Islam is for every creation

Jameel Kermalli (United States)

SAY, ‘WHO IS THE LORD OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH?’ SAY, ‘ALLAH!’ SAY,  ‘HAVE YOU THEN TAKEN OTHERS BESIDES HIM FOR GUARDIANS, WHO HAVE NO CONTROL  OVER THEIR OWN BENEFIT OR HARM?’ SAY, ‘ARE THE BLIND ONE AND THE SEER  EQUAL? ARE DARKNESS AND LIGHT EQUAL?’ HAVE THEY SET UP FOR ALLAH PARTNERS   WHO HAVE CREATED LIKE HIS CREATION, SO THAT THE CREATIONS SEEMED CONFUSABLE  TO THEM? SAY, ‘ALLAH IS THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS, AND HE IS THE ONE AND  THE ALL-PARAMOUNT.’

[110:1] When there comes the help of Allah and the victory,

 And you see men entering the religion of Allah in companies,

Then celebrate the praise of your Lord, and ask His forgiveness; surely He is

oft-returning (to mercy).P

]

BECAUSE ALLAH IS A PERFECT CREATOR.

BECAUSE EVEN NON-MUSLIMS FOLLOW ISLAMIC WAY OF LIFE.

BECAUSE NO-ONE CAN TOP THE INFALLIBLE A.S.

Zahra Foundation has circulated this email to you to keep you updated with current developments. Your email was collected from websites to do with Pluralism, Interfaith, Mosques, Educational Organizations, Schools, OR YOU’RE A FRIEND; OR EVEN YOU ASKED, etc. Please reply with ‘unsubscribe’ if you so wish.

Hujjatul Islam Muhammad Baig

If God sent a religion, how would people who do not know of the religion believe in it? What means did God put in the human beings by which they can decide right from wrong? Surely the religion was not revealed to the whole of humanity at once. It must have started from one point. How would others know of it and more so accept it and believe in it? What is that one faculty that is shared by all human beings by which a message can be analyzed and determined to be right?

The answer is quite simple; it is the human mind and the faculty of reasoning. It is the mind that helps us judge things and decides between right and wrong in every matter of our lives. The word of God, if it is to be transferred to other people who are foreign to it, must conform to the faculty of reasoning that God put in all of us. This is why in Islam faith in God is not the outcome of dogmas and doctrine but rather the product of reasoning and deep scrutiny of revelation. 

ONE CAN WRITE AN ENTIRE BOOK ON THIS. BUT THREE MAIN AREAS OF DISCUSSIONS.

  1. EVERY CREATION IS ISLAMIC. EVERYONE IS BORN A MUSLIM.
  2. PROPHET MUHAMMAD SAID THIS WHEN SEEN CRYING AND BURYING A NON-MUSLIM – I WISH I MADE AN INVITATION, TO THE DEAD PERSON, ABOUT ISLAM.
  3. IN THE MONTH OF RAJAB WE SAY TO ALLAH – O HE WHO GIVES TO ONE WHO ASKS HIM. O HE WHO GIVES TO ONE WHO DOES NOT ASK HIM AND DOES NOT KNOW HIM, OUT OF HIS AFFECTION AND MERCY…

IN DUA KUMAYL, WE SAY – O ALLAH! I BESEECH THEE BY THY MERCY WHICH ENCOMPASSES ALL THINGS, AND BY THY POWER BY WHICH THOU OVERCOMETH ALL THINGS, AND SUBMIT TO IT ALL THINGS AND HUMBLE BEFORE IT ALL THINGS AND BY THY MIGHT BY WHICH THOU HAST CONQUERED ALL THINGS, AND BY THY MAJESTY AGAINST WHICH NOTHING CAN STAND UP, AND BY THY GRANDEUR WHICH PREVAILS UPON ALL THINGS AND BY THY AUTHORITY WHICH IS EXERCISED OVER ALL THINGS, AND BY THY OWN SELF THAT SHALL ENDURE FOREVER AFTER ALL THINGS HAVE VANISHED, AND BY THY NAMES WHICH MANIFEST THY POWER OVER ALL THINGS, AND BY THY KNOWLEDGE WHICH PERVADES ALL THINGS, AND BY THE LIGHT OF THY COUNTENANCE WHICH ILLUMINATES EVERYTHING…

IN DUA ABU HAMZA THUMALI WE SAY TO ALLAH, AND YOU BESTOW YOUR MERCY ON WHOMEVER YOU WISH, WITH WHATEVER YOU WISH, AND HOWEVER YOU WISH, YOU ARE NEVER QUESTIONED ABOUT YOUR DOINGS, NEITHER IS THERE ANY STRUGGLE IN YOUR KINGDOM, NOR IS THERE ANY PARTNERSHIP IN YOUR COMMAND, OR CONFLICT IN YOUR JUDGMENT…

IN DUA KUMAYL WE SAY TO ALLAH, WHO IS THERE, WORTHY OF WORSHIP, BESIDES YOU? … (I) humble before Your lordship? …And these (Your displeasures) cannot be withstood by the heavens and the earth…

IN DUA ABU HAMZA THUMALI WE SAY TO ALLAH …I AM NOT FIGHTING YOU AGAINST YOUR LORDSHIP…I swear with Your exalted might, O’ Master that if You rebuked me, I would not depart from Your door, and I won’t cease to compliment You, since I have indeed come to grasp the knowledge of Your generosity and benevolence. And You are the doer of whatever You desire, You punish whomever You wish, with whatever You wish and however You wish, and You bestow Your mercy on whomever You wish, with whatever You wish, and however You wish, I swear with Your exalted might, O’ Master, that if You rebuked me, I would not depart from Your door and I won’t cease to compliment. YOU ARE NEVER QUESTIONED ABOUT YOUR DOINGS, NEITHER IS THERE ANY STRUGGLE IN YOUR KINGDOM, NOR IS THERE ANY PARTNERSHIP IN YOUR COMMAND OR CONFLICT IN YOUR JUDGMENT AND NO ONE CAN OPPOSE YOU IN YOUR DISPOSITION OF AFFAIRS AND NO ONE CAN OPPOSE YOU IN YOUR DISPOSITION OF AFFAIRS. TO YOU BELONGS ALL OF THE CREATION AND COMMAND…  and I take refuge through believing in Your unity, and through my certainty of knowledge about You, that indeed I have no other god or lord but You, only You; there is no partner for You.

Share Button

Science and Ethics

by Dr. Mehdi Golshani in ‘Values and Ethical Issues in Science and Technology: A Muslim Perspective’

Science attempts at a systematic study of nature by recourse to observation, experiment, and reasoning. Ethics, in the sense used here, concerns rules of conduct, the so-called moral values. The fundamental question that confronts us is whether these two spheres of human concern are independent of each other or are interrelated; and in the latter case, what is the nature of their relationship?

At the first glance, they seem to be independent. But one deals with “facts, while the other is deals with “oughts”. This is in fact, what Hume expounded and since then this notion bas been increasingly accepted by western philosophers and intellectuals. We agree that on the basis of logic alone one cannot derive normative statements from factual statements.

Nevertheless, we also believe that scientists cannot ignore ethical issues, and science and ethics are related both at the metaphysical and practical levels, as will be argued in the following section. Thus, the claim for moral neutrality in scientific research and its applications is simply an illusion.

  1. Science deals with a very important aspect of human life, but it cannot deal with the whole spectrum of human experience. To deal with this wider spectrum, one needs an enlarged view of science, a metaphysics, which includes both science and ethics, among other things, and which can handle all aspects of human experience in a unified manner. Usually, the values that shape people’ s interaction with nature are derived from religious world views. In the words of Lynn White: “What people do about their ecology depends on ‘What they think about themselves in relation to things around them. Human ecology is deeply conditioned by beliefs about our nature and destiny, that is, by religion.

At the practical level, science and ethics are interrelated for the following reasons:Science is a goal-directed enterprise. Thus, it must include some of those values that give direction to both its goals and the means of achieving them. For example, commitment to truth is a value which is essential to the enterprise of science. In the words of Karl Popper. “The fact that science cannot make any pronouncement about ethical principles has been misinterpreted as indicating that there are no such principles, while in fact, the search for truth presupposes ethics”. Furthermore, science is an important means for obtaining socially-valued goals like knowledge and power.

2. The scientific enterprise involves value-judgments. Here are a few important instances:

(a) Codes of conduct are involved in the practice of science which, inter alia, function as a quality control mechanism and ensure trust in science. These consist of honesty, openness, impartiality integrity, etc. There is a consensus in the scientifc community about the necessity of following these codes.

(b) Value-judgements also permeate scientific practice at the level of discovery, and may change a scientist’s line of research.

(c) Value-judgements play a very important role in the assessment and choice of theories. Since Scientific theories arc appraised on the basis of certain criteria which are value-laden, Thomas Kuhn counts the following as characteristics of a good scientific theory: predictive accuracy, internal and external consistency, broadness of scope, simplicity (that is, unifying power) and fruitfulness One could also add other criteria such as social utility and beauty. These criteria, as Kuhn and McMullin8 have emphasized, operates as values, “epistemic values” in McMullin’s terminology. As Kuhn put it: The criteria of choice function not as rules, which determine the choice, but as values which in?uence it. Two men deeply committed to the same values, may nevertheless, in particular situations, make different choices, as in fact, they do. Thus, for example, the disagreement between Einstein and Bohr about Quantum theory was rooted in the fact that they had different views about what a “good” theory is expected to accomplish.

(d) Value-judgement enter into decision-making concerning the applications of science and technology. Scientific discoveries and technological innovations often lead to important social, moral and political consequences. Thus, as a member of a society, a scientist should not ignore the consequences of his or her research or teaching. The destructive consequences of science and technology during the last century was the result of the separation of facts from values and the indifference of some scientists to the consequences of their scientific finding or technological innovations. The manufacturing of chemical/biological and nuclear weapons could be cited as an example. The progress of science during the last century has raised serious ethical issues about experiments involving human or animal subjects or public safety. To humanize applied science and technology, one needs to take into account ethical considerations, especially when one is dealing with the kind of research that affects humankind or the environment. This is because scientific and technological progress cannot, by itself, hold the societies intact; its accomplishment requires paying due attention to the moral dimension of the scientific activity.

3. Science has become increasingly interlocked with business, industry and political goals. This can lead to moral con?icts between proper scientific goals and business values or government priorities, which are oriented to political and economic interests.

4. Those who preach value-neutrality of science confuse the findings of science with its applications. Science is a double-edged sword, where it could be used to secure human welfare, or it could be used for destructive purposes. Something outside of science is needed to lead scientists to use their science for good causes.

5. To secure human welfare in all human activities, including scientific, a strong sense of responsibility on the part of the persons concerned is essential. Science cannot provide this. Moral responsibility comes from elsewhere, chie?y from religious belief.

Share Button

The greatest war: The self

Share Button

The Importance of Good Manners in Islam

Contributed by The Muslim Vibe

Share Button

The Birth of Predatory Capitalism: How the Free World Took Four Giant Leaps to Self-Destruction

by umair haque
-Ranked #35 on the Thinkers50 list of most influential management leaders (2013)
-Short-listed for “Breakthrough Idea” award at Thinkers50 (2011)
-Short-listed for “Future Thinker” award at Thinkers50 (2011)

A (successful) American politician who cries: “God is a white supremacist!” Neo-nazis in the Bundestag. The extreme right rising in Italy. Poland’s authoritarians purging its Supreme Court .

How did we get here? To a world where the forces of intolerance and indecency are on the rise, and those of decency, wisdom, and civilization are waning? Is something like a new Dark Age falling?

I think it has everything to do with predatory capitalism, and so I want to tell you a story. Of how it came to be born, in four steps, which span three decades.

During the 2000s, the economy of the rich world underwent something like a phase transition. It became “financialized”, as the jargon goes?—?which simply means that finance came to make up a greater and greater share of the economy. Hedge funds and investment banks and shady financial vehicles of all kinds went from a modest portion of the economy, to making up a huge chunk of it?—?around half, in some countries.

Now, what was “financialization” for? What were all these bankers, hedge fund managers, investors, and so on, doing? The answer is: nothing. Nothing of value, anyways. They were simply placing bets…with each other. Bets on bets on bets, meta-bets. Economists, who have something like an inferiority complex, envious of swashbuckling bankers, bought their marketing pitch hog, line, and sinker: “we’re going to reduce risk! Everyone will benefit!” But no such thing was happening?—?and anyone could see it. Risk was being massively amplified, in fact, because every time a speculator made a billion dollar bet with another, they were both betting with the same pool of money, essentially. Whose money? It wasn’t theirs?—?it was everyone’s. Pensions, savings, bank accounts, earnings, retirement funds. All that being bet on bets on bets on bets…which amounted to nothing. But what if all the bets went south at once?

First, I want you to really understand that what was happening was a zero-sum game, where one had to lose for another to win. Imagine there are three of us, in a little stone age tribe, with a hundred pebbles each. We spend all day every day finding new ways to lend pebbles to each other, to bet them on who’ll blink first, or even bets on those bets, and so on. In our little economy, does anyone ever end up better off? Does anyone, for example, discover antibiotics, or even invent the wheel? Nope. We’re just fools, who’ll never accomplish, learn, or create anything, sitting around playing a zero-sum game, in which no real value is ever created. The pebbles never become anything more valuable, like, for example, books, symphonies, knowledge, or medicine. All that is exactly what was happening during the phase of financialization.

But financialization didn’t just have a direct cost?—?no value being created, just men in shiny suits betting pebbles on who’d blink first. It also had an opportunity cost. As finance grew to be a larger and larger share of the economy, so the wind got sucked out of the sails of the “real economy”, as American economists put it, which simply means people doing the work that actually does create value?—?teachers, nurses, engineers, artisans, bakers, small-town factories, and so on. Think about it simply: the more money that was burned up in speculating, the less that was available for making things of genuine value. So the incomes of all these people?—?those in the “real economy”?—?began to stagnate. New schools and hospitals and energy grids and so on weren’t built?—?all the money was going towards speculating on the backs the old ones, sometimes, often, on their failures. A black hole was growing at the heart of the economy?—?but according to pundits, it was the sun itself. Everything was upside down. The bets were indeed about to all go south at once?—?only no one knew understood how or why yet.

How was the real economy to survive, then? Another hidden effect of financialization was super-concentration?—?the second force in the rise of predatory capitalism. Mom-and-pop capitalism is a healthy and beautiful thing, an economy of a million little shops, bakeries, artisans?—?but it takes only a modest attachment to a profit motive. But thanks to the rise of massive, global speculation, only aggressive quarterly profit-maximization was allowed. CEO earnings were hitched to share prices, and your share price only went up if your earnings did, relentlessly, illogicaly, crazily, every single quarter, instead of stabilizing at a happy, gentle amount?—?and so the only way left, in the end, to achieve it, was to build titanic monopolies, which could squeeze people for every dime. Once the economy had Macy’s, JC Penney, K-Mart, Toys-R-Us and Sears. Now it has Walmart. The story was repeated across every single industry. Amazon, Google, Apple. A new age of monopoly arose.

But monopolies had an effect, too. The third force in the rise of predatory capitalism was the implosion of the institution formerly known as the job. Now, just before peak financialization, beginning in the 1990s, many jobs were “offshored.” That’s a polite way to say that the speculators above discovered that companies were more profitable when they evaded as much of human civilization as possible. Find a country with no labour laws, no protections, no standards, no rule of law at all, in fact?—?and send jobs there. That way, you wouldn’t have to pay for pensions, healthcare, childcare, insurance, and so on. Cost savings! Efficiency! Synergies, even?—?you could make everything in that one sweatshop.

We’re used to thinking that offshoring “took” jobs in rich countries. But the truth is subtler?—?and more ruinous. They blew apart the idea of a job as we used to know it. As jobs went to countries without good governance, decent labour laws, a boomerang effect happened. The machine discovered that it could do in rich countries what it had done in poor ones?—?and so it began stripping away everything that made a job “a job.” Because the economy was increasingly composed of monopolies, giant companies, banks, and investors had the power to do so with impunity. Speculators began raiding pension funds. Managers began stripping away benefits of every kind, from childcare, to vacations, to healthcare. Until, at last, in a final triumph, the “at-will job” and the “zero-hours contract” were created?—?social contracts that were only “jobs” in name, but offered less than no stability, security, mobility, or opportunity. People who didn’t have benefits could now be fired on a whim?—?and so now they bore all the risk. But the risk of what, precisely?

Remember those speculators? Taking huge risks, betting billions with each other, on exactly nothing of real value? Risk had come full circle. Now it was the average person in the real economy who bore all the risks of these bets going bad. If the bets with south, who’d take the hit? All those people with zero benefits, no protection, no safety, all those people for whom “a job” now meant something more like “a temporary soul-crushing way to avoid destitution.” They’re the ones who’d be fired, instantly, lose what little savings they had, have their already dwindling incomes slashed, be ruined.

And then the bets went bad. As bets tend to do, when you make too many of them, on foolish things. What had the speculators been betting with each other on? As it turns out, largely on property prices. But people without the stable jobs that had kept such a huge property bubble going didn’t have growing incomes anymore. Property prices couldn’t keep rising. Bang! The financial system fell like a row of dominoes. It turned out that everyone had bet property prices would go on rising?—?and on the other side of that bet was…everyone else. All of them had been betting on the same thing?—?“we all bet prices will keep rising forever!” The losses were so vast, and so widespread, that the whole global financial system buckled. The banks didn’t have the money to pay each other for these foolish bets?—?how could they have? Each one had bet the whole house on the same thing, and they all would have gone bankrupt to each other. LOL?—?do you see the fatal stupidity of it all yet?

So in had to step governments. They bailed out the banks?—?but didn’t “restructure” them, which is to say, fire their managers, wash out their shareholders, and sell off the bad loans and bets. They just threw money at them?—?and took those bad bets onto the nation’s books, instead. It was the most foolish decision since the Great Depression. Why?

Well, now governments had trillions in?—?pow!?—?sudden debt. What were they to do? How would they pay it off? Now, you might think that Presidents are very intelligent people, but unfortunately, they are just politicians. And so instead of doing what they should have done?—?printing money, simply cancelling each others’ debts to each other, which were for fictional speculation anyways?—?they decided that they were “broke”. Bankrupt, even?—?even though a country can’t go bankrupt, anymore than you could if you could print your own currency at home, and spend it everywhere.

What does a bankrupt have to do? Liquidate. So governments began to slash investment in social systems of all kinds. Healthcare systems, pension systems, insurance systems, media and energy systems. This was the fourth step in the birth of predatory capitalism: austerity.

But people’s incomes were already dwindling, thanks to the first three steps?—?as jobs not just disappeared in quantity, but also imploded in quality, as monopolies grew in power, and as pointless, destructive, zero-sum speculation sucked the life out of the real economy. The only thing keeping the real economy going at this point was investment by the government?—?after all, the speculators were speculating, not investing for the long run. It was governments that were effectively keeping economies afloat, by providing a floor for income, by anchoring economies with a vast pool of stable, safe, real, secure jobs, and investinging dollars back in societies short of them. And yet, at the precise moment that governments needed to create more of precisely that, they did just the opposite.

Snap! Economies broke like twigs. The people formerly known as the middle class had been caught in between the pincers of these four forces?—?financialization, monopoly, the implosion of the job, and austerity. Together, they shattered what was left of rich economies?—?to the point that today, incomes are stagnant across the rich world, even in much vaunted Scandinavia, while living standards are falling in many rich countries, like the US and UK.

What do people do as hardship begins to bite?—?especially those who expected comfortable, easy lives? They become reactionary, lashing out violently. They seek safety in the arms of demagogues. That doesn’t mean, as American pundits naively think, that “poor people become authoritarians!” Quite the opposite.

It’s the once prosperous but now imploded middle which turns on the classes, ethnicities, groups, below it. The people who expected and felt entitled to lives of safety and security and stability?—?who anticipated being at the top of a tidy little hierarchy, the boss of this or that, the chieftain of that or this, but now find themselves adrift and unmoored in a collapsing society, powerless. That gap between expectation and reality is what ruinous. They retain a desperate need to be atop a hierarchy, to be above someone, the entitled imploded middles?—?and what has happened in history, time and again, is that they turn to those who promise them just that superiority, by turning on those below them. Even if, especially if, it is in the extreme, irrational, yet perfectly logical form of supremacy and dominion over the weak, the despised, and the impure.

And that is what all today’s reactionary, extremist movements?—?which I call the Faction?— ?really are. Predatory capitalism imploding into strange, new forms of old diseases of the body politic —ultrauthoritarianism, theosupremacism, kleptofascism, neofeudalism, biodominionism, hatriarchy, technotalitarianism, novel and lethal forms of ruin for a new dark age.

And so here we are, you and I. On the cusp of that age. A time where the shadows in human hearts shine as black and blinding as midnight. And once again, it is the folly and hubris of wise men that led us here.

Share Button