Monday, February 28, 2011

Book: Fall of Capitalism & Rise of Islam by Dr Mohammad Malkawi



FALL OF CAPITALISM is a comprehensive guide that provides a critical analysis of the current financial crisis in the US and the world at large. It concludes that the current crisis could very well be a sign of failure of the underlying system of capitalism. It shows that the system of capitalism contains serious faults and defects at the core theory level. Through its pages, readers will learn that economic and financial crisis periodically occur whenever these defects are triggered by various conditions and political decisions during the life of capitalism.

It also takes a close look at the collapse of financial institutions, the crash of the housing market, the evaporation of trillions of dollars, the creation of virtual unreal wealth, and the decline of productivity are symptoms of the potential failure of the ideology of capitalism. This failure has serious impact on the life quality of billions of people around the world who suffer from poverty, hunger, health insecurity, lack of education, and serious inhuman conditions. This book boldly predicts a potential crash and collapse of the world order under the pressure of a failing capitalism.

Read more about the book, its author and order the book from http://fallofcapitalism.com/

Saturday, February 26, 2011

The objective is not the rule but the resumption of the Islamic way of life

The following is an extract from the translation from the adopted booklet 'Access to Society' by Hizb ut-Tahrir published in Muharram 1377 / July 1958. This pamphlet is part of a series of four known as 'Nasharat ur-Sayr' (The Progress Leaflets) that were issued as the party entered different phases of its methodology, they elaborate upon many of the concepts discussed in the party's book entitled ''At Takkatal Hizbi' (Structuring of a party). 

However, it should be always remembered, that the objective is not the rule, the objective is rather the resumption of the Islamic way of life and the carrying of the Islamic Da’awah to the world, and that the method of this would be the rule. Hence, the seizing of power would in fact be a method in order to turn the current way of life into an Islamic way of life, i.e. in order to turn the established relationships between people into Islamic relationships. It would be forbidden to regard the rule as being more than just a method. Hence, the point at issue would not only involve the destruction of the people in power, it would rather involve making the Islamic thoughts predominant in society, so that the destruction of the people in power may take place, and so that the reins of power may be seized off them via the predominance of these thoughts. On the other hand, the state would come into being by the birth of new thoughts upon which it would be built and the authority changes due to the change of these thoughts; because when the thoughts turn into concepts, they affect man’s behaviour and make his behaviour proceed according to these concepts. Hence his viewpoint about life changes, and according to this change, his viewpoint towards the interests also changes. The authority is but looking after and supervising the government of these interests. The authority could only be in the hands of the strongest faction in society. Hence, if people in one area were in agreement about their viewpoint towards the interests, they would appoint someone to resume looking after their affairs, i.e. they themselves would appoint the authority which would run their interests, or they would keep silent about those who appointed themselves in authority to run their interests for them. In this instance, the rule would conclusively come from the Ummah, either by her effective choice or by her silence about its establishment. Silence is one form of choice. However, if they were in disagreement about their viewpoint towards the interests, they would then become several factions, and the strongest one would undoubtedly resume the authority ahead of the others. Hence it would run its affairs and the affairs of all the other factions according to its own interests, and they would all be obliged to submit to it and to manage their affairs according to its own interests for it would be the strongest, until they accept this management and until their viewpoint towards the interests becomes the same as that of the strongest faction, and all the factions melt into one single faction; or until they get an opportunity to defeat the faction which has resumed the authority and seize power from it, then run their affairs according to the interests of the new faction that seizes power.

This is the natural and inevitable situation in every authority that undertakes the running of people’s affairs, whether this authority were tribal or democratic or Islamic. Even the dictatorial authority is a factional authority and not an individual one, because the management of people’s affairs by this individual would only be achievable by the support or the consent of a strong faction. In both cases, he would resume his role thanks to the authority of the strong faction which either backs him or keeps silent about him, not by his own authority. Therefore, there ought to be a host of specific thoughts about life, and there ought to be a strong faction to carry these thoughts with conviction and receive them with consent and enthusiasm. What is meant by the faction in this context is not the party, the faction is rather a group of people in society; the party is not a faction but rather an incorporeal personality.

Hence, the specific thoughts about life, reflected in the group of concepts, criteria and convictions, would be the basis; and it would be the acceptance of this host of concepts, criteria and convictions by a group of people or a strong faction from among them, even if this acceptance were in general terms, which would establish the state and transfer power in it, regardless of whether the acceptance of these thoughts by the faction or the group of people were the result of a shaping that is meticulously illustrated or of a tangible and sensed reality, which the faction or the group of people had witnessed its concordance with several events. Therefore, it would be imperative to embark first of all upon generating the thoughts which contain a host of concepts, criteria and convictions about life, then achieve the consent of the group of people or the strongest faction among them, to this host of concepts, criteria and convictions, so that the state is established in a natural and inevitable manner.

Seizing power in any country could not occur unless the host of concepts, criteria and convictions, which the Ummah or the stronger faction from among her has adopted, were used as a method to reach power and to fulfill people’s affairs according to these concepts, criteria and convictions. However, if power were seized in order to implement a host of concepts, criteria and convictions which contradict the concepts which people had become convinced in, or which they had accepted or had become accustomed to, this power could only come by way of a foreign invasion whose material and intellective power exceeds that of the Ummah’s material and intellective power.

Therefore, it would be imperative to start with the Ummah in order to generate amongst her the host of concepts, criteria and convictions, and to urge her to adopt them with conviction, then to seize power through the Ummah in order to establish the Islamic state in one region, then the state would spread with its material and intellective force to all the parts of the Islamic world in order to join it in one single state. What generates these thoughts, or in other words, this group of criteria, concepts and convictions in society, and what makes the strongest faction or people as a whole accept them and conceive the necessity of living in society upon their basis, it would be the party, not the state, nor the Ummah, nor even the individual intellectuals within the Ummah if they remained individuals. This is because the state is merely an entity which executes the host of concepts, criteria and convictions which the Ummah had adopted. The state is not an intellectual entity and it could not overstep the vital or the cognitive reality of the Ummah, this reality which the party looks after its affairs and derives its existence from it. It could merely express physically, through its management of affairs, the vital and cognitive energy of the Ummah, this by erupting, organising and putting it into practice. To demand the state to initiate reform or a radical change would not be possible, for this is not part of its entity, for the state is merely an executive entity not an intellectual entity.

The Ummah is however a diverse and complex social entity, it is born out of male and female. In this social entity the intellectual, organic and physical faculties are disparate, and the executive styles differ according to what it carries in terms of criteria, concepts and convictions, and it is in addition to all this dominated by the basic thoughts from which these criteria, concepts and convictions had emanated, a dominance which would make it difficult for it to produce other thoughts, for it is confined to thinking within those thoughts. Therefore, it would be impossible for it to be an intellectual entity. Therefore, it would be beyond any people or any Ummah to collectively change its viewpoint about the general life, and to change its conventional and common concepts, criteria and convictions, no matter how backward and declined these concepts, criteria and convictions became.

Hence, the state as an entity, and the people -or the Ummah- in its collective quality, do not have a source of concepts, criteria and convictions, they are rather the object of execution of these concepts, criteria and convictions. The Ummah would execute them upon herself, and the state would execute them upon the Ummah; hence they both are affected by the concepts, criteria and convictions not effective. They both move and act towards life according to the group of criteria, concepts and convictions, so as to make them the basis from which they proceed towards the legal reality of the state and the societal reality of the Ummah.


Therefore, the source of these concepts, criteria and convictions and the force which affect the state and the Ummah must be other than the Ummah and the state, and it should be effective and not affected, and capable to generate these concepts, criteria and convictions, capable to establish them, capable to amend them and change them, and capable to preserve them.

Here, what could spring to mind is that the intellectual individuals who are bred within the Ummah would be the ones who would revive her; reference may be made in this aspect to the prophets and the reformers as being individuals who revived their nations. Here is where the mistake happens and where the feet stumble. This is so because the individuals, in their individualist quality, have no entity. The Ummah as a whole is an entity and the state is also an entity, hence it would be impossible to influence and affect them save for an entity stronger than them, an entity that has the quality of an entity, structured out of elements which have a bond linking them together and making them form an entity. Hence, no matter how capable the individual were, he would not be able to influence an entity no matter how weak this entity were. Hence, only an entity could affect another entity.

This on the one hand, on the other hand, when the idea transpires in the mind of the individual, it would have an individualist and a personal aspect, regardless of the cause of its birth, whether this were an innovation of his part or whether he heard it from someone else, also, regardless of whether this hearing had come by way of reading or by way of teaching. The idea would retain this intellectual and personal characteristic for as long as it holds solely to the aspect of intellection; the individual would consider it his own property and he would be eager to characterise it with his own character, hence it would turn into theoretical thoughts which he would speak about or into published material. They would not initiate any effect in the state or the Ummah no matter how numerous the number of intellectuals were and no matter how numerous the number of books and publications were. When this idea manages to be transferred into a conviction in the intellectual’s mind, it would move from the intellectual aspect into the aspect of criterion and concept, and it would move form the intellective aspect to that of intellection and implementation. Hence the idea would break the scope of intellection to the domain of existence amongst people, then to the domain of existence within society. As for what makes this idea transform and move, it would be the decisive belief (Iman Jazim) in it, in other words, it would be the decisive trust (Tasdeeq Jazim) which is in conformity with reality in the mind of the intellectual. 


As for the way it would follow towards reaching this stage, this would be the repetition, persuasion and implementation, and this could not be brought about except within a group and with a group. The repetition, persuasion and implementation would continue within and with this group until the idea becomes the property of this group as a group and the property of each one of its individuals; the idea would invade their viewpoint about life and occupy it, and it would invade their conducts and correct them and rectify them; it would acquire an influence and it would become an atmosphere which man would be affected by its characteristics if he were to be placed within this atmosphere. Hence, a specific entity for this idea would be generated, which would be other than the entity of the Ummah, though it would be part of her, not part of her entity. This specific entity would proceed under the authority of the state, not under its entity. This intellectual entity would be the party which would be formed within the Ummah. Hence, what really influences people or the state would be the party, not the intellectual individuals.

The party, in its quality as an entity, would engage in a battle with the entity of the state and the entity of the Ummah in order to strike both of them down, because it would have the quality of being effective and that of being affected, as oppose to the entity of the state or the entity of the Ummah which each one of them has the quality of being affected and not that of being effective, and it would be the party’s adherence to its intellectual entity that determines the period of its struggle, for its intellectual adherence as an entity would shorten the period of its struggle, while its slackness would lengthen this period. As long as the party does not deviate from its concepts, criteria and convictions, it would undoubtedly conquer the two entities: the entity of the Ummah and the entity of the state. It would conquer the strongest faction among people, they would become together one single entity and they would occupy their outstanding entity within the entity of the Ummah, i.e. the leadership ; with this new entity, it would strike down the entity of the state. Then with both the intellectual entity and the executive entity, it would seize the rest of the factions and would melt them all in one single entity which would be the entity of the Ummah.

Although the struggle that takes place would be intellectual, it would nevertheless be a struggle between concepts, criteria and convictions, not simply a struggle between abstract thoughts. Hence it would take on the general relationships and the public interests, for it would aim at destroying the corrupt nature of the Ummah’s entity, this by destroying the concepts, criteria and convictions upon which the entity is formed, not by destroying the Ummah, nor any individual from among her, for it aims at gaining the Ummah, elevating her standing and changing her present entity by giving her a better entity which would become characterised by dignity and exaltedness. It also aims at destroying the nature of the state’s entity by destroying the concepts, criteria and convictions upon which it is formed, not by destroying the authority, for it aims at seizing this authority and changing its present entity by giving a new entity based on the new concepts, criteria and convictions. Therefore, the struggle of the party as an intellectual entity would be directed at the executive and the societal entities. Hence the work would be focused on the two entities and nothing else. The focus of the struggle would be that of an entity against another entity, and since it were the entity of the state which holds the reins of power and resumes the running of the Ummah’s entity, the manifestation of the struggle would be seemingly focused merely on the state’s entity, whereas in fact it would be directed at the two entities.


Therefore, it would be imperative for the party to enter society in its quality as an intellectual entity, where its quality as an entity would be prominent on its own and in a clear manner, for the quality of entity should be the only quality that operates, and it would be wrong to associate any other quality with it, because it would be an entity struggling with two entities and any situation that leads to a party activity to be undertaken in other than the quality of entity or undertaken by associating any other quality with it, this activity would not only be doomed to failure, it would also weaken the party in its struggle and would weaken its quality of being an entity.


The entity of the party does not mean its apparatus, it is rather more comprehensive than that. Indeed the party activities would be initiated by the party’s apparatuses, and indeed the concepts, criteria and convictions upon which these apparatuses are based are part of the party’s entity, however, they are not its entity. Its entity is rather the group of concepts, criteria and convictions which is embodied within a group of people in their quality as people, not in their individual quality. Hence, if the actions were initiated by this group of people, or by any of the apparatuses, or by any individual of this group, and these actions were initiated according to the group of concepts, criteria and convictions, then these actions would be initiated by the party as an entity, not by the individual, nor by the apparatus from which it was initiated. Hence, the quality of entity is composed of elements which are bonded by a bond that makes it an entity. The elements form which the entity quality of the party is formed would be the group of criteria, concepts and convictions and the group of people. The bond which binds these elements together would be the Aqeedah upon which the party is founded and the culture by whose concepts the party is characterised; hence the intellectual entity , i.e. the party entity is composed from these elements and the bond. It is this entity alone that should operate. It is a personality that can be sensed, whose strength and standing can be felt, exactly as the state’s personality is felt and exactly as the Ummah’s personality is felt. This personality or this entity would be the one that enters the arena in society. it would be this entity that should endeavour to resume the leadership of the Ummah, then the reins of power. It would be this entity that should endeavour to make the Ummah adopt its personality as her own personality and to adopt the Ummah’s personality as its own personality.

Friday, February 25, 2011

Video: Debate - Does Islam oppress women? Dr Nazreen Nawaz v Sue Mayer (feminist)

They wish that you compromise, so they too can compromise

They wish that you compromise, so they too can compromise [TMQ - 68:9]

The sweeping change across the Middle East has taken many by surprise. Although some had talked about change setting off a domino effect, they did not expect it to be so sudden, with such power.

Due to this sudden change, there is a political vacuum, which the west is trying to fill with a cautious call for democracy. They are cautious because various reports, surveys and intelligence all indicate that political Islam is waiting in the wings looking to fill this vacuum. Faced with this reality they are formulating policies on how to reign in the “Islamists”. They talk of the ‘politics of inclusion’, which they feel they have successfully used in Turkey to control Islamic political parties. But they are fully aware that the Middle East is not Turkey and currently there is no support on the ground for secular democracy.

For us to understand what they are planning for the region we need to examine how they have dealt with the Islamic parties over the last 40years.

The commonly quoted examples of successes of Islamic political parties in democratic elections are the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria (1991), the Justice and Development Party in Turkey (2002 and 2007), and the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in Palestine (2006). In all these cases they have managed to contain the influence of these parties and have worked, in the long run, to secularise them.

The key in all these cases has been the military, the power which upholds the system, which remained secular and guaranteed the continuation the system.

Indeed, over the last forty years Islamic political parties have stood in 89 parliamentary elections in 21 countries (Source: Inter-Parliamentary Union). Over the years a multiple Islamic parties have entered the democratic process fighting for the same vote, splitting their constituency and hence having minimal impact. In Indonesia there are as many as nine Islamic parties competing for the same vote.

When we examine these Islamic parties closely it is not clear what Islam they intent to implement in society. Some parties advocate Shariah and some like Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (AKP), which is known to be an Islamic party, has removed almost every reference to Islam from its electoral platforms, and now describes itself as a “conservative” political party.

A study of 48 Islamic parties and their electoral platforms dating from 1969 to 2009, reveals a confused picture:
  • Only 50% of these parties call for the implementation of Shariah
  • 75% endorse democracy. Some of them try to justify it as “Shura democracy”
  • The top three concerns were implementation of Shariah, economy and the “Islamic Morals”
  • Democratisation or liberalization was one on the top three issue for 11 platforms.
Mixing Shariah, democracy and liberalisation in these platforms clearly showed that these parties were not clear about what they stood for and hence their results at the polls were unimpressive. In their attempt to enter the democratic process they compromised and lost the trust of the electorate, it was also hard to account them on their promises as they played a deceptive game with the authorities.

The impact on the Islamic political parties entering the democratic process can be seen in the graph below. There is a clear tendency towards liberalisation. A study showed that prior to the mid 1990s a majority of the platforms favoured the implementation of Shariah, a ban on interest and made some mention of Jihad and opposition to Israel. Since then more than half have dropped such claims and adopted more liberal values like calling for women’s rights and democracy.


 
[Source of the charts: Do Muslims vote Islamic, Charles Kurzman and Ijlal Naqvi]

The study concluded that “Islamic parties have (relative to their starting point) liberalised their stances significantly over the past several decades”.

This was the intended aim of the policy of the ‘politics of inclusion’ – which states that “Islamist politicians will have to deal with others whose principles they do not necessarily accept, forcing them to compromise their abstract principles in the direction of reality…. The movement will have to move beyond facile slogans to declare its position on a variety of difficult issues; it will have to adopt a platform open to public scrutiny”

Gerd Nonneman (expert in Middle Eastern politics at Lancaster University in England) says “They’ve been made a part of the game, and the radical edges will be smoothed out as they get a stake in the status quo,”


“Once you become a part of the parliament, you have interests you want to maintain, and you don’t want to upset the whole system,” Nonneman says. “The pattern over the past 20 years is that when these groups get integrated into the political game and acquire a stake in it, by and large they lose their extremist tinge.”

This was the case with the Renaissance Movement in Algeria, the Islamic Action Front in Jordan, Jamaat-i-Islami in Bangladesh, and the Justice and Development Party in Morocco, which dropped their support for the shariah.

Also another point to note is that no party added a call for Shari‘a to its agenda. Some parties which had referred to Jihad such as Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaat-i-Islami in Bangladesh, and the Yemeni Congregation for Reform removed the term from their platforms.

The process of political participation had the desired effect of secularising these parties completely; they openly embraced the norms of democracy and human rights. This not only occurred at the party level but also at the individual member level. It was noted that before electoral success members would not shake hands with women and participate in interfaith dialogue, but after it was not an issue.

Over the years as the Islamic parties competed with the secular parties they have moved towards the centre of the ideological spectrum. They are seen to be no different to mainstream secular parties. As the graph above show they have compromised on those issue which defined them as Islamic.

“Islamist parties will soon fall into the ‘normal perspective’ within the political system; that is, they will no longer represent something special but will start to resemble other political parties with their same strengths, weaknesses, mistakes, foibles, and even corruption. This process has in fact happened in Turkey and Pakistan, where Islamist parties are a normal and, very often, unexciting part of the political spectrum. …. This strategy, which is designed to change, compromise, and educate the Isamist.” [“A sense of Siege”—The Geopolitics of Islam and the west – RAND]

This should be a clear warning for those Islamic groups that wish to bring the Shariah through the ballot box as not only is it against the Sunnah of the Prophet Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam but it is falling in to the trap that the colonialist have laid for Muslims to compromise their Islam.

This attempt of the Kuffar to find a middle ground between Islam and Kufr and hence weaken and compromise Islam is nothing new. The Quraysh in Mecca realized that fighting the Dawah of the Prophet (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) and the Sahabah through oppression, torture, boycott, slander only strengthened the call to Islam. Hence they concluded that they would adopt a policy of reconciliation i.e. a policy of Inclusion.

It was reported by Ibn Ishaq (by Ibn Kathir ) that Ibn Abbas said “Leaders from Quraysh chiefs met – and he enumerated their names – after sunset at the rear of the Ka`ba. Some said, `Send for Muhammed and speak with him and argue with him so you will find excuse for him.’

So they sent a message to him (saw), saying, `The chiefs of your people have assembled to speak with you.’

The Messenger of Allah (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) came to them quickly, believing that there had been a change in their attitude to him. He was eager for them to accept the truth for their error, which was painful to him. He sat down with them.

“They said `O Muhammed, we sent for you to reconcile with you. By God, we know of no Arab man who has ever brought his people as much trouble as you have. You have reviled the forebears, criticized the religion, ridiculed the values, cursed the gods, and divided our community. Every unpleasant thing possible you have done to make a rift between you and us.

“If you had come to say these things merely to seek wealth, we would have collected money for you from our own until you were the richest among us. If what you wanted was prestige, we would have placed in leadership over us. If you had wanted sovereignty, we would have made you king over us.”

The Messenger of Allah replied. ‘What you have said does not apply to me. I have not brought you my message seeking your money, nor honour among you, nor sovereignty over you’.

From this section of the seerah it is clear that the prophet (saw) clearly rejected their offers as it was an attempt to compromise and dilute Islam.

The objective is not to seek power for the sake of power as demonstrated by the prophet Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam.

The objective is for them to accept the sovereignty for Islam only and not some half baked shariah and Kufr mix which smell of capitalism.

Source

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Muslim Protests vs. Western Riots: Humanity vs. Brutality

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم


Muslim Protests vs. Western Riots: Humanity vs. Brutality

     Desperate times call for desperate measures, a popular quote especially valid during these tumultuous times.  Or is this really true? Do these events give license for the people to wreak havoc and cause chaos all through out the land to achieve the means? A brief look to compare past demonstrations to the ongoing protests in Egypt.  As observers and witnesses to this historic event, we see Egyptians of all classes, all generations, Muslim and Christian stand united to have their voice heard and demand the resignation of Mubarak, the 21st century pharaoh, which they successfully accomplished. Alhamdulillah.

When people in the west think of mass protests; looting, arson, vandalism come to mind.  Including worse acts like rape and murder, people become transformed into wild animals during these frenzied moments. But this was not the case in Egypt, these protests brought out the very good of Egypt's finest.

Even more remarkable in these protests: the compassion, the humanity, and the unity these people revealed.   A nation of millions standing together as one Ummah for one noble cause. May Allah (swt) accept their splendid efforts.  They were not concerned with petty issues that divide a great Ummah. They were bound together with their sincere intentions and actions.  The Egyptians comforted, protected, and fed one another: Muslim and Christian, rich and poor during these protests.  Coming from a population that lives on less than two dollars a day, they generously handed out food, water, and blankets to the activists.  Prayer circles were held five times a day.  A lost and found was established and protected from Mubarak's thugs, everything from wallets full of cash to baby rattles was handed in. A code of honor was quickly established among the Ummah.  Women's voices were fiercely heard throughout the land yet no attacks or harassments of any type were reported. Having witnessed this, Mubarak's thugs quickly tried to instigate chaos and havoc upon their people.  Looting and trashing the cities' buildings and shops. Throwing stones and Molotov bombs from bridges onto crowds below, resorting to whips and sticks to render more harm onto their fellow Egyptians.  Alhamdulillah, the people were all too aware of these infamous tactics, they restrained several thugs or Baltegia in a makeshift jail.
Whereas in the West, demonstrations paint a completely different picture. Protest is defined as to state positively or to object, however protest quickly turns into riot, a violent or wild disorder, confusion or disturbance.  Everything in sight is a free for all---the random drive-by murders, rapes, and vandalism by the citizens themselves; not paid government thugs. It becomes a green light to violate other people's rights and safety. As a result, massive damages and chaos occur. As seen in numerous places like the Greek Protests of 2010, LA Riots of 1996 and the Hurricane Katrina disaster in the United States. Because of the Western democratic systems in place, people witness and experience terrible atrocities leaving other nations to explore and question this phenomenon and search for possible reasoning for these types of behaviors.
The West brought havoc and troubles to Egypt, it was hired people paid to attack innocent sincere protesters with cocktail bombs and rocks and vandalize property ranging from cars to public buildings, including the Museum.

Muslims as part of their Aqeedah do not attack innocent bystanders.  Their voices are strong and brave calling for the uprooting of their corrupt regime in which modern history will proudly record February 11, 2011 as the day the 21st century Pharaoh Hosni Mubarak had been ejected from his dictatorship.

Western systems exude corruptness where individuals only think of themselves and sacrifice the good for self-serving interests, placing other people's lives and welfares in jeopardy.  They try to penetrate the sincere actions of honest people from accomplishing their hopes by unleashing corrupt  politicians onto the playing field calling for false change and hope through misguidance of the masses.  Inshallah Allah swt will keep the people aware of these treacherous actions and call for the true uprooting of these rotten systems. They jeopardize protests by unleashing thugs showing the hypocrisy of the democratic values which are being stomped on as Muslims worldwide protest to choose their own leadership and regime to run their affairs and lands.  Yet the democratic values do not apply to the Muslims.  Indeed, they do not. The democratic and free nations of the West assume the role of the despot dictating and forcing distorted laws from their systems through their appointed agents. They willfully pay billions of dollars to agent tyrants to silence their people through horrendous inhumane tactics in which America and the West silently and gladly support.  How else would they succeed in implementing their rotten self-serving Capitalistic interests while portraying to the masses that this is democracy by twisting the sincere people's efforts in state-controlled or foreign influenced media.   As a result Nilesat satellite broadcast was shut down during Egypt's revolution protests. 

Islamic doctrine holds human life as sacrosanct.  Muslims of Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, and Algeria protest to uproot their regime.  These people do not want stolen merchandise, torched buildings, or cheap bribes.  All this falls under fitnah, which the West has indeed perfected.  Muslims want free untainted elections to choose their leader. A leader who is deserving and honest who will refuse to oppress his people.   A Muslim ruler who will apply Islam as a system upon them.  Islam, as a complete system, will overhaul the present-day systems bringing justice and tranquility to the people from the Creator Himself where the first person held accountable is the ruler. There is no secret cash fund or multi-billion dollar contracts to hire the ruler by Western nations as a lure against his nation. Save that for the Capitalistic democratic nations and strive towards the Real Change...Islam. The system that is ready to be implemented as soon Allah swt wills and the nusrah is given.

Do not fear anyone but Allah swt as you have clearly demonstrated your courage and strength to the world.  Your life and provision (rizqa) are only in the Hands of Allah swt.  This life is only a channel for the Eternal Life---make it count.  Call for Islam.  Let your voices pierce the Heavenly Skies.  Inshallah you will have the victory.  Allah swt said;

((وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمُ الَّذِي ارْتَضَى لَهُمْ وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِ خَوْفِهِمْ أَمْنًا يَعْبُدُونَنِي لَا يُشْرِكُونَ بِي شَيْئًا وَمَنْ كَفَرَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ)) النور 55

 {Allah has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will, of a surety, grant them in the land, inheritance (of power), as He granted it to those before them} [An-Nur: 55]

إِنَّا لَنَنْصُرُ رُسُلَنَا وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَيَوْمَ يَقُومُ الْأَشْهَادُ))))
(We will, without doubt, help Our apostles and those who believe, (Both) In This world's life and on the Day when the witnesses will stand forth.)

By Manal Bader
Bayt Al-Maqdes, Palestine
     
14 Rabi' I 1432
 2011/02/17
     

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Libyan activists of Hizb ut-Tahrir martyred by the dog Gadaffi

Mohammed M. Ramadan, 11 April, 1980, London. Journalist and announcer at BBC, Arabic section. Assassinated by Gaddafi operatives outside Regent Park mosque. Libyan regime refused him burial in Libya and returned the body to be buried in London. Two Libyans were tried for the crime and in Sep. '80, sentenced to life in prison.

Mohammed M. Hfaf, 7 April 1983, Tripoli. Student. Imprisoned in April '73, accused of membership in Islamic Liberation Party (Hizb ut-Tahrir). Ten years later, on 7 April '83, executed by hanging in College of Engineering, Tripoli.

Abdallah A. al-Mesallati, April, 1984, Tripoli. Student. Arrested on April 16, 1973, charged with membership in Islamic Liberation Party (Hizb ut-Tahrir), sentenced to prison. Retried by Revolutionary Courts, sentenced to death, and executed in Tripoli Central Prison.

Abdul Aziz al-Gharably, April, 1983, arrested. Student, Tripoli. Suspected of membership in political party. Died in Jan. '84 as a result of torture and lack of medical care.

Hasan A. al-Kurdi, April 1984. Arrested among hundreds in Spring '73. In June, accused with nine others of membership in Islamic Liberation Party and of writing articles opposing the regime. On 7 Dec. '73, the Revolutionary Council issued resolution to stop the courts and release the accused. Re-arrested on the same day and held without trial until Feb. '77, sentenced to 15 years in prison, days later, the sentence increased to life imprisonment. Executed in prison without trial, April 1984.

May Allah swt accept them as shuhada and even if some Muslims forget their sacrifices Allah swt will not nor the countless more Muslims who were disappeared, imprisoned, tortured and killed.

This list is excerpted from more extensive list in al-Inqadh Magazine, Vol. 10, Issue No. 37, September 1991, Pages 80-105, published by Libyan opposition group NFSL. 

Gadaffi carried out a personal crusade against Hizb ut-Tahrir ever since the Party sent a delegation to discuss with him his denial of the validity of the ahadith of the Prophet Muhammad (saw). After four hours of discussion wherein they proved that the ahadith were a source of Sharia like the Quran, the Party distributed reports of the discussion. So incensed was Qaddafi that he murdered thirteen members; they were hanged in universities and schools in front of their teachers, pupils and families. One of them was brought down still alive, he was hung a second time, then they tied his body to the back of a car which was driven in full view of his family and sons. See: Communiqué from Hizb ut-Tahrir to Colonel Gaddafi (1978)

May Allah grant the martyrs the highest place in Jannah. The Prophet (saw) said:

سَيِّدُ الشُّهَدَاءِ حَمْزَةُ بْنُ عَبْدِ المُطَّلِبِ وَ رَجُلٌ قَامَ إِلَى إِمَامٍ جَائِرٍ فَأَمَرَهُ وَ نَهَاهُ فَقَتَلَهُ

"The master of the martyrs is Hamza ibn Abdul Mattalib, and a man who stands (in front of) an oppressive ruler and enjoins the good and forbids the evil and so is killed for it." [Haakim]

Monday, February 21, 2011

Was Britain Behind Gadaffi’s Coup in 1969?

The First World War saw the Senussi leader Sayyid Ahmed al Sharif join with the Ottoman State in its battle with the British and Italians. In 1915 the Senussi were decisively defeated in battle at Mersa Matruh, whereupon Sharif gave up control to his cousin Sayyid Mohammed Idris, later to be known as King Idris 1.

Sayyid Idris promptly made peace with Britain. In 1922 in the face of Mussolini’s aim of re-conquering Libya the Tripolitanians offered to recognise Idris as Amir of all Libya. However, Idris went into exile shortly after in Egypt. The defeat of Italy in the second World War saw Britain bring back the exiled Sayyid Idris.

In December 1951 Libya became independent under a hereditary monarchy. Libya joined the Arab League in 1953 and then signed a twenty-year treaty of friendship and alliance with Britain. In return for military facilities Britain promised to give Libya £1 million a year in economic aid, more than $2 million in budgetary aid over five years and arms supplies. In September 1954 an agreement was signed with the United States worth $42 million in aid over ten years in exchange for the US being allowed to keep its airbase at Wheelus outside Tripoli.

In spite of King Idris’s relationship with Britain and the USA, both governments were anxious about Idris’s standing in Libya. King Idris’s government was in a mess and under threat, as a secret 1960 US National Security Council Report, entitled: “US policy towards Libya” shows: “There is little loyalty to him [the King] among the younger urban elements who do not have significant political power now, but who will have such power in the future. Although there are no political parties in Libya there are a number of loose political factions and interest groups and pan-Arab nationalism has considerable appeal, particularly to the younger urban elements.”

The report goes on to say: “Although the British would be reluctant to intervene with force in Libya to maintain a regime favourable to their interests, they would probably do so if it seemed the only way to preserve their position.”

The scene was set. the British backed King was losing his grip, Britain needed a new face to hold onto power if its interests were to be preserved. The new face would have to be capable of appealing to the new mood sweeping through the Arab world, that of Nasserism and Arab nationalism. Was Gadaffi the man for the job?
Muammar Gadaffi was born in the desert, some twenty miles south of Sirte in Libya. The exact date of birth is unknown but is thought to be some time around 1940. His father and mother were bedouin from the tribe of Gaddadfa.

Gadaffi enrolled in primary school in Sirte where he stayed until he was fourteen, when his family moved to the town of Sebha in the Fezzan. His father, Mohammed Abdul Salam bin Hamed bin Mohammed, became the caretaker of a local property belonging to Seif al Nasser Mohammed, a local tribal leader. Gadaffi enrolled at the Sebha secondary school.

It is reported that Gadaffi began his political activities while still at secondary school. He gathered around him Abdul Salam Jalloud, Hussein Sharif, Ibrahim Ibjad and Mohammed Khalil. Influenced and inspired by the speeches of Gamal Abdul Nasser, in October 1961 he organised a demonstration to protest against Syria’s decision to break its agreement of unity with Egypt. This brought him to the attention of the local authorities. Twenty students were arrested and Gadaffi was hauled up before the head of the town’s ruling family, Seif al Nasser Mohammed. Gadaffi was expelled from school.

Strangely the authorities showed compassion. Seif al Nasser Mohammed found Gadaffi a place at another school in Misurata. However, because Gadaffi was 19 and too old to enroll at a secondary school an official in the municipal department in Sabha gave him a false birth certificate. At the secondary school Gadaffi’s group began to grow. According to Gadaffi he had thousands of supporters at this stage. It is said that he and his colleagues were disciplined and hard working and had tapped into the sea of discontent that existed under King Idris.

In spite of being known by the police and the Libyan security services, in 1963 Gadaffi enrolled in the Royal Libyan Military Academy in Benghazi. Gadaffi ‘s plan was to join the army and subvert it.

The Libyan army was small, about 5000 men, and the officers were trained by the British. According to a British non-commissioned officer quoted by David Blundy & Andrew Lycett in their biography on Gadaffi, Gadaffi was protected at the academy by the Libyan commander in chief. The strange thing is that the British military advisers were well aware that Gadaffi was planning some form of subversion. The British adviser’s role was to keep an eye on the Libyan army and they made regular reports to the British embassy. Another officer Colonel Ted Lough is reported as saying that as early as 1965 he believed the conditions in Libya were ripe for revolution and his main suspect was Gadaffi. Lough made a series of reports on Gadaffi to the British intelligence in Libya, the commercial attaché at the British embassy in Tripoli. Five years before Gadaffi was to make his coup he was on file with the British government as a key suspect.

In 1966, in spite of Captain Lough’s reports that Gadaffi was a murderer, a possible assassin and a revolutionary, Gadaffi was granted permission to attend a four-month training course in Britain. He spent four weeks at Beaconsfield and three months at the Royal Armoured Corps headquarters in Bovington in Dorset.

Either British intelligence was incompetent, amazingly so, or the powers to be were cooking something!

According to various reports Libya after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war was ripe for a coup. In 1969 it is reported that at least three different groups were preparing to make a coup. Former Libyan Prime Minister Bakoush who resigned in 1968 said that he heard about Gadaffi’s coup attempt two months before it took place. At the time he was the Libyan ambassador in Paris. He maintains that he went to the American embassy and talked to the CIA station chief. He also claims that he went to see King Idris in Turkey and told him of the plan. Idris refused to go back to Libya.

In fact the King had already decided that he would resign. On holiday in Greece and Turkey, Idris called the head of the Libyan parliament and the head of the upper house to Greece and handed them his letter of abdication.

According to Sir Peter Wakefield then counselor and consul-general at the British embassy in Benghazi, the British government also knew of the King’s intention to abdicate!

The choice facing Britain was either to accept an orderly transfer of power, with the successor given King Idris’s seal of approval, or a staged coup d’état that would be seen as having no link with the previous government. The King was unpopular, it made sense therefore to break with this association.

Accordingly, with the King on holiday plans were laid for the coup. The coup d’état took place on 1 September 1969 and by all accounts was something of a farce. The first foreigner to know about the coup was Peter Wakefield who just happened to bump into a group of men wearing fatigues and carrying guns at 5am near the seafront. Thus London was the first to know of the change in government. Britain took no action to support Idris.

The British Foreign Secretary at the time, Michael Stewart claimed that the Foreign Office was concerned about the instability of King Idris’s regime, but had no knowledge of a coup. This runs contrary to the reports given by military personnel, such as Colonel Lough.

Four months after the coup a group of army officers, led by Colonels Adam Hawaz and Musa Ahmed, attempted to take power away from Gadaffi. There is strong evidence which suggests that Gadaffi was tipped off about the coup attempt by Western intelligence agencies. John Cooley in his book Libyan Sandstorm, points the finger at the CIA. A second attempt in June of 1970 was also uncovered.

A third attempt planned for March 1971 is described by Patrick Seale and Maureen McConville in the “Hilton Assignment”. They relate how an attempt by Omar al Shehli, former counsellor to King Idris exiled in Geneva, tried to hire a British security firm headed by a retired British army colonel, David Stirling, to make a coup against Gadaffi. According to Seale and McConville, Stirling was warned by the British secret service to drop the coup attempt, which he did. At the same time Stirling’s associate James Kent was approached by Major al Houni, one of Gadaffi’s closest colleagues in the Revolutionary Command Council, to assassinate Omar al Shehli.

These incidents demonstrate there was a Western, and in particular British, veto on any attempt to topple Gadaffi.

From an article in Khilafah Magazine, June 1991

Arrests of Hizb ut-Tahrir activists in Tunisia - 1991

The following is from an article that appeared in Khilafah Magazine in July 1991:

The enemies of the Nation have always fought the Islamic campaigners, especially those from Hizb ut-Tahrir, by killing, imprisoning, torturing and by using the media to discredit and defame them. However, from time to time, the intelligence agencies all over the world organise with the help of their surrogates from the media and information bodies, and for specific reasons and at specific times, a smear campaign aimed at discrediting the party and its followers.

In recent weeks and more precisely during the Gulf War some of the biased news agencies began broadcasting news about Hizb ut-Tahrir's activities and editing some party leaflets, to mangle and disfigure them.

It is known that there is an international agreement on media blackout of the party's activities, nothing could be published even if damaging to the party without prior coordination and specific analysis between the Western and Arab intelligence agencies.

In its broadcasts aimed for North African listeners, the Libyan state controlled radio has repeatedly aired lies about Hizb ut-Tahrir and attacked it. The radio never tires of broadcasting the evil speeches of Libya’s Gaddafi which never fall short of discrediting the Islamic groups and parties in general and Hizb ut-Tahrir in particular, accusing it of being a sect of misguided people and describing its members as being collaborators, extremists and terrorists.

The French weekly Le Point in its issue of 4/6/1991 issued a number of false statements and information received from sources close to Western and Arab secret services.

In its issue No 4581 dated 14/6/1991, and according to the Tunisian secret police Al-Sharq Al-Awsat wrote that the secret structure of Hizb ut-Tahrir has been infiltrated and dismantled, and that about 300 activists, 100 of them from the army and with various ranks, have been arrested. They will be transferred to a military court accused of high treason for attempting to overthrow the regime and establish the Islamic Khilafah State. The paper mentioned that the hearing will take place in August 1991 and that the accused could face death sentences.

The question is, why such a frenzied onslaught against Hizb ut-Tahrir? Briefly, it is because of the seriousness of the party and the efficiency of its method of work. And because Hizb ut-Tahrir is a political party based on Islam. Its goal is to resume the Islamic way of life by establishing an Islamic state that applies Islam and carries it as a Message to the whole World. The Muslim Faith and what emanates from it in terms of thoughts, rules and ideas are to the party like the soul is to the body.

The party adopts the Method of the Messenger of Allah (SAW) in its endeavour to change the regimes. This consists of three parts:

1 - The individual education of its members and the collective culturing of the Nation.
2 - The interaction with the Nation and the seeking of support from the strong sections within the Nation.
3 - To take over the power to establish the Khilafah State from the section that supports the party. The party relies on the ideological interaction with the Nation and enters together with her in a politico-ideological struggle against the regimes by criticising the laws of the unbelieving regimes, divulging their mischiefs and putting forward Islamic views instead.

Hizb ut-Tahrir has since day one called for the establishment of the Khilafah State. It has already entered the interaction phase with the masses by means of political and ideological struggle, it never leaves any false belief without striking at it nor any misconception without uprooting and destroying it, nor any collaborator without disgracing him and his practices, and no colonial scheme is established without the party condemning and divulging it.

Since then, the collaborators realised the danger of the party’s campaign and its seriousness in working towards establishing the Khilafah would mean the end of their satellites, so they began to scheme against the party in order to divert it from the right path. The path in which the party never compromised with a tyrant nor was pliant with a ruler. On some occasions they launched a smear campaigns against the party, on others they starved its members and sacked them from their jobs, then they stripped party members of their basic civil rights, they banned them from working in government institutions, confiscated their passports, and chased them all over the world. When they failed to contain them and put an end to their activities they resorted to all kinds of torture and systematic extermination. However their wishes were not to be, and their mischief was uncovered and they realised that local and international cooperation is indispensible in dealing with the party, therefore a news blackout over the party’s activities was put in place to combat and curb its activities everywhere, and books were published containing false concepts and lies about the party’s culture and ideals.
Despite all of these obstacles, the party succeeded in paving its way to reach the Nation and convey its opinions and message which become the trademark of its political work all over the world. Such smear campaigns which talk about the dismantling and destruction of the party are nothing but a reflection of the ignorance of the Arab regimes including the local and international intelligence agencies. Every movement that is based on such an ideology can never be destroyed and as long as the ummah exists there will be da'wa and carriers of the call, and these carriers will spread within the ummah like a growing cell and they will lead her by the Islamic concepts and rules and not by personality, emotion, or force.

Khilafah Magazine, July 1991

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Iman must be definitive

Allah (swt) says: “And verily guess is no substitute for the truth.” [TMQ 53:28]

“When it is said to them: "Follow what Allah has sent down." They say: "Nay! We shall follow what we found our fathers following." (Would they do that!) even though their fathers did not understand anything nor were they guided?”  [TMQ 2:170]

“And when it is said to them: "Come to what Allah has revealed and unto the Messenger (Muhammad [saw] for the verdict of that which you have made unlawful)." They say: "Enough for us is that which we found our fathers following," even though their fathers had no knowledge whatsoever and no guidance.”   [TMQ 5:104]

“And similarly, We sent not a warner before you (O Muhammad [saw]) to any town (people) but the luxurious ones amongst them said: "We found our fathers following a certain way and religion, and indeed we will indeed follow their footsteps." (The warner) said: "Even if I bring you better guidance than that which you found your fathers following?" They said: “verily, we disbelieve in that with which you have been sent.”’   [TMQ 43:23-24]

“When those who were followed disown (declare themselves innocent of) those who followed (them), and they see the torment, then all their relations will be cut off from them. When those who followed will say: "if only we had one more chance to return (to the worldly life), we would disown (declare themselves ourselves as innocent from) them as they have disowned (declared themselves as innocent from) us." Thus Allah will show them their deeds as regrets for them. And they will never get out of the Fire.”   [TMQ 2:166-167]

“When he said to his father and his people: “what are these images, to which you are devoted?” They said: "we found our fathers worshipping them."'   [TMQ 21:52]

“Verily, those who dispute about the ayat (proofs, evidences, verses) of Allah, without any authority having come to them, there is nothing else in their breasts except pride (to accept you [Muhammad (saw)] as a Messenger of Allah and to obey you) They will never have it (i.e. the Prophethood which Allah has bestowed upon you).” [TMQ 40:56]

And He (swt) said: “They have no (certain) knowledge. They follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not (‘Isa).” [TMQ 4:157]

"Do you have Ilm for that which you claim so that you provide us with? You follow nothing but conjecture (Zann)." [TMQ 6:148]

"These are nothing but names which you have devised, you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority. They follow nothing but conjecture and what their Nafs desire. Even though there has already come to them the Guidance from their Rabb" [TMQ 53:23]

In all of these and other ayaat (verses) to do with beliefs Allah (swt) censures those who take the beliefs through conjecture (Zann) and decisively prohibits them from this.

Imaan is `attesting to the truth', i.e., Tassdeeq.

Imam Tabari in his Tafseer of al-Baqarah, verse 3 says: "Belief (Imaan) for the Arabs is attesting to the truth (Tassdeeq) [of something] : someone who verbally attests to the truth of something is called a believer in it, and someone who attests to the truth of what he says by what he does is called a believer. Hence the words of God [in which Jacob's sons fabricate the story of Joseph's disappearance before their father]: "You would never believe us, even if we spoke the truth." [TMQ 12:17], i.e., you would never attest to the truth of what we said."

The Definition of Imaan in Shari'ah Terminology:

Imaan is the decisive belief, i.e., Tassdeeq jaazim.

This is the view of the scholars of ahl al-Sunnah as mentioned by Imam Nawawi in his book Sharh Sahih Muslim: "The people of sunnah, the people of hadith, the scholars, and the people of speech (ilmal kallam) hold that the believers, who are the people of the Qibla (the direction of prayer)and who will not remain in hell forever, are those who believe in Islam definitively with certainty (yaqeen), without speculation or doubt, and who pronounce the shahada (i.e. there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of God)" [1].

Some have argued that Imaan does not require certainty, i.e., Yaqeen, they quote in their support the verse: "Behold ! Abraham said: My Lord! Show me how thou givest life to the dead. He said `Does thou not believe' He said: Yes! But to satisfy my own heart." [TMQ 2:260] 

They are saying that Abraham's question was an indication of speculation or conjecture, in Arabic known as zann. In this verse Abraham's question does not relate to the power to give life to the dead, because most certainly Abraham's heart was satisfied on this matter. Rather, the question concerns the manner of giving life to the dead, in other words the know-how. This is clear from the answer Abraham gave to God's question: "Does thou not then believe?". He answered yes, he believed. One would be foolish and ignorant to say that Abraham was not 100% convinced that God could give life back to the dead. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family) said: "We, rather than Abraham, would doubt." [Bukhari, Muslim] 

In other words, if Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not doubt the power of God to bring back the life to the dead then Abraham definitely did not doubt. Concerning this matter Qadi 'Iyad said Ibrahim's words, "Yes! But to satisfy my own heart." do not contradict the clear proof that the Prophets' Tawheed (belief in the unity of God), their knowledge of God and the attributes of God, their belief in God, and what was revealed to them is based on clear knowledge and certainty, free of ignorance, doubt or suspicion. "Ibrahim did not doubt what God had told him about bringing the dead to life. He wanted to put his heart at peace and to be free of any contentiousness by actually seeing the dead brought to life. He first acquired indirect knowledge of its occurrence and then subsequently he desired knowledge by direct witnessing."[2]

Faith must be decisive (al-Imaanu Yaqeeni) God says in the Quran: "He who worships with God a partner for which he has no proof, his reckoning will be with His Lord. Truly the unbelievers will not prosper or have they decided to put God beside him. Say bring your proof." [al-Anbiya 21:24] "Do they take another God with Allah? Say to them bring your proof if you are telling the truth." [al-Qasas 28:75 ]. In these verses, and others similar to them in meaning, the word proof (in Arabic burhan) is connected with belief; and the condition for the proof is that it be an irrefutable proof. Belief must be decisive and free from doubt that comes from speculation. The articles of faith cannot be open to interpretation and Ijtihad. Ijtihad is the effort made by a jurist in order to deduce a ruling which is not self-evident in the source. By definition Ijtihad entails speculation. Thus scholars have held that the result of Ijtihad can only ever be described as probably correct, because the possibility of error cannot be excluded.

People may differ in their viewpoint on a subject matter for a variety of reasons, but in particular because of differences concerning the authenticity of the textural evidence and/or differences in understanding the meaning of a text.

Evidences Can Be Definitive (Qati) Or Speculative (Zann).

In respect of Imaan they must be definitive, because "speculation (zann) can be of no avail against the Truth." [Yunus 10: 36]. God in the Quran defames those who follow speculation and conjecture: In surah al Najm verse 23 God informs us that the unbelievers claimed that the idols (Lat, `Uzza & Manat) and angels were the daughters of God whom they worshipped as intercessors between them and God. At the same time they held the female sex in low esteem. Indeed, they slaughtered the new-born females. Thus God says: "What! For you the male sex, and for Him, the female?... It is not but names you and your forefathers used for which God has not sent authority. They follow nothing but conjecture (zann) and what their souls desire even though there has already come to them guidance." In verses 27 and 28 of the same surah God says: "Those who believe not in the Hereafter, name the angels with female names. But they have no knowledge therein. They follow nothing but conjecture (zann); and conjecture avails nothing against truth." There are many other such verses of the Quran relating to the subject matter of belief that conclude with God blaming and censuring those who have built their faith on speculation. [3]

What Is A Definitive Proof (Ad-Dalilu Al-Qaat'i) For Belief ?

The scholars of Islam have held that a definitive (qati) proof is one which derives from the Quran or hadith mutawatir (a tradition reported by a group of people related in such a way as to preclude the possibility of their agreement to perpetuate a lie)[4] wherein the text is clear and specific; it has only one meaning and admits of no other interpretations.

Both Quran and hadith mutawatir engenders certainty (Yaqeen) and `positive knowledge'. The authenticity of the Quran and the hadith mutawatir are not open to doubt, they are decisive in their authenticity. The entire text of the Quran has come down to us through continuous testimony (tawatur) and therefore there exists no disagreement over the authenticity of the contents of the Quran. Imam as-Suyuti says in his book "al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Quran" (The Precision in the Sciences of the Quran): "There is no dispute that everything taken from the Quran is mutawatir in its source and parts, as well as in its classification, placement and position."

Hadith Ahad, A Speculative Proof (Ad-Dalilu Athani).

Disagreement amongst the Muslims has tended to occur over the Sunnah transmitted in the form of singularly narrated reports (hadith ahad). Imam al-Nawawi states in Sharh Sahih Muslim, "The individual report is a report that does not fulfil the conditions of the mutawatir report, regardless of whether the narrator was a single person or more. It is the kind of report that generates dispute over its ruling. The overwhelming majority of Muslims, ranging from the Companions, Successors of the Companions, and the following generation of narrators of tradition (muhaditheen), jurists (fuqaha), scholars of usul (foundations of jurisprudence) agree to take the individual report as evidence in the sacred law relating to actions, but they do in fact entail speculation and not certainty."[5] 

The solitary tradition, known as hadith ahad, does not impart positive knowledge, it engenders speculative knowledge. Accordingly, differences have arisen over questions of authenticity as well as interpretation. Consequently, "Ahad may not, according to the majority of the ulema, be relied upon as the basis of belief (Aqeedah). For matters of belief must be founded in certainty even if a conjecture (zann) may at times seem preferable."[6]

Imam al-Shatibi in his book al-Muwafaqat states, "The Lawgiver allowed singularly narrated traditions which engender speculation only in matters concerning actions which are in the branches (furu') but not the foundation (usul) of the deen."

In respect of the sacred law the majority of scholars have held that singularly narrated traditions are to be taken as evidences for actions and can establish a legal ruling. However the Hanafi jurists have held that if a hadith ahad conveys a demand to do something it is not compulsory (fard), but wajib. In Arabic wajib and fard have the same meaning and the other scholars have used the terms interchangeably, however, Abu Hanifah has drawn a distinction between the terms based on whether the text is speculative, such as hadith ahad, or not. The consequence of this is that the person who refuses to believe in the binding nature of a fard becomes an unbeliever, whereas if he denies the wajib he becomes a transgressor, .i.e., sinful, and not an infidel. Likewise the Hanafi jurists have held that a prohibition contained in a hadith ahad produces makruh tahrimi (abominable) and not haram (prohibition). For example they have held that the wearing of gold and silk by men is makruh tahrimi as opposed to haram, because they are forbidden by solitary hadith. Other scholars have not recognised this distinction.[7]

It should therefore be apparent that the Hanafi jurists do not consider that a singularly narrated tradition is devoid of doubt, in other words, it is not a definitive proof. Imam Malik has also held that a hadith ahad does not constitute a definitive proof. Imam Malik would rely on a ahad report on condition that it did not contradict the practice of the people of Madinah ('amal ahl al-Madinah).[8]

Imam Shafi'i acknowledged the difference between the knowledge that comes from texts that are decisive in their authenticity, and texts that are speculative in their authenticity in his famous work al-Risala, he says: "Legal knowledge is of two kinds: one is for the general public, and no sober and mature person should be ignorant of it...For example, that the daily prayers are five, that men owe it to God to fast the month of Ramadan, to make the pilgrimage to the [sacred] House whenever they are able, and to [pay] the legal alms in their estate; that He [God] has prohibited usury, adultery, homicide, theft [the drinking of] wine, and [everything] of that sort which He has obligated men to comprehend, to perform, to pay in their property, and to abstain from [because] He has forbidden it to them. This kind of knowledge may be found textually in the Book of God, or may be found generally among the people of Islam. The public relates it from the preceding public and ascribes it to the Messenger of God, nobody ever questions its ascription or its binding force upon them. It is the kind of knowledge which admits of error neither in its narrative nor in its interpretation; it is not permissible to question it." 

In reply to the question `What is the second kind?' Shafi'i replies: "It consists of the detailed duties and rules obligatory on men, concerning which there exists neither a text in the Book of God, nor regarding most of them, a Sunnah (tradition). Whenever a Sunnah exists, it is of the kind related by few authorities, not by the public, and is subject to different interpretations arrived at by analogy."[9]

Imam Shafi'i makes the distinction between legal knowledge which he describes as 'ilm al-ammah which is transmitted from the people at large to the people at large, and knowledge which comes from a Sunnah related by a few authorities, i.e., ahad reports. Ilm al-ammah was later termed tawatur. The knowledge acquired through tawatur is certain (qati).[10]

The minority of scholars that hold the view that the singularly narrated tradition engenders positive knowledge as opposed to speculative knowledge, such as Ibn Taymiyyah, cite in their support the extensive evidences put forward by Imam Shafi'i in his Risala as proof for the authentication of the singularly narrated traditions; such as the Prophet, (peace and blessings be upon him), sending twelve messengers simultaneously to twelve rulers inviting them to Islam, and sending a messenger to the men of Qubba to inform them that the direction to face in prayer had been changed from Jerusalem to Makkah; and sending Muadth bin Jabal to Yemen, and other governors to other regions. Shafi'is treatise on the foundations of Islamic jurisprudence was important in that he emphasised the authority of the hadith from the Prophet in preference to the opinion of the community, the Companions and the Successors. His work was directed against the prevailing practice among the jurists of his time (he died 204 AH /820 AD) who gave preference to the practice of the community and the decisions of the Companions over the hadith.[11]

The fact that Imam Shafi'i had to argue the case for the acceptance of singularly narrated traditions in the sacred law is a clear proof in itself that that the contemporary jurists of Shafi'i, like Malik and Shaybani, did not consider that singularly narrated hadith established positive knowledge required for belief. The subject matter of Shafi'i's essay on the singularly narrated traditions is the proof of it being binding in matters of the divine law, thus Shafi'i reports at length the scholars, transmitters and notables who all accepted the singularly narrated traditions as the basis for fatwas.[12]

The Distinction Between Mutawatir And Ahad Reports.

The distinction between the ahad reports and the mutawatir reports is based on the manner in which the tradition has been communicated from the Messenger of God, (peace be upon him), to us. The large number of people involved in reporting the mutawatir report produces certainty that the report is without doubt the hadith of the Messenger of God. Ahad reports are those where the number of people who have related the report are less than the number required to produce this certainty.

When the Messenger of God, (peace and blessings be upon him), sent individuals to communicate Islam, the people receiving the message could verify the authenticity of the report if they were in any doubt. Shafi'i states: "On one occasion [the Prophet] sent twelve messengers simultaneously to twelve rulers, inviting them to accept Islam. Those [messengers] were sent only [to people] who either had already received the summons to Islam and who had been confronted with its arguments, or who had and received [from the Prophet] letters indicating to those to whom the messengers had been sent that the letters were from the Prophet. He [the Prophet] was careful to choose well-known men both as his messengers and as his commanders. For example, he sent Dihya [b.Khalifa al-Kalbi] to the region in which he was known. For if [the person] to whom the messenger was sent had not known him, he first would have had to ascertain that he had been sent by the Prophet so as to rid himself of any doubt as to whether it was the Prophet's message, thus obliging the messenger to wait until his identity had been certified....The Prophet sent only messengers who were known as truthful to those to whom they were sent, and whose veracity could be certified by those on the spot. In case the recipient suspected that the letter carried by the messenger had been altered, or found that there were circumstances giving rise to a suspicion that the messenger who brought the communication had been forgetful, it was his duty to seek enlightenment regarding that which he suspected so that he could carry out the orders of the Prophet after they had been confirmed to his satisfaction."[13]

Thus whilst the Prophet, (peace and blessings of God be upon him), was alive people could verify the authenticity of a singularly narrated report. Umar bin al-Khattab narrates that during the lifetime of the Prophet, (peace be upon him), he heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting surah al-Furqan in a different way from what he had been taught, and so he verified Hisham's recitation with the Prophet, (peace be upon him).[14]

After the death of the Prophet, (peace and blessings be upon him), doubt could not be removed by verification. Hence, the scholars have agreed that nothing less than mutawatir is accept in evidence to establish the authenticity of the variant readings of the Quran. Thus the variant reading of some words in a few verses attributed to Abdullah bin Masud, for example is not a part of the Quran. In the context of penance (kaffarah) of false oath, for example, the Quran provides this is to be three days of fasting. But Ibn Masud's version has it as three consecutive days of fasting. Since the additional element (i.e. consecutive) in the relevant verse in surah al-Ma'idah [5:92] is not established by tawatur, but only by ahad it is not part of the Quran and has no effect. This also applies to two other instances of variant readings attributed to Abdullah bin Masud concerning the punishment of theft in al-Maidah 5:38, and the form of divorce known as al ila' in al-Baqarah 2:226.[15]

Imam al-Suyuti in volume two of his book "The Precision in the Sciences of the Quran", comments in the chapter entitled `The Single and Odd Readings' that ahad reports , even if the narration is authentic, cannot be taken as an evidence in the matter of belief, or in the foundations of the deen (i.e. Islam); as the Quran is the source of the sources and is concerned with the creed, obliging belief in it, then tawatur becomes a condition for confirming it. Hence solitary reports will not be taken as evidence.

An analogy for accepting different degrees of verification can be drawn from the rules of testimony where two male witnesses, or one male and two females witnesses, are required in cases involving property, two witnesses are required for cases of murder, and four witnesses are required in cases of adultery. In cases of adultery if there are three or less witnesses testifying they are scourged; in other cases if the number of witnesses are less than the minimum required they are not scourged. Different conditions have been laid down to verify testimony according to the case involved.

The creed is the foundation of our deen and must be decisive. Given the rules of testimony one could rationally argue that singularly narrated traditions should not be accepted even in the sacred law, because the sacred law does not accept the testimony of one witness. This is what Sheikh Muhammad Jamal ud-Din al-Qasami means when he states in his book `The Foundation of Narration': "The consensus of the Muslim community of the Companions and those who followed them, and scholars and narrators who followed, as well as scholars who established their own foundations, all agreed that the single trusted account is an evidence in sacred law which obliges to be taken in action but not in belief because it contains doubt. This is all undoubtedly true. Although rationally a single account should not be taken in action, the sacred law made it mandatory to be taken in actions."[16]

For the avoidance of doubt in this matter it should be stressed that all the scholars of ahl al-Sunnah are unanimous that while hadith ahad cannot be relied upon as the basis for belief, acting upon hadith ahad is obligatory in the sacred law.

There is no inconsistency in arguing that singularly narrated traditions can be relied upon for the purpose of deducing sacred law but not for establishing belief. The Prophet, (peace be upon him), said: "When a judge exercises ijtihad and gives a right judgement, he will have two rewards, but if he errs in his judgement, he will still have earned one reward." [Abu Dawud].

The Messenger of God, (peace be upon him), in this tradition states that the judge will be rewarded even for an erroneous ijtihad; to have more than one opinion in the Shari'ah (sacred law) is therefore not forbidden, because God would not reward a forbidden action. Moreover, after the death of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, who can say which ijtihad is the correct one. All that can be said is the opinion is most convincing, probably correct but possibly be wrong. Hence, speculative opinions based on speculative proofs are permitted in the Shari'ah. However, the subject of creed is all together a different matter, because the result of an erroneous creed is not reward, as in the case of ijtihad in Shari'ah, but Hell-fire. As Muslims we are not allowed to have different faiths, God says: "Be not like those who separated and disputed after the clear proofs had come unto them: For such there is an awful doom."[al-Imran 3:105]; "As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects, thou has no part in them in the least: Their affair is with God: He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did." [al_An'am 6:159]; "... be not ye among those who join gods with Allah, Those who split up their religion, and become (mere) sects, each party rejoicing in that which is with itself." [al-Rum 30:32].

It Is Not Permitted To Deny Matters From Hadith Ahad:

Although one must not take matters relating to belief from hadith ahad, a Muslim is not allowed to deny them either, because to deny something as belief also requires a definitive evidence. Those people who deny those matters, of the nature of belief, that have been transmitted through hadith ahad, such as the Mutazilah who denied punishment in the grave (`adhab al-qabr), and the visual sighting of God on the Day of Reckoning are fasiq (sinners), but not infidels. Al-Miruzi said in his Musnad that Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal said: "the punishment of the grave can only be denied by a dhaal (deviant) or mudhil (deviator)". Not taking matters of the nature of belief derived from hadith ahad or speculative meanings of the Quran into ones creed, means people are not labelled as believers or infidels on account of affirming or denying them.

The Tranquil Belief (Al Imaanu Al-Muttma'en):

Notwithstanding what has already been said, Imam al-Surkhusi states in his book Usul al-Surkhusi: "Some reports could be confirmed by individuals if the content were to serve as information only, such as reports about the punishment of the grave, Munkir wa Nakeer (angels who question the dead in the grave), and the visual sighting of God on the Day of Reckoning; thus in such cases, and others similar, we could say that the individual report entails conviction. However, it is as if the narrator has failed to differentiate between peace of mind and tranquillity of the heart, and absolute certainty; the possibility of lying in the narration of the fallible cannot be ignored. Therefore, with this possibility and the residue of suspicion, the absolute certainty cannot be established for that entails peace of mind and tranquillity of the heart." Al-Surkhusi is describing something called al Imaanu al-muttma'en, i.e., tranquil belief, which is described by Sheikh Shalabi in his book "Usul al-Fiqh" as "belief with some reservations that it is not free from doubt, mistake or lying, but because it inclines to be trustworthy the hearts are filled with satisfaction. Accordingly it is called the tranquil belief because it appears authentic but does not confirm definite belief."[17]

Differences In Understanding:

The meaning of creed (Aqeedah) is "what the heart is knotted upon". If the articles of faith can be disputed or are open to different interpretations the Aqeedah cannot be certain and the Muslims will differ in their creed; a matter which is forbidden: "And verily this nation of yours is a single nation and I am your Lord, so keep your duty unto Me. But they have broken their religion among them into sects, each sect rejoicing in its tenets." [al-Mu'minun 23:52-53].

The main reason for the Muslims having different convictions in creed matters is interpretation of the texts. God says in surah al-Imran: "He it is who sent down the Book to you. In it are verses clear and decisive (muhkam) - they are the mother of the Book - and others multivalent(mutashabih)." [3:7]. Commenting on this verse Sayyid Qutb states in Fi Zilal al-Quran: "...As for the precise fundamentals of the creed (Aqeedah) and the sacred law (Shari'ah), they are easily understood, decisive in their meaning, and their purport can be readily grasped. These verses are the essence of this book." The obscure verses are such that their meaning cannot be known with certainty and have been the source of the disagreements between the various schools of thought. The scholars of Islam have not agreed on what verses are the multivalent verses, thus Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi in his al-Tafseer al-Kabir says: "The adherent of every sect or school of thought considers the verses which agree with his school to be clear and decisive, and those which support the view of his opponents to be multivalent. Thus a Mutazili would consider the verse `Let him who so wishes have faith, and let him who so wishes reject faith.'[18:29] to be muhkam, and God's saying: `Yet you shall not will unless God wills, the Lord of all beings' [81:29] to be mutashabih. A Sunni Muslim, however, would reverse the matter." This reflects the Mutazili view of absolute free will. An illustration of Razi's view is given by Zamakhshari, the Mutazili scholar, in his Tafseer, who cites the verse: "Sight cannot encompass Him" [6:103] as a muhkam verse; and the verse: "There shall be radiant faces on that day, gazing at their Lord." [75:22-23] as a mutashabih verse. This reflects the Mutazili view that rejects the visual sighting of God on the Day of Judgement. Although the scholars of Islam have differed on what verses are mutashabih, the general view is that the mutashabih is that whose literal meaning cannot be discerned without linking it to other verses which would clarify its meaning. 

Verses can be understood literally (haqiqi or lafdi), such as: "Kill not (la Taqtulu) the life which God has made sacrosanct." ; or metaphorically (majazi), such as: "God is the light of the heavens and the earth." [al-Nur 24:35]. Scholars have differed as to which verses are to be understood literally. The Mutazilah have held that the verses referring to God's attributes, such as: "The hand of God is over their hands."[al-Fath 48:10], and: "Build a ship under Our eyes and Our inspiration." [Hud 11:37] are to be understood metaphorically. Ibn Taymiyya insisted that they have to be understood literally. Others have held that such verses should not be given a definitive interpretation and should not be discussed, the knowledge of them should be left to God, Most High. The potential for disagreement is therefore considerable. Imam Razi says: "Among the errors of the Christians is their insistence on the literal meaning of some of the verses which refer to Jesus, such as that he is the spirit of God and His Word (al-Nisa 4:171]".

A further reason for different opinions arises because the Arabic word used in the text is inherently ambiguous, the ambiguity can only be removed by ijtihad. For example God says in surah al-Imran verse 55: "Remember when God said, `O Jesus, I will surely mutawaffik (receive you or cause you to die) and raise you up to me. I shall purify you of those who have rejected faith. I will set those who have followed you above those who have rejected faith till the Day of Resurrection. Then will you all return to me, and I shall judge you concerning all that in which you were in disagreement." The scholars have differed as to the meaning of mutawaffik. The Shiite commentator Tabarsi observes that the lexical meaning of the word is "I will cause you to die." Ibn Kathir asserts that most commentators of the Quran interpret mutawaffik to mean "I will cause you to sleep". Ibn Abbas and Wahb bin Munabbah said, "God caused Jesus to die for three hours of the day, during which He raised him up to Him." Hasan al Basri said that Jesus did not die, but will return before the Day of Resurrection. Imam Tabari understands the word to mean I will receive you, because of the many hadith of the Prophet (saw) which assert that Jesus will descend, he will kill the one-eyed deceiver (al-Dajjal), he will live on earth for a time and will die and the Muslims will pray over him and bury him. If God caused Jesus to die once, He would not cause him to die yet another time, so that he would die two deaths: "God it is who creates you, then provisions you. He then causes you to die, then will He revive you." [ar-Rum 30:40]. The mystic Abu Bakr al-Wasiti interpreted the phrase as "I will cause you to die to your desires and the worldly attainments of your soul." Thus, when Isa (son of Marry) was taken to heaven he became like the angels, free from lust, anger, and other unworthy characteristics. Imam Razi presents another view which is "I will cause you to be like one who is dead", because when Jesus was taken up to heaven he had no further relation with the earth.[18]

Another example of this is the Prophet's (saw) "Night Journey" (Isra) from Makkah to Jerusalem, God says: "Limitless in His glory is He who transported His servant by night from the Inviolable House of worship (at Makkah) to the Remote House of Worship (at Jerusalem) - the environs of which We had blessed." [al-Isra 17:1] That the Prophet (peace be upon him) made the Night Journey is definite (qati); but whether he made this journey in body and soul, or just by soul (bi-ruh) is speculative (zann). The Mother of the Believers Ayshah said "he was transported only in his spirit, while his body did not leave its place." [Tabari, Zamakhshari and Ibn Kathir in their Tafseers of 17:1]. Muawiyah, and al Hassan al Basri held the same view. However the great majority of the Companions were of the view that the Prophet made the Night Journey bodily, for God says: "He transported His servant by night (asra bi-abdihi)" [17:1] The word "abd" meaning servant denotes a living being in its entirety.

A word or text, which is inherently unclear and open to different interpretations, must not be taken as a line to distinguish between the believer and infidel. The disagreement and presence of different interpretations means that the knowledge engendered can only be speculative. Many of the subsidiary matters of belief belong to multivalent verses, wherein those who indulge in discussing them end up in uncertainty and unnecessary confusion and complexity without reaching any assurance of a truth or contentment of the heart. The tenets of our faith are established by a definitive evidence and definitive meaning. The Night Journey is proven by a definite text, i.e., the Quran, and definite meaning, but the manner of the Prophet's (saw) journey is speculative and does not form an article of faith. The belief in the Night Journey is from the subsidiaries of the foundation of Islam, known as furu' al-usool. Whilst disagreement in the subsidiaries (furu') can be accepted, disagreement in the usul cannot, because to deny an established part of the Muslim faith is disbelief.  


[1] Vol. 1, p149
[2] Ash-Shifa of Qadi 'Iyad, p280
[3]See for example 2:78; 6:116, 148; 10: 66,68; 72:7; 41:22-23.
[4] Hadith Mutawatir is of two types: Mutawatir bi'l-lafz (verbal mutawatir) and Mutawatir bi'l-ma'na (conceptual mutawatir). Verbal mutawatir is when all the reports are identical on the exact wording of the hadith, such as the hadith : "Whoever lies about me deliberately must prepare himself for a place in Hell-fire." This form of mutawatir is rare. Conceptual mutawatir is when you have a large number of solitary hadith which differ in the wording but have a common meaning, in such a case the meaning is considered to be mutawatir. For example, if a person narrated that Hatim gave a camel, and someone else narrated that he gave a horse, another narrated that he gave a sheep, a dress, money etc., the common purport is that Hatim was generous. Examples of this type of mutawatir are the wiping of the socks, which have been narrated by more than seventy companions, and the prophet raising his hands in supplication, which has been narrated by more than one hundred solitary hadith. The scholars have differed in their opinions about what matters have been established as conceptual meaning. Imam Shawkani for example has stated that the questioning in the grave and the return of Jesus to this earth are proven by conceptual mutawatir. Other scholars have differed on these points. The essential requirement is the attainment of certainty. Qadi 'Iyad commenting on the miracles of the Prophet in his book ash-Shifa says, "The miracles of the Prophet fall into two categories. One category is of those that are well-known and have been transmitted to us through many channels - like the Quran. There is no dispute that the Prophet brought it and it appeared from him and that he used it as a proof...One of our Imams said: `This principle applies generally to the signs and the breaking of norms that occurred at the hands of the Prophet, for if no single one of them on its own is absolutely fixed and decisive, all of them together reach the level of indisputability....It is well known that these sort of things happened in the case of our prophet just as it indisputably follows that Hatim was generous, 'Antara was brave and al-Ahnaf was forbearing since the reports transmitted about them all agree that the first was generous, the second brave and the third forbearing. However each separate report would not in itself necessitate coming to that conclusion nor would it constitute decisive validation. The second category consists of those things that do not reach the level of certainty." [p138-139]
[5] al-Muwafaqat pp130-131
[6] Mohammad Hasim Kamali, Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence,1991, p72; see alsoImam al-Nawawi's Sharh Sahih Muslim, Vol.1, pp 130-131; Imam al-Surkhusi's Usul al-Surkhusi, Vol.1, p.112, p.329; Sheikh Mohammad Jamal Uddin al-Qasmi, The Foundation of Narration, pp.147-148; Sheikh Muhammad Mustafa Shalabi, Usul al Fiqh, Vol.1, p.132; Abdul-Rahman al-Juzairi, al-Fiqh alal Mazhib al-Arb'ah, Vol.5, pp.391-392; Imam al-Kasani, Badae'ul Sanae' fi tarteebul Shara'e, Vol.1, p.14; Imam Suyouti, al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Quran, Vol.1 p.77.
[7] For a full discussion of this point see Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, M.H.Kamali
[8] See Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, p76.
[9] al-Shafi'i's Risala translated by Majid Khadduri,pp81-82
[10] Ahmad Hasan, The Doctrine of Ijma, p.61.
[11] Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, Kamali, p48; and Hadith Literature, its Origin, Development & Special Features, Muhammad Zubayr Siddiqi, Islamic Texts Society, 1993, pp. 112-113.
[12] p276-277
[13] al-Risala, pp.259-260
[14] al-Bukhari, Vol.6, p482 of Dr Muhammad Muhsin Khan's translation.
[15] Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, Kamali, p.17
[16] 2nd Edition, pp.147-148
[17] Vol.1, p.132.
[18] See M.M.Ayoub, The Quran and its Interpreters Vol.2, pp.169-182