Category Archives: Western Evils

Only Islam Values Sanctity of Life

By brother Abu Yusuf

Only Islam truly values the sanctity (hurmah) of life. It defines it, preserves it and practically protects it!

Many secular-liberalist may value ‘the sanctity of life’ but as they cannot actually define this sanctity, life itself becomes easily dispensable when material interests are greater! They may value a life if they know, relate or resonate with it – like the biases we have seen to the killer of NZ terrorist, or a fellow citizen in the developed world but not as much sympathy (or empathy) to others in far greater numbers being massacred in Yemen, Rohingya, CAR, Filistin, etc

Sufficient proof of their disregard for life in pursuit of materialism can also be found in secular-liberal societies from individuals and families on rampant knife-crime, mass shooting, organised assassinations to the highest authority of the state in perpetual wars and supporting massacres of tyrants. Not to mention modern day infanticide and patent laws on desperately needed medication, its restriction and absence led to the death of millions!

They may argue they have laws that punish the killer but the concern is not protection of life but the protection of individual freedom. Laws – viewed as a necessary evil – exist in secular-liberal societies to guarantee the individual’s liberty and to prevent infringement of another’s freedom!

The enlightenment believed in the creator and therefore understood, as a self-evident truth the sacredness of life, its utmost value and a responsibility and a trust from the creator that one would be accountable for – all due to religious concepts inherited from Christianity. However over time atheism and agnosticism became the dominant and religiosity weakened (at an alarming rate, almost diminished in certain areas) and subsequently the meaning and value of life became a commodity, and pursuit of individual freedom became a sacred duty! And we are witness to its misery and senseless killing today!

Islam understood the sanctity of life: “We ordained for the children of Israel that if anyone slew a person, unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land, it would be as if he slew the whole of mankind. And if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of a whole people.” [Qur’an 5:32]

However the difference to Christianity and other religions is that Islam actually guarantees its protection via the State. The Rule of law is an integral part of Islam. The religions rely solely on the hope of individual’s personal will to act good but cannot protect life from murderers who do not wish to follow the ’Rules of do’s & don’ts’. Islam not only relies on the Taqwa of individuals but actually demonstrated the saving of a life by enforcing its strict laws in al-hudud, jinayat and ta’dheer that seek to preserve life by either a deterrent, just punishment or rehabilitation. Other religions simply have no system to regulate life’s affairs in politics.

It may be argued that there are Muslims, not liberalists, who do not value the sanctity of life like the isis militia and boko haram. That they kill innocent civilians in the name of Islam!

There are Muslims who sin this does not make it islamic, and killing in the name of Islam makes them no different to Ku Klux Klan killing in the name of Christianity! Furthermore these militia movements who initially began on a noble cause in defending their lands and the oppressed became excessive (ghulu) in imitating the enemies in targeting innocent civilians, and this has nothing to do with Islam or its theology. Islam places strict rules in the preservation of life, and in taking of a life in just causes like murder, adultery, highway robbery, retribution etc via the judiciary of the state and not left to whims of a people that feel oppressed.
Muslims must be on the offensive intellectually in exposing the capitalists in its audacity to police the world on its ‘high horses’ and ‘moral high ground’ when it is they the real cause of the decay and misery of the world! They are the causes of the violent militias that target innocent civilians. Muslims also must learn and present the true alternative that saves and protects the sanctity of all life.

The Shaitaani Trap of “Gender Equality”

By Mujlisul Ulama

Allah Ta’ala says in the Qur’aan Majeed:
“Do they distribute the mercy of your Rabb? We apportion their livelihood in this worldly life among them and We have elevated the ranks of some above others so that some of them may take others as servants.” [Az-Zukhruf, Aayat 32]

Narrating a Hadith, Hadhrat Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) said:
“People will remain prosperous as long as they maintain inequality. When they (promote) equality, they will be destroyed.”

This Aayat of the Qur’aan Majeed and the Hadith demolish the entire edifice, including the foundations of the variety of equality concepts fabricated by the kuffaar, and with which bootlicking modernist ‘muslims’ are enamoured. The worst of these satanic equality fab-rications is the idea of gender equality. Another shaitaani concept is the communist theory of a classless society.

One of the primary causes for the colossal rise of immorality is the bizarre, unnatural effort to force unequals to be equals. Allah Ta’ala has created man and woman unequal in numerous as-pects. Anatomical disparity should be more than adequate to convince sane and intelligent people of the fallacy of gender equality. But since kufr deranges man’s intellect, even the obvious eludes him.

Explicitly debunking the gender equality rubbish, the Qur’aan Majeed states:
“And for men is a rank over them (women).” [Al-Baqarah, Aayat 227]
“Men are the rulers of women by virtue of the superiority Bestowed by Allah to some over others…” [An-Nisaa’, Aayat 34]

The motivation for gender equality is pure satanism. It is for the free-play of immorality. Taking maximum advantage of woman’s intellectual deficiency (nuqs fil aql) as stated by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the kuffaar men of the west for giving unbridled expression to their inordinate bestial and carnal dictates, have satanically fabricated the concept of men and women being equal. In terms of his evil concept, women have been robbed of their natural haya (shame/modesty) and denuded of their physical garments to promote immorality for the gratification of the carnality of evil men.

The bodies of women rendered shameless by this devilish concept are the prime commodities for sale in every sphere of trade and commerce. ‘Muslim’ women too are adopting this satanic cult of immorality without re-alizing that in so doing they not only compromise their Imaan, but they efface their Imaan. In the acceptance of such a heinous kufr concept, it is not possible for a person to remain a Muslim. Modernist women are no longer Muslims regardless if they perform Salaat and Fast.

Nikah is not valid with a man or a woman who subscribes to the evil gender equality concept. They pass their days in adultery. Those who subscribe to this concept are in flagrant contradiction and rejection of the Qur’aan which clearly negates gender equality and equality of other kinds as well.

Allah Ta’ala has created people unequal. Difference in status is indisputable. Thse who raise the slogan of equality are hypocrites, frauds and robbers. The president of the country does not live like a peasant or a labourer. Yet, he stupidly and hypocritically disgorges the theme of equality. In every wrung of society, the votaries of equality perpetrate inequality whilst hypocritically piping the song of equality. Just look at the colossal disparity in salaries of the different classes of workers and between managers, directors and menial workers who are all members of the so-called equality conglomerate.

It is a sinister, satanic conspiracy which spawned the hideous concept of gender equality in the wake of which came the bizarre spectacle of female ‘emancipation’ with all its immoral consequences such as de-struction of family life, abortion, prostitution, sexual perversion, filthy diseases, etc.

Forcing unequals to be equal, which equality is unattainable, is bizarre and cruel. Women who are physically, intellectually and psychologically weaker than males have been thrown cruelly into the public domain where they have to slog like men all day long while they have to execute their home duties as well. She works during the day to earn and prostitute herself, and in the evening she has to attend to the house duties – the food, the children and the husband. She has to undergo the travails of pregnancy and her monthly menstrual cycles.

The kuffaar women collude with brutal man to inflict self-invited oppression on themselves by having succumbed to the heinous deception of gender equality satanically contrived by atheists and immoral anarchists.

Islam states the truth of the natural and religious disparity of the sexes. The testimony of two women equals that of one man. For up to ten days each month she is incapacitated by her haidh cycle from performing the Fardh Salaat and from fasting during Ramadhaan. She may not recite the Qur’aan Majeed even from memory during her cycle. The inheritance of a daughter is half that of a son. There are many such disparities ordained by Allah Ta’ala for the sexes.

Gender equality is a massive, cruel, shaitaani plot to destroy the morality of mankind. In fact, it has already achieved this satanic goal. Shaitaan has made full use of the ‘traps’ which Allah Ta’ala has provided for the accomplishment of his heinous objectives.

On the occasion of his expulsion from the heavens, shaitaan supplicated for tools and traps for the execution of his satanism on earth. Allah Ta’ala responded: “Your traps will be women.” Thus, in the Hadith women are described as Habaailush Shaitaan (the Traps of Shaitaan). Now the modernist zindeeqs may revile Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

With the Trap of Gender equality Shaitaan has most effectively transformed mankind into beasts of the jungle.

The Pagan-Christian Origins of “Valentine’s Day”

What is it and Where did it come from?

Consider Valentine’s Day, a day that after dying out a well deserved death in most of Europe (but surviving in Britain and United States) has suddenly started to emerge across a good swath of Muslim countries. Who was Valentine? Why is this day observed? Legends abound, as they do in all such cases, but this much is clear: Valentine’s Day began as a pagan ritual started by Romans in the 4th century BCE to honor the god Lupercus. The main attraction of this ritual was a lottery held to distribute young women to young men for “entertainment and pleasure”– until the next year’s lottery. Among other equally despicable practices associated with this day was the lashing of young women by two young men, clad only in a bit of goatskin and wielding goatskin thongs, who had been smeared with blood of sacrificial goats and dogs. A lash of the “sacred” thongs by these “holy men” was believed to make them better able to bear children.

As usual, Christianity tried, without success, to stop the evil celebration of Lupercalia. It first replaced the lottery of the names of women with a lottery of the names of the saints. The idea was that during the following year the young men would emulate the life of the saint whose name they had drawn. (The idea that you can preserve the appearance of a popular evil and yet somehow turn it to serve the purpose of virtue, has survived. Look at all those people who are still trying, helplessly, to use the formats of popular television entertainments to promote good. They might learn something from this bit of history. It failed miserably) Christianity ended up doing in Rome, and elsewhere, as the Romans did. The only success it had was in changing the name from Lupercalia to St. Valentine’s Day. It was done in CE 496 by Pope Gelasius, in honor of some Saint Valentine. There are as many as 50 different Valentines in Christian legends. Two of them are more famous, although their lives and characters are also shrouded in mystery. According to one legend, and the one more in line with the true nature of this celebration, St. Valentine was a “lovers’” saint, who had himself fallen in love with his jailer’s daughter.

Due to serious troubles that accompanied such lottery, French government banned the practice in 1776. In Italy, Austria, Hungary, and Germany also the ritual vanished over the years. Earlier, it had been banned in England during the 17th century when the Puritans were strong.

However in 1660 Charles II revived it. From there it also reached the New World, where enterprising Yankees spotted a good means of making money. Esther A. Howland, who produced one of the first commercial American Valentine’s Day cards called — what else — valentines, in the 1840s, sold $5,000 worth – when $5,000 was a lot of money – the first year. The valentine industry has been booming ever since.

The history of Valentine’s Day serves as a powerful lesson for Muslims. St.Valentine became a Saint trying to resist free sex. Even though there was an attempt to Christianize it, today St.Valentine’s day is gone back to its roots. No one even knows that the Church even tried to ban the St. Valentine’s Day. Rather, most people think of romance, cupid and his arrow, which are vestiges of pagan Rome.

Pagan Origins of Valentine’s Day

The first information about this day is found in pre-Christian Rome, when pagans would celebrate the “Feast of the Wolf” on February 15, also known as the Feast of Lupercalius in honour of Februata Juno, the Roman goddess of women and marriage, and Pan, Roman god of nature.

On this day, young women would place their names in an urn, from which boys would randomly draw to discover their sexual companion for the day, the year, and sometimes the rest of their lives. These partners exchanged gifts as a sign of affection, and often married.

Christian Influence on Valentine’s Day

When Christianity came onto the scene in Rome, it wanted to replace this feast with something more in line with its ethics and morality. A number of Christians decided to use February 14 for this purpose. This was when the Italian Bishop Valentine was executed by the Roman Emperor Claudius II for conducting secret marriages of military men in the year 270.

Claudius II decided that single men made better soldiers than those with wives and families, so he outlawed marriage for young, single men, who made up his military. Valentine defied Claudius and performed marriages for young couples in secret. When his actions were revealed, Claudius put him to death. Another version of the story says that Valentine was a holy priest in Rome, who helped Christians escape harsh Roman prisons where they were often beaten and tortured.

Valentine was arrested and sent to the prefect of Rome for this. He found that his attempts to make Valentine renounce his faith were useless, and so recommended he be beaten with clubs, and later beheaded. This took place on February 14, 270.

According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, there are at least three different Saint Valentines, all of whom are Christian martyrs of February 14. One of them is described as a priest from Rome (as mentioned above), another as bishop of Interamna (modern Terni), and the third from Africa.

It was in the year 496 that Pope Gelasius officially changed the February 15 Lupercalia festival to the February 14 St. Valentine’s Day to give Christian meaning to a pagan festival. The holiday become popular in the United States in the 1800’s during the Civil War.

As well, Pope Gelasius ordered a slight change in the lottery for young women that would take place during the pagan festival. Instead of the names of young women, the box would have the names of saints. Men and women were allowed to draw from the box, and the purpose of this was to copy the ways of the saint they had selected for the rest of the year.

Pagan Customs of Valentine’s Day 

A number of the customs connected to Valentine’s Day originate in the belief in England and France during the middle Ages, that on February 14, birds began to pair.

Fourteenth and 15th centuries’ French and English literatures make indirect references to the practice. Those who chose each other as husband and wife on Valentine’s Day apparently called each other their Valentines.

In terms of the Valentine’s greeting “Your Valentine” which today you find on a number of Valentine’s Day cards, the above-mentioned Roman priest Valentine actually sent the first ‘valentine’ greeting himself.

While he was in prison awaiting execution, he apparently fell in love with a young girl who would visit him. Before he died, he allegedly wrote her a letter, signed ‘From your Valentine,’ In terms of the virtually naked, arrow-shooting cupid character, which shoots people with its arrows to make them fall in love, this character is a vestige of Roman pagan times. Cupid was described as the son of Venus, the Roman god of love and beauty. You usually find Cupid’s picture on Valentine cards and other paraphernalia.

Islamic Perspective on Valentine’s Day

We should avoid anything associated with pagan immoral practices – We do not need to honour or celebrate the death of a Christian “saint” – Islam does not encourage flirting or suggestions of romantic relationships before marriage – Love between families, friends and married people does not need to be celebrated on a day with such un-Islamic origins.

Question: In recent times, celebration of the Valentine Day has spread, particularly among female students. It is a Christian celebration, and it is (manifested) with fully red costumes, clothing and shoes, and exchange of red roses. What is the ruling on celebrating this holiday?

Answer: Celebrating the Valentine Day is not permissible because:

Firstly, it is an innovated holiday that has no basis in the Shari’ah.

Secondly, it calls to love and passion.

Thirdly, it calls to keeping one’s heart busy with nonsense matters which contradict the guidance of the righteous predecessors, may Allah be pleased with them.

So it is not permissible that anything from the signs of that holiday takes place on that day, whether it relates to eating, drinking, clothing, giving gifts, or other than that. It is incumbent upon the Muslim to be proud of his/her religion and that he/she does not blindly follow every crier. May Allah the Exalted protect Muslims from every trial, apparent and hidden, and that He give them protection and guidance. Ameen.

Question

Some people celebrate Yawm al-Hubb (Valentine’s Day) on February 14 [the second month of the Christian Gregorian calendar] every year by exchanging red roses as gifts. They also dress up in red clothing, and congratulate one another (on this occasion). Some sweet shops produce special sweets – red in colour – and draw hearts upon them. Some shops advertise their goods which are specially related to this day. What is the Islaamic view [concerning the following]: Celebrating this day? Buying from these shops on this day? Selling – by shop-owners who are not celebrating – the things which are used as gifts, to those who are celebrating?

Response: The clear evidence from the Qur’aan and Sunnah – and this is agreed upon by consensus (Ijmaa) of the early generations of the Muslim Ummah – indicates that there are only two ‘Eeds in Islaam (days of celebration): ‘Eed al-Fitr (after the fast of Ramadhan) and ‘Eed al-Adha (after the standing at ‘Arafah for pilgrimage).

Every other ‘Eed – whether it is to do with a person, group, incident or any other occasion – is an innovated ‘Eed. It is not permissible for the Muslim people to participate in it, approve of it, make any show of happiness on its occasion, or assist in it in any way – since this will be transgressing the bounds of Allah: “…and whoever transgresses the bounds of Allah, he has wronged his own self,” [Surah at-Talaaq, Aayah 1]

If we add to this fabricated ‘Eed the fact that it is one of the ‘Eeds of the disbelievers, it is sin upon sin. This is because it is Tashabbuh (imitation) of the disbelievers, and a type of Muwaalaat (loyalty) to them. And Allah has prohibited the believers from imitation of them and having love or loyalty for them in His Mighty Book (Qur’aan). It is also confirmed from the Prophet (sal-Allaahu ‘alayhe wa sallam) that he said: “Whoever imitates a people is one of them.”

‘Eed al-Hubb (the celebration of Valentine’s Day) comes under the category of what has been mentioned here, since it is one of the pagan Christian holidays. Hence it is not permissible for any Muslim, who believes in Allah and the Last Day, to participate in it, approve of it, or congratulate (anyone on that occasion). On the contrary, it is obligatory to abandon it and stay far away from it – in response to Allah and His Messenger, and to distance oneself from the anger of Allah and His punishment.

Additionally, it is forbidden for a Muslim to assist or help in this Valentine’s Day, or any other of the forbidden/illegal celebrations in any way whatsoever – whether by food or drink, selling or buying, production, gift-giving, correspondence, announcements, etc. All of these things are considered as co-operating in sin and transgression and disobedience of Allah and His Messenger. Allaah, the Glorious and Most High, says:

“… and co-operate with one another in righteousness and piety, and do not co-operate in sin and transgression. And fear Allaah! Verily Allaah is severe in punishment,” [Surah al-Ma’idah, Aayah 2]

Likewise, it is obligatory for every Muslim to adhere strictly to the Qur’aan and Sunnah in every situation – especially in times of temptations and corruption. It is incumbent that he/she understand, be aware and be cautioned from falling into the deviations of those whom Allaah is angry with and those who are astray and the immoral people who have no fear of punishment – nor hope of reward – from Allaah, and who give no attention at all to Islaam.

It is necessary for the Muslim to flee to Allaah, the Most High, seeking His Hidaayah (Guidance) and Thabaat (Firmness) upon the Path. Verily, there is no Guide except Allaah, and no One Who can Grant Firmness except Him.

ISLAMIC SYSTEM OF JUSTICE COMPARED TO WESTERN “JUSTICE”

There are numerous cases of miscarriage of justice in the western world. This is due to the corrupt system of justice which convicts and sentences a man on the basis of a hallucinatory creature termed ‘circumstantial evidence’. Islam rejects this form of evidence for securing a conviction.

According to the Shariah, only the testimony of aadil (pious) eye witnesses is valid evidence. There is no better judicial system than the system ordained by Allah Azza Wa Jal. He is the Creator, and He knows what is best for His creation. Miscarriage of justice occurs on a massive scale in all kuffaar systems.

Even the corrupt western judicial system is practically inaccessible for the vast majority of people. The astronomical costs for pursuing litigation and the satanically complex rules prevent most people from seeking justice. It is better to forgo one’s rights than initiating a quest for justice via the kuffaar system.

The cost factor alone renders the system a massive scam. In Islam, there are no costs involved in seeking justice. There are no lawyer’s fees and no court fees and no other forms of legalized robbery which accompany the western system of so-called ‘justice’.

The cruelty and injustice of the kuffaar system are conspicuously portrayed by the attribute of LIES which is inherent in the western judicial system. The client pays lawyers to speak lies in the endeavour to be found not guilty. The State pays the prosecutor to speak lies to find the accused guilty. The judge in this satanic system is paid to listen to compound lies on which he bases his moronic judgment. His personal emotions, attitudes and persuasions play a dominant role in his judgement. The equation which governs this system is Lies + Robbery = Injustice. And, all participants are able to sleep in ‘peace’ with their ill-gotten gains.

If due to lack of valid Shar’i evidence the criminal escapes conviction and sentence, he should not feel snug in his ‘acquittal’. His escape from justice is shortlived. Allah Ta’ala will inflict punishment on the guilty one in a variety of ways in this world and in the Aakhirat. Being freed by a court of law, is not necessarily a valid exculpation nor true freedom. The criminal will not escape the consequences of his crime. When Divine Chastisement overtakes him, he will wonder why he is suffering.

“INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY” – A FARCICAL PRINCIPLE

Another farce of the western judicial system is the false principle of a man being regarded innocent until proven guilty. Whilst this is the contention, it is NEVER practically observed. The accused is treated and maltreated by the officers of the kuffaar judicial system. He is cruelly handcuffed, thrown into filthy cells with gangster prisoners who violate and injure him physically. The accused is manhandled by police and warders, and humiliated in public.

Despite the ‘principle’, the accused is treated at times even worse than a convicted felon. He has to suffer all the indignities and hardships of convicted prisoners. This horrible maltreatment meted out to accused persons leaves the much flaunted ‘principle’ a farcical slogan devoid of truth and reality.

Al-Haqq Bulletien

WESTERN CONCEPT OF LIFE

[By Maulana Abul Hasan Ali Nadvi, Rector of Nadwatul Ulama, Lucknow, India]

THE most important thing from your point of view is that the champions of the modern civilization claim that civilised  society can also come into be­ing away from spiritual con­victions, religious beliefs, moral values and Apostolic teachings; and not only that, they assert that it should be so and its foundations should rest on knowledge and science,  trade and industry, political and economic stability, nationalism and patriotism and legal and constitutional covenants and arrangements. They, further, hold that social progress and advancement is related wholly to the modern means and machines which are the products of their physical sciences.

The successes of the socie­ty and the welfare of mankind signify that man should conquer the world and the forces of nature for the satisfaction of his carnal appetites. In material sciences alone lies his salva­tion. The failure of man in the past was due simply to the fact that the channels for the exchange of ideas were blocked and the world was divided into different parts.

The West tried to propagate this view with the enthusiasm of a fanatic. Its slogans were as: There is no God, no Religion, no Unseen, no Spirit and no Futurity.  Ac­cording to it the Shariat and its spiritual structure are mere superstition. The real ingredients of life are perception, experience, pleasure, gain, nationalism, freedom, democracy and communism.

HARMFUL EFFECTS

The protagonists as well as critics of this viewpoint appeared on the stage of the world armed with their ideas and ideals and they effected an intellectual diversion of the West. Consequently, various schools of thoughts came to flourish whose in­fluence can be seen today in the entire range of learning and literatures. The modern western society has profited from all of them and accepted their influence in a greater or lesser degree. It has made materialism its hall-mark.

The West is now in a posi­tion to enforce the ideas and principles in which it believes freely and openly. It is an unique event of history. Owing to its phenomenal power and resources the West has been able to play its role most successfully. Its achievement is unparalleled in the history of World leadership. Even more complete and universal ascen­dancy. When Europe embarked on its course of progress and power in the world that could challenge it or impede its advance.

The Church had capitulated before the men­tal and political revolt of the Christendom long ago. The Islamic East yielded to its political and intellectual might in the 19th Century and the whole world went on submitting to it quietly and quickly.

Incidentally, Europe got the opportunity to present its capabilities in the material form and its materialistic creed was received everywhere willingly and enthusiastically. But the whole show came to a tragic end. It proved to be a colossal failure. As a result of it, there is both inner and outer discord and confusion; individuals, classes and com­munities are at loggerheads with each other and the horizon is darkened with the clouds of war.

The World is presenting the spectacle of a powder-keg which is ready to explode at any moment. Woeful cries are being raised at the expectation of the dis­astrous end of humanity. Self-confidence, peace and emotional equipoise are things of the past. Man is haunted with fear. His soul is restless. He is troubled about the future. A perpetual feel­ing of anxiety is felt everywhere; moral turmoil is complete and the spiritual vacuum is becoming more fearful everyday. There is an incurable sense of despondency and frustration. On all sides, there is nothing but distress, misery and bitterness.

The story of the wretchedness and infelicity of the western civilization is such that it deserves to be told again and again. It is the most important episode in the history of human species for in the East there are still people who believe in its purity and innocence and look upon it with respect and envy. They are confident that a civilization like it can never perish or become in­solvent. They regard it with religious reverence.

WEAKNESSES OF  MATERIALISTIC SYSTEM

You live in the midst of this civilization and feel its scorching heat. You observe its anguish and uneasiness and see the evidence of its decay and degeneration in all places. You notice its intrin­sic traits in the moral disposi­tion of its political leaders, in the disregard of human sentiments in the neglect of ethical values and in high incidence of crime and other grave moral offences.

You see it unveiled in the conduct and philosophy of the leaders of thought and politics who are utterly incapable of ap­preciating the message of humanity and carrying it to others and wholly insensitive to the call of the spirit that can breathe a new life into the society, lead the com­munity towards its high destination and bring about harmony and integration. This civilization, at the height of its revolution, is suffering from the crisis of confidence.

After these observations it should be evident to you that a society which is not based on faith is destined to an evil fate. It is another matter that it manages to prolong its life a little more but it is bound to come to a tragic end.

In fact, it is the path of belief and faith and the message and the life-example of the Divine Apostles that uplift, the character of both individuals and communities, illumines it with the light of spiritual feeling. It imparts the spirit of faith and courage independently of academies and educational institutions and means of propaganda and mass com­munication. It cures the hearts of greed, hypocrisy, boastfulness and ostentation. It promotes life and vitality and gives rise to belief in the Hereafter, sincerity and selflessness. It convinces one of the transitoriness of the world, strengthens faith in God whom no human eye has seen nor mind can com­prehend and arouses in man the sentiments of laying down his life for His sake. History still remembers the deeds of these men of faith and conviction.

Had such events not taken place so repeatedly the world would perhaps have repudiated them without hesitation. This is the segment of humanity which has preserved the vanishing stock of civiliza­tion, rescued the society again and again from the depths of waywardness and pulled the boat of mankind out of the whirlwind of death in the nick of time. These high-souled men have always saved the moral values and higher human concepts from destruction. In all their endeavours they have been guided by earnestness and solicitude for the deliverance of mankind.

Islam and Socialism

By Ihsanullah Khan

Islam is a religion, whereas Socialism is simply an economic institution taking finally the form of a state – a Political Institution. Both stand for some purpose – some end. The end or purpose of the latter is the physical and economic welfare of man or, in other words, the total removal or extermination of poverty from all classes of people in the state. The end or purpose of Islam, on the other hand, is the perfection of man in all forms – i.e., the elevation of man to Insan-Kamil – a perfect man. What is a perfect man? A perfect man is one who has the best of conduct and character (Akhlaq), the best of intellect (Aql), the best and finest sense for the appreciation of beauty (Husn), and has the best of health, is free from all cares and wants and is consequently the happiest of all creatures. Evidently, the last, physical and economic welfare of man, from the Islamic standpoint, is only an aspect, an element, of the end, but not an end in itself. For Socialism, on the other hand, it is an end in itself, the sole end, to which all other ends must be subordinated. This is the fundamental distinction between Islam and Socialism. But however they may differ, there is one point atleast which is common to both, namely, the principle of the eradication poverty and bringing into being freedom from want. But even so the affinity is merely in the principle as such, i.e., in the aspiration to remove poverty, but not in the ways and means or methods devised by each for the achievement of the same. The means and methods adopted by each differ violently and the point at issue, therefore, is, which of the methods is better and more successful in removing the evil of poverty and bringing into being freedom from want? Some maintained the the method devised by Socialism are better than those of Islam; others maintain that the two systems are almost identical and can be reconciles; still others maintain that they are essentially different and that the methods devised by Islam are superior to those of Socialism. I agree with the last group of people and maintain the the two systems are fundamentally different and that the means adopted by Islam are far more successful than and superior to those adopted by Socialism or any other hypothesis.

I. Socialism starts with the assumption that all men are equal and justice demands that each man should have equal share of the total wealth of the nation; that there should be an equal distribution of it among all and  that there should be no distinction between man and man or class and class. But the assumption of the equality of man is erroneous, for all men are “ideally” equal, not “factually” so. Factually, some are weak and others are strong; some are vicious and others are virtuous and so on. If now the stronger and the more capable people, by sheer dint of honest labour, accumulate more wealth than the weaker and less capable people, no institution in the world has any right to deprieve such people of their wealth for the sake of equalising them with the inefficient and unworthy people. If yet they are deprieved of their honset earnings, as Socialism would have it, this would be gross injustice. Socialism, which starts with the specific object of dispensing justice to all, involves itself in the grossest injustice inconceivable.

II. Socialism further assumes that the richer and wealthier people are necessarily cruel and wicked; and that the wealth they accumulate is earned through callous and vicious means. But is wealth necessarily accumulated by such methods? Many may have earned their wealth through honset and sincere work and to deprieve them of their wealth is obvious injustice.

III. Again, all men are equal and there should be an equal distribution of wealth among all, but since the equal distribution of wealth, they maintain, is impossible so long as the instotution of Private Property exists, it must disappear. So long, they argue, as each person retains his own wealth for himself, there shall always arise a class of more prudent, capable and tactful people who would earn more than the less capable and tactful people; and once sich persons have taken a start, they will go on multiplying their wealth without much effort on their part – by investing and re-investing it in different forms. Of necessity, therefore, must Capitalism and unequal distribution of wealth result again and again from the instotution of Private Property. This institution should be totally abolished and not the individuals but the State should be the owner of all the property. The individual should entrust his all, whatever it may be, great or small, to the State, and the State should be the sole owner of “total Property.” There should be thus no “MINE” or “THINE”; all wealth should belong to the State and then the State shall have to distribute it equally among all, thus resulting in complete justice. All will have equal share from the commonwealth of the nation, in which there would be no distinction between the rich and poor and all will be equally well-provided.

But again, this position has the difficulty of its own kind. The efficiency of its own individuals ‘singly’ and that of the State ‘collectively’ will suffer considerably on that account. Man is primarily an individual and only secondarily a social being. The more capable must naturally think why, after all, should they work for the sake of others, when their own interests must necessarily suffer; why after all should they add more to their income, when that excess would always be denied to them. Again, man is primarily lazy and seeks play and happiness rather than work and strain. Left to himself, he would never work or strain himself willingly. He works only under the stress of circumstances – not work for the sake of work. Thus the less capable people in the Socialistic State would naturally think why after all should they strain themselves and work harder, if already their share of the wealth of the nation is secured; why after all should they produce more, when that more would be taken away by the State? Thus, the rich and the poor, the competent and the incompetent, would all lose interest in their work, and society would necessarily become inefficient. The result would be that the total wealth of the nation, as also the share of the individual in it, would go on decreasing from year to year, until a day would come when the share of the individual would reach a point far lower than even what a most incompetent person would have earned, if left to himself. Socialism started with the object of providing sufficient for each and all, but failed to provide even the barest minimum for any. It must give up its first and most fundament thesis, viz., “The abolition of private property” and its corollary, viz., “all property to be owned by the State.”

But even assuming that Socialism does succeed and succeeds a hundred per cent, then, in that case, each and all would be well-fed all right but none would be moral, because the ‘giving’ in the case of each is not voluntary or out of free-will. There is, indeed, no giving on the part of the individuals, live alone voluntary or involuntary. All property belongs to the State and it is the State that gives to the individual and not the individual that gives to the State. The share of the individual is not so much “given” by the individual to the State, as it is really “taken” from the individual by the State. But morality of an action consists really in “giving” things over rather than be “taken” away from. Thus a Socialistic State in this hypothesis is tantamount to a kingdom of animals in a huge jungle where there is plenty to eat and drink and where each and all are well-fed and properly stuffed, and yet all remain animals in spite of it – animals and not moral human beings.

But one might say that the question of “giving” and giving things voluntarily does certainly exist in a Socialistic State. After all, as Socialists surmise, every individual in a Socialistic State is absolutely free to give his vote to anybody, and once his original vote is freely given, his subsequent acts that follow from it are freely determined. But this is a wrong argument, the original free vote does not necessarily make all subsequent individual acts free and hence moral. I might have free voted for Mr. X to become a minister but yet it is possible that, subsequently, I might differ with his policy and conduct. If yet I obey his orders, it can be for no other reason than from fear or prudence in which morality has no share. Morality is not a matter of habitual and mechanical action according to certain principles, as Socialism would like it to be. For instance, once you have freely voted for certain principles, you shall have to follow them mechanically, necessarily and compulsorily in all your individual acts, whether you subsequently agree or disagree with them. But morality is quite the opposite of it. It is not a free act once or casually done in life but is a series of free acts ever and ever anew!.

1. Generally speaking, Socialism conceives the nature of man essentially as animal, a feeling being, with food and happiness as his sole end in life. But food, wealth and happiness are precisely the things which each man will have for himself and not share with others. Left to feelings and animal impulses as being the standard, we never share our wealth and happiness with others and never become one with them. Where we share our well-being and happiness with others, it is our reason that bids us to do so and not our feelings or animal impulses. Reason must intervene into the life of man if we are to share our wealth and woe with others and be anything better than an animal. With the dawn of this reason, new demands would be made on us – the demand or yearning to seek the truth, Goodness, beauty and holiness. But this is neither open to Socialism nor does it actually admit it. Hence the materialism and Godlessness of this system. We thus pass to the second thesis of this system.

2. Socialism assumes that the church and Priest who represent God on earth and vicious institutions and they make capital out of it. Here again we are involved in Capitalism which is their foremost duty to destroy. State and Statesmen should thus take the place of the church and the priests. The State should be all in all and nothing besides the State should exist. There should be no God, no Religion side by side with the State to inspire people and to challenge its supremacy.

But let us analyse this argument. From the casual or even wholesale badness of the priests, we are not entitled to jump to the conclusion that Religion itself is bad.

Socialism is not clear on the point that it is precisely from Religion from which all fundamentally human values first originate and then finally culminate in it. Even the economic welfare of man, as described above, would be somewhat impossible without religion. Without religion, society would be something like Hobbe’s Kingdom of wolves, where every one would perennially run at the other’s throat and be at war among themselves. All would be destruction and no production. Thuse even with Economic Welfare as the end, let alone other yearnings, it is indispensible to retain God and Religion.

Moreover, since all fundamental values originate from and culminate in Religion, it is, at the basis of all Culture and Civilisation. Without it there would be neither Culture nor Civilisation. But even if we presume that some sort of culture and civilisation can exist in spite of it, it will be grossly primitive and unworthy of man. But without a really advanced Culture and Civilisation, no nation has any moral right to Internationalism, as Socialism would have it. Hence again, Socialism would be obliged to abandon yet another thesis of its own, its Godlessness, and that too, if not for itself, at least in the interest of the Internationalism which is the third chief thesis of Socialism.

3. The starting point of Socialism is: All men are equal and therefore there should be an equal distribution of wealth among all. This necessarily leads to Internationalism which consistently followed. If all men are really equal, then not only are all individuals within the same State but also all States and people within the same world, are equal to each other. Hence all States and people should have equal share of the total wealth of the world. But who is to enforce this principle? Who is to be the torch-bearer and pioneer of it? The thought, as such, would not be acceptable to those who may have to suffer on that account. Who could compel America to share its wealth with Arabia, China, Afghanistan, etc? Evidently, this pre-supposes the existence of some one State strong enough to enforce the same thought. But here again we shall encounter the same difficulties as I have stated above. Even if a State that could enforce the thought were to come into being, the giving on the part of the individual States will not be voluntary and hence not moral. Moreover, the total wealth of the world, as also the share of the individual States, is likely to fall from year to year  as it will be an involuntary imposition and man does not like it. Besides, the thought of equal distribution is not open to Socialism, for it conceives the nature of man essentially as animal, and as an animal I can never pass from the circle of “my good,” “my happiness,” to that of “your good”, “your happiness.” What is impossible as between individuals will be equally impossible  as between States. Once this principle of Socialism, namely, that food and happiness is the sole end of man, is accepted, neither the individuals nor indeed the States will part with what is the only and the most valuable thing according to them.

But even assuming that the individual States could well part with their surplus, the case would be no better either from the socialist standpoint. The surplus would not go the the poorer States but to the richest and the strongest of all States. For of all States, this very Socialistic State with its materialistic background, will of necessity lapse into imperialism and its evils, indeed a worst sort of imperialism, a world-wide Imperialism, a thing which was the starting point of Socialism to fight against and eradicate in all possible forms.

To this one might object that Socialism does not really maintain that the richer States should entrust their surplus to some stronger one in order that it may distribute it among the poorer States. All that it maintains is that every State within its own sphere should have equal distribution among the individuals. But this would defeat the ideal of International Socialism only to be replaced by National Socialism. In any case, it will be simply compelled by the sheer contradictions and inconsistencies to give up one thesis after another until we shall have merely a form without content – a bare principle of the removal of poverty without its original means to work it out. But this simple principle is not peculiar to Socialism. All religions, long before Socialism, had ordained it, and even today many worldly States aspire to realize it in their own way. What I have simply formally stated, is actually proved by the hard facts of life. Already Socialism has permitted private property and has abandoned its Godlessness and Internationalism. Thus it is no more Socialism; at best it is Neo-Socialism. But Neo-Socialism is a new Socialism and is something other than Socialism, is anything but Socialism. If yet you call it Socialism, then it is like the niser’s sock, patched up with new threads again and again and over again until not a single thread of the original remains and yet it is the same old sock. This may be true of the sock for all practical purposes but not of ideologies. We now pass on to Islam to see how the problem of the removal of poverty is tackled by it.

Socialism maintains that so long as the institution of Private Property exists, the result would be Capitalism and its consequent evils. But if Private Property is abolished, the result is no better either, for efficiency would suffer and a result would be a conaiderable decrease in the total wealth of the nation, as also that of the individual. Evidently, we are involved in a sort of conflict or antinomy, for both the positions are right. The problem now is how to resolve this antinomy and how to reconcile this conflict. Islam offers a solution which is quite correct and fair.

Islam assumes that the institution of Private Property is good from the point of view of efficiency that it promotes; but it is bad from the point of view of Capitalism which it encourages. Hence Private Property should be retained as well as abolished in the same breath – retained in order to encourage its efficiency, and abolished in order to disvourage Capitalism. But how is it possible to retain a thing at one and the same time? How am I to conceive that the property is mine and yet not mine at the same time? This is possible when the concept “mine” and “not mine” is looked at from different standpoints and this is precisely the attitude which Islam which actually takes towards it. Empirically, factually and actually the property is mine all right, because it is in my possession. Hence it is natural that I should have interest in it and should promote it as much as it is in my power to do so. But transcendentally, rationally and ideally it is not mine and is God’s property, because He alone is the ultimate Creator of all things. Hence I should have no hesitation in parting ways with it, if God so desires. Hence also the synthesis of the conflicting thesis and the solution of the antinomy. The institution of Private Property is kept intact without necessarily resulting in Capitalism. The point of efficiency is combined with a set-back to Capitalism in a most harmonious way. This much abstractly speaking. We may now give three concrete illustrations.

Islam encourages the production of wealth (efficiency) and yet discourages the accumulation of the same in the hands of a few (Capitalism). This it does by the institution of the “Law of Inheritance,” by forbidding “Interest” and by the injunctions of “poor tax,” “almsgiving,” “lending without remuneration,” “gift,” “trust,” “the giving of one-third in will to anybody other than legal successors,” etc, etc.

(1) The Islamic Law of Inheritance is an immense blow to Capitalism for through it the property of man is divided and re-divided among his successors and even among the remote successors, if there are no immediate ones. In any case, the property cannot remain compact and in the hand of a few in the long run. Thus the property will circulate from person to person until many are benefited thereby; and when many are benefited, the total wealth of the nation also increases.

(2) The abolition of usury is another great set-back to Capitalism. Usury is a vicious institution and it is at the basis of Capitalism. The rich, thereby, gain more and more money without doing “any positive work.” In other words, it is the money that makes money and not the man behind it. It is the mere possession of money that brings money and not the work or toil of the person possessing the money. 

In Islam it should be the man himself and not his bare money to make more money – the man and his nerves, tissues, muscles, brain, etc. Thus there is no room in the Islamic ruling State for the exploitation of the individual by the individual. The individuals would be no longer perennially under debts to money-lenders. Nor would certain States be perennially under debts to other States.

(3) Hence there would be no Capitalism, no exploitation, and therefore no poverty. Thus an Islamic ruling State, when it comes to the task of  Internationalism, would never, like Socialism, lapse into Imperialism. زكاة (tithe), خيرات (alms), صدقات (charity), قرض حسنه (loan without interest), هبه (gift), امانت (deposit by way of trust), وقف (bequest), وصيت (endowment)., etc, etc., are other such measures which put a ban on Capitalism and restrain it. These institutions prevent the money from being accumulated in the hands of a few, rather it must flow from man to man and class to class in a rapid circulation. This is very nearly the essence of the economic well-being of both the individuals and the State. But one might object that these injunctions were perhaps helpful for maintaining the poor, but can hardly be expected to meet the gigantic demands and requirements of a modern State. This may be right, but nothing can stand in the way of an Islamic governing State either to impose more and more taxes or demand from the individual whatever he could spare for the amelioration of the condition of his brethren. The Qur’anic Verses: “God has purchased from believers their property and their lives in lieu of Paradise” clearly indicates that the wealth and body of a Muslim is purchased by God in lieu of Paradise and can be requisitioned when He so desires.

Further, of all these injunctions  زكاة (tithe) is one form of duty, خيرات (alms), صدقات (charity), قرض حسنه (loan), هبه (gift), امانت (deposit by way of trust), وقف (bequest), وصيت (endowment)., etc, etc., form another kind of duties. Tithe (زكاة) is an absolute duty, whereas the others are meritorious duties.

Tithe (زكاة) is compulsory enforced and collected by the Khalifa in the name of God, whereas the other institutions are not so enforced by the Khalifa. Tithe (زكاة) is a duty which Muslims have necessarily and absolutely to perform; and its non-observance is a vice, and its observance a virtue. Whereas the other meritorious duties are of a nature that if we do not perform them, our act is not vice, but if we perform them, our action is virtue, indeed, a meritorious virtue – a virtue par excellence. This sort of virtue does not exist in any worldly State or organisation, not even in a Socialistic State. In a Socialistic State there is hardly any room for virtues, leave alone the meritorious ones. It is a wholesale compulsion and whatever you have in excess of your wants will be taken away from you, and you will be left on a par with others – the question of yet giving more., i.e. meritorious duties, not arising at all.

The State is all for Socialism, whereas God is the all in all for Islam. In the former the act of giving is for fear of the State, whereas in the latter it is for the fear of God. Evidently, the latter is moral action, whereas the former is only a legal one. Thus for a Muslim the act of “giving” is not only conducive to feeding others but is also helpful to his own reformation or self-perfection.

But to this, one might object that an action done out of “fear” is non-moral, whether it be for fear of God as in the case of a Muslim, or for fear of the State as in the case of a Socialist. Hence in either case the action is non-moral. But this is a wrong position. There is a radical difference between fear of God and fear of a State, the two being different in kind. The fear of God is a matter of Faith and the fear of State is a matter of “knowledge.” The object of Faith if God, who is not a concrete object; is not immediately present before me; it is my Faith in Him, indeed an ايمان بل غيب (faith in the Unknown). Evidently, His Punishment is not imminent, if I do not believe in Him; even His Punishment itself is a matter of Faith. Thus there is no compulsion in Religion, indeed, much more opposite of it. I am free to believe or not believe in God, or even to believe in one notion of God or the other. The Sword of God is not immediately present before me to compel me to believe in Him, or believe in Him one way or the other. That I yet believe in Him in spite of the absence of His punishment, amounts to complete freedom in the choive of my Faith. Thus my faith in God and the consequent fear of Him are both my own creation, are autonomous and there is no compulsion involved in it. On the contrary, the fear of the State is a fear of a concrete object, which is present before me and its punishment is imminent, if I disobey it. It is the fear of a thing outside me and of an external origin and is heteronomous. It is a thing or person other than myself who compels me to do this or that for fear of his sword present immediately before me. Hence the distinction between the two fears, of which the one is freely chosen, self-created, autonomous and hence the condition of the existence of morality, which the other is not.

In conclusion, I must say that even assuming that Islam does not succeed in exterminating poverty altogether, the case in not likely to be bad either. For the worth or dignity of a man, according to Islam, consists essentially in the character and righteousness of a man rather than in the wealth and riches possessed by him. Thus the poor in an Islamic governing State will not be looked down upon for the mere fact of poverty, nor the rich would in any way be respected for the mere fact of wealth they possess. The result would be that the rich and the poor would be all alike and shall form one brotherhood. In this brotherhood the rich would have no feeling of superiority nor the poor that of inferiority, so that there will be neither quarrel among the individuals within the State nor war among the States within the world, in spite of the inequality in wealth. All would be peace and peace and a Kingdom of God on earth would be established, in the truest sense of the term. This is precisely what the term Islam means and this is precisely what the Qur’an invites mankind into – a Peace –  perfect and universal.

THE DARK SIDE OF “MODERN” CIVILISATION

By Bediuzzaman Said Nursi

THE DARK SIDE OF MODERN CIVILISATION draws upon a genius that is nothing less than satanic. Using naturalism, materialism, atheism, vice and misguidance, modern civilisation has trapped the human spirit in a kind of living hell. It has taken humankind, the most noble of all beings, and it has reduced him to the lowest of the low, infecting him with severe diseases of the soul and reducing him to the lowest level of animality.

But then – and here is the mark of its evil genius – it tells him that modern civilisation has the remedy for his diseases! It tells him that this remedy is to be found in the illusion of entertainment, amusement and those mind-numbing diversions which temporarily anaesthetise the senses. What mankind fails to understand is that this ‘remedy’ is actually worse than the diseases that it is supposed to be curing.

But this ‘remedy’ will eventually be the death of those who prescribe it. Such is the road that modern civilisation has opened up for mankind, and the ‘happiness’ that it has created for him…