Muslim Guidance Articles

Source: Islam, The Misunderstood Religion - By Muhammed Kutub

Recently when I heard that a student wrote a thesis wherein he “proved” that Islam was a feudalistic system and received his Master’s Degree, I was deeply surprised. The performance of both the student as well as the professors awarding him the degree was equally mystifying. But the student might well be excused on the plea that he was either ignorant of what he was writing about or did so out of ill-will towards Islam, but what about the learned teachers? How are we to account for their conduct, their knowledge of the socio-economic system of Islam, and their understanding of history?

But I no longer wondered as I remembered who these learned teachers were. Weren’t they the members of a community enticed by the foreign exploiters and fashioned after an intellectual pattern serviceable to them? Aren’t they the people in whom Mr. Dunlop[1] was particularly interested? They were sent abroad ostensibly to acquire knowledge, but, in fact, it was just a part of a conspiracy to turn them into complete strangers to their own culture and civiliza­tion; to make them look down upon their religion, their own selves, their history, their faith, and, instead, follow in the footsteps of their western teachers. No wonder then that they allowed such a mon­strous perversion of history and truth!

Let us, however, see what the word feudalism means in fact and what are its characteristics. For this purpose we reproduce below extracts of a book, “Communism” by Dr. Rashid-al-­Barawy, that has recently been published in Europe. Speaking about feudalism, the author says: “Feudalism is a way of production, the distinguishing mark of it being the existence of a perpetual system of serfdom. It is a system wherein the landlord or his representative is entitled to receive a fixed share of production and enjoys certain specific economic rights, carrying with them the privilege to make their tenants serve them or, instead thereof, receive payments from them in cash or kind. As an explanation of this, we may say that the feudal society is divided into two classes of people: (I) the owners of feudal lands, and (2) the tenants, who may again vary in their grades, farmers, agricultural workers, and slaves, the number of some of them dwindling off more rapidly than that of others. It is the farmers, the direct producers, however, who enjoy the right to possess land and have a share in the produce that is so necessary for them to support their families and themselves, besides the right to build farm-houses on the tillage. Against these benefits, they are required to serve the landlord every week by render­ing free services in his fields working with their own cattle and instruments, along with performing for him a number of other services at the time of harvesting and reaping, and offering him on the occasion of festivals whatever gifts and presents they can. They are also expected to get their food-grains and grapes milled and pressed in his flour mills and pressing machines.

“The landlord also exercises full executive and judicial powers over his tenants living within the bounds of his feudal lands.

“The real producer in feudalism did not enjoy freedom in the sense we know at present; he did not own the land, nor could he sell, inherit or give it as a free gift to others. He was compelled to a forced labor in the lands of his master even at the expense of his own material gains or considerations thereof. Moreover, as a mark of his obedience to the master he had to pay him taxes that were unlimited in amount as well as extent. With the land he too changed masters passing from one to the other, for he did not have the right to shift of his own free will from one fief to another in search of work or even join the service of still another master. As such, the feudal villain forms the connecting link between the slaves of olden times and the free tenants of the modern times.

“It was the master who fixed the extent of the land to be given by him to the peasant. He also decided about the services that he expected his tenants to render him without being under any obliga­tion to have a consideration for the rights of the other landowners or the needs of the peasants while making such momentous decisions”

The writer goes on to say: “In the thirteenth century there ensued the great illegal migration movement that finally ended with the emergence of agricultural workers. This movement known as “the running away of peasants” caused the landowners to claim back their fugitive tenants, they among themselves agreed that every landowner would be fully authorized to capture all the workers happening to transgress into his feudal domain. But as the phenomenon-the running away of the peasants-was fast be­coming a common feature of the times the landowners were forced to depend on and consequently engage more and more of hired labor for the tilling of their lands, Their mutual agreements gra­dually lost all significance which meant a steady decrease in their co-operation. From this proceeded still another inevitable result: wages to the workers were paid in cash in place of exacting forced labor out of them without any payment.

“Many of the peasants gradually prospered as against the needs of the nobility and landowners that were greatly multiplied and hence became a great burden on them economically. The circumstances favored the peasants and they bought off their freedom. This continued till the fourteenth century when the freedom of the agricultural workers was at last recognized as such by all. However, the important change that came over the times was that the basis on which the whole feudal structure rested was beginning to give way; the following centuries witnessed its com­plete abolition”.[2]

These are the characteristics of feudalism, we have reproduced these extracts above in detail as we want that we should become clear-headed about feudalism and its characteristics and not confuse them with other seemingly similar manifestations. Bearing all these characteristics of a feudalistic society in mind, may we ask: when and where was such feudalism ever witnessed in the history of Islam?

Perhaps the outward semblance that has proved a stumbling block for many a research worker or has given the opportunists an excuse to cast aspersions on Islam, is the fact that in the beginning, the Islamic society for the time being consisted of two classes of people: the landowners and the peasants who worked in their lands. But this was nothing more than a mere .outward semblance. It in no wise justifies the confusion of Islam with feudalism. In order to facilitate a comparison between Islam and feudalism we may sum up the basic characteristics of feudalism as follows:­

(l) A perpetual serfdom.

(2) The duties which the peasant discharged towards his master consisted of:

    (a) a whole day’s free and forced labor in the lands of his feudal lord once a week;

    (b) free and forced services rendered by him to his master in special seasons of         harvesting, etc.;

    (c) presenting gifts on religious and other similar occasions of festivities, notwithstanding his poverty or the opulence of the recipient rich landlord;

    (d) an obligation to get his food-grains milled in the mills of the landlord. (We pass over his obligation to get his grapes pressed for his feudal lord as wine is prohibited in Islam).

(3) The right of the landlord to decide as his whims or desires might dictate as to the extent of the land to be held by the peasant, the services required of him and the taxes to be paid by him.

(4) The exercise of all judicial-cum-executive powers by the landlord not in accordance with a fixed law of the land but according to his own whims and desires;

(5) The obligation of the peasants to buy off their freedom with cash payments when in the end feudalism gave way and a process of its degeneration set in.

Let the readers first look at these and then glance over the whole history of Islam to find similar characteristics therein. They will surely be disappointed, for Islam has nothing to do with them.

There is no serfdom in Islam as it recognizes no other form of servitude save that of slavery, the causes and conditions whereof and the means or freedom from which we have already dealt with in the preceding chapter. Islam admits of no bondage arising out or a tenant’s being bound to the soil. The only slaves that we know of in Islam were those captured in wars which are quite sufficient to prove that in the early Islamic society the number of slaves was far less in comparison with the total numbers of its free citizens. They worked on the soil of their masters till they were freed voluntarily or they themselves took the initiative and demanded as writing of (Mukatabah) their freedom of their masters. But there exists no such parallel in the history of the European feudalism as it primarily aimed at the subjection of the peasants as well as the agricultural workers rather than encourage them to demand freedom. That is why the peasants in Europe were looked upon as serfs bound to and transferable with the land from one master to another. As such, they could neither leave the soil they worked on, nor free themselves from the obligation devolving upon them towards their landlords.

Islam is not at all familiar with this type of serfdom or villains as it is in principle opposed to all forms of servitude save that ren­dered by man unto his God, the Creator of all life. There is no pro­vision in it for the subjection of some creatures to other creatures like them. Whenever such an abnormal state-subjection of some men to others is found due to certain external causes without any initiative from Islam, it always is a temporary or a transitional phenomenon, which it strives to do away with, with all the possible resources at its disposal, encouraging the slaves to earn their freedom besides holding the state responsible to render to them all possi­ble help towards that end.

In economics too Islam does not recognize any bondage of man to other men like him. The system of slavery to which we have alluded above is an exception as there was no other economical alternative before Islam at that time. Islam tolerated it till the slaves were freed spiritually and till the time they were able to shoulder their responsibilities as free members of the community, whereupon Islam actively helped them in winning back their lost freedom.

Islam bases its economic structure on freedom of action coupled with a relationship of a complete co-operation and exchange of mutual services among all individuals. The Islamic government as such acts as a guardian and custodian of all such people as happen to lag behind in the struggle of life for some reason and are denied all amenities of a decent living. Thus with all the resources of the state at his backing in an Islamic community no man needs let himself become a bondsman to the landowners. Islam pro­vides for all his basic needs without degrading him or making him lose his independence, self-respect or honor.

Thus both spiritually and economically Islam is opposed to feu­dalism. It brought to men freedom from feudalism even before they were caught up in the shackles of serfdom.

So far as the obligations of the peasant towards his feudal lord are concerned there is no evidence whatever of their existence in the whole range of Islamic history.

It is quite free of such nonsense. In this respect, Islam stands quite unique. In case a peasant is found guilty of some crime, it allows the owner of the land to discard him and give away the land to another one. But this is not to encourage oppression; it is rather a step towards the eradication of serfdom. Islam aims at the establishment of a free relationship between the landlord and the tenant.

The only relationship that Islam recognizes as lawful between the peasant and the landlord is either that of contract or that based on tenancy. In the former case, the peasant is required to pay to the landlord a fixed amount as the rent of the land proportionate to its produce and after that he remains quite free in his cultivation and expenditure as well as in the acquiring of all the produce of the land for his own personal consumption. If he happens to be a tenant he will share the produce of the land at the end of every year with the landlord. In such a case all the expenses are borne by the landlord; the peasant provides the labor only. In both of these cases there is no place for forced labor, dictatorial privileges or any other obligation incumbent on the peasant to serve his master without getting anything in return. Both parties rather enjoy full equality in freedom, in their rights as well as duties with a reciprocity of mutual give-and-take relationship. The peasant is, in the first place, quite free to choose the land he would like to hire or the landlord he would prefer to work with as a tenant. Secondly, he is on a par with the landlord and enjoys as much freedom to decide or agree to the amount for the contract to be paid by him to the landlord. If he does not find the bargain profitable he is free to back out of it and not agree to the contract, the landlord having no power or right to take him to task for that. As a tenant the pea­sant enjoys as much legal privileges as his landlord. They divide the profit thereof equally between themselves.

Besides this, we also find that contrary to what happened in the history of European feudalism, the practice commonly prevalent in Islam was quite different. It was the rich landlord and not the poor peasant who gave presents and bestowed bountiful gifts upon his tenants on the occasions of Eid and other festivals. This is specially true about the months of Ramadhan, a month of great importance and religious significance in Islam. During this month, friends and relations paid visits to each other and were entertained with feasts along with bestowing bountiful gifts upon the poor and needy ones of their community. It means, in other words, that the rich and well-to-do people were wont to spend their riches on others rather than exact costly gifts from the poor people as was the cus­tom in “civilized” Europe.

From this it is clear that the duties that the peasants were encumbered with in feudalism and which degenerated into forced labor have no place in the Islamic system of life. It established rather a free relationship between the landowner and the peasant with a reciprocal respect and perfect equality. As regards the duties discharged by the feudal lords in Europe towards their tenants as a recompense for their unjustifiable forced labor and abject slavery to them in the form of defending them from others and safe­ guarding their rights, in Islamic society the rich people discharged voluntarily similar duties with regard to their tenants without expecting anything from them in return. In rendering these services to their fellowmen they sought nothing save God’s pleasure. This is what distinguishes a system of life based on a lofty creed and the one devoid of it. In the one the social services rendered by a man towards others assume the character of a worship whereby he is brought closer to his God, whereas in the other they are nothing more than a commercial enterprise, each party striving hard to get hold of the lion’s share and anxious to yield to the other nothing but that which is beyond its power to hold longer, with the result that in the end the most powerful party rather than the one rightfully deserving emerges victorious and gets away with all the profits.

The third characteristic of feudalism, that is, the right of the feudal lord to decide as to the extent of the land to be given to the tenant and prescribe the duties to be discharged by and expected of him, is a thing peculiar to the European concept of lordship and serfdom only. Such concept had never existed in the history of Islam which does not recognize the over-lordship of the feudal lord or the serf-hood of the peasant to him. The only factor which does restrict the choice of a peasant with regard to his acquiring a lease of land in Islam is his own free will and financial potentiality. The lesser enjoys no privileges against this save that of claiming the agreed upon rent of the land from the peasant. Similarly in tenancy the extent of the land to be farmed by a tenant is determined by his own physical ability or the number of the helping hands (consisting of his sons generally) he can get hold of. The duties imposed on him in tenancy are no more than what the rehabilitation of the land acquired by him may necessitate. The land in such a case is considered as a common property of the peasant and the landowner till it brings forth its produce. As to the land of the landlord other than that held by the tenant in tenancy, the tenant is not supposed to have anything to do with that, nor is he under any obligation to work therein whatever the form or nature of such a work or service might be.

The most striking point of difference between Islam and feudal­ism, however, is the judicial-cum-executive prerogative enjoyed by the landlord in feudalism. He alone in feudalism controls and regulates all social and political life within the bounds of his fiefs. Islam is diametrically opposed to such a prerogative as it aims at the abolition, rather than its retention, in the world of human relation­ships.

The European nations did not possess any law of the land in the real sense of the word with regard to the above-mentioned landlord-tenant relationship. The Roman Law, which later on formed the basis of all subsequent European legislation, conferred upon the feudal lords the right to become virtual dictators in their respective areas, make laws for the people, hold judicial powers among them, and enforce their decisions as they might think fit. Thus they held in their persons legislative, judicial and executive powers all in one and at the same time. Each one of them formed a govern­ment within a government. The government did not interfere with the internal affairs of the feudal monarchies so long as they con­tinued to carry out their financial and military obligations towards it at the hour of need.

Nothing of the sort is to be found in Islam, It had its own cen­tral government with its own law of the land which it strove to en­force in the lives of all those living within its boundaries, Judges were appointed to enforce the law of the land in all parts of the country. All were made equal before law, None enjoyed any priority over others. The individual was called to account only when he committed a mistake or acted wrongly. Later on when contrary to the teachings of Islam, the government degenerated into a here­ditary monarchy it still retained some Islamic characteristics. Thus, for instance, the government continued exercising a supervisory authority over all the different peoples and individuals that lived within its sphere of influence. The law of the land was one and the same for all people living within its vast territories. The only excep­tion appears to be differences of the jurists among themselves on certain legal points, which is no more than what is met with in al­most all the systems of law found on the face of the earth. It was this rule of the law that provided a safeguard for the peasants against the oppression of the feudal lords as well as their greed, lust or whim. They were ruled in accordance with the divine law rather than the whims and wishes of the feudal lords. It held not only the landlords and the tenants as equals as both of them were now made free men but also treated all men alike and in the same manner.

Of course there are found certain unfortunate Incidents in the history of Muslims as well, wherein we see that judges gave judg­ments contrary to their own conscience as well as in contravention of the spirit of the law in order to win favor with the feudal lords or the rulers, but these incidents were no more then certain stray instances. They are merely exceptions as is shown by the historical facts to the veracity of which even the European scholars bear witness. As against these few stray case of injustice there are a great many instances in Islamic history which show that judges gave judgments in favor of extremely poor men against not only landlords, governors or ministers but even against the caliph himself-the caliph who wielded absolute authority and power. But, in Spite of this, neither any judge was dismissed from his post, nor did the ruler seek any revenge against him.

Similarly, there is not any escape movement of the peasants met with in the Islamic history as was witnessed in Europe. This was so because the peasants enjoyed not only the rights to move freely from one farm to the other but also from one country to another within the boundaries of the vast Islamic Empire. Nothing prevented them from shifting from place to place except their own fondness for or attachment to a particular tract of land as was, for instance, the case with the Egyptian farmers. The peasants in other parts of the Islamic world, however, fully availed themselves of this freedom of movement as they did not happen to be so attached to their particular areas as their Egyptian counterparts were and as no obstacles were hurled in their way to prevent their movement such as blocked the way in the case of the European peasants in the form of serfdom and the various obligations they were encumbered with.

The peasants in the history of the European feudalism towards its final phase had to buy off their freedom. This too has no parallel in the history of the Islamic peoples for the simple reason that among them peasants enjoyed as much freedom as any other section of the community did. They as such had no need to buy off the freedom they already possessed,

Moreover, it may also be added that in the Islamic world a large number of small states existed throughout its history. These states provided livelihood to their possessors, helped them carry out various kinds of sea or land trade and support the various industrial crafts. But in Europe all of these were completely swept away by the upsurge of feudalism. It was then that a dark night of spiritual ignorance and intellectual darkness settled on Europe. It was shown light by Islam, first when it came into contact with the Islamic world during the crusades, and again, when the two encountered each other in Spain. These encounters set Europe onto the path of the Renaissance and so Europe gradually climbed out of that dark night of intellectual and spiritual stagnation.

Thus we find that feudalism as such did never exist in the world of Islam so long as Islam remained dominant in the Muslim lands because its spiritual and economic system as well as its basic creed, principles and laws are all opposed to feudalism. Not only this but it also does away with all the causes conducive to its growth. Whatever semblance of feudalism was witnessed during the Ommayad and Abbaside periods was limited in its sphere, besides the fact that it never flourished so as to become a common feature of the social life of the Muslims.

Of Course we do find feudalism in the Islamic countries in the modern history towards the end of the Ottoman Empire when headsprings of Islamic faith had dried up in the hearts of Muslims and the political power had passed into the hands of those who knew nothing as regards Islam save its name. The picture became all the more dark when the Godless, materialistic and aggressive European civilization marched in triumph against the Islamic world. It staged military occupations, destroyed all spiritual values and put an end to the spirit of co-operation, replacing these with the most hideous forms of capitalistic exploitation and a life-long misery to the poor. This feudalistic system imported as it was from Europe still continues to linger in some of the Muslim lands with all those features that characterized its parent-the European feudalism. It is quite clear that Islam owes no apology for the presence of it in the contemporary Islamic world, nor is it in any way responsible for its emergence or existence. It could be held responsible only if it were a ruling power in the Muslim lands. Some Muslim rulers are at present ruling their peoples in accordance with the constitu­tions and laws imported from various European countries rather than according to the Islamic laws. They remain the most faithful followers of their western masters that were ever witnessed on the face of the earth.

From the above discussion certain facts stand out clearly that have become a centre of the ideological conflict raging in the modern World. Of these the following facts may be pointed out:­

      (1) It is not the factor of ownership as such that inexorably paves the way for the growth of feudalism with human will having no part in its enhancement. It is rather the manner of possessing and the nature of relationship between the owners of the land and those who have no land in their possession that favor its growth. That is why ownership was there in the Islamic world and yet feudal­ism did not exist because the ideology of Islam as well as its various applications to practical life establish between the individuals such relationships as do not favor the growth of feudalism.

(2) If Europe was condemned to feudalism it was not because feudalism is an essential stage of evolution on the path of evolution that can never be bypassed by mankind even if it should so desire. Europe suffered from it rather because of the fact that it did not pos­sess any system or creed such as might have regulated human relationships and offered a sound intellectual guidance. Had there been present such a creed and ideology as was the case with the world of Islam, to guide and organize their socio-economic relation­ships, no feudalism could ever have sprung up or flourished in Europe.

(3) The different stages of economic evolution-first com­munist society, slavery, feudalism, capitalism and then the final com­munist society-which the dialectical materialists describe as a common phenomenon in the history of mankind, really have no existence whatsoever outside the European history. These stages were never passed through by any people outside Europe. The world of Islam never in its whole history passed through the stage of feudalism; it has never also as such till now come to the stage of communism, nor will it ever reach that stage.

Source: Islam, The Misunderstood Religion - By Muhammed Kutub

“As we have already submitted, Islam stands for all that is good, healthy and desirable in life. It is the religion for all times, gene­rations and societies but as the Islamic world during the last four centuries has been in a state of constant depression, the portion of the Islamic law dealing with economic problems remained static. Why shouldn’t we then adopt Islam as a creed to edify our souls and purify thoughts and embrace communism as the economic system to solve our economic problems as it would in no wise affect our social set-up or any aspect thereof. We shall thus be able not only to safeguard our morals, social traditions and customs but also have at the same time one of the most modern economic systems of the present times to-resolve our economic problems”

The reasoning such as this given above is a part of the diabolical game the communists are out to play now since a long time. To begin with, they adopted an aggressive attitude towards Islam in the East and cast various doubts about it. But when they found that this had rather increased Muslims’ attachment to Islam, they changed their strategy and resorted to fraud and deception. Thus they reasoned that: “Communism does not at all interfere with Islam, as it is basically just another name for social justice and stands for the responsibility of the state towards its citizens to provide them with the basic needs of life. Do you mean to say that Islam is opposed to social justice by alleging that it is opposed to communism? Surely Islam cannot oppose such a system based on social justice”.

This diabolical reasoning is similar to that resorted to by the imperialists before this. They too had started with attacking Islam openly but when they found that it had only put the Muslims on their guard and they were watchful, they resorted to another course.

They said: “The West is interested only in the spread of civilization in the East; how can Islam be against civilization when it is itself the father of civilization?” They assured the Muslims that they could adopt this western civilization without giving up their fastings, prayers, and mystic practices, although they were sure that if the Muslims once succumbed to their civilization they would no longer be able to retain their Islamic character with the result that within a few generations this civilization would overpower them once for all. They proved right. Consequently, there arose a generation among the Muslims after some time who was completely ignorant about Islam, who rather felt a repulsion from it without any knowledge or reason whatsoever.

It is this very game of fraud and deception that the communists are playing today. They say that the Muslims can at once remain Muslims, can pray, fast and perform esoteric rituals and adopt communism as an economic system, for it does not at all meddle with their religion. Why should they then hesitate in embracing it? But while thus arguing they know very well that Muslims will no longer remain Muslims if they once but succumbed to its temptation. In such a case, they are sure to remold them in a few years’ time after their own philosophy of life and put an end to Islam and all it stands for because the age we are living in is one of rapid movement and dynamism which means that great changes can very easily be brought about in a comparatively very short period of time. But in spite of all these facts there are very many Muslims who willingly allow themselves to be hoodwinked by such a spurious reasoning as it provides them with an excuse at least to avoid hard struggle in carrying out their unpleasant duties as Muslims promising them at the same time freedom from the cumbrous task of finding their own way, use their own reason and exert themselves in constructive activities. They would rather just like to sit down and dream idle dreams and let themselves be guided by others.

We would at this point like to stress the fact that in principle Islam does not oppose any system such as is basically not antagonistic to its principles and serves the Muslim community in solving its problems arising out of the changed conditions of life. The fact, however, is that communism does not at all see eye to eye with Islamic ideology although it might in some respects superficially resemble Islam. The Muslim community which already possesses the best system cannot pass by Islam and instead adopt communism, capitalism or materialistic socialism though they might in certain respects appear to be similar to it, for God has expressly com­manded : “And they Who do not judge in accordance with that which is revealed by God, they are indeed the unbelievers” (v : 47)

Can we in reality embrace communism and yet live on as Muslims? The answer is a big No, for, when we apply communism (erroneously or dishonestly described as being a purely economic system), we find that it is opposed to Islam in theory as well as in practice. Their collision is inevitable for the simple reason that it cannot be helped or avoided.

That theoretically both stand opposed to each other in so many respects may well be judged from the following points:

Firstly, communism rests on a purely materialistic basis: it does not recognize anything save that perceived by sense organs: what is not perceivable by these sensory organs is unreal, nonsense and has no existence whatsoever or if it does exist it is so insignificant that one need not at all bother about it.  Engels said: “Matter is the only real thing in the world”. And the materialists argue: “Human reason is just a manifestation of matter which reflects the external material environment surrounding it”. They go on to say that what is called soul does not at all have an independent existence of its own but is rather a product of matter. Thus we see that communism is a purely materialistic ideology which ridicules all forms of spiritualism dubbing them all as unscientific. Islamic ideology, on the other hand, declines to concede such a narrowing down of human spheres of activities or degrade man to such low levels of existence. It looks upon man rather as a being that aspires to soar high in the realms of spirit and thought although he walks on earth and possesses a physical body. Nor are his needs limited to food, shelter and sexual gratification as Karl Marx claimed. A question might at this stage be raised in the minds of some readers: How can this materialistic philosophy affect us when we shall have nothing to do with it: we shall adopt only the economic program of communism and retain all our basic creeds, our God, our Apostle, and our spiritual system. These cannot be affected by the economic program we might adopt as it is something quite different from the things described above and has an independent existence of its own. Let none be under this illusion, for as the communists hold, there exists a strong affinity between the economic system and the basic creed, ideology and outlook upon life of a people; they cannot be viewed in isolation: they are closely interrelated, for they are based on the same economic system which is raised on a purely materialist philosophy of life as has been clarified by the communist pioneers Engels and Marx in their writings.

The communists, for instance, also believe in dialectical materialism. They hold that it is the conflict of the opposites (the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ or workers and capitalists) that is the only real though insidious factor behind all economic and human progress that mankind has achieved so far starting from the first communist age and moving on to slavery, then feudalism, capitalism and then final communist age. It is with this very dialectical materialism that they justify their standpoint and prove the final emergence of communism as the victor out of the present ideological warfare. They claim that there is a close scientific relationship between communism and this theory of dialectical materialism, in which there is no place whatsoever for any concept of God, His apostles or their message, for in their arrogance they think that all these things are but merely an outcome of the interplay of economic forces. They have no meaning or significance apart from the economic circum­stances that engendered them. As such they lose all their importance in human life and are simply worthless in interpreting or defining life or determining its true objectives. The one and the only factor of importance is the means of production which, if changed, affects the whole human existence and revolutionizes it. The fallacy and weakness of communists’ view of human history is amply proved by the fact that it fails to offer any adequate explanation of the great revolution brought about by Islam in Arabia, for it cannot point out any change in the means of economic production in the Arabian peninsula or even in the whole of the contemporary Islamic world that might be referred to as having caused the emergence of the Holy Prophet in that part of the world bringing with him a completely new system of life.

This is quite sufficient to show that Islam and communism stand diametrically opposed to each other. How can the two be said to be at one then? The Muslims who believe in the Beneficence of God as well as His immense Grace embracing all His creatures and who believe that it is God Who sends to them His apostles to guide them aright and who believe that Islam is not subject to the economic exigencies but ascends far above them, how can such Muslims adopt with impunity the communism which holds that all the different stages of human progress are determined by the interplay of the opposing forces alone, thus leaving no place for God’s will or any other factor or initiative save that lent to it by economic existence, the pressure of need.

Secondly, man as viewed by communism is just a passive being whose will has no importance whatever in the face of the material and economic forces. Karl Marx said: “The mode of production of the material means of existence conditions the whole process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not tile consciousness of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, it is their social existence that determines their consciousness”.

In Islam, on the other hand; we find that man is viewed as an active being with a free will of his own that is subject to the higher will of God alone, Says the Holy Qur’an: “And He has subjected to you, as from Him, all that is in the heavens and on earth” (xlv: 13).

Thus Islam makes it clear that it is man who enjoys supreme power and position on this earth with all the material and economic forces being there to do his bidding. Islam itself is a case in point in this respect. Its progress was not limited or directed by any process of dialectical materialism. The early Muslims never even for a single moment felt that the economic existence of man alone played a decisive role in shaping his destiny or that it was something beyond his conscious control as Marx said. They, on the contrary, did consciously shape their economy in accordance with the guidance of God and His Apostle basing all their social relationships on the teachings of Islam, They freed slaves without any consideration of economic gains or initiative inducing them to it; and they did in fact never witness the establishment of feudalism in their lands although it had been the most prevalent system for centuries in Europe and in the world at large,

The adoption of communist economy must inevitably lead to the adoption of the communist philosophy, the philosophy which makes man a mere plaything of the economic forces that take their way quite independent of men’s will for they can neither change their course nor can they affect their working in any way as it is simply impossible and, therefore, unthinkable.

Thirdly, as we have already pointed out in the chapter on “Private Ownership,” it is next to impossible to divorce an economic system from the social philosophy behind it. Therefore if we accept communism as an economic program we must also inevitably embrace along with that the social philosophy it offers and which states that society is the only real thing, the individual having no importance whatever save as member of a community, This is a position quite contrary to that taken up by Islam, for it attaches great importance to the individual and relies more upon him than on society for the realization of its ends. Islam civilizes man from within so that he would willingly discharge all his responsibilities as a member of a community. Thus it elevates man to the position of a conscious member of society with a will of his own, choosing his own job as well as the place he would like to work in freely. He enjoys freedom to comply with the orders of the ruler or refuse to obey him if the ruler should happen to transgress the bounds set by obedience to Gad and Islam. Thus Islam makes every individual a guardian of the community’s morals besides holding him respon­sible for the eradication of all forms of evils. But such a thing can­not for obvious psychological and practical reasons happen in a society wherein the individual is reduced to the status of an insignifi­cant midget or a worthless manikin whose destiny is solely shaped and controlled by the government as it alone controls all economic means of production,

Last, we must also remember that the communist philosophy is based on the assumption that it is the economic factor alone that is supreme so far as the determining or molding of the diverse social relationships within a social group are concerned. Islam does not deny or under-rate the importance of the economic factor in human life nor does it ignore the importance of a sound economic basis for the social life of a community so as to make the moral and social virtues flourish, But it does not at all contribute towards the notion that life is but-economics. It also does not believe that if economic problems are solved all the other problems of the society will also be solved as a result thereof. To make this point clear let us, however, consider some particular cases from life. Supposing there are two young men of a similar economic status, the one being inclined to voluptuousness and engrossed in his animal passions and completely enslaved by these, while the other enjoys a reasonable portion of material prosperity and spends most of his extra energy in broadening his mental or spiritual horizon by acquiring some knowledge or skill. Can these two young men be treated as equals and their cases considered as identical? Do the two represent an equal degree of virtue, good­ness and success in their respective modes of living?

We may as well take the case of a man with a strong personality to whom the people listen with deference and are ready to act upon his advice readily and still another good-for-nothing fellow, who has no personality but is just a laughing-stock among the circle of his acquaintances. Now the question is, can the solution of his economic problems help the latter in any wise? Can he be deemed to lead a life as glorious as that of the man in the former case?

Taking still another case we might ask if a woman endowed with grace and beauty can in any way be matched with a woman devoid of all grace and beauty. Can the removal of economic hurdles help the ugly woman in resolving her difficulties?

It is because of this that Islamic rationale gives basic importance not to economic values but to the non-economic ones, the moral values in particular, for it believes that it is the non-economic values that form the basis of human life for the proper organization of which at least as much exertion and enthusiasm are called for as those needed in the case of purely economical ones. It, therefore, stresses a perpetual relationship between God and man, for it is this very spiritual bond between man and his God which is an excellent means for the full flourish of moral values in practical life as it lifts men from the plane or their humdrum existence where they are no better than mere slaves to their material needs and subject to internecine rivalries, hatred and rancor, to a higher, far higher plane where they are free from all these base earthly passions and where they move in a world permeated with virtue, goodness and love.

From a still another standpoint Islam holds the spiritual force in human life as of primary importance, for it is a very precious pos­session of man on this earth besides exercising a powerful influence on his destiny as a man. If it is paid proper attention to and organized efficiently it might prove not less powerful as an agent shaping human society than any other including even the economic one. It might rather prove far more effective and powerful than all the other agents of social change. The Muslims might find enough evidence in their own history to convince them of the truth of the above state­ment. Thus we find that the first caliph Abu Bakr stood firm in the face of the threat of apostasy in the beginning of his rule although all the Muslims including men like Omar bin Al-Khattab did not support his stand to wage a war against the defecting tribes. Still he remained firm as a rock and did not flinch. Whence did he derive his inspiration? Was it a material power or the sense of economic well-being or was it some human power that sustained him in that ordeal? Surely, it was none of these that inspired him or backed him up at that momentous period of his life. Had he put his faith in anyone of these he would have never dared fight against such odds at so precarious a moment in the history of Islam. It was the spiritual power alone that gave Abu Bakr the will, determination and courage to stand against the rebels who were finally subdued and turned once again good Muslims as before, leaving off their hostility towards Islam or Muslims once for all. This is a very significant chapter of human history showing how the conscious spiritual energy is transformed into material and economic power such as has no parallel in history. Similar is the case with Omar bin Abdul Aziz who with the help of his spiritual force alone swept away the politico-social injustice created by the early Ommeyeds. He rec­tified the injustice and successfully reformed the society resuscitating the underlying social principles of Islam. It was then that the great historical and economical miracle was witnessed: there was no longer any poor or needy man to be met with in the entire Muslim society.

Islam, therefore, gives foremost importance to spiritual power, for it does not want to deprive man of the great and miraculous bene­fits it can bring to him although it does not at the same time sit idle nor does it refuse material means to realize its end. Islam does believe in miracles but favors not the idle waiting for the spiritual mir­acles to happen. Its constant guiding principle rather is: “God restrains with Authority that which is not restrained by the Qur’an”.

On the other hand, it is next to impossible for men to exert themselves towards the realization of their economic ends in the way communism suggests and then be able to pay any attention to the moral values or betterment of their own spiritual life, because the exaggerated importance given to the economic aspect in communism favors but a one-sided development only. It may be likened to an outgrowth of human heart or liver the invariable result being that such an outgrown organ of human body hampers the proper development or functioning of other parts.

We know that there are persons who feel aversion from such a philosophical comparison of Islam and communism as we have attempted above, for they believe that such theoretical discussions carry no weight and are rather superfluous and signify nothing. To them only the practical problems have importance which as such, according to them, should be given all possible precedence over all abstract considerations. They think that the things will be all right and we need not bother about any abstract questions while adopting a certain system of life except its practicability. Thus they are at a toss to understand that Islam and communism can ever come into conflict with, each other so far as practical life is concerned. They rule out all possibility of such a conflict between the two.

We do not share their contempt of the theoretical or philosophical aspect of the problem, for we believe that the two can never be viewed in isolation from each other. However we shall point out some of the practical differences between Islam and communism for their consideration. Some of the differences may be summed up as follows:­

(1) Islam holds that the real duty of a woman is the propagation of the human race. It, therefore, does not encourage her to leave her queendom and work in factories and fields, except, of course, in cases of genuine need, that is to say, in case she has no male bread earner, be he her father, brother, husband or a near one. But com­munism makes it obligatory for woman to go out and work in fac­tories or fields for as many hours as the men do. Even if we overlook for the time being the underlying communist philosophy which refuses to recognize any difference between the functions as well as the psychological make-up of the sexes, the communist economy by its very nature rests on the basis of effecting increase in material means of production to the farthest possible limit. Such an increase is possible only if all the members of the community should go forth and exert themselves in factories, laboratories and fields. The woman too will have to bear an equal burden along with other members of the community and will be off her work during the period of her confinement only. The children[1] shall as a result thereof be brought up wholesale by the state in a process similar to that of mass production.

Therefore, if we embrace the communist economy an inevitable result of it will be that woman will have to leave her home to work outside which means in other words that one of the fundamental institutions of Islam-family-the bedrock on which the whole superstructure of Islamic morality and economics rests and which shows that woman’s true function is within her home while man is to do the outside work, is also dealt a fatal blow.[2] If it is said that to go out and work in factories will not be necessary for woman then surely it will be a position alien to that upheld by communism, for the communists have already made their stand too clear on the point. Now so far as effecting an increase in production is concerned, we admit that it is undoubtedly genuine and of vital importance to human existence. But it does not in any way call for the adoption of communist economy, for the communists themselves borrowed the means of increasing their production from the European capitalism.[3] The establishment of an Islamic state does in no wise forbid the use of the most modern means of agricultural and industrial production for material benefit.

(2) The communist economy rests on a full-fledged dictatorship of the proletariat, which means that the state alone decides as to the functions performed by different citizens without any regard whatsoever to their respective aptitudes or likings. The state alone controls all thought, acts, associations as well as the ends to be realized by them. At this point we must also differentiate between the dictatorship of a single ruler and the dictatorship of the state (proletariat). For, in the case of a ruler it is just possible that he be of a congenial, modest character with the welfare of his country very dear to his heart and may even at times condescend to consult the representatives of the people-real or false-before deciding a matter or enacting a law. But all these possibilities are simply out of question in the case of a dictatorship of the proletariat or state, con­cerned as it primarily will be with the economics alone and the realiza­tion of such ends, as suit it, with an iron hand. That is what is signified by the very name-dictatorship of the proletariat.

To the drawbacks of communism enumerated above we may add yet another one: it has no sound basis because of which it is often seen mucking around with theory as well as practice. Thus for instance, to begin with, it advocated an outright abolition of all private ownership and claimed to bring on a par the wages of all the different workers, but was forced to abandon its stand due to the pressure of the circumstances, as it soon found it better to allow a limited amount of private ownership and a difference in the wages of workers in proportion to their enthusiasm and pains. So com­munism shifted its position thus turning its back on two of the most fundamental elements in the philosophy of Karl Marx and coming as much nearer to the standpoint of Islam. How can we Muslims justify ourselves in forsaking the real and only true system of life such as humanity is all the time driven back to, whenever it toys with any other system?

---

[1] As to the problem of upbringing children, we have already discussed it in the chapter: “Islam and Woman,”

[2] This, however, does not negate co-operation within the family as such, just as special functions performed by the members of a community do in no wise negate co-operation among them i.e. farmers, artisans, engineers and doctors etc. etc.

[3] Russia was in the early stage of Communism extremely backward industrially. So it borrowed and developed all means of material production from Europe.

Source: Islam, The Misunderstood Religion - By Muhammed Kutub

Do you want us to go back to the age when people lived in tents -a thousand years ago? Islam was all right for those savage and uncouth Bedouins of the desert, for it was simple enough to appeal to and attract them. But will a civilization based on the concept of God be of any use in the world of today, the age of supersonic planes, hydrogen bombs and movie cinemas. It cannot keep up pace with the advanced civilization of today, for it is static and, therefore, we have no other course but to shake it off if we are to become truly civilized and advanced like the rest of the world”.

I was reminded of the doubts such as mentioned above when some time back I came across an “educated” Englishman who bad been for the last two years stationed in Egypt.[1] He was a member of a group of U.N.O. experts that had been sent to Egypt to help the Egyptian Government raise the standard of living of the Egyptian peasants. But as despite all their “love” for the people of this region they did not know or care to learn their language, the Egyptian Government assigned me the task to act as an interpreter between them and the local peasants. Thus I came across the “educated” Englishman.

At the very outset I told him frankly that we, Egyptians, hated them and would continue hating them so long as they continue committing aggression in any part of the East. I told him that we a1so hated their allies, the Americans and others, for their unjust attitude towards Egypt, Palestine etc. Taken aback he looked at me for a while and then said:

Are you a communist?

I told him that I was not a communist but a Muslim who believed that Islam had a far superior civilization to their capitalist civilization as well as the communist one and that Islam was the most excellent system yet tried by mankind as it embraced the whole of man’s life and struck a reasonable balance between different aspects of his existence.

Thus we continued talking together for about three hours at the end of which he said: “Maybe that what you tell me about Islam is correct but 1 for one would not deprive myself of the fruits of the modem civilization. I like traveling in planes and enjoy listening to the charming music on the radio. I would not like to forego all these pleasures”

Deeply surprised at this answer I said: “But who forbids you all these pleasures?”

“Doesn’t accepting Islam mean to go back to the age of bar­barism and life in tents?”

It is strange indeed that doubts such as these are continually cast against Islam although there is no reasonable basis for their ex­istence as those who have gone through the history of this religion shall bear witness. Never even for a single moment did Islam stand in the way of civilization and progress.

Islam was revealed to a people composed mostly of Bedouins who were so rough and cruel-hearted that the Qur’an said of them:

“The Bedouins are more hypocritical and Godless”.

One of the great miracles of Islam is that it succeeded in chang­ing such rough and coarse Bedouins into a nation of human beings. Not only were they guided to the right path and elevated from animality to the loftier spheres of humanity, but they also became guides who directed humanity to the path of God. This is a clear illustration of Islam’s miraculous ability to civilize people and refine souls.

There is no doubt that the refinement of the soul is in itself a nob1e end worthy of human aspiration and striving; it is one of the ultimate goals of civilization. But Islam was not contented with mere refinement. It always adopted all the manifestations of civilization which capture popular interest nowadays and which are regarded by some as the core of life. Islam patronized and fostered civilizations of all the countries it conquered so long as such civilizations were not contrary to monotheism and did not divert people from doing good actions.

Islam also patronized and fostered the Greek scientific heritage: including medicine, astrology, mathematics, physics, chemistry and philosophy. Islam continued to add new scientific achievements which bear witness that Muslims were deeply and seriously interested in scientific research. It was on the cream of the Islamic scientific achievement, of Andalusia that the European Renaissance and its modern scientific inventions were based.

Now, when did Islam oppose a civilization which serves humanity?

What is Islam’s attitude towards the Western civilization of today?

 The attitude of Islam towards the present western civilization is the same as that It manifested towards every past civilization. Islam accepts all the goodness that such civilizations can yield but at the same time it rejects their evils. Islam has never advocated any policy of scientific or materialistic isolationism. It does not fight against other civilizations for personal or racial considerations because it believes in the unity of humanity and the closeness of the relationship among people of different races and inclinations.

It should be known that the Islamic cause does not oppose modern inventions nor do Muslims require that the appliances and tools should bear the inscription: In the name of God, the Bene­ficent, the Merciful” before they agree to use such tools and appli­ances at their homes, factories and farms etc. It is quite sufficient if such tools and appliances should be used in the name of God and for His sake. After ail, tools and appliances do not have any re­ligion or homeland, but the way of their use affects all the people on earth. A gun, for example, is an invention which has no religion, color or homeland but you will not be a Muslim if you use it in committing aggression against others. Islam require, that a gun shall only be used in repulsing aggression or in spreading the word of God throughout the world.

The motion picture is a modern invention too. You can be a good Muslim if you use it in portraying clean emotions, noble characters or depicting the conflict among people for the sake of goodness. But you will not be a Muslim when you use it in exhibit­ing pornography, unruly passions or corrupted people wallowing in all kinds of vice–moral, intellectual or spiritual. Such motion pictures are bad and trivial not only because they excite the lower instincts of man but because they also represent life as cheap and trivial existence restricted to trivial and cheap ends which can never be a proper spiritual food for humanity.

The Islamic faith has never opposed the adoption of scientific inventions achieved by humanity at large. Muslims should make use of all good scientific achievements. The Prophet says, “The study of science is an ordinance”. It is needless to say that the study of science, as used above, includes all kinds of knowledge. The Prophet called on people to study all branches of knowledge every­where.

In conclusion it will be said that Islam does not oppose civilization as long as it serves humanity. But if a civilization consists of alcoholic liquor-drinking, gambling, moral prostitution, colonialism and enslaving people under different names, Islam will fight against such so-called civilization and will do its best to protect humanity from succumbing to its temptations.

Source: Islam, The Misunderstood Religion By Muhammed Kutub

The East today is simmering with a furor over the- rights of woman and a demand in her behalf for perfect equality with man. The most noteworthy among the feverous champions of women’s rights are those men and women who in the name of Islam rave most foolishly, some mischievously alleging that Islam has in all respects maintained perfect equality between the sexes, while others, thanks to their ignorance of Islam or negligence thereof, claim that Islam is an enemy of woman, for it degrades her and lowers her status holding her intellectually deficient and assigning her a position very much akin to that of animals. She is reduced to no more than a mere means of sensual gratification for man and a machine for the propagation of the human species which is sufficient to show how subservient to man she is in the sight of Islam with the result that man dominates her and enjoys an all-round superiority over her.

Both of these classes of people are equally ignorant of Islam or they intentionally confuse the right with the wrong in order to deceive others and sow the seeds of discord and mischief in society so as to further their own nefarious designs and facilitate the foul game they are out to play.

Before embarking upon a detailed discussion of the position of woman in Islam, we propose first to touch in brief upon the history of the movement for women’s emancipation in Europe, for it is this very source of mischief whence all the defecting trends in the modern East Bow.

The woman in Europe and all over the world was looked upon as a mere nonentity. She formed the theme of many a discourse of the learned “scholars” and “philosophers” who wrangled among themselves over questions such as these: Has woman got a soul or not? If yes, then what precisely is the nature of her soul, is it human or animal? Supposing she does possess a human soul then what social and human position should she occupy in relation to man? Is she born as a slave to man or does she hold a position slightly superior to that of a slave?

This situation remained unchanged even through those relatively short spans of history when woman appears to have occupied a central position in the social set-up of the time e.g., in Greece and the Roman Empire. But all this exaltation did not mean the exalt­ation of woman u such; it was rather an exaltation of a few out­standing women inhabiting the capital cities because of some of their personal qualities which made them the life and soul of social parties. They were no more than means of diversion and entertainment for the licentious rich who applauded their appearances in public out of sheer vanity and self-conceit. But this did not signify any respect towards woman as a human being and apart from the pleasure she brought to men.

This position of woman in Europe remained unaltered during the periods of serfdom and feudalism. She in her ignorance was blandished sometimes by luxury and license and at times was con­tent to live as animals-eating, drinking, bearing children, giving birth to others, and working day and night.

When the industrial revolution took place in Europe it brought in its wake the worst possible sufferings for woman yet experienced by her throughout the history of mankind.

Europe has throughout the ages exhibited such a rigidity and avarice of nature as lack both generosity and liberality. It made men undergo hardships without a promise of any immediate or remote material gains in return. However, the economic con­ditions of life during the periods of slavery and feudalism along with the prevalent agricultural milieu were such as made man responsible for the support of woman. It was quite natural and in complete harmony with the spirit of the age. The woman nonetheless at that time worked in some simple cottage industries such as are found in any agricultural society. In this way she paid back the price to men for supporting her.

But with the industrial revolution the whole of the social scene underwent a radical change in the country no less than in cities. The family life was completely ruined, and the ties holding together its members were torn asunder when women and children were, thanks to the industrial revolution, forced to go out and work in factories. The working classes slowly and gradually left the country life, a life based on the principles of mutual responsibility and co-operation, and came over to cities wherever everybody lived a solitary life and where nobody was interested in his neighbors nor was anyone in a mood to Support others but worked and earned to support his own-self. Here, there were no more any rules of morality observed or cared for. Men and women no longer bothered about moral scruples if they but once found an opportunity to gratify their sexual urge. As a result thereof the will to marry and support a family suffered decline among these people or if it still persisted in some hearts the trend was to postpone it at least for some years longer.[1]

We do not intend in these pages to dwell on the history of Europe. We are merely concerned with the factors that influenced the career of woman in European history. As we said above, the industrial revolution overburdened women and children with work. This weakened the family ties, which in turn lead to a complete disintegration of family life. But it was the woman who had to pay dearly. She worked harder than ever before, and lost her honor, but was still far from being satisfied psychologically and materially. Man not only shrank back from taking upon himself the responsibility of supporting her-be she his wife or mother­ but also charged her to provide for her own-self. In the factories, she was exploited most ruthlessly by the factory owners; she worked there for long hours but was paid far less than the men doing a kindred job in that very factory.

It is needless to ask why all this happened as we know that Europe has been for ever known for its miserliness, rigidity and ingratitude. It has never been known to respect men as men, nor, to render a voluntary act of goodness while it could with impunity infect others with evils as its record of the past as well as of the pre­sent testifies; and it might as well remain unchanged in the years to come except if God Almighty should lead it to the right path and elevate it spiritually. However, weak and helpless they were, women and children suffered a mos. ruthless exploitation.

There were, however, some conscientious men who could not silently bear the perpetration of these vile iniquities against the weaker section of the population. They struggled to put an end to this cruelty towards the children (please note, the children, not women!). The social reformers denounced the employing of children as workers in factories at an early age, burdening them with work that retarded their natural growth besides paying them scanty and inadequate wages for the burdensome and rough work they did. The protests against social injustice did not, however, go unnoticed. They bore fruit; the age of employment was gradually raised; the wages were increased, and the working hours were cut down.

But women still remained without anyone to champion or advance their cause, as it required an intellectual refinement such as Europe did not possess. As a result thereof woman pressed on her way through this ordeal overworking herself in a desperate effort to support herself but receiving in return wages far less than those given to her male counterpart-for a similar work.

In the first great war tens of millions of European and Ameri­can young men were killed leaving behind them millions of widowed women. These poor women suffered the worst tribulations and trials of labor. They had none to support or look after them, for the bread-winners of most of these families were either killed in war or crippled for life, or had suffered such a nervous breakdown because of fear, nervous tension or poisonous gases as had left them in­capacitated for work, or they had just been released from a prison house after serving a four years’ term-and now would enjoy them­selves to regain their nervous self-composure. All such people had lost the will to get married and support a whole family, thus putting themselves to physical as well as material inconvenience.

The war had caused so great a shortage of men that the sur­vivors could hardly supply their place. The factories could not restart their production nor could the war damages be repaired due to the shortage of working hands. Thus it fell upon women to go out and take the place of men, for if they did not, they as well as their dependents-old Women and small children-were threatened by hunger. To go and work in the factories, however, required that woman should ignore her moral temperament as well as her feminine nature which bad now become a positive hurdle in earning her living. Moreover, factory-owners did not want working hands merely; they wanted to satisfy their lust as well. The helplessness of woman now promised them an excellent opportunity of which they fully availed themselves. The woman thus had to discharge a two-fold duty: work in the factories, and try her level best to please her employer. The woman was not plagued by hunger alone; sex too claimed its share and gratification. As the number of men had fallen too low due to the war, not all the women could achieve that gratification through marriage. But the creed and religion prevalent in Europe did not allow polygamy-as Islam does-in such periods of emer­gency. Thus the woman in Europe was left at the mercy of her passions that swept her away bon gre’ mal gre’. Her need for bread and the urge to achieve sexual gratification besides her love for costly clothes, cosmetics etc. were the factors that forced her to this course of life.

Thus did the western woman persist in this course of life pleasing men, working in factories and shops and achieving the things she admired by foul or fair means. But the more she came to possess them, the more intense her passion for them grew, for the satisfaction of which she was egged on to work more. The factory-owners exploit­ed this weakness of woman to their own advantage. They paid her wages far less than those they paid to the male workers doing the same work in the same factory-a gross iniquity which neither reason nor conscience or mankind can ever justify.

Under these circumstances the stupendous revolution that at last broke out in Europe was but inevitable. It swept away the centuries-old iniquity and gross injustice.

But what did woman set as a result of this revolution? She was overworked physically, had lost respect as well as her woman­hood! She was denied even the natural pleasure of having a family, having children, living with them and of realizing her own true self by suffering for them and so have a true sense of well-being and magnanimity. She did, however, in place of these at last win the right to have equal wages with man, the only natural right offered     herby Europe.  

The European man did not, however, easily forego his superiority-his egoism rather-with respect to woman. He was forced to recognize equal rights for her after a very tough and intense struggle in which all the usual weapons of warfare were fully made use of.

In this struggle for her rights the woman resorted to strikes and non-co-operation; addressed public meetings, and employed jour­nalism to advance her cause. Then she realized that in order to set things right she would have to participate in legislation as well. So first she demanded the right to vote and then proceeded to ask for a right to become a Member of Parliament. As she had received an education similar to that imparted to man, for both were required to do similar jobs, now as a logical sequence to it she demanded an equal share in government along with men.

Such is the story of woman’s struggle in Europe to obtain her rights. It is one continuous story all the different episodes of which are intimately linked together. Whether man liked all this or not is immaterial but woman too was to realize shortly that she was as help­less as man in this new degenerated social order where she had successfully ousted man from the position of leadership and authority.[2]

But despite all this the readers will be surprised to learn that even today in England-the cradle of democracy-women serving in government departments continue to receive less pay from the government than men do, although there are already so many honorable lady-members in the British Parliament.

Let us take up the position of woman in Islam and see if there are any historical, geographical, economical, ideological and legal conditions such as should force woman to take up arms for her rights like her counterpart in the West. Or is it merely an inferiority complex and a result of thoughtlessly imitating the West that makes these Eastern champions of her rights declaim so enthusiastically in public meetings?

As a fundamental principle of its system, Islam holds that woman is a human being; and she has a soul similar to that of man: “0 people! be careful of (your duty to) your Lord, who created you from a single being and created its mate of the same (kind) and spread from these too many men and women” (iv: I). Thus men and women are quite equal to each other in their origin, their abode as well as in their place of return and are as such entitled to similar and equal rights. Islam gave her the right to life, to honor, and to property like men. She is a respectable being and it is not permissible for anyone to find fault with her or backbite her. No one is permitted to spy on her or hold her in contempt due to her functions as a woman. These are the rights that both men and women enjoy, there being no differentiation against either of them. The law laid down about these applied to men and women alike: “0 ye who believe! Let not some men among you laugh at others: it may be that the (latter) are better than the (former): nor defame nor be sarcastic to each other, by (offensive) nicknames” (xlix: 11), “… and spy not on each other, nor speak ill of each other behind their back (xlix: II). “0 you who believe I do not enter houses other than your own houses until you have asked permission and saluted their inmates” (xxiv: 27). The Holy Prophet said: “It is forbidden for a Muslim to take the life, honor and property of another Muslim.” (Bukhari and Muslim).

The reward for both sexes for their good acts is also similar: ” And their Lord hath heard them (and He sayeth): Low I suffer not the work of any worker, male or female, to be lost. Ye proceed one another” (iii: 285).

Men and women are equal in their rights to realize their material needs in the world including similar rights to hold property, and dispose of it as they should wish. They are free to mortgage, to give it in lease, or bequeath it, sell or buy it or exploit it for his or her own benefit: “Unto the men belongeth a share of that which parents and near kindred leave, and unto the women a share of that which parents and near kindred leave” (iv: 7), and “unto men a fortune from that which they have earned, and unto women a fortune from that which they have earned” (iv : 32).

We must pause here awhile to take note of two important points concerning woman’s right to hold property and use or exploit it at will. The legal systems of the “civilized” Europe till very recently did not give any of these rights to woman. She could exercise these rights only indirectly through a man, her husband, father or guar­dian. This means, in other words, that even after Islam had granted woman these rights, the woman in Europe was deprived of them for more than eleven hundred years. And when she at last secured them she did not do so easily nor could she during this hard struggle for her rights keep intact her innate character, honor and nobleness of person. She had rather to forego all of these virtues besides experiencing a gruesome chain of hard work, murders, privations and miseries in order to obtain what was no more than a mere por­tion of what Islam had already granted to women folk, not due to the pressure of some economic circumstances, or as a result of the inter-class conflict going on in the world. It was rather initiated by its desire to implement truth and justice, the two most cardinal facts of human life-in practice rather than in the world of dreams;

In the second place, we must also take note of the fact that communism in particular and the West in general hold that human life is synonymous to man’s economic existence. Thus they say that so long as woman did not hold any right to ownership or exploit freely what she possessed she had no independent existence at all and that she attained a human status only after she came to have an independent economic existence, that is when she at last came to possess the right to hold property directly and not through man and was free to use or enjoy it, as she thought fit.

Notwithstanding the fact that we do not agree to such a narrow view of human life and its degradation to a pure economic existence we do, however, agree in principle with these people-the communists and the western thinkers-that a sound economic standing does affect human feelings and the growth of self-consciousness in human beings. Islam occupies a unique position in that it recog­nized an independent economic status of woman and gave her the right to own, use and enjoy it in her own right without any intermediary trustee or mediator. Not only this but in the most im­portant problem of her life i.e. marriage as well her independent status was established. She could not be given in marriage without her assent: no marriage was valid unless she agreed to it. The Holy Prophet says: “No widow should be married without con­sulting her; and no virgin be married without her assent, and her assent is her silence” (Bukhari and Muslim). Even after the marriage ceremony if she declared that she did not assent to it, the marriage is dissolved.

Before Islam woman had to adopt a roundabout and crooked course to free herself of her husband who held her in a state of perfect subservience, for neither the law of the land nor the common law gave her the right to leave her husband by securing separation. Islam gave her this right in clear and unequivocal terms which she could exercise whenever she had a mind to do so.[3] Not content with this, Islam even went a step further giving her the right to propose her marriage to any man she liked to marry. The European woman obtained this right only in the eighteenth century and still it was hailed there as a very great victory for woman against the centuries old traditions of the past!

Again it was Islam that at a period when the entire world was lost in ignorance and darkness stressed the importance of knowledge for mankind, not as a special privilege of a particular class but as an essential and unavoidable need for each and every man. Islam made it obligatory upon Muslims to acquire knowledge as a necessary condition to their being true believers in God and Islam. It also goes to credit of Islam that it was the first religion that acknow­ledging a separate and independent human status of woman impressed upon her that she could not achieve perfection without knowledge: Acquisition of knowledge was as great a duty of woman as of man, for Islam wanted the women folk to develop their rational faculties along with their physical ones and thus ascend to higher planes of spiritual existence, whilst on the other hand Europe did not even recognize any such right for woman till very recently and did in the end grant it to her only when compelled by the pressure of economic circumstances.

What we have said above is sufficient to confute the allegation that Islam accords woman only a secondary status or that she is treated as subservient to man or that her role in life is, in the eyes of Islam, of no importance at all. For if it had been so, Islam would not have attached so great an importance to the acquisition of knowledge for woman. That it did so goes to prove that Islam acknowledges an honorable and noble status for woman in life, in the eyes of God as well as society.

But after acknowledging a perfectly equal status as human beings for both men and women, and treating them as equals, entitled to equal rights, Islam does, however, differentiate between man and woman with regard to their special functions in life, a step that has given rise to a great hue and cry by some women organizations supported by certain writers, “reformers” and young men.

Before we consider the points on which Islam differentiates between the sexes, let us first tackle the basic problem from the physiological, biological and psychological standpoints. After that we will take up the Islamic viewpoint.

Do men and women belong to one and the same sex or are they two distinct sexes? Have they got similar functions in life or are their functions separate and distinct as man and woman? This is in fact the knotty point, the crux of the problem. If the women conferences, their supporters, the writers, the reformers and the young men mean to say that there is no difference whatsoever in the physical and intuitional equipment of man and woman as well as in their biological functions in life, then we have nothing to say to them. But if they acknowledge that a difference does exist between man and woman and their respective functions, we may yet fruit­fully discuss the problem together.

The problem of equality of the two sexes, I have already dealt with at great length in my book: “Man Between Islam and Materialism”. It may not be amiss to reproduce some paragraphs from it here below:

“And as a consequence of this fundamental difference in their functions and objectives we find that man and woman have so come to differ from each other in disposition as well as in constitution that each is equipped with what it can suitably accomplish its respective primary functions.

“It is for this reason that I am at a loss to understand how all this empty talk about an absolute equality between man and woman can ever bring it to pass. The demand for equality between man and Woman as human beings is a natural and reasonable demand. Man and woman are two equally important component parts of a whole humanity, proceeding from the one and the same progenitor. But so far as the demand for treating them as equals in their functions in life and the modes of their actual performance is concerned, can that ever be feasible? That is simply impossible even if all the women around the world should wish it, hold conferences and pass resolutions to that effect. These conferences and their resolutions cannot alter the characters of men and women, nor can they if any way transform their functions making men share those of women in conception, birth and suckling and vice versa.

“No specific biological function can be carried out in the absence of a special type of psycho-physical disposition. This means, in other words, that the specialized functions of woman viz. conceiving and suckling, call for the emotional-cum-intellectual outfit of a special type such as prepares and enables her to discharge these most arduous duties.

“Of course, motherhood with all its noble feelings, exalted acts, patience through a series of tribulations, besides a most meticulous perfection in consideration and performance, cannot exist in the absence of that physical constitution which befits a woman for her specialized functions of conceiving and suckling, and gives form to her psychological, intellectual as well as nervous organism. These intellectual. psychological, nervous and physical characteristics of woman-are found side by side complementing one another as well as coordinating and harmonizing themselves. Therefore, it must be a very rare exception that one of them should exist without a simultaneous existence of its counterparts.

“And all this tenderness of feelings, intuitional impressibility, and highly susceptible disposition with which a woman is endowed show that basically she possesses an emotional character rather than an intellectual one. It is this very emotional character that forms the most lively and ever flowing spring of her motherly attributes, as the upbringing of a child calls for qualities not intellectual which may be passive or active and mayor may not successfully meet the requirements of a child, but an overflow of vehement feelings and passions such as does not allow her to meditate coolly but impels her to answer the child’s call immediately without delay or slackness”.

“This in fact is the true character of woman in life. It helps her in the performance of her real functions as well as in the realization of her creative purpose”.

“Man, on the other hand, has to discharge a quite different duty for which he is equipped aptly but differently from woman. He has to engage in the struggle of life going on in the outside world, be it in the form of subduing wild beasts in jungles, or contending against the forces of nature on earth and heavens, or forming of a government, or legislating about national economy. He has to tackle all these problems to scratch a living, and safeguard his person, his wife as well as his children against oppression”

“Man as such does not need the vehement emotional nature for the performance of his functions in life. Emotions prove harmful rather than helpful in pursuance of his duties, for they are characterized with a fickleness that causes them change rapidly and into mutually quite contradictory states of mind. They are unable to pursue a course of action for long. The objects attracting them ever change. Such an ever-changing emotional character is suitable for motherhood that has got to deal with mutually opposed and changing situations. But they are not helpful for man whose work demands of him constancy and steadfastness for long periods of time. Rather it is his intellectual disposition that proves helpful to a practical life where he has to contend against so many adverse forces. He has thus more efficiency in planning, in carefully revising the situation and taking note of all the possible consequences of his scheme before actually translating it into action. The intellect moves slowly but steadily, for quickness and rapidity of action are not expected of it as against the vehement emotions that lend color to the whole existence of woman. What is, however, expected of intellect is that it should show a most proper way to achieve its end, be it the hunting of a beast, inventing of an instrument, laying down the foundations of a new system of economy, setting up a new form of government, kindling a war, or making peace. All these activities of man depend upon his intellectual ability. Emotions creeping in cannot but spoil them”.

“And, therefore, man is well adjusted only when he is engaged in his true manly pursuits and objectives in life. This should explain the various differences found in the respective constitutions of man and Woman: why it is that man joyfully pursues the professions where he has mostly to draw on his physical and intellectual faculties whereas in emotional life he is just as mercurial as a child; and why is it that a woman is adjusted in her natural sphere of emotional activities only and derives so great a pleasure out of these, for it is through these alone that she can best realize the real objective of her earthly existence? That is also why she feels at ease in those professions only that have got an emotional appeal for her feminine nature viz. nursing, teaching or fostering. Similarly when she goes to work in a shop, it is because it has also got an emotional charm of its own for her as it enables her to carry out her search for a male companion. But all these activities are mere off-shoots; they cannot in themselves, however, satisfy her innate urge for a husband, a home, a family and children. It is natural, therefore, that as soon as she gets a chance to perform her primary functions, she leaves off her job and devotes herself exclusively to her household duties compelled otherwise by an exigency such as the need for money etc.

“This does not, however, mean that man and woman are fundamentally and irreconcilably different from each other. Nor does it imply that all the members of a sex lack all the potentialities necessary for the functions which the members of the opposite sex alone by nature are fit to perform.

“The two sexes are thus found mixed up, as it were, in a medley.  If you find a woman who is capable of ruling, dispensing justice, lifting heavy burdens and fighting in wars….and if you come across a man who can cook, do household chores or has got very tender motherly feelings for children or is very fickle emo­tionally and is visited by shifting moods, then you must remember that it is all natural; there is nothing unnatural about it. It is the logical result of the fact that each sex has in itself the germs of both sexes. But this does not at all prove what these misguided westerners and the discordant easterners would have u believe. The real problem stated briefly rather is: can all these extra-functions that a woman is called upon to perform substitute for her real and natural function? Does she in the presence of these no longer feel the desire for a home, children and a family? Above all, does, she no longer feel the need for a male partner (or the gratification of her sex instinct?”

Now that we know the reality of differences between man and woman, let us return to the points that form the basis of differen­tiation between the two sexes and their function, in Islam.

The great distinctive mark of Islam is that it is a practical system of life and is ever ready to make due allowance for the human nature never seeking to oppose or make it deviate from its natural course. It calls upon men to purify their souls and makes them ascend to such higher planes of being as approximate the realm of ideals and dreams, but in the whole process of improving and edifying men, it does not seek to alter their natures, nor does it believe that such a change in human nature is ever possible or useful for the welfare or mankind, if ever possible. It rather believes that the noblest achieve­ments of humanity are those that it achieves through and with the help of its own basic nature after its refinement and ascension to the noblest planes of voluntary virtue from being a mere captive of its material needs.

The attitude adopted by Islam about the problem of man and woman too is quite in line with the human nature. Thus it effects equality between them where there is a natural ground for it: and differentiates between them where such a differentiation is but natural. Let us take two outstanding situations in which Islam differentiates between the sexes: the distribution of inheritance and the headship of the family.

About inheritance Islam says: “To the male the equivalent of the portion of two females,” which is quire natural and justified, fur it is man alone who is charged with shouldering all the financial obligations. The woman is under no such obligation as to spend money on anyone but her own person and toilet, except, of course, when she should head her family but such a situation is very rarely met with in an Islamic society, for so long as a woman has got a relation howsoever distant she need not take upon herself the support of her family. Can such an arrangement be termed as injustice towards woman as the votaries of feminism aver? Leaving aside these vain postulations and prejudiced claims, the problem is just one of a simple reckoning: on the whole woman gets one-third of the inherited property to spend it on her person, whereas man is given two-thirds of it to discharge his financial obligations in the first place, towards his wife (that is the woman), and secondly his family and children. As such, speaking in terms of simple mathe­matics to whom does the larger portion go? There may be certain men who are wont to spend all their money on themselves and are disinclined to marry or found a family, but such cases are uncommon. Normally it is the man who shoulders the financial burdens of his family including a woman-his wife-not as an act of grace but as a moral obligation. If a woman possesses a property of her own, her husband cannot take it away from her without her consent; he would even then have to bear her financial burden as if she had nothing in her possession to support herself with. And if he should refuse her this allowance or should he be miserly in pro­portion to his income she can lodge a complaint against him in the Court and force him to give her the sustenance allowance or get free from him. There is as such no justification to say that in inheritance woman receives a share less than that of man, as in view of his obligations it is but natural that a man should get double the share of a woman.

Islam maintains a similar proportion in the distribution of a bequest. The law followed here is one of the fairest ones yet known to mankind: “For every person according to his need,” the standard to determine the need being the social burdens that one has to bear. But so far as their earnings are concerned, there is no difference between man and woman; n or in their wages for a work, nor in the profit gained in trade, nor in revenues from land etc., for, in these matters Islam follows another law, the law treating on a perfectly equal footing man and woman with regard to their labors and the wages thereof. No injustice is to be done to either of them. The impression generally current among the common masses of Muslims and purposely spread by the antagonists of Islam that in the eyes of Islam woman is worth half of what man is worth, is false as we have shown above by a simple mathematical calculation.

That the evidence of two women is in Islam equivalent to that of one man also does not prove that woman is not better than a half man. It is rather a wise step to secure and preserve the genuine character of legal evidence in courts through all possible means and against all possible perversities irrespective of the fact whether the evidence is for or against the accused. The woman is by her very nature vehemently emotional, impressionable and liable to digress from the real facts of the case in hand. Therefore it is wise to have another woman along with her “so if the one erreth the other will remember,” for it is quite possible that the accused, against or for whom a woman appears as a witness, may be an attractive woman which may make the witness jealous and hostile towards her and so give a wrong evidence; again maybe that the accused is a young man whose sight may so arouse the mother in the witness that knowingly or unknowingly she proffers evidence that is false. But it is very rare that two women appearing before the court at once should fall a prey to such an error, both of them offering false evidences. The chances in such situations are rather that if one of them is deceived or confused about truth, her companion may correct her. It must, however, be added here that a single woman’s evidence is quite dependable if the witness concerned be a specialist in female diseases and she appears as a witness in a case con­cerning these.

Now as to the second problem, the headship of the family, it is quite clear that it requires a manager to look after and manage the affairs of the family, which represents an association of man, woman and children with the attendant obligations springing there from. Like every other social organization, the family too stands in need of a responsible head in the absence of whom a state of anarchy is bound to prevail, which may ultimately lead to a general privation of all. There may be three Possibilities as to the headship of the family: one, man is the head of the family; second, woman heads it; and third, both of them are at once the heads of the family.

We need not take into account the third and the last possibility as our common experience is enough to show that the presence of two heads always leads to even more trouble and anarchy than when there is no head at all. The Holy Qur’an referring to the creation of the earth and heavens says: “If there were therein gods besides Allah, then verily both (the heavens and the earth) had been dis­ordered ; “Nor is there any god along with Him; else would each god have assuredly championed that which He created, and some of them would assuredly overcome others” (xxi: 22). If such is the case with these imaginary gods, then what about human beings who are so aggressive and unjust?

The science of psychology bears witness that the children brought up under quarrelsome parents wrangling over the headship of the family are found to be unbalanced emotionally besides being victims to so many psychological complexes and disorders.

There are thus only two possibilities left. Before considering these we would like to ask the question: which of the two sexes is better equipped to shoulder the responsibilities of headship of the family? Is the one equipped with rational qualities in a better position to head the family or that whose existence is characterized by emotions? The problem is resolved the moment we realize that it is the man, equipped as he is with rational qualities and a strong physical body, who is more entitled to head than woman who is by her very nature emotional, susceptible to external influences and thus ill equipped for the struggle of life as well as the headship of the family. Even woman herself does not respect a man who is a weakling and can easily be conquered by her. She despises him; nor can ever bring herself to trust him. This behavior of woman may be the vestigial remnant of the attitude of mind she imbibed over the centuries and through the training she received in the past. The fact is, however undeniable that she is still strongly drawn to a physically well-built man, as is shown by the case of the American woman. Though she has achieved an equal footing with man and has come to be recognized as a quite independent being, she enjoys subjecting herself to man, makes love to him and tries to win him over. She is moved by his strong well-built body, broad chest and when satisfied of his strength as against her own physical weakness she surrenders her person to him.

Woman may seek leadership in family life only so long as she has no children and has no worry to educate and train them. After having children she can ill afford to shoulder extra responsibilities, for her functions as a mother are already far too great a burden upon her.

This does not, however, mean that man should be a dictator over woman or in his house, for the leadership entails obligations and duties which can be discharged only through mutual consultation and co-operation. Success in management means a reciprocity of understanding and perpetual sympathy. Islam insists that love and mutual understanding and perpetual sympathy rather than conflict and competition should form the basis of family life. Says the Holy Qur’an: “Consort with them in kindness” (iv: 19), and the Holy Prophet said: “Best amongst you is he who is good to his wife” (Tirmizi). The gauge thus laid down by the Holy Prophet to judge a man is his behavior towards his wife. And a very sound standard it is, for no man can ill treat his wife unless he is spiritually diseased and absolutely lost to virtue or at least partially handicapped.

But it is the “official” relationship within a family that has occasioned many a doubt that call for an explanation. Some of these doubts arise out of woman’s obligations towards man and some centre around the problems of divorce and polygamy.

Let us remark here that marriage is primarily a personal rela­tionship and, like every other relationship between two persons, depends, in the first place, on the personal, psychological, rational and physical harmony between the persons concerned. The law can hardly secure any of these by an order. Therefore if a married couple lives in perfect peace and harmony it may not necessarily be due to their meticulous observance of all the rules of matrimonial life. For, many a time it happens that consummation of love between man and wife followed their bitter bickering. Similarly, if a state of discord and conflict is witnessed in the married life of a couple it may not be due to some mistake on the part of the husband or a gross disobedience of the wife. It is just possible that both of them may be exceptionally noble as human beings, but still their temperament may differ and so they may lament the impossibility of coming to terms between themselves but still they may not be able to effect a compromise with each other.

Despite all this the common law must, however, take note and frame rules for married life, for no system of life can claim comprehension if it does not provide for a law governing this delicate aspect of man’s life. A law setting the general and inviolable, limits at least must be there, with the man and woman to work out the details of it in the prescribed limits.

If there is love and peace between a couple, quite naturally they would not go to law as successful marriage seldom stands in need of the legal protection or verdict. But when there arises a conflict between them, they seek the aid of law in the hope that it would put an end to it.

Of law it is expected that it should be just, should not favor one of the parties to the detriment of the other, and should as far as possible cover the widest possible range of cases. At this place I must, however, repeat that no law can possibly cover all the different cases or situations cropping up in human life, nor is its rigid, literal application to all the cases considered just or a sound precept.

Let us cast a glance over the Islamic law with regard to the obligations of the wife in whose name all this hue and cry is being raised. With regard to her obligations prescribed in Islamic law, the follow­ing three points may be considered:

(1) Do these obligations constitute an injustice towards woman?

(2) Are they unilateral and carry no rights with them? and

(3) Are these obligations perpetual, such as woman can never free herself from?

Woman has three most important obligations towards her husband: (1) she should obey him whenever he should want her to go to bed with him; (2) should not allow anyone to defile the bed of her husband whose presence is resented by him, and (3) should be faithful to him in his absence.

As to the first of these, a little explanation is, necessary to appre­ciate it properly. Its wisdom is obvious. Man’s physical con­stitution is such as impels him to sexual gratification more often so as to relieve himself of its oppression and so that he may be able to perform his duties in practical life more smoothly and efficiently. He is in his youth in particular far more dominated by the sex instinct and feels the need to gratify it more acutely than a woman does, although sexually she is far more profound than he and is physically and psychologically more intensely inclined to it, but her inclination may not express itself in the physical sense alone.

Marriage is a means to gratify this natural urge of man as well as meet the demands of his spiritual, psychological, social and econo­mical life. Now the question is: What should a husband do if on approaching his wife he is coolly brushed off by her? Should he seek to establish illicit relations with other women? No society can approve of such a course, nor can the wife herself agree that her husband should be physically or psychologically attracted by another, woman as no matter what the conditions of life be that would be too much for her.

As to the cause of the refusal of a wife to go to bed with her husband on his inviting her, there may again be three causes:

(1) she hates him, and so feels disinclined to have sex relations with him; (2) she loves her husband but hates the sexual act and hence refuses him-an abnormal state which nonetheless enjoys wide cur­rency in practical life; and (3) she is a loving wife, does not hate the sexual act but at that particular moment happens to be disinclined to it.

The first of these causes forebodes a permanent condition and may thus be not confined to a particular act or period of time. In such a situation marital bond cannot survive for long. The best thing to do in such a case would be to let the man and the wife separate from each other. The woman in a sense enjoys more facilities in this respect than a man does, as we shall shortly see.

In the second instance too the condition of the wife may bear a stamp of permanency. Its origin lies not in the sexual craving of the husband alone. It must be remedied satisfactorily and a complete harmony between the husband and the wife must be restored. Either the husband should check himself if his wife refuses him or the wife must Comply with the wish of her husband like a truly loving wife as she would not like to get separated from him. Failing this they may be separated from each other in a very gentle manner. But-so long as they live together as husband and wife, the wife must, according to the Islamic law, comply with the wish of her husband in sexual matters, as it is but natural. It dot’s not necessarily imply an arbitrary authority or compulsion. It is meant to prevent the husband from being driven to pursue a course of moral perversion or entering into another marriage contract, a thing all the more painful to the wife. The law does not, however, insist on the continuance of such strained relations as make the wife feel repulsion from her husband and her love for him changes into a Positive dislike due to his insistence on having his way in sexual matters. They may in this case too better separate from each other.

The third situation is a temporary condition and it may easily be remedied. Such an aversion to the Sexual act may be the result of physical exhaustion, weariness or occupation as her psycho-physical disposition is quite capable of overcoming these in due course of time. This form of apathy in woman may be encountered by offering gifts to her and an ingenious love-play before the actual inter-course so as to transform it into a higher spiritual union rather than a purely animal and physical relationship that it might otherwise degenerate into. This love-play may also be helpful in removing the basic cause of aversion.

If, on the other band, a wife desires sexual intercourse but the husband is for some reason disinclined to it-a rare phenomenon among men in their youth at least-the wife is not without means to induce her husband to resume sex-relationship with her. The very law that lays the wife under an obligation to comply with the wish of her husband also sees to it that she too should get her wishes met with. It prescribes that the husband must also fulfill his marital duties if and when his wife should so desire. If the husband is unable to satisfy her, their marriage may dissolve. Thus we see that in the Islamic law both parties have got their duties as well as their rights. There is as such no compulsion or disregard of the wife implied in it.

The second obligation of the wife towards her husband that she should not allow anyone such as is disliked by her husband to tread his bed, implies that she should not let anyone enter his house whom he would not like to enter into. (This does not, however, in any way refer to adultery as it is forbidden by law and will have to be eschewed even if the husband should happen to favor it). The wisdom of this commandment is manifest from the fact that a great many disputes between the married couples are caused by the intervention of a third person who spreads false reports, slanders and thus adds fuel-to their family quarrels. What if in order to prevent such a development the husband were to demand of his wife not to allow a certain person into his house but she disregards it? The result will be the presence of a constant source of mischief rendering the patch-up between them impossible. Thus this obligation of the wife also purports to the good of family life including the children who require a congenial atmosphere of love and sympathy for their proper and normal growth.

It may be asked: why then did the law not also provide that the husband too should be under an obligation not to allow anyone into his house if his wife should happen to disapprove of it? In normal life when husband and wife are living in peace and love and are civilized enough no such question may arise at all, as they may feel no difficulty in reaching an understanding between themselves on all such points. But supposing that discord does creep in straiten­ing their relations and making it impossible for them to reach an agreement between themselves, they would have to go to court for a rapprochement of their differences. Now if the wife should enjoy the right to debar anyone from the house of her husband, it may make the matter worse, for we may at this place point out that the impressions of the woman are in most of the cases illogical as they are purely the reflection of her own peculiar personality rather than the outcome of any prudence. They may have sprung up from her constrained relations with the in-laws, the mother or the sister etc. of her husband. Therefore to make it incumbent upon the husband­ to obey his wife in such a circumstance would not be a judicious step; it would rather be an act of mawkish tenderness that may soon suffer a change or be completely unfounded in reality.

By this I do not mean to say that the husband is always in the right in all that he does. It is just possible that his behavior may under certain circumstances be puerile and shifty. Nor do I mean that the wife alone is always in the wrong. She may be quite justified in hating her husband whose nature, it is just possible, may be the real cause of their constrained relations. But as the law is framed for the normal human life where man has been found to act more rationally than a normal woman does, it gives a degree of importance to man over woman. The wife is, however, free to secure a separation from her husband if she is convinced that she can no longer grin and bear with him.

   The third obligation of the woman-the guarding of her husband’s property and honor in his absence-is but a natural and logical sequence of marriage such as none may dare call in question. It is, however, not a unilateral obligation but rather a bilateral one: both husband and wife must remain faithful to each other.

Let us now take up the Case of a wire and her husband one or the other of whom turns rebellious. The fact that man is in charge and the maintainer of the woman necessitates that he should have the right to admonish his disobedient Wife as the following verse clearly shows: “As for those (women) from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them” (iv: 34).

The reader must take note of the fact how this verse gradually proceeds with the description of the means of correcting one’s wife ending with the chastisement. We admit that this privilege may be abused by some men but so can every other right. The only remedy for such a situation lies in the spiritual and moral elevation of the people the importance of which Islam has never lost sight of. But the law laid down in the above verse seeks to preserve family life and safeguard it against disintegration. The law to be really useful or effective requires a power to deal with those who break it, for otherwise it is no more than an empty word; it loses all its usefulness.

Marriage is an institution that aims at the common good of the married couple. It is supposed to realize the greatest possible good for all those concerned with the love and harmony that prevails at home without any intrusion from law. But in the event of a married couple being at variance with each other the consequent ill-effect may not remain confined to their persons alone; it may also adversely affect the children, the next generation.

Now if the wife is the cause of this trouble, whom should we expect to correct her? The court? Well, the court cannot but widen the gulf between husband and wife by interfering with their private affairs. Their differences may be trivial and temporary but the interference of the court may by airing them aggravate the situation. The pride of the parties may not allow them to patch up. Therefore it is only reasonable that the court should not busy itself with the trifles of conjugal life. It may step in the important matters only when all the-other means to achieve a rapprochement have failed.

No sensible man can ever think of taking to court all his petty grievances that he daily suffers from almost every minute of his earthly existence. It would require setting up courts in almost every home to dispense with such grievances day and night.

It shows that there must of necessity be some local authority to deal with such cases as require admonition. It is this very local authority that is exercised by man as he is the real and ultimate head of his family. He is in the above verse enjoined upon to admonish his wife without injuring her self-respect. If she desists, the evil is mended. But if she persists in the wrong course he should banish her to a bed apart-a chastisement that is a bit severer than the first one. It also illustrates how penetrating an eye Islam has into the psychology of woman who being proud of her beauty and personal charm at times plays a coquette so much so that virtually it becomes an impudence. As such her separation to a bed apart means that the husband is impervious to her beauty, charm and coquetry. This may deflate a little her swollen pride and thus bring her back to her senses. But if all these means of correction fail to bring her round, the implication is that her impudence has advanced too far to be mended by anything save a very severe chastisement. Then it is that the husband is permitted to beat her as a last resort in his attempt to correct her conduct without intending to torment her. This is why the Islamic Jaw has laid it down that the chastisement should be of a mild severity.

Does such rough treatment of woman degrade her and injure her self-respect? It does not. For, to begin with we should remember that it is just a precautionary measure resorted to only when all the other conciliatory measures fail. Secondly, we must also bear in mind that in certain cases of Psychological perversions chastisement is the only effective remedy. The science of psychology tells us that in normal- case the above-mentioned conciliatory measures  viz. admonishing and separating apart her bed etc. are  quite effective but in acute eases e.g. masochism, they fail, the only remedy in such cases being the physical chastisement of the persons concerned. Women rather than men are more generally the victim of this psychological malady. They derive pleasure from humiliation and sufferings. (Men are, on the other hand, commonly afflicted with “sadism” which is marked with a morbid love for cruelty). Now if the wife belongs under this class of women, clearly her correction can be effected through chastisement alone so that she might have her desired beating and then come to herself again. Strange though it may appear, it is a fact that sometimes a man suffering from sadism marries a masochistic woman and they live in perfect love and harmony notwithstanding the abnormal basis on which their union rests, Similarly the cases of a sadistic Woman marrying a masochistic brand husband and then beating him frequently to his fill are not missing, though rare. The beating restores the balance of mind of the masochistic husband and so they live on in love and harmony. But if the situation is not so seriously aggravated the beating may not be needed at all, as that allowed by law is no more than a precautionary measure. One should not on every trivial disagreement rush in and start beating his wife. The description of the corrective measures one after the other in the above Quranic verse stresses the same fact. The Holy Prophet forbade men to exercise this right except in cases where they have no other course. Thus speaking in reproof of physical chastisement he said: “Let none of you scourge his wife the scourge of a camel and then towards the end of the day have intercourse with her” (Bukhari).

If, on the other hand, the wife should fear ill treatment from her husband the law is a bit different: “If a woman feareth ill treatment from her husband, or desertion, it is no sin for them twain if they make terms of peace with themselves. Peace is better” (iv: 128).

Some men may on this point be inclined to demand perfect equality between men and women. But the question is not one of a fanciful and theoretical justice but of that form of it which is practi­cable and in line with human nature. No woman would like to beat her husband in return for his beating her, neither in the “civilized” West nor in the “backward” East. She does not respect the husband whom she can beat and chastise. This is why no woman has yet demanded a right to beat her husband.

The important thing to take note of here is, however, that Islam does not necessitate that the woman should suffer ill treatment at the hands of her husband passively. She can in such a case secure a separation from him.

We have in the foregoing pages seen that:

(1) The obligations of a wife towards her husband are not enforced arbitrarily. They are meant for the general good of the -society of which the wife forms but a part;

(2) Most of her obligations are balanced with similar obliga­tions which the husband has to discharge with respect to her. As to the few situations where man enjoys in one way or another a precedence over the woman rite basic consideration has been the difference between their respective dispositions. It does not at all spring from any desire to humiliate or disgrace the woman;

(3) As against this authority given to man over woman, the latter has the legal right to leave her husband if he should ill­ treat her.

As to the separation which has been referred to above at more than one place and which provides woman with a practical way to get her marriage dissolved freeing herself of the obligations thereof, there are three ways to secure it:

(a) The woman may secure the right to divorce from her husband (at the time of entering into the marriage contract with him). The Islamic law explicitly allows it although few women do ever exercise it. Still the right is there which they may exercise whenever they should need it.

(b) Or she may demand a divorce from her husband on the plea that she hates him and can no longer live with him. I have heard that some courts do not enforce this principle and do not on her demanding it decree a woman’s separation from her husband, although the principle is clearly laid down and supported by the personal example of the Holy Prophet and is thus a part of the Islamic law. .The only condition for the woman in such a case is that she should give back to her husband the dowry she received from him- perfectly just condition, for, the husband too in the event of divorcing his wife is obliged to forgo in her favor all that he might have given her. Thus in order to free themselves both, man and woman have in equal manner to bear material loss.

(c) The third course open before the wife is to secure divorce along with her dowries as well as the sustenance allowance provided she should be able to convince the court that her husband has ill treated her or has failed to give her the sustenance allowance agreed upon by both of them and furnish the necessary proofs thereof. The court shall dissolve the marriage contract if it is convinced of the legitimacy of her claims.

These are the weapons which a woman may resort to if a situation should call for. They perfectly balance the authority man enjoys over her.

We have heard many a gloomy tale about the miseries caused by the divorce; how the wife and the children suffered; and how the courts are crowded due to the seemingly never ending family feuds arising from divorce. It often happens that a woman who is a happy and dutiful wife doing her best to upbring her suckling besides joyfully expecting yet another one, all of a sudden is approached by a messenger handing over a bill of divorce from her husband which might have been occasioned by a sudden whim or desire of the husband. It is just possible that he has seen a woman whom he beli­eves to be more beautiful and has taken fancy to her, or it may be that he is prompted by a wish to have a change in his sexual routine, or it may have just proceeded from the refusal of the wife to have intercourse with her husband due to her sluggishness and exhaustion.

Isn’t it, they say, then desirable that this dangerous weapon with which man may in a fit of faithlessness toy so recklessness and wreck the life of a peaceful, patient woman besides darkening the future prospects of his young innocent children, should be taken away from him?

As to these miseries we admit that divorce does lie at the root of all these, but what is the way out? Should we abolish the right of the man to pronounce divorce? If so, how are we to meet the painful situation that might as well result from such an abolition­ a situation such as we meet in the Roman Catholic countries where divorce is not permissible? Is a home wherein the husband and the wife are constantly wrangling together and are averse to any fellowship with each other worth the name, especially if the marriage be a perpetual bond and freedom from it impossible to secure? Will such a situation not be conducive to .moral crimes? The husband as well as the neglected wife might be driven to seek mistresses and friends outside the home to gratify their sexual instinct, Surely the children cannot grow up properly and develop healthy and sound personalities in such a dismal, cloudy and gloomy atmosphere, for the mental health of the children and their sound development are dependent more on the social atmosphere they breathe in rather than a mere parental care, That is whence the abnormalities met with in people’s lives spring. Their roots lie embedded in the life of their quarrelsome parents.

It is also suggested that the right of man to divorce should be restricted, that is the divorce should not take effect on the mere pro­nouncement of it by the man. Only the court should have the authority to decree the divorce after appointing arbiters one each from among the people of the man and the woman. The arbiters should thoroughly discuss the problem, trying to make the husband desist from his intention and agree to make peace with his wife. If all their efforts fail, only then the divorce should be ordered by the court, not by the husband.

I wonder if there is any legal objection such as due to which the adoption of such a conciliatory measure to restore peace and harmony between the spouses may not be possible. But I do not think there is really any need for the court to step ill as the remedy prescribed by the Islamic Jaw is ill itself quite sufficient for the purpose. Peace and harmony between the spouses depend more on themselves and their desire to mend than on anything else, If the will be there and both wish peace, the friends and kindred may prove as useful as any court; if there is no will then not even the highest court in the world may succeed ill restoring peace between them, There are the; “civilized” nations among whom only a court may decree a divorce after admonishing the parties to exhort them to patch up relations but still large numbers of divorces do take place there. In America alone the rate of divorce is 40 %-the highest in the world.

As to the Suggestion that divorce should take place only if the court is convinced that the fault lies with the wife and if the husband should prove that to live with her is a nuisance, we wonder what honor do these people want to bring to woman by making­ her live in the house where she is despised and where the husband ever reminds her that he no longer loves her? Should she even then stay on in his house in order to defraud him? Surely the law cannot sanction such a conduct, nor is fraud the only course of action for her that she should have to live in that house as a despised and helpless wretch.

Should she then stay ill the house of the father of her children to train and upbringing her children? But will it be desirable and in any way helpful in the proper upbringing of children if they live in such an atmosphere permeated with abominable injustice?

The fact is that the solution of all these problems lies in the moral, cultural, psychological and spiritual training and education of society as a whole through a long process of intellectual purgation so as to make virtue and goodness prevail ill the end providing a sound basis of social life. The husband will then realize that marital relations are very sacred and should not be disrupted in such an impetuous manner.

Such a process of moral and spiritual elevation is, however, a very long and slow one, It requires that the social life of the community should be regulated by the Islamic law with the help of an incessant struggle and co-operation of all the social institutions­ home, school, film, radio, press, literature, religion and the general public to achieve this era, It is a long and arduous process, yet it is the only sure way to secure sound results.

As against this, we must remember that the law is primarily concerned with administration of justice. It aims at giving both parties, the husband and the wife, their due share of it guaranteeing them the right to secure a separation in case they should find that they can no longer live with each other. In this connection, we must also remember that “of all things allowed to men divorce is most hated by God”.

With regard to the institution of polygamy we should not lose sight of the fact that it is just an emergency law, it does not at all represent any fundamental principle of Islamic law: “Marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four: and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only)” (iv: 3).

As pointed out in this verse, what is required of men is justice which bring difficult to achieve in polygamy, the injunction virtually comes to imply that men should contact with one wife only, Thus the Islamic law in normal life favors monogamy rather than poly­gamy. But there are certain circumstances under which monogamy becomes an unjust rather than a just institution. In such extra­ordinary circumstances, Islamic law leaves the door open to polygamy, for although in it complete justice is impossible to attain, the disadvantages resulting there from are far less serious than those flowing from monogamy in such emergencies.

During wars, especially when a large number of       men are decimated, balance between the sexes is seriously shaken. In such circumstances, polygamy becomes a social necessity as it may save society from the sexual anarchy that generally follows the decimation of a large number of men with a corresponding rise in the number of women in society who have no male bread-winner. Such women may earn their living, but what about their sexual gratification?

This may make them fall an easy prey to the lust of men. But even after this, their most innate Craving may still remain ungratified­ their Craving for children, without whom their whole existence is reduced to a dull, lifeless drudgery.

Should then in such circumstances the widowed women be left to gratify their sex urge as best as they can without having any considera tion about the social morals? The French nation suffered this fate.

The whole social structure was as a result of it disintegrated, and the French were jolted down from the exalted position they enjoyed in history. Such a social disintegration can be averted only if a man is         explicitly permitted by law to have more than one woman at a time provided that he should treat all of them with justice in all things             (save of course in the emotional attachment which is beyond man’s control).

In such other emergencies as the one met with during wars the same need for polygamy is indicated. There may be some men who are overactive sexually. Such people can hardly be content with one wife, nor can they check their overflowing sexual energy. They should be permitted by law to have a second wife, for otherwise they may contract illicit sexual relations with girl friends, a situa tion that can hardly be tolerated by any healthy social set-up.

   There are besides this certain other circumstances as well under which polygamy offers the only solution to many problems viz. sterility of the wife or a chronic disease which renders the sexual union impossible. In the first case i.e. when the wife is sterile we may not blame her for it, but why should her husband be deprived of issue, love for which is the strongest in human heart? The second marriage is the only sensible remedy in such a situation. The first wife may stay on with them or secure a separation. As to the chronically diseased wife let it not be said that sex is in itself a base instinct and, therefore, its gratification should not be sought after by undermining the happiness and well-being of an innocent woman. For, the problem here is not whether sex urge is base or exalted. It is rather of the practical need which none may afford to ignore. If the man will­ingly forgoes his sexual pleasure and is mindful of his wife’s pleasure, it is most welcome as an act of nobleness and generosity on his part but God does not burden anyone with more than he can easily bear. Moreover, to face the facts as they are is more realistic and better than a spurious nobleness in the guise of which all sorts of infamies are perpetrated as is generally the case with a people amongst whom polygamy is disallowed.

We must also in this connection bear in mind the situations such as render a husband unable to give love to his wile or divorce her. In this and all kindred situations polygamy provides the only answer and solution.

Now we propose to take up some other doubts that are prevalent about the problem of woman. To begin with is the right of the woman to work and move in public, which is duly endorsed by Islam. In the early period the woman worked outside whenever there was any genuine need for it. Similarly Islam did not forbid women to go out and work in such social institutions as required their services e.g. female education, nursing, medical treatment of women etc. Their services may for these purposes be procured as those of men are procured in wars etc. If a woman has no bread-winner she may as well go and work outside. But it must be remembered that Islam limits women to go outside their houses only when there is really a genuine need for them to do so. Otherwise it does not in principle approve of women’s outside activities as the West and the communist nations do. This is a mere folly which Islam does not approve of for a woman cannot participate in social activities but at the cost of her real primary function within her home by leaving which she may engender many psychological, social and moral problems.

That woman is physically, intellectually and intuitively best equipped for her real function of motherhood can hardly be dis­puted by anybody. Therefore if her attention is diverted to other unimportant activities, humanity is bound to suffer. In such a case she becomes just a plaything in the hands of men and a slave to their foolish demands, giving way to unchecked luxury und license. Islam cannot approve of this situation which if it did it might be shorn of its chief distinctive mark of holding that mankind is a coherent entity that does not suffer a change with the changing circumstances.

It is also said: why can’t a woman be a worker outside as well as a mother inside home at the same time with a nurse taking care of children in her absence? This is a baseless assertion, for a nurse may give the children in the most efficient manner all possible physical, intellectual or psychological help but she cannot give them one thing-the love, the care of a mother and the mother her­ self-bur for which life can hardly flourish or good manners take roots.

However hard they may try the crazy standard-bearers or civiliza­tion or the foolish votaries of communism can never effect any change in human nature. The child badly stands in need of the mother’s attention during at least the first two years of its growth­ full and undivided attention and love in which no partnership is tolerated even if the partner be the child’s own dear brother. How can a nurse give this motherly care and love to children? She has in most of the cases ten to twenty children to look after. The children cannot but quarrel together over their playthings and for the attention of the artificial mol her they share in common. The quarrel thus comes to stay as a permanent feature of their lives leaving their hearts cold and hard without love without any fraternal affection

A nurse may be if there: is any genuine need for her, engaged to take care of the children. But without any such need resort to her is nothing short of foolishness.

The crazy westerners may however, excuse themselves on the basis of their historical, geographical and politico-economic condition, of life, but what about us living in the Islamic East? Have we too got any such excuse? Are there no more male workers available to work outside so that we should require extra female workers, or have the Muslim men-fathers, brothers, husbands or kinsmen­-abstained from themselves to go out and scratch a living for themselves?

It is also said that by working outside a woman may attain her independent economic existence which may enhance her honor and prestige in society and prestige in society. But we would like to know if Islam has denied an Independent economic position to woman? The fact is that the problem with the Islamic world is faced today is not that of a system but it is poverty due to which both men and women have been deprived of all facilities of decent living, The solution lies in stepping up our material production so that the whole of the nation may prosper men as well as women, and none may remain poor, The competition between women and men over the possession of sources of economic production is no solution at all.

Some people also aver that by working outside a woman may help increase the income of her family, for the income of a single earning member cannot equal that of the two. This may be true in certain individual cases but if all women take to outside work, family life would be crippled leading to long separations of husband and wife which may result in moral crimes, What economic, social or moral justification is there to make the woman work outside at so enormous a price?

Assigning the woman her natural function of nursing the human race wholeheartedly Islam had an eye to the demands of human nature as well as those of society, So man was charged with the duty of supporting her and providing for her all her requirements so as to leave her free from all irrelevant worries, besides giving her the highest respect and regard so much that when a man enquired of the Holy Prophet: “Who has the first claim to my good treat­ment?” he said “your mother”, The man said “And then who?” the Prophet said: “Then your mother.” The mall asked: “And then?” Again; the Prophet replied: “Then your mother!” The man once again asked: “And then?” The Prophet said: “Then your father” (Muslim and Bukhari),

What then is all this uproar by the Muslim woman of today about? Is there any right or facility that Islam has not already given her so that she should still feel constrained to launch a campaign to win them through means such as suffrage and representa­tion in parliament? Let us see:

She demands an equal human status, but Islam has already given this to her in theory as well as in practice before law.

She wants economic independence and the right to participate in social life directly. Well, Islam was the first religion that gave her this right:

She wants the right to education? Islam not only recognizes it but makes the acquisition of it obligatory on her as well.

Does she want the right not to be given in marriage without her permission? Islam has given her this right as well as the right to arrange her own marriage.

Does she demand that she should be treated kindly and fairly while performing her functions within the house, and that she should have the right to ask for a separation from her husband if he should fail to treat her in a just and fair manner? Islam does give her all these rights and makes it incumbent upon men to safeguard them.

Also does she want the right-to go and work outside? Islam recognizes this right of her too.

Or does she seek the freedom to indulge in base, degrading and humiliating sybaritic? Well Islam cannot grant this to her as it does not also allow men to degrade themselves by indulging in such depravities. This license does not, however, hang on the representation of women in parliaments. They may do well to wait patiently till the social relationships and traditions disintegrate and degenerate into anarchy. Then all those craving for this license may enjoy it unchecked.

There are certain other people who maintain that though our conditions and values of life differ from those of the West, yet practi­cally the position of woman in the East is so low that one cannot but protest against it. Her western counterpart has already won her freedom besides a high social status, so why should not the eastern woman as well following in the footsteps of her western sister, endeavor to get back her usurped rights?

This is no doubt true. The woman in the Islamic Countries is generally backward with neither respect nor any grace. She lives a life similar to that of animals; her whole existence is but another name for mean earthly desires; she suffers privations more than she ever tastes of happiness; she is made to surrender more than she is given; and seldom rises above the level of a purely impulsive existence.

This is also true, but may we ask: who is responsible for this state of affairs? Does Islam or its teachings have anything to do with it?

The fact is that the miserable plight of the eastern woman is the result of the economical, social, political and psychological con­ditions prevailing in the East today. We must take note of these if we really want to reform our social life and know as to where these evils spring from.

At the root of the present miserable plight of the eastern woman lies the wretched poverty that the East has been afflicted with now for many a generation past. It is the social injustice which makes a group of people live in luxury and profusion while their fellow-beings do not find enough to feed or clothe themselves properly, and the political repression which splits a people into rulers and ruled, the former enjoying all privileges without the attendant obligations and the latter laboring under heavy burdens with no rights or compensations in return. The dark clouds of oppression that overcast the heavens above are the result of these very social factors. It is these circumstances that are in effect responsible for the present humiliation and persecution of woman in the East.

Woman craves for an amicable relationship of love and mutual respect between her and her companion, man. But how can this love and respect find expression in this suffocating atmosphere of bleak poverty and social repression? For not only woman but man too is the victim of these circumstances although he may seem to be comparatively better off than her.

Man treats woman roughly and persecutes her as a reaction to that harsh and rough treatment and persecution that he himself suffers at the hands of the people around him. He is disgraced and his self pride is wounded by the rough treatment of the chiefs of the village, the police officers, and factory owners or the state. He meets nothing but disgrace and humiliation in social life but he cannot avenge himself upon all these antagonistic forces, so he comes back to his house and gives vent to his anger on his wife and children or those who happen to be near him at the time.

It is this accursed poverty that exhausts man to the utmost limit, totally incapacitating him for love, sympathy or forbearance towards those with whom he comes into contact. Again it is this very wretched poverty that makes woman put up patiently with tyranny, cruelty and rough treatment from her husband for she knows that life without a bread-winner would be even worse. She dare not even claim her legal rights fearing that her husband taking it ill might divorce her. And what would she do if he divorc­ed her? Who will support her? For, her parents are themselves too Poor to support her. They cannot but advise her to return to her husband and bear up with the degradation and humiliation as best as she can. This is one reason why woman is so degraded and humiliated in the East today.

Secondly, backward as it is today the East lacks ideals as well as self-consciousness and is plunged into a dark night of ignorance. It has become devoid of all higher values of humanity save one­ power and its various manifestations which it worships, and holds weakness to be in itself a sufficient justification to despise or hold in contempt anyone bearing its stamp.

It is this self same worship of power that makes man, the sterner sex, hate weak woman. He finds it hard to honor or respect woman as a human being, for he also lacks the moral refinement so necessary for such an attitude toward the weaker sex. A woman may, how­ever, be honored if she happens to possess wealth, the key to power and authority over others.

Similarly in a backward society such as the East at present the people sink low to the level of a purely or nearly instinctive existence. They are sex-ridden and sex colors all their views and attitudes towards life. As such they come to view woman as a means of pleasing and gratifying their lust and nothing else.[4] She loses all respect as a human being as psychologically, intellectually and spiritually she is held to be too much below man to deserve or claim it. As a result thereof the sexual union of men and women is reduced to a purely animal act where the male always dominates the female, its two distinctive marks being consciousness of the male at the time of the act of the dominance of the female over aim, and ignoring her later on.

Afflicted as it always is with ignorance and hunger, a backward community can hardly afford to spare time or energy to achieve moral elevation and discipline, although it is through these alone that a people can attain to higher planes of humanity and rile above the plane of a purely animal existence. In the absence of such a moral and spiritual discipline or in the presence of the one that is unsuitable, the inevitable result is that human life assumes a purely economic character, power is worshipped and is measured in term of animal passions.

It is in such a backward society that while performing her duties as a mother the woman unknowingly distorts the view of man to­wards woman. She turns her small child out as a petty dictator who is wont to command an immediate obedience. She is too indulgent a mother to lay a reasonable check on the unreasonable demands of her boy. She tries to please him no matter how unreasonable or absurd his demands are. As a result of this over-indulgence he grows up as a man solely slave to his animal passions expecting others to obey him without a demur. But when in practical life his desires are thwarted he starts venting his rancor on people, men, women and children around him.

These are the most important factors responsible for the dis­turbance and trouble witnessed in the East today. But for these, the woman in the East would not have suffered much, nor occupied so Iowa position. Neither of these bears any relation to Islam; they are incompatible with the true Islamic spirit.

Poverty? Is it the result of Islam? Certainly no, for it was but Islam that had made the Community so rich that as happened in the days of Umar bin Abdul Aziz there remained not even a single man in it who was poor enough to deserve or receive alms. Islam is a practical system of life that brought about that great economic miracle in terms of practical life. It is this same system that we do earnestly seek to re-establish today. Islam as a system of life manages to get the wealth of the people distributed in a just and fair manner among the members of the community “in order that it may not (mere/y) make a circuit between the wealthy among you” (xlix: 7). It does not extol or approve of poverty; rather it would see it abolished. Nor does it favor luxury and license; it prohibits these both.

Poverty is the most important factor responsible for the troubles of the eastern woman of today. Once it is done away with, the greatest or woman’s problems will be resolved forthwith. With that she win also get back her respect, for which purpose she may not necessarily have to go and work outside (though she has the right to do so) as she too will then have her share through inheri­tance in the increased wealth of the community which she may spend on her personal comfort only. When rich she may be sure to command the respect or men and be bold enough to exercise her rights without any fear or threat of poverty.

And what about the political injustice man is suffering from making him vent his repressed rancor on his wife at home? Is Islam responsible for that?

Islam cannot be blamed for it either, as it preaches revolt rather than obedience to injustice. In this respect it so equitably re­gulated the relations or the rulers and the ruled that when once Omar said: “Hear and obey” a man from amongst the assembly of the believers retorted: “We shall not hear you, nor obey you, unless you tell us wherefrom have you got this sheet of cloth you are putting on?” At this Omar did not fly into a rage. He, on the other hand, praised the man and clarified his position before the assembly, so that at last the man again got up and said: “Now give us your orders. We shall hear and obey you”. It is precisely this form or government we seek to establish today, so that no ruler may dare oppress people; so that the people may feel bold enough to speak their mind before rulers; and so that the relations of a man with his wife and children are based on justice, charity, love and fraternity.

And the degeneration of higher human values, is Islam to be blamed for it?

No, Islam has nothing to do with this degeneration of moral values. It seeks to elevate human beings inculcating in them higher spiritual values. It taught men that “the noblest of you in the sight of Allah is the one best in conduct,” rather than the one who is the richest, mightiest, or strongest. Once these higher values are firmly established in society, the woman will no longer be looked down upon because of her weakness. The gauge of a man’s humanity in such a society is his fair treatment of his wife as the Holy Prophet said: “The best amongst you is he who is best to his wife and I am the best amongst you as regards the treatment of my wife.” Deep insight into the human psychology as this saying of the Prophet does exhibit, it also tells us that a man cannot ill-treat his wife without being a victim of psychological complexes and disorders or falling short of the true human standard.

And the degradation of men to a purely animal instinctive level of existence, is Islam the cause of it? Surely no, Islam is not the cause of this degradation, for did it ever sanction that men should sink low to such an animal level? Far from it, it seeks to elevate men and women to such a high plane of being that they are no longer mere slaves to their instincts, nor is their outlook upon life solely molded by these. The sex relations of men and women are in the sight of Islam not purely animal relations. They rather represent their physical need which it approves of with an eye to free them from the over-domination of sex which if left to itself may thwart their creative pursuit belonging under the different realms of practice, science, arts or worship and which may in the absence of a lawful outlet drive them to adopt wrongful practices. As such though Islam does not condemn sexual relations of men and women, yet it does not approve of their being wholly taken up with them. It rather urges them to devote their energies to the higher and nobler ends of life, man exerting himself in the way of God incessantly and woman doing her best in training her children and looking after her household duties. Thus Islam gives both man and woman ideals that elevate them far above the purely animal level of needs and passions.

Or is the defective moral discipline the outcome of the impact of Islam? The answer is a big no, for the Qur’an, the sayings of the Prophet are all fun of moral precepts that aim at the spiritual eleva­tion of human soul disciplining it to exercise self-control and observe the principles of justice and a respect for others such u one would himself expect from others.

Are then our traditions of social life really responsible for the backwardness of the women in the East? Are they in effect that have made them live like animals, inert, narrow-minded, ignorant, as some writers would have us believe? The answer is again an

emphatic no. Our past traditions do not forbid us to acquire knowledge, to work, or co-operate with others in social life, provided it aims at the well-being of the community and entails no adverse effects for it.

What these traditions[5] do not approve of are such foolish and, unhealthy activities as the going out of women and walking openly and without any genuine need on the highways and roads. Surely none can dare say that the women can realize their potentiality and respect through these silly activities alone. They may in such situations fall an easy prey to the lust of the sybarite men as the experience of the enlightened, civilized western society girls does illustrate. As such the people opposing traditions seem to do so just because they do not see eye to eye with the self-indulgence, license and luxury they so earnestly crave for.

There was in Egypt a non-Muslim writer who never lost an opportunity to disparage Islam overtly or covertly in his weekly magazine. He kept on reminding women: “Shake off your weatherworn traditions; come out of your houses and mix up with men courageously, by rushing in to take up work in factories and shops, not because there is any genuine need for it but just to get rid of your responsibilities as mothers and nurses of human race”. He also said that the woman walked in the streets with her eyes down because she lacked courage and self-confidence and was over­ whelmed by fear of men. But when she through her experience achieves enlightenment she will be able to face men courageously.[6] He overlooked the history which tells us that Aysha who actively took part in the politics of her time and led armies into the battlefield used to talk to men from behind a veil. Moreover, he also forgot to mention that the lowering down of eyes was not something pecu­liar to women alone, for history also tells us that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) was more modest than even the virgin maids. Did he also not possess self-confidence, or did he lack the consciousness of being a messenger of God? How long will these writers keep on repeating and saying such silly things?

That woman is reduced to a very low plane of existence is undoubtedly true but the way to reform this situation is not that adopted by the woman in the West who was faced with peculiar circumstances and, therefore, was subject to typical aberrations of her own Springing up from those circumstances.

Islam and Islam alone does provide a solution to the problem of woman no less than that of man. Let all of us, men, young and old, turn towards it, strive hard to re-establish an Islamic state and enforce Islamic law in our lives. Only then shall we be able to realize in practice our beliefs and ideals. This is the only way to achieve symmetry and harmony in our life without any resort to injustice or tyranny.

---

[1] It is on the basis of such evidence that the proponents of Materialism and Marxism claim that the economic conditions alone engender the social conditions of life and that only the economic circumstances determine the mutual relations of men, We do not deny the importance of the economic factor in human life, but it is wrong to say that it is the economic factor alone which determines the thoughts, feelings and behavior of men. The fact that the economic factor exercised such a dominating influence over European life was due to the absence of any lofty ideal such as might have-as it did in the Islamic World­-elevated Europe spiritua1ly. Thus enabling Europeans to base their economic relationship on a purely human basis. In this way it would have not only realized its economic requirements but the people all over the world would have also been spared the trouble it made them suffer due to its lust for exploitation.

Â

[2] It is on the basis of such evidence that the Marxists claim that the economic factor is the only real factor in life as in fact it was that very factor that determined the course of the problem or woman in Europe. As we said somewhere before, we admit the importance or the economic factor in life, but we hold that the course of circumstances in Europe would have been a different one if it had an ideology and system of lire like Islam which enjoins upon man to support woman in all circumstances and which gives woman, in case she is at all driven to woke for herself, an equal right to have wages similar to those of man, and which, to meet an emergency, provided for polygamy as a successful and clean solution or the crisis generally met with after wars making it unnecessary for woman to take up arduous and difficult jobs, satisfying her natural sexuality by resort to a foul and ugly course.

[3] Such a right of woman at the first glance may appear as a mere illusion in the context of the present socio-economic conditions of life in the East but Islam cannot be blamed for acts that contradict its teachings Or bar the way to the implementation of its laws. Women did in the early period of Islam exercise this right and it was acknowledged by the Holy Prophet, the law-maker, as well as his successors, the early Caliphs. What we demand today is the implementation of all laws along with the removal of all those obstacles that intervene in their promulgation, be they economic and social circumstances, Or the un-Islamic practices followed blindfoldly in imitation of others.

[4] So does the woman come to think of man with the only difference that ~use of his superiority as the in-charge of the home and his earning capacity he enjoys a lion’s share of sexual pleasure.

[5] By “Traditions” We mean the true and genuine Islamic traditions and not those transplanted from foreign nations but the writers who launch their attacks against traditions do not differentiate between these two kinds.

[6] The Writer referred to above is Salama Musa. In whatever he penned his first care was to see that it in some way or other disparaged Islam, as did another Christian writer Jurji Zaidan. Both of them formed the vanguard of the enemy who is at Present as active against Islam as ever before.

Source: Islam, The Misunderstood Religion - By Muhammed Kutub

Capitalism did not originate in the Islamic world as it came into being only after the invention of the machine which took place by chance in Europe.

Capitalism was imported into the Islamic world at a time when it was under European domination. Together with the wave of development, it spread into the Islamic world which suffered from poverty, ignorance, illness and backwardness. This made some people think that Islam approves of capitalism, with both its evils and merits. They also claim that there are no provisions in the Islamic law or regulations such as might be in conflict with capitalism. They argue that as Islam permitted individual ownership it must likewise permit capitalism.

In answer to this accusation it might suffice to point out that capitalism cannot prosper or grow without usury and monopoly both of which were prohibited by Islam about one thousand years before the existence of capitalism.

But let us tackle the question at some greater length. If the invention of the machine had taken place in the Islamic world, how would Islam have faced the economic development resulting from such invention?  How would Islamic legislations and laws have organized work and production?

There is consensus of opinion among economists-including those who are opposed to capitalism (e.g., Karl Marx-that capital­ism at the start brought about great progress and rendered con­siderable services to humanity. production was increased, means of communication were improved and national resources were exploited on a larger scale. The standard of living among the work­ing classes became higher than when they were mostly or completely dependent on agriculture.

But such a glorious picture did not last long because the natural development of capitalism, as they say, led to the amassing of wealth in the hand. If capitalist owners and to a relative diminu­tion of the properties owned by the working classes. This enabled the capitalist owners to use workmen-the real producers in communist eyes-in considerably stepping up the production of various commodities but the wages paid to workmen were too low to ensure decent lire because the employers took all the profits and spent them leading a life of luxury and corruption.

Besides this the scanty wages paid to workmen did not enable them to consume all the production or capitalist countries. This led to the accumulation or surplus production. As a result of this the capitalist countries began to look for new markets for their surplus production, which in turn gave rise to colonialism with all its incessant conflicts among different nations over markets and raw material resources. Destructive wars were the inevitable outcome or all this.

Moreover, the capitalist system is always exposed to periodic crises resulting from depression caused by low wages and the scantiness of world consumption in relation to increasing production.

Some propagandists of materialism refer all the problems of the capitalist system to the nature of capital itself rather than to any ill-will or desire for exploitation on the part of the capitalists. Such naive and strange reasoning means that man with all his emotions and thoughts is but a helpless creature in the face or the power of economy.

There is no doubt that Islam would have encouraged the good and progressive achievements that were brought about by capital­ism in its early stage. But Islam would not have left capitalism without legislation to organize it and to preclude any exploitation which might result from ill-will on the part of the employers or from the very nature of capital. The Islamic principle which was laid in this respect entitles the workmen to share the profit with their employers. Some Maliki jurisprudents went so far as to give to the employee an equal share in the profit. The employer provides all capital and the workman does the work; the two efforts are equal and accordingly they are entitled to an equal share in the profit.

The above-mentioned principle illustrates Islam’s great concern with the establishment of justice. Such concern for the establish­ment of justice was voluntarily introduced by Islam. It was not forced thereon by any economic exigency nor was it the result of the struggle among classes which is regarded by the propagandists of certain economic doctrines as the sole effective factor in the develop­ment of economic relations.

In the beginning, industry consisted of simple manual work involving a small number of workmen who worked in simple workshop” The above-mentioned principle would have organized the relation between work and capital on an equitable basis such as Europe had never had.

Economists say that the development of capitalism from its early benevolent phase to its present morbidly evil phase was accompanied by its increasing dependence on national loan. This led to the creation of banks which carried on financial operations, and advanced loans in return for some interest. Without that such loans as well as the majority of banking operations are based on usury which is expressly prohibited by Islam.

On the other hand, tough competition, which is another feature of capitalism, leads to the destruction of minor companies or to their merger into major ones. This encourages monopoly which is also prohibited by Islam, as is borne out by some sayings of the Prophet. He said: “He that monopolizes is a wrong-doer”        Because Islam prohibited usury and monopoly it would have been impossible for capitalism to develop under Islam into its present evil stage which involves exploitation, colonialism and war.

What would have been the fate of industry if it had originated under Islamic rule?

Surely Islam would not have restricted industry to minor workshops whose profit is shared by the employer and the workman. Production would have rather grown but the relationship between the employer arid workmen would have developed on different lines from those outlining the development of the employer-employee relations in Europe in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It would have developed in accordance with the basic principles of Islam such as the above-mentioned principle which provides for an equal division of profit between the workmen and their employer.

By so doing Islam would have avoided resorting to usury or monopoly and would have precluded the injustice to which workmen are subjected under capitalism where they are exploited and left to suffer poverty and humiliation.

It would be foolish to suggest that Islam could not have esta­blished such justice without first passing through hard ordeals, class conflicts and economic pressures which would ultimately lead to the amendment of its legislations. It is proved beyond all doubt that Islam had been ahead of all nations in dealing with the questions of slavery, feudalism and early capitalism. In so doing Islam was not acting under any outside pressure whatsoever. It was rather acting voluntarily and in accordance with its own conception of eternal equity and justice scoffed at by communist writers. On the other hand, it is a fact that Russia, a model communist state, itself passed directly from feudalism to communism without passing through the intermediary stage of capitalism. In this way Russia­ which adopted the doctrine of Karl Marx-practically gives the lie to Marx’s theory regarding the phases of development which, he says, every state has to experience.

As to colonialism, wars and exploitation of peoples, it should be pointed out that Islam is firmly opposed to all these as well as to all the other universal evils engendered by capitalism. It is not one of the principles of Islam to colonize other peoples or to wage any war against others for the purposes of exploitation. The only war approved by Islam is that which is waged against aggression or is meant to spread the Word of God where its peaceful dissemination is rendered impossible.

The communists and their like allege that colonialism is an inevitable phase in human development. They add that colonialism could not have been averted by any doctrine or moral principle since it was essentially an economic phenomenon resulting from a surplus is the production of industrialized countries and the need for foreign outlets for marketing such surplus.

Needless to say, Islam does not recognize such nonsense about the inevitability of colonialism. Besides, the communists themselves say or profess that Russia will solve the problem of surplus pro­duction by reducing both working hours and workmen’s role in production. The solution which communism professes to have found may be used by other systems as well.

History bears witness that colonialism has been an ancient human propensity. It did not originate with capitalism although capitalism with its modern weapons of destruction rendered it more ferocious. As to the exploitation of the vanquished, Roman colonialists were more ruthless and monstrous than their modern counterparts.

History furnishes us with the best evidence to the effect that Islam has been the cleanest of all systems as far as war is concerned. Islamic wars have always been free from exploitation as well as subjection of others. Therefore, if the industrial revolution had taken place in Islamic countries, Islam would have solved the pro­blem of surplus production without resorting to war or colonization. Besides, it may be said that the problem of surplus production is an outcome of the capitalist system in its present form only. In other words, if the basic principles of capitalism are changed, the problem would not exist.

As against this, the ruler in the Islamic state shall not remain helplessly indifferent towards the problem of the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few people while the majority are suffering from poverty and deprivation. Such amassing of wealth is contrary to the principles of Islam which expressly prescribed that wealth should- be fairly distributed among all the people lest it should be confined to the rich only. The ruler in Islam is charged with the enforcement of Sharia (Islamic law) by all means at his command without any injustice or harm to anyone. In this respect, the ruler is invested with full and unlimited powers within the bounds set by God’s law-the law that precludes the accumulation of wealth. We might refer in this respect to the law of inheritance which ensures that wealth left by each generation is properly distributed. Re­ference should also be made to Az-Zakat which prescribes that 2 1/2% of the capital and profit should be annually earmarked for the poor. In addition, Islam explicitly prohibits the hoarding of wealth. It likewise prohibits usury which is the basic factor in the accumu­lation of capital. Moreover, the relationships among the members of Islamic society are based on reciprocal responsibility rather than exploitation.

It should also be added that the Holy Prophet (peace be on him) ensured for officials of the state certain rights including the basic necessities of life: “If a person who if charged with work for us (i.e. the state) has no wife, he shall have one; if he has no dwelling place, he shall have one; if he has no servant, he shall have one; if he has no animal, he shall have one”.

Such guarantees are not to be confined to officials of the state only. They are the basic necessities required by every person. They can be obtained in return for work done in the service of the state or through any profession or occupation from which society may benefit. If the state ensures the basic necessities for its officials it must also ensure the same for every working individual in the state.

This is evident from the fact that the Public Treasury is responsible for supporting those who are unable to work owing to old age, illness, or childhood. The Public Treasury is also responsible for providing basic necessities to persons who cannot obtain them owing to the insufficiency of means.

All the above-mentioned facts emphasize the responsibility of the state to ensure by all means the basic necessities for workers. It is of no great importance as to by what means should such necessities be provided to the workers; what really matters is the principle which guarantees that profit and loss shall be equally shared by all members of the nation. By providing such necessities for workers Islam protects them against exploitation, besides ensuring a decent life for all.

Islam would not have allowed capitalism to grow into the monstrous forms which are presently prevalent in the “civilized” West. The Islamic legislations-whether originally prescribed by Sharia or newly adopted to face new developments within the frame­ work of Sharia-would not have allowed the capitalists to exploit the working people or suck their blood. Islam would have pre­cluded all the evils of capitalism including colonization, war and the enslaving of people.

Islam, as usual, is not content with the mere enactment of economic rules and laws, In addition to law, Islam also makes use of moral and spiritual incentives which are satirized by the com­munists because they see that such values have no practical signi­ficance in Europe, But in Islam moral and spiritual values are not separated from practical considerations, Islam has a unique manner of combining and harmonizing both the purification of the spirit and the organization of the community. The individual is never left to wonder how to reconcile the ideal with the practical, Islam for­mulates its legislations on a moral basis so that the moral values are always in harmony with the legislations, In this way, each side supplements the other without any fear of conflict or divorcement, Islamic morality prohibits and discourages all forms of luxury and sensuality which are the inevitable results of the amassing of wealth in the hands of a few people, Along with this, Islam also prohibits being unjust to employees or underpaying them. As the amassing of wealth is an outcome of in justice to employees, it invariably means that it must also be discouraged. Islam calls on the people to spend their money in the way of God-even if that should lead to disposing of all ones property. It is because the rich people spend their money on themselves rather than in the way of God that the majority of the people live in poverty and deprivation.

The spiritual elevation of men brought about by Islam brings them closer to God and makes them renounce all worldly pleasures and profits in striving to attain God’s pleasure and in expectation of His recompense in the other world. There is no doubt that a man who keeps his peace with God and has faith in the other world, in heaven and hell, will not rush madly for the amassing of wealth or resort to exploitation or injustice for the realization of his selfish ends.

In this way the moral and spiritual edification will pave the way for economic legislations which aim at curbing the evils of capitalism. Consequently, when such legislations are made they are sure to be complied with not because of fear of punishment but rather because people would be acting according to the dictates of their conscience.

In conclusion, it should be made clear that the monstrous capitalism which is currently prevalent in the Islamic world is not a pan of Islam and consequently Islam cannot be held responsible for its evils.

The Day of Resurrection (By: Muhammad Mitwaly Ash-Sha’rawy)

When the end of this world comes, everything shall be overturned. Everything we now see on the earth will disappear and ends: the sun, the mountains, the seas, the sky, the earth. Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, appointed a time for the Day of Resurrection that none knows it but Him. But out of mercifulness towards us He gave us the portents of the Hour through what is reported to us by the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). Generally speaking, it is the disturbance of the moral balances in the universe. They are the balances set by the Law of Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, which should have governed people’s life to make the world a righteous place.

Among the portents is to see abominable acts deemed lawful, and people boasting of committing what incurs the Anger of Allah. Whereas righteous acts are condemned among people. If you render back the trusts, people accuse you of foolishness and ignorance. People earn ill-gotten money and become experts in attaining it and are even proud of it. Every person withholds what he has. The manufacturer does not attend properly to his craft nor the farmer. People refuse to use the power and means that Allah has bestowed upon them in helping the needy or the oppressed.

Among its portents also is the loss of rights among people. Desires are followed. Hypocrites assume the highest worldly positions but people marked by sound wisdom and judgment are unheeded. Authority comes in the hands of unfit persons, which means that jobs and high posts are not assigned on the basis of efficiency and experience but on the basis of personal inclinations and whether being favored or not by the people wielding authority. Competence then is of no value.

Achievements are not ascribed to their doers. We find people claiming that they have done but they have not. Man claims that he is the origin in the universe and that everything is subject to his will and power, thus we find those who say: “The era of religion has ended and the era of science has begun!”

The Portents of the Last Hour

Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, gives us in the Noble Qur’an one of the signs of the advent of the Last Hour in His Saying, all glory is to Him:

[Until when the earth is clad with its adornments and is beautified, and its people think that they have all the powers of disposal over it, Our Command reaches it by night or by day and We make it like a clean-mown harvest, as if it had not flourished yesterday! Thus do We explain the signs in detail for the people who reflect.] [Yûnus, 10: 24]

On contemplating the meaning of this glorious Ayah we will find that before the Day of Resurrection the earth will be fully adorned and beautified. On its surface rise the high modern towers, big cities, and whatever may adorn the earth from ornaments and make worldly life attractive to people, and shows it to them in its most beautiful shapes. This will not happen except through the advance of civilization in a way that makes man capable of realizing many things. He can travel from one country to another in a short time. He can manage his household and what is outside his home by remote control. He presses a button and food is served and presses another and he moves easily from a place to another.

In other words, life on the earth will reach the peak of technology, which realizes to man luxury.

The Saying of Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, [and its people think that they have all the powers of disposal over it] [10: 24] is a proof that people will forget Allah, The Exalted and Ever-Majestic, and His Power. They will forget that He is The One Who created this universe and established it laws and everything in it. They will ascribe this to themselves and think that they have the power to do whatever they want in the land. That earth is submissive to their will and powers by the science they have achieved. When the earth and whatever in it submits only to the Will of Allah. Him Alone is the doer of what He wills.

When the earth and the universe are destroyed

When people forget Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, and are deceived by their power the Command of Allah comes by night or day, because night and day always exist on the earth. There is no night on the surface of the earth without day, and no day without night but they exist together. So, when the Command of Allah comes night and day will be there.

His Saying [and We make it like a clean-mown harvest, as if it had not flourished yesterday] [10: 24] means that everything on the earth from ornaments and embellishments will be destroyed. All of a sudden the earth will be barren, nothing on it. Everything mankind has done during the long centuries will vanish and end in seconds. But when will this happen?

The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless and grant him peace) said: “If you see that people have deadened the prayers, wasted the trusts, eaten Ribâ (i.e. usury or usurious interests), deemed lying permissible, traded religion for worldly life, then these are among the signs of the Hour.”

The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless and grant him peace) gives us further signs of the Last Hour, as when people slight bloodshed, thus murder and assassination prevail. And when the chief of people is the wickedest among them – though he should be the oldest or the one most honored by virtue of adhering to noble manners. Also, when people use unjust measures, which means that usurping people’s rights prevail. And prevalence of superstitions – thus people believe in fortune-telling and palmistry and other arts of charlatans.

When the Trumpet is blown

There are major signs of the Last Hour but we shall not discuss them. The question is: what shall happen when the Last Hour come? As we have already said everything shall be destroyed and the Trumpet shall be blown as Almighty Allah says what means:

[And the Horn will be blown, and whoever is in the heavens and whoever is on the earth will fall dead except whom Allah wills. Then it will be blown again, and at once they will be standing, looking on] [Az-Zumar, 39: 68]

Thus, the first blowing of the Trumpet is before resurrection. Whereupon, whoever is in the heavens and on the earth will fall dead, not mankind alone, or mankind and jinn but all the creatures of Allah in the heavens or on the earth. It shall include the angels and other creatures except him whom Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, wills that he shall remain.

Then follows the second blowing. Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, says what means: [and at once they will be standing, looking on] [39: 68] meaning whoever Allah wills that he should return to life once again and all who would witness the Day of Resurrection.

The sight…before the hearing

Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, says at the end of Ayah 68 [looking on]

[looking on] here has two meanings:

The first meaning: [looking on] is seeing one another. In worldly life and in the life of Barzakh there are things that we see and others that we do not see. But at the moment of resurrection all the creatures of Allah will see one another. We shall see Satan and his offspring. We shall see the angels and those who lived before us from the time of the Prophet Adam (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) up till now. And also see the extinct species. We shall see all this.

The second meaning: Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, in this glorious Ayah states the sight before the hearing though in all the glorious Ayat of the Noble Qur’an the hearing is stated before the sight, all with the exception of two Ayat.

Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, says what means:

[And Allah has brought you out from the wombs of your mothers while you know nothing. And He gave you hearing, sight, and hearts that you might give thanks (to Allah)] [An-Nahl, 16: 78]

And His Saying:

[It is He, Who has created for you (the sense of) hearing (ears), sight (eyes), and hearts (understanding). Little thanks you give] [Al-Mu‘minûn, 23: 78]

And His Saying:

[Indeed, the hearing, the sight and the heart – about all those [one] will be questioned] [Al-Isrâ’, 17: 36]

In all the glorious Ayat of the Noble Qur’an in which the hearing and the sight are stated, the hearing precedes the sight because the ear performs its function from the moment of birth. Moreover, it does not sleep because it is the organ of summoning.

Ear then is the instrument of knowledge and learning. You hear much more than you see. And to speak you have to first hear. Through the ear we receive knowledge, language, speech and the like.

But only in two glorious Ayat Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, states the sight before the hearing in His Saying:

[”Our Lord, we have seen and heard, so return us [to the world]; we will work righteousness. Indeed, we are [now] certain.”] [As-­Sajdah, 32: 12]

[And at once they will be standing, looking on] [Az-Zumar, 39: 68]

The reason is that seeing will (in this situation) precede hearing. When we come out from the graves on the Day of Resurrection we will first see then hear…see what? We shall see the earth speedily cleaving asunder and people emerging from it. We shall see throngs of people as if they were locusts spreading, from their density.

The Noble Qur’an gives us more than a picture of the Day of Al-Hashir (cramming tightly together), where Allah, The Most Exalted, says about it:

[On the Day the earth breaks away from them [and they emerge] rapidly; that is a gathering easy for Us.] [Qâf, 50: 44]

[Their eyes humbled, they will emerge from the graves as if they were locusts spreading,] [Al-Qamar, 54:7]

How Al-Hashir will be like?

There are other Ayat in the Noble Qur’an that describes the scenes of the Day of Resurrection.

Just imagine all mankind, from the time of the Prophet Adam (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) till the Day of Resurrection, coming out from inside the earth all at on time. It will be straitened because they lived on it at different times, generation after generation. But on this Day they will come all at one time. That is why it is called the Day of Al-Hashir (Crowding), because people will be crowded closely together.

Al-Hashir (Crowding) in Arabic means to force things into an insufficient space, where everything becomes closely packed together, moving with difficulty, hardly finding a place. This is how it will be like at the hour of Crowding. Huge number of people and Jinn, besides other creatures of Allah; all will be gathered closely together on the earth we once lived on.

Concerning this, Almighty Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, says what means:

[Thereof (the earth) We created you, and into it We shall return you, and from it We shall bring you out once again] [Tâ­-Hâ, 20: 55]

If you want to imagine the picture, look at the swarms of locusts and how they come together in huge numbers screening the sun’s disk, and none can count them. This is how people will be like on the Day of Resurrection. They will emerge in large numbers, as if they were infinite swarms of locusts.

But will every person come out, free to go wherever he wants? Will we all come out to mingle with one another in a big mass? No, the time of human free choice has ended and we will no longer have choice in anything.

Everyone of us will be entrusted to an angel who will take him from the land from which we shall come out to the Land of Promise, where man shall be judged. None is left on his own, but every person has a specified place wherefrom he shall come out, and an angel charged with him. The angel is the one who shall drive him and man will never be able to escape from the Decree of Allah.

Every man with his deeds

Every man will come out his deeds with him. But we will not come out the same way. There are those who performed good deeds, they will come out lightly. They will not feel the horror of resurrection nor the severity of the event, because Allah has lightened it for them.

On the other hand, there are those whose deeds are evil, Allah forbid. These people will come out stumbling, on the strength of the Saying of Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, which means:

[O mankind, fear your Lord. Indeed, the convulsion of the [final] Hour is a terrible thing. On the Day you see it every nursing mother will be distracted from that [child] she was nursing, and every pregnant woman will abort her pregnancy, and you will see the people [appearing] intoxicated while they are not intoxicated; but the punishment of Allah is severe.] [Al-Hajj, 22: 1-2]

Thus we shall see people coming out of their graves. Swinging back and forth from the horror of the situation, as if intoxicated. Because the punishment awaiting the sinners among them is certainly severe; it violently shakes the strongest souls, most capable of enduring hardships.

The disbeliever and what shall he say?

As for the disbeliever he will come out in a terrible state. At that moment everyone of them will wish that he has never existed. He will wish that he turns into a handful of dust that people step on rather than standing before Allah to be judged.

Please read the Saying of Allah, The Most Exalted, which means:

[And the disbeliever will say: “Woe to me! Would that I were dust!”] [An-Naba’, 78: 40]

At the hour of coming out every human will try to rescue himself. He will seek all means, perhaps he can save himself from the horror of this situation and from the punishment awaiting him.

The sinners, the disobedient rebels, and those who have transgressed against themselves [by sinning] will try to seek the help of the believers, while seeing them in a shiny appearance. But the believers will run from them. Everyone in this situation only cares for himself, everyone seeks the way of deliverance by whatever means.

Please read the Saying of Allah, The Most Exalted, which means:

[That Day shall a man flee from his brother, and from his mother and his father, and from his wife and his children. Everyman, that Day, will have enough to make him careless of others.] [‘Abasa, 80: 34-37]

On this day it is useless to call for the help of another, even if he was the closest person to oneself. Kinship is totally cancelled that Day and only deeds remain. Therefore, if one of the evildoers or the disbelievers tries to call for the help of his mother or father – who are of all people the closest to him – they will escape from him because of the horror of the situation. The father runs from his disobedient son, and the mother runs from her disobedient daughter. And friends each running from the other because the horror on that Day shall be mighty.

When kinship disappears

Allah completely removes from the hearts all feelings of kinship and relationship between the righteous and the wicked people. Man finds himself only with his deeds; if they are good, they will be for him glad tidings and light. And if his deeds are evil, they will be for him distress, horror and misery.

Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, says what means:

[So when the Horn is blown, no relationship will there be among them that Day, nor will they ask about one another.] [Al-Mu’minûn, 23: 101]

On that Day Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, cancels kinship between the believers and disbelievers. Feelings of kinship no longer exist but kinship and affinity is by grace of faith alone. The believer becomes the brother of the believer, between them is mutual love and mercy.

As for the sinners who were joined by the worldly ties of kinship, relationship or close friendship, who did not leave the company of one another, in this situation they will become enemies. Each blaming the other for driving him to torment and punishment.

Concerning this, Allah, The Most Exalted, says what means:

[Close friends, that Day, will be enemies to each other, except for the righteous] [Az-Zukhruf, 43: 67]

People’s state shall differ

But will people’s state be the same? No, they will be degrees according to their deeds. This Hour shall pass on the servants brought near to Allah most easily. Their face will be laughing, rejoicing at the good news of Paradise. The companions of the right as well, each according to his degree. But they will be all rejoicing at good news. You can see purity, light and serenity all over their faces.

By His Mercy Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, lightens for them everything. They do not feel the great horror. But tranquility fills their hearts and light surrounds them. The Mercy of Allah relieves them from the severity of the situation.

The people of the Fire are also degrees. The face of everyone among them will be covered with distress and sorrow. They will stand filled with misery and great horror. They will carry their deeds and sins over their backs. You will look at their faces and find them as if black from distress and sorrow. No trace of joy or light on them. But great sorrow encircles them. They will look around them searching for a way out. But where is the way out? Where is the escape?

The angel charged with everyone of them stands and does leave him for an instant. Their deeds are heavy, which make their movement difficult and painful. It is almost impossible. Some from the heaviness of the burdens they carry will not be able to move, but will crawl on their bellies from the heaviness of the sins they carry on their backs.

To know what shall appear over the faces of the righteous people and those of the guilty sinners, read the Saying of Allah, The Most Exalted, which means:

[[Some] faces, that Day, will be bright – Laughing, rejoicing at good news. And [other] faces, that Day, will have upon them dust. Blackness will cover them. Those are the disbelievers, the wicked ones.] [‘Abasa, 80: 38-42]

Just by looking at the face you will know the destiny of the person. The laughing and rejoicing faces are those of the people of Paradise. As for the other faces, it is enough that their owners know that their destination is Hell, thus one can perceive the impression on their faces.

An angel charged with every soul

Every one has an angel responsible for him, according to the Saying of Allah, The Most Exalted, which means:

[And every soul will come, with it a driver and a witness.] [Qâf, 50: 21]

The driver is the one who drives the sheep. He moves behind it and not before it. So that when they lose the way he drives them back to the way they must follow.

Thus, will be the angel charged with the soul, walking behind it, and the soul before it and the angel never leaves it. The angel is the one who will direct it to its special place on the Land of Promise. As for the witness, it is the deeds that will testify for or against the soul. It is the full tape of its life history, not an incident missing.

This gathering shall stand waiting Allah’s Command of moving from the Land of Hashir (Crowding) to that of Promise, where Judgment is executed. The sun will draw near to the heads of the creatures. All people will feel the horror they now see and they seek an intercessor who will intercede with Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, for them. They will find none except Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).

Thus, before resurrection the Trumpet shall be blown and whoever is in the heavens and on the earth will fall dead. Then, it shall be blown for the second time and the earth will break away from the creatures buried within it with great speed. Every human will come out with his deeds. The righteous are filled with joy and happiness. Whereas, the faces of the people of the Fire are dark, over them is the Anger of Allah, looking for an intercessor but finding none.

On that Day every person will care for no one except himself. Those who were joined together by obedience in worldly life would be friends of one another. Whereas, those who were joined by sin would be enemies of one another. Every soul has an angel charged with it to lead it to the Land of Promise, where Judgment shall be executed.

Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, describes that situation and the mighty horror in it by saying what means:

[Then how can you fear, if you disbelieve, a Day that will make the children white-haired?] [Al-Muzzammil, 73: 17]

Afterwards, we come to the intercession of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the awesome standing before Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, and how Judgment shall take place?

Source:  The Day of Resurrection (By: Muhammad Mitwaly Ash-Sha’rawy)

Before discussing the Day of Resurrection and the events that shall take place on it, we have to discuss life in the grave or life of Barzakh1.

Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, has specified the stages of life in certain glorious Ayat. Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, says about people when they shall be resurrected on the Day of Resurrection what means:

[They will say: “Our Lord! You have made us to die twice2, and You have given us life twice3! Now we confess our sins, then is there any way to get out (of the Fire)?”] [Ghâfir, 40: 11]

But this Ayah does not clarify to us how this happens or the order of its realization, thus another Ayah comes in which Allah says what means:

[How can you disbelieve in Allah? Seeing that you were dead and He gave you life. Then He will give you death, then again will bring you to life (on the Day of Resurrection) and then unto Him you will return.] [Al-Baqarah, 2: 28]

Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, has given us in this glorious Ayah an ordered specification of all the stages of life till the Day of Resurrection. First we were dead, then Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, gave us life. Then He shall make us die then He shall resurrect us, alive, on the Day of Resurrection to face Judgment.

We notice here that life in this world started with death and not with life. According to our logic it should have started with life. The beginning of creation – as we understand it – is life. By relying on this conception we do not then understand the meaning of life.

People understand the meaning of life as the time during which man exists, and death as nonexistence or nothingness, whereas the truth is totally different.

Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, says what means:

[[He] who created death and life to test you [as to] which of you is best in deed – and He is the Exalted in Might, the Forgiving] [Al-Mulk , 67: 2]

Thus, death is not nonexistence, but one of the creations of Allah just as life. Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, created death just as He created life. Both are the creations of Allah. Each is governed by its own rules, its time of occurrence and its events. Only Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, is The One Able to transfer His creatures from the world of death to that of life, or from the world of life to that of death.

The meaning of life and the meaning of death

What is the meaning of life? And what is the meaning of death?

Some people say that life is sense and motion and that everything that appears senseless and motionless is lifeless, such as inanimate objects. We say that this is untrue. Everything in this world has a life but a life that fits its duty.

Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, says what means:

[The seven heavens and the earth and whatever is in them exalt Him. And there is not a thing except that it exalts [Allah] by His praise, but you do not understand their [way of] exalting. Indeed, He is ever Forbearing and Forgiving.] [Al-Isrâ’, 17: 44]

Hence, whosoever is called “A thing” glorifies the praises of Allah. The land glorifies Him and the mountains glorify Him. Almighty Allah says what means:

[And We subjected the mountains to exalt [Us], along with David and [also] the birds.] [Al-Anbiyâ’, 21: 79]

And His Saying:

[Whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is on the earth glorifies Allah, the King (of everything), the Holy, the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.] [Al-Jumu’ah, 62: 1]

The matter even surpasses this, for the things which we see in front of us solid, lacking sense and motion, have emotions which they express through crying and the like. Did not the palm trunk which the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) used to lean on while delivering sermons in the Masjid utter a moan when the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) left it to deliver sermons from the pulpit the believers had built for him?

Did not Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, say in His Noble Book what means:

[And the heaven and earth wept not for them, nor were they reprieved.] [Ad-Dukhân, 44: 29]

The earth and the heaven cry, the mountains and the pebbles glorify Allah. The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) heard the glorification of the pebbles in his noble hands. Everything in this universe has a life that fits its mission. Everything has sense and motion we are unaware of, but they do exist.

We learned in school when we studied magnetism that the iron particles assume a certain form when a magnet is passed over them. They brought a tube containing iron particles and in front of us they passed over it a magnet. So, the particles took a particular form and order, as well as acquiring special characteristics under the effect of magnetism.

What happened before us in the iron particles also happens in the iron bar which is not broken into particles, but we cannot see it. When we pass a magnet over the iron bar it become magnetized, but can we see the reordering that happen to its particles? Of course not, but the conducted experiment has proved that this do happen although we cannot see it.

Moreover, when we read the glorious Ayah saying what means:

[Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, “Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion.” They said, “We have come willingly.”] [As-Sâffât, 37: 11]

We have to pay attention to His Saying (in the above-mentioned Ayah) [They said] to learn that the heaven and earth have a language with which they speak. They also hear on the strength of the Saying of Allah, The Most Exalted, which means:

[When the heaven is split asunder, and listens and obeys its Lord, and it must do so] [Al-Inshiqâq, 84: 1-2]

Thus, the heavens will listen to and at once obey Allah’s Command of splitting asunder on the Day of Resurrection.

This way we see that everything in this universe has a life that fits its mission. The belief that inanimate objects are dead and lifeless is wrong.

Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, has created two lives: the first is worldly life, which is temporal. In it everything has an end. The share of each one of us in it is different. Some people live for hours, some for a day, some for months, some for years and some live till they reach the most decrepit [old] age.

Allah made the end of worldly life the transmission to the world of death. The life of the Hereafter is eternal; there is no death in it. The period of the existence of death ends by the beginning of the life of the Hereafter, where there shall be no more death.

Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, has pointed to us that true life for mankind is not in this world but in the Hereafter. Because life in the Hereafter is eternal, where the bestowed blessings are by the immediate Power of Almighty Allah. You will neither leave the blessings nor will they forsake you.

Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, created a death world that precedes birth in worldly life, and another death world at departure from worldly life and before the beginning of the Hereafter.

Therefore, Almighty Allah says what means:

[And indeed, the home of the Hereafter – that is the [eternal] life, if only they knew.] [29. Al-‘Ankabût, 29: 64]

Transmission from death to life, and from life to death, and from death back to life in the Hereafter happens by the Will of Allah, all praise and glory is to Him.

Now we come to the glorious Ayah saying what means:

[How can you disbelieve in Allah? Seeing that you were dead and He gave you life. Then He will give you death, then again will bring you to life (on the Day of Resurrection) and then unto Him you will return.] [Al-Baqarah, 2: 28]

When Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, created the Prophet Adam (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) He created in him all his offspring from the first till the last ones upon whom the Hour (of Resurrection) will come, based on His Saying, Blessed and Exalted is He, what means:

[And [mention] when your Lord took from the children of Adam – from their loins – their descendants and made them testify of themselves, [saying to them], “Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Yes, we have testified.” [This] – lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, “Indeed, we were of this unaware.”] [Al-A‘râf, 7: 172]

To understand this Saying we must state that life cannot continue if its rings are not linked together. My life is from an alive spermatozoon from my father. And my father’s life is from an alive spermatozoon from my grandfather. And my grandfather’s life is from his father…and so forth until we reach Adam (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). If the life chain was cut at any of its rings it would not have continued. If my father died before life was transmitted from him to me, I would not have existed and I would not have come to life.

Since the creation of Adam

So, we exist since the creation of Adam (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). But we existed in Dhar world4, a world to which applies the laws of death. When comes the Command of Allah we are transferred from Dhar world to the world of worldly life; a world where life is through means. We spend in the world of worldly life as much as Allah wills for us to spend then comes the time of death and we move to the death world, then we move after that to the world of the life of the Hereafter.

This is the meaning of the glorious Ayah:

[Seeing that you were dead and He gave you life. Then He will give you death, then again will bring you to life (on the Day of Resurrection) and then unto Him you will return.] [Al-Baqarah, 2: 28]

Out of His Mercifulness towards us Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, has revealed to us how man moves from worldly life to death; through one of two ways. When man is dying he sees what he could not see before. He knows his destination, either to Paradise or to Hell, Allah forbid.

The two images that Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, gives us in the Noble Qur’an are of the believer and the disbeliever, while departing the life of this world to the life of Barzakh.

Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, says what means:

[The ones whom the angels take in death, [being] good and pure; [the angels] will say, “Peace be upon you. Enter Paradise for what you used to do.”] [An-Nahl, 16: 32]

This is the picture of the believer while dying; he is surrounded by the angels of mercy and they greet him with peace and give him the glad tidings of entering Paradise. Therefore, the believer is happy and relieved. He is going to a far better place. It is an hour of bright prospect, of comfort and happiness hoped by every believer: to see the angels of mercy and be given the glad tidings of entering Paradise.

Death to the disbeliever

We come after that to the next image which Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, gives to us in the Noble Qur’an for the disbelievers and sinners.

Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, says what means:

[And if you could but see when the angels take the souls of those who disbelieved… They are striking their faces and their backs and [saying], “Taste the punishment of the Burning Fire.] [Al-Anfâl, 8: 50]

From this glorious Ayah we know the state of dying in case of the disbeliever. He sees the angels of torment, who instead of greeting him with peace, meet him with strikes on his face and back. They warn him of Hell and the punishment of the Burning Fire. At such a moment he wishes that he was never born.

At these moments he feels the atrocious crime he committed in his life. All the pleasures he obtained by forbidden means do not parallel a moment of torture. So, his face convulses and is filled with gloom and distress never to leave it. He sees his place in Hell. A bleak fate which he wishes he can escape from, but he cannot. Humanity has ended and the time of choice for him has ended. He holds not for himself any power. Human free will is over and he becomes totally subjugated to Allah’s Command.

There is other Ayat in the Noble Qur’an that relate to us how will the wrongdoers face the moments of death, as His Saying:

[And if you could but see when the wrongdoers are in the overwhelming pangs of death while the angels extend their hands, [saying], “Discharge your souls! Today you will be awarded the punishment of [extreme] humiliation for what you used to say against Allah other than the truth and [that] you were, toward His verses, being arrogant.”] [Al-An‘âm , 6: 93]

This portrays another image of death moments for the oppressive tyrants on the earth, while the angels are challenging them to release themselves from torment by the power they once exercised on the earth. Of course, they are powerless because their humanity and might have ended. Everything in them is subjugated to Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, without any choice of them.

Thus, we know how the good and righteous are sent from life to death. And how the unjust tyrants are sent from life to death.

The righteous are surrounded by the angels of mercy, and the wrongdoers are stricken by the angels of torment. Then the hour of death ends and the soul departs from the body and man dies.

But, is death a nonexistence? No, it is departure from the world of living, whereas life is departure from the world of death. Both are departure from a creation of Allah to another world of His creation. It has its own laws and a different way of living. In it man submits to laws completely different from those of life.

There are many evidence that there is a life in the Barzakh which differs from worldly life in its laws, what surrounds it and what man sees and witnesses in it.

Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, has hidden these laws from us, but He sets forth for us in the Noble Qur’an examples that clarify certain aspects in life after death and what shall happen in it.

The first thing in it is that through the laws of life in the Barzakh we shall see what we have not seen in this world. In this world our vision is limited. But after death the blinders are lifted off our eyes to see many things, on the strength of the Saying of Allah, The Most Exalted, (which means):

[[It will be said], “You were certainly in unmindfulness of this, and We have removed from you your cover, so your sight, this Day, is sharp.”] [Qâf, 50: 22]

Thus, from the hour of dying man starts to see what he has not seen in worldly life because Allah lifts the veil of this world off him and he sees a new world. This world exists but he cannot see it in his journey of worldly life.

The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: “People are asleep and when they die, they wake up.”

How is man in the life of this world asleep and becomes alert only at death? Though we see him (i.e. the dead person) still before us?!

Alertness here arises from seeing what he could not see before. He now knows that all the unseen matters that Allah has informed him about are an actual existing reality but he was screened from them.

The dead people hear

When man dies he hears what is said around him but he cannot answer.

In the Battle of Badr, after it ended the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) stood near the killed from amongst the disbelievers and said: “O ‘Utbah bin Rabi‘ah, O Shaibah bin Rabi‘ah, O so and so….have you found what Allah has promised you true, for I have found what Allah has promised me true.”

Whereupon ‘Umar bin Al-Khattâb (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “O Messenger of Allah! Do you talk to people who have rotted?” He answered, “You do not hear better what I say than they, but they cannot reply.”

So, we understand that the dead people hear what is said around them but cannot reply, which constitutes another evidence that death is not nonexistence but transmission to another life that has its own laws.

When you read the Noble Qur’an, we reach the Saying of Allah, The Most Exalted, (which means):

[O you who have believed, do not make allies of a people with whom Allah has become angry. They have despaired of [reward in] the Hereafter just as the disbelievers (buried) in graves have been in despair.] (Al-Mumtahinah, 60: 13)

Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, warns the believers from taking the disbelievers as allies because the disbelievers have despaired to receive any goodness in the Hereafter. They either deny the Hereafter, or do not hope to receive any good from it; had they hoped for goodness they would have worked for it.

We must stop at the Saying of Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, (which means):

[They have despaired of [reward in] the Hereafter just as the disbelievers (buried) in graves have been in despair.] (Al-Mumtahinah, 60: 13)

We here ask: why have the disbelievers despaired?

The answer is that the disbelievers despaired because they have surely known their destiny and have surely known that Allah will not embrace them within His Mercy. Knowing this fact requires conception. Man can only experience despair when he knows that what he is hoping for is impossible. If death was nonexistence the disbelievers would not have despaired and would have sensed nothing. For nonexistence does not involve any kind of understanding, perception, vision or sense.

The disbelievers buried in graves

But the disbelievers buried in the graves are desperate of receiving any mercy in the Hereafter. And this can never be except if there is comprehension and awareness. Thus, death is not nonexistence but a world having its own laws where man understands and perceives.

There are many things that the dead experience and feel while between this world and the Hereafter. Since death is a creation and life is another one, both include a kind of sensibility different from the other. Both have their own laws and both are far removed from nonexistence.

We have to notice that Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, mention death before life in many Ayat in the Noble Qur’an. This is because death precedes life. Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, wants to always attract our attention to death, so that on remembering it we hurry to righteousness, faith and good deeds. It is needless to draw our attention to life for the motive power for life masters the human soul.

Who among us, when the first of the month comes, forgets to receive his salary? Or who among us does not try to get the biggest share from this world?

Thus, the motives for living in the human soul are many in order for man to be able to fulfill his mission in this world, making land a prosperous place, and building civilizations. But by remembering life every second we forget death. And if someone reminds us of it we seek refuge with Allah from it.

We need to always think of death as an inescapable reality. Therefore, Allah, The Exalted and Ever-Majestic, states death first in His Saying:

[[He] who created death and life to test you [as to] which of you is best in deed – and He is the Exalted in Might, the Forgiving] [Al-Mulk, 67: 2]

Death is the end of the human power of free choice. In the life of this world you have a will and a freedom of choice. But at the moment of death the mission of human will ends, it no longer has a role to perform.

So, we have clarified the meaning of life and death. Both of them are creations of Allah. But the life that shall continue is the eternal life in the Hereafter. As for death, it shall end at resurrection. After resurrection there shall be no more death, but immortality in the life of the Hereafter.

Life is not – as we understand – sense and motion but everything in the universe has a life that suits it. The heavens, the earth, the inanimate objects…everything we think it to be lifeless has a life that suits its mission in the universe.

Death is not nonexistence, but a kind of life that has its own laws. It comprises many matters that Allah, all praise and glory is to Him, has kept hidden from us.

---

1 The grave as the barrier or the intermediate realm that separates between this world and the other world, from the time of death till the time of Resurrection.

2 i.e. we were dead in the loins of our fathers and dead after our deaths in this world.

3 i.e. life when we were born and life when we are Resurrected.

4 World of particles.

Source: The Quran - The Miracle Of Miracles - By Ahmed Deedat

God Almighty is absolutely unique in His Person and in His attributes. In no way is he to be compared, or comparable, with any other person or thing that we know or can imagine. In the last verse of the Súra, quoted in the preceding chapter, we are reminded that not only “Is nothing like Him, but nothing is in the likeness of Him that can be imagined.” Then how can we know Him? We will realise him through His attributes.

The last and Final Revelation of God - the Holy Qur’an gives us ninety-nine attributes of God with the crowning name - ALLAH! These ninety-nine attributes or names called the Asma-ul-husna (the Most Beautiful names) are interspersed throughout the whole Qur’anic text, like a beautiful necklace of pearls with a magnificent pendant - Allah.

Here is a sample segment of that necklace:

“THE MOST BEAUTIFUL NAMES”
In the two verses quoted above, we count thirteen of the ninety-nine attributes interspersed throughout the Holy Qur’an. Even the most jaundiced and inimical opponent of Islam will be forced to admit that even in its translated form the attributes and the phraseology are beautiful and unique. In its original Arabic the wordings and their construction are absolutely inimitable and sublime.

How could an ummi, an unlettered person, among an

ummi - unlearned nation contrive such a rhapsody of God fourteen hundred years ago? We must remember that there were no encyclopaedias or treatises that Muhummed (pbuh) could consult even if they were lying around in the deserts of Arabia. From where, then, did Muhummed (pbuh) get this treasure trove of theology? He said, “It is all given to me by God through inspiration!” How else can we account for it?

It would be a good experiment to ask the most learned of our learned friends to conjure up some attributes of God for us. I assure you that with all their acquired knowledge the professors of theology and the doctors of divinity will not be able to recount even a dozen. The worldly-wise will say that “You see, Muhummed was a genius, and after all a genius can excel ten times better than us!” To which we respond: “It is true that a genius can do ten times better than us. The Prophet (pbuh) gave us ninety-nine attributes, but what makes his list MIRACULOUS and DIVINE is the one he left out of his list” The word “Father”, that is Miracle!

THE FATHER IN HEAVEN
In our human list, no contributor will fail to utter the word FATHER in the first half-a-dozen attributes. The miracle of Muhummed’s (pbuh) list [1] is not the “ninety-nine” but this particular one which he (?) kept out of his (?) Qur’an. The word “father” as an attribute of God was dangled before him for the twenty-three years of his prophetic life. He eschewed it. He kept it out of his vocabulary (consciously or unconsciously) for over two decades and hence out of the theology of Islam.

You have a right to ask me, “What about the Christians’ Lord’s Prayer?” Yes, what about it? Read it Mr. Deedat! So I read:

“O our father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

“What is wrong with that?” you ask. “Nothing!” Then why are the Muslims so allergic to it? I am not so jaundiced as our opponents. We have to acknowledge that the Christian prayer is a beautiful prayer but there are certain deficiencies in it. You see my child will never ever learn God’s name through this prayer. What is His Name? ^[2] In all the twenty-seven books of the New Testament God’s name does not occur even once! “Father” is given here as a substitute. This is not His Name! As an attribute, meaning - Lord, God, Creator, Provider, I can take no exception to it. “The loving Father in Heaven. 0 our Heavenly Father!” etc. We Muslims take exception to the new meaning, the acquired connotation of the word Father.

ONLY BEGOTTEN SON ETC.
In Christian theology, this simple, innocent word “Father” has acquired a novel meaning. He is, according to Christianity, the One Who BEGOT the son Jesus. They say in their catechism ^[3] - “Jesus is the very God of very God, begotten of the Father, begotten NOT made.” If words have any meaning, what does this mean? Of course it means what is says! God has many sons according to the Holy Bible. Adam, Israel, Ephraim, David, Solomon, etc … But all these are metaphorical sons. God Almighty as the Creator and Cherisher is metaphorically the father of His every creature; every animal or human being: but Jesus (pbuh), the Christians say, is not like these. He was BEGOTTEN, not MADE! This according to Islam is the most abominable utterance, attributing to God an animal nature - the lower animal function of sex!

MEANINGS CHANGE
In the beginning the word “Father” for God did not carry any blasphemous associations, but words do change in their meanings at times. I will give you just two as examples: “Comrade” and “gay.”

“Comrade:” originally a beautiful and innocent word, meaning - a friend, an associate or a companion derived from the Old French comrade, roommate or soldier sharing the same room. But today the same word stinks in the nostrils of the Americans as a “commy”, a communist, a member of the Marxist-Leninist party, any radical viewed as a subversive or revolutionary who should be eliminated as a pest or parasite. If any foolish friend addresses you today as COMRADE in the United States , he could jeopardise your career, as well as your life!

“Gay:” What is wrong with this word? Nothing at all! I learnt this word in my early schooling as showing or characterised by cheerfulness and light-hearted excitement; a merry person. I was taught to sing -

“GENTLE LORDS AND LADIES GAY ON THE
MOUNTAIN DAWNS THE DAY.”

I have forgotten the balance of the poem. Here, I understood the meaning of the word “gay” to mean happy and joyous. I did not have the slightest inkling that one day such an innocuous word which children learn at school would in time acquire a filthy, dirty meaning of being homosexual: sodomites and catamites in its very primary sense. So “LADIES GAY” would mean today - LADIES LESBIAN! In like manner the respectable word “Father” has become contaminated by the belief of - “the only BEGOTTEN of the Father!” etc.

RABB OR ABB?
God Almighty through Muhummed (pbuh) has protected Islam and the Muslims by keeping the word “Father” (ABB) for God, out of its religious vocabulary. It is a miraculous fact that though the Holy Qur’an lists ninety-nine attributes of God, including the word RABB which means - Lord, Cherisher, Sustainer, Evolver, etc, (this attribute Rabb occurs dozens of times in the Book of God) - But the easier word Abb, meaning “Father” in Arabic and in Hebrew, is not used even once, thus preserving the Muslims from the blasphemy of the only BEGOTTEN son! To whom must we give credit for this feat: Allah or Muhummed (pbuh)? The Holy Prophet (pbuh) disclaims any credit, always saying that all this is given to him by inspiration, the words ye hear are not his, they are God’s Word as dictated to Him!

---

[1] This is not Muhummed’s list. The Qur’an is not his handiwork. I am using these terms in a manner of speaking to the unbeliever.

[2] A book under the same title: “What is His Name?” is available from the IPCI absolutely FREE of charge.

[3] Catechism: A short book giving, in question-and-answer form, a brief summary of the basic principles of a religion, especially Christianity.

Source: The Quran - The Miracle Of Miracles - By Ahmed Deedat

UNGRUDGING TRIBUTES
Today, there are in the world some one thousand million Muslims who unhesitatingly accept that the Holy Qur’an is the “Word of God” and that it is a “Miracle.”

Why should they not, when even avowed enemies are paying unsolicited tributes regarding the miraculous nature of this Book of God. The Rev. R. Bosworth-Smith in his book “Mohammed and Mohammedanism” ^[1] opines about the Qur’an:

(a) “A MIRACLE OF PURITY OF STYLE, OF WISDOM AND OF TRUTH.

Another Englishman - A.J. Arberry, in the preface to his English translation of the Holy Qur’an - says:

(b) “WHENEVER I HEAR THE QUR’AN CHANTED, IT IS AS THOUGH I AM LISTENING TO MUSIC, UNDERNEATH THE FLOWING MELODY, THERE IS SOUNDING ALL THE TIME THE INSISTENT BEAT OF A DRUM, IT IS LIKE THE BEATING OF MY HEART.”

From these words and the rest of his preface he sounds like a Muslim, but regretfully he died outside the pale of Islam. And yet another Briton, Marmaduke Picktall in the foreward to his translation of the Holy Qur’an, describes it as:

(c) “THAT INIMITABLE SYMPHONY, THE VERY SOUND OF WHICH MOVE MEN TO TEARS AND ECSTASY.”

This Author embraced Islam before translating the Qur’an, and we are not in a position to verify whether he wrote the above effect before or after his conversion.

(d) “NEXT TO THE BIBLE ^[2] IT (The Qur’an) IS THE MOST ESTEEMED AND MOST POWERFUL RELIGIOUS BOOK IN THE WORLD.”

J. Christy Wilson in “Introducing Islam”
New York 1950

(e) “THE KORAN IS THE MOHAMMEDAN BIBLE, AND IS MORE REVERENCED THAN ANY OTHER SACRED BOOK, MORE THAN THE JEWISH OLD TESTAMENT OR THE CHRISTIAN NEW TESTAMENT.”

J. Shillidy, D.D., in “The Lord Jesus in the Koran,”
Surat 1913, p.111

We can quite easily adduce a dozen more eulogies to the above list. Friends and foes alike pay ungrudging commendations to the Last and Final Revelation of God - the Holy Qur’an. The contemporaries of Muhummed (pbuh) saw in its beauty and majesty, the nobility of its Call and the magnanimity of its Message, the Sign and Miracle of God’s Handiwork, and accepted Islam. To all the tributes and testimonies the unbeliever and the sceptic may say that these are all subjective feelings. He might further seek refuge in the pretext that he does not know Arabic. He is heard to say, “I do not see what you see, nor do I feel as you feel. How am I to know that God exists and that it is He Who inspired His Messenger Muhummed (pbuh) with that beautiful Message; the Qur’an?” He continues “I am not averse to the beauty of its philosophy, its practical ethics and high morality, I am prepared to concede that Muhummed (pbuh) was a sincere man and that he gave many beautiful precepts for human welfare. What I cannot subscribe to is what you Muslims claim, ‘a supernatural authority for his dicta’.”

REASONED LOGIC
To this kind of sympathetic, yet sceptical mentality, the Author of the Book (Al-Qur’an) uses various types of arguments to resolve his doubts. To the atheists and agnostics, the cynics and the sceptics, who have a super-abundance of scientific knowledge and who consider themselves to be “intellectual giants,” the point is driven home that they are in reality like stunted “dwarfs.” They are like the dwarf who may have acquired abnormal development in any one particular direction at the expense of other parts of his faculty, like an oversized head on a puny body, the Supreme Creator questions him.

But before we pose God’s question to him, let me satisfy my own curiosity. “You men of science who have studied astronomy and who study our Universe through your mighty telescopes as if scrutinising an object in the palm of your hand; tell me how did this Universe come into being?” This man of science though lacking in spiritual insight, is nevertheless most generous in sharing his knowledge. He readily responds. “Well,” he begins, “billions of years ago our Universe was a single piece of matter, and there happened a “Big Bang” in the centre of that huge lump of matter and mighty chunks of matter began flying in all directions. Out of that “big bang” our solar system came into being as well as the galaxies, and since there is no resistance in space to that primordial momentum generated by the initial explosion, the stars and the planets swim along in their orbits…”

At this juncture, my memory tickles me - Our materialist friends appear to have been secretly imbibing their knowledge from the Súra Yaa-Seen: ^[3]

The atheistic scientist continues. “Ours is an ‘expanding’ universe. The galaxies are receding away from us at a faster and faster rate, and once they reach the speed of light ^[4] , we will not be able to see them anymore. We must construct bigger and better telescopes as quickly as possible to study the sights, if not we will miss the bus!”

“When did you discover these fairy tales?” we ask. “No, these are not fairy tales but scientific facts!” our friend assures us. “All right, we accept your facts for what you say they are, but when did you really stumble upon these facts?” “Only yesterday!” he replies. Fifty years, after all, is only ‘yesterday’ in the history of the human race. “An unlettered Arab in the desert over 1400 years ago could never have had your knowledge of the ‘big bang’ and of your ‘expanding universe,’ could he?” we ask. “No never!” he retorts boastingly. “Well, then listen to what this ummi ^[5] Prophet uttered under inspiration:”

‘BIG BANG’ THEORY
Can’t you see that the words “The Unbelievers” in the first quote above are specifically addressed to You - the men of science - the geographers, the astronomers, who, after having made amazing discoveries and conveyed these discoveries to mankind, still remain so ‘BLIND’ as not to ‘SEE’ its Author? “With our Sciences and Encyclopedias, we are apt to forget the Divineness, in those laboratories of ours” ^[6] says Thomas Carlyle.

Where on earth could a camel driver in the desert have gleaned ‘Your facts’ fourteen hundred years ago, except from the Maker of the ‘Big Bang’ Himself?

ORIGIN OF LIFE
“And You the biologists who seem to have your fingers on all organic life, and yet have the temerity to deny the existence of the Source of that Life, i.e. God: tell me, according to your vaunted research; where and how did life originate?”

Like his ‘unbelieving’ astronomer companion in science, he too begins - “Well, billions of years ago primaeval matter in the sea began to generate protoplasm out of which came the amoeba; and out of that mire in the sea came all living things. In one word ALL LIFE came from the sea, i.e. Water!”

“And when did you discover this fact that all living things came from water?” The answer is no different from that of his fellow scientist the astronomer - “Yesterday!” “No man of learning, no philosopher or poet could ever have guessed your biological discovery fourteen centuries back, could he?” we ask, and our biologist is as emphatic as the astronomer. “No, never!” says he. “Well, then, you just listen to this untutored son of the desert!”

[7]

The above statement is further elaborated in the Book of God:

[8]

It will not be difficult for you to note that these words of the Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator of the Universe were addressed to YOU men of knowledge in answer to your scepticism TODAY. Their real import was beyond the dwellers of the desert fourteen centuries ago. The Author (God Almighty) is reasoning with YOU, you men of science, how can YOU not believe in God? YOU should be the LAST to deny His existence and yet you are the FIRST! What sickness has overtaken YOU that you allow your egos to overshadow your sense of logic?

AND to the botanists and the zoologists and the physicists who, despite their amazing insight into the nature of things, refuse to acknowledge a Master Creator. Let them then account for these utterances of Muhummed (pbuh) the mouthpiece of God.

[9]

* “CREATED IN PAIRS” “The mystery of sex runs through all creation, - in man, in animal life, in vegetable life, and in other things of which we have no knowledge. Then there are pairs of opposite forces in nature, e.g. positive and negative electricity, etc. The atom itself consists of a positively charged nucleus or proton, surrounded by negatively - charged electrons. The constitution of matter itself is thus referred to as pairs of opposite energies.” (Comment by A. Yusuf Ali) ^[10]

SIGNS OF GOD
The verses of this “Perspicuous Book,” the Holy Qur’an are evidently self-explanatory. Students of the Qur’an saw the unmistakable Finger of God in every discovery that man made. These were the “Signs,” the “Miracles” from his Beneficent Lord and Cherisher so as to remove his doubts and strengthen his faith.

What an irony! It is the ‘people of learning’ who are actually rebellious! Their vast material knowledge has inflated them with pride. They lack the genuine humility which goes together with all true knowledge.

In the words of a modern Frenchman:

“THE ABOVE OBSERVATION (HIS OWN THESIS) MAKES THE HYPOTHESIS ADVANCED BY THOSE WHO SEE MUHAMMAD AS THE AUTHOR OF THE QUR’AN UNTENABLE. HOW COULD A MAN, FROM BEING ILLITERATE, BECOME THE MOST IMPORTANT AUTHOR, IN TERMS OF LITERARY MERITS, IN THE WHOLE OF ARABIC LITERATURE?
“HOW COULD HE THEN PRONOUNCE TRUTHS OF A SCIENTIFIC NATURE THAT NO OTHER HUMAN-BEING COULD POSSIBLY HAVE DEVELOPED AT THAT TIME, AND ALL THIS WITHOUT ONCE MAKING THE SLIGHTEST ERROR IN HIS PRONOUNCEMENT ON THE SUBJECT?”

See “The Bible, the Qur’an and Science” p. 125
By Maurice Bucaille

EARLY INSPIRATION
The seeds of this booklet, “AL-QUR’AN - The Miracle

of Miracles,” was probably sown by the Roving Ambassador of Islam, the silver- tongued orator - Maulana Abdul Aleem Siddiqui. I was only a schoolboy when he visited South Africa on a lecture tour in 1934. Among his many erudite speeches, I heard him talk on “Cultivation of Science by the Muslims.” Subsequently, a booklet under the same title was published by the World Federation of Islamic Missions, Karachi, Pakistan, which brings back the earlier joy and thrill of the discourse I heard in my teens. In memory of that great servant of Islam, I reproduce here, for posterity, a few words of what the Maulana had to say on the relationship between the Holy Qur’an and the branches of scientific knowledge:

EXHORTATIONS TO THE SCIENCES
“The stress which the Holy Qur’an has laid on the scientific study of the universe is a phenomenon unique in the religious literature of the world. Repeatedly it calls our attention to the multifarious phenomena of nature occurring around us. Repeatedly it exhorts the Muslims that the pursuit of scientific knowledge is one of their religious duties. Repeatedly it emphasises the great truth unknown to the pre-Qur’anic world that everything in nature is for the service of man and should be harnessed by him for his use. It exhorts us to study the structure and function of the human organism, the structure, functions and distribution of animals, the form, structure, functions, classification and distribution of plants, and these are problems of BIOLOGY.

“It exhorts us to study the order of nature and the general properties of matter as affected by energy, which is the problem of modern PHYSICS.

“It exhorts us to study the properties of substances both elementary and compound and the laws of their combination and action one upon another which is the problem of modern CHEMISTRY.

“It exhorts us to study the structure and mineral constitution of the globe, the different strata of which it is composed, the changes that take place in its organic and inorganic matter, etc, etc., which are the problem of modern GEOLOGY.

“It exhorts us to study the general description of the earth, its physical divisions into seas, rivers, mountains, plains, etc., and the minerals, plants and animals in each, and its political divisions which are the problems of modern GEOGRAPHY.

“It exhorts us to study the causes which bring about the alternation of day and night, the variation of the seasons, the movements of the planets and other celestial phenomena, which are the problems of modern ASTRONOMY.”

“It exhorts us to study the movements of winds, the formation and evolution of clouds and the production of rain, and other similar phenomena, which are the problems of modern METEOROLOGY.”

For centuries, Muslims were world leaders in the field of scientific learning. Then slowly, the leadership began to slip away from their hands. Muslims had failed in their leadership role and materialistic Europe moved forward to fill the vacuum in leadership created by the Muslims.

Further, the Maulana records the contribution made by the Muslims as follows:

“The intellectual upheaval created by Islam was a gigantic one. There is not a single department of learning which the Muslim scholars have left untouched and which they have not carved out a high position for themselves.

“In truth, Islam intends the Muslim community to be a community of intellectuals, and the cultivation of science and all other forms of learning is one of the primary aims of Islam. Had it not been for the Muslims, Europe would never have seen its way to the Renaissance and the modern scientific era would never have dawned. Those nations who have received their knowledge of science from Europe are in fact indirectly the disciples of the Islamic community of the past. Humanity owes to Islam a debt which it can never repay and gratitude which it can never forget.”

The silver-tongued orator (the Maulana) ended his masterful exposition of the topic - “CULTIVATION OF SCIENCE BY THE MUSLIMS,” with the words:

“Before I conclude, let me affirm once more that the Muslim community is out and out a creation of Islam which in its turn is rooted in Divine revelation. Nothing but belief in and the practice of Islam can make an individual a Muslim. Islam has laid it down as a religious duty that a Muslim should enquire into the reality of objects around him, so that his scientific enquiry may lead him to the knowledge of his Creator. Scientific enquiry in Islam is not an end but a means to the attainment of a higher end. And this is really the true end of humanity. ‘TO ALLAH WE BELONG

AND TO ALLAH IS OUR RETURN’

(HOLY QUR’AN 2:156).”

MY ABORTED LECTURE
I had the privilege of hearing the above speech in 1934 from the lips of the master himself. In the late thirties I had the speech in my hands as a booklet. I memorized it with some changes and modifications, whilst still working in a Muslim shop at Adams Mission Station. I was so enthused that I made arrangements with Adam’s College to speak to the students and their lecturers on the same subject. At that time I might not have fully grasped the enormity of my task but I will never know for sure as my Muslim Boss came to my rescue? He threatened me with dismissal if I did not cancel my very first public lecture. I backed out. My employer was no doubt ignorant of Allah’s warning. I too, knew no better. I cannot say what stand I would have taken then if I was programmed with this admonition:

[11]

Thanks (?) to our timid brother, my first ever lecture to Christian missionaries and trainee priests which I had so assiduously planned, memorized and rehearsed came to nothing. Perhaps I was set back ten years in my career in public speaking. There are millions like my Muslim boss who are just as terrified by material considerations enumerated in the above verse who not only will not deliver the Message of Islam themselves but obstruct those prepared to do the job. Yet they display in their bearing the utmost piety: to no avail - Allah describes such as “Perverted transgressors!”

TAKE UP THE CHALLENGE
In the foregoing speech the Maulana had drawn our attention to the Qur’anic exhortations for us to ponder on, Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Meteorology etc. Scholars like Maurice Bucaille, Keith Moore and Sheikh Zindani have written on different scientific aspects of the Holy Qur’an in recent times. But the scope is limitless. The noble Qur’an is an ocean of Knowledge. In this world of specialization Muslim scientists must take up the challenges hinted at by the Maulana in the mid-thirties. They do not have to dabble in every field. To each his own particular speciality. The youth of Islam is hungry for information and articles and small tracts on different scientific subjects in order to whet their appetites. Encyclopaedias may follow. Insha-Allah!

I do not have to apologise for leaving the exposition of Qur’anic sciences to Muslim scientists. Even non-Muslims should be encouraged to explore the depths of Wisdom as enshrined in the book of God. For my part, as a layman, I will share with you the miraculous nature of the Holy Qur’an in what appears to me to be in simple, ordinary facts.

---

[1] There is no such thing as “Mohammedanism”, and no such thing as a “Mohammedan.” The name of the Religion is Islam and its followers are Muslims.

[2] Coming from a Christian critic of Islam, we will not take exception to his placing the Qur’an in the second place.

[3] Yaa-Seen: is the 36th chapter of the Holy Qur’an. It is said to be the “heart” of the Qur’an. The verses here are laid out for you to memorize in a very easy form, together with their meanings. Take advantage of it!

[4] Light is said to travel at a speed of a hundred and eighty six thousand miles per second (7.5 times around the world in one second!).

[5] Ummi: means unlettered, unlearned. “And the Book is given to him that is NOT LEARNED, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he sayeth, I am not learned” Isaiah 29:12. See how this prophecy finds fulfilment in Muhummed (pbuh). Obtain your FREE COPY OF “What the Bible says about Muhummed (pbuh)” from the IPCI.

[6] From “Hero and Hero Worship” by Thomas Carlyle.

[7] Protoplasm is the basis of all living matter, and “the vital power of protoplasm seems to depend on the constant presence of water” (Lawson’s Text-Book of Botany, London 1922). Text books on Zoology are also clear on this point. For further explanation see Yusuf Ali’s translation and commentary, available from the IPCI.

[8] Protoplasm is the basis of all living matter, and “the vital power of protoplasm seems to depend on the constant presence of water” (Lawson’s Text-Book of Botany, London 1922). Text books on Zoology are also clear on this point. For further explanation see Yusuf Ali’s translation and commentary, available from the IPCI.

[9] Here is another verse from YAA-SEEN. Further to footnote No.1 on page 10, a special plea is made to Muslim readers who already know the Sura in Arabic, to now master its English meaning as well. Equip yourself for all good work!.

[10] Obtain your volume of Yusuf Ali’s translation with over 6000 such explanatory notes at a subsidised price from the IPCI. See the inside front cover for an irresistible offer.

[11] (a) A video tape on the topic - “Da’wah or Destruction?” is available from the IPCI

(b) Write for your FREE video catalogue.

(c) Memorize the verse together with its meaning. If you are rightly programmed, you will have the right responses in every challenging situation. Insha-Allah!

Mujahid stated that,

(So with those among them whom you have enjoyed, give them their required due,) was revealed about the Mut`ah marriage. A Mut`ah marriage is a marriage that ends upon a predeterminied date. In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that the Leader of the Faithful `Ali bin Abi Talib said, “The Messenger of Allah prohibited Mut`ah marriage and eating the meat of domesticated donkeys on the day of Khaybar (battle).” In addition, in his Sahih, Muslim recorded that Ar-Rabi` bin Sabrah bin Ma`bad Al-Juhani said that his father said that he accompanied the Messenger of Allah during the conquest of Makkah, and that the Prophet said,

(O people! I allowed you the Mut`ah marriage with women before. Now, Allah has prohibited it until the Day of Resurrection. Therefore, anyone who has any women in Mut`ah, let him let them go, and do not take anything from what you have given them.) Allah’s statement,

(but if you agree mutually (to give more) after the requirement (has been determined), there is no sin on you.) is similar to His other statement,

(And give to the women their dowry with a good heart). The meaning of these Ayat is: If you have stipulated a dowry for her, and she later forfeits it, either totally or partially, then this bears no harm on you or her in this case. Ibn Jarir said, “Al-Hadrami said that some men would designate a certain dowry, but then fall into financial difficulties. Therefore, Allah said that there is no harm on you, O people, concerning your mutual agreement after the requirement (has been determined).” meaning, if she gives up part of the dowry, then you men are allowed to accept that. Allah’s statement,

(Surely, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise.) is suitable here, after Allah mentioned these prohibitions.

(25. And whoever of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess, and Allah has full knowledge about your faith, you are one from another. Wed them with the permission of their own folk (guardians) and give them their due in a good manner; they should be chaste, not fornicators, nor promiscuous. And after they have been taken in wedlock, if they commit Fahishah, their punishment is half that for free (unmarried) women. This is for him among you who is afraid of being harmed in his religion or in his body; but it is better for you that you practice self-restraint, and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.)