AYESHA’S AGE AT THE TIME OF HER MARRIAGE – A RESPONSE TO “INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS”

by Qasim Rashid

Ayesha’s Age: A response to the allegation made by atheists and non-Muslims in general that Ayesha was 6 or 9 when her marriage was consummated with Prophet Muhammad

The vitriolic anti-Islam film, “Innocence of Muslims” caused quite a worldwide uproar. Newsweek seemed to add to that uproar with their “Muslim Rage” edition. Fortunately, it backfired and #MuslimRage became the hottest new trend on Twitter. (Follow me@MuslimIQ) Still, Innocence of Muslims makes numerous vile accusations against Islam and its Noble Prophet (sa). One of these allegations is that the Prophet (sa) married Ayesha (rz) when she was underage. I have taken some time to quickly compile two arguments, one my own and one well-researched by another Muslim.

Together, these arguments demonstrate that the allegations levied against both Prophet Muhammad (sa) and Ayesha (rz) are meritless and based wholly on ignorance. The below evidence shows that far from being 6 or 9, Ayesha was likely 15-16 at the time of her consenting marriage, or as old as 18-20. Some scholars assert that she was actually only 12. Even if Hazrat Ayesha (rz) was only 12 at the time of her marriage and consummation, this should not be a cause for alarm for the clear reasons mentioned below.

The First Set of Arguments

The First Argument

The Catholic Encyclopedia says Mary Mother of Jesus (as) was 11 (and Joseph was 90) upon their marriage. [The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Reference of Work on the Constitution, Doctrine, Dicipline, and History of the Catholic Church, New York Robert Appleton Company, Vol. VIII, Pg. 505]. Yet, we do not hear anti-Islam elements raise objection to this recorded fact of history. If Ayesha (rz), even at age 12, was too young to be married, then certainly Mary Mother of Jesus was too young. Likewise, if Prophet Muhammad (sa) at the age of 53 was too old to marry Ayesha, then Joseph at age 90 was certainly too old. Yet, such objections do not exist, demonstrating the double standard anti-Islam individuals assert against Muslims.

The Second Argument

The law of the Talmud holds that a woman is of marriable age when she is 12 yrs and 6 months old and “Marrying off one’s daughter as soon after she reaches adulthood as possible, even to one’s Slave.” Talmud, Pesachim 113a]. Hasidic Jews still practice this tradition that spans back thousands of years. In fact, the Talmud presents some shocking guidance on marriage, also stating, “A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his.” [Talmud, Sanhedrin 55b].

Again, no objections are known from anti-Islam individuals to this practice, once again demonstrating the double standard. Historically speaking, Jews, Christians, and Muslims each held a social construct that permitted a person to be married at what our society considers young.

But, recognizing that things like life expectancy and social behavior were much different than they are now, two individuals in their pre or early teens marrying was not at all obscure. This is a fact that Jews, Christians, and Muslims each demonstrated. Most importantly, the concept of social construct must be reiterated. It was not just ancient Jews, Christians, and Muslims that recognized earlier teens or younger as acceptable ages for marriage. This is a concept that permeated our Western societies until only very recently, as explained next.

The Third Argument

For centuries in Scotland, the age of consent for girls was 12—and parental consent was unnecessary. [G T Bisset-Smith. 1st edition. Edinburgh: William Green & Sons, (1902)]. Only in 1929 was the age raised to 16 for girls. [Id.] Consider the facts of appropriate ages to marry of American State Laws. In New Hampshire, the legal age for girls is 13 with parental consent. In Massachusetts, the legal age for girls is 12 with parental consent. In Mississippi, there isno age minimum for girls, as long as there is parental consent. In California, there is no age minimum for girls, as long as there is parental consent. And of course, as we know, Ayesha (rz) certainly had parental consent. This information is available at: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage#g

So the reality is that only recently has social construct decided that 18 is the age of maturity among men and women. Nothing says that 18 is the wrong age, or the right age across all times and places. We can only state that it is the correct age for our time and place, because this is the age we have agreed upon as a society. Thus, in our age, marriage below 18 is either forbidden, or requires certain highly controlled conditions to ensure the rights of the persons under 18 are not usurped. But, to make the jump to accuse Prophet Muhammad (sa) of acting inappropriately, simply because our social construct disagrees with a social construct that our American forefathers, ancient Christian and Muslim cultures, and contemporary Hasidic Jewish cultures practice—such a jump is unqualified and meritless.

But so far, we have only demonstrated that if Ayesha (rz) was married when she was as young as 11 or 12, history and our American forefathers demonstrate that such a marriage was not out of the norm. The next section demonstrates that Ayesha (rz) was 15-16 at the time of her marriage to Prophet Muhammad (sa), and possibly as old as 18-20.

The Second Set of Arguments

*Disclaimer – I am not the author of the below scholarship. I am reposting because it is excellently researched, appropriately referenced, and repudiates the baseless allegations that Prophet Muhammad (sa) married Ayesha (rz) when she was underage. Please read each of the arguments as it soundly responds from every angle to the allegations that Ayesha was under age at the time of her marriage.

The First Argument

Though some of these narratives are reported in Bukhari, most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father. An event as well known as the one being reported, should logically have been reported by more people than just one, two or three.

The Second Argument

It is quite strange that no one from Medinah, where Hisham ibn `urwah lived the first seventy one years of his life has narrated the event [from him], even though in Medinah his pupils included people as well known as Malik ibn Anas. All the narratives of this event have been reported by narrators from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have had shifted after living inMedinah for seventy one years.

Again, the argument that all those who heard this narrative from Hisham ibn `urwah were Iraqis, is a simple statement of fact. This can be checked in the biographical sketches of these narrators in any of the books written on the narrators.

The Third Argument

Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet  (pbuh) reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah:“narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq.” It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq (Vol. 11, pg. 48 – 51).

The actual statements, their translations and their complete references are given below:

Yaqub ibn Shaibah says: He [i.e. Hisham] is highly reliable, his narratives are acceptable, except what he narrated after shifting to Iraq. (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqalaaniy, Arabic, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Vol. 11, pg. 50)

I have been told that Malik [ibn Anas] objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq. (Tehzi’bu’l-tehzi’b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala’ni, Arabic, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Vol. 11, pg. 50)

All the hadith Hisham related regarding the age of Ayesha are from the time he was in Iraq. From a historical and evidentiary perspective, this already puts into severe doubt the veracity of such claims.

The Fourth Argument

Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal, another book on the [life sketches of the] narrators of the traditions of the Prophet  (pbuh) reports that when he was old, Hisham’s memory suffered quite badly (Vol. 4, pg. 301 – 302)

The actual statement, its translation and its complete references is given below:

When he was old, Hisham‘s memory suffered quite badly (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal, Al-Zahabi, Arabic, Al-Maktabah al-Athriyyah, Sheikhupura, Pakistan, Vol. 4, pg. 301).

So now we have evidence that when Hisham related the traditions related to Ayesha’s age, he did so while his memory suffered severely. Already, no court of law would consider such testimony valid, not even in a civil court where the burden of proof is quite low compared to a criminal court.

The Fifth Argument

According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years beforeHijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (Kitaab al-Tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur’an , was revealed, “I was a young girl”. The 54th Surah of the Qur’an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Ayesha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why we should not accept this narrative to be more accurate.

The actual statements referred to in the above paragraph, their translations and their complete references are given below:

Ayesha (ra) said: I was a young girl, when verse 46 of Surah Al-Qamar, [the 54th chapter of the Qur’an ], was revealed. (Sahih Bukhari, Kitaab al-Tafseer, Arabic, Bab Qaulihi Bal al-saa`atu Maw`iduhum wa al-sa`atu adhaa wa amarr)

Ayesha was married after Hijrah (migration). Thus, if she could recall that Chapter 54 was revealed, she must have been at least 3-5 years old, plus the 9 years before hijrah, which places her at 12-14 before Hijrah and at least 14-16 before marriage. This makes it impossible that she was 9.

The Sixth Argument

According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle ofBadr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Ayesha‘s (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhudclearly indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them.

A narrative regarding Ayesha‘s (ra) participation in Badr is given in Muslim, Kitaab al-jihaad wa al-siyar, Arabic, Bab karahiyah al-isti`anah fi al-ghazwi bikafir. Ayesha (ra) while narrating the journey to Badr and one of the important events that took place in that journey, says:

When we reached Shajarah.

It is quite obvious from these words that Ayesha (ra) was with the group traveling towardBadr.

A narrative regarding Ayesha‘s (ra) participation in the battle of `uhud is given in Bukhari,Kitaab al-jihaad wa al-siyar, Arabic, Baab Ghazwi al-nisaa wa   qitalihinna ma`a al-rijaal.

Anas reports that On the day of Uhud, people could not stand their ground around the Prophet  (pbuh). [On that day,] I saw Ayesha (ra) and Umm-e-Sulaim (ra), they had pulled their dress up from their feet [to save them from any hindrance in their movement].”

As far as the fact that children below 15 years were sent back and were not allowed to participate in the battle of `uhud, it is narrated in Bukhari, Kitaab al-maghaazi, Baab ghazwah al-khandaq wa hiya al-ahzaab, Arabic.

Ibn `umar (ra) states that the Prophet  (pbuh) did not permit me to participate in Uhud, as at that time, I was fourteen years old. But on the day of Khandaq, when I was fifteen years old, the Prophet (pbuh) permitted my participation.”

This battle took place before Ayesha’s marriage to Prophet Muhammad, so now we see that she was at least 15-16 years old.

The Seventh Argument

According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Ayesha (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha (ra). It is reported in Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb as well as Al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihayahthat Asma (ra) died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. IfAsma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha (ra) should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha (ra), if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.

The relevant references required in this argument are provided below:

For the Difference of Ayesha’s (ra) and Asma’s (ra) Age:

According to Abd al-Rahman ibn abi zannaad:

Asma (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha. (Siyar A`la’ma’l-nubala’, Al-Zahabi, Vol. 2, pg. 289, Arabic, Mu’assasatu’l-risala’h, Beirut, 1992)

According to Ibn Kathir:

She [i.e. Asma] was ten years elder to her sister [i.e. Ayesha]. (Al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8, pg. 371, Arabic, Dar al-fikr al-`arabiy, Al-jizah, 1933)

For Asma’s (ra) Age at Her Death in 73 AH

According to Ibn Kathir:

She [i.e. Asma] witnessed the killing of her son during that year [i.e. 73 AH], as we have already mentioned, five days later she herself died, according to other narratives her death was not five but ten or twenty or a few days over twenty or a hundred days later. The most well known narrative is that of hundred days later. At the time of her death, she was 100 years old. (Al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8, pg. 372, Arabic, Dar al-fikr al-`arabiy,Al-jizah, 1933).

According to Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalaaniy:

She [i.e. Asma (ra)] lived a hundred years and died in 73 or 74 AH.” (Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalaaniy, Pg. 654, Arabic, Bab fi al-nisaa, al-Harf al-alif, Lucknow)

The Eighth Argument

Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (ra) reports that Abu Bakrhad four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah – the pre-Islamic period. Obviously, if Ayesha (ra) was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH – the time she most likely got married.

The original statement in Tabari, its translation and reference follows:

All four of his [i.e. Abu Bakr’s] children were born of his two wives – the names of whom we have already mentioned – during the pre-Islamic period. (Tarikh al-umam wa al-mamloo’k, Al-Tabari, Vol. 4, Pg. 50, Arabic, Dar al-fikr, Beirut, 1979)

The Ninth Argument

My ninth argument was:

According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam quite some time before`umar ibn al-Khattab (ra). This shows that Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Ayesha‘s (ra) marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Ayesha (ra) should not have been born during the first year of Islam.

According to Ibn Hisham, Ayesha (ra) was the 20th or the 21st person to enter into the folds of Islam (Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah, Ibn Hisham, Vol. 1, Pg. 227 – 234, Arabic, Maktabah al-Riyadh al-hadithah, Al-Riyadh) While `umar ibn al-khattab was preceded by forty individuals (Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah, Ibn Hisham, Vol. 1, Pg. 295, Arabic, Maktabah al-Riyadh al-hadithah, Al-Riyadh).

The Tenth Argument

Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am – with whose son Ayesha (ra) was engaged – and asked him to take Ayesha (ra) in his house as his son’s wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam, and subsequently his son divorced Ayesha (ra). Now, if Ayesha (ra) was only seven years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Habshah. On the basis of this report it seems only reasonable to assume that Ayesha (ra) had not only been born 8 years before hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage.

Unfortunately, I do not have the primary reference to this argument at the moment. The secondary reference for this argument is: Tehqiq e umar e Siddiqah e Ka’inat, Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi,Urdu, Pg. 38, Anjuman Uswa e hasanah, Karachi, Pakistan

The Eleventh Argument

According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), whenKhaulah (ra) came to the Prophet  (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: “You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)”. When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Ayesha‘s (ra) name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word “bikr” in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is “Jariyah“. “Bikr” on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a “lady”.

The complete reference for this reporting of Ahmad ibn Hanbal is: Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Vol 6, Pg 210, Arabic, Dar Ihya al-turath al-`arabi, Beirut.

The Twelfth Argument

According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra), the daughter of Prophet Muhammad, was five years older than Ayesha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.

Ibn Hajar‘s original statement, its translation and reference follows:

Fatimah (ra) was born at the time the Kaa`bah was rebuilt, when the Prophet  (pbuh) was 35 years old… she (Fatimah) was five years older that Ayesha (ra). (Al-Isabah fi Tamyeez al-Sahaabah, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaniy, Vol. 4, Pg. 377, Arabic, Maktabah al-Riyadh al-Haditha, al-Riyadh, 1978)

These are all the references for the material I provided in my initial response.

Critics cite that Tabari, Abu Dawood, and Bukhari also says Ayesha was 9. Such critics miss the point on Hisham ibn `urwah. They are unaware of the fact that each one these traditions, whether it is from Tabari, Bukhari, Muslim or Abu Dawood, is either narrated by Hisham ibn `urwah or is reported to the respective author by or through an Iraqi. Not even a single narrative is free from either of the two problems.

I have quoted Tabari, Bukhari and Muslim to show that even their own information contradicts with the narrative regarding Ayesha‘s (ra) age. Thus, when the narrative of Ayesha‘s (ra) age is not reliable and when there is information in the same books that contradicts the narrative of Ayesha‘s age, I see absolutely no reason to believe that the information on Ayesha‘s (ra) age is accepted (when there are adequate grounds to reject it) and the other (contradictory) information is rejected (when there is no ground to reject it).

Conclusion

Thus, taking all facts into consideration, it is clear that the allegation proposed in Innocence of Muslims is one without merit, one no person of intelligence can accept. Prophet Muhammad (sa) and Ayesha (rz) enjoyed a loving, mutual, consenting, legal, and sincere marriage—one to be emulated by all people, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. As a final point, I encourage readers to also check out Myriam Francois-Cerrah‘s excellent piece on Ayesha (rz) published in The Guardian here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth

___________

If you are interested in reading more of the work of Qasim Rashid click here

Can You Be Good Without God?

Say, ‘O Allah! Originator of the heavens and the earth; Knower of the unseen and the seen; Thou alone wilt judge between Thy servants concerning that in which they differed.’ (Qur’an 39:47)

“A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true” – Socrates

Why is hurting people termed “wrong”? Ask yourself this question and you will find that it is not easy to answer. The answers you may come up with may be along the lines of “you wouldn’t want to be hurt, so why do it to others?” or “doing good to others promotes social cohesion”. However, neither of these two statements answer the question. Why then should you not hurt others, just because you wouldn’t want to be hurt? Why is social cohesion desirable?

These may seem like absurd questions, and on some level, they are. The reason for this is because everyone, universally it seems, knows that hurting people is wrong. Even the hardened thief who has convinced himself that his thievery is justified, would feel aggrieved and wronged if someone stole from him – thus demonstrating that though he has made excuses for his own thievery, he still knows it to be wrong. Yet, if everyone knows that doing wrong is bad, and undesirable, then why do people do it at all? The answer is found in the above example – the thief who justifies his own actions to himself:

Can he, who was dead and We gave him life and made for him a light whereby he walks among men, be like him whose condition is that he is in utter darkness whence he cannot come forth? Thus have the doings of the disbelievers been made to seem fair to them. (Qur’an 6:123)

Thus, a system of morality such as Humanism, which tells people simply to “be good” and “promote the wellbeing of others” not to “hurt others” without defining what “good”, “hurt” and “wellbeing” mean, is a totally meaningless system of morality. The reason for this is that everyone who does wrong, does it, believing it to be good. What is needed in a system of morality is not the end goal, but actually clear directives on which actions are right and which are wrong, covering all conceivable contexts. This is what the Qur’an in particular, claims to achieve.

A Book, the verses of which have been expounded in detail — the Qur’an in clear, eloquent language — for a people who have knowledge… (Qur’an 41:4)

This is what Socrates is talking about when he refers to “relative morality” as an “illusion” and a “thoroughly vulgar conception”. Very strong words – but are they warranted? They are, because what Humanism achieves is that it makes the concept of “right” and “wrong” malleable; with each person free to define “good” and “evil” however they wish, thus giving license for every evil to be conducted under the guise of “goodness”. As pointed out above, this is precisely what happens when a person does evil or harms others; they justify it to themselves and call it “good”. Humanism is therefore no more than a formalised system of convincing yourself that what you are doing is for the betterment and wellbeing of others. People try to claim that it is religion which is utilised as a pious front for the doing of evil, and that more people do evil in the name of God than for any other reason. This may be the case but there is a difference here – people do evil in the name of God, in spite of the clear teachings of various religions on which actions are right and which are wrong. Humanism on the other hand has no teachings which could act as a buffer against the evil done in its name.

It is also worth asking the question that “what makes a good, moral person?” Hitler is famously known to have been a vegetarian, because he believed that eating animals was cruel. Ridiculous as it may sound, it demonstrates that Hitler strived – in his own mind at least – to be, what he thought of, as a good person. We find it difficult to imagine that a person who has committed and authorised such atrocities as he did, loved animals, and, no doubt, loved people also – friends and family etc. Does this make him a good, moral person? Of course it doesn’t, and the reason is obvious: loving one’s friends and families, is a natural condition that is even found among animals. Among animals too, there are many example of creatures that have shown extraordinary love and sacrifice for other animals, both of their own species, and otherwise. A simple search on YouTube would show many filmed examples. This does not make animals moral. This is because a moral quality is defined when reason and reflection are brought into play, and a person acts after deliberated thought. A mother who jumps in front of a car to save her baby has not behaved morally – she has behaved instinctively, on the basis of a natural impulse. Thus, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad explains in the following excerpt:

When (natural qualities) are regulated and are used on their proper occasions, under the direction of reason, they acquire a moral character. Before they are controlled by reason and understanding they have not the character of moral qualities, but are natural impulses, however much they might resemble moral qualities. For instance, if a dog or lamb displays affection or docility towards its master it would not be described as moral or good-mannered. In the same way a wolf or a tiger would not be described as ill-mannered on account of its wildness. A moral state emerges after reflection and regard for time and occasion come into play.(1)

Humanism however, conflates natural impulses with moral actions. As Humanism gives no directives and no instruction on what action is right in which context and which action is wrong in which context, it totally falls short of defining morality. It therefore does not seek to give direction to our natural impulses, thereby converting them into moral qualities, but rather seeks to term our natural impulses of love for our friends and families, and the expression of that love, as moral actions. This is totally erroneous and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding on what morality is.

Thus, a basic moral system requires two things, to make it a valid system that both makes sense and also works effectively:

1) A perspective of absolute morality – a belief that “right” and “wrong” exist outside of our own minds. In religion, “right” and “wrong” are defined by God – and it is God’s perspective that is the only perspective that matters. His perspective can be accessed both through scripture, or on a more basic level, by looking into our own conscience, to the inbuilt signposts God has given us. Humanists can also look to the human conscience, but in doing so, they are admitting that morality is a universal and absolute concept.

2) Teachings that define which actions are right in which context, and which are wrong. This is important, because, giving the end goal of “to promote happiness” is a meaningless statement, without teaching people which actions will lead to that end goal. In this regard, many religions also fall short of this ideal. Christianity, for example, which has done away with the “law” of saying which actions are right in which context and which are wrong, by accepting St. Paul’s notion that all you need is “faith” to enter heaven, and actions are not necessary, has undermined this second principle which would uphold a system of morality.

Humanism falls short on both these two principles. Humanism does not advocate that the notion of “right” or “wrong” exist outside of our own minds, nor does it give any specific teachings on which actions are right and which are wrong. Ironically however, the very existence of Humanism is a wonderful proof of the existence of God. How so? Humanism is an example of a group of people (atheists) who believe that there is no God – and therefore no absolute concept of morality, and yet feel an urging within their own hearts to unite on some common values of what is right and what is wrong, and thereby create an artificial concept of absolute morality based on the consensus of a community. They demonstrate by their actions that morality must have some degree of absoluteness, and that relative morality is – as Socrates points out – no morality at all. Thus they prove the need for an absolute perspective on morality and thus prove the need for the existence of God, for a code of morality to exist. This is all the more so because, despite their attempt at creating an artificial basis for absolute morality through common consensus as a community, they know well that just because a community endorses a particular moral action or view, does not make it right or wrong. Many communities there have been in history who collectively, with consensus, perpetrated genocide on other peoples. Does their consensus as to the rightness of their actions, change the fact that their actions were evil?

In short, humanists hear the call of their hearts of what is right and what is wrong, yet, having renounced God, they do not understand where this call is coming from, despite being unable to resist its pull. Indeed, Man admits the existence of God – Who is the basis of morality – despite professing disbelief in Him.

So set thy face to the service of religion as one devoted to God. And follow the nature made by Allah — the nature in which He has created mankind. There is no altering the creation of Allah. That is the right religion. But most men know not. (Qur’an 30:31)

The present article has been reproduced from the End of Atheism website. End of Atheism is a direct response to the New Atheist movement that began with Sam Harris’ book ‘End of Faith.’ You can find more material here:  www.endofatheism.com

 

The Qur’an and Extraterrestrial Life

http://www.dreamstime.com/-image22958543

The vision of the universe that the Qur’an presents is poles apart from the one held by the philosophers and sages of all the past ages. At the time of the Quranic revelation, it was Greek astronomy which dominated the minds of men everywhere in the world and all civilizations seemed to have been influenced by the same. This domination continued uninterrupted until the time of Copernicus. It was universally believed that the heavens consisted of layer upon layer of some transparent plastic material, studded with bright heavenly bodies we know as stars. To be more specific, the following was the sum total of the entire knowledge of the people of that age:

1. The earth was composed of a mass of dust, rock, water, air and minerals. It was a stationary mass, with a near flat surface neither rotating around itself nor revolving around any other heavenly body.
2. The earth occupied a unique position in the cosmos, the like of which did not exist anywhere else in space. It remained fixed and stationary in its mooring while the Heavens perpetually revolved around it.

Evidently, this concept of the universe eliminated the possibility of the existence of life elsewhere. The only habitat for life the people of that age knew, was this earth—suspended as they thought it was in mid-space. Contrary to this, the Qur’an admits neither the uniqueness of the earth nor its being stationary. On the issue of the number of earths, it declares: …READ MORE

Murder in the Name of Allah

An in-depth study of how extremists exploit Islamic scripture to justify their intolerant and violent ideology, offering rare insight to atheists and theists alike.

Hardly a day passes on which an Islamic event does not make headlines. “The president of a Muslim country is assassinated by supporters of the Muslim brotherhood”;

“A European journalist is taken hostage by Islamic Jihad”;

“A Pan-American aircraft is hijacked by another Muslim group”;

“American university professors are taken into custody by Hezbollah”;

“Two passenger-carrying airplanes were slammed into the World Trade Center”.

The glare of ‘Islamic’ revolution in Iran is reflected through the flares of every gulf oil refinery.

This book is a reminder that the purpose of any religion is the spread of peace, tolerance and understanding. It argues that the meaning of Islam—submission to the will of God—has been steadily corrupted by minority elements in the community. Instead of spreading peace, the religion has been abused by fanatics and made an excuse for violence and the spread of terror, both inside and outside the faith.

In confirming the true spirit of Islam, it makes the point to followers of all religions that the future of mankind depends on the intrinsic values of love, tolerance, and freedom of conscience and of belief.

Did our history begin with the curse of Cain? It is a gory tale of murder, assassination and torture in any event. So much blood has been spilled throughout history that the whole world could be painted red with it–with plenty to spare. When will man stop killing his fellow men? When will his thirst for blood ever be quenched?

Abel was the first man to be killed, by his brother, for no reason. The story of that murder has been preserved by the Quran and the Bible as a lesson to us all—it will remain as an example till the end of time. Study history, and one thing becomes clear… READ MORE

The Qur’an and Cosmology

At the time the Qur’an was revealed, the human understanding of the nature of the cosmos and the movement or the stillness of the heavenly bodies was extremely primitive and obscure. This is no longer the case, as our knowledge of the universe has considerably advanced and expanded by the present age.

Some of the theories relating to the creation of the universe have been verified as facts, whereas others are still being explored. The concept of the expanding universe belongs to the former category, and has been universally accepted by the scientific community as ‘fact’. This discovery was first made by Edwin Hubble in the 1920s. Yet some thirteen centuries before this… READ MORE

An excerpt from “Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge and Truth”, by Mirza Tahir Ahmad.

The Review of Religions

DECEMBER 2015 ISSUE http://www.reviewofreligions.org/

Click here for the PDF: http://www.reviewofreligions.org/wp-content/pdf-downloads/RR201512.pdf 

• The Blame Game: Is Religion Truly the Cause of Disorder in the World Today?
• Responding to Paris
• Three Gradations of Doing Good
• Apartheid of Ahmadis in Pakistan
• Forgiveness of the Holy Prophet Muhammad
• Women’s Responsibilities
• The Economic System of Islam

Reflections, Episode 2: Is there a need for religion?

Reflections is a new programme being aired on The Voice of Islam radio, in London, UK.

https://soundcloud.com/hammad-khan-824246543/reflections-episode-2v21-mixdown

Reflections, Episode 1: Does God Exist?

Reflections is a new programme being aired on The Voice of Islam radio, in London, UK.

https://soundcloud.com/hammad-khan-824246543/reflections-episode-1v2final-mixdown

Can Humanism replace Religion?

Can Humanism replace Religion? Today religion is often seen as a source of conflict and intolerance in the world with calls to do away with the theistic philosophies altogether and replace them with the so-called secular or humanist principles. So is it finally time to rid ourselves of religion? Or in discarding it, will we be losing something vital to the human condition?

We need first of all to define Religion and Humanism

Religions are ways of life that are influenced by the belief that something other than the mere material world exists; that every human being has a soul or spirit that is to be nurtured, just as the body must be nurtured. Religions seek to bring harmony within the human being, between mankind and nature, within society, between different nations and –  depending on which form of religion we are talking about –  between mankind and the Divine. As a Being of superior goodness, God is One to be followed and emulated within the limits of one’s humanity.

I want to make it clear from the very beginning that I have not – and indeed cannot –  come to defend every form of religion. In many of its modern forms, religion has been handed down to us full of irrational ideas, superstition, contradictions and teachings that deprive people of some of their human rights. I can only present and defend Islam as expounded by the Ahmadiyya school of thought, a school of thought which abhors superstition, irrationality and dogma.

In our view, Islam is a religion that fulfils three roles – those pertaining to the physical, moral and spiritual states of man, and not just to the physical and moral states.

Not wanting to misrepresent our esteemed Humanist interlocutors, I have taken the short definition of ‘Humanism’ as it appears on the British Humanist Association website:

Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who:

• trusts to the scientific method in understanding how the universe works and rejects the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
• makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for humans and other sentient animals
• believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.

I propose to go through the qualities of Islam according to the Ahmadiyya school of thought and examine Humanism – according to the definition given by Humanists themselves – to determine whether or not it is capable of replacing our religion.

1. In Islam, we are first of all called upon to begin everything with the اسم “ism” or Name of Allah, God, the Most Gracious and Beneficent One, the Most Merciful.

The word اسم “ism” denotes the mark of the qualities or characteristics of someone or something.

This pronouncement lies at the very basis of all philosophy and understanding in Islam: When we begin anything in the Name of God, Most Gracious, Ever-Merciful, we recognise that it is with His attributes, qualities and characteristics that we are colouring ourselves and leading our lives. God and His qualities are our point of reference for all things.

A human being is not only a physical and moral being. These are only two of the states of humankind, and materialistic philosophies can at best deal with these two and cannot satisfy spiritual yearnings. Human beings are also spiritual creatures of the highest order, and the religion of Islam recognises this and offers a comprehensive teaching that enhances the spiritual state of the human being as well as the physical and moral.

2. Our worldview is shaped by Al-hamdu lillaahi Rabb il-‘Aalameen – the fact that the Supreme Intelligence which is the Cause that has brought the universe into existence is deserving of all praise, for He possesses every excellent quality whether they can or cannot be conceived by human beings. God says that people’s consideration of Him falls far short of what He truly is. He says: Look at the creation; do you see any flaw therein? The order and harmony that pervade the entire universe are but mere reflections of God’s Perfection.

We are further informed that God is al-Rabb, the One Who sustains, nourishes and causes things to go stage by stage from one level to another. In addition, Islam tells us that God is not the Lord Sustainer, Nourisher and Developer of ONE universe but of SEVERAL, as denoted by the word ” ‘aalameen” – universes. Incidentally, the word عالم or universe in Arabic means the thing that is meant to be known. Right from the beginning, we are urged to get to know not only our universe but other universes as well. Throughout the Qur’an, we find hundreds of verses urging us to ponder and reflect and to study ourselves, nature and the cosmos.

Now, does religion impede scientific and material progress or promote it? 

I believe all reasonable people will agree that if a religion teaches its followers NOT to trust to the scientific method and instead to stagnate in superstition, then such a teaching will be harmful to the advancement of the human race.

However, as in the case of Islam according to the Ahmadiyya school of thought, the religious teaching IS to continuously enhance one’s understanding of how the universe works through the scientific method, a rational teaching based upon the Qur’an. It is this rational spirit inculcated by the Qur’an that had inspired Ibn al-Haytham, the 11th Century Muslim scientist, mathematician, astronomer and philosopher, whom many consider to be the father of the scientific method, to write:

“The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them… but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration and not the sayings of human beings whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, to attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.”

In these remarkably modern-sounding words from a man who lived a thousand years ago, Ibn al-Haytham is stating that a true scientist is one who is critical of scientific theories and who is just as critical of himself. It is this critical attitude imbued with sincerity that saves science from paradigm stagnation, pushing its boundaries ever further.

Does the world view that I have presented so far, then, seem to require replacement with a similar secular world view? To the extent of investigating HOW the universe works, Islam and Humanism appear to agree. Beyond that, however, there is a difference.

The difference between the two views is of two people analysing a painting, one of whom believes that to know the character and person of the painter is of the utmost importance in understanding the painting, while the other believes that it is in fact harmful, to understand the painter. Art historians, watch out! This is the difference between the scientist with an atheistic worldview and the believing scientist.

From the debate raging in the world of genetics we can see that attributing the evolution of life to unguided processes will often predispose scientists to expect to see failures and redundancies in biology; junk DNA, the appendix and the coccyx come to mind. “What kind of All-knowing Creator would produce such useless things?” they say.

In stark contrast, scientists who know the Creator to be One in Whose creation nothing is redundant or useless, will expect to see important functions in those areas of genetics and biology that they do not yet fully comprehend. In this instance, not having God in the equation will hinder the desire of scientists to discover the purpose of a large number of features, and they will be tempted to arrogantly write them off as useless and unworthy of further study.

3. Our way of life is further influenced by the divine quality, Al-Rahman, the Most Gracious and Beneficent One Who offers provision for all creatures without anyone having asked for it. This is a general Grace for all creatures.

Our religion promotes empathy with all the creatures of God, and not just because that is the ethical thing to do, but because we are related to each other, both literally and spiritually as God’s creatures. Indeed, we observe in our common experience that people do not empathise with everyone to the same degree. If a person sees an unknown child, they may empathise with the child. But if they are then told that the child is in fact their sister’s child or brother’s child or very close friend’s child whom they had never met before, their empathy levels will rise to an altogether different level. That is because they have a special link to their sibling or close friend, as opposed to not having one with a total stranger.

We who know God and have a special relationship with Him see all strangers as creations who are linked to us, and not just as mere human beings. This adds to our empathy for every person on earth. Having a Creator is the only way to have an instant and overriding link to all human beings, and indeed all animals. No other means can ever link us all together so potently. Without such a link that transcends all notions of race and culture, a godless philosophy cannot raise our empathy for the whole of mankind.

4. The next divine quality which informs our thoughts and actions is Al-Rahim– the One Who is most Merciful towards those who make efforts and sacrifices in order to nurture their bodies and souls.  Our religion urges us to rise from the lowest level of our soul, which is akin to an animal state, in which instinct predominates. For example, if a mother throws herself into a raging river to save her child from drowning, it may be regarded by some to be a wonderful moral quality, but in reality it is an instinctive action. Many animals would do the same.

Moving onto the moral ladder, some people aim to make themselves happy without hurting others. Islam teaches however that simply refraining from hurting others, is a very low stage of morality, and provides comprehensive guidelines on how we can go beyond that to higher stages of moral excellence.

We are taught that one moral excellence is to reciprocate the good others do to us, and that this is the strict minimum in terms of justice. This is called ‘adl in the Qur’an. Islam teaches that justice is not always served by only meting out equal treatment to all, however. Often to be just and to remove the suffering of others, requires that we move to a higher level of morality, which is to give people more than what they did for us, even if that means we lose out to some degree compared to others. In the Qur’an, this is called Ihsaan, meaning “goodness” or “excellence”. Islam then teaches us that there is an even higher form of moral excellence which is that we do good to others without counting, expecting absolutely no reward in return. This is labelled by the Qur’an as Eetaa’ Dhil Qurbaa, meaning “giving to others as if they were your children or family”. This goes beyond simply pursuing happiness as long as it doesn’t hurt others, or treating others as one would like to be treated, or helping them enjoy things that we enjoy. Islam teaches that the highest stage of morality is that we should cheerfully forego and sacrifice our own happiness in order to bring relief and happiness to others, and so that justice may be served.

There is great talk of equality in the world, but without sacrifice, this alone cannot guarantee justice. The world, due to the materialistic greed of the most powerful, has become fundamentally lopsided in terms of provision and basic needs and cannot be rectified simply by those who have been provided for by ‘not harming others’ or ‘helping others to enjoy what they enjoy’, as Humanism advocates. In order to, for example, end world hunger, given the extreme state of comparative depravation from one place to another will now require individual people who have been given comfort actively sacrificing their comfort, provisions and even their lives in order to restore balance.

A godless philosophy will have difficulty with regard to inspiring this kind of selfless action. By contrast, the spirit of sacrificing one’s comfort and pleasure for others is at the very root of Islamic teaching. This even requires that we give up our lives for others. The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Ahmad of Qadian, peace be upon him, said: “I would like to make it known to all Muslims, Christians, Hindus and Aryas that I have no enemy in the world. I love mankind as dearly as an affectionate mother loves her children, nay, even more.” Also: “The principle to which we adhere is that we have kindness at heart for the whole of Mankind. If anyone sees the house of a Hindu neighbour on fire and does not come forward to help extinguish the fire, I truly declare that he does not belong to me. And if anyone of my followers, having seen someone attempting to murder a Christian, does not endeavour to save him, I most truly declare that he does not belong to us.” These are the high moral excellences that are taught by Islam.

Thus, inspired by these divine qualities, and following the teachings governed by them, we strive to rise above instinct, and above mere fair treatment of others, to a level where good is done without care for oneself. This is doing good out of pure love of God. At this level, the believer has only the goodness of God before his or her eyes. It is a mistake to think that at this lofty level, believers do good for fear of Hell or in the hope of entering Paradise. Not at all! As Rabi‘ah, a great mystic from among the women of 8th Century Basra, had declared:

“O God! If I worship You for fear of Hell, burn me in Hell, and if I worship You in hope of Paradise, exclude me from Paradise. But if I worship You for Your Own sake, do not deprive me of Your everlasting Beauty.”

5. Islam nevertheless recognises that there will always be people at the lower levels of morality who will refrain from doing evil only out of the fear of being caught and held accountable. This is where the divine quality of Malik Yaum id-Deen  comes into play, the One Who is Master of the Day of Judgment. At the lower levels, Man’s morality is dependent on his belief that he is being watched.

It is known that in public areas where people can see closed-circuit television cameras overhead, they tend to behave. They do not know if anyone is actually monitoring them with those cameras or not. Yet, they will tend to behave because they think they are being watched by authorities who can have them punished for any misbehaviour. Every driver in the UK slows down when they see a yellow camera box on the road!

The deficiency of surveillance is that they cannot reach the thoughts and intentions of a person. Knowing that the Supreme Consciousness can reach our intimate thoughts and intentions will go a long way to prevent immoral and criminal behaviour in those situations that secular Law cannot. As the fourth Successor to the Founder of our Community emphasised, unless you know that such a God is watching you, the heart breeds all sorts of evils and it is only a matter of time before they come out. Knowing, therefore, that one will be held accountable for all crimes – even those that remain hidden from the eyes of others – is a far better moral strategy to keep the morally weaker ones in society in check and to preserve peace in society. Thus a godless philosophy is less effective as a moral strategy.

6. The next proclamation that Islam teaches us is: Iyyaaka Na‘budu wa Iyyaaka Nasta‘een meaning Thee alone, O God, do we worship and emulate and Thee alone do we Implore for help.

It needs to be said here that many people wrongly assume that because you are an atheist, you have no god. This is not a correct view. As I had stated in the beginning, a god is something which one takes to be superior and because of this, one follows it and in many instances emulates it. It is in human nature to follow others and you either have a deity, or you naturally follow and emulate other human beings who in that sense become your gods. It always amuses me to see young people making a fashion statement with different hairstyles, accessories and clothing, because, they say, they want to be different from the crowd, only to find that they are doing nothing but copying another crowd of people. Others choose to emulate the way certain celebrities talk, and before long, one ends up with thousands of people throwing around the same phrases learnt from the intellectuals they idolise, and wherever they go, one will hear them shouting out this learned repertoire such as: Red Herring! Strawman! No true Scotsman!  etc., copying their idols over and over ad nauseam, never realising that they too have chosen a god to follow.

Some say that they want to be really original and true to themselves. Yet, even the very notion of giving value to being yourself is learnt from others who are practising and preaching that notion in the first place! Hence, it is in human nature to take a god for oneself; and as a person advances in age, they continue to change their allegiance, following a string of different idols or gods whom they wish to follow. Unless one takes a single God which represents fixed morals, one will have innumerable gods through the course of one’s life, and without a point of reference, the stability in one’s moral standards will constantly be threatened.

There is nothing, no single point of reference, in a godless philosophy that prevents a person’s character or values from changing. This is one aspect of the moral relativistic argument. It is not saying that ALL secularists will see their characters and values change for the worse, but that because they have no belief in something outside of them as good or evil, their perspective can change perceptibly or imperceptibly. In such a scenario, there is no guarantee, therefore, of consistency over time in moral values within a single person, let alone a whole nation.

Similarly, when one is in the habit of seeking help from human beings taken as points of reference, knowing that human beings can change from one day to the next, one is often shocked to see apathy and immorality in one’s idols and beloved leaders. Certain biologists and their twitter feeds are an example that springs to mind. Only an unchanging point of reference can guarantee consistency. This is also a basic scientific principle.

7. The next proclamation follows on from the previous one: Ihdinas Siraatal Mustaqeem – Guide us, O Lord, on the straight path, the path of consistency.

We have seen that a human being, over time, is prone to change in his concepts of goodness, and the whole society is threatened by the inconsistency of changing moral standards. One thus requires a teaching which keeps one’s nature in harmony with true goodness, and prevents it from being perverted. Islam declares that it is based on human nature, and that all teachings which appal human nature are not Islamic. Every wise principle is part and parcel of Islam. This is illustrated by the following saying of the Holy Prophet of Islam – peace and blessings of God be upon – which is that wherever a believer finds a word of wisdom, he should take it enthusiastically as if it were his lost property. So apart from the comprehensive guidelines we receive from the Qur’an, in addition, any wise word pertaining to practical situations will be adopted as wholly in line with Islam wherever we find it.

It may surprise some to hear that as Ahmadi Muslims we do not get guidance only from the Qur’an but also from God directly. God communicates with us as individuals in this day and age, through revelations, visual communications and dreams. This is of great importance because in the event that it is discovered that there IS an afterlife and a purpose to the universe, atheism will turn into a dry academic exercise. To illustrate, imagine the dismay of those who laughed about the possibility of extraterrestrial life, if E.T. were to land on earth. Our view is that God is transcendent and is beyond the limits of time and space. He is a non-biological Consciousness and Intelligence that cannot be reduced to or encapsulated in matter of any form. God is therefore not about to land on earth, but He can and does communicate with us.

A non-biological consciousness? I hear you exclaim. “Impossible!” will the narrow-minded ones cry, while the more discerning ones will say: “Highly improbable! And therefore we must reject the proposition.”

This is hardly a scientific way to go about things. That inert matter suddenly sprang to life is also regarded as highly improbable. That consciousness appeared from the same inert matter was highly improbable too. Yet, these highly improbable things are here for all to observe. We are but bunches of atoms, but we are alive and we think and are conscious. Totally inexplicable and defying all that we know about the properties of matter, yet happening right here, right now. It would be extraordinarily unscientific for us to start saying, therefore, that we are not at all willing to explore other things we merely perceive as highly improbable.

To illustrate, let us turn to our good friend, Ornithorhyncus anatinus, more commonly known as the duck-billed platypus.

When it was first encountered by Europeans in 1798 – and a pelt and sketch were presented to scientists in England – those intellectuals, the product of the Enlightenment, declared it to be an elaborate hoax and refused to entertain the possibility that it may be something real.

If it were suggested that they go to Australia and ask the locals for guidance, the more pompous among them might have exclaimed: What! Those savages? What could they know about anything? They’re so backward and superstitious!!!

A more scientific approach would have been to go to Australia and approach the aboriginal people in a humble fashion; and attempt to benefit from their knowledge in order to arrive at the truth. If they did that, and were persistent, they would catch a glimpse of the platypus, or better still, get hold of a live one for further observation.

This pompous, arrogantly confident attitude leads man to being deprived of the truth. Some people may seem backward and superstitious to you, but they may yet prove to you that something, however improbable in your minds, does indeed exist.

As far as we Ahmadi Muslims are concerned – and we are neither backward nor superstitious – we know that it is essential to mould our lives around the view that there is an afterlife, because God has been showing us, and continues to show us, that it is a reality that, no matter how clever we are, we cannot evade.

I am not talking here of claims made by religious people to the effect that they think God is there because they can feel Him in their heart. Nothing of the kind. That would of course not be a good enough reason to search for God and would bring no real satisfaction.

I am talking about God, that Superior, non-biological Consciousness, actively communicating with us and offering proof of His Omniscience and hence existence, by giving us knowledge of the future: such knowledge as is beyond the capability of human beings. This phenomenon is continuing daily in the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. At times, our students are told in advance which questions will appear in their exam papers. At others, Ahmadi Muslims are warned of impending disasters. Sometimes, important future world events are announced years in advance to Ahmadi Muslims living thousands of miles apart, simultaneously.

One of the most amazing aspects of this phenomenon is that people who had absolutely no knowledge of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community are shown Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Founder of our community, or one of his Successors or Caliphs, in a dream; and they are told in the dream to join his community.

This has happened for over a century and continues to happen all over the world. Such people are greatly astonished when years later they come across the photograph of the person they were shown in their dreams, and immediately join our community.

Some of these highly improbable experiences, when taken individually, may of course be viewed with scepticism. However, when the phenomenon keeps on repeating itself, and when it contains knowledge that no one can conjure up, we know for sure that we would be fools, indeed mad, to reject it. In fact, many of us were atheists or agnostics who were shaken up by such experiences, and are now Ahmadi Muslims for having witnessed the communication of God within the religion of Islam. Our reason and logic forbid us to be anything but Ahmadi Muslims.

We invite anyone who doubts this to test our claim by coming to us and living as an Ahmadi Muslim for a short period of time, let’s say a few months, and see for themselves whether God communicates with them or not.

8. We now move on to Siraatal-ladheena an‘amta  ‘alayhim – Guide us, O Lord, on the path of those upon Whom Thou hast bestowed Thy favours.

Human beings are in need of examples which reflect all the qualities of God as mentioned previously. Without such excellent exemplars and paragons of virtue and consistent moral and spiritual values, one is condemned to follow a number of idols with changing standards throughout one’s life, as explained earlier. Secular philosophies have never produced such models to follow. The communist Chinese have arguably come up with the closest thing, and that was Mao Tse-tung. Following people whose moral standards can change at a whim cannot guarantee peace and harmony in the individual, or in society, or in the natural world.

Much is made of the relatively high levels of happiness enjoyed by certain European countries. These are brandished as great achievements of secularism. The stark reality is that pursuing a purely materialistic and godless way of life has brought these nations to exploit our beautiful planet in such horrendous ways that in order for certain European nations to enjoy these so-called high levels of happiness, whole forests have to be cut down, peoples displaced and dispossessed, the atmosphere, land and sea need to be polluted, dozens of species of the biological world have to go extinct, and innocent people and their children and babies need to die every single day. Such atrocities can never breed true happiness, and upon closer examination, we will see that those apparently happy societies are also among the top 50 nations with the highest suicide rates, and among the top nations for the rise in anti-depressant use. These so-called achievements in the creation of happy societies have had and continue to have disastrous consequences for the entire planet.

Those who do not properly know the Prophet Muhammad – peace and blessings of God be upon him – hate him, whereas he remains the most loved and emulated person on Earth today. He is a source of consistent moral guidance for sincere Muslims in every aspect of their lives.

He was the one who, when he found a mother bird beating her wings in distress, told his companions to return her young to her in her nest. For his teaching was: “May no mother be tormented on account of her child.”

He it is who, when one day a sickly cat chose to lie down on the sleeve of his coat that he had laid on the ground, preferred, when he needed to leave, to cut off the sleeve and leave the poor cat sleeping on it, rather than shoo it away, and then walk home with only one sleeve on his coat. He it is whose excellent moral standards inspired his successor ‘Umar to place a soldier to guard over a female dog that had just given birth in a public place lest anyone disturb her.

These examples run into their thousands and cover every aspect of life. So far we have not yet seen any secular philosophy produce a single all-round example, that we would ever be able to happily leave Muhammad and his successors for.

9. We are finally taken to the last declaration, namely: Ghayr il-Maghdoobi ‘AlayhimWa Lad-Daalleen  –  Lord, guide us not on the path of those who incur wrath upon themselves, nor of those who lose their way.

Here we are told to never aspire to be like those who are fully aware of the fact that they are following a path leading to destruction, by wilfully ignoring divine qualities which maintain balance, order and harmony in every sphere of existence. Such people eventually attract the wrath of God which is in other words the consequences of defying the true nature of humankind and the result of creating chaos in society, between nations and in the natural world.

Similarly, we are told to beware of becoming like those who are so far removed from the natural order of things and who have so distanced themselves from the true nature of humankind, that they do not even perceive what is wrong in their behaviour any more. So blind are they that they in fact attack the true and natural order of things which they think is actually perverse! They make up their own ideas of what it means to be happy, and their decisions on the individual, social and international levels, heavily influenced by their relentless pursuit of personal happiness, begin to endanger life and health, and ultimately set humankind on a path leading to the extinction of the human race.

This is the result of distancing oneself from the Perfect attributes and qualities of the One God, the Originator of our universe and of many other universes. The Law of Nature always eventually wipes out whole civilisations who persist in their defiance of the nature which God has instilled in the bodies and minds and souls of humankind. As I had pointed out, a human being is not just a physical and moral creature but is also a spiritual creature. This fact is demonstrated by the existence of so many religions throughout time. Thus, Religion cannot be replaced by any godless philosophies because these underestimate what a human being is. This is one area where secular worldviews cannot offer any satisfaction. There are a great multitude of people in the world, constituting in fact the crushing majority of people on earth, who are interested in God, and in life after death and matters pertaining to it. Secular philosophies have nothing to offer in this regard to such people, the greater part of mankind, ignoring the yearning of our consciousness to find its Creator and giving no answer or satisfaction to our spiritual cravings.

It may surprise you to know that everything I have presented this evening has been based on the opening chapter of the Holy Qur’an, which, taking into consideration the ensemble of meanings that each of its words carries, is as follows:

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ ٱلرَّحْمـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

We begin keeping in view the Name, the very qualities, of Allah, the One Most Gracious and Beneficent,  the Ever-Merciful One

ٱلْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ ٱلْعَالَمِينَ

All praise belongs to Allah (the True God, for He possesses every excellence and perfection), the Lord (In Arabic, Rabb: One Who protects, sustains and maintains order, causing His creatures to progress from one stage to the next) in all the universes

ٱلرَّحْمـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

The One Who gives with great beneficence before anyone even asks, showing His Mercy by rewarding the feeble efforts of His creatures again and again

مَـٰلِكِ يَوْمِ ٱلدِّينِ

The One Who alone has mastery over the Day of Perfect Judgment (for only He can assess every aspect of His creatures’ actions, even in the deep recesses of their intentions and thoughts)

إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ

Thee alone do we worship and seek to emulate and reflect in our persons, and Thee alone do we implore for help to do so

ٱهْدِنَا ٱلصِّرَاطَ ٱلْمُسْتَقِيمَ

Guide us on the straight path (the path of consistency and harmony)

صِرَاطَ ٱلَّذِينَ أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ غَيْرِ ٱلْمَغْضُوبِ عَلَيْهِم وَلاَ ٱلضَّآلِّينَ

The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed Thy favours (such as the Prophets and Messengers and Saints Who were directly guided by that greatest favour of all, namely, divine communication);

not of those who have incurred wrath and destruction upon themselves (for knowingly defying the spiritual, moral and physical principles Thou hast created in this universe), nor of those who have gone so far (from the true nature of Mankind) that they are totally lost (and cannot even identify their error).

This tiny chapter of seven verses and only thirty-one words[1] in the Arabic language provides a comprehensive summary of the entire purpose of religion. This is the divine wisdom which no man has ever been, nor will ever be, able to match let alone replace.

 

[1] Or twenty-nine, depending on how one counts a pronominal compound