Gaza situation

Understanding the current issue's

Hamas are a 1987 product of the Intifada, and say they don't accept Israel. They made the mistake of contesting elections for the Palestinian Authority in Dec 2005-Jan 2006. Fatah deliberately lost the election. They announced the victory of Hamas before the voting ended. Even Ramallah, a secular Fatah stronghold, voted Hamas! It was reported as a protest vote against Fatah corruption but this wasn't true. Hamas were now trapped and should have quit immediately as they were warned. Winning meant they had to now look after the occupation on behalf of the occupiers. Hamas should've quit but they're pragmatic, so they kept it but asked for a Unity Government. Fatah laughed, said no and said something similar to:

"you criticise us plenty so now let's see if you can do - do you accept Israel?"

International pressure built on Hamas to accept Israel or else. Fatah kept killing them, kidnapping their guys and provoking them. Israel did the same. People were jobless, hungry and the PA couldn't pay its workers. Iran stepped in with cash but the situation was still bad. Public workers go on strike from Sept 2, 2006 till January 2007. Fighting gets worse. More than 100 die in 2 months until ceasefire Feb 4th 2007. Days later Makkah Accords produce a Unity Government of Fatah and Hamas just as Israeli bulldozers appear at Al-Aqsa. The humanitarian situation is at its worst since before 2000. As an example is the collapse of a huge cesspool in the village of Um Nasser in Beit Lahiya that overwhelms 250 homes, killing four. 1,500 people evacuated. Finally, joint Government goes to Arab League Summit end of March 2007. There the Islamic side of Palestine is invited to sign up to what the PLO/Fatah already agreed which was to recognise Israel. Disaster!

Once that is done Hamas are expendable. April 7th, Israel's first air-strike on Gaza in 4 months. Days later US Congress approves almost $60 million to upgrade Abbas' Presidential Guard (Fatah). Hamas breaks its ceasefire with Israel April 24th because of targeted assassinations.

May 11th Fatah and Hamas begin fighting again in earnest. Mohammed Dahlan, the head of Abbas' Security Forces who was forced on him by the US deliberately clashes with Hamas over security control. He sends his own troops out across Gaza where they clash with the existing Security forces. May 14th the Palestinian Interior Minister resigns in protest. May 17th Hamas send 35 rockets and 12 mortar rounds at Israel to try to bring them into the fighting thinking this will focus people on the occupier. Israel 'wisely' react in a 'restrained' manner and the world's press remain silent. 45 dead in factional fighting by May 13th. More air strikes by Israel May 18th. May 19th a FIFTH ceasefire between Fatah and Hamas. May 24th Israel kidnaps 33 senior Hamas figures. More fighting in June as the 40th anniversary of the 6 Day War of 1967 looms.

Between June 10th and June 15th Hamas fights till it gains Gaza. This includes executing people in hospitals and throwing people from tower blocks. Hamas admits it thought Fatah were about to pull a coup so this was a pre-emptive strike. Some elements of Fatah avoided fighting, others melted away and the fighting was too easy in the end. Hamas now finds itself trapped again, in charge of Gaza, which is a prison in everything but name. They are solely responsible for what happens there including any attacks on Israel and lose much credibility in the wider public eye. They gained nothing and now have become even more isolated as the International Community works to help Abbas and further damage Hamas. Promises of funds for the West Bank pour in. People in Gaza remain hungry and afraid. Israel also send in troops to kill more Palestinians.

The picture is of a movement that has failed to see the traps set for it time and time and time again. They have indulged in haraam and fasad by fighting and executing Muslims just to hold onto the smallest prize of being in charge of the PA. Now the West works to make the people suffer and ultimately decide they need to negotiate on the 1967 borders.

American

The American century:The End

Barely seven years have elapsed since President Bush took office and the much coveted 21st century belongs to America is about to come to an abrupt end. America's pre-eminence in four corners of the world is being challenged by friends and foes alike.

In America's own backyard, Latin America-Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is spear heading a crusade to undermine US interests across the region. He has successfully garnered the support of the leaders of Cuba, Bolivia and Ecuador to propagate his cause. Together they have challenged American supremacy by embarking on a campaign to reclaim oil and gas fields from western companies and put them directly under state control.

Across the Atlantic, Europe smitten by the Iraq war and deeply hostile to the unilateralist agenda of the Bush administration, has at best offered nominal assistance. Rather, given the opportunity the Europeans-notably the French, the Germans and the British have behaved more as foes than American allies. French intransigence in Lebanon, Europe's refusal to commit significant troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, Britain's interference in Palestine, and French and British hostility towards a Darfur settlement have damaged America's standing in the world and eroded her legitimacy.

Russia and China subdued by twenty or so years of American power have reawakened to counter American inspired revolutions sweeping Central Asia. Uzbekistan returned to Moscow's sphere of influence, Kyrgyzstan and Belarus successfully thwarted US backed uprisings; America failed to press home the political gains made in Ukraine, and Georgia witnessed a severe backlash from Russia over its ties with Washington.

Furthermore, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan the minnow states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) have become emboldened enough to demand withdrawal of American bases. America's gains in this region almost stand to naught.

Worse still is that the war on terror has inadvertently solidified China's relationship with Russia-undoing years of American strategic planning to keep the two erstwhile enemies apart. The China-Russian alliance reinvigorated with economic growth and a common desire to see a bipolar world has spread its tentacles across the globe harming US interests.

Russia unfazed by American threats is equipping Venezuela and Iran with modern weaponry. Chinese energy companies are signing oil deals in places that have traditionally been the preserve of American oil giants. In the Middle East, both Russian and China have taken strong objection to America's position over Iran. On the Korean peninsula, Beijing's unfettered support for Pyongyang has exposed Washington's inability to prevent North Korea from becoming nuclear.

Throughout the Muslim world America's credibility has plummeted to an all-time low. The ferocity of the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan has broken the back of the US army and forced President Bush to abandon his plans to advance democracy. Bush unable to extricate America from Iraq and Afghanistan has had to revert to the 'Truman Doctrine' and seek the help of secular autocracies like Syria, Iran and Pakistan. Instead of reshaping the Muslim world in America's image, the nefarious policies of the Bush administration has Islamised the region, politicised the Muslim masses to awaken from their spiritual slumber and galvanised the Muslim intelligentsia into a powerful force for political Islam- to sum up the last six years- it is suffice to say that America is precipitating the birth of the Caliphate.

After two decades of dominating world affairs, America finds itself at the mercy of her friends and enemies. Graham Fuller former vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council described America's predicament correctly when he wrote in the latest issue of the National Interest, "diverse countries have deployed a multiplicity of strategies and tactics designed to weaken, divert, alter, complicate, limit delay or block the Bush agenda through death by a thousand cuts."

So what happens after America has fallen from its perch as the world's sole super power? Europe is too divided to take up the mantle of the leading state. Russia has yet to translate her economic strength into political capital to position herself as the pre-eminent power. Both China and India lack the political will and the experience to affect world politics. For the foreseeable future, both countries will be confined to their respective spheres of influence.

The country that wishes to supplant America must possess a huge population, abundant resources, a universal ideology and the political will to succeed. The most obvious candidate is the Muslim world under the Caliphate, which Bush has often spoken about.

Existence of a Creator

Proof of a Creator

The Collins Dictionary defines 'Proof' as, 'any evidence that establishes or helps to establish the truth, validity, quality, etc of something'. To better understand the concept of 'proof' let us consider an example; imagine not knowing today's date, so you decide to check the newspaper for it. As a result the newspaper forms the proof to substantiate your belief in today's date. The conclusion of the date and its correctness is based upon the correctness of the proof. Now, what if the newspaper we used in order to know the date was in fact yesterday’s. That means we incorrectly assumed the date, however, such an individual not knowing this error would feel assured in a truth that only he perceives due to the misunderstanding of the evidence. Thus, what is considered as 'proof' is of paramount concern, because although we may feel assured in the conclusion we obtained from what we perceive to be correct and valid proofs, we could in fact be completely wrong.

With regards to belief, there are three general ways, or three proofs that individuals use to adopt a particular set of beliefs. A person may adopt a belief through imitating the rest of society or following their forefathers. Similarly some base their belief upon the emotional satisfaction or contentment the particular belief gives them. Finally one may adopt a belief through the use of the intellect. With regards to the incorrectness of imitation as a method to establish ones' belief, it is self-evident. As for emotions being the basis of adopting a belief, then this too can easily dismissed as an invalid proof, and I will not pursue to invalidate them. This then leaves us with the use of the intellect as the way to ascertain the proofs of the existence of the Creator. We thus need to ascertain how the intellect is used to obtain the correct conclusion. There are three general understandings as to the manner by which the mind/intellect could be used correctly in order to obtain objective knowledge. They are rational thought, empirical thought and the use of logic. Once we have obtained the correct manner in which to think we can then assess the proofs upon which any argument is to be built.

The use of Logic

The classical Greeks used a manner or style of thinking called 'logic', its most useful and strongest form was called deductive logic. By deductive logic they described how a conclusion would be built upon its premises, thus the correctness of the conclusion depended upon the correctness of the premises. Deductive logic therefore was built upon four components: the two premises, the link between the two premises and the conclusion which resulted from this link.

One of the most important features of the logic was the structure of the sentences i.e. semantics and terminology. So discussion branched out to discuss the theory of ideas and the theory of universals. In essence philosophers were trying to construct arguments built upon the correct use of semantics. So for example if I were to find out whether humans are warm blooded or not by using the logical approach then I may use the following premises; all mammals are warm blooded, all humans are mammals, therefore humans are warm blooded. Here the link between humans to mammals is based upon the definition we give to mammals. If our definition differs of mammals then our conclusion would change. Hence amongst the logicians’, discussion on language, terminology and construct of sentences became an important feature. In this example, the understanding of the whether humans are mammals, is a discussion of the universal features that all mammals share, and thus do humans share this common feature. This discussion of universals and ideas are the two theories that distinguished Aristotle from Plato when understanding the commonalities that things share. So what we find, and it certainly is the case, that the use of logic can become complicated due to semantics. And we find that many philosophers fall into the trap of semantics, thus missing the wood from the trees so to say.

Further to the problem of semantics, logic also suffers from hidden defects that may not be known from the link between the two premises. This is due to the fact that the conclusion is not directly sensed but is built upon two base thoughts that may or may not have been sensed. So for example we could state oxygen is gas at room temperature and that hydrogen is also gas at room temperature thus we can conclude that oxygen combined with hydrogen would produce a gas at room temperature. But this is not the case for hydrogen combined with oxygen produces a liquid at room temperature. Such hidden defects can not be noticed when building thought upon thought and thus logic can not be used as the basis of building conclusions.

Empirical Thought

Discussion arose as to whether thought originated before matter or whether the matter was the source of thought. So the rationalists, and we should distinguish here between the ‘rationalists’ and what is meant by ‘rational thought’, they stated that humans were born with innate thoughts. One such exponent was Emannuel Kant the German philosopher. In response to this, the empiricists stated that such conclusion wasn't based upon any evidences and was merely an assumption. Further, in their zeal to remove the creator from the equation the empiricists (such as the communists) stated that thought resulted from matter itself. Thus, they stated that the first step in the process of acquiring knowledge is the primary contact with the external environment - this is the stage of sensory perception. The second stage is the accumulation and the organisation of the information which is gathered from the sensory perception. This description of empirical thought was succinctly put by Mao Tse tung. In essence the thinking process according to them is produced by the sensation of the environment around them. Thus thought was a mere reflection of the matter onto the brain. This they said was the basis of thinking; so that no thought could exist except if reality exists for it.

However, they misunderstood the reality of thinking as we clearly know. So a simple example of a doctor undertaking tests proves that such tests doesn’t establish the disease of his patient unless he has previous information as to what the tests are meant to yield. To further clarify this, a doctor must know the average blood sugar level in the body for a normal healthy patient, and then when subsequent tests are made and it is found that the patients blood sugar level is higher than the average for a normal patient, one can say he has hyperglycemia i.e. diabetes. So a simple analogy throws doubt on the empirical method of thinking as the sole basis of thought.

Further, while conducting experiments at school where we are told, in order to put into practice the empirical approach - we first formulate a hypothesis then a method to test the above hypothesis then record the results obtained from tests finally concluding whether the tests substantiates the hypothesis or not. The very fact that we had a hypothesis clearly demonstrates that there was previous information upon which the experimentation was built. Therefore, simply stating that thought arises from purely sensing the environment or the reality is completely false when practically employing the empirical method. In fact due to the presence of previous information i.e. the hypothesis we understand that the empirical method is a branch of rational thought not its source.

To further clarify this point in order to establish a conclusion based upon experimentation we need to use the rational method of thinking. That is to say we link the experimental data to the previous knowledge we have to extrapolate a conclusion based on the least amount of doubt. So as an example, we have a patient who shows weight loss and urinates frequently the doctor hypothesises that the patient may have diabetes, as weight loss and urinating a lot are signs of that disease. So the doctor then tests his blood sugar level after which he establishes whether his original hypothesis is substantiated by his tests. So here he has linked the results from the tests to previous information of the normal blood sugar levels assessing whether this proves his initial hypothesis or not.

Finally with regards to empirical thought, due to the fact that the empiricists state that thought is directly built upon reality, meaning that each thought is a reflection of a specific reality. Then thoughts that do not have a representation in reality are not true thoughts. Then the empiricists firmly state that belief in God is an incorrect thought because such thought is not a reflection on reality as there is no sensation of the creator. However, they have failed to appreciate and understand the thinking process because if they are correct in stating that thinking is a direct reflection on reality, i.e. no reality no thought. Then one would ask where did such a thought come from with regards to the belief in a God? This sufficiently disproves their concept of the thought process.

In addition, causal relationships cannot be directly sensed, does that mean causal relations do not exist? If that is the case then the whole process of empirical thought wouldn’t exist as this depends on the necessary causal relationship. Thus, the claim that empirical thought is the source of thought stating that thought results in reflection of matter onto the brain, has glaring contradictions.

Rational thought

Finally on this section of the thinking process we come to rational thought and how this is the source of thinking. We state that thought came before matter because by merely sensing matter we do not establish any thought. The inability of sensing the syriac language without previous information of the syriac language shows that sensation alone will not allow us to understand the language. Instead we must have the previous information together with the reality which is sensed (sensory perception) and the distinguishing mind - to make the link between the reality and the previous information to produce thought.

Further we understand that the mind has the ability to produce thought based upon one reality and extrapolate a principle. So when we sense a ball on the ground with no force applied to it we see it stationary and when force is applied to the ball we see it move. We would understand that after observing the ball moving after applying force to it then this would be true each time we apply force to the ball and not just for that particular time. In fact this is true for all types of balls.Further our mind is able to extract the general principle of cause and effect based upon all things which are finite and limited after simply observing the ball moving after force was applied. So there doesn’t just exist a simple relationship between the observed reality and its representation as a thought, which is the case with empirical thinking, but in fact the mind is able to establish principles and use those principles to establish other thoughts. Again, as an example a person may have a thought of a mountain and a thought of gold, his mind has then the capacity to link the two thoughts and produce a thought of a mountain of gold even though he hasn’t sensed this. Therefore rational thought is built upon the reality together with the previous information further the mind has the ability to extrapolate general principles and produce thoughts that may not be directly sensed. This is the clearest understanding of thought and this is how humans produce thought and live their life according to established thought.

Therefore the use of the rational method is the only definite way to assess the proofs in order to produce a conclusion. It is therefore the method of thinking we employ when discussing the subject matter of the proof of God.

Argument by design

This argument has been presented by various muslim and non muslim thinkers. So Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal gave the example of the egg and Thomas Aqinas gave the example of finding a watch in the middle of a desert. The argument is simple: complicated things require a designer. So taking the watch as an example we see it is complex, we also know the watch has a watch maker, thus an analogy can be made between the watch and the universe as the universe around us is also complex in its nature. Thus if the watch is complex requiring a designer then what about the complexities of the universe? So some would naturally conclude that such complexity that exists in the universe would require a designer and that designer would thus be the Creator. Although it is a simple argument it is at face value quite compelling, however many thinkers have criticised this argument. They have stated that how can an analogy be made between the watch and the universe. For instance we have previous information that the watch was made by a watchmaker. But such previous information doesn’t exist for the universe. The critics of this argument would also question as to whether the universe and all that it contains is truly complex, and state that it is just simply randomly arranged.

Those who try to defend the argument have stated that the universe is truly complex and that if one of the laws of nature was different by a very small amount then this would preclude the chances of life. Similarly if the expansion rate of the universe was greater or smaller then the universe would not exist. In essence they are stating that the probability of the universe coming into existence as it is allowing life to exist is so small that this would have to compel an observer to believe in a master designer. However, this argument isn't sound, for example if I were to take a ball and randomly throw it up in the air and for it to fall unto a particular piece of ground. Then we would ask, that for it to have fallen on that piece of ground and not another piece of ground then the probability would be extremely low. But just because the probability was extremely low doesn’t mean that the ball was directed at that region, especially when the ball was thrown in a random way. Similarly the universe having its particular laws of nature and rate of expansion doesn’t necessarily mean it was designed in such a manner. For the universe to have different laws of nature or different rate of expansion then the probability would be equally as low. So such arguments as a rebuttal against those critics of the argument by design would be incorrect.

However, with regards to the critics they have failed to appreciate the manner by which the individual considers and thinks about the complexity of the universe and all that it contains. For instance, when we look at a table we establish that it is made of wood. But simply having the wood doesn’t necessarily follow we have a table. Thus, there must be something other than the wood to have fashioned it into a table. The philosophers therefore state that the ‘material cause’ of the table (i.e. what it is made out of) is the wood, but it has another cause i.e. its ‘efficient cause’. That is to say that there is something other than the wood required to fashion it into a table. That other would be different to the wood or material cause itself. So if we look at the life, man and the universe we find that the material cause is the same for all of these things, yet they differ from one another. In addition, by having the material cause that makes up man and life then this doesn’t necessarily follow that we have a man or life. So if we have the elements that make up man, it does not follow that we have a human. Therefore, there must be something other than these elements that make up a human, i.e. an efficient cause. Again what distinguishes man life and the universe isn't the material cause therefore there must be something other than the material cause that distinguishes man from the universe and the different life forms. This means there exists an efficient cause separate from the universe man and life. That is the creator.

Some may argue that if the premise is laid down that complicated things require a designer then wouldn’t the creator be complex and thus also require a designer. Here they are using deductive logic to try and show an inherent contradiction within the argument by design. Remember how deductive logic has four components to it. Here they use the two premises:

1. Complex things require a designer,

2. The universe is complex, the conclusion built upon the link is that the universe is therefore designed by a Creator. They would argue that the creator is complex therefore it would fit within the logical style as mentioned above. However, if their argument is accepted then one would ask who designed the designer of the designer. In fact we will fall into infinite regression.

Infinite regression means continual subtraction by one. Meaning that if the creator designed the universe and that another designer designed the creator and this keeps continuing. This is impossible because there must be a first cause i.e. something that doesn’t depend upon something prior to it for its existence. In order to understand why infinite regression is impossible the simple analogy of dominoes can be considered. For the last domino to fall over, it would need to be hit by the domino before it and each domino must be hit by a prior domino. Now if there was no starting domino that initiates the process of each domino falling over then none of the dominoes would fall over. So if everything that is complex requires a prior designer, then we would face a situation where nothing would exist but would wait for that first cause to initiate the process and because there is no first cause then nothing would exist. Yet we see things in existence. Therefore infinite regression is impossible.

Further, they are incorrect in making the assumption that because the creator is complex that this creator would also require a designer. We have established that the designer and creator of the universe must exist based upon the sensation of reality, hence the thought is rational. Whereas, stating that there must exist a designer for the creator is not built upon sensing the reality but is mere logic. That is to say building thought upon thought. And as mentioned before building thought upon thought can carry with it hidden defects in its conclusion thus, we would reject any such argument stating clearly that an infinite regression is impossible and any such thought is irrational (not based upon reality). So the argument by design although having its critics has the ability to establish firm belief in the need for the creator.

Kalam Cosmological argument

This is the argument originally developed by the muslim thinkers. It clearly states that everything we perceive in the universe is limited and finite and that everything that is limited and finite is dependent. The universe is the sum of limited finite things therefore the universe is limited and because it is limited it is thus dependent upon something else. As mentioned previously: because infinite regression cannot exist, then everything ultimately depends upon the independent creator who is unlimited and infinite. This is the basic argument however, it has slight variations.

The first variance is that limited objects in the universe depend upon something else in order for it to exist. So for example, a computer depends upon electricity and electricity depends upon a power station which has a magnet rotating in a metal coil. The rotation of the magnet requires the turbines to spin the magnet, the turbines spin because of the steam produced by the water boiling. The heat is produced by the coal burning and the coal required decay of wood under pressure, the wood required sunlight to produce photosynthesis in converting carbon dioxide into wood, and so on. Thus we see that everything which is limited depends upon something else limited. So the question may arise: does this series of inter-dependant things go on for infinity or does it stop somewhere? Because we have established that infinite regression is an impossibility then it must stop with a first cause i.e. something independent. Now for this thing to be independent then it must be other than what is dependent i.e. limited and finite. Therefore it is unlimited and infinite as well as independent.

Now some may criticise this argument by saying that we have assumed that a linear relationship exists between limited finite things. Thus A depends upon B and B depends upon C and so on in a linear relationship. And for things that depend upon each other in a linear relationship then it is true that there must be something independent. However, some may argue: what if there exists a cyclical dependency as is the cause with the water cycle. So the seas depend upon the rain, the rain depends upon the clouds and the clouds depend upon evaporation of water from the seas. Thus each up holds the other. This is how they say the universe preserves its existence. Therefore the universe goes through a cycle from the big bang to a big crunch and so on for infinity. Yet we would clearly ask what initiated the cycle in the first place? For instance if the seas require the rain before seas are produced and if the rain requires clouds for the rain to exist and the clouds initially require the seas to exist then we know that each thing cannot sustain the other without their originally existing a first cause. Otherwise the seas, clouds and rain wouldn’t exist. Similarly each finite thing within the universe cannot depend upon another finite thing within an elaborate cycle as is the case in the water cycle. That is to say that a first cause i.e. something independent is required to exist. So if the big bang depended upon the big crunch and that big crunch was dependant upon a previous big bang then if there was no start to the cycle then neither the big bang nor the big crunch would exist.

Therefore things which are limited are themselves dependent upon other things and definitely they require something independent and unlimited to bring them into being in the first place.

After this has been established still some atheists tried to bring other arguments. So Bertrand Russel stated that if we accept the premise that every thing has a cause then the creator is also a thing, therefore who caused the creator?. Again using the logical style of argumentation they state that there is an inherent contradiction within this argument. If we were to say that God is uncaused then the atheist would say that we have contradicted our original premise which was everything has a cause. As a result they would claim that the universe is uncaused just as some would say that God is uncaused. However, even if we use the logical style of argumentation, we do not state that every thing has a cause. Rather from understanding the reality we conclude that everything that is limited and finite is dependant, or has a cause and that because infinite regression is impossible there must exist a first cause i.e. something independent. That thing which is independent must therefore be something other than finite and limited. Thus, we would state that it necessarily follows that this independent thing, which is the sole creator must be infinite and unlimited. So there is no inherent contradiction and it is unfortunate that such a simple point was missed by a philosopher whom they called the Socrates of our time.

With regards to this argument that finite limited things depend upon other finite limited things, certain philosophers state that we presume the relationship of cause and effect. In essence they deny that cause and effect is an established fact that is true for all things that are limited. They base their objection to the certainty of cause and effect upon two areas: firstly they state that cause and effect can not be proven from the use of empirical thought. And secondly they state that 'empirical' propositions can not yield certain knowledge. By 'empirical' propositions they mean knowledge which is established upon experience. For the philosophers they divide knowledge into two kinds one which is known prior to experience and one which is established upon experience. So for example mathematics, they would say, is knowledge known prior to experience and this type of knowledge is true and establishes certainty. Whereas knowledge built upon experience does not establish absolute certainty. The strength of knowledge built upon experience is only as strong as the reality we have observed; it could be that there is something we have not observed or experienced which would change our conclusions. Thus they say such knowledge is speculative. Because cause and effect is built upon experience they state that it does not necessarily follow that everything follows this relationship, just what we have seen so far has followed this relationship.

With regards to the argument that cause and effect can not be established by the use of empirical thought, it was proposed by David Hume. He stated that it was mere coincidence that causal relations seem to exist and that nothing compels one to believe it to be an actual certainty. So as an example he stated that in order for one to produce fire a person would need to strike a match. But how can someone sense the future event. Remember empirical thinking is a reflection of reality yet future events are not reality thus they cannot be sensed and therefore no certain thought can be established. However, as we have previously mentioned it is incorrect to assume that thought is simply a reflection of matter onto the brain. The thinking process does not work like that. So as an example to illustrate this point, imagine sensing a liquid. After sensing the liquid we find that it is odourless and colourless and remains liquid at remain temperature. Hence for that liquid under room conditions it exudes those characteristics. This would be the absolute thought about such a liquid, meaning we have sensed its whole reality under room conditions. If we subject this liquid to different conditions for example adding heat to the liquid and we find that under these conditions it boils at 100 degrees celcius. Then we have conclusively determined that such a liquid exhibits such behaviour. In fact we identify objects by the attributes it exhibits at different conditions. We also distinguish attributes according to the different attributes they exhibit under the same conditions. So if I add heat to two odourless colourless liquids and I find that one boils at 100 degrees celcius and the other boils at 70 degrees celcius then I distinguish the two different liquids accordingly. So David Hume wrongly assumed that future events are speculative, that’s because we identify realities according to the specific attributes that are observed under different conditions. If for instance we boil a liquid and it did not boil at 100 degrees celcius then we would not call it water we would term it differently. For it to be called water then such a liquid must always exhibit the same attribute under the same conditions. If objects did not exhibit continuous attributes then it would be impossible to distinguish between the reality we live. But the fact is that we do distinguish between a chair and a table or water and alcohol.

As to the other argument David Hume had against causal relations he stated that such relationships could not be sensed. So water boiling could be sensed, the heat produced by the fire underneath the water could also be sensed, but the relationship between the fire boiling the water could not be sensed as a result thought about causal relations couldn’t be established. However, we have already shown the limitations of empirical thought. In fact, if based upon the use of empirical thinking we deny cause and effect (causal relations) then we deny empirical thinking itself. This is because empirical thought requires the implicit acceptance of cause and effect. So experimentation and testing is done upon matter and the results are observed. Based upon the results conclusions are made. So the results are but effects resulting from causes. As a result to deny cause and effect based upon the fact that it doesn’t fit within the empirical thinking is a circular argument which ultimately requires one to also deny empirical thought itself.

As to the final argument against the certainty of cause and effect they state that such belief of cause and effect is established upon experience and experience doesn’t yield certainty. However, if again we understand the thought process we would understand that cause and effect can be applied to any given reality that is limited. So let consider the example of water. Let us say that we were unaware that the particular reality before us was water. The first thing we sense about this reality is the fact that it is limited. We also establish that this limited thing (i.e. water) is liquid at room conditions. When we change the conditions and add heat it boils at 100 degrees celcius and when we reduce the heat we find that it freezes at 0 degrees celcius. We thus determine this reality by its attributes of being liquid at room temperature, boiling at 100 degrees and freezing at 0 degrees. As a result we give a term to this reality and call it water. As mentioned previously if the attributes change then we describe the reality by a different name. Thus, by sensing the reality of water we have determined two things. Firstly, that water exhibits specific characteristics e.g. boiling 100 degrees celcius, and secondly that limited and finite things require a cause (which in the case of water was specific conditions) in order to produce an effect (i.e, the observation of the attributes). Therefore, in order to distinguish limited things we need to know its attributes, and attributes are determined according to its cause and effect. Thus, for something not to be determined according to cause and effect then it would have to be other than limited. Similarly for something to be other than water it must have different attributes to water. To be other than limited would require it to be unlimited, yet everything we sense is limited, thus it is determined by cause and effect and for it to be unlimited it must be the Creator and as a result we can state that the creator is not determined by cause and effect.

What has been demonstrated is that cause and effect is a definite reality when associated with things that are limited and finite. Hence, the argument that has been used above to prove that the creator exists based upon the fact that limited things within the universe depend upon other limited things which ultimately require something independent and unlimited is a true argument.

The argument above is a particular variance of the kalam cosmological argument. Another variance of this argument is to establish that the universe is limited. Because we have proven the general principle that limited things are dependent then if the universe is limited then it too is dependant. In order to prove the universe is limited then we state that the universe is the sum of limited things. And the sum of limited things is irrefutably limited. Some thinkers have tried to argue that the sum of limited things can add up to infinity. They give as an example numbers, which they say, goes on forever. However, does that mean we can count to infinity? The answer is definitely no. It is impossible to start from something which is finite and count to infinity, that’s because every number you reach is a finite number thus we cannot cross the infinite barrier. Some have argued that although starting from a finite number that it is true one cannot then reach infinity but what if in origin infinity always existed? Meaning that there already existed an infinite sum of finite things. David Hilbert the famous mathematician discussed this and concluded that absurdities arise when infinite sum of finite things is assumed. In order to understand this, imagine if you will an infinite sum of marbles. If we were to halve the marbles then both halves would be equal to infinity. In fact any fraction of the infinite sum of marbles would equal infinity. This then produces an apparent contradiction that the part is equal to the whole. Further if we were to take three marbles out of the infinite sum of marbles then the remaining marbles would still equal to infinity. But the 3 marbles that have been taken out would be a fraction of the overall marbles. Yet this contradicts the principle we established earlier which is that every fraction of the infinite sum of marbles would equal to infinity. Yet the three marbles do not equal infinity. Thus something cannot be infinite and finite at the same time, because of this and many other contradictions it is absolutely clear that the sum of finite things must be finite. And because the universe is made up of finite bodies within space, and because we can measure parts of the universe which are finite distances then the whole universe is finite. Similarly another analogy can be used, imagine standing on an island and all around the island is the ocean. Although, one may not see the end of the ocean we can establish that the ocean is finite and doesn’t go on forever. That is done by simply taking a glass of water out from the ocean, hence decreasing the ocean. Infinity cannot be increased nor decreased yet the sum of finite things is something that can be increased and decreased.

Therefore, the universe which is the sum of limited things must be limited and all limited things are subject to cause and effect and thus depend upon something other than itself i.e. a Creator.

Similarly time which is the interval between series of events taking place in a chronological order must have a beginning. This is due to two reasons, firstly, the sum of events must be finite and not infinite, because of the principle proven above which states the sum of finite things is irrefutably finite. In addition, if time had no beginning then we would not reach this moment in time. This is because, this moment in time is dependent upon a series of past events. If there was no beginning event in time then we would not reach the present. By proving, that time has a beginning we have proven that anything that resides in time including the universe must have a beginning also. Therefore, only something that is independent of time could have originated time and the universe itself, that is to say the Creator.

As a concluding remark, in order to appreciate the various proofs of the creator one must be fully acquainted with the correct method of thinking. Through the correct method of thinking we are able to assess the proofs to establish our arguments. Further, the refutation of the counter arguments can be clearly understood by understanding the method or style of thinking they employ. By understanding logic and empirical thinking we can understand its strengths and weaknesses and when it can be applied and when it fails to establish any proofs. Thus we avoid falling into error and by using the rational method of thinking we can establish the correct conclusion about man, life and the universe.

That is to say that man life and the universe are all limited and all things that are limited are dependant, further all of the things that are limited cannot arrange a system for themselves but depend upon some other to determine its system for organising society. Clearly then there must exist an all powerful independent Creator, who decided to create. That is the Lord and Creator of everything Allah the supreme.

"Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him"

[The Qur'an 112]

"Or do they think creation came out of nothing? Or were they creators themselves? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay they have no firm belief'"

[The Quran 52:35-37]

Palestine

Palestine is the location of the third most blessed masjid in Islam

Al Aqsa - the location of al-Isra and al-Miraj. It is the location where Salahadeen defeated the crusaders. This week it has witnessed further shame and defilement. By engaging in unjustifiable violence, factions on both sides in Palestine have readily sacrificed the unity of Muslims at the altar of bloody revenge and short term political expediency. They have handed a blank cheque to the Israeli occupiers and their international allies to further engage in their divide and rule strategy across the Muslim world. Within hours of the U.S. puppet Mahmood Abbas announcing his so-called emergency government, the EU, Israel and the US have all rushed to embrace him, capitalising on the disunity amongst Palestinians.

Sadly, Palestine is not the only location in the Muslim world where we see Muslim pitted against Muslim. Despite the vast majority of Muslims yearning for political unity under the banner of an Islamic Khilafah, key parts of the Muslim world are currently characterised by increasing instability and chaos. As a result of a brutal occupation, Afghanistan and Iraq have seen law and order completely break down, collapsing into internecine fighting between distinct groups, sects and tribes. In Lebanon there is a huge chasm between the government and the opposition. In Somalia, Muslims who want an Islamic system are being persecuted by some of their brethren supported by America and their client state of Ethiopia. In Sudan there is an appalling situation of inter tribal violence resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of people in Darfur, supervised by a callous regime in Khartoum. In Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey and Nigeria, day by day we witness the reality of sham and corrupt democracies. Whilst in Egypt, Syria and the Gulf, we continue to see the brutal and despotic rule of dictators and kings.

It is clear that such violence and instability benefits no one apart from those who are currently illegally occupying land in the Muslim world. Their constant attempts to portray the Muslim world as systematically divided on sectarian lines are used for this purpose. They point to Lebanon and Iraq as examples of a growing Sunni-Shia divide, yet even a superficial view of these conflicts indicates that this is not the case. Iraq is currently witnessing a complete breakdown not based on sectarian lines, but due to political agendas egged on by some in the international community, who now favour permanent partition. For the British government, the American administration and the regime in Tel Aviv, the sight of Muslims killing other Muslims from Mogadishu to Kandahar is a gift, when they are otherwise in a dire crisis. Divide and rule has long been the perennial strategy for all imperial occupations from the days of the East India Company and the European colonialism that followed. In India, the British managed the political arrangements in such a way to fully exacerbate the schisms between Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. In Palestine, the British mandate and the Balfour declaration laid the foundation for the current dispute between Muslims and Jews. The Americans despite having a $500 billion dollar defence budget now resort to providing arms to Sunnis in the Anbar province in Iraq to kill other Sunnis, a task they have failed to perform themselves.

Yet it is all too easy to blame this on outsiders, on the imperialists and their divide and rule strategy. Of course the current Anglo-American occupation and their support of brutal dictators have created failed states and consequently the necessary conditions from which such violence easily flourishes. However, every Muslim is accountable for their actions and it is their responsibility not to engage in unjust acts of violence and murder.

Muslims should be aware of the lessons of history. In 1099 the crusaders from Europe were able to overrun parts of the Khilafah at the time because it was weak and hopelessly divided. Instead of focusing on external threats and exporting the Islamic message they became inward looking and engaged in political squabbles. While they were busy attacking each other, Pope Urban’s army effortlessly conquered the holy city of Jerusalem and through their murderous exploits opened the gates of hell.

It was only when Salahadeen unified all the various entities, nations and tribes that Muslims were able with Allah's (swt) help to regain what they had lost 88 years earlier. Today’s reality is no different - if Muslims want to regain their self esteem, if they want to rid their lands of occupation, if they want to unify themselves under one banner then there is only one viable alternative and one solution to the current instability and chaos - the Khilafah. It is only the Khilafah that can marshal this Ummah’s resources and strength and rid the Muslim world from occupation. It is only the Khilafah that can effectively break down the barriers of sect, tribe and nationality and replace them with the higher values of Iman, taqwa and brotherhood. It is only the Khilafah that can look after the rights of minorities, of the poor, the needy, those in debt and those that have been incarcerated unjustly in the dungeons of the dictators.

In the Qur'an Allah (swt) tells us not to be divided, and warns of its consequences:

“And hold fast, all together, to the rope of Allah and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah’s favour on you for ye were enemies and he joined your hearts in love, so that by his grace, ye become brothers; and ye were on the brink of the pit of fire, and He saved you from it”.

[TMQ Ale-Imran:103]

In this globalised world of instant communication, what happens in Gaza today affects not just the politics of Palestine or the Middle East, but also the politics of Bradford, Birmingham and London. Muslims are faced with three choices: they can either continue to participate in the corrosive politics of self-destruction, killing their brothers and sisters; or they can remain slumped in the politics of apathy ignoring what is going on; or lastly we can seek to contribute to change, following in the footsteps of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) and his Companions, and those after them by joining in the world wide movement for re-establishing the Khilafah in the Muslim world.

Globalisation

Exposing Globalisation

Globalisation like free trade is considered a natural historical process, which has evolved into its current form due to the interconcectness of the world that has made national borders irrelevant. In economic terms, globalisation refers to the growing integration of the world, as trade, investment and money increasingly cross international borders. Economic "globalisation" is always described as a natural historical process, the result of human innovation and technological progress. For this to work all barriers to the free flow of finance and trade require removing so the world acts as one global village.

Pro-globalisation thinkers argue Globalisation has been a centuries long process. Earlier forms of globalisation existed according to them during the Mongol Empire, when there was greater integration along the Silk Road. Global integration continued through the expansion of European trade, as in the 16th and 17th centuries, when the Portuguese and Spanish Empires reached to all corners of the world. Globalisation became a business phenomenon in the 17th century when the first Multinational was founded in The Netherlands. During the Dutch Golden Age the Dutch East India Company was established as a private owned company. Because of the high risks involved with the international trade, ownership was divided with Shares. The Dutch East India Company was the first company in the world to issue shares, an important driver for globalisation. Liberalisation in the 19th century is often called "The First Era of Globalisation", a period characterised by rapid growth in international trade and investment, between the European imperial powers, their colonies, and, later, the United States.

The term globalisation was coined in order to describe the activities of the large American companies in the mid-1990s. The end of the cold war put the US in a conundrum; Ronald Reagon funded the arms race with the USSR from influential financial circles around the world. With the collapse of the USSR the inflow of such large sums of money resulted in the rise of the dollar relative to other currencies resulting in an expensive dollar that in turn made the climate for US multi-nationals to export their goods virtually impossible. US companies found it too expensive to maintain a competitive position overseas when it was costing them so much making the products at home. Hence cheaper foreign markets had to be found.

During Bill Clinton's reign, Congress agreed to the NAFTA (North America Free Trade Agreement), which eventually George W. Bush signed, with Canada and Mexico. The agreement enabled American and Canadian companies to manufacture whatever commodities they wanted to in Mexico, where the workers' wages are extremely low, and sell them in American and Canadian markets.

The setting up of production facilities in a foreign country making use of the cheap labour, with very little labour laws and often-outright abuse was termed globalisation. Hence globalisation is merely a cover for the industrialised world to use cheaper production facilities of the third world when their own markets are too expensive.
There are a number of other myths to globalistaion which are outlined below.

1. Globalisation reduces poverty

Since the 1960s, the prevailing theory of economic development has been the opening of markets to global compitition and the exporting of goods known as modernisation theory, The Asian tiger economies of China, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong are held as successful products of the theory, advocates of this theory maintain that industrialisation and the diffusion of liberal economic ideas would transform traditional economies and societies. These influences would place poor countries on a path of development similar to that experienced by Western industrialised nations during the Industrial Revolution. However very little has changed, consider the following: Poverty is the state for the majority of the world's people. 3 billion people in the world live on fewer than two dollars a day, another 1.3 billion people live on less than one dollar a day; the third world owes over $1.2 trillion in debt, 1.3 billion have no access to clean water; 3 billion have no access to sanitation and 2 billion have no access to electricity. The developing world now spends $13 on debt repayment for every $1 it receives. The third world has 75% of the world's population, however it consumes only 20% of the worlds foodstuff and minerals and accounts for around 7% of global trade.

The World Bank and IMF have been at the forefront of implementing liberal policies, which is meant to remedy the situation. However their structural adjustment policies have ensured Africa remains impoverished and its people are unable to even live beyond 5 years of birth in some parts. The basic assumption behind structural adjustment was that an increased role for the market would bring benefits to both poor and rich. This is built upon the classical economic theory that the market allocates resources better, in the Darwinian world of international markets, the strongest would win out. This would encourage others to follow their example. The development of a market economy with a greater role for the private sector was therefore seen as the key to stimulating economic growth.

In perhaps the most comprehensive study of poverty to date to date, Scorecard on Globalisation 1980-2000, Mark Weisbrot, Dean Baker and other researchers at the Centre for Economic and Policy Research documented that economic growth and rates of improvement in life expectancy, child mortality, education levels and literacy all have declined in the era of globalisation (1980-2000) compared to the years 1960-1980. From 1960-1980 many countries maintained protectionist policies to insulate their economies from international markets in order to nurture their domestic industries and allow them to become competitive. Those policies are the same ones on which US economic prosperity was built.

Hence this survey is very clear that Globalisation was the direct cause of poverty for the third world, the free market in no way helped alleviate poverty, so any continuation of liberal economic policies in the third world will result in the poor getting poorer.

2. Free Markets are the only means for allocating resources efficiently

Free markets have a proven record of ensuring the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This was confirmed in December 2006 which saw the culmination of a global study - from the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations. Some of its findings are staggering; by gathering research from countries all over the world the study's findings concluded that the richest 1% of the world owns 40% of the planet's wealth and that only 10% of the world's population owned 85% of the world's assets.

Richard Gobbins in his award winning book ‘Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism' confirmed this, he said "The emergence of capitalism represents a culture that is in many ways is the most successful that has ever been deployed in terms of accommodating large numbers of individuals in relative and absolute comfort and luxury. It has not been as successful, however, in integrating all in equal measure, and its failure here remains one of its major problems."

The disparity in wealth allocation is not just a phenomenon in the developing world but rather a huge problem even the developed world suffers from. This was highlighted in a 2005 report by Harvard in which it was calculated that 60% of earned income in the US was by the top two highest earning brackets. This means the majority of people in the US only received 40% of income that was generated.[1] Similar to the US is the UK where the wealthiest own 25% of the nation's wealth but the poorest, which is half of the UK population, they share in only 5% of the UK's wealth.[2] The UK's richest 10% have more then 50% of the nation's wealth.

3. Globalisation requires the removal of trade barriers, which inevitably leads to development

The world's industrial nations have used the cloak of globalisation to protect there own economies from any foreign competition whilst the developing world is forced to leave them open in the name of globalisation.

The US historically has provided ample protection to its industries in its infant stages ensuring infrastructure was developed completely throwing the ‘free market' model out of the window.
Today the US intervenes in the health sector with huge subsidies as well as steel ensuring no foreign companies can enter the US market. The US ensures its agriculture remains competitive globally by splashing out over $4 billion in subsidies. Similar to the US is the European Union who under its CAP (common agricultural policy) spends more then 50% of the EU budget on subsidizing European farmers.

Many economists have exposed the British and American approach historically to free trade. Dr Ha Joon Change expert in economic history at Cambridge mentioned ‘it was only after WW2 that the USA - with its industrial supremacy unchallenged - finally liberalized its trade and started championing the cause of free trade.' [3] Similarly Britain only espoused free trade to halt the move to industrialisation on the continent by enlarging the export market for British agriculture. Before reaching a position of eminance in commerce Britain protected its industries from foreign competiotn by making use of high and long lasting tariff barriers. The overall liberalisation of the British economy was a highly controlled affair overseen by the state and not achieved through a laissez-faire approach.

Below is a list of current barriers to trade the world's rich nations impose on the world in order to protect their economies:-

The United States spends over $4 billion in subsidies to America's 25,000 cotton farmers.
Japan imposes a 490 percent tariff on foreign rice imports to protect its own rice farmers.
The average cow in Switzerland earns the annual equivalent of more than $1,500 in subsidies each year as the Swiss government seeks to protect its dairy industry from foreign competition.
The EU is spending €3.30 in subsidies to export sugar worth €1. In addition to the 1.3bn in export subsidies recorded annually in its budgets, the EU provides hidden support amounting to around €833m on nominally unsubsidised sugar exports.

Corn subsidies are more than $85 billion per year in the European Union.

Imports of leather shoes from China and Vietnam face tariffs of 16.5%, and 10% levy into Europe. This was agreed in October 2006 in order for European shoemakers to compete internationally.

4. The development of Japan and China is evidence of globalisation's success

Japan historically is advocated as a success story by the liberal movement, who adopted the free market, reduced trade barriers and entered the global economy and has in less than half a century become one of the largest economies in the world. Similar tales are also made as the cause for China's recent rise to fame however the reality is very much different.

Japan's development has evolved from policies, which are the complete opposite to liberalism and globalisation. The Japanese government wanted key sectors to develop and protected them from foreign competition. The government retained the right to allocate foreign exchange, and by this it was able to restrict inward investment, to manage the acquisition of foreign technology by Japanese firms and to influence the composition of foreign trade. The export bank of Japan and Japan development bank were set up to become the main vehicles for expanding the flow of finance to government targeted industries.

Central to the development of Japan has been the role of Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) which was a ministerial department. This central government department regulated production and the distribution of goods and services. It developed plans concerning the structure of Japanese industry, controlling Japan's foreign trade; ensuring the smooth flow of goods in the national economy; promoting the development of manufacturing, mining, and distribution industries; and supervising the procurement of a reliable supply of raw materials and energy resources. Hence Japanese development was centrally driven and not left to the free market to allocate resources.

China has managed to achieve phenomenal economic growth and industrialization by not adopting the rules of globalisation but by remaining deeply authoritarian, Global liberal values have not featured remotely in China's economic rise. China's president Hu Jintao said in 2004 ‘We will never blindly copy the mode of other countries political system. History indicates that indiscriminately copying western political systems is a blind alley for China.' [4] This shows there is very little likelihood that China will adopt liberal values in the near future secure in the knowledge that it has achieved success without the Western model of development.

Economically China has utilised and retained its centrally driven and interventionist approach similar to Japan and Nazi Germany. China has extensive levels of government involvement across all market sectors. By being centrally driven China has been able to direct its resources in one direction, which has propelled it into a regional power and the largest economy in the world after the US. China has received little assistance from the western world mainly due to its historic communist credentials and has shown that an independent, nation first policy driven centrally can attain economic success, which is completely at odds with the proponents of globalisation.

5. The various financial crisis in the last two decades were primarily a result of nations not being integrated into the international economy (Globalised)

In reality all the crisis in the last two decades were a direct result of economies being liberalised (left open) due to globalisation and the problems were compounded due to the economies of the nations concerned being unable to control the flow of wealth due to globalisation, a few examples prove this: -

- Argentina was considered by the IMF to be a model country in its compliance to policy proposals by the Bretton Woods institutions; however it experienced a catastrophic economic crisis in 2001, which was caused by IMF-induced budget restrictions - which undercut the government's ability to sustain national infrastructure in crucial areas such as health, education, and security. The IMF intervened to ensure its loans would be repaid and enforced a set of liberal reforms in order that Argentina integrates into the global economy. Argentina was ordered to structurally change its economy to concentrate on exports in order to raise enough money to pay off their debts. It was also forced to remove all barriers to foreign trade and foreign capital. What Argentina witnessed was a speculative attack on its currency by large finance houses who wanted to make a killing on the peso; this was easily achieved as Argentina had removed all restrictions on capital flight in order to be part of the globalisation movement. Argentina was unable to stop capital flight as such tools where abandoned on behest of the IMF.

In December 2001 on the verge of economic meltdown Argentina defaulted on its $93 billion debt.

- The fall of communism in 1990 and the break-up of the Soviet Union represented a wonderful opportunity for capitalist institutes to transform a huge centralist economy to a market orientated one. A total of $129 billion poured into Russia with the IMF and the World Bank implementing a number of its development schemes. The Russian economy was opened to foreign investment and industry was sold to foreigners leaving the country vulnerable to swings in world prices. In 1997 due to a loss on confidence in Russia speculators begun to withdraw their money and Russia couldn't even defend itself as liberalisation required there to be no restrictions on capital flow. The crisis raised poverty from 2 million to 60 million, a 3000% increase. UNICEF noted that this resulted in 500,000 'extra' deaths per year. Russia is a clear example that globalisation directly allowed the crisis to reach the peak it did.

- By 1997, Asia attracted almost half of total capital inflow to developing countries. The economies of Southeast Asia maintained high interest rates attractive to foreign investors looking for a high rate of return. As a result the region's economies received a large inflow of hot money and experienced a dramatic run-up in asset prices. At the same time, the regional economies of Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, and South Korea experienced high growth rates, 8-12% GDP, in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This achievement was broadly acclaimed by economic institutions including the IMF and World Bank, as the Asian economic miracle. But then the story turned sour.

From 1985 to 1995, Thailand's economy grew at an average of 9% per year. In May 1997, the Thai baht was hit by massive speculative attacks as investors tried to cash in on their money. By withdrawing their cash in large sums the currency collapsed, this set of a domino affect where financers lost confidence in the region and began moving their money out in large sums leading to the infamous Asian financial crisis. The only country in the region to survive the fall out was Malaysia as it was not under the control of the IMF's structural adjustment program and had placed restrictions on capital withdrawal from its country which meant speculators could not affect the country. The rest of the region left their economies open hence they were unable to do anything when speculators withdrew their capital, thus proving globalisation was the problem. This problem was aptly encapsulated by Economic expert Paul Krugman of Princeton University "As long as capital flows freely, nations will be vulnerable to self-fulfilling speculative attacks, and policymakers will be forced to play the confidence game. And so we come to the question of whether capital should really be allowed to flow so freely."

[5]

- Turkey in 2001 faced the brunt of the IMF's globalisation policies as US investors withdrew large amounts of their capital. Turkey was ordered to peg its currency to the US dollar, a peg works on the basis that a currency is linked to another currency by ensuring the exchange rate remains within agreed bands on the open market. If the currency moves out of the bands then the government would literally sell or buy currency to bring it within the bands. As investors scrambled to buy foreign currency, the Turkish central bank reached the point where it could no longer support the exchange rate, hence it abandoned it and was about to default on its loans. The peg to the dollar was realistically never sustainable and by liberalising the economy it was only a matter of time before foreign investors cashed in and moved out. The currency peg, which controlled the movements of the lira, was the centrepiece of the IMF-backed financial reform package designed for Turkey. By removing restrictions on capital flight Turkey was unable to defend itself. Akyüz and Boratav, well-known economists from Turkey (Akyüz is Director of the UNCTAD Division on Globalisation and Development Strategies and Boratav is Professor of Economics at the University of Ankara) at the time commented, "In many respects the Turkish economy today is in a worse shape than it was on the eve of the December 1999 stabilization programme." They went on "the policies advocated were based on a poor diagnosis of economic conditions in the country and the Fund was experimenting with programmes that lacked sound theoretical underpinnings."

Respond to an atheist

Atheists

Science can be defined as the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of material based on observation, experiment, and measurement. The belief that experimentation and observation can become the basis of ones belief and viewpoint in life is however a total misapplication of the scientific method. This article will endeavour to show how empiricism as a scientific method has replaced Christianity and has become a new religion in itself.

Contemporary and Classical knowledge in the West has been based on the Empirical School of Thought, which has David Hume and John Stewart Mill as famous advocates, who assert that knowledge is purely the result of sense perception, that is to say that we learn as a direct result of sensing the environment around us. That the reality that we sense ultimately assumes the position of truth. For example, water, by observation, boils at 100 degrees centigrade hence this becomes a fact. Objects when released fall to the ground when released under the earths gravitational pull, hence another fact is established and so on. The problem occurs when phenomena or propositions that are not attributable to sense perception exist or occur, here the Empirical theorists have difficulty accepting it. For example an orphan raised apart from his parents cannot be sure that he had parents for their existence to be a fact for him, he must have sensed them. Similarly the empiricist cannot make a generalisation based on specific observation. For instance he cannot say that all human beings will die unless he perceives each and every human being die. Nor can he say that all objects when released will fall to the ground unless he performs experiments on all objects to observe if they are subservient to the laws of gravity. Neither can one say that on any future day that the sun will rise in the East and set in the West since it has not been perceived yet. So the Empiricist cannot establish any absolute truths because he cannot observe each and every subject so as to conclude general laws about it.

The dangers of this type of thought is that since it was adopted by the West as ideas and concepts that are not perceived, they cannot be concluded as fact. How then can evolution be presented when the missing link between the ape and human doesn't exist, or how can the big bang be established in which it is said that matter originated from nothing, again something which is not perceivable. Additionally in the issue of the concepts beyond the physical world, such as God, Heaven and Hell and the like, the empiricist has great difficulty in accepting the existence of such ideas since he has not and cannot perceive them. Here the essential contradiction becomes apparent. On the one hand ideas like God are rejected while on the other hand ideas such as the big bang and evolution are accepted and propagated.

So it is apparent from the above that the basis upon which knowledge is built, is inadmissible to formulate all concepts and ideas about life and society, and an alternative basis to knowledge is required. The alternative is the rational method of thinking.

Debate and discussion in Islam

Etiquette of debate and discussion

All those involved in the work of da'wa would inevitably engage in discussion, debate and even argument in conveying this da'wa. The Prophets, Sahabah and the Messenger of Allah all experienced debate and often came across those who neither listened to their message nor engaged politely but rather worked to subvert the pure words, antagonize the da'wa carrier and even incite the audience against him with the expectation that the message would be lost.

It is often the case that the carrier of the Islamic da'wa who works for the highest work to revive the message of Islam and implement the Shari'ah may become blinded by his or her conviction and their sincerity to see this message surge forward and forget or not ponder about the hukm shari' pertaining to his discussion. Subsequently Muslims, especially those living in the West, find themselves pursuing discussion that contradicts the hukm shari' or contravenes one of its rules yet at the same time carry this message and aim for the reward from Allah.

The paradox between aim and action comes down to the failure to concentrate ones mind on the detail hukm shari' concerning discussion as well as the unwillingness of the heart to change due to the loss this may gain for him and his message. This failure has to be evaluated by the sincere mind and the concerned heart, for his yearning for Allah's pleasure must set him upon a path of excellence, self-evaluation and constant renewal, like a climber who seeks to reach new horizons, unsatisfied with his current level.

The writer, at the time of writing, has witnessed debate, discussion and argument which contravenes the hukm shari' from brilliant people whose shari' and political understanding far exceeds his own. Discussion boards, television phone-ins and websites are littered with debates and discussion between Muslims that not only creates disunity unnecessarily but also acts as a corrosive impediment to purifying the heart and disfigures the pure Islamic concepts. For this reason we present to you the etiquette's of debate in Islam. We pray this subject is given its due attention and aides the carrying of Islam and its establishment some time soon.

Etiquette of debate:

Al-Jadal means to debate or dispute as we can see in the following ayah:

قَدْ سَمِعَ اللَّهُ قَوْلَ الَّتِي تُجَادِلُكَ فِي زَوْجِهَا وَتَشْتَكِي إِلَى اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ يَسْمَعُ تَحَاوُرَكُمَا .

“Indeed Allah has heard the statement of her (Khaulah bint Tha'labah) that disputes with you (O Muhammad SAW) concerning her husband (Aus bin AsSamit), and complains to Allah. And Allah hears the argument between you both.”

[TMQ Mujadalah:1]

Here Allah (swt) used the word tahaawur to refer to al-jadal. Its definition is: the presenting of proofs or what is assumed to be a proof by those disputing on a matter. The aim is to support one’s view or faction and to disprove the proof of the opponent and to convince him to accept one’s view as correct or the truth.There is a type of debating or disputation, which has been obliged by the Sharee’ah to establish the truth and refute falsehood.

The evidence for this is the saying of Allah (swt):

ادْعُ إِلَى سَبِيلِ رَبِّكَ بِالْحِكْمَةِ وَالْمَوْعِظَةِ الْحَسَنَةِ وَجَادِلْهُمْ بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ .

“Invite (mankind, O Muhammad SAW) to the Way of your Lord (i.e. Islam) with wisdom (i.e. with the Divine Inspiration and the Qur'an) and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better.”

[TMQ an-Nahl:125]

Also:

ُ قُلْ هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِنْ كُنتُمْ صَادِقِين .

“Say (O Muhammad Peace be upon him), "Produce your proof if you are truthful."

[TMQ Al-Baqarah:111]

Furthermore the Messenger of Allah (swt) argued with the Mushriks of Makkah, the Christians of Najraan and the Jews of Madinah. The Da’wah carrier invites to the good, forbids the evil and struggles against the wrong thoughts. Wherever debating is useful as a style to fulfil an obligation then it becomes an obligation due to the principle: that which is necessary to fulfil an obligation is itself an obligation. There are some types of debating, which are forbidden by the Sharee’ah and thus they are considered kufr (disbelief) such as the disputation regarding Allah or His Signs:

وَهُمْ يُجَادِلُونَ فِي اللَّهِ وَهُوَ شَدِيدُ الْمِحَالِ .

“Yet they (disbelievers) dispute about Allah. And He is Mighty in strength and Severe in punishment.”

[TMQ Ar-Ra’d:13…]

مَا يُجَادِلُ فِي آيَاتِ اللَّهِ إِلاَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا .

“None disputes in the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah but those who disbelieve.”

[TMQ Ghafir:4]

الَّذِينَ يُجَادِلُونَ فِي آيَاتِ اللَّهِ بِغَيْرِ سُلْطَانٍ أَتَاهُمْ كَبُرَ مَقْتًا عِنْدَ اللَّهِ وَعِنْدَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا .

“Those who dispute about the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah, without any authority that has come to them, it is greatly hateful and disgusting to Allah and to those who believe.”

[TMQ Ghafir:35…]

وَيَعْلَمَ الَّذِينَ يُجَادِلُونَ فِي آيَاتِنَا مَا لَهُمْ مِنْ مَحِيصٍ .

“And those who dispute (polytheists, etc. with Our Messenger Muhammad SAW) as regards Our Ayat (proofs, signs, verses, etc. of Islamic Monotheism) may know that there is no place of refuge for them (from Allah's punishment).”

[TMQ ash-Shura:35]

The one who disbelieves is the one who rejects and not affirms. Since the rejecter argues to disprove the truth and the one who affirms argues to establish the truth and refute the falsehood:

وَجَادَلُوا بِالْبَاطِلِ لِيُدْحِضُوا بِهِ الْحَقَّ .

“And disputed by means of falsehood to refute therewith the truth.”

[TMQ Ghafir:5]

مَا ضَرَبُوهُ لَكَ إِلاَّ جَدَلاً بَلْ هُمْ قَوْمٌ خَصِمُونَ .

“They quoted not the above example except for argument. Nay! But they are a quarrelsome people.”

[TMQ az-Zukhruf:58]

Debating about the Qur’an to prove it is not a miracle or that it is not from Allah is also disbelief (kufr).

Ahmad reported from Abu Hurayrah a hadith attributed to the Prophet (saw) that:

«جدال في القرآن كفر».

“Debating about the Qur’an is disbelief (kufr).”

Ibn Muflih said the isnad is jayyid and it has been declared sound by Ahmad Shakir. Debating may be makrooh (disliked) such as arguing about the truth after it has become clear:

يُجَادِلُونَكَ فِي الْحَقِّ بَعْدَ مَا تَبَيَّنَ كَأَنَّمَا يُسَاقُونَ إِلَى الْمَوْتِ وَهُمْ يَنظُرُونَ .

“Disputing with you concerning the truth after it was made manifest, as if they were being driven to death, while they were looking (at it).”

[TMQ Al-Anfaal:6]

One can debate either with a proof or a probable proof (shubhat daleel) but without these it would be a mere row or confusion. The shubha has been defined as: ‘what a faction imagines to be true though it is not true.’ This is the definition of Ibn ‘Uqayl. Ibn Hazm defines a row or wrangle as: to promote with a false proof a false issue thus leading to falsehood and this is sophistry.’ Ibn ‘Uqayl said: “whoever wanted to follow the method of scholars (the people of knowledge) then he has to speak with proof or a probable proof (shubhah), while quarelling is the confusion of the people of disputation.” One can say quarrelling is the argument, which lacks a proof or probability of a proof.

This is the advice of the Muslim ‘Ulema regarding the rules and etiquettes of debating, it is the following points, with some adjustment:

1• He should give precedence to the fear of Allah, intend to draw closer to Him and seek His good pleasure by adhering to His command.

2• He should intend to establish the truth and refute the falsehood without trying combating, suppression and vanquishing of the opponent. Ash-Shafi’i said: “I never argued with a man except I wished he is helped and led to the right, asking Allah to give him protection and guarding. I never spoke to a person except that I did not bother whether Allah showed the truth on my tongue or his tongue. Ibn ‘Uqayl said: (any debate whose aim is not to support the truth is a curse on the one who engaged in it.)

3• He should not debate for the sake of status, rank, seeking a benefit, argument, or show off.

4• He should be truly sincere for Allah, His Deen and his opponent for the Deen is Naseeha (true sincerity).

5• He should begin by thanking and praising Allah and sending peace and blessings on the Messenger (saw).

6• He should desire that Allah help him to achieve that which pleases Him.

7• His style of debating should be good as well as his appearance.

Ibn ‘Abbas narrated that the Messenger of Allah (swt) said:

«إن الهدي الصالح، والسمت الصالح، والاقتصاد، جزء من خمسة وعشرين جزءاً من النبوة».

“Right guidance, graceful manners, deliberation and moderation, are one part of twenty-five parts of Prophethood.”

Reported by Ahmad and Abu Dawud.

Ibn Hajar said in his Fath al-Baari the hadith has a hasan isnad. It has been reported with a narration, which stops at Ibn Mas’ud that he said:

«اعلموا أن حسن الهدي، في آخر الزمان، خير من بعض العمل».

“Know that good method of guidance in the last age is better than some actions (of devotion).”

Ibn Hajar in his Fath al-Baari said the chain is sound.

8• Being concise will insure one’s speech easy to understand, comprehensive and effective. Using long-winded sentences will lead to boredom, not to mention that it is more prone to mistakes.

9• He should agree on a basis to which both will refer. With the disbeliever this will be rational but with a Muslim it will be either rational or textual. The mind is the reference in the rational matters but for the legal matters the basis is the text due to the saying of Allah (swt):

فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ .

“(And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger (swt).”

[TMQ an-Nisaa:59] i.e. the Book and the Sunnah.

10• One should not debate with the disbelievers about the branches (furoo’) of the Sharee’ah because he does not believe in their basis. One should not debate with him about marriage to four wives, testimony of women, Jizyah, inheritance, prohibition of alcohol and other such rules when trying to bring them to Islam. The discussion should be restricted to the fundamentals of the Deen whose proofs are rational. This is because the aim of the debate is to take him from falsehood to the truth, from misguidance to guidance and this will not be possible unless we take him from Kufr to Imaan. Similarly, one should not debate with a Christian by refuting Buddhism or Judaism. Such discussions cannot be considered a debate. The Christian is not a Buddhist or Jew such that he needs to be taken from these beliefs to the true belief. Rather one should discuss with him his own creed to make him leave it and bring him to Islam. That is why we do not say: we debate in that which we agree and leave that which we disagree because we are obligated to debate with them. And debate can never take place unless it is in a matter in which we disagree. If a Christian or a capitalist agrees with the Muslim that Buddhism, communism or socialism is rationally repugnant and he talks about these issues. Then this is not called debate or disputation. It does not save the Muslim from the obligation of discussing with him until he brings him to Islam. Likewise, we cannot say we will have dialogue with the Kuffar on matters we agree and leave what we disagree to the Day of Judgement when on that day Allah will judge as he pleases and He will settle the matter between us. We cannot say this because we are commanded to debate in the matters we disagree and if we do not do this then we will have fallen short of our duty. Yes, the judgement is for Allah in this world and the Hereafter but we cannot confuse Allah’s action with what He has entrusted us with. Such a proof is untenable. Indeed it is an argument, which has no proof or even a probable proof.

11• He should not raise his voice or shout in the face of his opponent, except as much as it is enough to make him hear you. It has been narrated that a man by the name of ‘Abd as-Samad spoke to al-Mamun and raised his voice. Al-Mamun said: do not raise your voice O ‘Abd as-Samad, for correctness is in that which is more right rather than in that which is more strong, while the good speaker ( Khateeb) is good for al-faqeeh (who gives knowledge) and(who takes knowledge) mutafaqqih.

12• He should not look down or belittle his opponent.

13• He should be patient, forbearing and forgiving when his opponent argues unless if he is insolent. He should then desist from debating and arguing with him.

14• He should avoid getting angry and annoyed. Ibn Sireen said: “al-Hiddah (rage) is the other name of ignorance” i.e. when it happens during a debate. As for what at-Tabaraani reported on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (swt) said:

«تعتري الحدة خيار أمتي».

“The best amongst my ummah will be afflicted with fury”, the chain of this hadith has one named Salaam b. Muslim at-Taweel who is a transmitter whose reports are rejected (matrook).

If he is debating someone more knowledgeable than him he should not say: you are mistaken or what you have said is wrong. Rather he should say: what would you say if someone said or objected by saying such and such…or he should oppose using the style of one seeking the correct path such as; is it not correct to say such and such.

15• He should think about what his opponent is saying and understand him so that he can respond correctly. He should not be quick to speak without allowing his opponent to finish. Ibn Wahb said: I heard Malik say: “there is no point in answering without understanding, and it is not good manners to interrupt one’s opponent.” But if he is showing off, playing to the crowds then in origin he should not have been debating him in the first place if he knew this. If such behaviour appears during the discussion then he should advise him. If he doesn’t take notice of that then he should discontinue the discussion.

16• He should face his opponent and not look at those present showing contempt for his opponent whether or not they agreed or disagreed with him. If the opponent does this he should be advised. If he does not respond then the debate should be stopped.

17• He should not debate someone obstinate and self-conceited for such a person will not take anything from someone else.

18• He should not debate in places of fear such as debating on satellite channels or public gatherings unless he is at ease with his Deen fearing none for the sake of Allah and happy to bear the consequences of statements whether that is imprisonment or even murder. Nor should he debate in the gathering of the Ameer or a ruler fearing for himself unless he is prepared mentally to be like Hamzah. Otherwise silence is better for him because in such a situation he will disparage the Deen and people of knowledge. Here he should remember the stance of Ahmad and Malik from the famous scholars and the stance of those who debated Ghaddafi when he rejected the Sunnah.

19• He should not debate someone who hates him whether that hatred is from him or his opponent.

20• He should avoid riyaa` (showing of), tasmee’ (letting other hear of ones piety), arrogance and pride.

21• He should not intentionally sit in a place higher than his opponent in the gathering.

22• He should not expand matters especially when they are known to his opponent but be brief without impairing the point in question i.e. the subject matter of the debate.

23• He should not debate with someone who belittles knowledge and the people of knowledge or be in the presence of a fool who belittles the debate or those debating. Malik said: “the humiliation and disgrace to knowledge is when a man speaks with knowledge to one who does not obey him.”

24• Out of arrogance he should not refrain from accepting the truth if it appeared on the tongue of his opponent. Returning to the truth is better than continuing with falsehood, and also so that he becomes from those who hear a saying and follow the best of it.

25• Umar (ra) said:

"نُهينا عن التكلّف".

“We have been forbidden from pretence (of knowledge).”

Reported by al-Bukhari. Masruq said: We came upon 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud (ra) and he said:

"يا أيها الناس من علم شيئاً فليقل به، ومن لا يعلم فليقل الله أعلم، فإنّ من العلم أن يقول لما لا يعلم الله أعلم".

"O people! If somebody knows something, he can say it, but if he does not know it, he should say, 'Allah knows better,' for it is a sign of having knowledge to say about something, which one does not know, 'Allah knows better.”

Allah said to His Prophet:

قُلْ مَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ أَجْرٍ وَمَا أَنَا مِنْ الْمُتَكَلِّفِينَ .

“Say (O Muhammad saw): "No wage do I ask of you for this (the Qur'an), nor am I one of the Mutakallifun (those who pretend and fabricate things which do not exist).”

[TMQ Saad38:86]

Agreed upon.These are some of the rules of discussion that all Muslims must remember. The Prophet (saw) said

"كونوا ربّانيّين حلماء فقهاء، ويقال الربّانيّ الذي يربّي الناس بصغار العلم قبل كباره".

“Be devine, gentle and jurist (understanding), the divine (rabbani) is the one who educates the people with the easy knowledge before its difficult”. (Al-Bukari).