the Qur’an is historically accurate as the Prophet Yusuf lived at least 200 years before that time, and the word “King” was used for the Hyksos kings, not Pharaoh. In light of this, how could have the Prophet Muhammad known such a minute historical detail? Especially when all the other religious texts, such as the Bible, just mention Pharaoh as a title for all times? Also, since people at the time of the revelation did not know this information and hieroglyphs were a dead language, what does this say about the authorship of the Qur’an? There is no naturalistic explanation.

Scientific…

The Qur’an always mentions nature as a sign for God’s existence, power and majesty. Every time these are mentioned, they are expressed with a great accuracy, and they also give us information that could have never been known at the time of the Prophet Muhammad. One of these signs includes the function and structure of mountains. The Qur’an mentions that mountains have “peg” like structures and that they have been embedded into earth to stabilise it, a concept known in Geology as isostasy. The Qur’an mentions: “We placed firmly embedded mountains on the earth, so it would not move under them…”vi and “Have We not made the earth as a bed and the mountains its pegs?”vii

The Qur’an’s eloquent renderings of the facts mentioned above are confirmed by modern science which only came to be understood by the end of the 20th Century. In the book Earth, by Dr. Frank Press, former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, states that mountains are like stakes, and are buried deep under the surface of Earth.viii

With regards to the vital role of mountains, it was formerly understood that mountains were merely protrusions rising above the surface of Earth. However, scientists realised that this was not actually the case, and that the parts known as the mountain roots extended down as far as 10 to 15 times their own height. With these features, mountains play a similar role to a nail or peg firmly holding down a tent, which has been discovered by modern geological and seismic research, a concept known as isostasy.ix

In conclusion, how can we explain this in the light of the fact that this is relatively recent science (with no one at the time of the revelation knowing this information)? What does this tell you about the author? Again, there is no naturalistic explanation.

Is Life Absurd without God?

The writer Loren Eiseley said that man is a cosmic orphan. This is quite profound, as man is the only creature in the universe who asks: why? Other animals have instincts to guide them, but man has learned to ask questions. If many of these questions raised by man exclude God then the conclusion is simple: we are the accidental by- products of nature, a result of matter plus time plus chance. There is no reason for your existence and all we face is death. Modern man thought that when he had got rid of God, he had freed himself from all that repressed and stifled him. Instead, he discovered that in killing God, he had also killed himself.

If there is no God, then man and the universe are doomed. Like prisoners condemned to death we await our unavoidable execution. What is the consequence of this? It means that life itself is absurd. It means that the life we have is without ultimate significance, value, or purpose. For example, according to the atheist worldview this life is purposeless, or at best, just assembled to propagate our DNA. The way some atheists get out of this is by saying we can create purpose for ourselves, however this is a self-delusion as we try and find some purpose by attributing purpose to the things we do in life, but remove purpose from our very own lives. Also, without God our lives do not have any ultimate meaning. If our ends are the same, in that we just pass out of existence, what meaning does that give our lives? Does it even matter if we existed at all?  If the universe was never in existence what difference would it make?

Existentialists such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus understood the meaningless reality of life in absence of acknowledging the purpose of our existence.  This is why Sartre wrote of the “nausea” of existence and Camus saw life as absurd, indicating that the universe has no meaning at all. The German Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche argued in clear concise pronouncements that the world and human history do not have any meaning, any rational order or aim. Nietzsche argued that there is only a mindless chaos, a directionless world tending towards no end. It is not wonder the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said he would have wished the world never existed. All of these views on the world are absurd conclusions carved by the atheist world view.

i  http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/publiclectures/62

ii  Qur’an Chapter 81 Verses 26 – 28

iii Qur’an Chapter 30 Verse 8

iv  Qur’an Chapter 2 Verse 23

v  Qur’an Chapter 12 Verse 50

vi  Qur’an Chapter 21 Verse 31

vii Qur’an Chapter78 Verses 6-7

viii  Frank Press, and Raymond Siever, Earth, 3rd ed. (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company: 1982

ix  M. J. Selby, Earth’s Changing Surface (Oxford: Clarendon Press: 1985), 32.

| www.onereason.info | info@onereason.info

[Taken from Shaykh Riad Ourzazi's (HafidUllah) blog called Serene Coaching]

1. Careful Planning:

• The beginning is the most important part of the work
• Leaders spend 80% of their time planning and 20% executing
• Leaders plan carefully to ensure the success of their desired outcome
• Some of the methodologies used are: SDLC, Lean Six Sigma, DMAIC…

2. Organization:

• A leader is organized
• He keeps only what he needs in his drawers and on top of his desk
• Every day he prepares a list of everything he wants to do
• A leader knows how to prioritize his action items

3. Goal Setting:

• There is no success without goals. A leader plans time for his family, reading, relaxation, business, personal development…
• A leader balances goals to have a better life

4. Decision Maker:

• A leader is trained on how to make decisions easily
• A leader doesn’t wait for things to happen
• A leader takes decisions to make things happen

5. Risk Taker:

• A leader is not afraid of taking risks, he knows in order to improve his performance, survive the competition, he needs to take some risks
• A leader knows how to mitigate the risks

6. Communication Skills:

• A leader knows when to talk and how to deliver his message
• A leader is an excellent listener who never interrupts people when they talk
• A leader creates rapport with everyone

7. Manage Change:

• A leader welcomes change versus resisting it
• A leader doesn’t like routine
• A leader anticipates market changes and acts accordingly

8. Managing Stress:

• A leader understands the danger of stress
• A leader educates himself on how to master it
• Some leaders choose to join health clubs, community centers…

9. Delegation:

• A leader believes in others and value his time
• A leader trusts his team and knows when and whom to delegate to get the job done

10. Vision and Creativity:

• A leader has an excellent business vision
• A leader can see things that others can’t
• A leader is very creative and is renowned for his great ideas

11. Trainer, Coach and Team Builder:

• A true leader enjoys sharing knowledge
• A leader needs to ensure business continuity. A recovery plan has to be in place in case of a disaster or a swift resource change

12. Motivation:

• A leader is a self-motivated person
• A leader recognizes the efforts of each individual in his team and praises them in private and public

13. Skills:

• A leader is well educated and knowledgeable
• A leader knows what he’s talking about
• A leader is always looking for ways to improve himself
• A leader strives to “climb the mountain towards excellence”

14. Confidence:

• A leader has a strong personality
• A leader knows how to control a situation and learn from it. His confidence makes his team respect him

15. Action:

• A leader is action-oriented
• He knows the difference between talking and doing.
• After careful planning, a leader moves immediately by taking the necessary actions

16. Commitment:

• A leader is committed to his plans and he knows that success takes time
• A leader is committed to achieving his goals; he’s committed to success!

17. Energy:

• A leader is energetic
• A leader watches his eating habits and respects his body.
• A leader works out regularly

18. Passion:

• A leader is a very passionate person
• A leader loves what he does and does it with passion. When you love what you do, you get to produce more

19. Flexible:

• A leader is persistent. If his plans are not getting the results he desires, he looks for another way to reach his goals
• A leader adjusts his plans, adopts himself, and keep readjusting until he reaches the desired outcome
• A leader takes mitigated risk. He’s not afraid of getting out of the comfort zone

20. Honesty:

• A leader is fair and just
• A leader is very loyal to his organization, his team, his job and his family
• A leader is very transparent
• A leader works SMART but also HARD.

O you who have believed, avoid much [negative] assumption. Indeed, some assumption is sin. And do not spy or backbite each other. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his brother when dead? You would detest it. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Accepting of repentance and Merciful.

[Al-Hujurat 49:12]

One night there was a woman at the airport who had to wait for several hours before catching her next flight. While she waited she bought a book and a pack of biscuits to spend the time. She looked for a place to sit and waited.

She was deep into her book, when suddenly she realized that there was a young man sitting next to her who was stretching his hand, with no concern whatsoever, and grabbing the pack of cookies lying between them. He started to eat them one by one.

Not wanting to make a fuss about it she decided to ignore him. The woman, slightly bothered, ate the cookies and watched the clock, while the young and shameless thief of biscuits was also finishing them. The woman started to get really angry at this point and thought ‘If I wasn’t such a good and educated person, I would have given this daring man a black eye by now.’

Every time she ate a biscuit, he had one too. The dialogue between their eyes continued and when only one biscuit was left, she wondered what was he going to do. Softly and with a nervous smile, the young man grabbed the last biscuit and broke it in two. He offered one half to the woman while he ate the other half.

Briskly she took the biscuit and thought, ‘What an insolent man! How uneducated! He didn’t even thank me!’ She had never met anybody so fresh and sighed relieved to hear her flight announced. She grabbed her bags and went towards the boarding gate refusing to look back to where that insolent thief was seated.

After boarding the plane and nicely seated, she looked for her book which was nearly finished by now. While looking into her bag she was totally surprised to find her pack of biscuits nearly intact. ‘If my biscuits are here’, she thought feeling terribly, ‘those others were his and he tried to share them with me.’ Too late to apologize to the young man, she realized with pain, that it was her who had been insolent, uneducated and a thief, and not him.

How many times in our lives, did we know with certainty that something happened in a certain way, only to discover later that it wasn’t true?

How many times has our lack of trust within us made us judge other people unfairly with our conceited ideas, often far away from reality.

THAT IS WHY WE HAVE TO THINK TWICE BEFORE WE JUDGE OTHERS!

US healthcare: Profits before patients

As many as 45,000 people in the US die every year because they can’t afford healthcare [Photo: Rose Aguilar]

When Stan Brock started Remote Area Medical (RAM) in 1985, never in his wildest dreams did he think his services would be needed in the United States, the wealthiest country in the world.

RAM began as an all-volunteer mobile medical clinic that provided free and immediate health care to people living in remote areas of the Amazon rainforest. In 1992, he was asked to bring the clinic to Knoxville, Tennessee. He was shocked by what he saw.

“People were in desperate need of the most basic care,” he said at RAM’s most recent expedition in Oakland, California last month. “It didn’t occur to me when I first came to this country, but it wasn’t long before I could see there were similarities between people who don’t have access to healthcare in a place like the Amazon and people who have access but can’t afford it in America – and they’re all in the same boat.”

An estimated 50 million Americans are uninsured and another 25 million are underinsured, meaning they can’t pay the difference between what their insurance will cover and the total cost of their medical bills. Someone files for bankruptcy every 30 seconds in the US because of a serious health problem, according to a Harvard University study.

Since 1992, RAM has conducted 640 expeditions in the US. When the travelling medical clinic comes to town, the lines begin forming at around midnight. An average of 3,000 people are treated at a typical four-day event. Over 90 per cent of the patients are in desperate need of basic dental and vision care. Each clinic costs roughly $100,000 to run, requires over 1,000 volunteers, and takes an entire year to organise.

When patients entered the clinic at the Oakland Coliseum, they were greeted by smiling volunteers, rows upon rows of dental chairs, optometric stations, and tables covered with medical tools, gloves, and equipment.

When Milka Guiterrez heard that free healthcare was being offered, she moved her schedule around to get a good place in line. On Sunday night, long after her three kids were sound asleep, she left her house at 1am. She was number 474 in line.

Shortly before patients began entering the makeshift clinic five hours later, Guiterrez ran home, grabbed her kids, and returned with her fingers crossed. She got lucky.

She and her kids had eye exams and dental work. Her eight-year-old daughter Paloma was in pain from the drilling, but managed to crack a smile. “When I used to smile, there was yellow stuff everywhere,” she said wiping away tears. “I was so embarrassed. I stopped smiling when I was six. It hurts, but now I’m happy.”

After 12 years with the US Postal Service, Anita Moore was hurt on the job and lost her health insurance. She got in line at 3:30am. By 6pm, she had her eyes checked, her teeth cleaned, two fillings, and four extractions.

Six months ago, she had an injury and hasn’t been able to lift her arms above her shoulders. The pain went away after 15 minutes of acupuncture at the clinic. “I was so happy because I couldn’t lift. I was just shocked. Now I can move them around,” she said. “It’s a blessing.”

Les Kuller, an unemployed construction worker who got in line at 5:30am, lost his health insurance when his wife passed away two years ago. He got a molar fixed, had his blood pressure checked, was given a pair of eyeglasses, and had chiropractic and physical therapy work. He was so touched by the care he received and the volunteers he met, he came back the next day to join them.

“The least I could do is give back,” he said. “On one hand, this is so incredibly amazing that all these volunteers can pull this together. On the other hand, it’s a sad commentary about what the hell is going on in Washington and why the hell these knuckleheads can’t walk across the aisle and shake hands and figure this thing out.”

Kuller says he hopes people standing in overnight lines for basic medical care “embarrasses the hell” out of politicians. I heard similar sentiments from several people receiving care at the clinic.

When profit comes before care

Democratic politicians proudly point to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the bill that was signed by President Obama in March 2010, as real progress, but Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), an organisation of doctors who support healthcare for all, say the bill is nothing more than a false promise of reform.

Instead of eliminating the real problem, the new legislation will enrich and further entrench the profit-driven, private health insurance industry, and leave 23 million people still uninsured in 2019, according to PNHP.

If Republicans have their way, the 45 million seniors and people with disabilities who rely on Medicare will see their out-of-pocket costs double – or do without treatment altogether.

RAM founder Stan Brock doesn’t like to talk about politics. He’s too busy making sure people get treated. RAM’s next stop is in Pikeville, Kentucky. From there, he and his team will head to Cocke County, Tennessee, Wise County, Virginia, and Chicago, Illinois. Because he’s has had so many requests from all over the country, he sees no end in sight.

This is what happens when profit comes before care.

UnitedHealth’s first quarter profits this year rose 13 per cent to $1.35 billion from $1.19 billion last year. UnitedHealth CEO Stephen Hemsley’s total compensation of $101.96 million last year made him the highest paid executive in the country.

The US is the only major country in the industrialised world that doesn’t guarantee healthcare to all of its citizens. It’s unconscionable that 45,000 people in the US die every year because they can’t afford care.

Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who believes that the US should put patients over profits, recently re-introduced the American Health Security Act, which would provide every citizen with healthcare coverage through a state-administered, single payer program.

Here’s a fact from the PNHP that never made its way through the noise machine during the so-called healthcare debate – which was shaped by the insurance industry from the beginning. It should be repeated over and over again. the bureaucracy and paperwork of the profit-making health insurance industry consume one-third of every healthcare dollar.

Streamlining payment through a single-payer system would save more than $400 billion per year – which is enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all.

RAM’s Stan Brock says a single-payer system, as long as it covers dental and vision, would put him out of business in the US. “That would allow us to go back to the Amazon, Central America, Haiti – and other places where we belong.”

Rose Aguilar is the host of Your Call, a daily call-in radio show on KALW in San Francisco. She’s the author of “Red Highways: A Liberal’s Journey into the Heartland.”

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.
]]> http://princeomaralkhattab.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/al-jazeera-us-healthcare-profits-before-patients/feed/ 0 Omar Al-Khattab