The series fell into controversy, due to its depiction of Omar, Abu Bakr, Osman and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them), with some scholars issuing fatwa, that it is not permissible to depict the close companions of the prophet (PBUH). However, there were other scholars who said that it is permissible to depict the companions in a drama as this one, as there is no Quranic verse or Hadith prohibiting it.

One of the objections raised was that the people who play the roles of the companions in the series may not be practicing muslims in real life, and come nowhere close to the companions themselves and that images of these actors may come to the minds of the audiences, whenever the name of the companion is mentioned, and therefore it is not permissible to watch this series. However, this argument is not valid, because, logically speaking; the audience know very well that these actors are not the companions, but just actors. No sane person would come to think that these actors were the companions or are like the companions of the prophet (PBUH).

I saw this series on youtube, and I personally feel that it is one of the best Islamic productions ever made. The series starts with the life of Umar (RA) in the pre-Islamic Arabia, and then continues with his life at the time of the mission of the prophet (PBUH), his conversion to Islam, the caliphate of Abu Bakr (RA) and finally, the Caliphate of Umar (RA) himself. The series is as accurate as it was possible without showing the prophet (PBUH), in a 30 episode drama.

The series is very well made. One of the most positive points of the series is that it lays great emphasis on the teachings of Islam, and how they changed the society of the time from the days of ignorance and injustice to the justice of Islam. It shows the efforts and the sacrifices of the companions of the prophet in spreading the message of Islam.

The Series really touches the heart. It increases the love of the companions.

In the end, all that I would like to say is that, although the series may not be perfect in every sense, it is a source of a lot of good. It is a series not to missed. So if you have not seen it already, then please click here to watch it on Youtube.

                         -Justice Markandey Katju, the Chairman of the Press Council of India(Source: The Hindu, New Delhi, March 7, 2013)

The perception that ‘All Muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims’ has become a part of the social common sense. Polls show that nearly half of the population of U.S. holds negative view about Islam and Muslims. It’s kind of funny that many Non-Muslims in India avoid visiting a Muslim-dominated area because they fear that Muslims might attack them and kill them!

The anti-Muslim sentiments are all time high among public. Most Hindus in India still hold the belief that Muslims are evil invaders from a foreign land who had come to India to enforce their religion at the point of sword. The problem arises as a result of the tendency of most people to define themselves against other people’s culture. Whatever is foreign or unfamiliar becomes fearsome.

“They don’t dress like us. They don’t behave like us. They don’t pray like us. Therefore we must be afraid of them.”

The anti-Muslim bigotry is not new. Islam has often been portrayed with negative stereotyping by the historians, as Bernard Lewis expressed Islam as “a military religion, [with] fanatical warriors, engaged in spreading their faith and their law by armed might.” ¹

To quote the famous German sociologist and philosopher Max Weber, “Islam was never really a religion of salvation. Islam is a warrior religion.” ²

 Media adds fuel to the fire by supporting the politicians and racists to promote their own agenda. Media people incorrectly frame the territorial and political conflicts in a religious context.

On an occasion Justice Markandey Katju said:

“A majority of the media people are of very poor intellectual level, with no idea of economic theory or political science, philosophy or literature. The Indian press is not working for the interest of the people.” ³

It might be surprising to many of you but the latest research tells us that Religion (specifically Islam) has got nothing to do with terrorism.

Robert Pape, a political scientist at University of Chicago and founder of ‘Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism’, compiled the first complete database of every documented suicide bombing from 1980-2004 and made an observation in his book: ‘Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism’ that:

“The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions. Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland.” ⁴

Those people who believe that all terrorists are Muslims can look at the following data are either unaware of History or they deliberately ignore the facts. How can anyone forget the mass murders committed by Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao Tse Tsung and Maximilin Robespierre. How can anyone forget the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How can anyone forget the atrocities committed by U.S. military on innocent people of Iraq and Afghanistan? How can anyone ignore the atrocities committed by Israeli military on innocent people of Palestine? How can anyone forget thousands of innocent Muslims killed in Gujarat riots?

The history is filled with examples of Non-Muslim terrorists. It is wrong to link the act of terrorism with any religion. There is no such thing as Islamic terrorism or Hindu terrorism or Christian terrorism. No religion sanctions killing of innocent people.

Many people think that the best way to dispel misconceptions about Muslims is education. They say that if people learn more about Islam then they wouldn’t be so afraid of Muslims. However, that is not the case in reality.

There are many well educated scholars who spread hatred against Islam and Muslims, for example, Arun Shoorie, Taslima Nasreen, Salman Rushdie, Robert Spencer, Pamella Geller, etc. Cartoons published in Denmark humiliating the Prophet (S.A.W.) were not made by illiterates. The Movie “Innocence of Muslims” which also disrespected the Holy Prophet was also not made by illiterates.

Of course, education is necessary. There is no doubt that people are ignorant about Islam and they need to be made aware. But as the famous Iranian-American scholar of religions, Dr. Reza Aslan says,

“Data or education alone cannot change perception because bigotry does not reside in the mind, it resides in the heart. The only way that you can battle fear is through relationships.” ⁵

Prophet Muhammad (Peace be on Him) used to say “The best amongst you are those who have the best manners and character.” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 759)

He is also reported to have said:

“The Muslim is a person from whose tongue and hand all people are safe.” (Narrated by Imam al Nasai, by Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and also by Imam al Tabrani)

I request all Muslims to please learn and try to acquire the excellent moral character of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be on Him). Set an example before Non-muslims that Islam’s teachings are beautiful. There is a famous saying,

‘Practice what you preach.’

I request all Non-Muslims not to judge Muslims by the presumptions based on hatred and prejudice. Don’t hesitate to talk to a Muslim. Just go, ask questions and clear your doubts. Don’t let the politicians, racists and corporate media control your minds. I can guarantee that no sensible Muslim will kill you just because you are a Hindu or a Christian or a Sikh.

REFERENCES:

1. ‘No god But God’, Reza Aslan, pg. 78-79

2. ‘No god But God’, Reza Aslan, pg. 78-79

3. Weekend Panorama: The Rotten State of India’s Media, Wall Street Journal, India, Dec. 2, 2011

4.  Robert pape, ‘Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism’, Ch. 1, pg. 4.

5. Misperceptions about Islam today: A conversation with Reza Aslan by Stephania Lakatos. (‘Stand Alone Media’ www.sam.tv ).

Therefore, the meaning of the word, economy here is not its linguistic one; it is rather its traditional one, which is running affairs of the funds, whether by increasing them and securing their creation, where this is discussed in economic science; Or by the manner of its distribution, which is dealt with in the economic system.

Thus the economic crisis means severe turbulence in the management of financial affairs of the state, which requires spending of the utmost in the effort to remove that turbulence and bring situation back to normality and balance. Economic crisis does not mean a mild imbalance in the financial affairs, which can be treated by the ordinary means. For this imbalance is usually expected in all of life’s affairs, and can be treated and tolerated within accepted limits.

For an ideological state that follows a proper view-point of life, it is not possible to ignore a mild imbalance that develops into a crisis. Therefore, the ideological state treats it from its start, so that the solution is easy and feasible.

Since we all know that an economic crisis is the severe turbulence in the management of the financial affairs of the state, it is incumbent upon us to know the first instance the manner which the state manages its financial affairs. Then, we have to explain the chances of occurrences of crisis in these matters, and then explain their treatment. To understand this, it is necessary to study few factors that have a great effect on the economic situation of any state.

Treatment of Economic Crisis

Having explained the reality of the economic crisis, we begin to explain the correct solution of this crisis.

Firstly: Addressing the crisis caused by the current monetary system.

We have stated previously that the monetary crisis could occur in the Gold-exchange system as well as the system of compulsory paper money. In order to eliminate the crises we have mentioned, reference has to be made gold directly, or by bank notes representing gold that are convertible into gold unconditionally. Many economists have realised this. Had not the relevant states, especially America opposed the return to gold standard, fearing for their loss of political and economic hegemony, the world would have returned to it. That is because this is the system that preserves stability and leads to prosperity in economic activity without the domination of one state over another. In this system, currency is defined by a standard unit recognised and respected by the whole. In this system the State also cannot increase the money supply unconditionally, because they are bound by the requirement of gold reserves. This is in contrast to the mandatory paper banknotes where the state could, when needed, issue the quantity they want to serve their own interests, a matter that leads directly to monetary inflation and weakness in the confidence in the monetary units. However, following conditions have to be observed in this system:

1. Freedom of export and import of gold by all countries without restriction or condition.
2. Absolute freedom in exchanging the paper money that represents gold into gold at any time, by their full value written on them.
3. Freedom of smelting and coinage of the yellow metal (gold). So, whoever possesses gold money, he could melt them and coin them into gold bullion without restriction. Likewise, whoever had gold alloys could go to the Department of minting money and mint golden money (after paying the expenses of the minting process, in order to prevent any possible disruption between the official and commercial price of gold.
4. This is from the angle of abstract economic research. But from the view-point of Islam, it is invalid to have money other than gold and silver, due to relevant shar’i evidences.

Economic crisis means severe turmoil in the management of the financial matters of state, which requires effort to remove it.

The crisis resulting from currency occurs in the gold-exchange system due to the political and economic domination of the state that owns the reserve currency over that other state. It also occurs in the mandatory paper (fiat) money because they are subject to price fluctuations and speculations among nations, and to financial conspiracies that led to political and economic unrest and economic collapse in financial markets. The treatment is to over revert to the system of the gold standard, which preserves exchange rate stability and economic prosperity.

The crisis resulting from the balance of payments due to deficits leads to indebtedness. Economy is not self-stimulated and the loans are misused, particularly as the loans are fought with danger of extending influence; and also because of usury which is prohibited in Islam. Resources to the IMF complicates the problem because it treats it as an abstract mathematical equation, and demands increase to taxes devaluation of currency, freezing or reducing wages and salaries, and removal of subsidies, besides increasing prices. It’s said to develop projects, which instead of developing the wealth of the state makes it unable to dissociate itself from aid and loans. Thus, the country would enter into the indebtness trap, from which it cannot escape. The maximum that a country that follows the IMP programme can achieve is the rescheduling of its debts rather than abolishing them. Besides it facilitates the taking up of new loans, thus accumulating debts, such that it cannot find a way out of them as is happening with all the countries currently dealing with these programmes.

Regarding the resolution of the crises of unemployment and poverty resulting from the ill-distribution of wealth or from its insufficiency, this is achieved by the State, as well as the imposition of financial maintenance for the incapacitated males and to the females due upon their mahram (close relatives). If such maintenance is not available, the state is responsible for such people by giving them what is adequate to meet their basic needs, from the bait-ul-maal (House of wealth). Otherwise, it is given from the taxes levied upon wealthy Muslims, and taken from the surplus of their funds.

The state services the basic needs of the whole nations as it services this for each and every individual. The basic needs of the individual are defined as; food, clothing, and accommodation; all according to prevailing standards. The basic needs of the whole nation are: education, health care, and security. These needs, in both cases, are fulfilled from the funds of the Bait-ul-maal if available, otherwise from additional taxes.

The constant revenues of the Bait-ul-maal, besides their supplements are: War booties, spoils, land zakat, head tax, all of the public properties and state properties of the lands, building, utilities, customs taxes, illicit funds of the rulers, and State officials, illegally earned funds, fines, a fifth of the buried treasure, minerals, property of those who have no heir, funds of apostates, charity funds – Zakat, and then the taxes (where essential). The revenues are usually sufficient for the state’s needs, particularly through running the economic activities properly.

The Khilafa state, that will soon be established, by the Will of God, own the proper solution to all the problems , whether economic or otherwise, because it is a state in which sovereignty belongs to God and authority belongs to the Ummah (community). It has one Khaleefah who adopts the Shar’i rules and is given pledge of allegiance on the Book of God and the Sunnah (way) of His messenger. Thus, he and the ummah are fearful of God in all of his actions. So, life will be organised according to the orders of God, and will prosper in all of its affairs.

St. Valentine’s Day is the name of this day and this time of the year for centuries has been dedicated to honour love and the pursuit of romance.

On this day email services will be inundated with messages and letters, bearing the responsibility of playing ‘cupid’, forwarding messages of ‘true love’. Youngsters will be making Valentine’s cards, and many would be collecting money from their pocket money to buy gifts for their so called loved one. Moreover, the Valentine’s Day rituals of anonymous cards, chocolates and gifts are expected between secret admirers.

So what’s the harm in all this some may ask? After all, is it not a day to remind your spouse of how much you love them, or for the children to indulge in a bit of fun?

Valentine’s Day is not simply about showing your affection to your partner or spouse, but it is in fact a day to remove all inhibitions and show your feelings to the person you secretly desire, a colleague, classmate, next door neighbour, relative etc, but someone to whom on any other day of the year it would not be easy to approach.

How did this Festival come into being ?

During the fifth century the Catholic Church wanted to end a pagan fertility rite that the Romans had practised every year since the 4th century BC. During the month of February a lottery would be held to celebrate a young man’s rite of passage to the “god” Lupericus. Young teenage girls participated in this lottery, with their names being placed in a box and drawn at random by young men. Through the lottery these young girls would be assigned to the man who picked them out, in order to enjoy ‘mutual pleasure’ for the duration of a year until the next year’s lottery.

The Church was unhappy with the promiscuous nature of this ritual and tried to end it by selecting a “Lover’s Saint”, who would be honoured as a replacement of the ritual of Lupericus. They chose a bishop by the name of Valentine who had been executed in the 3rd century AD. His punishment was as a result of his defying the Emperor Claudius who had banned marriages saying that married men made poor soldiers, as they did not want to leave their families during battles. Valentine invited lovers to come to him to be married in secret, a crime for which he was executed. However, before he died he is said to have sent a farewell message to the jailer’s daughter with whom he had fallen in love while in prison. It read “From your Valentine.”

VALENTINE’S DAY-A celebration of promiscuity

Modern day Valentine’s Day is something quite different from the intentions of Valentine. It is ironic to think that what the Church tried to achieve so long ago was the preservation of the institution of marriage, in the guise of St Valentine’s Day.

The reality of Valentine’s Day and what is associated with it is quite different; the return of promiscuity to society, relationships built upon and that result in fornication, unwanted pregnancies, back street abortions and all things that lead to the degradation and loss of honour in society.

Sadly, the corruption that ensues from this celebration of immorality affects all levels of society. Far from being a harmless activity, Valentine’s Day is big business in the Indian society. Television and newspapers will publicise Valentine’s Day through their promotion of special programmes, articles and events. Department stores, gift shops, clothes shops will be fully decorated with red roses and heart shaped balloons, enticing customers to purchase all that they will need to make their Valentine’s Day dreams a reality.

Throughout the country in the month of February countless numbers of schools, universities and clubs are in preparation for balls and parties, inviting the unsuspecting populace. Regrettably, some Muslims will inevitably be amongst them lured into the havens of free mixing, alcohol, and illicit sexual encounters.

At school, girls and boys will compete with each other to see who received the most Valentines cards and boast about the number of secret admirers they have. Others will be hiding their faces with humiliation in the realisation that nobody wants to show an ounce of romantic interest in them. It doesn’t stop there, in some places the Teachers and students will be organising the annual Valentines party, which for many youngsters will be their first encouragement to partake in the temptations of the opposite sex.

At university, students will use 14 February to indulge in all manner of obscene activity. Young men and women will spend the day preparing a repertoire of ‘chat up lines’, which they will use as a tool for enticing complete strangers in to having ‘one night stands’ with them. Many may even be competing with each other in the number of people they can seduce in one night so that they can ‘kiss and tell’ the next day.

On Valentine’s Day drug-pushers will be stocking up on the latest line of ‘date rape’ pills. This is all part of the package that goes along with the illicit relationships, fornication and adultery that is celebrated around Valentine’s Day.

BITTEN BY THE LOVE BUG? No, it’s just another STD

The consequences of the activities that many will take up on 14 February and beyond are clear to see. Year after year there is an increase in the number of date rapes that occur in this country. So much so Delhi and Mumbai and Calcutta were named as one of the most dangerous cities for women in India. Recently we saw the open sexual assault on women on the new years day in Mumbai, not to forget the very recent gangrape of a student in New delhi.

The promiscuous activity within society has led to astronomical rises in the diagnoses of acute sexually transmitted diseases (STD). Between January and July 2002, the Crime Against Women Cell of the Delhi police registered 75 cases of dowry death, 229 cases of rape, 243 cases of molestation, 306 cases of eve teasing, and 570 cases of kidnapping of women.. It is now estimated that some 128000 people are living with HIV in the India around a third of whom are undiagnosed.

In 2006 UNAIDS estimated that there were 5.6 million people living with HIV in India, which indicated that there were more people with HIV in India than in any other country in the world. The number of AIDS deaths in India (which was estimated at 2.7 million for the period 1980-2000) is judged to rise to 12.6 million in the period 2000-2015.

According to the latest findings of The Outlook-Synovate exclusive poll among 13-17 year olds – at least one in four has had a sexual experience. An alarming proportion has encountered multiple partners and claiming to indulge in sex at least once a month. At least 25 per cent of those polled claim to have used contraceptives; primarily condoms and pills. And most of those polled; claim to have lost virginity around 11-17 years.

DoctorNDTV.com conducted a survey to find out the perceptions and attitudes towards pre-marital sex in the Indian society. Interestingly, it was found that 88 percent of the people who took the survey felt that pre-marital sex did exist in our society.

According to National Institute of Health & family welfare, A quarter to a third of India’s young people indulge in premarital sex.(17% among schoolchildren ; 33% among young workers in the typical north Indian population)17.4 years is the average age for first sex for boys and 18.2 for girls in India.
& 60% of respondents had sex rarely or sometimes; & 14% frequently.3-4% had multiple partners.
According to Durex sex survey every Indian has had an average of 3 sexual partners in his life time.

Mumbai Counselling clinic claims that the all India occurrence of STDs in the age group of 18 to 30 is as high as 48 to 52 per cent. Premarital sex among 18- to 20-year-olds in metros is as high as 65.6 per cent amongst girls and 63.3 amongst boys. Extramarital affairs amongst married couples in the age group of 18 to 30 is as high as 10 to12 per cent. Post-30, this figure increases due to the onset of boredom in marriages.

THE PATRON SAINT OF SEXUAL FREEDOM

The reality of Valentine’s Day reflects a problem that does not end with 14 February. For the same concept, which drives people to stretch the limits of conventional morality on that day, is the same concept that Western society functions on every day of the year – sexual freedom.

The notion of ‘sexual freedom’ is central to the core values of secularism that the Western world has built as the foundation of its viewpoint in life. By separating religion from life’s affairs, all values of morality and self-restraint have been subjugated to the whims and desires of individuals. While freeing people from the oppressive subjugation of the leaders of the 16th Century European Church, secularism has enslaved mankind into an even more disastrous predicament – the relentless pursuit of personal pleasure.

In the name of ‘freedom’, hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost through wars that have purported to spread it, such as recent the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. As a result of ‘freedom’, people throughout the Western world are subjected to an increasing danger and fear of robbery, attack, and rape, by people who have been brought up in the belief that freedom to pursue ones desires is a license to relieve their needs at the expense of innocent bystanders .When the concept of freedom is applied to the relations between men and women, then this ‘sexual freedom’ inevitably leads to chaos, anarchy and misery in society.

ISLAM REJECTS SEXUAL FREEDOM

In light of the above issues the Muslim Ummah must be vigilant and recognise the mechanisms deployed by the enemies of Islam to reshape our understanding of the Islam. When Muslims are encouraged to engage in St. Valentine’s Day they are being asked to discard the Islamic morals, standards of behaviour, respect and dignity that is commanded from men and women.

It is essential for Muslims to realise that Islam demands that the point of reference is exclusively the Ahkham Shari’ah (divine rule). This is the only valid source of the rites, traditions or practices that Muslims are permitted to follow. Islam is in complete opposition to the secular concept of separation of religion from life. Nor does it give any credence to the false notion of individual freedom. Instead, Islam came to completely organise the affairs of humans in all aspects, liberating mankind from subjugation to other people, or their own base desires, and guiding them to the perfect laws of their Creator (swt).

كان لأهل المدينة في الجاهلية يومان من كل سنة يلعبون فيهما فلما قدم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم المدينة قال قد كان لكم يومان
تلعبون فيهما وقد أبدلكم الله بهما خيرا منهما يوم الفطر ويوم النحر

It is reported that Anas Bin Malik (ra) said; “When the Prophet (saw) came to Medina, the people had two holidays from the days of Jahiliyyah. He (saw) said, “When I came to you, you had two holidays you used to celebrate in jahiliyyah. Allah has replaced them for you with better days, the day of Fitr and the day of slaughter (Adha).”

From this basis it is clear that Islam prohibits the celebration of festivals, whether they are Easter, Christmas or Shrove Tuesday. From its origin St. Valentine’s Day is a pagan festival that encourages sexual relationships in society and is far away from anything a Muslim could contemplate. Therefore, observing its rituals and anything associated with it, is prohibited for the Muslims and is rejected by Islam.

RELATIONSHIPS IN ISLAM

In Islam the relations between a man and woman are clearly regulated and their interaction is not built upon arousing the sexual instinct in each other or viewing each other as a form of sensual gratification. Hence activities that permit the mixing of the sexes or encourage the close proximity to each other are stopped. Involvement in or attendance of Western style pubs, club, parties, or any other such social function is completely prohibited to Muslims.

Any signs of intimacy and passion are confined to the correct form of relationships between men and women, which is through marriage.

يا معشر الشباب من استطاع منكم الباءة فليتزوج فإنه أغض
للبصر وأحصن للفرج ومن لم يستطع فعليه بالصوم فإنه له وجاء

Ibn Mas’ud narrates that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said; “Oh you youngsters. Whosoever amongst you can afford to marry should marry, because it will help you to lower his gaze, and guard his modesty (i.e. private parts from unlawful sex). And whosoever is not able to marry he should fast, because it will be protection for him.”

The implementation of Islam ensures that the society established upon it will be free of promiscuity and will exhibit a high level of moral awareness. The Shari’ah recognises the needs and instincts of both man and woman. The family is protected and strengthened by the prohibition of fornication, adultery, free mixing of the sexes and the regulation of the dress code. By these injunctions, Islam prevents the possibility of its society being plagued by the same sexual ailments as those seen in the West.

Allah (swt) says

وَلاَ تَقْرَبُواْ الزِّنَى إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَاحِشَةً وَسَاء سَبِيلاً

‘Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils)’ [TMQ Al-Isra: 32].

يا معشر المهاجرين خمس إذا ابتليتم بهن وأعوذ بالله أن تدركوهن
لم تظهر الفاحشة في قوم قط حتى يعلنوا بها إلا فشا فيهم الطاعون
والأوجاع التي لم تكن مضت في أسلافهم الذين مضوا ولم ينقصوا
المكيال والميزان إلا الشاة بالسنين وشدة المئونة وجور السلطان عليهم
ولم يمنعوا زكاة أموالهم إلا منعوا القطر من السماء ولولا البهائم لم
يمطروا ولم ينقضوا عهد الله وعهد رسوله إلا سلط الله عليهم عدوا
من غيرهم فأخذوا بعض ما في أيديهم وما لم تحكم أئمتهم بكتاب
الله ويتخيروا مما أنزل الله إلا جعل الله بأسهم بينهم

Abd Allah ibn Umar said, ‘The Prophet (saw) came to us and said, ‘Oh Muhajireen, you may be afflicted by five things; God forbid that you should live to see them. If fornication should become widespread, you should realise that this has never happened without new diseases befalling the people which their forbears never suffered. If people should begin to cheat in weighing out goods, you should realise that this has never happened without drought and famine befalling the people, and their rulers oppressing them. If people should withhold zakat, you should realise that this has never happened without the rain being stopped from falling; and were it not for the animals’ sake, it would never rain again. If people should break their covenant with Allah and His messenger, you should realise that it has never happened without Allah sending an enemy against them to take some of their possessions by force. If the leaders do not govern according to the Book of Allah, you should realise that this has never happened without Allah making them into groups and making them fight one another’ [Ibn Majah].

—————————————————————————————-

[1] http://erasmus-in-india.blogspot.com/2006/02/premarital-sex.html               

We previously showed in the article Does Synthetic Genetics provide evidence for Darwinian Evolution? That Synthetic genetics, infact, provides experimental evidence for Intelligent Design and not Darwinian evolution. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer provides more examples of this in his book, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design from the simulation experiments of various kinds that scientists have performed for now over fifty years in an attempt to demonstrate the plausibility of some favored origin-of-life scenario. He explains

These experiments inadvertently demonstrated not only the power of mind over matter, but also the necessity of a mind to arrange matter into structures relevant to life.

Discussing about the conclusions that can be drawn from the experiments, he says

If these experiments were fables, they would have a moral: minds can produce biologically relevant structures and forms of information, but without mind or intelligence little, if any, information arises.

He mentions three types of experimental results that confirm this.

1. Prebiotic Simulation Experiments
2. Evolutionary Algorithms
3. Ribozyme Engineering

In Prebiotic  Dr. Meyer, points out

In these and many other ways, investigators must routinely manipulate chemical conditions both before and after performing “simulation” experiments in order to protect them from destructive naturally occurring processes. These manipulations constitute “profoundly informative intervention[s].” Every choice the investigator makes to actualize one condition and exclude another—to remove one by-product and not another—imparts information into the system. Therefore, whatever “success” these experiments have achieved in producing biologically relevant compounds occurs as a direct result of the activity of the experimentalist—a conscious, intelligent, deliberative mind—performing the experiments.

As for Evolutionary Algorithms, he points out

some of these programs succeed by the illicit expedient of providing the computer with an information-rich “target sequence” and then treating relatively greater proximity to future function (i.e., the target sequence), not actual present function, as a selection criterion.

In Ribozyme Engineering, he points out

So what supplies this gap in ribozyme engineering experiments? What causes a molecule possessing merely possible indicators of a future selectable function to be preserved? The investigators themselves—the ribozyme engineers.

He explains

 Each of these manipulations again constitutes an “informative intervention,” since at every crucial stage ribozyme engineers select some options or possible states and exclude others. By using their knowledge of the requirements of polymerase function to guide their search and selection process, ribozyme engineers also impart what Robert Marks calls “active information” with each iteration of replication.

These experiments clearly show, not only the causal adequacy, but also the need for intelligence. Thus we conclude that the origin of life points towards an Intelligent Cause, rather than a material cause.

An alternative explanation to the Fine Tuning, is given from the Multiverse Hypothesis. The multiverse is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist. However , as we shall see, the Multiverse does not provide a better explanation than God.

Let us analyse the multiverse hypothesis and see its explanatory power for the fine tuning.

Two types of fine tuning need to be explained

1. Fine tuning of the initial conditions
2. Fine tuning of the laws and constants of Physics

In the context of physics, when you come up with multiverse, you have to come up with some sort of universe generating mechanism. Two of them have been proposed. One is String Theory. And the other is Inflationary Cosmology.

And it turns out that the inflation could possibly explain the fine tuning of the initial conditions but not the fine tuning of the laws and constants of physics. To explain the laws and constants of physics, you would need to invoke the string theoretical landscape. And so you have got two speculative cosmologies necessary to explain two different parts of the fine tuning.

As a result of that you have to invoke a number of pure theoretical postulations in contrast to the single theistic design explanation that is consistent with our experience of what designers do.

Six conjectures required for the multiverse explanation

1. Inflaton field exists
2. Inflation is eternal into the future.
3. Strings exist and are the fundamental constituents of material reality.
4. Six or seven (in M-Theory) extra hidden dimensions of space exist.
5. All of the different compactifications of these extra hidden spatial dimensions instantiated in different universes that actually exist.
6. The probabilistic resources constructed from inflation fields and the string landscape are sufficient to explain away the fine-tuning of the initial conditions , laws, and constants of our universe.

None of these six postulates are clear. Its not clear how you relate these two speculative cosmologies.  Its not clear that Can they be related in an inherently coherent way. Both of them presuppose prior fine tuning, for example the shutoff energy of the inflaton field needs to be finely tuned. So they don’t get rid of the fine tuning ultimately. So when you add all that up, theistic argument is stronger.

Problems with the many world Hypothesis

1. Main models for producing new universes don’t provide a mechanism for varying the laws and constants of physics, the initial conditions of the universe or both
2. All main universe creating mechanisms require fine tuning.
3. None involve an Extrapolation Based on what we know about cause and effect.

However, based on our experience of cause and effect, we know that Intelligent Beings are capable of fine tuning. Also, additional support for the existence of and Intelligent designer comes from other fields of science, as we have shown in our science section of this website. Thus we conclude that the fine tuning of the Universe is better explained by the existence of God, rather than the Multiverse.

However, Deism, like theism, for example, can explain the cosmological singularity and the anthropic fine-tuning. Like theism, deism conceives of God as both a transcendent and intelligent Creator. Nevertheless, deism denies that God has continued to participate in His Creation, either as a sustaining presence or an actor within Creation after the origin of the universe. Thus, deism would have difficulty accounting for any evidence of discrete acts of design or creation during the history of the cosmos (that is, after the Big Bang). Yet precisely such evidence now exists in the biological realm.

Current fossil evidence puts the origin of life on earth at 3.5-3.8 billion years ago, clearly well after the origin of the universe. In the article DNA as evidence for Intelligence behind the origin of Life, we showed how the presence of a high information content in the cell provides compelling evidence for the intelligent design of the first life that suggests the need for an act of creative intelligence, or a period of creative activity, well after the Big Bang.

Additional support for the theistic position comes from Revelation. As we have shown in a previous article that there is compelling evidence that God sends down revelations through His prophets. This shows that God has intervened throughout human history and has sent down an organised religion and has informed us of the purpose of our creation and showed us how to live our lives.

Thus we conclude that belief in One God who is outside time and space and who intervenes in His creation as He Wills, is the correct concept as it is supported by scientific and scriptural evidence.

Rape has taken the shape of almost a cultural ritual, an everyday occurrence and the fastest growing crime in India, the world’s largest democracy. Many sexual assaults go unreported due to large numbers of women having lost faith in the system to protect their dignity as a consequence of the scale of the problem, a culture of impunity afforded to offenders by police, cases that drag on for years through the courts, and abysmal conviction rates.

According to statistics, a woman is raped every 20 minutes in India, and 24,000 rape cases were reported last year alone. “Hindustan times” reported in a survey that 78% of women in Delhi had been sexually harassed in 2012 alone.[i]

Increasing number of people as a result of this incident called for the death penalty as a punishment for the rapists hoping that this would become a deterrent for future would-be rapists.  The government also rushed to ban buses with tinted windows.

But would these steps really bring an end to this heinous crime ? To understand this there is a need to assess the reason why such a heinous crime has taken the shape of an epidemic in the first place.

The root cause lies in the increasing embrace of the western way of life in India. The West offers individual freedom as the progressive basis of life. By individual freedom what’s meant is that an individual is completely free in how he or she lives his or her life.

As a result of this, natural aspects within man are taken and put into the public life such that it is propagated everywhere – the sexual relationship. It is true that people have a procreation instinct from which we get the feeling of wanting to have children, of motherhood of fatherhood and also an aspect which is sexual.

Sex is promoted everywhere from billboards, movies, music, adverts – everywhere. They have taken something which should be for the bedroom, for the private life and promoted it in the whole society.

The nature of instincts is that reality agitates them – so if the image and portrayal of sex is everywhere then it is bound to agitate the instincts of men and women – what will this lead to?

In August 2002 the Observer Newspaper in UK, the heart of the Western world published the findings of an Observer / ICM poll on sexual attitudes and behaviour of Britons. A total of 1,027 people aged 16 and above were questioned about their views of sex in the 21st Century. It found that more than half of Britons have had a ‘one night stand’ and that the average number of sexual partners in the UK stands at 10.

If we take a quick look at the West’s record we find that in their societies the top five problems in the social and marital life are:

• Mistrust and Adultery – 70% of American wives commit adultery within 5 years of marriage.
• Divorce – one in three end up in divorce.
• Rape – 167 women are raped every day in the UK.
• Wife battery – a battery incident occurs every 18 seconds in the America.
• Child molestation and paedophilia – in Britain a quarter of a million people are known paedophiles!.

The situation in India is much similar, in a survey conducted by OutlookIndia magazine in 2011,

• 52.3 % respondents of the survey considered one-night stands as acceptable.

• 80 % of respondents in Hyderabad considered casual sex as a great stress-buster
• 53.8 % of Delhiites lost count of the number of times they paid for sex
• 23.8 % of Bangaloreans have had casual sex with someone of the same gender [ii]

These are the fruits of freedom and these should not be considered surprising but in fact are an inevitable occurrence since a solution proposed by man’s limited mind will never be able to address the intricacies of human life and its requirements.

Therefore, we need to refer to the Creator (subhanahu wa ta’aala), Who is All-Aware of His (subhanahu wa ta’aala) creation and how it is that humanity should regulate their lives.

The West views Women as sex objects. They value women by their looks – making women obsessed about looking the right way and how men perceive them.

And this problem is not limited to the west, rather has been exported wholesale to countries like India who is trying to catch up with the liberal west.

The Bollywood culture, along with other entertainment, advertising, and pornography industries sanctioned by India’s secular liberal democratic system have presented the woman as an object to play to the desires of men, sexualized society, encouraged individuals to pursue their selfish carnal desires, and promoted extra-marital relationships, nurturing a culture of promiscuity and cheapening the relationships between men and women. All this has desensitized the disgust that should be felt towards the violation of women’s dignity in the minds of many men.

So the root problem is not just that India does not have sufficiently strong punishments or that there are too many buses with tinted windows, but it is a more deep rooted problem of a society

-          that has lost its moral compass,

-          that has encouraged sexualisation of woman in films and advertising,

-          that has encouraged free mixing as we saw on New Year’s eve and will see at Valentines

-          that instills concepts of freedom and the unrestricted satisfaction of needs and instincts.

The Islamic view towards woman

Islam does not believe in the ideas of freedom, liberation, or equality of the woman, for it does not leave the human being to decide how he or she should live her life according to her own desires or allow mankind to legislate their own laws for the society and create their own system from the ignorance, bias, greed, and limited understanding that they have of each other’s needs. The system comes completely from the Creator, covering all of life’s affairs: ruling, economic, judicial, education and the social system dealing with the relationship and duties of men and women within the society. As a verse in the Holy Qur’an states in a chapter entitled Ahzab,

)وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ وَمَنْ يَعْصِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا مُبِينًا(

 “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”.                                                                                             [TMQ Ahzab:36]

Within Islam, the Muslim woman has contentment in her life, for the only expectations she has to live up to are those of the Creator and not the continually changing or unrealistic expectations of her husband, family, community or society. She is not expected to be the superwoman who has a successful busy career but at the same time has to fulfill the duties of being a wife and mother perfectly.

With regards to the honour, respect, and security that a woman deserves, Islam establishes this in two ways. Firstly, Islam rejects liberal freedoms and rather promotes taqwa (God-consciousness) within society that nurtures a mentality of accountability in the manner by which men view and treat women. It prohibits the sexualisation of society as well as all forms of objectification and exploitation of women’s bodies, such that the relationship between the sexes is never cheapened or the woman devalued. It celebrates a comprehensive social system that regulates the relationship between men and women, and includes a modest dress code, the segregation of the genders, and prohibition of extramarital relationships – all of which directs the fulfillment of the sexual desires to marriage alone, protecting women and society.

Islam commands that the man views the woman as an honour to be protected at all times and as a trust that the Creator has placed in his hand, whether it is his mother, daughter, wife, or any woman in society. He understands that his treatment towards her can bring him either reward or punishment in the Hereafter. In a hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) he said, “The world and all things in the world are precious but the most precious thing in the world is a virtuous woman”.

In his last sermon to the muslims, he (saw) reminded them, “O People, it is true that you have certain rights, with regards to your women but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under Allah’s trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers.”

Within a true Islamic Society, the correct Islamic concepts will affect the men within the society at large, who will view the woman as an honour regardless of whether she has a career or not. This can be seen in an example at the time when there was a true Islamic society. The leader or Khalifah at the time of this example was Umar bin Al-Khattab (ra). A situation arose where a Jew was found assassinated. Umar asked the people if they knew about the matter, whereupon a muslim called Bak’r in Shad’dakh appeared before him and said, “I have killed him”. Umar was astonished and asked him for the reason. The man explained that a Muslim brother had gone on Jihad and consigned his family members to him to look over in his absence. When he arrived at the house of the brother, he had found the Jew inside reciting poetry slandering the reputation of the brother’s wife by implying that he had spent the night with her in his absence. As a result, he killed him to protect the honour of the woman who had been placed under his protection. On hearing all the details, Umar exempted him from paying any compensation to the family of the Jew.

The second manner by which Islam protects the honour of the woman is by the presence of an Islamic State or Khilafah. The Khilafah is the ruling system of Islam that applies all of the commands of Islam that includes for example the prayer, the fasting, the zakat (obligatory charity), the economic laws, the social system that regulates the relationship of men and women within the society, and the punishment system of Islam. It is this true Islamic State that existed for over 1300 years but has been absent over our lands today for almost 80 years. This explains the increasing rape, domestic violence, shame, and humiliation that the woman faces presently within the Muslim world. It is only through the re-establishment of the Khilafah that will enable the propagation of the correct viewpoint and mentality to the individuals within the society through the education system and the media and have the authority to enforce the appropriate punishments upon those who dishonour the woman.

Ustad AbuKhaled Al Hejazi

Dar-Al-‘Ilm

 ——————————————————-

Speaking about our own land the situation may only be worse with 300 million people living below poverty and where 70% of the population lives on earning below 2$ a day.

Although being the third largest economy in the world, India, the second largest populated country in the world has a major poverty problem. According to the 2010 United Nation Human development report, about 645 million people or 55% of India’s population is poor as measured by a composite indicator made up of ten markers of education, health and standard of living achievement levels.

Cause

Poverty is wrongly taken by some as a norm and a problem that will not go away. Looking at the poverty in the west, one must ask the question, how can societies that have a history of colonialism including looting the riches in Africa and India and the neo colonialism of multi-nationals, have such high levels of poverty? How can they spend billions on the mythical ‘war against terrorism’ when one in five non-working families on low or moderate incomes reported to being unable to afford some basic food items on most days?

How can a country which has 300 million people below the poverty line conduct extravagant games such as the Commonwealth Games spending in the tune of billions ?

At a first glance it seems baffling to the mind, how can this occur? However when we study the underpinnings of the Western Capitalist economy the cause for this situation becomes apparent.

The root of the capitalist economy stems from what every economics pupil is taught in their first lesson, understanding the economic problem. A particular view towards the economic problem has dominated Western economies since the time of the founding father of capitalist economics, previously a Professor at Glasgow University, Adam Smith.

In 1776 (CE) Smith published what became the bible of capitalist economics, ‘An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations’, it articulated his laissez faire view towards the economic problem.

In essence capitalist economists believe that the economic problem is caused by the unlimited needs of people and the scarcity of resources, this leads to the dilemma of how to bridge the gap between the two – how do people get their needs satisfied? In answer to this question, Smith developed the ‘invisible hand theory’.

It denotes that if the economy is left to run in a free manner the resources will be distributed fulfilling the needs of society almost in an automatic way.

The basis of the theory is that by focussing on production the gap between the unlimited needs and limited resources is lessened, it is assumed that people will work to achieve their own interests. By working and earning a wage they can in turn purchase the goods and services they require. This has also come be known as ‘trickle down economics’ where the focus is on increasing the size of the cake, believing that it will somehow trickle down into the bellies of the hungry.

However the theory is not that simplistic, in order to explain the ‘invisible hand’ the price mechanism is seen as key. It is seen as the incentive for production, the regulator of distribution, and the link between the producer and the consumer i.e. it is the means which achieves a balance between production and consumption.

The price mechanism is cited as the incentive for production because the principal motive for people to undertake any productive effort or sacrifice in view of the capitalist economists is material reward. The Capitalist economists exclude the possibility that man expends effort for a moral or spiritual motive. They consider that man expends his efforts to satisfy his materialistic needs and wishes only. This satisfaction is either through the consumption of commodities which he produces directly such as a farmer who eats from his crops, or through receiving a monetary reward that enables him to obtain the commodities and services produced by others.

In modern society people depend on satisfying most of their needs, if not all of them, on exchanging their efforts with money. Gone are the days where people would grow their own food, make their own clothes and even build their own houses. Monetary reward allows people to obtain commodities and services. Therefore it is concluded that the monetary reward, which is the price, is the motive for man to produce. Hence, the price is the means which motivates the producers to offer their efforts. Thus the price is seen as the incentive for production.

This magical ‘price’ is also in their eyes the means which regulates distribution because people like to satisfy all of their needs completely and they strive to obtain the commodities and services which satisfy these needs. According to them had every human being been left free to satisfy his needs he would not stop short of possessing and consuming whatever commodity he likes. Accordingly since every man strives for this same aim, everybody has to stop in satisfying his needs at the limit at which he can afford to exchange his efforts with others, that is at the limit of the monetary compensation which he receives for expending his effort i.e. at the limit of the price. Therefore, the price is the constraint which acts naturally to restrict man in his possession and consumption to a level which is proportional to his income. So the existence of the price makes people think, evaluate, and differentiate between their competing needs which require satisfaction, so they take what they find necessary, and leaves what they find of less importance. Thus, the price forces the individual to settle for partial satisfaction of their needs.

So, the price is the tool which regulates the distribution of needs required by individuals. It is also believed that price regulates the distribution of limited utilities to the consumers who demand them. The disparity in income of the consumers makes the consumption of each individual confined to that which his income allows. This makes some commodities confined to only those who can afford them, while the consumption of other commodities would become common amongst people who can afford the lower prices. Therefore, the price will become the regulator in distributing utilities among consumers by setting a higher price for some commodities and services and a lower price for others, and also by the suitability of the price to some consumers more than others.

The price achieves equilibrium between production and consumption, and it is the link between the producer and the consumer, because the producer who fulfils the desires of the consumers is rewarded through profits. On the other hand, the producer whose products are not accepted by the consumers, would end up with losses. The method through which the producer can detect the desires or demand of the consumers is the price. If the consumers demand any particular commodity its price will increase, and the production of that commodity will increase, in fulfilment of the consumer’s desires. If consumers turn away from buying a particular commodity, its price will drop in the market, and so production of this commodity will decrease. So, the resources assigned to production increase as price increases, and decrease as price decreases. In this way the price is the tool which achieves equilibrium between production and consumption, and it is the link between the producer and the consumer and the process occurs automatically. Therefore, the price is the basis on which the economy is established in the view of the Capitalists, and it is the cornerstone of the economy to them.

Fundamental flaws

Fundamental flaws exist in their theory:

1. Failing to differentiate between basic needs and luxurious ‘wants’.

The view of the insufficiency of commodities and services to satisfy all of man’s needs is completely erroneous. The only reason it sounds believable is due to the fact that there is no distinction made between basic needs which are required by people such as food, clothing, shelter and the luxurious ‘wants’ of people. Many may desire the latest Ferrari and a country mansion, however they are not needs that people will suffer without.

The basic needs of human beings are limited, and the resources and the efforts which they call the commodities and services existent in the world are certainly sufficient to satisfy human basic needs; it is possible to satisfy all of the basic needs of mankind completely many times over.

So, there is no problem in the basic needs, quite apart from considering it as fundamental economic problem that faces society. The economic problem is, in reality, the distribution of these resources and efforts enabling every individual to satisfy all basic needs completely, and after that helping them to strive for attaining their luxuries. Therefore increasing production alone will not solve the economic problem.

Western societies have high levels of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) yet still have high levels of poverty as was established earlier. This fact itself disproves the ‘invisible hand theory’ and the free market as the solution to the economic problem.

The production centric approach to the economy has led to the obsession amongst Western economists in increasing national income through increasing production. GDP and GNP (Gross National Product) are even used to measure the success of economies globally. These measures indicate the collective wealth of a nation but do not indicate the distribution of wealth and levels of poverty.

An increase in the level of production leads to a rise in the level of the wealth of the country and does not necessarily lead to the complete satisfaction of all the basic needs of each and every individual. A country could be rich in its natural resources, as in the case of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, but the basic needs of most of their citizens are not satisfied completely. Therefore, the increase of production by itself, does not solve the basic problem which must be treated first and foremost, which is the complete satisfaction of the basic needs of each and every individual, and following that enabling them to satisfy their luxuries. Thereupon, the poverty and deprivation required to be treated is the non-satisfaction of the basic needs of man as a human being (i.e. food, shelter and clothing), not the increasing luxuries resulting from urban progress. Hence, the problem to be treated is poverty and deprivation of individual members of the society, not the poverty and deprivation of the country measured as a whole. The poverty and deprivation from this perspective (i.e. for every individual) is not treated by increasing national production, rather it is treated by the manner in which the wealth is distributed to the individuals in society enabling complete satisfaction of all their basic needs, and then enabling the individuals to satisfy their luxuries.

2. The assumption that people will be able to find reasonable work

The Capitalist view towards the economic problem reflects the time in which it was theorised as it assumes that people will be able to work and earn a reasonable amount of money to be able to purchase goods and services to satisfy their needs. Finding work in the late 1700’s and 1800’s in Britain may not have been difficult due to the high level of demand for labouring jobs during the industrial revolution. This continued until the advent of automation and mass production which led business owners replacing workers by machines. Machines are more efficient, do not demand rights and can’t go on strike. This obviously increased unemployment decreased the demand for labouring jobs and led to the growth in the service sector.

This situation has been compounded by the information technology revolution in the last decade. The development of technologies in control systems, advanced robotics and the like have further increased mass production and decreased the reliance on human involvement. Where once factories that produced cars would employ hundreds of employees in the manufacturing process, this now is accomplished by an almost fully automated process.

Corporations in the developed have also taken advantage of the cheap labour found in the developing world. Such that the jeans we wear and the Nike and Reebok trainer’s children aspire to have, are produced by underpaid labourers in the sweatshops of Indonesia, India, Pakistan and other countries. This form of globalisation has negatively impacted domestic employment. The heavy industry which used to characterise British economy is now a thing of the past.

This change of circumstances from a situation in which heavy industry during the industrial revolution led to lower levels of unemployment to the reality today where mass production achieved by automation combined with the exploitation of cheap labour in the third world has led to a shortage of jobs.

The reality of unemployment, obviously limits peoples ability to obtain money to satisfy their needs. These changes in the economy should have led Western economists to re-evaluate the fundamentals of their economic theory. The following questions, if not so apparent in the initial conception of the theory have become so now:

What if circumstances prevent people from working? What if as is the case for hundreds of thousands of people today that they want to work but there are no jobs for them, or the jobs available do not pay enough to meet their needs?

Due to an attitude previously seen in the pre-renaissance bigotry of the Church in repressing the philosophers who questioned the unquestionable, this new clergy of economists today do not question their bible written by Adam Smith. This religious adherence blinds them from admitting the failures of their fundamental philosophy. It is this fact that has led to their failure in dealing with poverty on the streets of Britain and in the West.

Some may argue that poverty is tackled by governments in Europe through employment schemes, free health care and education, council houses and financial handouts such as the dole scheme in the UK. However these welfare schemes are ad-ons that do not conform to classical Capitalist theory, in fact history demonstrates that they emerged as a reaction to the threat of Socialism in Europe.

Welfare state – a reaction to Socialism

The first welfare legislation in Europe was introduced by the cigar loving Otto Von Bismark, the Chancellor of Germany in 1881 (CE). Bismark laid the foundations of the social welfare state in order to fend off the burgeoning Socialist Democratic Party that was gaining strength as Germany industrialised. The Socialist movement played upon the inequalities between the rich and the poor and began to gain ground in Germany despite repression against them. Bismark’s shrewd politicking enabled him to pull the rug from under their feet by introducing social welfare policies.

The law of 1881 created an obligatory insurance for employers for working accidents, followed by three laws on each of the principal risks: 1883 on obligatory sickness insurance; 1884 creating an analogous disposition for work accidents; 1889 created a pension scheme. The rest of Europe followed suite with Britain introducing similar legislation from 1906 onwards.

This continued as the threat of socialism increased and the ideas of Karl Marx became embodied in state form by the Soviet Union in 1917. Marxist Socialism challenged the ideas of Capitalism by highlighting the obvious concentration of wealth amongst the upper classes (bourgeoisie) and the disparity in wealth between them and the working class (proletariat). Despite many flaws within Marx’s economic theory his ideas became influential. The Soviet Union launched an ideological campaign against Capitalism utilising the communist party. As a result, Socialist parties and labour movements sprung up throughout Europe including in Britain.

Social welfare legislation continued to be introduced in Britain, following the Beveridge report in 1942 many reforms took place such as the 1944 Butler Act which reformed schooling, the commitment to full employment in the same year, the Family Allowance Act of 1945, the 1946 National Insurance Act and the 1948 National Health Act.

According to the laissez faire approach of Adam Smith the government should not intervene in the economy, thus leaving the forces of supply and demand free to operate hence the term, the free market. The interventionist policies of the European governments were seen as necessary to counteract the attraction of people towards Socialism. However this does not mean that the economists in Europe abandoned Smith’s ideals. On the contrary after the demise of the Soviet Union, in Britain we saw a move towards the non interventionist approach which began with the iron lady, Margaret Thatcher. This has continued through to the present Blair government, most recently seen by the controversial decision to cut government subsidies on tuition fees for university students. Similar cut backs have taken place with the NHS as well as other welfare institutions, with more proposed for the future.

Therefore it is apparent that welfare legislation and the concept of the welfare state itself were ‘ad-ons’ to the capitalist economy spurned by a pragmatic approach to stem the tide of Socialism. These policies are now being revoked slowly in a manner attempting to avoid public outcry. In contrast America never introduced comprehensive welfare legislation as it never faced the threat of socialism within upon shores. In this sense it is a purer form of the capitalist economy: a society in which people are refused treatment without having medical insurance; where millions live in ghettos reminiscent of the shanty towns in third world, Africa; the superpower of the world with 35 million people living in poverty.

Islam wages war on poverty

Although the cause for poverty in the west is the capitalist economic philosophy, Western economists fail to look at any other alternative apart from Socialism. They only see two paradigms for the economy, Capitalism or Communism. I recall a discussion with my previous economic lecturer where I put forward the ills of Capitalism, after debating the points exhaustively he said, ‘Capitalism is the best of the worst’. I then went on to explain the Islamic economic system as an alternative, it became obvious that he had never considered Islam as having any alternative nor had studied it.

Leftist movements, thinkers and writers are increasingly voicing their opinion against the inequalities created by Capitalism. However they too like my economics lecturer cannot see any other alternative and therefore call for the reformation of Capitalism. We need to articulate the Islamic economic system as an alternative to the mass of economic problems that face the world today.

Although no Islamic state exists today, we have the economic system of Islam derived from the Quran and the Sunnah and over a thousand years of history under the Khilafah (Caliphate). Based upon this we must initiate thinking amongst the ‘left’ and the right’ and to demonstrate to them how Islam is not just a religion like the others but is a comprehensive ideology able to deal with the current crisis’s that humanity is faced with.

Islam views the economic problem in a radically different way than Capitalism and Socialism. Islam focuses on the distribution of wealth not just the production. There are enough resources in the world to provide the basic needs for over 60 billion people according to some statistics. The problem of poverty will not be solved by producing more and more for the rich to consume rather it will be solved by ensuring that basic needs of every individual are satisfied completely.

Islam looks at every individual by himself rather than the total of individuals who live in the country. It looks at him as a human being first, who needs to satisfy all of his basic needs completely. Then it looks to him in his capacity as a particular individual, to enable him to satisfy his luxuries as much as possible. The purpose of the economic policy in Islam is not to raise the standard of living in the country without looking to secure the rights of life for every individual completely. Nor is it just to provide the means of satisfaction in the society, leaving people free to take from such means as much as they can, without securing the livelihood right for each individual. Rather, it addresses the basic problems of everyone as human beings, then enabling each individual to raise his standard of living and achieve comfort for himself.

The Ahkam Shari’ahhave secured the satisfaction of all of the basic needs (food, clothing and housing) completely, for every citizen of the Islamic State (Khilafah).

The Prophet (saw) said, The Son of Adam has no better right than that he would have a house wherein he may live, a piece of clothing whereby he may hide his nakedness and a piece of bread and some water” [Tirmidhi]

This is achieved by obliging each capable person to work, so as to achieve the basic needs for himself and his dependants.

Allah (SWT) the Supreme said: “So walk in the paths of the earth and eat of His sustenance which He provides.” [TMQ Al-Mulk 67:15].

Many Ahadith came to encourage earning. In one narration, the Prophet Muhammad (saw) shook the hand of Sa’ad ibn Muadh (ra) and found his hands to be rough. When the Prophet (saw) asked about it, Sa’ad said: “I dig with the shovel to maintain my family.” The Prophet (SAW) kissed Sa’ad’s hands and said: “(They are) two hands which The Supreme loves.” The Prophet (saw) said: “Nobody would ever eat food that is better than to eat of his own hand’s work.”

Unlike Capitalism, Islam obliges the children or the heirs to support the parents if they are not able to work, or obliges the State Treasury (Bait al-Mal) to do so, if there is nobody to support them.

Muslim narrated from Jabir that the Prophet (SAW) said, “Start with yourself and make charity for it, and if anything is left give it to your family, and if anything is left after that give it to your relatives, and if anything is left after that, do it like that, and that i.e. to that in front of you, at your right hand and at your left hand.”

When the Islamic rules are inculcated into the Islamic society the rules of aiding the family will become more apparent to the people and adherence to them will increase as occurred in history under the Khilafah. The feeling of responsibility towards relatives still exists today amongst millions of Muslims worldwide in the absence of the Islamic state, many of them in the Muslim world even looking after their extended families.

Islam also gave the responsibility of the community to help people in financial difficulty.

Al-Bazzar narrated from Anas that Muhammad (saw) said from one of the sayings from his Lord (swt): “He who would not have believed in me, the one who slept with his stomach full when his neighbour on his side was hungry and he knew of it.”

The Prophet (SAW) said, “In a local community, if there became amongst them a hungry person, Allah has nothing to do with them,” [Ahmad]

In fact Allah (swt) described poverty one of Satan’s promises. He (swt) said:

“The devil promises you destitution (poverty).” [TMQ 2:268]

Allah (swt) ordered the caring for the poor people.

The Supreme (swt) said: “If you reveal your almsgiving, it is well, but if you hide it and give it to the poor (people) it will be better for you.” [TMQ 2:27]

And He (swt) said: “And feed the wretched poor (person).” [TMQ 22:28]

If an individual has not been able to earn through employment or other means and their family and community are not able to aid them to meet his basic needs then the Islamic state will aid him to satisfy his needs. This is accomplished in a number of ways.

If the person is unable to earn due to a disability whether physical or mental, the state will give he or she the necessary funds from the Bait ul Mal.

If the person is able to work but has been unable to find work then the state could employ them within the public sector after reviewing his reality. The public sector in the Islamic state will be much larger than in Capitalist states due to prohibition in Islam of owning public utilities such as gas and oil.  The Islamic state can also give the citizen a grant for a business project or the means for them to provide for themselves such as purchasing a computer for a web developer or tools for the farmer.

Alternatively the state can enter into a partnership with the individual which is a type of Mudharaba, company structure. This is where the state invests capital and the individual carries out the work and the profits are shared. However this will be done for the interest of the people as the Khilafah is not a businessman, it is a guardian and must act as such. Hand-outs are a last resort, as the aim is to enable citizens to be able to provide for themselves, if they are unable to – then the state must provide each individual a sufficient amount according to their specific needs instead of the fixed amounts such as the ‘dole’ in Britain.

Islam has made the circulation of wealth between all citizens an obligation, and it has forbidden the restriction of such circulation to a certain group of people to the exclusion of others. Allah (SWT) says: “Lest it circulates solely among the wealthy from amongst you” [TMQ 59:7]. If there were a wide gap within society between individuals in terms of securing the needs, and if society needed to be rebuilt, or if this disparity was caused by neglect of or the indifference in the implementation of the Islamic rules, the State would be under obligation to redress the situation by handing out financial assistance to those in need, until these basic needs were satisfied, and until a balance in distribution was struck. The State should endeavour to provide both movable and immovable commodities, for its aim should not only be to temporarily fulfil one’s needs, but also to provide the means which would assist the individual in his quest to fulfil his own needs over the long term.

I have covered only the salient aspects of how Islam wages war on poverty and how it views the economic problem. It is important for all Muslims, especially those who are educated, to expose the failures of Capitalism and to present the Islamic economic system. This requires understanding the basis of Western economics and grasping the conceptual and legislative fundamentals of the Islamic economy. We must present an alternative to the host societies in which we live, such that they realise the truth of Islam or at least acknowledge it a viable ideological system and recognise the legitimacy of the Khilafah state when it returns.

Ustadh Abukhaled Al Hejazi

References

• Sen, Amartya. Introduction. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. By Adam Smith. 6th ed. 1790.
• 2010 United Nation Human development report –http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Complete_reprint.pdf – retrieved on the 13^th Feb 2012
• India vision 2020 – Planning commision report – accessed on the 13^th feb 2012 – http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/pl_vsn2020.pdf
• An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith. London: Methuen and Co., Ltd., ed. Edwin Cannan, 1904. Fifth edition.
• Economic system of Islam – 5^th edition – Milli Publications , By Taqiuddin Nabahani

Here’s an excerpt:

4,329 films were submitted to the 2012 Cannes Film Festival. This blog had 19,000 views in 2012. If each view were a film, this blog would power 4 Film Festivals

Click here to see the complete report.