Monks and Robots

Posted by on
Share

When Peaceful Monks transform
into Bloody Monsters


Edip Yuksel
3 September 2012
www.19.org

These are monks, who are depicted as the incarnation of peace and love; yet they have recently been massacring Rohingya minority in Myanmar… All dogmas, be it religious or nationalistic, are dangerous for humanity. Dogmas turn individuals into robots. Today’s good robot could easily be transformed into monsters by a push of button.

Dogmatic people are susceptible to be manipulated by their religious or political masters. They mutate, especially when their masters attain great political and financial power, or during the times of social and political crisis. All they need is to push the red buttons of their followers, the dogmatic robots!

After reading the news, you will find a selection of discussion, below.

 

Buddhists monks rally in support of Myanmar stance on Rohingya Muslims

Sep 2, 2012

In Myanmar, hundreds of Buddhist monks have held a rally in support of their government’s plan to deport the country’s Rohingya Muslim minority.

On Sunday, the crowd in Mandalay held banners in support of the government’s plan to send the minority group away, as a solution to the deadly sectarian violence.

Back in July, Myanmar President Thein Sein said that the “only solution” to the plight of the Rohingya Muslims was to send the nearly-onemillion-strong community to refugee camps run by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

“We will send them away if any third country would accept them,” he added. “This is what we are thinking is the solution to the issue.”

Earlier, Sein conceded that politicians, Buddhist monks, and other ethnic figures are stirring up hatred against the Rohingyas.

“Reports say some 650 Rohingyas have been killed in the Rakhine state in the west of the country in recent months. This is while 1,200 others are missing and 80,000 more have been displaced.”

The Buddhist-majority government of Myanmar refuses to recognize Rohingyas and has classified them as illegal migrants, even though the Rohingyas are said to be Muslim descendants of Persian, Turkish, Bengali, and Pathan origin, who migrated to Myanmar as early as the 8th century.

According to reports, thousands of Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslims are living in dire conditions in refugee camps after government forces and Buddhist extremists started burning down their villages on August 10.

The UN human rights authorities blame Myanmar’s security forces for the violence, who are believed to have been targeting the Muslims rather than bringing the ethnic violence to an end in the country. SZH/JR/AZ

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/09/02/259502/myanmar-monks-rally-against-rohingya/

DISCUSSION:

NAIM: True Buddhists do not deliberately cause suffering on any sentient being just like true Muslims. This news, just like the plan of the instigators of this conflict, is itself designed to generate animosity between two VERY similar, almost identical major belief systems, Islam and Buddhism. Notice the all seeing eye of Horus/Lucifer/DEVIL in the logo of this article’s provider, PRESS TV!

EDIP: I know that the original teaching of Islam and Buddhism is PEACEFUL. Yet, dear friend you miss my point. You miss it greatly.

The issue is not the nature of the original message/practice of a particular religion or even its current message/practice. It is about EPISTEMOLOGY.

Even if a group of people follow the message of peace, progress, freedom, equality, justice through INDOCTRINATION AND DOGMATIC MODUS OPERANDI the nature of such a message has little value. Why? Because their vehicle (dogmatism, blind following) may lead them to another station without even a prior notice… It is all up to the captain of the bandwagon or ship. The captain could be Sultan, Caliph, Pope, Ayatullah, Rabi, Priest, Pastor, Mahdi, Dalai Lama, Monk, or any other fabricated religious title. They usually wear different garbs to distinguish them from their flock, their robots; through these silly theatrics and nonsense they manage to fool and impress their mass. Their success is partially due to their brainpolluting of their victims since their baby years. Ironically, they are too usually the victim of this brain-polluting machine.

They may just change their mind for some political or financial gain. We know from history that the drivers of religious bandwagons are usually manipulative and power-hungry hypocrites.  They have supported numerous wars and atrocities throughout history, and even now. Go to churches, synagogues and mosques, you will see their support for troops, their warmongering and nationalistic appetite for the blood of “infidels” or “barbarians” or those they have just declared to be “terrorists.”

So, consider someone saying this:

“My great priest/guru/holyman told me that 2×2=4. I believe that to be true, since I trust my priest/guru/holyman “

Or this:

“My great priest/guru/holyman told me that we should love even our enemies. I believe that to be true, since I trust my priest/guru/holyman”

Though what they say is accurate and fine, I do not trust either of them. The first could easily claim 1+1+1=1 (Trinity) when his priest/guru/holyman tells him to do so. The latter could easily commit atrocities, support militaries that invades countries and kills millions of people and torture the captives.

So, the name of the prescribed medicine is:

PHILOSOPHY!

CRITICAL THINKING!

Think on it. Think on it critically!

Share

The Qur’anists

Posted by on
Share

The Qur’anists

Aisha Y. Musa*
Florida International  University
www.19.org

Originally published at Religion Compass 4/1 (2010): 12–21,  10.1111/j.1749-8171.2009.00189.x

Abstract

Stories relating the words and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad, known as Hadith in Arabic, have long been esteemed by the vast majority of Muslims as a source of law and guidance second only to the Qur’an in authority. In recent years, an increasingly vocal Muslim opposition to Hadith insists that the Qur’an alone should be the sole source of religious law and guidance in Islam. Rashad Khalifa, Kassim Ahmad, Edip Yuksel, and Ahmad Subhy Mansour are among the most important rejecters of the Hadith, whose arguments influence a wide variety of groups popularly labeled Ahl al-Qur’an, Qur’niyyun or Qur’anists.

Qur’anists:  Contemporary Muslim Opposition
to the Use and Authority  of the Hadith

Hadith, stories of the words and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad are the second scrip- tural source of law and guidance after the Qur’an for most Muslims. They are the only vehicle through  which,  according to  the  majority of  Muslims, we  can  access what Muhammad said and did and that of which he tacitly approved. These stories have played an important role in shaping the development of Islam as we know it today. Recently, however, an increasingly vocal Muslim opposition to the use and authority of the Hadith has emerged. Insistence on the Qur’an alone as the sole source of religious law and guid- ance in Islam has earned those who oppose the Hadith the epithet ‘Qur’anists.’ This arti- cle will introduce  the  most prominent  trends and thinkers among the  various groups referred to by this title.

There are two strains of opposition to the authority of the Hadith. The first is opposi- tion to an extra-Qur’anic source of scriptural authority and the second is to the problem- atic  content  of  some  of  the  Hadith  that  make  the  religion  an  object  of  ridicule. Authenticity is also a concern, and opponents of the Hadith often argue that the Hadith have nothing to do with the Prophet. However, the overriding concern is about granting scriptural authority to something other than the Qur’an.

The number of groups and individuals who may be called ‘Qur’anists’ appears to be increasing. The  Internet has opened the discussion to a broad array of participants and observers. At the time of this is being written, Wikipedia’s entry entitled ‘Qur’an alone’ contains links to  more  than a dozen websites dedicated to  interpreting Islam without using Hadith.

While  some opponents  of  the  Hadith  express themselves openly, using their  own names, others publish their views anonymously or under pseudonyms for fear of reprisals.

Arrest, detention, and imprisonment of Qur’anists in Egypt has gained increasing attention in the Muslim world since at least early 2003, when the London based, Arabic language daily, al-Sharq al-Awsat, reported that eight Egyptians were sentenced by Egypt’s Supreme State Security Court to terms ranging from 6 months to 3 years for ‘contempt of religion’ for rejecting Prophetic Traditions, interpreting the Qur’an for themselves in ways differ dramatically from  mainstream understanding of  Islamic beliefs and  practices (al-Sharq al-Awsat 2003). More arrests and detentions in 2007 sparked intense debated in the Egyp- tian press, and scholars of al-Azhar declared the Qur’anists apostates who are attempting to ‘destroy Islam.’ Former Deputy Rector of al-Azhar and member of the Islamic Studies Committee, Mahmoud Ashour, was quoted in al-Sharq  al-Awsat  as saying they are ‘more dangerous to  Islam than  any  other  group.’  (Khalil 2007).  The  situation  of  Egypt’s Qur’anists illustrates the gravity of the issue for Muslims.

An important aspect of the modern debates over the Hadith is that they involve educated ordinary Muslims. In his 1999 article ‘The Coming Transformation of the Muslim World,’ Dale Eickelman discusses the effect that ‘unprecedented access that ordinary peo- ple now have to information and knowledge about religion and other aspects of their society’ is having on religious authority in the Muslim world:

What distinguishes the present era from prior ones is the large number of believers engaged in the ‘reconstruction’ of religion, community, and society. In an earlier era, political or religious leaders  would prescribe, and others were supposed to  follow. Today, the major impetus for change in religious and political values comes from below. (Eickelman 1999)

The  contemporary challengers of the Hadith  illustrate Eickelman’s point  – they are educated, ordinary Muslims rather than religious scholars or clergy. As Daniel Brown’s analysis of the early 20th century Qur’an alone  movements shows they made use of the popular press and self-published books and journals (Brown 1996). This continues today. The  Internet  has contributed to  the spread and development of a variety of Qur’anist movements throughout  the world. Besides the discussions  in Egypt, opposition to  the Hadith  was and  is taking place throughout  the  Muslim world,  in  countries such as Malaysia, Kuwait, and South Africa (Tolu-e-Islam 2009).

Among the leading opponents of the Hadith are Rashad Khalifa and Ahmad Subhy Mansour, Egyptians who settled in the United  States, Kassim Ahmed of Malaysia, and Edip Yuksel, a Turkish religious activist who immigrated to the United States to escape persecution in his homeland. Their  works are available both in traditional print media and on the Internet. Each of them was born and raised in a traditional Sunni family in a Muslim country.  While  some may have lived and studied in  Western countries, they came to  the  West as  adults with  their respective cultural, social, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. They are not ‘Westerners’ who are seeking to ‘Westernize’ Islam to fit their ‘Western’ culture. This is significant because one of the most frequent criticisms of the modern-day opposition to the authoritative status of the Hadith is that it is an essentially Western-influenced assault on Islam (Hashim 2007).

Rashad Khalifa

The Qur’anic arguments leveled against the use of Hadith were most strongly articulated by Rashad Khalifa, in his 1982 book Quran, Hadith, and Islam. The book is less than 90 pages, but from beginning to end it is a vehement indictment of traditional Islam as idol- atry that violates the teachings delivered by Muhammad.

Born in Egypt in 1935, Khalifa came to the United States in 1959, where he obtained a PhD in Biochemistry. He settled in the United States and was active in the local Mus- lim community. Dissatisfied with English translations of the Qur’an, Khalifa set out to do a translation of his own (Submission.org 2009). In working on the translation, he scruti- nized the Arabic initials that preface certain chapters of the Qur’an. A computer analysis of the text revealed numerical patterns related to  the initials that according to  Khalifa proved the divine origin of the Qur’an. This brought Khalifa popular acclaim throughout the Muslim world and even a congratulatory letter from the director of the Department of  Research  and  Publications at  al-Azhar University’s Academy of  Islamic Research (al-Fuqa 1976; Unpublished letter). Ahmed Deedat also promoted  Khalifa’s  work  in a booklet entitled Al-Quran, the Ultimate  Miracle (Deedat 1986).

However,  numerical patterns in  the  Qur’an  were  not  the  only  discovery Khalifa claimed to have made. In the preface to Quran, Hadith, and Islam he writes:

The continued research unveiled a startling fact: that the extremely popular ‘Hadith & Sunna’ have nothing to do with the prophet Muhammad, and that the adherence thereto represents flagrant disobedience of God and His final prophet (Quran 6:112 & 25:31). This finding contra- dicts the beliefs of Muslim masses everywhere. Consequently, my personal popularity, and even the popularity of the Quran’s miracle, plunged to the point of endangering my life and reputa- tion.  As it turned out,  telling Muslims that ‘Hadith and Sunna’ are Satanic inventions is the same as telling Christians that Jesus is not the son of God (Khalifa 1982).

Khalifa’s declaration that  the  Hadith  and  Sunna  were  ‘Satanic inventions’ angered Muslims around the world (Bay an min al-Azhar 1985). In the book prefaced by that bold declaration, Khalifa uses Qur’anic verses, a few Biblical verses, and even Hadith to sup- port his conclusions. For those who  accept his findings, he says, ‘the results include a totally new sense of salvation, and full awareness that the Muslim masses have fallen vic-tim to Satan’s schemes’ (Khalifa 1982).

Khalifa starts by establishing premises on which all Muslims agree: obeying the Messen- ger is obligatory and Messengers do not speak for themselves (Khalifa 1982, pp. 1–2). By identifying these premises and  using them  as  a  starting point,  Khalifa anticipates the response most often made when the Hadith are challenged – the Qur’an commands obe- dience to the Messenger, which requires acceptance of the Hadith. Khalifa understands this and agrees with need to obey the Messenger. Where Khalifa differs with the majority of Muslims is on  what obedience to  the  Messenger requires and what represents the teachings of the  Messenger: ‘Muhammad is represented by the  Quran  alone’ (Khalifa 1982, p. 3). Khalifa cites more than 70 verses from the Qur’an, in both Arabic and Eng- lish, to support a number of assertions, including:

  • The Qur’an is ‘complete, perfect, and fully detailed’;
  • Muhammad’s only duty was to deliver the Qur’an;
  • Muhammad was forbidden from explaining the Qur’an;
  • Obeying the Messenger is following only the Qur’an;
  • Religious practices came from Abraham, not Muhammad;
  • ‘Hadith’ and ‘Sunna’ are ‘100% conjecture’;
  • The Qur’an is only ‘Hadith’ that Muslims should follow.

Khalifa (1982) cites many verses, but here I will only mention some key verses used. The translations are those of Khalifa, and these differ from more mainstream translators. The  emphasis is also that  of Khalifa. Among the  verses used to  support his assertion that the Qur’an is complete and fully detailed are 6:38–39: ‘We did not leave anything out of this book…’  (Khalifa 1982, p. 10). He then cites portions of 6:114–115: ‘Shall I seek other than God as  a source of law, when He revealed this Book  to  you fully  detai- led…The  word  of your Lord is complete  in truth  & justice’ (p. 10). Khalifa challenges Muslims by citing these verses under the heading, ‘Do  you believe  God or  not?’  (p. 10).

The challenge is directed toward those who argue that the Hadith are a necessary com- plement  to  the  Qur’an.  How  can  a  ‘complete’ book  require  a  ‘complement’? The none-too-subtle  suggestion is that  no  one  who  believes such  a  thing  believes God. One  who  does not  believe God  is a  disbeliever. As he  did  in  his preface, Khalifa harshly condemns the vast majority of Muslims. This too  is a very serious charge and one that angers many Muslims.

One of the strongest arguments for Hadith has to do with the details of religious prac- tices. Khalifa understands this. He says ‘their favorite question’ is ‘If the Quran is complete  (as God  says), where  do  we  find  the  details of  Salat [sic]   prayers?’ Khalifa’s parenthetical insertion is yet  another  none-too-subtle  implication: those who  ask this question do not believe what God says. He further states that the question ‘reveals their total ignorance of the Quran’ (Khalifa 1982, p. 37). Khalifa’s response to ‘their favorite question’ is that all religious practices come to us from Abraham, in support of which he cites Qur’an 22:78:

He has blessed you and imposed no hardship in your religion; the religion of your  father  Abraham. Abraham is the one who named you ‘Muslims’ in the beginning… Therefore you shall observe the Salat prayers, give the Zakat charity… (Khalifa 1982, p. 38)

To show that the specific religious practices mentioned in 22:78 were given to Abra- ham, Khalifa emphasizes part of 21:72–73: ‘and  We taught them righteous  works  and the observance  of Salat and Zakat. (Khalifa 1982, p. 48). He offers similar verses regarding fast- ing and the Hajj to  show that they too  were known  and practiced since the time of Abraham (Khalifa 1982, pp. 49–50), and Muhammad was to follow the religion of Abra- ham (Khalifa 1982, p. 40). Muhammad’s contribution to Islam was not the details of reli- gious  practices, as  these  were  already known.  They  are  Abraham’s contribution  to Muslims’ religious lives. Muhammad’s contribution  was the  delivery of  the  Qur’an. Pointing out the Qur’an’s use of the Arabic construction ma…illa, which he refers to as a ‘double negative’ used for emphasis, Khalifa cites the Qur’an 42:48 and 5:99 in support of the idea that Muhammad had ‘no duty except delivering (Quran)’ (Khalifa 1982, p. 32).

Another popular argument for Hadith that Khalifa attacks is that Muhammad explained things beyond the details of religious practices. He declares emphatically that Muhammad was forbidden to explain the Qur’an, citing 75:17–19: ‘It is we who will put it together as  a Quran.  Once  we reveal it, you shall follow  it. Then,  it is we who will explain it’ (Khalifa 1982, p. 69).

What Khalifa offers is radical redefinition of the role of the Messenger as the majority of Muslims understand it. He even uses Hadith from the collections of al-Bukhari and Muslim in which Muhammad prohibited writing anything from him except the Qur’an as evidence that the advocates of Hadith do not even follow their own teachings (Khalifa 1982, p. 34). However, he does not stop there. He also attacks the idea that Prophetic Hadith are a form divine inspiration.

Here too, Qur’anic verses are Khalifa’s weapon of choice, especially verses that use the Arabic word Hadith, such as: ‘‘These are God’s verses; we recite them for you truthfully. In which ‘Hadith’,  [sic] beside God and His verses do they believe in [sic]?’’ (Khalifa  1982, p. 57). To  further emphasize his point that the ‘‘Quran is the only ‘Hadith’  to be fol- lowed,’’ and that ‘all other Hadiths are blasphemous and misleading fabrications,’ Khalifa follows his citation of Qur’an 45:6 with 39:23 and 31:6–7, which also contain the Arabic word Hadith: ‘‘God has revealed the best ‘Hadith’;  [sic] a book…;’’ and ‘‘[t]here are those who advocate vain ‘Hadith’ causing diversion from the path of God, without knowledge, and fail to take such actions seriously…’’ (Khalifa 1982, p. 58).

For Khalifa, there is no middle ground. There is no question of ‘authentic’ or ‘inau- thentic’ Hadith. For Khalifa, the crucial question is posed in 45:6. Khalifa sees anyone who follows any Hadith ‘after God and His verses’  as being described in 31:6. They are ‘idol worshippers’ of Muhammad who are unaware of their idolatry and consider them- selves righteous (Khalifa 1982, 53–4). The importance of Hadith and Sunna for Khalifa is that they are a ‘necessary test to distinguish the true Muslim from the false Muslim’ (Khalifa 1982, p. 55).

It is not surprising that Muslims worldwide reacted with anger and hostility. However, not all Muslims had this reaction. Some were moved by the Qur’anic arguments he presented One  such Muslim is Kassim Ahmad, author of Hadith: a Re-evaluation  (Ahmad 1997).

Kassim Ahmad

Born and raised in Malaysia in a traditional Sunni family, Ahmad (1997) says that he held the generally accepted Sunni beliefs, tempered by Ibn Khaldu n’s criteria of checking tra- ditions against the Qur’an and rational thinking, until he encountered Khalifa’s work in 1985. Khalifa ‘opened for [him] a way to  solve the  problem of the  Hadith’ (Ahmad 1997, p. 3). The problem to which Ahmad refers is ‘their negative effects on the Muslim community’ and their connection to the decline and fall of the Muslims. Because of their negative effects, Ahmad believes Muslims need to completely ‘re-evaluate the whole heritage of traditional Islamic thought’ (Ahmad 1997, pp. 2–3). Ahmad is not alone in calling for such a re-evaluation. Many Muslims have worked to reform Islam and Muslim think- ing, including Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Muhammad ‘Abduh, and Rashid Rida. In spite of the efforts of such reformers, Ahmad says, ‘the condition of the Muslim community has not changed much and continues to be precarious.’ The question that Muslims must ask themselves is ‘why?’ Ahmad recognizes that many social, cultural, political, historic, economic and other factors play a role, but not all factors play an equal role. Ahmad sees ideology as  the  most important factor (Ahmad 1997, pp. 5–6). He  identifies what he sees as the basis for the failure of the modern reform movement begun by Muhammad, Abduh:

His basic references are still the Quran and the Hadith. I have pointed out that herein lies the failure of this movement. The Hadith, and everything else, have to be judged by the Quran. (Ahmad 1997, p. ix)

Ahmad’s hypothesis is that the early Muslims were successful  when the Qur’an was their sole source of religious guidance and that Muslim society only declined after they granted Hadith authority along with the Qur’an:

After about three hundred years, extraneous harmful teachings  not taught by Prophet Muham- mad but skillfully attributed to him gradually gained a foothold in the Muslim community and turned  them  away from the dynamic invincible ideology that initially brought them  success. (Ahmad 1997, p. 8)

Although, he  identifies the  use of Hadith  along with  Qur’an as  the  reason for the decline and stagnation of Muslim society and calls for a complete re-evaluation of Islam’s intellectual heritage to remedy the problem of the Hadith, unlike Khalifa, Ahmad makes it clear that such a re-evaluation is not an attack against classical scholars.  It is ‘a normal scientific procedure,’ in  which  all ‘great [Muslim] philosophers and scholars’ engaged (Ahmad 1997, p. 17).

Ahmad then  addresses what  he  calls ‘the Traditionists’ theory’ of  the  Hadith.  He divides this into four arguments that he addresses one-by-one (Ahmad 1997, pp. 23–49).

  • Sunna is revelation;
  • ‘Obey the Messenger’ means ‘Uphold the Hadith’;
  • Hadith Interprets Qur’an;
  • The Example of the Prophet.

Ahmad begins with  the  idea that the  ‘wisdom’ referred to  in  the  Qur’an  refers to extra-Qur’anic revelations given to  Muhammad. Ahmad’s starting premise is that  the Qur’an  explains  itself.  In  looking  at  the  twenty  occurrences  of  the  word  hikma (wisdom) in the Qur’an, he concludes that ‘it is obvious that it refers to the teachings of  the  Quran,  or  to  general wisdom  that  all prophet-messengers or  moral  teachers were endowed  with’ (Ahmad 1997, p.  24). Among the  verses he  cites to  show that the  ‘wisdom’ is to  be found in  the  teachings of the  Qur’an  is 17:39: ‘This  is  part of the wisdom  that your Lord reveals  to  you, where  the  word  ‘wisdom’ refers to  some 13 ethical teachings enumerated in verses 22 to 38’ (Ahmad 1997, pp. 23–4). Among the verses he cites to show that the ‘wisdom’ is something with which all prophets, mes- sengers or moral teachers were endowed are 3:81, which states that God has given all the  prophets ‘the Book  and wisdom,’ and 31:12, which  states that God  granted wis- dom  to  Luqman. Along with  verses that contain the word  hikma, Ahmad cites verses that  describe the  Qur’an  as  hakim, to  support  the  idea that  the  ‘wisdom’ that  God gave to Muhammad refers to the teachings of the Qur’an and not to any extra-Qur’a- nic  revelation.  The  wise  leadership that  Muhammad  demonstrated  was  ‘consequent upon his acting strictly in accordance with the ethical teachings of the Quran’ (Ahmad 1997, p. 25).

After examining Qur’anic usage of the word hikma, Ahmad examines the usages of Sunna and Hadith. He shows two different usages of Sunna, the first is for God’s system (Sunna) mentioned in 48:23, and the second is for ‘the example of the fate suffered by ancient communities,’ mentioned in 8:38. ‘None,’ he says, ‘refers to the behavior of the Prophet.’ In discussing  the Qur’anic usage of the word Hadith, Ahmad cites the same verses Khalifa used and concludes that the Qur’anic usage ‘categorically rejects any Hadith besides the Quran’ (Ahmad 1997, pp. 26–7).

Addressing the second Traditionist argument that links obeying the Messenger to fol- lowing Hadith, Ahmad argues that ‘the messenger is not an independent agency [sic],’ but the ‘agency [sic] that delivered the message’ (Ahmad 1997, p. 31). Ahmad then mentions those verses that indicate that the messenger’s only function is to deliver the message. In keeping with  the  principle that  the  Qur’an  explains itself, Ahmad points out  that  all verses that mention obedience to the Messenger do so only in connection with obedi- ence to God (Ahmad 1997, p. 32).

Having addressed the issues of the Sunna as a form of divine revelation and obedience to the Messenger, Ahmad takes up the idea that Muhammad explained the Qur’an. Here too,  he  presents the  same verses used by Khalifa, but  uses milder tone.  Like Khalifa, Ahmad argues that  prayer, charity, fasting, and  pilgrimage have been  inherited  from Abraham. He adds that even so, the Qur’an mentions the main features of these practices and that people learn these practices from parents and teachers, not from Hadith (Ahmad 1997, p. 36).

Ahmad then responds to the final argument of what he calls the Traditionists’ theory –that  when  the  Qur’an  calls the  Messenger ‘a good  example’ in  33:21, it  means his behavior must be imitated as closely  as possible  in all things and this requires Hadith – in the same way he responded to the previous arguments, offering other verses from the Qur’an to explain the meaning key terms. To  explain the meaning of ‘good example’ (uswa hasana) in 33:21, Ahmad argues that the same words are used to describe Abraham and those who believed with him in 60:4:

A good example  has been set for you by Abraham and those with him. They said to their people, ‘We disown you and the idols you set up besides God…’ (Ahmad 1997, pp. 38–9)

According to Ahmad, this verse shows that the good example refers to ‘one’s religious convictions, ideological position and struggle’ (Ahmad 1997, p. 39). He also argues that it is unreasonable to think that God would require Muslims to imitate Muhammad’s per- sonal behaviors such as eating and dressing because such behaviors are matters of culture, education, and personal preference (Ahmad 1997, p. 39).

After dealing with general arguments supporting the Hadith as a source of religious law and guidance, Ahmad presents his argument that the Qur’an is complete, perfect, and fully detailed. Again, he uses the same verses used by Khalifa and comes to the conclusion that the status of Hadith is a form of idolatry: ‘To place the Hadith on an equivalent footing with  revelation is to  create another source of guidance – an idol. This is the major problem with the Hadith’ (Ahmad 1997, p. 49). Ahmad, however, tempers his position, saying: the theory or doctrine that the hadith is  an equal source of guidance with the Quran,  pro- pounded by Shafi‘i, is the most important aspect of the hadith question. Even though we totally reject this doctrine, we do not reject the hadith as a secondary source, provided that it does not contradict the Quran. On this view also, we say that the hadith is an important source of early Muslim social history. (Ahmad 1997, p. 49)

Ahmad’s views on the Hadith, the nature of revelation, and the role of the Messenger, and the Qur’anic verses he uses to support those views are essentially the same as those presented by Khalifa, but his presentation differs dramatically. Not  only does he use a much less strident and condemnatory tone, he also appeals to rational thinking, desires for social reform, and classical  Muslim intellectual history to buffer and support his call for re-evaluation of  the  status of  Hadith.  Ahmad’s more  tempered  presentation was not enough to keep his book from being banned in his home country of Malaysia, nor from his being declared a heretic. However, his style has not garnered the degree of hostility that Muslims have directed against Rashad Khalifa.

Edip Yuksel

Edip  Yuksel, a  friend and  colleague of  Rashad  Khalifa, is another  prominent  figure among advocates of the doctrine of Qur’an alone.  His works are published in traditional print media, and he also maintains various websites. He uses his own name and picture on his websites and publishes under his own name. Born and raised in Turkey, Yuksel also comes from a traditional Sunni background. Like Ahmad, Yuksel was introduced to the idea of following the Qur’an alone through the works of Khalifa. Before encountering Khalifa’s  work, Yuksel had been a political and religious activist in Turkey, where he advocated the  establishment of a theocratic Islamic state. Khalifa’s  arguments brought about what Yuksel describes  as a ‘paradigm change’ in his thinking. To escape the reper- cussions of his new way of thinking, Yuksel left Turkey for the United States in 1989 (Yuksel 2009b).

Although Yuksel came to believe that the Qur’an is the only legitimate source of reli- gious guidance in Islam after exposure to Khalifa’s  work, Yuksel’s writings show more independence than those of Ahmad. Like Khalifa and Ahmad, Yuksel rejects the Hadith using the same Qur’anic arguments. However, he differs with Khalifa in his interpreta- tions of the Qur’an on certain issues, including the ritual prayer and the number of daily prayers. While Khalifa and Ahmad see these as inherited from Abraham and passed from generation to generation, Yuksel applies his own reasoning to the verses of the Qur’an that discuss salat. His study has led him to the conclusion that there are three, rather than five daily prayers required because only three salat are mentioned by name in the Qur’an. Yuksel finds the traditional postures of prayer confirmed in the Qur’an, but not the tradi- tional number of units (rak’at). This is ‘left to our discretion’ (Yuksel 2009a).

Yuksel’s work represents a new trend that has emerged among contemporary Qur’a- nists in the last several years, but one which proponents of Hadith see as  the strongest argument for the necessity of accepting Prophetic reports – fear that people will do what- ever they sit fit in implementing religious practices (Musa 2008, p. 121). This phenome- non is much more apparent on another Qur’anist website, http://www.free-minds.org

One of the most controversial of the Qur’an only websites is http://www.free-minds.org. This site emphasizes God alone, rather than Qur’an alone:

This website invites all people of various beliefs (Sunni, Shia, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Bahai, Agnostic, Humanist, and even Atheists) to come and examine for themselves the system of Sub- mission ⁄ Islam which is based on God Alone. (Free-Minds.org 2009a)

However, they do recognize the Qur’an as their only reference in determining what it means to be ‘Muslim.’ The conclusions to which authors come are often radically differ- ent than many others who see themselves as followers of the Qur’an alone. The majority have redefined their idea of the role of the Messenger and the nature of divine revelation, based on specific Qur’anic verses, as  the above discussion has detailed; and rejection of the Hadith has led them to make some changes in their religious practices, but in general, they have maintained what are popularly referred to as  the Five Pillars: shahada, prayer, charity, fasting, and pilgrimage.

The  authors of Free-minds.org  reject the ‘five pillars’  of Islam as  a ‘myth’ (al-Shaiban 2009a). Each of the traditional ‘five pillars’ is seen as corrupted by twisted and incorrect understanding of the Arabic terminology of the Qur’an. Free-minds.org contains provoc- ative articles dealing with religious thought and practice in Islam. The views expressed on this site demonstrate some of the most extreme among those who reject the Hadith. Here we  find arguments that  traditional Muslim shahada  is a blasphemous hypocrisy (Free-Minds.org 2009b), that salat is not ritual prayer (Hamed 2009), and that pilgrimage is not to Mecca, but to Jerusalem (al-Shaiban 2009b).

Ahmad Subhy Mansour and Ahl al-Quran

The website http://www.ahl-alquran.com is the official website of the Egyptian organiza- tion known as ‘Ahl al-Quran: The International Quranic Center’ (IQC). Although there is an English version, unlike most websites devoted to the idea of Qur’an alone, the pri- mary version of this website is in Arabic. The IQC  was founded by Dr Ahmad Subhy Mansour, an Egyptian with an extensive formal education in Islam and Muslim history.

He holds a Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctorate in Muslim History from the University of al-Azhar and also served as a Professor of Muslim history there. He began to write and publicize his ideas in Egypt in the mid-1980s. In  1987, he  was imprisoned. After his release, he moved to the United States, where he stayed briefly with Rashad Khalifa, in 1988. He  broke with Khalifa and returned to  Egypt some months later when  Khalifa declared messengership.

Mansour continued his research and writing in Egypt, under the scrutiny of the State Security forces, before finally immigrating to the United States in 2001. He is grateful for the Internet: ‘now with the Internet and freedom, the opportunity to publish my work on  Ahl al-Qur’an website for free has arrived’ (Mansour 2007b). Today,  the  website serves as the primary means of publishing his own works in Arabic and English, as well as articles  by other Qur’anists. Ahl al-Quran also monitors worldwide media coverage of the current situation of Qur’anists in Egypt, publishing and discussing the coverage on the  site. The  material quoted  here  from http://www.ahl-alquran.com was accessed in 2007. When double checking citations for publication in August, 2009, the site was listed as ‘unavailable  now for maintenance.’

Ahl al-Quran stress the same themes found in the works of Khalifa, Ahmed, Yuksel, and other proponents of the concept of Qur’an alone: that the Qur’an is complete, com- prehensive and sufficient as the sole source of law in Islam, as well as the only tradition (sunna) of  the Prophet Muhammad (Ahl-alquran.com 2007). In contrast to the Qur’an, which they regard as the true sunna of Muhammad, they see many ‘‘so-called ‘Hadeeth’’’ as not only demeaning and insulting to the Prophet, but also as tools used to ‘entice and encourage terrorism’ (Mansour 2007a).

The  articles found on http://www.ahl-alquran.com address issues of belief and prac- tices, offering alternative interpretations to what the authors see as problematic elements of more traditional interpretations, particularly in areas such as women’s rights and free- dom  of  speech and  conscience. Like, http://www.free-minds.org,  authors on  http:// www.ahl-alquran.com freely express their personal understandings of Qur’anic teachings. Each article carries the  disclaimer that opinions are those of the  author  and may not reflect the opinions of the organization, or other members or participants. Some maintain the traditional forms of rituals and practices while removing elements they see as violating Qur’anic teachings and principles. Others differ dramatically from traditional understandings of such practices  as prayer, fasting, and pilgrimage. If the fear that a book other than the Qur’an would distract and mislead people has been realized in the status accorded to the Hadith by most Muslims, fear that without the Prophetic Traditions people would do whatever they see fit in the name of religious practices has been realized in the variant opinions of the rejecters of Hadith. This is a challenge to traditional, mainstream Islam; but is it, as the former deputy rector of al-Azhar suggests, the greatest threat facing Islam? The comparison that some draw with the Protestant Reformation (Musa 2008, p. 107) offers something to consider because while the Reformation did lead to new denominations  of  Christianity, many  of  them  quite  different than  the  Catholic  Church  they challenged, the Church  continued to thrive. Likewise, perhaps the Qur’an alone  movements may lead to new branches of Islam, while the traditional branches and schools will continue to thrive as well.

Short Biography

Dr Aisha Y. Musa received her PhD in Arabic and Islamic Studies from the Department of Near  Eastern Languages & Civilizations at Harvard University. She is currently an assistant professor of Islamic Studies in the Religious Studies Department at Florida Inter- national University, in Miami. Dr Musa’s training at Harvard focused on early Islamic scriptural history, specifically the relative authority of the Qur’an and Prophetic Tradi- tions (Hadith). Her book, Hadith as Scripture: Discussions on the Authority   of Prophetic  Tradi- tions in Islam (Palgrave, 2008), explores the development of the doctrine of duality of revelation and issues surrounding the relative authority of the Qur’an and the Prophetic Traditions (Hadith). Her  research and teaching interests extend from the early classical period to the present and include translation of classical Arabic texts, Qur’anic interpreta- tion, women’s issues, and modern-day reformist and neo-traditionalist movements.

Note

*  Correspondence address: Aisha Y. Musa, 11200 SW 8th  St, DM  302, Miami, Florida 33199, USA. E-mail: amusa@fiu.edu.

Works Cited

Ahl-alquran.com (2007). About Us. [Online]. Retrieved on 23 July 2007 from: http://www.ahl-alquran.com/Eng- lish/aboutus.php.

Ahmad, K. (1997). Hadith: A Re-Evaluation. Tucson, AZ: Monotheist Productions International.

‘Bay an min al-Azhar: ba’udat ’an al-rash ad ya duktu  r Rash ad!’ (1985). R uz al-Y usuf, 22 April, pp. 40–3. Brown, D. (1996). Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deedat, A. (1986). Al-Quran the Ultimate  Miracle. Chicago: Kazi Publications.

Eickelman, D. (1999). The Coming Transformation in the Muslim World, WIRE,  Volume 7, Number 9, August

1999 (Philadelphia, PA: Foreign Policy Research Institute); Internet publication by the Commonwealth Institute by  permission July 1999.  [Online].  Retrieved  on  7  February 2003  from:  http://www.comw.org/pda/mus- lim799.html.

Free-Minds.org (2009a). Homepage. [Online]. Retrieved on 5 August 2009 from: http://www.free-minds.org.

Free-Minds.org (2009b). The Shahada. [Online]. Retrieved on 10 August 2009 from: http://www.free-minds.org/ testimony.

al-Fuqa, A. Unpublished Letter to Rashad Khalifa 1976, from the private collection of Edip Yuksel, Tucson, AZ. Hamed, M. (2009). Salat. [Online]. Retrieved on 10 August 2009 from: http://www.free-minds.org/salat-Hamed. Hashim, U.  (2007). Amrika Tush anid ‘al-Qur’ aniyyin’, Nah’at Misr. [Online]. Retrieved  on 23 July 2007 from:

http://www.ahl-alquran.com.

Khalifa, R. (1982). Quran, Hadith, and Islam. Tucson, AZ: Islamic Publications.

Khalil, M. (2007). Scholars of al-Azh ar: Qur’ anists are Apostates. Evidence From the Holy Book Convicts Them,

Asharq al-Awsat, No. 10495, 23 August. [Online]. Retrieved on 25 July 2009 from: http://www.aawsat.com. Mansour, A. (2007a). A News Release. [Online]. Retrieved on 23 July 2007 from: http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=2055.

Mansour, A. (2007b). They Have Arrested Abdellatef Because of This Article. [Online]. Retrieved on 23 July 2007 from: http://www.ahl-alquran.com/.

Musa, A (2008). Hadith as Scripture: Discussions on the Authority  of Prophetic Traditions  in Islam. New York: Palgrave.

al-Shaiban, L. (2009a). 5 Pillar Myth. [Online]. Retrieved 5 August 2009 from: http://www.free-minds.org/pillars.

—— (2009b). Pilgrimage – The  Lost Legacy of Abraham. [Online]. Retrieved  on 5 August 2009 from: http://

www.free-minds.org/hajj.

al-Sharq al-Awsat (2003). Sujina 8 Yadda‘u n  al-’ajj il a mi’r Badalan min Makka, #8832,  2 February. [Online]. Retrieved on 29 July 2009 from: http://www.aawsat.com.

Submission.org (2009). Dr Rashad Khalifa, the Man, the Issues and the Truth.  [Online]. Retrieved  on 5 August

2009 from: http://www.submission.org/khalifa.html.

Tolu-e-Islam  (2009).  Bazms Worldwide.  [Online].  Retrieved  on  5  August  2009  from:  http://www.tolueis- lam.com/bazms_worldwide.htm.

Yuksel, E. (2009a). Salaat Prayer According to  the  Quran.  [Online].  Retrieved  on  11 July 2009 from: http://

www.yuksel.org/e/religion/salaat.htm.

——. (2009b). The Islamic Reformer. [Online]. Retrieved on 11 July 2009 from: http://www.yuksel.org/e/.

Share

Listen to your argument with the Sunnis!

Posted by on
Share

Listen to your argument with the Sunnis!

Basma Khalifa
17 August 2012

In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

4:26     GOD wills to explain things for you, and to guide you through past precedents, and to redeem you. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise.

Quran, the Best Hadith (39:23) and the Most Accurate History (12:3) was revealed by God to all generations and eras (38:87, 68:52, 81:27). It is a guide and a divine, verifiable document that establishes the detailed laws needed for our wellbeing as societies and our salvation as individuals. In Quran, God has set the most beautiful examples and the most righteous precedents for mankind to reflect, take heed, judge and make choices.

Of all the many precedents set in Quran, we find the true history of God’s messengers and those who believe speaks loud and clear and sets the most beneficial lessons. We always have the choice to either repeat that wonderful history by following its guidance or repeat the history of the disbelievers, the idol worshipers and the hypocrites. Which history is the vast majority of Muslims repeating? and which history should we, submitters, choose to repeat?

6:34     The history of My messengers thus sets the precedents for you.

12:111 In their history, there is a lesson for those who possess intelligence. This is not fabricated Hadith; this (Quran)confirms all previous scriptures, provides the details of everything, and is a beacon and mercy for those who believe.

A living example of overlooking the righteous precedents in Quran and following some man-made doctrines instead is the existing practices and beliefs of the majority of Muslims based on what they refer to as “Hadith and Sunna”.

As submitters and followers of Quran alone, we often argue with the Sunnis about the Quran’s concepts of “obey God and obey the messenger- 47:33”, “following the good example of the prophet- 33:21” , “we hear and we obey- 2:285”, or “he is not speaking on his own- 53:3”. Such verses have been widely abused by religious leaders to justify why Muslims must follow the man-made “Hadith and Sunna”. We know full well that such abuse is nothing but a twist of the word of God beyond its general context and a selective application of Quran. When we argue with them, we all try to get their attention to certain crystal clear facts from Quran:

  1. The sole duty of the messenger as defined by God is nothing but to DELIVER the message of God (29:18, 16:82, 88:21). Thus, obeying the messenger is simply established by obeying and following Quran.
  2. Quran is proclaimed by God as the ONLY divine, fully detailed and infallible source of laws and guidance that contains everything we need for our salvation (6:19, 6:114, 17:46, 18:27, 6:51).
  3. God commanded His prophet to strictly preach, promote, recite/utter and follow NOTHING but Quran (5:48-50, 6:19, 27:91-92, 50:45, 69:40-45, 75:18).
  4. God clearly stated that Quran is the ONLY and the BEST Hadith (52:34, 77:50, 39:23), and that the ONLY sunna we must follow is GOD’S SUNNA (15:13, 17:77-twice- 33:38, 33:62 -twice- 35:43 -twice- 40:85, 48:23 -twice).
  5. God teaches us that following other sources besides His is what defines idol worship (3:79, 39:29, 6:112-113, 39:45). Idol worship is unforgivable if we maintain until death (4:116).
  6. Furthermore, we often direct their attention to examine the righteous example and precedent set by Prophet Muhammad within Quran. That way, they can have a better grasp of what actually constitutes a “good example” based on Quran itself.

The following are just a few from among many examples that set a righteous precedent of how we obey and adopt the path of a messenger, and what good examples we should follow in the messengers’ history. All audience & followers of God’s messengers should heed the guidance of these examples. Moreover, these examples are so applicable to some of us, who have been blessed to live in the era of God’s Messenger of the Covenant, Dr. Rashad Khalifa:

Prophet Muhammad was commanded to do his best in delivering God’s message, without haste and without adding his own “understanding/explanations”. He thus uttered and preached nothing but Quran. Why would any messenger after him be commanded differently? We are all to follow such an example. We would be obeying the messenger when we recite, promote and follow nothing but what God has revealed:

5:67     O you messenger, deliver what is revealed to you from your Lord – until you do, you have not delivered His message – and GOD will protect you from the people. GOD does not guide the disbelieving people.

Quran, the Whole Quran, and Nothing But the Quran

6:19     Say, “Whose testimony is the greatest?” Say, “GOD’s. He is the witness between me and you that this Quran has been inspired to me, to preach it to you and whomever it reaches. Indeed, you bear witness that there are other gods* beside GOD.” Say, “I do not testify as you do; there is only one god, and I disown your idolatry.”

5:49     You shall rule among them in accordance with GOD’s revelations to you. Do not follow their wishes, and beware lest they divert you from some of GOD’s revelations to you. If they turn away, then know that GOD wills to punish them for some of their sins. Indeed, many people are wicked.

5:50     Is it the law of the days of ignorance that they seek to uphold? Whose law is better than GOD’s for those who have attained certainty?

20:114 Most Exalted is GOD, the only true King. Do not rush into uttering the Quran before it is revealed to you, and say, “My Lord, increase my knowledge.”

Muhammad Forbidden from Explaining the Quran

75:16   Do not move your tongue to hasten it.

75:17   It is we who will collect it into Quran.

75:18   Once we recite it, you shall follow such a Quran.

75:19   Then it is we who will explain it.

33:2     Follow what is revealed to you from your Lord. GOD is fully Cognizant of everything you all do.

Muhammad Forbidden from Issuing any Religious Teachings

69:44   Had he uttered any other teachings.

69:45   We would have punished him.

69:46   We would have stopped the revelations to him.

69:47   None of you could have helped him.

When we grasp the divine context of the above verses, we realize that it would be only abuse of the word of God to believe that the processes of explanation in 5:19, or teaching in 2:151, or clarification in 14:4, meant by God, is to add volumes of words to the word of God. What is meant by God is that teaching, explaining or clarifying the scripture is nothing but its delivery and recitation to bring it in the forefront and spot light. This is basically the literal meaning of the word “yobayyen” used by God in 5:19, and translated as “explain”. When Quran is recited, the teachings are delivered, taught and explained. Quran, itself, is a book of teachings from the Supreme Teacher. When it is recited, we are simply listening to nothing but the teachings and the explanations of the Most Gracious.

  • Prophet Muhammad was commanded not to prohibit lawful things. When he wrongly did that (33:37, 66:1), he was exposed by God almighty and his mistakes were rendered as lessons for us. We should do the same and never issue any prohibitions without the guidance of Quran.
  • Prophet Muhammad was commanded to strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, be stern with them and to never obey them. This is an example that we, too, must follow in obeying the messenger (9:73, 33:1).
  • A good example is set for us by the prophet and those who believe to never waver or surrender in the face of those who unjustly wage war against us (33:21-22).
  • Also, there are numerous verses in Quran that command the messengers to “say” certain things for their audience. These verses speak directly to all believers and followers of Quran, and set many other good examples to follow:
  • The example of being stern but humble at the same time: (3:64)
  • Setting the truth straight but with humility: (6:50), (6:66), (46:9)
  • Placing the monotheistic concept in the spot light: (2:135)
  • Dealing with man-made laws: (10:59)
  • Positively delivering the good news: (3:15)
  • Using good logic: (6:14-15), (6:46)
  • Respecting God’s given gift of freedom to each and every human on earth irrespective of their belief: (6:135), (6:147), (109:1-6)

And many more, all over Quran… What God’s messengers are instructed to “say” sets the precedent for all generations, teaching them what to say and how to deal with similar situations.

All the above guides us in our arguments with the Sunnis and illustrates how to “hear and obey” and how to follow the “good example” of Prophet Muhammad.

The questions are now for us, community of submitters and followers of Quran alone:

  • Are we actually reflecting on our very own argument with the Sunnis?
  • Can we use it as a righteous scale to determine our very own deviation?
  • Can’t we see that sometimes we fall into the deception that we are above the rules, that we got it all and we are not candidates for that same Satanic trap?

Isn’t contradictory to claim Quran as the only divine and verifiable source of guidance, then place man-made translations as the ultimate source of reference and neglect what God says in black & white in His Quran?

Isn’t disturbing that we advise the Sunnis that they need nothing but Quran, and that Quran is the Best and Infallible Hadith but it is permissible for us to promote and declare some man-made materials of the messenger to be perfect teachings from God? Doesn’t this remind us with the old Satanic jock, “Hadith Qudsi”, or the group of the so-called “Divine Hadiths” that all Sunnis unshakably believe they were given to prophet Muhammad, by God, to complete Quran, thus, considered equal to the Quran?

Are we listening to ourselves? to our arguments with the Sunnis?

Unfortunately, we often meet submitters who choose to repeat the same exact history of those they put down all the time (Sunnis) without perceiving. They amazingly abuse the same exact verses/statements the Sunnis have been abusing and they spread the falsehood of considering the materials left by the messenger from God since they are “original” – do we remember the term “Authentic Hadith”? Do we notice the resemblance, the pattern? Why can’t they choose the righteous history narrated in Quran to repeat?

In conclusion, here is a sincere reminder for all of us : while we take it on our shoulders to invite the Sunnis to examine the good example of prophet Muhammad within Quran and to learn how to obey him by obeying and following Quran, we should listen very carefully to ourselves. We might be the ones in need of learning from these good examples and precedents how to respect, follow and obey God’s Messenger of the Covenant.

Peaceful Friday,
Salaam and God bless,

 

—–

The Best Source of Islam (Submission) On the Internet:   http://submission.org
Verify and witness the mathematical miracle of the Quran at:   http://submission.org/d/miracle.html
Read the Best Hadith at:   http://submission.org/d/Quran.html

 

Share

A New ‘Leadership Generation’ of Muslim Americans

Posted by on
Share

A New ‘Leadership Generation’ of Muslim Americans


A recent Gallup poll has indicated that most Muslim Americans do not feel they are represented by existing Muslim organizations in America. The highest approval rating any one of these organizations received was only 12%. While we must assert that all of these existing organizations do extremely valuable work, we also understand that there exists a huge gap between the sociopolitical aspirations of Muslim Americans and the previous achievements of Muslim American organizations. In order to address these issues, we must consider the following:

  1. American Muslims are a unique minority. The famous Pew survey several years ago revealed that 65% of Muslims in America were born in other countries. These first-generation immigrant peoples are on the one hand well-connected with the societies in which they came from and on the other hand well-adjusted and acculturated American citizens. This group has enormous potential to build bridges between oft-confrontational societies. In fact, Muslim Americans are common denominators between two of the most polarized camps of the world today. Thus, a visionary leadership must emerge to arouse a popular movement from among Muslims in this country towards a paradigm shift between America and Muslim-majority societies.
  2. America is not only a superpower and influential nation in our time, but also a democratic country that provides an impartial rule of law and a pluralistic and conducive environment for citizens to engage with society and government to raise a voice for change. There is no leadership as of now that has taken full advantage of this unique opportunity that American Muslims have. Of all American civil society players, American Muslims have unparalled abilities advocate to American policymakers – as a unified bloc – for more open and pluralistic societies in their respective countries of origin.
  3. Neither the American people nor the American government is monolithic. At any given time on any given issue, diverse or opposing forces work towards a resultant outcome. We often see negative outcomes, but we fail to see the multiple forces, including our civil society and government allies, working behind the scenes. If Muslim Americans are relatively united and can align with like-minded American civil society and political groups, the balance of power would change. There are about 6 to 7 million Muslims in America who came from 56 Muslim majority societies around the world. Many Muslims were the cream of the crop of those lands. The PEW exposes that the American Muslims are more well-educated and well-to-do than average Americans, and they are moderate in their ideological views. These predispositions are positive elements that can magnify their efforts towards becoming powerful catalysts of change. And if we can help to change the way in which America engages with the Muslim world, the Muslim world would also change its attitude towards America and American democratic values. We need to work from both sides to bridge the gap.
  4. If a visionary American Muslim leadership could promote constructive engagements and a change in mindset towards these aspects of American foreign policy, it could bring about enormous welfare to the Muslim world and American society as well as self-empowerment to all of the American Muslim organizations that currently exist. That could help to overcome Islamophobia and other hurdles in the shortest possible way. This is a win-win situation. Muslim Americans must engage intensely and consistently with American foreign policy – including American policymaker attitudes towards new developments such as the Arab and North African revolutions – if they want to achieve this empowered status.
  5. By remaining fragmented, afraid, reactionary, and distant in our attitudes and activities, we have ‘shot ourselves in the foot’ and done a tremendous disservice to our cause. This must change and can change. A capable leadership can offer effective agendas to work towards this paradigm shift, and this leadership is what we urgently need today.

We sincerely invite you to respond with your thoughts, as well as advice on how you can help our community towards these goals. I can be contacted via e-mail:-  rubyamatulla@yahoo.com

Regards,

 

Ruby Amatulla, Executive Director,

Matthew Cappiello, Outreach Director
Dr. Edip Yuksel, Mike Ghouse, Dr. M. Khan Kharoti,
Bill Aossey, Joe Aossey, Dr. Ahmed Mansour….. Board Members

Muslims for Peace, Justice and Progress

mpjp@mpjp.org

 
Share

Best and Worst Places for Women

Posted by on
Share

The Best and Worst Places for Women

Sep 20, 2011

A scene from Divine Stone, directed by Hasan Mahmud, depicts the suffering of women under the sharia law. www.19.org

Newsweek/The Daily Beasty evaluated 165 countries according to their rights and quality of life in 5 categories: justice, health, education, economics and politics.

According to the Survey, the top 20 countries are:

1, Iceland
2, Sweden
3, Canada
4, Denmark
5, Finland
6, Switzerland
7, Norway
8, United States of America
9, Australia
10, Netherlands
11, New Zealand
12, France
13, Luxembourg
14, Portugal
15, Republic of Macedonia
16, Republic of Moldova
17, Philippines
18, Belgium
19, United Kingdom
20, Romania

With the exception of Albania 21, Kazakhstan 33 (about half muslim), and few other predominantly Sunni or Shiite countries which won their independence form former USSR about 20 years ago, almost none of the so-called Muslim countries made the top 100.  Indoneisia 83, Kuwait 101; Jordan 110; Türkiye 114. Egypt 120, Algeria 115; Iran 125; Sudan 156; Pakistan 158; Yemen 163; and Afghanistan 164.

The bottom 20, that is the worst countries for women are:

146, Mauritania
147, Saudi Arabia
148, Central African Republic
149, Cameroon
150, Côte d’Ivoire
151, Benin
152, Guinea-Bissau
153, Nigeria
154, Sierra Leone
155, Guinea
156, Sudan
157, Ethiopia
158, Pakistan
159, Niger
160, Solomon Islands
161, Mali
162, Democratic Republic of the Congo
163, Yemen
164, Afghanistan
165, Chad

Here is the full list and the scores:

1, Iceland
Overall score (out of 100): 100.0
Justice: 100.0
Health: 90.5
Education: 96.7
Economics: 88.0
Politics: 92.8

2, Sweden
Overall score (out of 100): 99.2
Justice: 90.8
Health: 94.8
Education: 95.5
Economics: 90.3
Politics: 93.1

3, Canada
Overall score (out of 100): 96.6
Justice: 100.0
Health: 92.7
Education: 92.0
Economics: 91.0
Politics: 66.9

4, Denmark
Overall score (out of 100): 95.3
Justice: 86.1
Health: 94.9
Education: 97.6
Economics: 88.5
Politics: 78.4

5, Finland
Overall score (out of 100): 92.8
Justice: 80.2
Health: 91.4
Education: 91.3
Economics: 86.8
Politics: 100.0

6, Switzerland
Overall score (out of 100): 91.9
Justice: 87.9
Health: 94.4
Education: 97.3
Economics: 82.6
Politics: 74.6

7, Norway
Overall score (out of 100): 91.3
Justice: 79.3
Health: 100.0
Education: 74.0
Economics: 93.5
Politics: 93.9

8, United States of America
Overall score (out of 100): 89.8
Justice: 82.9
Health: 92.8
Education: 97.3
Economics: 83.9
Politics: 68.6

9, Australia
Overall score (out of 100): 88.2
Justice: 80.7
Health: 93.3
Education: 93.9
Economics: 85.3
Politics: 65.1

10, Netherlands
Overall score (out of 100): 87.7
Justice: 74.0
Health: 95.0
Education: 99.0
Economics: 83.0
Politics: 68.4

11, New Zealand
Overall score (out of 100): 87.2
Justice: 72.0
Health: 87.5
Education: 93.3
Economics: 87.5
Politics: 78.2

12, France
Overall score (out of 100): 87.2
Justice: 100.0
Health: 94.7
Education: 95.0
Economics: 72.3
Politics: 62.0

13, Luxembourg
Overall score (out of 100): 87.1
Justice: 100.0
Health: 90.8
Education: 95.0
Economics: 75.5
Politics: 56.2

14, Portugal
Overall score (out of 100): 86.8
Justice: 100.0
Health: 92.7
Education: 90.4
Economics: 74.0
Politics: 67.6

15, Republic of Macedonia
Overall score (out of 100): 86.4
Justice: 83.5
Health: 92.1
Education: 95.4
Economics: 83.4
Politics: 51.2

16, Republic of Moldova
Overall score (out of 100): 86.3
Justice: 88.7
Health: 91.5
Education: 95.9
Economics: 80.3
Politics: 53.1

17, Philippines
Overall score (out of 100): 86.3
Justice: 88.4
Health: 57.0
Education: 92.2
Economics: 89.1
Politics: 85.6

18, Belgium
Overall score (out of 100): 85.2
Justice: 73.1
Health: 96.5
Education: 92.5
Economics: 79.6
Politics: 78.2

19, United Kingdom
Overall score (out of 100): 85.0
Justice: 79.5
Health: 91.7
Education: 95.9
Economics: 81.6
Politics: 57.0

20, Romania
Overall score (out of 100): 85.0
Justice: 92.3
Health: 90.2
Education: 94.9
Economics: 79.1
Politics: 45.5

21, Albania
Overall score (out of 100): 84.6
Justice: 84.8
Health: 99.3
Education: 99.0
Economics: 82.4
Politics: 21.4

22, Ireland
Overall score (out of 100): 84.5
Justice: 89.8
Health: 86.2
Education: 93.1
Economics: 81.0
Politics: 51.0

23, China
Overall score (out of 100): 84.4
Justice: 92.2
Health: 99.2
Education: 100.0
Economics: 73.2
Politics: 36.7

24, Slovenia
Overall score (out of 100): 84.2
Justice: 100.0
Health: 94.3
Education: 95.7
Economics: 70.3
Politics: 47.9

25, Latvia
Overall score (out of 100): 84.1
Justice: 73.1
Health: 89.9
Education: 93.9
Economics: 82.7
Politics: 67.9

26, Trinidad and Tobago
Overall score (out of 100): 84.1
Justice: 83.5
Health: 70.0
Education: 96.8
Economics: 80.6
Politics: 80.1

27, Greece
Overall score (out of 100): 83.8
Justice: 100.0
Health: 94.7
Education: 94.4
Economics: 70.5
Politics: 47.6

28, Estonia
Overall score (out of 100): 83.5
Justice: 73.1
Health: 90.8
Education: 96.3
Economics: 83.7
Politics: 53.2

29, Croatia
Overall score (out of 100): 83.5
Justice: 92.7
Health: 93.7
Education: 98.2
Economics: 72.1
Politics: 46.9

30, Germany
Overall score (out of 100): 83.4
Justice: 74.0
Health: 94.7
Education: 96.8
Economics: 78.2
Politics: 62.7

31, Slovakia
Overall score (out of 100): 83.2
Justice: 87.5
Health: 92.0
Education: 95.9
Economics: 78.2
Politics: 41.4

32, Mongolia
Overall score (out of 100): 82.7
Justice: 76.8
Health: 91.3
Education: 96.1
Economics: 77.4
Politics: 62.8

33, Kazakhstan
Overall score (out of 100): 82.5
Justice: 79.9
Health: 82.6
Education: 98.8
Economics: 81.8
Politics: 46.7

34, Belarus
Overall score (out of 100): 82.4
Justice: 71.7
Health: 93.1
Education: 98.4
Economics: 78.0
Politics: 60.6

35, Poland
Overall score (out of 100): 81.4
Justice: 81.7
Health: 88.2
Education: 96.9
Economics: 72.0
Politics: 67.4

36, Costa Rica
Overall score (out of 100): 81.0
Justice: 74.2
Health: 71.6
Education: 96.1
Economics: 83.4
Politics: 66.6

37, Singapore
Overall score (out of 100): 80.8
Justice: 84.5
Health: 84.1
Education: 87.3
Economics: 84.1
Politics: 42.7

38, Rwanda
Overall score (out of 100): 80.4
Justice: 70.2
Health: 51.5
Education: 77.1
Economics: 99.3
Politics: 90.3

39, Bahamas
Overall score (out of 100): 80.2
Justice: 73.1
Health: 67.8
Education: 94.3
Economics: 91.2
Politics: 45.4

40, Kyrgyzstan
Overall score (out of 100): 79.9
Justice: 69.1
Health: 80.2
Education: 97.4
Economics: 81.3
Politics: 60.3

41, Guyana
Overall score (out of 100): 79.8
Justice: 100.0
Health: 58.0
Education: 91.0
Economics: 77.2
Politics: 64.1

42, Cyprus
Overall score (out of 100): 79.6
Justice: 100.0
Health: 84.5
Education: 97.3
Economics: 71.1
Politics: 27.0

43, Armenia
Overall score (out of 100): 79.5
Justice: 85.6
Health: 83.8
Education: 99.3
Economics: 76.7
Politics: 31.3

44, Spain
Overall score (out of 100): 79.4
Justice: 73.1
Health: 88.7
Education: 96.9
Economics: 69.9
Politics: 78.0

45, Vietnam
Overall score (out of 100): 79.3
Justice: 82.5
Health: 86.2
Education: 91.5
Economics: 75.3
Politics: 55.4

46, Ukraine
Overall score (out of 100): 79.0
Justice: 88.3
Health: 89.5
Education: 97.5
Economics: 67.8
Politics: 50.1

47, Cape Verde
Overall score (out of 100): 78.8
Justice: 90.7
Health: 71.7
Education: 89.0
Economics: 75.8
Politics: 63.3

48, Malta
Overall score (out of 100): 78.6
Justice: 100.0
Health: 71.7
Education: 94.4
Economics: 74.4
Politics: 36.2

49, Austria
Overall score (out of 100): 78.2
Justice: 73.1
Health: 93.4
Education: 90.1
Economics: 72.0
Politics: 70.2

50, Bulgaria
Overall score (out of 100): 78.0
Justice: 73.1
Health: 88.7
Education: 93.0
Economics: 76.5
Politics: 53.8

51, Israel
Overall score (out of 100): 78.0
Justice: 73.1
Health: 81.6
Education: 97.2
Economics: 80.5
Politics: 41.0

52, Georgia
Overall score (out of 100): 77.9
Justice: 84.3
Health: 78.5
Education: 95.4
Economics: 77.0
Politics: 39.9

53, Mexico
Overall score (out of 100): 77.5
Justice: 100.0
Health: 75.5
Education: 93.8
Economics: 69.2
Politics: 43.0

54, Paraguay
Overall score (out of 100): 77.5
Justice: 79.9
Health: 63.6
Education: 90.5
Economics: 83.7
Politics: 57.1

55, South Africa
Overall score (out of 100): 77.1
Justice: 84.6
Health: 62.9
Education: 88.0
Economics: 79.7
Politics: 66.7

56, Cuba
Overall score (out of 100): 77.0
Justice: 81.2
Health: 86.4
Education: 95.9
Economics: 63.5
Politics: 74.9

57, Turkmenistan
Overall score (out of 100): 76.4
Justice: 60.0
Health: 83.6
Education: 99.4
Economics: 85.1
Politics: 31.4

58, Uzbekistan
Overall score (out of 100): 76.4
Justice: 66.4
Health: 88.1
Education: 95.8
Economics: 81.0
Politics: 34.3

59, Italy
Overall score (out of 100): 76.1
Justice: 83.2
Health: 94.9
Education: 95.8
Economics: 62.7
Politics: 54.3

60, Russia
Overall score (out of 100): 75.9
Justice: 76.4
Health: 92.7
Education: 96.9
Economics: 69.8
Politics: 42.2

61, Namibia
Overall score (out of 100): 75.9
Justice: 70.2
Health: 75.7
Education: 85.1
Economics: 84.1
Politics: 57.8

62, Lithuania
Overall score (out of 100): 75.9
Justice: 56.6
Health: 92.2
Education: 95.5
Economics: 79.6
Politics: 49.4

63, Argentina
Overall score (out of 100): 75.5
Justice: 95.0
Health: 55.2
Education: 98.5
Economics: 72.3
Politics: 49.9

64, Burundi
Overall score (out of 100): 74.9
Justice: 82.2
Health: 20.1
Education: 57.6
Economics: 100.0
Politics: 70.2

65, Thailand
Overall score (out of 100): 74.8
Justice: 73.8
Health: 81.6
Education: 92.5
Economics: 78.9
Politics: 35.3

66, Uruguay
Overall score (out of 100): 74.8
Justice: 84.4
Health: 69.9
Education: 97.5
Economics: 71.6
Politics: 48.0

67, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Overall score (out of 100): 74.2
Justice: 88.3
Health: 86.4
Education: 96.4
Economics: 66.8
Politics: 29.2

68, Venezuela
Overall score (out of 100): 73.8
Justice: 89.5
Health: 44.7
Education: 92.8
Economics: 78.6
Politics: 57.0

69, Peru
Overall score (out of 100): 73.5
Justice: 81.6
Health: 64.9
Education: 88.0
Economics: 79.9
Politics: 44.2

70, Fiji
Overall score (out of 100): 73.5
Justice: 78.8
Health: 81.4
Education: 96.2
Economics: 61.5
Politics: 71.1

71, Jamaica
Overall score (out of 100): 72.8
Justice: 76.6
Health: 71.6
Education: 90.8
Economics: 69.9
Politics: 68.7

72, Czech Republic
Overall score (out of 100): 72.7
Justice: 61.7
Health: 93.2
Education: 96.9
Economics: 71.3
Politics: 43.6

73, Botswana
Overall score (out of 100): 72.3
Justice: 74.7
Health: 46.6
Education: 91.5
Economics: 87.5
Politics: 44.6

74, Sri Lanka
Overall score (out of 100): 72.3
Justice: 77.1
Health: 73.2
Education: 95.1
Economics: 77.9
Politics: 22.3

75, Honduras
Overall score (out of 100): 72.1
Justice: 79.7
Health: 54.7
Education: 90.9
Economics: 73.6
Politics: 72.2

76, Tunisia
Overall score (out of 100): 71.7
Justice: 79.0
Health: 85.8
Education: 86.9
Economics: 73.8
Politics: 28.9

77, Azerbaijan
Overall score (out of 100): 71.7
Justice: 75.1
Health: 76.1
Education: 95.6
Economics: 79.2
Politics: 12.7

78, Dominican Republic
Overall score (out of 100): 70.5
Justice: 78.6
Health: 64.6
Education: 87.1
Economics: 77.6
Politics: 41.4

79, Panama
Overall score (out of 100): 69.9
Justice: 77.5
Health: 59.4
Education: 90.6
Economics: 73.3
Politics: 55.9

80, Republic of Korea
Overall score (out of 100): 69.6
Justice: 76.1
Health: 92.9
Education: 91.9
Economics: 66.0
Politics: 25.9

81, Malaysia
Overall score (out of 100): 69.5
Justice: 82.6
Health: 72.0
Education: 89.8
Economics: 74.0
Politics: 22.3

82, Brunei Darussalam
Overall score (out of 100): 69.0
Justice: 46.2
Health: 66.8
Education: 94.6
Economics: 88.9
Politics: 33.6

83, Indonesia
Overall score (out of 100): 68.9
Justice: 67.5
Health: 61.9
Education: 87.5
Economics: 78.5
Politics: 53.0

84, Brazil
Overall score (out of 100): 68.5
Justice: 80.7
Health: 61.7
Education: 88.0
Economics: 71.7
Politics: 48.5

85, Cambodia
Overall score (out of 100): 68.3
Justice: 87.4
Health: 55.0
Education: 65.6
Economics: 89.6 32.0

86, Timor-Leste
Overall score (out of 100): 68.3
Justice: 72.4
Health: 37.1
Education: 89.1
Economics: 82.0
Politics: 62.8

87, Japan
Overall score (out of 100): 68.0
Justice: 73.5
Health: 85.8
Education: 88.3
Economics: 69.7
Politics: 26.9

88, Mauritius
Overall score (out of 100): 67.6
Justice: 85.9
Health: 70.6
Education: 92.3
Economics: 65.1
Politics: 31.5

89, Lesotho
Overall score (out of 100): 66.7
Justice: 48.1
Health: 38.4
Education: 96.4
Economics: 86.5
Politics: 65.8

90, Colombia
Overall score (out of 100): 66.7
Justice: 74.2
Health: 72.8
Education: 95.5
Economics: 61.4
Politics: 50.8

91, Myanmar
Overall score (out of 100): 66.5
Justice: 67.9
Health: 49.5
Education: 94.0
Economics: 87.9
Politics: 7.5

92, Maldives
Overall score (out of 100): 66.4
Justice: 59.9
Health: 67.5
Education: 95.6
Economics: 79.9
Politics: 18.5

93, Tajikistan
Overall score (out of 100): 66.4
Justice: 47.5
Health: 76.9
Education: 91.9
Economics: 80.8
Politics: 33.2

94, Chile
Overall score (out of 100): 65.8
Justice: 81.9
Health: 57.9
Education: 92.1
Economics: 66.6
Politics: 42.9

95, Ghana
Overall score (out of 100): 65.5
Justice: 64.7
Health: 51.3
Education: 72.4
Economics: 89.9
Politics: 47.3

96, Nicaragua
Overall score (out of 100): 65.4
Justice: 70.1
Health: 58.3
Education: 76.9
Economics: 71.0
Politics: 82.8

97, Qatar
Overall score (out of 100): 64.8
Justice: 19.3
Health: 73.6
Education: 98.0
Economics: 98.9
Politics: 4.3

98, Belize
Overall score (out of 100): 64.7
Justice: 73.1
Health: 60.2
Education: 92.8
Economics: 69.7
Politics: 37.0

99, Haiti
Overall score (out of 100): 64.2
Justice: 64.4
Health: 41.4
Education: 92.2
Economics: 81.0
Politics: 41.4

100, El Salvador
Overall score (out of 100): 64.0
Justice: 73.8
Health: 63.2
Education: 82.3
Economics: 70.6
Politics: 47.4

101, Kuwait
Overall score (out of 100): 62.9
Justice: 64.6
Health: 80.7
Education: 93.7
Economics: 65.8
Politics: 19.9

102, Bahrain
Overall score (out of 100): 62.2
Justice: 48.0
Health: 86.8
Education: 87.5
Economics: 71.2
Politics: 33.9

103, Ecuador
Overall score (out of 100): 61.8
Justice: 67.9
Health: 64.3
Education: 87.6
Economics: 63.8
Politics: 54.7

104, Bolivia
Overall score (out of 100): 61.2
Justice: 76.2
Health: 53.2
Education: 86.5
Economics: 62.9
Politics: 57.9

105, Gabon
Overall score (out of 100): 61.1
Justice: 36.1
Health: 44.0
Education: 87.6
Economics: 93.3
Politics: 39.5

106, Bhutan
Overall score (out of 100): 60.2
Justice: 69.8
Health: 60.9
Education: 77.2
Economics: 75.8
Politics: 26.7

107, Zimbabwe
Overall score (out of 100): 60.1
Justice: 58.1
Health: 38.5
Education: 89.6
Economics: 80.7
Politics: 38.6

108, Gambia
Overall score (out of 100): 59.8
Justice: 43.9
Health: 45.1
Education: 66.3
Economics: 100.0
Politics: 38.6

109, United Arab Emirates
Overall score (out of 100): 59.6
Justice: 46.2
Health: 73.5
Education: 93.6
Economics: 68.0
Politics: 39.0

110, Jordan
Overall score (out of 100): 59.3
Justice: 66.0
Health: 79.4
Education: 92.4
Economics: 60.3
Politics: 19.2

111, Madagascar
Overall score (out of 100): 58.0
Justice: 64.5
Health: 38.5
Education: 62.3
Economics: 89.4
Politics: 44.7

112, Hungary
Overall score (out of 100): 58.0
Justice: 19.3
Health: 91.9
Education: 96.9
Economics: 70.2
Politics: 36.0

113, People’s Democratic Republic of Lao
Overall score (out of 100): 57.4
Justice: 56.9
Health: 30.0
Education: 62.6
Economics: 94.7
Politics: 48.9

114, Turkey
Overall score (out of 100): 56.2
Justice: 64.4
Health: 87.8
Education: 84.8
Economics: 54.2
Politics: 28.0

115, Algeria
Overall score (out of 100): 55.5
Justice: 62.9
Health: 76.8
Education: 72.2
Economics: 71.1
Politics: 12.0

116, Kenya
Overall score (out of 100): 53.6
Justice: 50.2
Health: 44.6
Education: 85.7
Economics: 75.2
Politics: 30.1

117, Liberia
Overall score (out of 100): 52.8
Justice: 42.4
Health: 34.5
Education: 57.9
Economics: 90.2
Politics: 68.1

118, Malawi
Overall score (out of 100): 51.9
Justice: 49.9
Health: 26.1
Education: 61.6
Economics: 93.3
Politics: 40.7

119, United Republic of Tanzania
Overall score (out of 100): 51.9
Justice: 44.6
Health: 17.1
Education: 69.9
Economics: 90.7
Politics: 55.6

120, Egypt
Overall score (out of 100): 51.9
Justice: 67.2
Health: 69.6
Education: 67.7
Economics: 63.6
Politics: 29.3

121, Lebanon
Overall score (out of 100): 50.7
Justice: 43.7
Health: 73.9
Education: 91.1
Economics: 56.2
Politics: 32.9

122, Uganda
Overall score (out of 100): 50.7
Justice: 32.2
Health: 22.4
Education: 61.4
Economics: 95.8
Politics: 65.0

123, Oman
Overall score (out of 100): 50.6
Justice: 48.5
Health: 71.2
Education: 86.1
Economics: 61.4
Politics: 20.1

124, Morocco
Overall score (out of 100): 50.4
Justice: 81.2
Health: 72.2
Education: 57.9
Economics: 61.6
Politics: 17.8

125, Iran
Overall score (out of 100): 50.1
Justice: 54.9
Health: 77.9
Education: 76.8
Economics: 62.2
Politics: 12.1

126, Suriname
Overall score (out of 100): 48.4
Justice: 46.2
Health: 55.1
Education: 87.0
Economics: 61.5
Politics: 33.8

127, Zambia
Overall score (out of 100): 47.5
Justice: 40.1
Health: 29.7
Education: 67.4
Economics: 85.7
Politics: 38.9

128, Mozambique
Overall score (out of 100): 47.3
Justice: 42.5
Health: 32.8
Education: 41.4
Economics: 92.6
Politics: 64.4

129, Swaziland
Overall score (out of 100): 46.0
Justice: 49.8
Health: 30.5
Education: 78.1
Economics: 66.8
Politics: 51.7

130, Syrian Arab Republic
Overall score (out of 100): 45.8
Justice: 45.6
Health: 67.7
Education: 83.1
Economics: 56.0
Politics: 26.4

131, Eritrea
Overall score (out of 100): 44.5
Justice: 43.6
Health: 39.2
Education: 52.9
Economics: 86.1
Politics: 29.4

132, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Overall score (out of 100): 44.3
Justice: 55.9
Health: 72.3
Education: 86.5
Economics: 47.1
Politics: 12.6

133, Nepal
Overall score (out of 100): 43.5
Justice: 44.3
Health: 48.7
Education: 68.4
Economics: 67.2
Politics: 37.8

134, Burkina Faso
Overall score (out of 100): 43.4
Justice: 47.0
Health: 33.0
Education: 44.5
Economics: 90.7
Politics: 28.3

135, Senegal
Overall score (out of 100): 43.2
Justice: 60.5
Health: 36.4
Education: 43.3
Economics: 76.8
Politics: 47.8

136, Guatemala
Overall score (out of 100): 43.0
Justice: 61.6
Health: 42.0
Education: 65.2
Economics: 63.0
Politics: 33.6

137, Togo
Overall score (out of 100): 42.7
Justice: 37.6
Health: 41.8
Education: 46.7
Economics: 87.5
Politics: 34.7

138, Equatorial Guinea
Overall score (out of 100): 42.6
Justice: 45.9
Health: 36.8
Education: 87.8
Economics: 62.5
Politics: 19.8

139, Bangladesh
Overall score (out of 100): 42.1
Justice: 35.5
Health: 45.7
Education: 69.2
Economics: 75.1
Politics: 20.4

140, Papua New Guinea
Overall score (out of 100): 42.0
Justice: 57.6
Health: 56.7
Education: 47.4
Economics: 75.5
Politics: 7.7

141, India
Overall score (out of 100): 41.9
Justice: 54.0
Health: 64.1
Education: 64.9
Economics: 60.7
Politics: 14.8

142, Angola
Overall score (out of 100): 41.1
Justice: 41.2
Health: 20.0
Education: 42.8
Economics: 87.4
Politics: 61.1

143, Congo
Overall score (out of 100): 40.5
Justice: 18.2
Health: 34.7
Education: 63.7
Economics: 86.1
Politics: 35.4

144, Djibouti
Overall score (out of 100): 40.4
Justice: 19.3
Health: 37.2
Education: 63.2
Economics: 85.1
Politics: 33.0

145, Serbia
Overall score (out of 100): 38.4
Justice: 82.8
Health: 86.7
Education: 96.4
Economics: 56.2
Politics: 44.2

146, Mauritania
Overall score (out of 100): 38.0
Justice: 43.3
Health: 39.0
Education: 71.5
Economics: 61.4
Politics: 32.8

147, Saudi Arabia
Overall score (out of 100): 35.5
Justice: 40.6
Health: 68.1
Education: 79.6
Economics: 47.8
Politics: 5.0

148, Central African Republic
Overall score (out of 100): 34.3
Justice: 46.7
Health: 16.6
Education: 20.7
Economics: 95.3
Politics: 34.0

149, Cameroon
Overall score (out of 100): 33.1
Justice: 34.4
Health: 31.7
Education: 57.8
Economics: 72.6
Politics: 21.8

150, Côte d’Ivoire
Overall score (out of 100): 30.9
Justice: 50.6
Health: 30.4
Education: 33.1
Economics: 68.2
Politics: 50.5

151, Benin
Overall score (out of 100): 30.0
Justice: 43.6
Health: 43.6
Education: 21.0
Economics: 74.7
Politics: 42.3

152, Guinea-Bissau
Overall score (out of 100): 29.9
Justice: 26.1
Health: 31.0
Education: 34.6
Economics: 83.0
Politics: 34.3

153, Nigeria
Overall score (out of 100): 29.3
Justice: 54.8
Health: 37.2
Education: 35.9
Economics: 66.2
Politics: 21.1

154, Sierra Leone
Overall score (out of 100): 29.0
Justice: 22.2
Health: 38.0
Education: 30.9
Economics: 88.2
Politics: 14.9

155, Guinea
Overall score (out of 100): 28.5
Justice: 25.7
Health: 40.7
Education: 29.7
Economics: 79.1
Politics: 35.6

156, Sudan
Overall score (out of 100): 26.1
Justice: 21.1
Health: 29.4
Education: 70.6
Economics: 54.5
Politics: 40.8

157, Ethiopia
Overall score (out of 100): 23.7
Justice: 18.6
Health: 27.2
Education: 29.9
Economics: 79.7
Politics: 37.4

158, Pakistan
Overall score (out of 100): 21.4
Justice: 49.7
Health: 49.6
Education: 34.0
Economics: 50.7
Politics: 19.3

159, Niger
Overall score (out of 100): 21.2
Justice: 26.5
Health: 32.9
Education: 47.5
Economics: 58.6
Politics: 31.3

160, Solomon Islands
Overall score (out of 100): 20.8
Justice: 0.0
Health: 53.6
Education: 86.5
Economics: 46.0
Politics: 1.9

161, Mali
Overall score (out of 100): 17.6
Justice: 22.7
Health: 29.9
Education: 25.8
Economics: 64.3
Politics: 49.8

162, Democratic Republic of the Congo
Overall score (out of 100): 13.6
Justice: 6.5
Health: 11.4
Education: 45.1
Economics: 67.8
Politics: 27.2

163, Yemen
Overall score (out of 100): 12.1
Justice: 36.2
Health: 44.4
Education: 34.1
Economics: 48.8
Politics: 0.0

164, Afghanistan
Overall score (out of 100): 2.0
Justice: 8.4
Health: 2.0
Education: 41.1
Economics: 55.3
Politics: 16.6

165, Chad
Overall score (out of 100): 0.0
Justice: 20.7
Health: 0.0
Education: 0.0
Economics: 70.9
Politics: 22.2

 

 

 

Share

Muslim Enlightenment: How do we know when it happens?

Posted by on
Share

Muslim Enlightenment:
How do we know when it happens?

Fereydoun Taslimi
www.19.org

This paper is an expanded version of a presentation by the author at
International Conference of Critical Thinkers for Islamic Reform, Oxford University June-11-13, 2010

Every once in a while a new study surfaces in the United States or some other western country, indicating that the attitude towards Muslims is not only negative but is trending worse over time.  A tiny minority in some of these countries even believe that Muslim civil liberties should be curtailed.  The response of established Muslim organizations as well as some individual Muslims, generally, is outrage sprinkled with accusations of Islamophobia.

A prime example is the protest in London and elsewhere against the Danish Cartoonists or the murder of Theo Van Gogh the creator of the 10 minute movie “Submission.”  In Pakistan, several people died during demonstrations against the cartoonists, and in London one could hear crowds of protestors chanting slogans such as “Behead those who insult Islam” and “Europe is the cancer, Islam is the Answer.”  Such behavior not only lends support and credibility to the critics of Islam but, rightly so, brings into question the peaceful nature of Muslims–and as a result Islam.

This further gives rise to frequently asked questions such as:  Why are such violent reactions as described above rare among Jews and Christians?  How many people in this century died because somebody drew a cartoon of Jesus or burned a Bible as a political statement?  How many Christians or Jewish coverts to Islam have had their lives threatened by their former congregants?  Why do many Muslim countries not allow churches to be built?  Why are Jews and Christians not allowed in Mecca whereas Muslims have no problem visiting almost all the holy places belonging to Jews and Christians? Why are many subjects such as archeological research related to the Quran and Islamic history viewed as “off limits” or if not proscribed, why does one rarely see scholarly works critical of the Quran by Muslims unless the author has been branded “mahareb” or the one who turned away from Islam?

Many Muslims in an attempt to answer these questions resort to apologetic tactics combined with poor excuses in the hope that the problem will go away quickly.  All this brings us to the question of this commentary–at what point in time will the Muslims be enlightened enough to accept responsibility for their behavior and condemn these actions en masse?  In addition, what factors are needed to bring about this enlightenment and how will we recognize that Muslims have embarked on this journey when it begins?

There are several examples throughout history to look at for clues.  The best way, perhaps, is to consider the period of Christian enlightenment.  By some accounts the age of reason or enlightenment in the West is pegged around the 18th century although some believe it started earlier in the 15th century and sprang up as a consequence of Luther’s Protestant movement.  However, many believe the greatest contributing factor to what made Christian enlightenment possible was the attack on religion. Paul Hazard the 19th century French Scholar states that the aim of the Enlightenment was to ‘put Christianity on trial’.  Similarly, Peter Gay Professor of History at Yale (The Enlightenment: An Interpretation (1969), described the Enlightenment as a ‘war on Christianity, and liberation of man from the tyranny of myth.’

When analyzing the Christian example these questions come to mind.  Are the right factors in place for an Islamic enlightenment?  Considering recent events, particularly after September 11, it is difficult to argue Islam and by association Muslims are not on trial.  Muslims have been involved in many high profile indiscriminate attacks in the west not mentioning thousands of Muslims killed and tortured in Muslim countries at the hands of Muslims.  It was Muslim terrorists, who bombed a train in Madrid Spain; who held a school hostage in Russia, killing scores of children or attacked a subway in London resulting in 55 people dead.

For Karl Popper, enlightenment is “the effort of men to free themselves to break out of the cage of the closed society, and to form an open society.”  It would be short sided and mistaken to assume that the majority of Muslims have an aversion to western globalization and structural changes required for modernity and an open society.  However, Muslims have to face the fact that in the twentieth century some of the most oppressive and inhumane societies happen to a be in Muslim countries; the Taliban being a good example.  Today, there are still Muslim societies that consider the West the greatest threat to their existence and root their survival in opposing an open society.  The philosopher, Henri Bergson who coined the term “closed society” in his writing in 1932, suggested that the reason societies are unable to evolve into “open”, is because religion acts as a mental habit binding human intellect.  Some societies are just simply incapable of freeing themselves from the chains of their “cultural constraints.”  One can see examples of these mini societies in some Muslim enclaves in Europe and elsewhere where repression of women and forced marriages are the norm.

Karl Popper goes further in ‘The Open Society and its Enemies.’  He states that ‘closed’ societies are profoundly inimical to the idea of human freedom.  A fact demonstrated over and over again in recent years in Muslim countries, which are not only slow to adopt new technologies but even try to ban the use of the technological tools of an open society such as Internet, Twitter, and Facebook .  When leaders of a closed society feel threatened, technologies such as the Internet and cell phone services are often the first to be shut down, even before the expulsion of reporters. This reinforces the fact that these countries  view the open society as a menace, as it encourage an informed population  supporting what Kant defines enlightenment to be, “the emancipation of the human consciousness from an immature state of ignorance and error–a mental liberation and human self-knowledge no less.”  Open societies morph bigotry into tolerance and then to acceptance, marginalize the self righteous and are less susceptible to be tainted with self destructive dogma.

But what completes enlightenment and prevents its corruption according to the seminal 7 page essay by Kant (What is Enlightenment) in 1784 is Critical thinking, a “declaration of independence” for the open mind.  Critical thinking interrupts conversation with cultural norms and moves towards independence in pursuit of intellectual freedom and enlightenment.  Without a critical mind according to Kant we become “placid” and “dumb cattle” who cannot think for ourselves.  Man becomes incapable of using “his understanding without direction from another”, gravitates towards accepting other’s ideas as his falling into the trap of religious emulation and blind following.  “I need not think” Kant writes, “if I can only pay.”  Enlightened man is not subject to any authority without the use of critical faculty and reason, will not surrender to ignorance and misguided.  This brings us to the sad state of critical thinking in Muslim countries. Any critical analysis of the Quran or Islam is generally frowned upon by the Muslim establishments. Up until a few years ago the few critical publications by Muslims had to be published under pseudonyms because of the real threat of physical harm by fellow Muslims that accompanied such writings. There is not a single skeptic organization similar to the internationally known organization “Committee for Skeptical Inquiry” (http://www.csicop.org/) in a Muslim country.  All archeological work that relates to the Quran or the Islamic theological past is either forbidden, destroyed or conducted undercover.  The results are invariably not published widely.  Kant correctly reminds us that the enlightened is not afraid of “shadows.”  How long would Nietzsche have survived had he been living in a Muslim country today writing “God is dead?”

Considering the factors necessary for the enlightenment to take hold as outlined above namely: attack on religion, open society and critical thinking, Muslims have barely begun the journey. Although some might argue that the attack on Islam is in full swing, there has been little progress in opening Muslim societies or embarking on any form of self criticism; one of the vital ingredients of critical thinking.

However, there is hope.  It took 16 centuries before the process of Christian enlightenment started and a few more centuries until as Gay describes in the  “Revolution of Reason” gave way to critical thinking and open societies. Muslims are approaching the mid 14th century, according to Islamic calendar and traversing through one of the most spectacular technological era in human history that leaves little room for closed or uninformed populations. Therefore, by all indications Muslim enlightenment is not only inevitable but will come to fruition faster than it did for our Christian brothers.

How will we know that we have reached the shores of enlightenment? The answer is simple; when the large demonstrations by Muslims turn into protests against miscreants like Ben Laden and Anwar Al Awlaki. When talk of enforcing Sharia law is reserved to a few outcasts without the general support of Muslims. When there is no talk of oppression of women in Muslim countries and women are afforded equal opportunity. When burning a Quran is not worthy of news anymore and Muslims can study the book with a critical eye and without the fear of persecution. When the news of rigged elections in Muslim countries is studied in history and not as contemporary events and no Muslim can arise and declare himself representative of God on earth.  When Muslims can freely condemn superstitious practices and realize salvation is through self reliance and not through reliance on a hidden Imam at the bottom of a well, as some believe.  When Geert Gildner can express his opinion freely while Muslims will engage him in a lively civil discourse.  When the right to choose ones path to hell is considered sacred and not interfered with.  When synagogues, churches and other non Muslim places of worship can be built in Muslim countries without government opposition. When Muslims can convert to any religion without fear of being murdered. When centuries of traditions (hadith) and Quranic exegesis are openly questioned by Muslims without fear of reprisal and ultimately the final test could be when in a Muslim country a Jew or Christian candidate has equal opportunity to participate in presidential elections or even better a gay parade in Saudi Arabia can occur without much of a fuss.

Share

You would probably Lynch Socrates, Crucify Jesus and Evict Muhammad

Posted by on
Share

You would probably Lynch Socrates,
Crucify Jesus and Evict Muhammad

Edip Yuksel
26 Semptember 2009
www.19.org

Yesterday in one of my Philosophy classes, we discussed Plato’s The Apology, the trial and defense of Socrates… One of my favorite books!. To demonstrate the feelings of Athenians against Socrates, I asked the class a provocative question. I asked them about their position against flag burning.

” If someone burns an American flag in public to express his or her dissenting political views what should be done? Those who burn the flag: (a) must get six months in prison; (b) must be banished from country for six months; (c) must publicly apologize and recite the national anthem in front of a flag and jury; (d) pay fine equivalent of the market value of the flag; (e) get no punishment. Please discuss your reason.”

Some students wished to impose penalties while others did not. I claimed that those who picked a punishment as their option were not much different than the jury members who condemned Socrates or the Pharisees that condemned Jesus to death or the Meccan mullahs that evicted Muhammad and waged several wars against him.

I dramatized my point by creating a scene, a frame in which they would hate to see themselves: “if you lived during those historic events, you would be among the mob that lynched and oppressed those brave philosophers.” Each mob had (and has) different idols, symbols, and sensitivities and they would not tolerate anyone who did not show respect to them… The idols and symbols might change but bigotry, oppression and suppression may not. Ironically, the victims of a previous violence of idol-worship may become the symbols of a new generation of idol-worshipers who feel justified to victimize others who may not respect their idols.

My provocation worked well, but some students got more excited than I hoped for. One student, Rachael M., whose father was reportedly a veteran, ended up crying. On one hand, I felt bad for allowing the discussion to end up with such an emotional confrontation among the students; but on the other hand, I am glad that I thought them through their own experience that they MAY NOT be much different than the people of the past that they feel at liberty to criticize. In other words, the color of some high horses were noticed not to be so white after all.

I asked them to never let their emotions and sentimental feelings to cloud their judgment and guide their actions. Never let the horses (emotions) determine the direction and speed of cart. I defended the wisdom of the US Supreme Court (though it was by a small margin) for not justifying penalty for burning flag. I argued that both consistency in theory of liberty and pragmatic/practical considerations should lead mature societies to tolerate fringe and annoying groups…

PS: About one year after this debate, the student who cried in the classroom contacted me via facebook and posted a message thanking me for opening her eyes. “It was the best class I have ever taken” she noted.

Share

Why Trash All the Hadiths?

Posted by on
Share

Why Trash All the Hadiths?

Edip Yuksel
www.19.org

After witnessing the comparison between the hadith and the Quran, how can a sound mind still insist on hadith? How can still call those books sharif, or sahih, or authentic? How can they forgive the hadith narrators and collectors who sold them all kinds of lies and stories, containing so much ignorance and distortion? How can they get mat at Salman Rushdi, while much worse insults charged against Muhammad by hadith narrators and collectors?

When followers of hadith and sunna cannot defend the nonsensical and contradictory hadiths (narrations) abundant in their so-called authentic hadith books, they suggest picking and choosing those hadiths that are not contradictory to the Quran. The following brief argument with a Sunnite shows how deceptive and meaningless this apparently innocent suggestion. We call these people compromisers, or Selective Sunnis. Let’s now follow a debate between a Selective Sunni and a Monotheist Muslim:

Sunni:

1. How can you claim that several thousand sahih hadiths are necessarily false while you cite only a few sahih hadiths which have debatable contents? Is this not generalization from scanty data?

2. Why do you assume that either all sahih hadiths should be rejected or all of them should be accepted? Why not judge each hadith based on its individual merit according to all the available data about its isnad, its transmitters, and so on?

3. Suppose we cease to use hadith as a source of information about the Prophet, his life, and his career. Then we notice that the Qur’an itself says very little about the Prophet’s life. It also says nothing about how it was complied.

4. The historicity of the Quran is based on hadiths. It is from hadiths that we know how the Quran was complied. It is also from hadith that we know about the life of the Prophet.

Muslim:

1. If any book contains a few lies (and we have more than just “a few” examples), then, the endorsement of that book is not reliable. If you see dozens of repeated fabrications introduced as trustworthy (sahih) hadith, then how can you still rely on other narrations of the same book?

2. Judging each hadith on its individual merit may seem attractive for those who are not satisfied with God’s book, but it is a waste of time and a deceptive method. If the signature of narrators (sanad) cannot provide authenticity about the source of hadith, then our only guide to decide on the content of hadiths (matn) will be our personal wish or our current inclinations. How can we decide which hadith has merit? How can we decide which hadith is accurate? We may say “by comparing them with the Quran!” But, what does this really mean? If it is “me” who will compare a hadith to the Quran, if it is again “me” who will judge whether it contradicts the Quran or not, then, I will end up with “hadith” which supports “my” personal understanding of the Quran. In this case a hadith cannot function as an explanation of the Quran. It will be confirmation or justification of my understanding of the Quran; with literally tasteless, grammatically lame language…. Furthermore, what about hadiths that bring extra duties and prohibitions?

3. Again, there are many hadiths about the prophet’s life, which you cannot accept with a sober mind. They are narrated repeatedly in many so-called authentic books. We cannot create a history out of a mishmash of narration by a subjective method of pick and choose. We can create many conflicting portraits of Muhammad out of those hadiths. As for pure historical events that are isolated from their moral and religious implications, they are not part of the religion, and we don’t need them for our salvation. I never said “we should not read hadith.” In fact, we can study hadith books to get an approximate idea about the people and events of those times. We can even construct a “conjecture” about the history, without attributing them to God or his prophet. Please don’t forget that “history” is not immune to filtration, censorship and distortion by the ruling class. You can see many different versions of histories (!) regarding the era of early Islam . Just read Sunni and Shiite histories.

4. We cannot disregard God’s frequent assertion that the Quran is sufficiently detailed, complete, clear, and easy to understand. What do you think about the verse 17:46? “When you preach your Lord, in the Quran ALONE, they run away with aversion.”

5. Hadith books are full of contradictory teachings. They eventually lead us to a sanctified and justified sectarian division in the name of the Prophet. Their very nature is another proof that hadith collections cannot be divine, since God, characterizes his word and religion as not having contradiction: “Why do they not study the Quran careful? If it were from other than God, they would have found in it numerous contradictions.” (4:82). This verse clearly refutes the traditional argument that hadith books contain other revelations besides the Quran, since the followers of Hadith and Sunna wrongly attribute verses about the Quran to hadith, such as: “Your friend (Muhammad) is not astray, nor is he deceived. Nor is he speaking out of a personal desire. It is a divine inspiration.” (53:2-4). Furthermore, verses 39:27-28 describes the Quran and the following verse to distinguish the divine teaching from other teachings. “God cites the example of a man who deals with disputing partners, compared to a man who deals with only one man. Are they the same? Praise be to God; most of them do not know.” (39:29). Obviously, hadith narrators and collections are “disputing partners,” while the Quran is a consistent source.

6. Our conviction regarding the divinity of the Quran and even its protection does not come from our trust in the number of people, but from the evidence contained in the book, which is another number, a number that is not appreciated by those who determine the truth based on the number of heads with turbans. (Wonder about that number? See 74:30).

7. We reject Hadith because we respect Muhammad. No sound person would like to have people born several centuries after him roam the earth and collect hearsay attributed to him. Besides, if Muhammad and his supporters really believed that the Quran was not sufficient for guidance, an ambiguous book, or lacked details, then, surely they would be the first ones who would write them down and collect them in books. After all, their numbers were in hundreds of thousands and they had plenty of wealth. They could afford some ink, papyrus paper or leather, and some brain cells, for such an important task. They would not leave it for a guy from far Bukhara or his ilk, more than two hundred years to collect hadiths in a land soaked with blood because of sectarian wars. Besides, Muhammad had many unemployed or handicapped people around who would gladly volunteer for such mission. The traditional excuse fabricated for Prophet Muhammad and his supporters is absurd. Supposedly, Muhammad and his followers feared that people would mix the Quran with hadiths. This is nonsense. They were smart enough to distinguish both, and there were enough people to keep track of them.

Besides, it is the followers of hadith and sunna themselves who claim that the Quran was a “literary miracle”. If their claim of “literary miracle” were true, then it would be much easier to separate the verses of the Quran from hadith. Let’s assume that they could not really distinguish the text of the Quran from Muhammad’s words, then couldn’t they simply mark the pages of the scripture with the letter Q for the Quran and letter H for Hadith, or let some record only the Quran, or simply color code their covers? Or allocate leather for the Quran and paper for hadith, or vise versa? They could find many ways to keep different books separate from each other. They did not need to study rocket science or have computer technology to accomplish that primitive task. The collectors of hadiths wished that people would accept their assertion that Muhammad and his supporters did not have ink, paper or leather, mind, and care to collect hadith before them. No wonder, they even fabricated a few hadiths claiming that Muhammad’s companions were competing with dogs for bones to write on the verses of the Quran!

Well, most likely, Muhammad feared that people would mix his words with the Quran. Not the primitive way that is depicted by the Sunnis and Shiites, since as we pointed out, there were many ways to eliminate that concern. But the real concern of Muhammad was different. Because of the warnings of the Quran, he feared that Muslims would follow the footsteps of Jews and would create their own Mishna, Gomorra, and Talmud: hadith would be considered as an authority, as another source besides the Quran, setting him as partner with God! Ironically, the followers of hadith and sunna accomplished exactly that. They did not need to publish the text of hadith together with the Quran–though they have done that in many commentaries–they have been doing worse. Though they usually have kept hadith separate from the Quran physically, as far as for the purpose of guidance and religious authority, they mix it with the Quran. Even worse, they make the understanding of the Quran dependant to the understanding of hadith, thereby elevating hadith to position of authority over the Quran. Thus, if indeed Muhammad was worried about people mixing his words with the Quran, the followers of hadith proved his worries right: centuries after him, they did not only mix his words with the Quran, they mixed thousands of fabrication and nonsense attributed to him. See 25:30; 59:7.

8. Give me one, only one “hadith” that you think is necessary for my salvation besides the Quran. If you are not ready to discuss the necessity and accuracy of a single hadith, then please give inviting people to hadith and Sunna.

Further Discussion

Sunni: The bound collection of testimony from any court is certain to contain some lies and some errors. The reliability of any piece of evidence remains debatable. Where the narrators agree, where there is no irreconcilable conflict with the Qur’an, where the hadith is not offensive to tawhid, etc., we may well be justified in accepting it as reliable.  And if a collector collects a thousand hadith and makes a few errors, neither is he to be condemned as unreliable.

Muslim: Not a single court will accept the testimony of Bukhari who collected contradictory hadiths about the Prophet Muhammad, narrated from generation to generation 200 years after his departure. You try to minimize the number and size of errors. There are hundreds lies, not “a few errors.” And they are grave ones. They attribute stupid and contradictory laws and words to God. They create a manmade religion in the name of God! They are full of insult to God and his messenger. They are not trivial, since God Almighty does not accept those “few errors” as trivial:

” . . . Who is more evil than the one who fabricates lies and attributes them to God?” (29:68)

Sunni: If the hadith are not mutawwatir, the monotheist Muslim should know by now that most scholars would say that one is free to disregard it, though not necessarily without peril. The issue the Muslim raises about the difficulties of decision regarding hadith also apply to personal interpretation of the Qur’an. No, the Qur’an makes it clear, we cannot disregard any evidence out of hand, not even the evidence of an unrighteous man; how much less the evidence of those against whom we have no evidence of unrighteousness or lack of caution?

Muslim: First, can you please tell us how many mutawatir (accepted with consensus) Hadith are there. What are they and where are they? Second, can you give me a few names of those “most scholars” who would say that I am free to disregard non-mutawatir hadiths? As far as for evidences…. Sure, we cannot disregard evidences for our daily affair, even of an unrighteous man. But, God’s religion is not left to the mercy of those evidences. God explained and sufficiently detailed his religion in his book, which is described as complete, detailed, and perfect. It does not contain any doubt. Furthermore, God promised to preserve it. An He did it with a unique mathematical system which hypocrites and disbelievers are unable to see.

Sunni: I have answered The Muslim about of a number of these hadith. Certainly, I personally have trouble with certain hadith; however, I must always ask myself whether or not it is my own view which is in error, rather than the hadith. Perhaps there is something I have not thought of.

For example, there is a hadith, which The Muslim loves to cite mentioning the drinking of camel’s urine, which he seems to believe, is particularly ridiculous. Does he base this on a scientific study of the virtues of drinking camel’s urine? I think not. Nor does he ever mention that nomadic peoples, not just Arabs but including them, often consume the waste products of their animals. So “cannot accept” is definitely culturally conditioned. But no one has claimed that drinking camels’ urine is required of any Muslim.

Muslim: Well, prescribing camels’ urine is the minor problem of that hadith. You can even find some Sunni doctors who pontificate that camel’s urine is a panacea for every disease. The big problem was about gouging their eyes after pruning all their legs and hands, etc. You craftily skipped that part.

Sunni: The Muslim confuses Hadith and Sunna. Hadith is only one of a number of major sources of Sunna, other major sources being the Qur’an and the practice of the community. The latter is how we generally learn to pray, by the way.  To answer the question about necessity of hadith without going deeply into the whole concept of necessity is impossible.

But I will answer this way: if a hadith transmits a wisdom necessary in a particular situation, and one turns away from that wisdom merely because it was a hadith (and not some other preferred modality), then one becomes culpable for failure to act correctly in the situation. This could, indeed lead to hell-fire. Of course, the same is true of the Qur’an, or even the preaching of a Christian.

Muslim: If you think that some one is wrong and even misguided because of his rejection of hadith and that person challenges you with that question you don’t answer like you did above. You did not or could not answer my challenge. Answering questions is not an act of writing irrelevant lines after the question. Please come to the point.

 

Share

Arab Conspiracies

Posted by on
Share

In Aidid’s Wonderland, place of worships (masaajid) vanishes to submissions (yes, plural!); timely prayers transform to timely commitments;  ; the Sacred House Kaba mutates into “the ‘ankles’ the sanctioned in the system” (the ankles are literally the ankles of deer and goats!); verbs and adverbs are ignored  whenever they do not conspire with Aidid against Arab Conspiracies; nouns and verbs act the same way in a “fundamental” way where the meanings are freshly assigned by Aidid to justify his bizarre theories.

Conspiracy against Conspiracies or

Words in the Wonderland

Edip Yuksel
www.19.org

 

The author, Aidid Safar, in The Arab Conspiracies Against Islam, expresses his position with an eloquent and powerful argument. I agree with some of his arguments and disagree with the most. His argument aiming to eliminate Salaat and Hajj rituals are radical, yet fragile and unsupported. His arguments against rituals occasionally appear strong when they are compared to the traditional corrupt interpretation of some verses. In other words, the strength of his position mostly relies on the weakness of mushrik Sunni and Shiite (mis)translation of Quranic verses.

Currently, I do not have time nor desire to evaluate all of his arguments, since it might take a similar book to demonstrate the numerous errors, speculations, and unjustified inferences. But, I would like to briefly note the following:

Aidid asserts that SaLLY means not prayer, but commitment. There is some truth in this statement. The word SaLLY, when it is not used together with the verb IQaMa, usually means support and encouragement. For instance, I translated the verse 74:43 in my Turkish translation, Mesaj:  “They will say: ‘We did not support’”. Similarly I translated the verse 75:31 in Mesaj: “He neither accepted the truth, nor he supported.” I also translated the word Salla to mean support in verses 2:157; 9:99,103; and 33:43,56. Furthermore, I agree with Aidid that in verse 5:106 the word Salla may not mean the salaat ritual. However, when the word Salat is used with verb IQaMa it refers to a timely ritual preceded by ablution. His arguments on those verses are not convincing.

In page 19 he provides a list of words claiming that their meanings have been distorted. Though I agree with him partially, for instance that the meaning of SaLLY has been distorted in verses I listed above, and the meaning of the word MaQaM (in re Abraham) is mistranslated as footprint; however he goes extreme in his fight against the conspiracy theory and reaches to bizarre conclusions.

For instance, Aidid want us stop “worshiping God” and start “serving God” on the basis that God does not need our worship. But, he ignores the validity of the same question for serving God. Surely, God does not need our service either. When a wrong question is asked you can be sure that the answer will also be wrong. We worship God not because God needs our worship, but because we need it. However, I do agree with his basic assertion that the “serve” reflects the meaning of the word “abd” better, since it involves every aspect of human life.

Aidid asserts that the word al-BaYT (singular form) which has been traditionally translated as THE HOUSE, usually referring to the public building raised by Abraham and his children inMecca, should be translated as SYSTEM. He claims that HaJJ, the annual PILGRIM to the House inMecca, should be understood as CHALLENGE OR DISCOURSE. He is suggesting new meanings to old words. I would welcome such a radical move if he had provided a substantial Quranic and logical reason to do so. The traditional meanings of the word BaYT and HaJJ explain all the verses where they occur without forcing our imagination, but the so-called “fundamental meanings” suggested by Aidid are usually beyond my imagination. Let me explain:

2:127 is about raising the foundation of the House. Like Aidid, I can imagine this to be about laying the foundation of a new system.

 

2:158 is about visiting the House. I cannot imagine this to be about “challenging or discourse to God’s system” (al-BaYT in the context of Hajj does not carry a negative connotation, but is associated to Abraham and God in the Quran.)

5:95 asks us making sure that offerings reach the KA’Ba. I cannot imagine  it to be about “to determine the ‘ankles’” or “guides maturity the ankle” meaning  “they must determine the maturity of the deer on its ankles” as suggested by the author. I do not even understand what the author means by these words.

5:97 tells us that God has consecrated the Ka’bah, the sacred House as a safety for people. But, Aidid wants us to understand it as “God has set the ‘ankles’ (ka’bata) the sanctioned in the system (baytil-harami) to be upheld for mankind”. If the word “ridiculous” or “nonsense” has a reference in human language and in real life, then Aidid’s translation of this phrase is one of them.

8:35tells us that the prayer of the mushriks by the House was merely hypocrisy (muka) and repulsion from truth (tasdiya). But Aidid Safar wants us to understand it as “their commitment to the system,” The author does not care about INDA (nearby) or other propositions. He ignores or distorts their meaning to fit his theory.

17:93 informs us about the demands of disbelievers from Muhammad, including his having a luxurious/adorned house (mansion). Though Aidid does not translate this verse, according to his “fundamental meaning” we should understand that mushriks expected Muhammad have a luxurious (zukhruf) system! Perhaps, Aidid will change the meaning of ZUKHRUF too, since he does not need much justification as long as it serves his pre-conceived conclusions.

28:12 tells the story of Moses being returned to his home/family and quotes his sister saying “May I show you a people of a HOUSE (family/home) that can raise him and take care of him for you?” According to Aidid this is an Arab conspiracy. The “fundamental meaning” suggested by Aidid, Moses’ sister is talking about a people of a SYSTEM. In Aidid’s imagination, all the individual BaYTs (house/building) are destroyed to build a SYSTEM with no rituals. BuYuT (Houses), on the other hand, are spared. They are houses!

In Aidid’s fundamentally non-Arabic semantic world, Pharaoh’s wife prayed not for a place in paradise/garden (jannah) but a system in paradise (66:11). I suppose, Aidid has all the skills to change the meaning of every word in the Quran, including the word Jannah. The house of the lady transforms to the lady’s system dwelled by Joseph (12:23), and God’s system needs to be cleaned by people (2:125;22:26). Again, according to Aidid’s dictionary, God caused the Prophet get out of his system with the Truth (8:5)! Whatever it may mean? If you do not understand Aidid, it is because you are brainwashed by Arab conspiracies.

In short, in Aidid’s Wonderland, place of worships (masaajid) vanishes to submissions (yes, plural!); timely prayers transform to timely commitments; the Sacred House Ka’ba mutates into “the ‘ankles’ the sanctioned in the system” (the ankles are literally the ankles of deer and goats!); verbs and adverbs are ignored  whenever they do not conspire with Aidid against Arab Conspiracies; nouns and verbs act the same in a “fundamental” way where the meanings are freshly assigned by Aidid to justify his bizarre theories.

This is another abuse and exploitation of the Quran Alone message. Aidid is not the first nor will be the last brave warrior who will use the powerful message of the Quran Alone against tradition to justify esoteric and absurd claims. In an overpopulated world any conspiracy theory and any absurd idea will find some followers. We should let the Arab conspirators and non-Arab counter-conspirators deal with each other. As long as there are wind mills there will be Don Quixotes and their admirers. Peace for all of them!  Thank God, I do not own any wind mills;-)

Share

Eternal Hell and the Merciful God?

Posted by on
Share

Eternal Hell and the Merciful God?

Edip Yuksel
© 2003
www.19.org

(Published in the Appendix of the Quran: a Reformist Translation, Brainbow Press)

 

As a monotheist, I have compelling scientific, philosophic and spiritual reasons to believe in the Quran, yet I have to admit that I have not digested all the verses of the Quran. Some verses challenge my cultural norms or the mainstream ideology, and a few also appear to contradict other clear verses of the scripture and/or the laws of nature. Knowing that my culture is relative, I usually handle well the first category, but those that create contradiction among God’s signs (ayat) of the scripture or of nature act like viruses infecting my faith. Those who have no intellectual problem with any verses of the Quran are, in my opinion, either gullible people who happened to inherit/acquire their faith because of peer pressure, geographic proximity, or any other extraneous reason; or they are hiding their intellectual problems from others and perhaps from even their own cognition. Neither type, however, can set a good example.

My doubt is not about the veracity of the Quran, but about the veracity of my understanding of some verses of the Quran. Since I rejected Sunni precepts that require blindly following the opinion of orthodox scholars and clerics, and since I accepted the Quran as the only source of my religion, whenever I encounter a problem with my understanding of a verse that puts it at odds with 4:82, I follow the divine advice to act patiently in seeking knowledge (20:114), ask the experts (21:7) without following them blindly (17:36), avoid wishful thinking and hearsay (53:28), and know that God is the one who will ultimately provide explanation (75:16-19). Sometimes, I attain a coherent understanding within months, but sometimes it takes years and even decades. Each of my intellectual and spiritual experience is a testimony to the following facts:

7:52      We have brought them a book that we have detailed with knowledge to be a guidance and mercy for the people who believe.

55:1-2  The Gracious Teaches the Quran

Before sharing with you my observation about the duration of Hell, I would like to share with you several examples of my intellectual struggle and their results. (If you do not have patience with this lengthy introduction or preparation, please jump to the subtitle Is Hell Eternal.)

For instance, my inquiry on 5:38 evolving about fifteen years resulted in three understanding,: (a) cutting or marking a thief’s hand as a means of public humiliation and identification, (b) physically cutting off a thief’s hand, or (c) cutting off a thief’s means to steal and burglarize (presumably through rehabilitation or imprisonment). Depending on the economic and social circumstances, frequency of theft, its risk to the society, and the economic, social and psychological cost of punishment, a society may pick any of the suggested punishments. In other words, I am now convinced that the deliberate use of a semantically flexible key word, QaTTa’A, is to accommodate time, mood, culture, and circumstances of diverse populations. Freezing the message of the Quran with the understanding and practice of the first generation (including Prophet Muhammed and his companions) is stripping the Quran from its prophetic divine nature that makes its message universal.

My inquiry on the apparent contradiction between 2:233 and 46:15, within several months led me to a conclusion that I never wished to reach: taking the normal length of pregnancy as 266 days (or 38 weeks), abortion within 86 days of pregnancy would not be considered murder. In the first trimester, the fetus was not considered as a person. Becoming a person is with the emergence of consciousness (that is, Nafs, which is usually wrongly translated as Soul, because of Plato’s influence on later Muslim scholars). “Personhood” is described as the stage of “new creation” that follows the stages of being a sperm, embryo, bite-size fetus forming bones and flesh, and finally a new creature (23:14; 22:5). My problem with the traditional understanding of4:34, and reconciling it with 30:21 was solved within a year through research and “accidental” events. I learned that men were not rulers over women, but providers for them; women were described not as devotees of their husbands, but of their Creator; the issue was not disobedience to husband but disloyalty to the marriage contract; and husbands were not advised to beat their wives, but were advised to separate from them before deciding on divorce.

Similarly, my problem with reconciling traditional understanding of 4:3 and 4:129 was solved decades later when I noticed a universal mistranslation of a phrase in 4:127. Though the Quran permits polygamy (4:3), it discourages and restricts its actual practice by requiring significant preconditions: men may marry more than one wife only if the latter ones are widows with orphans, and they should treat each wife equally and fairly. (See 4:19-20, 127-129.) Unfortunately, verse 4:127 has been traditionally misinterpreted and mistranslated in such a way as to suggest that God permits marriage with juvenile orphans. This was clearly not the case.

Let me give you one more example. I had a problem with the traditional mistranslation of a key word in verse 2:106, since it implied contradiction in the Quran and made any verse in the Quran a vulnerable subject to the claim of abrogation. The word “ayat”, the plural of “ayah,” is used in the Quran to mean both (a) signs/miracles, and (b) verses/revelations of the Quran itself. Since verses of the Quran are considered to be miracles/signs, the plural form occasionally conveys both meanings simultaneously. A single verse of the Quran is not deemed to be a miracle since some short verses of the Quran (for instance: 55:3; 69:1; 74:4; 75:8; 80:28; 81:26) are not unique and can be found in daily conversation of Arabic-speaking people. In fact, the Quran determines the minimum unit of miraculous nature as a chapter (10:38), and the shortest chapters consist of 3 verses (103; 108; 110). Therefore, only the plural form of “ayah”, that is, “ayat”, can be used as reference to the verses/revelation of the Quran. However the singular form, AYAH, in all its 84 occurrences in the Quran is always used to mean sign or miracle. Therefore, I choose to translate the singular form “ayah” in verse 2:106 as “sign.”

Is Hell Eternal?

God, as demonstration of ultimate creation, chose to test the results of creating a being with the ability to freely choose its own destiny (18:29; 6:110; 13:11). God downloaded His revelation/commands/logic (ruh) to the prototype human that would provide him with innate rules of reasoning to distinguish falsehood from truth, bad from good (15:29; 32:9; 38:72;). Messengers and books containing ruh were only a bonus mercy, mere reminders of the facts that could be discovered by reason (2:37-38; 10:57; 11:17; 16:89; 21:107; 29:51; 16:2; 36:69; 37:87; 39:21; 42:52; 58:22). Though believing that we humans have freedom of will is one of the paradoxes most difficult to digest, I accept it on faith (18:29; 57:22). God, created life and death on this planet to test His ultimate creature (67:2). After a certain age, an individual is deemed accountable by God (46:15). God decided to punish those who freely choose a path contradictory to its original program as they corrupt it through false ideas and actions (2:57; 4:107; 6:12,20,26; 7:9,53177; 59:19). The programs that are infected with viruses will experience and a regretful stage called Hell (Hell and Paradise are allegories: 13:35; 17:60; 37:62-64; 7:44-50). In this stage the corrupt programs and their chief infector (Satan) will be penalized (7:11-27; 38:71-88), and then altogether they will be annihilated. The only virus that will not be healed on the day of Judgment is the virus that creates a schizophrenic personality, a personality that submits itself to others besides God, a personality that does not free itself from false gods thereby alienating itself from its origin, that is God (4:48,116).

The popular belief that Hell will burn eternally bothered me for decades, but I suppressed my problem by saying “God is Merciful and Just; He knows something that I do not know.” Of course, God knows many things that we do not know. But, what if we are protecting our superstitions and false beliefs through such an excuse? What if we are stopping ourselves from using God’s greatest gift: reason, which distinguishes a believer from a disbeliever, a human from an animal? (2:73, 170, 171, 242, 269; 3:118, 190; 7:169; 8:22; 10:42, 100; 11:51; 12:2, 111; 13:4, 19; 16:67; 21:10, 67; 23:80; 24:61; 29:63; 30:28; 38:29; 39:9, 18, 21; 40:54; 59:14). Sure, there was a danger in confusing “reason” with my personal wishes, ignorance and cultural biases. I could distort the meaning of God’s Word to appease my wishes or to conform to my limited knowledge. There was a fine line. Should I use my reason to question an understanding that I inherited from a particular sect, or should I follow everything without using my mind? Knowing that the Quran strongly admonishes us from following the crowd, the footsteps of our parents, or religious scholars blindly, (6:116; 2:170; 9:31; etc.). I rejected blind faith and chose faith based on knowledge and reason (17.36). To prefer an unorthodox understanding, I have adopted a two-pronged rule: I should be able to support it by the original language of the scripture,ANDthe unorthodox understanding should not create a contradiction either among the divine laws and precepts in the scripture or between scripture and divine laws in nature.

About six years ago, I read a Turkish translation of a booklet, The Universal Salvation, written by Musa Jarullah Bigiyev (1874-1949). In that booklet, Bigiyev argued that according to the Quran and Hadith, Hell was not eternal. When I finished the booklet my excitement and hope faded as the author had not dealt with the many pertinent verses that led hundreds of millions of Muslims to believe that hell was eternal. He was making a radical assertion but he had little persuasive argument to support it. He was utilizing more emotional appeal than scholarly evaluation of related verses. Disappointed, I continued in my belief in eternal Hell, albeit as a contradictory concept which continuously irritated my faith and intellect lurking in the background. I could not ignore numerous Quranic verses/signs that were threatening disbelievers or mushriks with suffering in hell for eternity. But I also could not ignore the other fact that God’s most repeated attribute in the Quran was God’s mercy (RaHYM 114 times, RaHMaN 57 times, etc). God had decreed mercy as His attribute (6:12,54) and His mercy was immense (6:147; 40:7). I frequently took solace in the implication of the following dialogue between Jesus and God that will take place on the day of judgment:

5:118-119 ‘If you punish them, they are your creatures. If you forgive them, you are almighty, wise.’ God will say: ‘This is a day when their truth will benefit the truthful ones.’ They have deserved gardens with flowing streams. They abide there forever. God is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him. This is the greatest achievement.

His justice was also reminded frequently (3:182; 4:40; 8:51; 11:101; 16:33,118; 22:10; 41:46; 43:76; 50:29; 99:7-8). How can a merciful and just God torture his creatures in eternal hell for their crimes committed in a very short time, a period that is almost zero compared to eternity?! How could divine mercy and justice be challenged by my limited mercy and justice? If I had a part of God’s revelation/knowledge/logic (ruh) in my genetic program, then I should be able to find a way to embrace, not necessarily comprehend, God’s mercy and justice without reservation.

Mushriks And Ardent Disbelievers Are Condemned To Stay In Hell Eternally!

Please note that the subtitle does not assert that “Mushriks and Ardent Disbelievers Are Condemned To Stay In Eternal Hell!” And, according to the language used in the Quran there is a difference. Let me explain:

All forms derived from the root of KHaLaDa (to be eternal, live forever, to remain for ever in place, or to stay for long time, or life time) occur 87 times in the Quran. If my preliminary count is correct, in 40 occurrences it describes the duration of reward in Paradise (2:25; 2:82; 3:15; 3:107; 3:136; 3:198; 4:13; 4:57; 4:122; 5:85; 5:119; 8:42; 9:22; 9:82; 9:89; 9:100; 10:26; 11; 23; 11:108; 14:23; 18:108; 20:86; 21:102; 23:11; 25:15; 25:16; 25:76; 29:58; 31:9; 39:73; 43:71; 46:14; 48:5; 50:34; 57:12; 58:22; 64:9; 65:11; 98:8; 50:34 ), and in 40 occurrences it describes the duration of punishment in Hell-fire (2:39; 2:81; 2:162; 2:217; 2:257; 2:285; 3:88; 3:116; 4:14; 4:93; 4:169; 5:80; 6:128; 7:36; 9:17; 9:63; 9:68; 10:26; 10:27; 10:52; 11:107; 13:5; 16:29; 20:101; 21:99; 23:103; 25:29; 25:69; 32:14; 33:65; 39:72; 40:76; 41:28; 43:74; 47:15; 59:17; 64:10; 72:23; 85:17; 98:6).

The word KHaLaDa also conveys the meaning of long duration. For instance, the classic Arabic dictionary Lisanul Arab lists the plural form KHawaLiD to mean mountains and rocks since they last very long. The Quran, at least in one instance, uses the past tense of the word to describe an act lasting lifetime (7:176). The verse describes a fanatic disbeliever and tells us that he “Akhlada ilal ardi.” that is, stuck to the ground, stuck to lowly ideas! In this article I do not argue that the meaning of the word KHaLaDa and all its derivatives convey only the idea of a very long time or a period of a particular life time. Though there might be some evidence for such an argument, and the lack of usage of this word for God might be considered supportive evidence, at present I am not convinced.

As for the adverb ABaDa (eternally, ever, forever), it occurs 28 times in the Quran, and out of these, in nine occurrences it is used to describe the duration spent in paradise (4:57; 4:122; 5:119; 9:22; 9:100; 18:3; 64:9; 65:11; 98:8) and in three verses this word is used for the duration spent in hell (4:169; 33:65; 72:23). Verses 5:37; 22:22; 32:20 state that the disbelievers will want to exit Hell, but they will never be able to do so. The arguments of those who reject eternal punishment is rejected (3:24).

ABaDa is used in 9:84; 9:108; 24:4; 33:53; 59:11; 62:7 to mean eternity contingent with the life of the subject:

“You shall never (La…. ABaDa) pray for any of them when he dies… ” (9:84) “You shall never (La … ABaDa) pray in such a masjid…” (9:108) “… and never (La … ABaDa) accept t any testimony from them…” (24:4) “… You shall never (La … ABaDa) marry his wives after him.” (33:53) “… We will never (La … ABaDa) obey anyone who against you…” (59:11) “… They will never (La … ABaDa) long for it… ” (62:7)

All these negative statements use ABaDa to express a prohibition that will last forever. More accurately, as long as the conditions exist. For instance, when the person prohibited from a funeral prayer himself dies, the prohibition too ends naturally. A dead person cannot pray at the grave of another dead person and therefore, this prohibition does not practically last for eternity. Similarly, when the wives of the Prophet all died, the prohibition to marry them ceased to exist. Therefore, the eternity of prohibition was, in fact, limited by the condition or life-time of the subject. In other words, in the above examples, the word ABaDa indicates the entirety of a particular period.

Eternal Punishment In Hell Does Not Necessarily Mean That The Hell Or Its Inhabitants Are Eternal

Remember Jonah. When he escaped from his duty he was swallowed by a whale.

37: 143-144 But had he not been of those who glorify, he would have stayed in its belly to the day of resurrection.

It is a fact that neither Jonah nor the whale was immortals that could live to the day of resurrection. God knows this. Thus, this Quranic expression simply informs us that Jonah would die or end up in the belly of the whale. Although both would perish in a short time, the whale would be the ultimate destiny of Jonah until the day of resurrection. Had Jonah not intended to be resurrected (together with the whale,6:38), using the same logic, the verse would state: “he would have stayed in its belly eternally.”‘

Similarly, verses informing us about disbelievers or idol worshipers staying in Hell eternally, does not necessarily mean that the Hell is eternal, unless we are informed that Hell itself is eternal. It simply means that disbelievers and idol worshipers would end up in Hell and nothing else. If Hell, together with its inhabitants, one day ceased its existence, then the disbelievers or idol worshipers would still stay in Hell eternally. Their punishment would be the entire life of Hell.

In fact, the Quran informs us that both the eternal punishment in Hell and reward inParadiseis conditioned with their life span:

11:107  Eternally they abide therein (Hell), for as long as the heavens and the earth endure, in accordance with the will of your Lord. Your Lord is doer of whatever He wills. As for fortunate ones, they will be inParadise. Eternally they abide therein, for as long as the heavens and the earth endure, in accordance with the will of your Lord-an everlasting reward.

The Quran informs us that the Earth and Heavens will be changed to different Earth and Heavens (14:48). If the re-creation referred to in this verse is the one before the Day of Judgment, then there is possibility of another re-creation. There are indications thatParadisewill be preserved or created again. For instance, the word KHuLD (eternal, everlasting) is not used for Hell, but it is used as an adjective to describe Paradise (25:15). On the other hand the same adjective is not used to describe Hell, but to describe the punishment IN HELL (10:52; 41:28).

Hell, Together With Its Inhabitants, Will Be Annihilated

Our language contains synonyms, antonyms, complements, counterparts, etc. The Quran frequently uses pairs of words/concepts to contrast, compare, or complement each other. Usually, the frequencies of semantically related words also demonstrate mathematical harmony, which is another subject I extensively demonstrated in my books. For instance, Akhirah (Hereafter) and Dunya (Lowly World) , Malak (Angel) and Shaytaan (Satan), Rahmah (Mercy) and Huda (Guidance), Qul (Say) and Qalu (they said), Khalq (Creation) and Helaak (Annihilation), Hayat (Life) and Mawt (Death) are semantically and mathematically related words.

Let’s reflect on verse 40:11 and 67:2. The first verse refers to two creations and two deaths and the second refers to creation of death and life. These two verses can be understood better if we know that in the Quranic language death cannot exist without life and vise versa. They exist together, since Death is permanent halt of the brain’s conscious activity (39:42; 16:21), but a temporal stage to be followed by resurrection (29:57; 10:56; 22:6). Death is a process leading to life. A living creature will die and a dead creature will get a new life (22:66). Vegetation experiences successive lives and deaths through seasons (2:64; 3:27; 6:95; 16:65; 22:5-6; 30:19-50; 35:9). With the first creation there was neither death nor life; we just existed. But God decided to create death, and life (67:2). Creation, death, life (current), death, life (resurrection). In other words, two deaths and two lives (40:11). The word HaLaKa, on the other hand, is occasionally used to describe the death of an individual (40:34), but it usually means irreversible destruction and annihilation, or total existential extinction of an entity (5:17; 6:6; 6:47; 8:42; 20:128; 21:95; 22:45; 28:59; 36:31; 69:5; 77:16).

8:42      . . . whereby those destined to be perished/annihilated were perished/annihilated for an obvious reason, and those destined to be saved/revived were saved/revived for an obvious reason (or clear argument)

The above verse not only refers to the loss of lives and surviving in a particular battle, but also to a higher cosmic event: disbelievers will perish forever since they relied on falsehood while believers will last forever since they relied on a clear argument No wonder life and death are used as metaphors for attaining truth or falsehood (6:122). In fact, witnessing and acknowledging the truth leads to life, both metaphorically and literally:

8:24      O you who believe, respond to God and the messenger when he calls you to that which grants you life. You should know that God in between a man and his heart, and that before Him you will be gathered.

From the above verse, it is fair to infer that those who reject the divine message will lose eternal life. Will they die in Hell? The answer is No:

20:74    Anyone who comes to His Lord guilty will deserve Hell, wherein he never dies, nor stays alive.

Then, the alternative is obvious: total annihilation, ontological extinction, together with Hell. Those programs with free choice that chose to corrupt themselves with the worst diabolic “viruses” (such as associating partners with God or killing an innocent program) will be sentenced to an eternal punishment: after resurrection they will experience a period of diagnosis, justice, regret and then, with the creation of a new earth and heaven, they will be hurled to non-existence together with Hell. Perhaps, their memories as well will be erased from the minds of their relatives who chose eternal life by dedicating their religion to God alone and by leading a righteous life with the Day of Judgment in mind. It is interesting that the only exception for God’s never forgetting is in connection with the people who deserved Hell:

32:14    So taste the consequences of your ignoring/forgetting this day; for We have now ignored/forgotten you. Taste the eternal retribution in return for what you used to do.

GOD IS JUST AND MERCIFUL

The Quran repeatedly comforts us by reminding us of God’s perfect justice. The following verse provides us with a precise idea of God’s justice and mercy:

10:27    For those who did good work there will be the best and more. . . As for those who earned evil, they will receive equivalent evil.

Suffering in an eternal Hell creates a contradiction between this divine justice, since eternity can not be equal to an evil committed during the limited life span of a human. However, eternal punishment in a life time of a non eternal Hell avoids such a contradiction. After receiving an equivalent punishment, the chief evil-doers like those referred in verse4:48, will be eliminated from existence. They will end up in Hell and Hell will end up in oblivion, eternally.

No wonder the first and the most repeated verse of the Quran reminds us over and over that God is Gracious, Merciful (1:1).

Share

Sala: With Both Mind And Body

Posted by on
Share

Sala: With Both Mind And Body

Edip Yuksel
29 May 2004
www.19.org

 

The moment I joined the forums of free-minds.org and posted the first message about the FIVE PROJECTS (not five prayers!) we were working on, my faith was questioned by several people and I was immediately challenged regarding my opinion on Sala, (or spelled as Salah or Salat). On any subject I wrote, I was harassed and was demanded to indulge in their favorite argument. It seems that several people were so excited from freeing their minds and their bodies from performing a ritual; they just wanted to PROHIBIT such a ritual in the name of God. According to these people, anyone disagrees with their INTERPRETATION, INFERENCES and SPECULATIONS on some Quranic verses or words, or someone prays differently, he or she must be a MUSHRIK or DISBELIEVER. According to them I should not spend much time to think and study their claims. They did not even recognize a right for me to spend time on anything else in my life. I was expected either to reject their position IMMEDIATELY or accept IMMEDIATELY. Studying their argument was either a luxury, or evasion of absolute truth! I should have had acted reflexively, with a knee-jerk reaction, perhaps like they have done it.

As a response, I told them that I was taking their position seriously, and I even acknowledged that though I have heard the argument 30 years ago when I was living in Turkey, I learned a few new good points raised in their argument, and I added that after studying their assertions, if I find their argument to be factual and coherent I would not hesitate to change my position.  I never accused them of committing sin by NOT observing Salat prayers physically. I was simply following the instructions in 20:114;17:36; 39:38.

I would like to share two incidents with you before I venture to briefly state my reasons why I disagree with their RIGID position (accusing those who observe prayers mentally and physically of being mushriks), and why I am not so far persuaded by their SOFT position (that the Salat prayers should be observed mentally).

Several years ago, when I came to the conclusion that according to the Quran the number of Salat prayers were not FIVE, but THREE, I started praying three times a day. I shared my view with the members of my small congregation, and some of them, including my wife, did not want to change their routine of praying 5 times a day. They found my argument difficult to follow, and they had some arguments supporting their position. Yet, I never questioned their faith. I knew that it was still possible that a group of people following the Quran alone could have some differences in their understanding of its verses, since their knowledge, experience, and background were not all the same. The most important thing was their intention to devote their religion to God alone. Perhaps, with more research and some friendly discussion their differences would fade out with time. I did not and do not expect that every believer in Quran Alone must understand every verse, every word and their implications the same. My wife still prays five times a day and follows the traditional numbers of units. If I listened to these people and did not mind my own business and demanded her to accept my version of understanding some verses, I would have accused her of committing SHIRK, the ultimate crime. How could a believer blame another for merely observing EXTRA prayers based on their differences in understanding of the Quran?

The second incident I want to share with you involves a spin-off group ofTucsonsubmitters. Some submitters led by a couple of messenger claimants (Yes, after Rashad Khalifa dozens of people claimed to be messengers) came to believe that uttering Allah-u Akbar was wrong, since AKBAR was not a Quranic attribute of God. Instead, they started using Allah-ul Kabeer in their prayers. I preferred the attribute used by the Quran to the one that was not, and I started uttering Allah-ul Kabeer; but unlike them I did not have problem with someone who uttered Allah-u Akbar. Though AKBAR was not used in the Quran as an attribute for God, it shared the same root KBR with KABEER and there was no problem with its meaning. It was a beautiful attribute and all beautiful attributes, regardless of language, belonged to God. However, most of those who converted to Kabeer acted divisively and started condemning those who uttered Akbar. The other group also reacted similarly. They claimed that Kabeer was an innovation and switching from Akbar to Kabeer was a diversion from their late messenger’s practice (that is Rashad Khalifa’s Sunnah! Ironically, these people were the same people who rejected Hadith and Sunnah attributed to Muhammad arguing that the Quran alone must be the ONLY authority of their religion).

Turning back to present topic…. The same extremism or desire for schism is at work among some members of free-minds. A group of people come to believe and practice a particular issue differently than others; and they start turning that issue to a sales-pitch for their cult or group.  They develop and sharpen their arguments and use it like a holy sword. They might have some good points, they might be even totally correct; but they start abusing their newly discovered DIFFERENCE by exaggerating the issue and by making it a categorical measure of faith. It is curious dynamic that comes into play in every new religious or political group. Desire to create a separate identity overwhelm their rational thinking and blinds them to see the common values. Soon after Jesus, Paul the Pharisee distorted many facts to divorce Jesus’ message from of Moses. Soon after Jesus departure the followers “of the Pharisee son of Pharisee” started calling themselves Christians. This divisive pattern is common in almost all groups that advocate a particular religion, sect, or cult.

I would also make one point clear. Understanding and accepting differently is not the same as rejecting God’s ayaats/signs in the Quran and/or in the nature. Rejecting to believe an ayat (sign) or ayaat (signs/revelations) is disbelief and considered a great sin. For instance, if 9:128-129 were verses of the Quran, rejecting them would be important. Similarly if 9:128-129 were not verses of the Quran, accepting them would be important too. (I am deliberately using the word VERSES rather than AYAAT, since the singular word Ayat is used 84 times in the Quran and in all those occurrences it is used to mean signs and miracles, and never in its singular form refers to the verses of the Quran. However, both signs/miracles and revelation is referred with the plural of the word, that is Ayaat. Knowing that the Quran challenges disbelievers to produce minimum 1 chapter similar to the Quran, and knowing that the shortest chapter has three verses, then it is appropriate to use the plural word AYAAT for at least three verses. ) Since, the Code 19 involves this issue and also is considered as one of the greatest miracles (AYAAT) and a test, the very witnessing or understanding becomes a matter of faith. (I will inshallah later post an article on this issue).

What is Sala?

After this lengthy introduction, here are my reasons why I still continue observing the Salat prayers both mentally and bodily. I will focus on brother Layth’s article titled What is Salat”:

  1. It is true that SaJDa means obedience, submission to God’s law (16:49). From this verse we should not necessarily infer that everything has mind like humans. Even if we subscribe to such a fancy assumption, mental events too are physical events; they are the consequence of interaction of electrons. In fact, the prostration of all the creatures we perceive is PHISICAL. Any event that can be sensed by our five senses is a physical event. Atoms physically (chemical reactions too are physical events in this sense) surrender to God’s laws when they interact with each other. When water freezes it surrenders to God’s law and expands, when it is heated to a certain degree it evaporates. When Hydrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen, and Oxygen atoms come together in a particular order and create bases called Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Thymine, and when these bases join each other in a particular order, pre-ordained by God, they create DNAs that produce new qualities and events, including life. Every cell and organ in our bodies submits to God’s law. These are all physical demonstration of SaJDa to God. No wonder, the entire universe is stated to have submitted to God (3:83; 13:15). Interestingly, in these two verses the same idea is depicted yet in 3:83 the verb aSLaMa (submitted)  is used while in 13:15 the verb yaSJuDu (prostrating) is used. This is a strong evidence that botq verbs belong to the same semantic field. As we know submission to God is not just a mental activity but a physical action, such as working hard, delivering God’s message, feeding the poor, etc.
  2. On verse 41:37 Layth makes the following inference: “We are commanded not to prostrate before sun and moon, which means DO NOT GET ON THE GROUND AND BOW BEFORE PHYSICAL CREATIONS thinking you are worshiping The God. The God uses Sun and Moon as examples to represent all day and night.”

    This is not only a far-fetched speculation; it is also based on misunderstanding of the Arabic suffix Li. The verse does not say “BEFORE sun and moon,” but “FOR/TO sun and moon.”  In connection to Layth’s argument, the difference is huge. Furthermore, to describe time the Quran frequently uses day and night, not sun and moon. The verse does not prohibit physical prostration for God, but physical and mental prostration to others than God.

  3. I agree with Layth that the word SaJDa in some verses means ONLY mental (in quantum, electronic or neural level) prostration while in other verses it means ONLY bodily (atomic and molecular level) prostration. (I do not deliberately use the word PHYSICAL since both mental and bodily events are physical). I agree with Layth in his excellent observation on 27:20-24 and deduce that the prostration in question must be physical. I also agree with Layth that 77:48 most likely refers to mental prostration.
  4. As for verse22:18, it describes both mental and bodily submission to God. After quoting this verse Layth asks a rhetorical question, “Has anyone ever seen any of these creations bow and prostrate on the ground (animals excluded)?” He claims that since all things in heavens and earth do not prostrate to God by casting themselves facedown on the ground in humility, then we should not prostrate that way either. But, this conclusion is based on a false assumption that ALL creatures prostrate the same way. Every creature in heavens and earth glorifies God (24:41; 57:1; 59:1,24; 61:1; 62:1; 64:1). But we do not understand their glorification (17:44).  We are also instructed to glorify our Lord day and night, not like birds or planets, but like humans, in our language (3:41; 5:98; 7:206; 19:11; 20:130; 32:15; 40:55; 50:39-40; 52:48-49; 56:74,96; 69:52; 76:26; 87:1; 110:3).

    Hence: “Do you not see that everything in heavens and earth glorify God, including the birds in columns. Each knows his/her/its prayer (Salat) and glorification. God is fully aware of everything you do.” (24:41).

    The following verse is also important: “Are they seeking other than God’s religion, when everything has submitted (aSLaMa) to Him in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly, and to Him they will be returned?” (3:83). Now Layth should ask similar question about how to be a muslim as he asked about how to perform prostration: “Has anyone ever seen any of these creations give charity or deliver God’s message or study the Quran?” So, according to Layth, muslims also should not give charity, should not deliver the message, should not study the Quran, and should not use computers?!!

  1. After quoting verse 2:62 Layth adds: “No, not all of the mentioned people bow and prostrate on the ground. Will they be punished? No, it is the people who do not SUBMIT to The God and FOLLOW HIS COMMANDS that will deserve His punishment.” Again, Layth reaching conclusions hastily. The groups mentioned in the verse (believers, Jews, Nazarenes, and those from other religions) attain salvation as long as they believe in God, do righteous work and believe in hereafter. Perhaps not all these groups bow and prostrate, and perhaps not all these groups believe and follow the Quran, either. First, we should remember that God hold responsible depending on their circumstances. As those who witnessed Moses’ miracles will be hold responsible for their reaction to them, similarly those who are instructed to bow and prostrate will be held responsible for their reaction. Each nation received a messenger and each received their instruction (10:47; 22:34; 40:28).
  2. Referring to verse 18:50, Layth concludes: “There is no need to get on the ground to worship your Lord because He has not commanded us to do this. He wants us to Bow and Prostrate our WILLS to that of HIS WILL.”  This is a reasonable conclusion. However, knowing that the word prostration was also used to mean humbly getting on the ground, we cannot equate the prostration in this verse to all others. The verse refers to an event took place before the creation of life on earth. Besides, the instruction is to Satan, a creature made of energy not matter like us. The nature of prostration asked from Satan or angels might be little different than the one asked from us. Or, more accurately, the form, way or style of our prostration might not necessarily be expected to be the same with angels.­
  3. Layth makes an interesting point: “Most times it is preceded by the word “Khar’a” (fall down), which adds to “prostration” to let us know that it is indeed physical prostration. If “prostration” was automatically understood as physical, there would be no need to add “Khar’a” along with it.” He later quotes verse 12:100 which describes how Joseph’s vision/dream was fulfilled. That verse uses the words “fall” and “prostrate” together. But, Layth forgets that in the beginning of the chapter, Joseph’s vision that describes the very event described in 12:100 uses ONLY one word: SaJeDeen, which means “they were prostrating.
  4. Furthermore, David who was observing Salat prayer is described by the Quran as: “… He then implored his Lord for forgiveness, bowed down (KhaRra RuKka’An), and repented.”  (38:24). David’s repentance is clearly described as bowing down, BOTH MENTAL AND BODILY.
  5. I do not know Layth, but some of his friends are not only reaching the wrong conclusion about the nature of Salat prayer, they further arrogate themselves by insulting, harassing and condemning those believers who observe Salat prayer BOTH MENTALLY and BODILY.
  6. I hope that Layth will carefully re-visit this issue and reform his position. I would like to remind him and others who are trying hard to eliminate the formal component of Salaat prayer the following verse:

“… When the revelations of the Gracious are recited to them, they fall prostrate (KhaRRu SuJjaDan), weeping.” (19:58)

 

Share

Divine Will and Human Freedom

Posted by on
Share

Divine Will and Human Freedom

Abdur Rab

align=

Shakespeare writes: “Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them.” This pretty much sums up the role of the three groups of factors that shape human destiny: heredity, human effort, and environment. This also echoes what Scriptures would tell us.

Influenced by Muslim traditions and Muslim and Christian scholars and theologians, Muslims and Christians widely believe that God predestines the fate of human beings – how long they live, how they live, what fortune or misfortune they enjoy or suffer in life — no matter what they actually do during their time on earth. But if this were true, as I concluded in an earlier article, the whole case for religion that makes man responsible for his actions would crumble. Destiny plays a part in human life, but man largely shapes his own destiny.

The Quran states that God has created everything in due measure (taqdir, proportion or destiny) (25:2). Shakespeare puts it: “There’s a divinity that shapes our ends.” The German Philosopher Goethe says: “Man supposes that he directs his life and governs his actions, when his existence is irretrievably under the control of destiny.” David Eagleman notes in his book Incognito: “Most of what we do and think and feel is not under our conscious control.” He documents how human biology, especially the brain’s constitution and health, affects human behavior.

Certainly, though, destiny is a tricky term to understand. Often what we may call destiny or fate befalling us is nothing but the outcome of what we (or our forefathers or society) have done. The Quran states along these lines: “Whatever misfortune strikes you is due to what your hands have earned” (42:30) and “Laisa lil insani illa ma sa’a – There’s nothing for man without effort” (53:39; also see 20:15; 2:286).

The history of human civilization is that of human endeavor: unprecedented material prosperity, immense improvement in human living standards, impressive development in prevention and control of diseases, and a sharp increase in human longevity. Also look at man-caused fires, massacres, injustice, humiliation, inequality, poverty, and misery. This dark record of what man has done made Wordsworth lament “what man has made of man!” With all the arms build-up worldwide and arms race and nuclear proliferation going apace, the world stands at a tipping point. World peace hangs on a very delicate balance.

In their dreams and visions, individuals sometimes see things that foretell future events. The Quran also announces some important events in advance: the birth of Jesus who would be worthy of respect in both worlds (3:45); the birth of John (Yahya) who would be an honorable prophet to his people (3:39); Muslims’ victory at the Badr battle (3:124-126; 8:9-12); and the fall of the Roman empire (30:2-4). Call, if you will, such dreams, visions, and announcements vindications of Divine will. However, an analysis of such predicted events may suggest that underlying factors at play in most cases are rather hereditary or environmental, reflecting the predominant role of human effort, present or past.

That God does not directly will or influence events is brought out by several verses of the Quran. A key passage reads as: “Surely God does not change the condition of people until they change their own selves (nafs)” (13:11). Still another states that God lands one where one chooses to turn (4:115). God mocks those who do not feed the poor and says that if God willed, He could have fed them (36:47). Also: “If God willed, He could have guided us all” (6:149), “If He willed, He could have made humankind one nation” (5:48), and “If He willed, all would have believed” (10:99). The import of all these verses is that God does not directly determine our affairs.

Look at another important Quran verse that unequivocally upholds freedom of human choice: “The Truth (has now come) from your Lord; let, then, him who wills believe (in it), and let him who wills reject (it)” (18:29). There are other verses that categorically make human beings accountable for their own actions: “You are responsible for your own selves” (5:105) and “Spend in God’s cause, and let not your own hands lead you to ruin” (2:195).

But what do you make of such statements in the Quran that say that nothing happens without God’s knowledge (2:33) and that everything is in the Book (78:29)? Is human freedom limited by God’s knowledge and power? A great Islamic thinker Indian-Pakistani poet, philosopher Muhammad Iqbal does not think so. In his seminal work Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, he forcefully and beautifully describes God’s knowledge and power in a way that admits of freely exercised creativity on the part of humankind: “If history is regarded merely as a gradually revealed photo of a predetermined order of events, then there is no room in it for novelty and initiation. Consequently, we can attach no meaning to the word ‘creation’, which has a meaning for us only in view of our own capacity for original action. The truth is that the whole theological controversy relating to predestination is due to pure speculation with no eye on the spontaneity of life, which is a fact of actual experience. No doubt, the emergence of egos endowed with the power of spontaneous and hence unforeseeable action is, in a sense, a limitation on the freedom of the all-inclusive Ego. But this limitation is not externally imposed. It is born out of His own creative freedom whereby He has chosen finite egos to be participators of His life, power, and freedom.” He further aptly notes:

It is the lot of man to share in the deeper aspirations of the universe around him and to shape his own destiny as well as that of the universe […] And in this process of progressive change God becomes a co-worker with him, provided man takes the initiative.

Several Quran verses encapsulate this idea of God becoming a co-worker with man (13:11; 8:53; 19:76; 42:23; 2:26). God adds good to those who do good (42:23). This is a God’s Law: If you start doing something good, you’re further inclined to doing the good things and if you start doing evil, you’re further attracted to the evil.

Man, as all the creation, is subject to the Laws of God, which scientists call the Laws of Nature. But note: God Himself is subject to such Laws. He never changes His Sunnah or Ways (35:43, 17:77). This Divine will, of course, constrains human freedom. None can work in contravention of such laws. But this is a general constraining factor as well as a blessing for humankind. If things hadn’t been that way, we couldn’t have ever known for sure what works for us and what does not and all scientific research would have come to a standstill.

Evolution is a natural process, taking place throughout the universe. Evolution is a manifestation of Divine will.

[For a related article by Edip Yuksel see: Free Will or Predestination? ]

*******************

Abdur Rab is the author of Exploring Islam in a New Light: A View from the Quranic Perspective, 2010

First Published at AslanMedia in 29 July 2012
*Photo Credit: Usman Ahmed

 

Share

Free Will or Predestination?

Posted by on
Share

Free Will or Predestination?

Edip Yuksel
31 July 2012
www.19.org

 

From Quran a Reformist Translation:

57:22 No misfortune can happen on earth, or in yourselves, except it is decreed in a record, before We bring it about. This is easy for God to do.*

57:23 In order that you do not despair over anything that has passed you by, nor be exultant of anything He has bestowed upon you. God does not like those who are boastful, proud.

Edip Yuksel’s Note:

057:022-23 Proving the existence of free will is philosophically and scientifically impossible. Considering Gödel’s incom-pleteness theorem, it is impossible to eliminate axioms in axiomatic deductions. The assertion, “I have freedom of will” is not only nonfalsifiable, but also contradicts the deterministic laws governing matter and energy. As Nietzsche and Blanchard argued, it might be impossible to predict the interactive motion of hundreds of billiard balls, yet the motion of each ball depends on the mass and velocity of the ball colliding it. The motion of all balls depends on the motion of the first ball, and its motion depends on the angle and kinetic energy of the cue, which passes it to the balls during the impact. Sartre and other atheistic existentialists assumed the existence of freedom of will by asserting that “existence preceded essence” yet they never explained why one egg ended up with a snake while another with a bird; they ignored the fact that there could not be existence without essence.

Nevertheless, if there is freedom of will, it cannot be possible without an omnipotent, the greatest paradox-solver God. Without God, there is no justification for believing in one’s freedom in a world where every atom and molecule works in a deterministic way. Does the human brain function according to the quantum laws governing quarks? So far, there is no scientific evi-dence showing such a relationship. Mus-lims cannot be accused of being fatalistic; to the contrary, freedom of will is only possible with the existence of God, and muslims can only be accused of believing in freedom of will. See 6:110; 7:15,30; 13:11; 18:29; 42:13,48; 46:15; 57:22.

However, acceptance of freedom of will based on divine communication creates other logical problems or paradoxes. Leaving aside the uncertainty principle and speculations related to quantum physics, it seems impossible to assert the freedom of an agent who did not even choose his or her genetic makeup, the time, the space, and the conditions where he or she would be born. Obviously, this is a paradox, since it is impossible to choose existence or the qualities of existence without having an existence or the qualities for choosing qualities! In other words, the paradox of freedom of will is triggered at the moment of creation. Did God ask us whether to give us freedom of will and subject us to a test? If yes, then how could we have the freedom to choose or reject freedom, if we did not have it in the first place? If no, then, how can we have freedom of will, while we were forced to have it in the first place?

Though believing that we humans have freedom of will is one of the paradoxes most difficult to digest, I acknowledge it because of the proven book (18:29; 57:22).

God, as a demonstration of His creative powers, chose to test the results of creating a being with the ability to freely choose its own destiny (18:29; 6:110; 13:11). God downloaded His ruh (revelation/ information/logic) to the prototypical human that would provide him with innate rules of reasoning to distinguish falsehood from truth, bad from good (15:29; 32:9; 38:72;). Messengers and books containing ruh were only a bonus mercy, mere reminders of the facts that could be discovered by reason (2:37-38; 10:57; 11:17; 16:89; 21:107; 29:51; 16:2; 36:69; 37:87; 39:21; 42:52; 58:22). After the two human prototypes failed the first test (2:11-27), God created life and death on this planet to give another chance, to reform ourselves, this time subjecting billions of individuals inheriting and operating the same basic program to the same test (67:2). After letting the program run for a period, an individual is deemed accountable to God (46:15). God decided to punish those who freely choose a path contradictory to its original program as they corrupt it through false ideas and actions (2:57; 4:107; 6:12,20,26,110; 7:9,30,53,177; 59:19). The programs that are infected with viruses will experience a regretful stage in a quarantine called Hell (Hell and Paradise are allegories: 13:35; 17:60; 37:62-64; 7:44-50). In this stage the corrupt programs and their chief infector (Satan) will be penalized (7:11-27; 38:71-88), and then they will altogether be annihilated there (87:13). The only virus that will not be healed on the day of Judgment is the virus that creates a schizophrenic personality, a personality that submits itself to others besides God, a personality that does not free itself from false gods thereby alienating itself from its origin, that is God (4:48,116).

Share

Destroying the Commons: On Shredding the Magna Carta

Posted by on
Share

Published on Monday, July 23, 2012 by TomDispatch.com

Destroying the Commons:
On Shredding the Magna Carta

by Noam Chomsky

Down the road only a few generations, the millennium of Magna Carta, one of the great events in the establishment of civil and human rights, will arrive.  Whether it will be celebrated, mourned, or ignored is not at all clear.One of only four surviving exemplifications of the 1215 text, Cotton MS. Augustus II. 106 (Property of the British Library)

That should be a matter of serious immediate concern.  What we do right now, or fail to do, will determine what kind of world will greet that event.  It is not an attractive prospect if present tendencies persist — not least, because the Great Charter is being shredded before our eyes.

The first scholarly edition of Magna Carta was published by the eminent jurist William Blackstone.  It was not an easy task.  There was no good text available.  As he wrote, “the body of the charter has been unfortunately gnawn by rats” — a comment that carries grim symbolism today, as we take up the task the rats left unfinished.

Blackstone’s edition actually includes two charters.  It was entitled The Great Charter and the Charter of the Forest.  The first, the Charter of Liberties, is widely recognized to be the foundation of the fundamental rights of the English-speaking peoples — or as Winston Churchill put it more expansively, “the charter of every self-respecting man at any time in any land.” Churchill was referring specifically to the reaffirmation of the Charter by Parliament in the Petition of Right, imploring King Charles to recognize that the law is sovereign, not the King.  Charles agreed briefly, but soon violated his pledge, setting the stage for the murderous Civil War.

After a bitter conflict between King and Parliament, the power of royalty in the person of Charles II was restored.  In defeat, Magna Carta was not forgotten.  One of the leaders of Parliament, Henry Vane, was beheaded.  On the scaffold, he tried to read a speech denouncing the sentence as a violation of Magna Carta, but was drowned out by trumpets to ensure that such scandalous words would not be heard by the cheering crowds.  His major crime had been to draft a petition calling the people “the original of all just power” in civil society — not the King, not even God.  That was the position that had been strongly advocated by Roger Williams, the founder of the first free society in what is now the state of Rhode Island.  His heretical views influenced Milton and Locke, though Williams went much farther, founding the modern doctrine of separation of church and state, still much contested even in the liberal democracies.

As often is the case, apparent defeat nevertheless carried the struggle for freedom and rights forward.  Shortly after Vane’s execution, King Charles granted a Royal Charter to the Rhode Island plantations, declaring that “the form of government is Democratical,” and furthermore that the government could affirm freedom of conscience for Papists, atheists, Jews, Turks — even Quakers, one of the most feared and brutalized of the many sects that were appearing in those turbulent days.  All of this was astonishing in the climate of the times.

A few years later, the Charter of Liberties was enriched by the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, formally entitled “an Act for the better securing the liberty of the subject, and for prevention of imprisonment beyond the seas.” The U.S. Constitution, borrowing from English common law, affirms that “the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended” except in case of rebellion or invasion.  In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the rights guaranteed by this Act were “[c]onsidered by the Founders [of the American Republic] as the highest safeguard of liberty.” All of these words should resonate today.

The Second Charter and the Commons

The significance of the companion charter, the Charter of the Forest, is no less profound and perhaps even more pertinent today — as explored in depth by Peter Linebaugh in his richly documented and stimulating history of Magna Carta and its later trajectory.  The Charter of the Forest demanded protection of the commons from external power.  The commons were the source of sustenance for the general population: their fuel, their food, their construction materials, whatever was essential for life.  The forest was no primitive wilderness.  It had been carefully developed over generations, maintained in common, its riches available to all, and preserved for future generations — practices found today primarily in traditional societies that are under threat throughout the world.

The Charter of the Forest imposed limits to privatization.  The Robin Hood myths capture the essence of its concerns (and it is not too surprising that the popular TV series of the 1950s, “The Adventures of Robin Hood,” was written anonymously by Hollywood screenwriters blacklisted for leftist convictions).  By the seventeenth century, however, this Charter had fallen victim to the rise of the commodity economy and capitalist practice and morality.

With the commons no longer protected for cooperative nurturing and use, the rights of the common people were restricted to what could not be privatized, a category that continues to shrink to virtual invisibility.  In Bolivia, the attempt to privatize water was, in the end, beaten back by an uprising that brought the indigenous majority to power for the first time in history.  The World Bank has just ruled that the mining multinational Pacific Rim can proceed with a case against El Salvador for trying to preserve lands and communities from highly destructive gold mining.  Environmental constraints threaten to deprive the company of future profits, a crime that can be punished under the rules of the investor-rights regime mislabeled as “free trade.” And this is only a tiny sample of struggles underway over much of the world, some involving extreme violence, as in the Eastern Congo, where millions have been killed in recent years to ensure an ample supply of minerals for cell phones and other uses, and of course ample profits.

The rise of capitalist practice and morality brought with it a radical revision of how the commons are treated, and also of how they are conceived.  The prevailing view today is captured by Garrett Hardin’s influential argument that “freedom in a commons brings ruin to us all,” the famous “tragedy of the commons”: what is not owned will be destroyed by individual avarice.

An international counterpart was the concept of terra nullius, employed to justify the expulsion of indigenous populations in the settler-colonial societies of the Anglosphere, or their “extermination,” as the founding fathers of the American Republic described what they were doing, sometimes with remorse, after the fact.  According to this useful doctrine, the Indians had no property rights since they were just wanderers in an untamed wilderness.  And the hard-working colonists could create value where there was none by turning that same wilderness to commercial use.

In reality, the colonists knew better and there were elaborate procedures of purchase and ratification by crown and parliament, later annulled by force when the evil creatures resisted extermination.  The doctrine is often attributed to John Locke, but that is dubious.  As a colonial administrator, he understood what was happening, and there is no basis for the attribution in his writings, as contemporary scholarship has shown convincingly, notably the work of the Australian scholar Paul Corcoran.  (It was in Australia, in fact, that the doctrine has been most brutally employed.)

The grim forecasts of the tragedy of the commons are not without challenge.  The late Elinor Olstrom won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2009 for her work showing the superiority of user-managed fish stocks, pastures, woods, lakes, and groundwater basins.  But the conventional doctrine has force if we accept its unstated premise: that humans are blindly driven by what American workers, at the dawn of the industrial revolution, bitterly called “the New Spirit of the Age, Gain Wealth forgetting all but Self.”

Like peasants and workers in England before them, American workers denounced this New Spirit, which was being imposed upon them, regarding it as demeaning and destructive, an assault on the very nature of free men and women.  And I stress women; among those most active and vocal in condemning the destruction of the rights and dignity of free people by the capitalist industrial system were the “factory girls,” young women from the farms.  They, too, were driven into the regime of supervised and controlled wage labor, which was regarded at the time as different from chattel slavery only in that it was temporary.  That stand was considered so natural that it became a slogan of the Republican Party, and a banner under which northern workers carried arms during the American Civil War.

Controlling the Desire for Democracy

That was 150 years ago — in England earlier.  Huge efforts have been devoted since to inculcating the New Spirit of the Age.  Major industries are devoted to the task: public relations, advertising, marketing generally, all of which add up to a very large component of the Gross Domestic Product.  They are dedicated to what the great political economist Thorstein Veblen called “fabricating wants.” In the words of business leaders themselves, the task is to direct people to “the superficial things” of life, like “fashionable consumption.” That way people can be atomized, separated from one another, seeking personal gain alone, diverted from dangerous efforts to think for themselves and challenge authority.

The process of shaping opinion, attitudes, and perceptions was termed the “engineering of consent” by one of the founders of the modern public relations industry, Edward Bernays.  He was a respected Wilson-Roosevelt-Kennedy progressive, much like his contemporary, journalist Walter Lippmann, the most prominent public intellectual of twentieth century America, who praised “the manufacture of consent” as a “new art” in the practice of democracy.

Both recognized that the public must be “put in its place,” marginalized and controlled — for their own interests of course.  They were too “stupid and ignorant” to be allowed to run their own affairs.  That task was to be left to the “intelligent minority,” who must be protected from “the trampling and the roar of [the] bewildered herd,” the “ignorant and meddlesome outsiders” — the “rascal multitude” as they were termed by their seventeenth century predecessors.  The role of the general population was to be “spectators,” not “participants in action,” in a properly functioning democratic society.

And the spectators must not be allowed to see too much.  President Obama has set new standards in safeguarding this principle.  He has, in fact, punished more whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined, a real achievement for an administration that came to office promising transparency. WikiLeaks is only the most famous case, with British cooperation.

Among the many topics that are not the business of the bewildered herd is foreign affairs.  Anyone who has studied declassified secret documents will have discovered that, to a large extent, their classification was meant to protect public officials from public scrutiny.  Domestically, the rabble should not hear the advice given by the courts to major corporations: that they should devote some highly visible efforts to good works, so that an “aroused public” will not discover the enormous benefits provided to them by the nanny state.  More generally the U.S. public should not learn that “state policies are overwhelmingly regressive, thus reinforcing and expanding social inequality,” though designed in ways that lead “people to think that the government helps only the undeserving poor, allowing politicians to mobilize and exploit anti-government rhetoric and values even as they continue to funnel support to their better-off constituents” — I’m quoting from the main establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, not from some radical rag.

Over time, as societies became freer and the resort to state violence more constrained, the urge to devise sophisticated methods of control of attitudes and opinion has only grown.  It is natural that the immense PR industry should have been created in the most free of societies, the United States and Great Britain.  The first modern propaganda agency was the British Ministry of Information a century ago, which secretly defined its task as “to direct the thought of most of the world” — primarily progressive American intellectuals, who had to be mobilized to come to the aid of Britain during World War I.

Its U.S. counterpart, the Committee on Public Information, was formed by Woodrow Wilson to drive a pacifist population to violent hatred of all things German — with remarkable success.  American commercial advertising deeply impressed others.  Goebbels admired it and adapted it to Nazi propaganda, all too successfully.  The Bolshevik leaders tried as well, but their efforts were clumsy and ineffective.

A primary domestic task has always been “to keep [the public] from our throats,” as essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson described the concerns of political leaders when the threat of democracy was becoming harder to suppress in the mid-nineteenth century.  More recently, the activism of the 1960s elicited elite concerns about “excessive democracy,” and calls for measures to impose “more moderation” in democracy.

One particular concern was to introduce better controls over the institutions “responsible for the indoctrination of the young”: the schools, the universities, the churches, which were seen as failing that essential task.  I’m quoting reactions from the left-liberal end of the mainstream spectrum, the liberal internationalists who later staffed the Carter administration, and their counterparts in other industrial societies.  The right wing was much harsher.  One of many manifestations of this urge has been the sharp rise in college tuition, not on economic grounds, as is easily shown.  The device does, however, trap and control young people by debt, often for the rest of their lives, thus contributing to more effective indoctrination.

The Three-Fifths People

Pursuing these important topics further, we see that the destruction of the Charter of the Forest, and its obliteration from memory, relates rather closely to the continuing efforts to constrain the promise of the Charter of Liberties.  The “New Spirit of the Age” cannot tolerate the pre-capitalist conception of the Forest as the shared endowment of the community at large, cared for communally for its own use and for future generations, protected from privatization, from transfer to the hands of private power for service to wealth, not needs.  Inculcating the New Spirit is an essential prerequisite for achieving this end, and for preventing the Charter of Liberties from being misused to enable free citizens to determine their own fate.

Popular struggles to bring about a freer and more just society have been resisted by violence and repression, and massive efforts to control opinion and attitudes.  Over time, however, they have met with considerable success, even though there is a long way to go and there is often regression.  Right now, in fact.

The most famous part of the Charter of Liberties is Article 39, which declares that “no free man” shall be punished in any way, “nor will We proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land.”

Through many years of struggle, the principle has come to hold more broadly.  The U.S. Constitution provides that no “person [shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law [and] a speedy and public trial” by peers.  The basic principle is “presumption of innocence” — what legal historians describe as “the seed of contemporary Anglo-American freedom,” referring to Article 39; and with the Nuremberg Tribunal in mind, a “particularly American brand of legalism: punishment only for those who could be proved to be guilty through a fair trial with a panoply of procedural protections” — even if their guilt for some of the worst crimes in history is not in doubt.

The founders of course did not intend the term “person” to apply to all persons. Native Americans were not persons.  Their rights were virtually nil.  Women were scarcely persons.  Wives were understood to be “covered” under the civil identity of their husbands in much the same way as children were subject to their parents.  Blackstone’s principles held that “the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, andcover, she performs every thing.” Women are thus the property of their fathers or husbands.  These principles remain up to very recent years.  Until a Supreme Court decision of 1975, women did not even have a legal right to serve on juries.  They were not peers.  Just two weeks ago, Republican opposition blocked the Fairness Paycheck Act guaranteeing women equal pay for equal work.  And it goes far beyond.

Slaves, of course, were not persons.  They were in fact three-fifths human under the Constitution, so as to grant their owners greater voting power.  Protection of slavery was no slight concern to the founders: it was one factor leading to the American revolution.  In the 1772 Somerset case, Lord Mansfield determined that slavery is so “odious” that it cannot be tolerated in England, though it continued in British possessions for many years.  American slave-owners could see the handwriting on the wall if the colonies remained under British rule.  And it should be recalled that the slave states, including Virginia, had the greatest power and influence in the colonies.  One can easily appreciate Dr. Johnson’s famous quip that “we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes.”

Post-Civil War amendments extended the concept person to African-Americans, ending slavery.  In theory, at least.  After about a decade of relative freedom, a condition akin to slavery was reintroduced by a North-South compact permitting the effective criminalization of black life.  A black male standing on a street corner could be arrested for vagrancy, or for attempted rape if accused of looking at a white woman the wrong way.  And once imprisoned he had few chances of ever escaping the system of “slavery by another name,” the term used by then-Wall Street Journal bureau chief Douglas Blackmon in an arresting study.

This new version of the “peculiar institution” provided much of the basis for the American industrial revolution, with a perfect work force for the steel industry and mining, along with agricultural production in the famous chain gangs: docile, obedient, no strikes, and no need for employers even to sustain their workers, an improvement over slavery.  The system lasted in large measure until World War II, when free labor was needed for war production.

The postwar boom offered employment.  A black man could get a job in a unionized auto plant, earn a decent salary, buy a house, and maybe send his children to college.  That lasted for about 20 years, until the 1970s, when the economy was radically redesigned on newly dominant neoliberal principles, with rapid growth of financialization and the offshoring of production.  The black population, now largely superfluous, has been recriminalized.

Until Ronald Reagan’s presidency, incarceration in the U.S. was within the spectrum of industrial societies.  By now it is far beyond others.  It targets primarily black males, increasingly also black women and Hispanics, largely guilty of victimless crimes under the fraudulent “drug wars.” Meanwhile, the wealth of African-American families has been virtually obliterated by the latest financial crisis, in no small measure thanks to criminal behavior of financial institutions, with impunity for the perpetrators, now richer than ever.

Looking over the history of African-Americans from the first arrival of slaves almost 500 years ago to the present, they have enjoyed the status of authentic persons for only a few decades.  There is a long way to go to realize the promise of Magna Carta.

Sacred Persons and Undone Process

The post-Civil War fourteenth amendment granted the rights of persons to former slaves, though mostly in theory.  At the same time, it created a new category of persons with rights: corporations.  In fact, almost all the cases brought to the courts under the fourteenth amendment had to do with corporate rights, and by a century ago, they had determined that these collectivist legal fictions, established and sustained by state power, had the full rights of persons of flesh and blood; in fact, far greater rights, thanks to their scale, immortality, and protections of limited liability.  Their rights by now far transcend those of mere humans.  Under the “free trade agreements,” Pacific Rim can, for example, sue El Salvador for seeking to protect the environment; individuals cannot do the same.  General Motors can claim national rights in Mexico.  There is no need to dwell on what would happen if a Mexican demanded national rights in the United States.

Domestically, recent Supreme Court rulings greatly enhance the already enormous political power of corporations and the super-rich, striking further blows against the tottering relics of functioning political democracy.

Meanwhile Magna Carta is under more direct assault.  Recall the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, which barred “imprisonment beyond the seas,” and certainly the far more vicious procedure of imprisonment abroad for the purpose of torture — what is now more politely called “rendition,” as when Tony Blair rendered Libyan dissident Abdel Hakim Belhaj, now a leader of the rebellion, to the mercies of Qaddafi; or when U.S. authorities deported Canadian citizen Maher Arar to his native Syria, for imprisonment and torture, only later conceding that there was never any case against him.  And many others, often through Shannon Airport, leading to courageous protests in Ireland.

The concept of due process has been extended under the Obama administration’s international assassination campaign in a way that renders this core element of the Charter of Liberties (and the Constitution) null and void.  The Justice Department explained that the constitutional guarantee of due process, tracing to Magna Carta, is now satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch alone.  The constitutional lawyer in the White House agreed.  King John might have nodded with satisfaction.

The issue arose after the presidentially ordered assassination-by-drone of Anwar al-Awlaki, accused of inciting jihad in speech, writing, and unspecified actions.  A headline in the New York Times captured the general elite reaction when he was murdered in a drone attack, along with the usual collateral damage.  It read: “The West celebrates a cleric’s death.” Some eyebrows were lifted, however, because he was an American citizen, which raised questions about due process — considered irrelevant when non-citizens are murdered at the whim of the chief executive.  And irrelevant for citizens, too, under Obama administration due-process legal innovations.

Presumption of innocence has also been given a new and useful interpretation.  As the New York Times reported, “Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.” So post-assassination determination of innocence maintains the sacred principle of presumption of innocence.

It would be ungracious to recall the Geneva Conventions, the foundation of modern humanitarian law: they bar “the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”

The most famous recent case of executive assassination was Osama bin Laden, murdered after he was apprehended by 79 Navy seals, defenseless, accompanied only by his wife, his body reportedly dumped at sea without autopsy.  Whatever one thinks of him, he was a suspect and nothing more than that.  Even the FBI agreed.

Celebration in this case was overwhelming, but there were a few questions raised about the bland rejection of the principle of presumption of innocence, particularly when trial was hardly impossible.  These were met with harsh condemnations.  The most interesting was by a respected left-liberal political commentator, Matthew Yglesias, who explained that “one of the main functions of the international institutional order is precisely to legitimate the use of deadly military force by western powers,” so it is “amazingly naïve” to suggest that the U.S. should obey international law or other conditions that we righteously demand of the weak.

Only tactical objections can be raised to aggression, assassination, cyberwar, or other actions that the Holy State undertakes in the service of mankind.  If the traditional victims see matters somewhat differently, that merely reveals their moral and intellectual backwardness. And the occasional Western critic who fails to comprehend these fundamental truths can be dismissed as “silly,” Yglesias explains — incidentally, referring specifically to me, and I cheerfully confess my guilt.

Executive Terrorist Lists

Perhaps the most striking assault on the foundations of traditional liberties is a little-known case brought to the Supreme Court by the Obama administration, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.  The Project was condemned for providing “material assistance” to the guerrilla organization PKK, which has fought for Kurdish rights in Turkey for many years and is listed as a terrorist group by the state executive.  The “material assistance” was legal advice.  The wording of the ruling would appear to apply quite broadly, for example, to discussions and research inquiry, even advice to the PKK to keep to nonviolent means.  Again, there was a marginal fringe of criticism, but even those accepted the legitimacy of the state terrorist list — arbitrary decisions by the executive, with no recourse.

The record of the terrorist list is of some interest.  For example, in 1988 the Reagan administration declared Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress to be one of the world’s “more notorious terrorist groups,” so that Reagan could continue his support for the Apartheid regime and its murderous depredations in South Africa and in neighboring countries, as part of his “war on terror.” Twenty years later Mandela was finally removed from the terrorist list, and can now travel to the U.S. without a special waiver.

Another interesting case is Saddam Hussein, removed from the terrorist list in 1982 so that the Reagan administration could provide him with support for his invasion of Iran.  The support continued well after the war ended.  In 1989, President Bush I even invited Iraqi nuclear engineers to the U.S. for advanced training in weapons production — more information that must be kept from the eyes of the “ignorant and meddlesome outsiders.”

One of the ugliest examples of the use of the terrorist list has to do with the tortured people of Somalia.  Immediately after September 11th, the United States closed down the Somali charitable network Al-Barakaat on grounds that it was financing terror. This achievement was hailed one of the great successes of the “war on terror.” In contrast, Washington’s withdrawal of its charges as without merit a year later aroused little notice.

Al-Barakaat was responsible for about half the $500 million in remittances to Somalia, “more than it earns from any other economic sector and 10 times the amount of foreign aid [Somalia] receives” a U.N. review determined.  The charity also ran major businesses in Somalia, all destroyed.  The leading academic scholar of Bush’s “financial war on terror,” Ibrahim Warde, concludes that apart from devastating the economy, this frivolous attack on a very fragile society “may have played a role in the rise… of Islamic fundamentalists,” another familiar consequence of the “war on terror.”

The very idea that the state should have the authority to make such judgments is a serious offense against the Charter of Liberties, as is the fact that it is considered uncontentious.  If the Charter’s fall from grace continues on the path of the past few years, the future of rights and liberties looks dim.

Who Will Have the Last Laugh?

A few final words on the fate of the Charter of the Forest.  Its goal was to protect the source of sustenance for the population, the commons, from external power — in the early days, royalty; over the years, enclosures and other forms of privatization by predatory corporations and the state authorities who cooperate with them, have only accelerated and are properly rewarded.  The damage is very broad.

If we listen to voices from the South today we can learn that “the conversion of public goods into private property through the privatization of our otherwise commonly held natural environment is one way neoliberal institutions remove the fragile threads that hold African nations together.  Politics today has been reduced to a lucrative venture where one looks out mainly for returns on investment rather than on what one can contribute to rebuild highly degraded environments, communities, and a nation.  This is one of the benefits that structural adjustment programmes inflicted on the continent — the enthronement of corruption.” I’m quoting Nigerian poet and activist Nnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends of the Earth International, in his searing expose of the ravaging of Africa’s wealth, To Cook a Continent, the latest phase of the Western torture of Africa.

Torture that has always been planned at the highest level, it should be recognized.  At the end of World War II, the U.S. held a position of unprecedented global power.  Not surprisingly, careful and sophisticated plans were developed about how to organize the world.  Each region was assigned its “function” by State Department planners, headed by the distinguished diplomat George Kennan.  He determined that the U.S. had no special interest in Africa, so it should be handed over to Europe to “exploit” — his word — for its reconstruction.  In the light of history, one might have imagined a different relation between Europe and Africa, but there is no indication that that was ever considered.

More recently, the U.S. has recognized that it, too, must join the game of exploiting Africa, along with new entries like China, which is busily at work compiling one of the worst records in destruction of the environment and oppression of the hapless victims.

It should be unnecessary to dwell on the extreme dangers posed by one central element of the predatory obsessions that are producing calamities all over the world: the reliance on fossil fuels, which courts global disaster, perhaps in the not-too-distant future.  Details may be debated, but there is little serious doubt that the problems are serious, if not awesome, and that the longer we delay in addressing them, the more awful will be the legacy left to generations to come.  There are some efforts to face reality, but they are far too minimal. The recent Rio+20 Conference opened with meager aspirations and derisory outcomes.

Meanwhile, power concentrations are charging in the opposite direction, led by the richest and most powerful country in world history.  Congressional Republicans are dismantling the limited environmental protections initiated by Richard Nixon, who would be something of a dangerous radical in today’s political scene.  The major business lobbies openly announce their propaganda campaigns to convince the public that there is no need for undue concern — with some effect, as polls show.

The media cooperate by not even reporting the increasingly dire forecasts of international agencies and even the U.S. Department of Energy.  The standard presentation is a debate between alarmists and skeptics: on one side virtually all qualified scientists, on the other a few holdouts.  Not part of the debate are a very large number of experts, including the climate change program at MIT among others, who criticize the scientific consensus because it is too conservative and cautious, arguing that the truth when it comes to climate change is far more dire.  Not surprisingly, the public is confused.

In his State of the Union speech in January, President Obama hailed the bright prospects of a century of energy self-sufficiency, thanks to new technologies that permit extraction of hydrocarbons from Canadian tar sands, shale, and other previously inaccessible sources.  Others agree.  The Financial Times forecasts a century of energy independence for the U.S.  The report does mention the destructive local impact of the new methods.  Unasked in these optimistic forecasts is the question what kind of a world will survive the rapacious onslaught.

In the lead in confronting the crisis throughout the world are indigenous communities, those who have always upheld the Charter of the Forests.  The strongest stand has been taken by the one country they govern, Bolivia, the poorest country in South America and for centuries a victim of western destruction of the rich resources of one of the most advanced of the developed societies in the hemisphere, pre-Columbus.

After the ignominious collapse of the Copenhagen global climate change summit in 2009, Bolivia organized a People’s Summit with 35,000 participants from 140 countries — not just representatives of governments, but also civil society and activists.  It produced a People’s Agreement, which called for very sharp reduction in emissions, and a Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth.  That is a key demand of indigenous communities all over the world.  It is ridiculed by sophisticated westerners, but unless we can acquire some of their sensibility, they are likely to have the last laugh — a laugh of grim despair.

This is the full text of a speech he gave recently at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland.His web site is www.chomsky.info. To catch Timothy MacBain’s latest Tomcast audio interview in which Chomsky discusses the recent shredding of the principles of the Magna Carta, click here or download it to your iPod here.

© 2012 Noam Chomsky
Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor (retired) at MIT. He is the author of many books and articles on international affairs and social-political issues, and a long-time participant in activist movements. His most recent books include: Making the Future: Occupations, Interventions, Empire and Resistance (City Lights Open Media), Hopes and Prospects, andProfit Over People: Neoliberalism & Global Order. Previous books include: 9-11: 10th Anniversary Edition, Failed States, What We Say Goes (with David Barsamian), Hegemony or Survival, and the Essential Chomsky.

Share

Three Big Lies Perpetuated by the Rich

Posted by on
Share

Published on Monday, July 23, 2012 by Common Dreams

Three Big Lies Perpetuated by the Rich

 The richest 10% of Americans own over 80% of the stock market.

When it comes to the economy, too many Americans continue to be numbed by the soothing sounds of conservative spin in the media. Here are three of their more inventive claims:

1. Higher taxes on the rich will hurt small businesses and discourage job creators

A recent Treasury analysis found that only 2.5% of small businesses would face higher taxes from the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

As for job creation, it’s not coming from the people with money. Over 90% of the assets owned by millionaires are held in a combination of low-risk investments (bonds and cash), the stock market, real estate, and personal business accounts. Angel investing (capital provided by affluent individuals for business start-ups) accounted for less than 1% of the investable assets of high net worth individuals in North America in 2011. The Mendelsohn Affluent Survey agreed that the very rich spend less than two percent of their money on new business startups.

The Wall Street Journal noted, in way of confirmation, that the extra wealth created by the Bush tax cuts led to the “worst track record for jobs in recorded history.”

2. Individual initiative is all you need for success.

President Obama was criticized for a speech which included these words: “If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own…when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

‘Together’ is the word that winner-take-all conservatives seem to forget. Even the richest and arguably most successful American, Bill Gates, owes most of his good fortune to the thousands of software and hardware designers who shaped the technological industry over a half-century or more. A careful analysis of his rise shows that he had luck, networking skills, and a timely sense of opportunism, even to the point of taking the work of competitors and adapting it as his own.

Gates was preceded by numerous illustrious Americans who are considered individual innovators when in fact they used their skills to build upon the work of others. On the day that Alexander Graham Bell filed for a patent for his telephone, electrical engineer Elisha Gray was filing an intent to patent a similar device. Both had built upon the work of Antonio Meucci, who didn’t have the fee to file for a patent. Thomas Edison’s incandescent light bulb was the culmination of almost 40 years of work by other fellow light bulb developers. Samuel Morse, Eli Whitney, the Wright brothers, and even Thomas Edison had, as eloquently stated byJared Diamond, “capable predecessors…and made their improvements at a time when society was capable of using their product.”

If anything, it’s harder than ever today to ascend through the ranks on one’s own. As summarized in the Pew research report “Pursuing the American Dream,” only 4% of those starting out in the bottom quintile make it to the top quintile as adults, “confirming that the ‘rags-to-riches’ story is more often found in Hollywood than in reality.”

3. A booming stock market is good for all of us

The news reports would have us believe that happy days are here again when the stock market goes up. But as the market rises, most Americans are getting a smaller slice of the pie.

In a recent Newsweek article, author Daniel Gross gushed that “The stock market has doubled since March 2009, while corporate profits and exports have surged to records.”

But the richest 10% of Americans own over 80% of the stock market. What Mr. Gross referred to as the “democratization of the stock market” is actually, as demonstrated by economist Edward Wolff, a distribution of financial wealth among just the richest 5% of Americans, those earning an average of $500,000 per year.

Thanks in good part to a meager 15% capital gains tax, the richest 400 taxpayers DOUBLED their income and nearly HALVED their tax rates in just seven years (2001-2007). So dramatic is the effect that anyone making more than $34,500 a year in salary and wages is taxed at ahigher rate than an individual with millions in capital gains.

There’s yet more to the madness. The stock market has grown much faster than the GDP over the past century, which means that this special tax rate is being given to people who already own most of the unearned income that keeps expanding faster than the productiveness of real workers.

And one fading illusion: People in the highest class are people of high class.

Scientific American and Psychological Science have both reported that wealthier people are more focused on self, and have less empathy for people unlike themselves.

This sense of self-interest, according to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and other sources, promotes wrongdoing and unethical behavior.

Can’t help but think about bankers and hedge fund managers.

Paul Buchheit

Paul Buchheit is a college teacher, an active member of US Uncut Chicago, founder and developer of social justice and educational websites (UsAgainstGreed.org, PayUpNow.org, RappingHistory.org), and the editor and main author of “American Wars: Illusions and Realities” (Clarity Press). He can be reached at paul@UsAgainstGreed.org.

Share

Why Israel Receive such Global Attention

Posted by on
Share

Why Does Israel Receive Such
Global Attention for its Attrocities?

 

EDIP YUKSEL: The New York Times columnist pulls the tail of the Zionist sacred bull… It is shame that no US president dares to criticize Israeli atrocities, terror, and crimes against humanity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/opinion/06iht-edcohen06.html?

OBJECTION: “Yes, Israel does, but the world has double standards concerning the Middle East:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-how-can-dogooders-possibly-think-that-gaza-is-the-primary-centre-of-injustice-in-middle-east-2804748.html “

EDIP: Brother, here is why Israel’s occupation and atrocities invoke such a strong reaction around the world:

1. LENGTH OF TIME: The Jewish aggression in Palestine, starting with smuggling weapons and terrorizing Palestinian farmers through Zionist terrorist organizations such as Irgun, Hagana, Lehi has been about 100 years. That makes it the longest unresolved conflict in modern history.

2. NUMBER OF PEOPLE/COUNTRIES: Almost all the neighboring countries, especially Lebanon, have suffered from Israeli aggression. The war of 1967 was not initiated by Arabs as the Zionist propaganda machine wants us to believe, but it was a “preemptive strike” chosen by Israel.

3. DAVID VERSUS GOLIATH: There is a huge disparity between the military powers of parties. Israel is the world’s top military power. It has sophisticated weapons such as tanks, jets, drones, and weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear missiles. The people who are subjugated by Israel have nothing except little guns, primitive rockets that even thousands of them unable to kill a single Israeli, and rocks, yes rocks! Have you seen the Palestinian children with rocks in their hands against Israeli tanks? Look at those pictures and tell me who the David is and who the Goliath is!

4. DIVERSITY OF OPPRESSION: Palestinians have been subjected to massacres, banishment, torture, kidnapping, imprisonment, check-point harassment, racial discrimination, destruction of their homes and farms, confiscation of their lands, assassination, covert operations, poisoning, and all the rest.

5. SUPPORT OF THE WORLD POWERS: Israel has been supported unconditionally by the USA and the UK and thus has gotten away with every crime against humanity. Dozens of the United Nations condemnation and sanctions against Israel are vetoed by the world’s super power, which is the biggest arms manufacturer and dealer in the world and the world’s biggest terrorist that have invaded dozens of countries, killed millions of people around the world! BTW; Israel was the number one supporter of the racist South African government before the revolution led by Mandela!

6. DIVERSITY OF DISCRIMINATION: Pals are subjugated, killed, and imprisoned in concentration camps for both their race AND religion by a military state. This double discrimination and subordination increases the suffering dramatically. Palestinian Children witnessing their parents being insulted, harassed, beaten and occasionally kidnapped by the occupying gestapo are traumatized daily.

7. ECONOMIC SUFFOCATION: Pals cannot import or export goods and all their economic and financial activities are controlled and impeded by the occupying illegal Israeli blockade.

8. GLOBAL ZIONIST HEGEMONY: Zionists have infected the financial and political system in the many countries. The United States is no more a democracy nor a republic, since the members of its congress and presidents follow the instructions of AIPAC and other Israeli lobbies. The media too has been infected by the Zionist gangs and the bloody bully is depicted as victim and the powerless victim as the terrorist! Thus, there is a backlash of conscious and sense of justice against this global cancer.

9. BETRAYING THE NAMESAKE: Israel or Jacob, the son of Abraham, was a prophet with model sense of justice and peace. A nation using its name should live by Israel’s principles. Yet, the state of Israel has been betraying the Abrahamic system, which is Peace, and thus creates great disappointment. Besides, it betrays the memories of the victims of one of history’s greatest tragedies, the Holocaust. Those who claims to be the children or kins of those victims have unfortunately have become looking like the Nazis. So, there is double betrayal. Betrayal to recent history and betrayal of ancient history of their ancestors.

10. SEE THE DOCUFILM: OCCUPATION 101 and VISIT http://ifamericansknew.org/

So, my brother, before wondering about why the world is fed-up with the Zionist cancer, you should reflect on ALL OF THESE FACTORS before asking your question.

Share

Questions for Persuasive Paper

Posted by on
Share

DEBATE: Questions for Persuasive Paper

(Edip Yuksel)

  1. Do humans have souls?
  2. Can psychics know the future?
  3. Do we have free will or is everything, including our choices, destined since the Big Bang?
  4. Should eugenics be legalized?
  5. Are the skills and intellectual aptitude of boys and girls grounded in their biological differences?
  6. Should affirmative action continue?
  7. Is capitalism the best economic system?
  8. Does American foreign policy serve Americans or only the short term interest of weapon, oil and other multinational big industries?
  9. Are American kids really spoiled?
  10. Who is right: Palestinians or Israelis?
  11. Should students have longer breaks between the classes?
  12. Do American TV stations and films contribute to violence?
  13. Should we ban guns?
  14. ShouldAmericacontinue spending billions of dollars on making more nuclear weapons?
  15. Should we have a national health care system where every American will have the right for primary health insurance?
  16. Should we restrict immigration further, or open our borders withMexicoandCanada?
  17. Is gambling and lotteries beneficial to the society?
  18. Is drinking wine really healthy?
  19. For a better democracy should we ban campaign contributions dramatically and let the tax money and TV airways to be used to inform public about candidates?
  20. Which one is true? Blind evolution or Intelligent Designer as the cause of first human.
  21. Should computer manufacturers be forced by the government to contain code recognition that will not allow copying of copyrighted music?
  22. Is there a Green House effect?
  23. Should we claim the right of preemptive nuclear strike?
  24. Should government have access to all our personal information, including bank accounts, health records, marriage, etc?
  25. What is nothingness?
  26. Should we open our South Borders?
  27. Is global economy beneficial to America?
  28. How can we fight against international terrorism?
  29. Is there life beyond Earth?
  30. Are UFO’s extra terrestrial vehicles from outer space?
  31. Are commercials and ads useful or harmful to customers?
  32. Should we open the market for transgenic crops?
  33. Are Americans growing horizontally each year? Why?
  34. Should homosexuals be allowed to work in the military?
  35. Is flex time useful?
  36. Should we give capital punishment to murderers?
  37. Should FDA regulate McDonalds and other fast food restaurants?
  38. Should fat and fatty foods be taxed like tobacco?
  39. Should we ban imports that are manufactured in countries with bad human rights records?
  40. Should we ban automobiles in inner cities?
  41. Is the prison population per capita inAmericanormal? What can be done to change it?
  42. What are the most common logical fallacies?
  43. Should we put more tax on inheritance, which are more than a million dollars, per person?
  44. Should we reduce the period for patent protection of medicine?
  45. Should we release criminals because of criminal procedure technicalities?
  46. Should we interfere with the internal affairs of the other countries if they abuse women or practice “unusual and cruel” punishment?
  47. How can we improve secondary education?
  48. When a student is “bored” is it the teacher’s fault or the student’s?
  49. Is Robert Spencer’s “Infidel’s Guide … ”  a scholarly work or bogus intended to create hatred against muslims and justify invasions, massacres, and torture against them?
  50. Are some Christians 666 times more violent than the Salafi extremists?
  51. Is it ethical to shave the beautiful beard and then trim the mustache of a warmonger, such as Robert Spencer, to reflect his mission?  Should it be considered a hoax or the visual version of the figure of speech, such as simile?

Share

Are these Zionist Quotes really Authentic?

Posted by on
Share

Are these Zionist Quotes really Authentic?

Edip Yuksel
22 July 2012
www.19.org

 

 

Does anyone know about the veracity of the following quotes? Some of them are so outrageous that I doubt they were ever uttered by the Israeli politicians as it is claimed. We know that whenever Israel attacks Palestinians and kills dozens or hundreds of children, the Israeli leaders usually issue an official apology for the “collateral damage”.  On the other hand, when we look at how the Israeli’s map has been growing since 1948, how Palestinians are massacred, their homes being destroyed, their lands are grabbed and turned into “settlements” in defiance of numerous United Nations resolution, and how Israel has been playing victim and has done great job in portraying its victim as aggressor, then it seems these statements explains everything. For more inormation, see:

http://ifamericansknew.org/ 

I would appreciate if you check the authenticity of the  following statements by the Israeli Zionist leaders and let me know what you find. (For the responses to my request, see the second page, by clicking at the number 2 in the bottom of the page, for responses):

  • “The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya (=Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country.” — Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service.
  • “We must expel Arabs and take their places.” — David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.
  • “We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.” — David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.
  • “The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlement, we will not fulfill Zionism. It’s that simple.” — Yitzhak Shamir, Maariv, 02/21/1997.
  • “(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers … heads smashed against the boulders and walls.” — Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988
  • “There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” — Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122.
  • “Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.” — David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 99.
  • “Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country.” — David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan’s “Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.
  • “If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.” — David Ben-Gurion (Quoted on pp 855-56 in Shabtai Teveth’s Ben-Gurion in a slightly different translation).
  • “There is no such thing as a Palestinian people… It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn’t exist.” — Golda Meir, statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.
  • “How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to.” — Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.
  • “Any one who speaks in favor of bringing the Arab refugees back must also say how he expects to take the responsibility for it, if he is interested in the state of Israel. It is better that things are stated clearly and plainly: We shall not let this happen.” — Golda Meir, 1961, in a speech to the Knesset, reported in Ner, October 1961
  • “This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy.” — Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971
  • “We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?’ Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said ‘Drive them out!” — Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.
  • ” create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the west Bank to Jordan. To achieve this we have to come to agreement with King Hussein and not with Yasser Arafat.” — Yitzhak Rabin (a “Prince of Peace” by Clinton’s standards), explaining his method of ethnically cleansing the occupied land without stirring a world outcry. (Quoted in David Shipler in the New York Times, 04/04/1983 citing Meir Cohen‘s remarks to the Knesset’s foreign affairs and defense committee on March 16.)
  • ” are beasts walking on two legs.” — Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, “Begin and the ‘Beasts,”‘ New Statesman, June 25, 1982.
  • “The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized …. Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever.” — Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.
  • “The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya (=Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country.” — Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service.

AND some FACTS*

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the world’s major sources of instability. Americans are directly connected to this conflict, and increasingly imperiled by its devastation.

It is the goal of If Americans Knew to provide full and accurate information on this critical issue, and on our power – and duty – to bring a resolution.

Please click on any statistic for the source and more information.*
Statistics Last Updated: April 25, 2012

  • 126 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 1,476 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information)
  • 1,096 Israelis and at least 6,568 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information)
  • 10,792 Israelis and 59,575 Palestinians have been injured since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information.)
  • During Fiscal Year 2011, the U.S. is providing Israel with at least $8.2 million per day in military aid and $0 in military aid to the Palestinians.
  • 0 Israelis are being held prisoner by Palestinians, while 5,604 Palestinians are currently imprisoned by Israel. (View Sources & More Information)
  • The Israeli unemployment rate is 6.4%, while the Palestinian unemployment in the West Bank is 16.5% and 40% in Gaza. (View Sources & More Information)
  • Israel currently has 236 Jewish-only settlements and ‘outposts’ built on confiscated Palestinian land. Palestinians do not have any settlements on Israeli land. (View Sources & More Information)

* These and more facts on this long-lasting bloody conflict are published and updated at: http://ifamericansknew.org/

Share
Pages: 1 2

A Warning and Invitation to Muslim Women!

Posted by on
Share

A Warning and Invitation to Muslim Women!

Edip Yuksel
19 January 2011
www.19.org 

 

Dear sisters:

As the daughters, sisters, spouses, aunts and mothers of the so-called Muslim population that brags to be more than a billion, I salute you with greetings of peace and respect, and expect you to take this warning seriously.

You have a critical mission. Your decision to declare your intellectual freedom might in turn rescue the so-called Muslim population from the numerous miseries and diseases that have inflicted them since they betrayed reason and the progressive message of the Quran several centuries after its revelation. As it seems, your men will not be able to change the situation. They are unhappy, angry, clueless, and stuck in their own hell of ignorance and arrogance. I know that a great majority of you are unhappy with your men and with yourself. I invite you to take the challenge. I invite you to think critically and then act accordingly.

You would be betraying your God, His messengers, yourself, your children and your society, if you continue following the lies falsely attributed to Muhammad and his companions under the title of “Holy Hadith” or “Authentic Hadith”.

How can you follow the diabolic teachings of those books? Those books consider you equal to dogs, donkeys and pigs; fill the Hell of their imagination with your gender, expect you to do even more after licking your husband’s body even if it were covered with pus; befits you slavery to your husband after God; insulting your honor and integrity by rejecting you from participation in social and political life by labeling you “deficient of reason and religion”; handicap you for life and deprive you from God-given identity by burying you alive in black sacks; instructing your husband beat when you do not obey their capricious demands or when they feel jealous; inspiring your males with a prophet who was a super-sexy superman and who had sexual intercourse with nine wives in one night; deeming you or your daughter to be fit to become the wife of a 54 year-old man while she is only a 9 or 13 years-old girl; yes, how long will you continue following those books that are fabricated centuries after the revelation of the Quran? How long you will sacrifice your worldly and eternal lives for these satanic teachings?

You should also beware of the other extreme, and not become a slave of the capitalistic system, which exploits women by reducing them to sex objects. Modern corporations and their media (movies, advertisement, songs, reality shows, magazines, websites) are very skilled in turning women to perpetual consumers of their wasteful enterprise, to their junk called fashion. Some women in modernized societies that are inflicted with the curse of consumerism, greed and skin-worship, suffer in many ways. They walk in pain on high-heeled ridiculous shoes, in order to be as tall as man.  They undergo multiple cosmetic surgeries and place toxic rubber under their skin, to fit the fabricated role models. Many are forced to compete with men outside in the jungle and are put under great stress to attain their natural goal to have children and be respected mothers in their homes.

Please check this site and download/read the Manifesto for Islamic Reform, which has been also published as a book by Brainbow Press.

In that book, you will see an extensive comparison between the so-called authentic hadiths and the verses of the Quran. I would like to learn whether you are still going to continue following the collections of lies and fabrications as a source of your religion.  Of course, if you react reflexively without even reading the Manifesto, then I would too not read your responses and ignore them.

After reading the Manifesto, I invite you to answer the 45 multi-choice questions titled, Theometer or Sectometer. Those questions will help you to assess your progress in the light of reason.

Do not be scared of using your mind, your critical thinking skills. Your intellect is the greatest blessing of your Creator. Those who would like to deprive you from such a gift are devils, be it the invisible or visible ones. In order to free yourself from the diabolic hypnosis you must decide to use your mind. A religion or teaching without mind and reason is the religion and teaching of satan. Please take your time and see the following verses if you wish to support these common sense facts with the Reminder. 17:36; 10:100; 39:17-18; 41:53; 42:21; 6:114-116; 10:36; 12:111; 20:114; 21:7; 35:28; 38:29 and 25:30.

Do not be afraid. You have to decide to change the direction of your fate. You owe it to yourself, to your mother, to your sister, and to your children. Start to question the religious or sectarian dogmas you have inherited from your parents. You will see that they will crumble even with the softest touch of the light of reason and facts. After you break the lock of the cage of ignorance, you will be astonished how you could stay in that dungeon for so long. Accept the truth my sister, so that the truth will set you and your family free!

Share