The weakening US dollar is not a phenomenon restricted to its borders as its effects are being felt the world over. The fiat currency has insured that America will not suffer in isolation but rather ensure that its grip on power is firmly held in place. Allah (swt) has commanded that the Khilafah adopt the bimetallic standard. Only through the complete implementation of Islam will mankind be removed from the injustice and oppression of man-made systems.
The sharp decline of the US dollar has been felt across the globe. Traders, unsure of the value of paper assets, are bidding up the price of commodities. The Associated Press recently reported that,”Huge price hikes have been caused by a weaker U.S. dollar and financial turmoil that saw investors stash money in commodities such as oil, which hit another record high Monday [April 28, 2008] of $119.93 per barrel.” With a recession looming and inflation on the rise, the US has exported its financial crisis beyond its borders to other countries. How can the currency of one nation wreak so much havoc worldwide?
Currencies and American Control
In the past, a country’s currency would be based on the amount of gold it had in its reserves. Whenever countries would trade with each other, they would transfer gold as a method of payment. In this way, the country’s currency would increase or decrease depending on how much gold remained in its reserve.
In 1944, the Bretton Woods conference changed the way currencies would be valued. Rather than have each currency matched against their gold reserves, they would be matched against the US dollar. In 1971 under the Nixon administration, America completely severed the link between its dollar and gold. With gold no longer backing the US dollar, currencies no longer had intrinsic value but only a legally imposed one. In other words, it would only be a piece of paper with no worth unless its citizens and other countries agreed to hold value to it.
The fiat currency (i.e.: currency made legal tender by sanction and neither backed by, nor necessarily convertible into, gold or silver) has a major part to play in the financial crisis we see today. This currency is open to government manipulation in the pursuit of personal interest. With no limit on the amount of dollars being printed, a government can essentially pay its way out of debt with money created out of thin air. As with any commodity, too much supply in the market will decrease the value of the currency leading to inflationary prices. With so many currencies pegged to the US dollar it is impossible for this to remain an isolated event.
The Hukm Regarding Currency
When it comes to exchanging a commodity with a specific monetary unit, Islam has guided us to the gold and silver standard. It has restricted the Islamic State to using this standard when engaging in transactions.
This specification could be deduced from several matters:
1. When Islam prohibited the hoarding of wealth, it was specifically related to the hoarding of gold and silver despite the fact that wealth includes any property that can be owned. The prohibition in the verse refers to the hoarding of money, since it acts as the generally accepted medium of exchange, and because the hoarding of money is the issue that produces the effect of the prohibition i.e. restricting circulation. The verse has specified the money which Allah (swt) has prohibited us to hoard which is gold and silver. Allah (swt) says:
“And those who hoard gold and silver and do not spend them in the way of Allah, let them know that a severe punishment is awaiting them” [TMQ 9:34]
Therefore, the prohibition is focused on the monetary medium of exchange, which makes the hoarding of gold and silver forbidden, whether it was minted or not.
2. Islam has linked gold and silver to a set of fixed rules. Therefore, when it imposed the Diyyah (blood money), it specified a fixed amount of gold. Also, when it decreed the penalty of cutting the hand of the thief, it specified the minimum value of gold that is stolen which would entail the cutting of the hand. In his letter to the people of Yemen, the Prophet (saw) was reported by An-Nisai to have said: “The blood money for one soul would be 100 camels...and for those who deal in gold it would be 1000 dinars.” Bukhari also reported on the authority of Aisha (ra) that the Prophet (saw) also said: “The hand is cut for the theft of one-quarter dinar and upward.” Therefore, the fact that Islam has linked the Shari’ah rules to gold and silver by text, when these rules are related to money, serves as evidence that the currency is solely restricted to gold and silver.
3. The Prophet (saw) has determined that gold and silver be used as money, and exclusively made them the monetary measure to evaluate goods and services. He (saw) ensured that all transactions were conducted with them as their basis. All trade and marriage transactions were conducted in gold and silver, in their quality as money, and this has been established in the Sahih Ahadith.
4. When Allah (swt) decreed the Zakat on money, He (swt) made it obligatory in gold and silver, and He (swt) determined a Nisab (amount) for the Zakat in gold and silver. Therefore, to consider the Zakat on money as being in gold and silver would establish that currency is gold and silver.
Is There Enough Gold in the World?
The gold existing in the world is enough to return the global economy to the gold standard. Gold has sufficient flexibility to produce the money required to cover trade and other economic needs in the world for the following reasons:
1. Throughout human history, no metal has ever enjoyed an interest similar to gold. All that has been mined in the past centuries continues to be used today, as it does not perish with time. Rather, all that occurs is its exchange in the form of currency or jewellery, or in some other form of manufacturing or re-melting.
2. Gold in all previous times, up to the end of the 19th century, was sufficient for all trade activities as it covered all of the world’s economic needs. Throughout the 19th century, in which economic growth increased to a great level, the world witnessed a great economic increase and a great reduction of prices and increase in wages without any shortages in the quantity of gold currency displayed for use, despite the increased goods and services.
3. Whenever goods and services increase while the quantity of circulating currency remains steady, it enables the currency unit of buying a greater quantity of goods and services. The opposite is also true i.e. if the quantity of goods and services decreases while the quantity of a currency remains steady, the currency unit’s purchasing ability i.e. its ability to buy goods and services decreases. Whatever the case, the circulating currency may be sufficient for currency exchange, no matter how much of it is in circulation.
4. What appears to be a visible shortage of gold is only due to the prevailing global inflation. If the world were to return to the gold standard, gold would no longer be used for trade speculation. Rather, the use of gold would be restricted to trading transactions and economic needs. As a result, stability and discipline would return to currency prices. This is because currency prices and their relation to each other will be determined by gold, thus making all currencies in the world virtually one currency which will lead to the inability of speculation with it and reduce the profits of trading with gold. This will lead to an abundance in gold thereby its shortage will disappear.
Advantages of the Gold Standard
When a state adopts the gold standard, it uses the gold currency in its foreign and domestic transactions. It uses the gold standard, even if it used paper currency as long as the paper currency can be exchanged for gold and this exchange is fixed i.e. a specific unit of paper currency can be exchanged for a specific amount of gold.
This would bring stability to the exchange rates between countries, as gold cannot be manipulated like the fiat currency. This will increase international trade and reduce trade barriers. Businesses which are dependent on imported commodities do not have to fear that these commodities will become too expensive as a result of their currency devaluing. Businesses which export their products do not fear their commodities becoming too expensive for the destined countries as a result of the increase in value of their currency.
It would remove the problem of inflation, as gold is a scarce commodity. The money supply cannot be increased at the will or whim of a government. The prices of goods and services may still increase as a result of gold coming into the state due to a high level of exports. This will lead to economic growth, which would mean more locally produced goods and services being available, which would counterbalance the extra gold coming into the state. As long as the state allows the free circulation of gold (i.e. import and export) then there will be financial and economic stability.
Today, international trade is hindered because of the lack of hard currencies. Many of the currencies are considered too weak and volatile for international trade. Globally, most transactions are carried out in US dollars. However, even in times of war the dollar is not stable, since it is only a fiat currency having no intrinsic value. It is only gold (and silver) that is a truly stable currency. It is only through the bimetallic standard that these barriers to international trade can be removed.
It is only the Islamic State, carrying the ideology of Islam that will adopt such a standard. Moreover, the Shariah has made it an obligation to implement the gold (or silver) standard. When the Islamic State returns it will adopt the gold and silver standard, thus transforming the current international money markets and prevent any single country from imposing its will on the monetary markets.
Our Deen Has Been Perfected
As Muslims, we need to not only inform ourselves but to teach others of this Deen that Allah (swt) has perfected for us since it is not only a mercy for the Muslims but for all of mankind. Allah (swt) says:
“This day, I have perfected your Deen for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your Deen.” [TMQ 5:3]
In Ibn Kathir’s tasfir he explains: “This, indeed, is the biggest favor from Allah to this Ummah, for He has completed their religion for them, and they, thus, do not need any other religion or any other Prophet except Muhammad. This is why Allah made Muhammad the Final Prophet and sent him to all humans and Jinn. Therefore, the permissible is what he allows, the impermissible is what he prohibits, the Law is what he legislates and everything that he conveys is true and authentic and does not contain lies or contradictions.” Therefore, Islam is a complete system and Allah (swt) has provided solutions and guidance for all of man’s problems. Only with Islam which is from the infinite knowledge of The Creator – Al Alim – can man implement a system that will take care of all his affairs in a comprehensive and just manner.
May Allah (swt) allow this Ummah to rise again to the position of honour and dignity that it is destined for and be a light of guidance for all the whole of mankind.
Source
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Food Crisis - The Failure of Capitalist Economics and Global Institutions
The spate of food riots seen across the developing world in recent months lays bare the fragility of globalisation and is an indictment on the World Bank and IMF and their dogmatic free market liberalisation agenda.
Several near term factors have combined to propel the price of grains including increasing food demand in industrialising China and Indian, droughts in Australia and Central Europe and perhaps more insidiously greedy market speculation as traders shift into food commodities and away from beleaguered equities due to the effects of the credit crunch in the West. The increasing use of ever greater amounts of vital land to grow bio-fuels to power apparently more environmentally friendly cars in the West has also contributed to tightening supplies.
World Bank and the IMF chiefs have been quick to absolve responsibility citing many of the above issues as the causes for the food crises. The doubling in grain prices has made vital staple foods inaccessible for the billions living in poverty in the developing world. Furthermore it has plunged millions more into poverty - living on less than a dollar a day, as defined by international economists.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn, IMF managing director, and Robert Zoellick, World Bank president, conveniently did not attribute blame for the troubles on the policies of their corruption ridden and failing institutions, however. The World Bank and the IMF have presided over the development agenda of developing countries for decades yet poverty levels in most "Third World" countries have worsened appreciatively.
This is evidenced by rising numbers in poverty in Africa, South Asia, Middle East and Latin America as recorded in the recently published World Development Report, 2008. Given the food crisis it is apt that the 2008 report focused on using agriculture to aid economic development. However, the report peddled the time-old agenda the World Bank and IMF have pushed for decades: poor economies need to reduce tariffs and taxes on agricultural imports and exports and to liberalise domestic markets. It did not matter to World Bank and IMF economists that these same policies have been unsuccessfully pursued by developing countries as part of structural adjustment programmes for decades. It did not matter to them that past crises in developing countries have resulted from over exposure to global commodities price crashes. It did not matter that rich North America and Western Europe heavily protect their agricultural sectors (note the recent rise in US farm subsides and the EU's continued support for its farmers using the Common Agricultural Policy). It also did not matter that the main direct beneficiaries of liberalisation will be net exporters of grain in the US (which accounts for up to 30% of world wheat exports) and Europe and the western multinational agrochemical corporations like Monsanto and Dupont.
Egypt, where people have been killed in several riots, has pursued the World Bank and IMF agenda in detail and has consequently increased dependency on wheat imports from 44% of total consumption in the 1960s to over 50% according to recently available estimates. Self-sufficiency in food supplies has been spurned even though Egypt has one of the highest per capita wheat consumption levels in the world and the majority of its poor households spend between 70-80% of income on food.
Egyptian economists bred of a diet of IMF and World Bank policies have argued that self-sufficiency is unimportant since access to imports will ensure supplies. However, access is meaningless if the price of vital food supplies is beyond the means of ordinary citizens. What responsible government would leave the feeding its people to be met by imports where false incentives can divert production to bio fuels or to feeding cattle or to price speculation from decedent traders siting in western capitals that see food commodity price inflation as a ‘nice earner'. Food supplies, where self-sufficiency is vital, are not like video recorders or cars where demand if not met by imports will cause a national emergency.
The roots of the current food crisis lie with the failed policies of the World Bank and IMF. Policies designed in Washington and London yet not implemented in the US or Europe - both of whom pursue a policy of food security, and therefore need open overseas markets to sell their overproduction. These policies bring the misery of harsh capitalism to the world's most vulnerable who have no welfare state to fall back on.
The ultimate blame though lies with traitorous degenerate rulers in the Muslim world, like Mubarak, who implement these policies wholesale and oblivious to the harm and despair that is being inflected on the weakest in society - those that a responsible state should be most concerned about. These rulers are the key instruments of the Western governments to guarantee their interests through liberalisation of markets and the suppression of the desire for the end of Western dominance and the reimplementation of Islam. The Islamic Economic system implemented by the Khilafah (Caliphate), with Egypt as a potential province (wilayah), has a number of economic Shariah instruments to address the current crisis. It could use land reforms, in the shape of redistribution of unutilised land, to create a vibrant and competitive domestic agricultural sector with investment from the state in developing and upgrading agricultural infrastructure including research and development in new seed technologies. Egyptian wheat consumption levels justify production at twice current levels. It is interesting to note that in the 1950s Korea and Taiwan (two thriving former ‘tiger' economies) built their growth paths on land reforms and rural investment that created an improvement income distribution from agricultural growth.
Source
Several near term factors have combined to propel the price of grains including increasing food demand in industrialising China and Indian, droughts in Australia and Central Europe and perhaps more insidiously greedy market speculation as traders shift into food commodities and away from beleaguered equities due to the effects of the credit crunch in the West. The increasing use of ever greater amounts of vital land to grow bio-fuels to power apparently more environmentally friendly cars in the West has also contributed to tightening supplies.
World Bank and the IMF chiefs have been quick to absolve responsibility citing many of the above issues as the causes for the food crises. The doubling in grain prices has made vital staple foods inaccessible for the billions living in poverty in the developing world. Furthermore it has plunged millions more into poverty - living on less than a dollar a day, as defined by international economists.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn, IMF managing director, and Robert Zoellick, World Bank president, conveniently did not attribute blame for the troubles on the policies of their corruption ridden and failing institutions, however. The World Bank and the IMF have presided over the development agenda of developing countries for decades yet poverty levels in most "Third World" countries have worsened appreciatively.
This is evidenced by rising numbers in poverty in Africa, South Asia, Middle East and Latin America as recorded in the recently published World Development Report, 2008. Given the food crisis it is apt that the 2008 report focused on using agriculture to aid economic development. However, the report peddled the time-old agenda the World Bank and IMF have pushed for decades: poor economies need to reduce tariffs and taxes on agricultural imports and exports and to liberalise domestic markets. It did not matter to World Bank and IMF economists that these same policies have been unsuccessfully pursued by developing countries as part of structural adjustment programmes for decades. It did not matter to them that past crises in developing countries have resulted from over exposure to global commodities price crashes. It did not matter that rich North America and Western Europe heavily protect their agricultural sectors (note the recent rise in US farm subsides and the EU's continued support for its farmers using the Common Agricultural Policy). It also did not matter that the main direct beneficiaries of liberalisation will be net exporters of grain in the US (which accounts for up to 30% of world wheat exports) and Europe and the western multinational agrochemical corporations like Monsanto and Dupont.
Egypt, where people have been killed in several riots, has pursued the World Bank and IMF agenda in detail and has consequently increased dependency on wheat imports from 44% of total consumption in the 1960s to over 50% according to recently available estimates. Self-sufficiency in food supplies has been spurned even though Egypt has one of the highest per capita wheat consumption levels in the world and the majority of its poor households spend between 70-80% of income on food.
Egyptian economists bred of a diet of IMF and World Bank policies have argued that self-sufficiency is unimportant since access to imports will ensure supplies. However, access is meaningless if the price of vital food supplies is beyond the means of ordinary citizens. What responsible government would leave the feeding its people to be met by imports where false incentives can divert production to bio fuels or to feeding cattle or to price speculation from decedent traders siting in western capitals that see food commodity price inflation as a ‘nice earner'. Food supplies, where self-sufficiency is vital, are not like video recorders or cars where demand if not met by imports will cause a national emergency.
The roots of the current food crisis lie with the failed policies of the World Bank and IMF. Policies designed in Washington and London yet not implemented in the US or Europe - both of whom pursue a policy of food security, and therefore need open overseas markets to sell their overproduction. These policies bring the misery of harsh capitalism to the world's most vulnerable who have no welfare state to fall back on.
The ultimate blame though lies with traitorous degenerate rulers in the Muslim world, like Mubarak, who implement these policies wholesale and oblivious to the harm and despair that is being inflected on the weakest in society - those that a responsible state should be most concerned about. These rulers are the key instruments of the Western governments to guarantee their interests through liberalisation of markets and the suppression of the desire for the end of Western dominance and the reimplementation of Islam. The Islamic Economic system implemented by the Khilafah (Caliphate), with Egypt as a potential province (wilayah), has a number of economic Shariah instruments to address the current crisis. It could use land reforms, in the shape of redistribution of unutilised land, to create a vibrant and competitive domestic agricultural sector with investment from the state in developing and upgrading agricultural infrastructure including research and development in new seed technologies. Egyptian wheat consumption levels justify production at twice current levels. It is interesting to note that in the 1950s Korea and Taiwan (two thriving former ‘tiger' economies) built their growth paths on land reforms and rural investment that created an improvement income distribution from agricultural growth.
Source
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
The Bully Gasps As He Drowns
In the Name of Allah, The most Beneficent, The most Merciful
Changing World Scenarios – Their Effects & The Blame Game
Mr. Bush, the Indians and Chinese are not just eating-up the corn and the meat of the earth; they are sipping-up precious potable water; inhaling precious oxygen and guzzling the oil of the earth too. In fitness of things, you must ban the export of your nuclear submarines and bombers to them. Alternatively, you could kill half of them or even bomb half of their industry so that development is stalled! They should be taught to live frugally!
Mr. President, how far do you agree with me? Your development, progress and prosperity for the past more than a century was good for the world, but the recent prosperity of India and China have caused all the troubles of the earth. The two culprits are responsible for your diving Dollar, the sub-prime collapse, the crash of your stock markets, the run in your credit-card market, the cave in of your banks and businesses – all this because of them. They took you to Afghanistan and Iraq for war. And yes, even the Hurricane Katrina, bursting of water pipes in Washington and wild fires are because of India and China.
Your lieutenant Ms. Rice and EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel are right, the diversion of corn & wheat for making biofuel is not the culprit for the food riots in the world. It’s the teaming millions in India and China who have begun to eat and have forsaken their habits of starvation, which has caused this scarcity. If only they had continued to remain under-nourished and in malnutrition, the world would have been a better place.
Mr. President, if I read your mind correctly – global warming, greenhouse gases, earthquakes and tsunamis can all be contained if ‘Capitalism’ is followed in true letter and sprit. The stupid Indians and Chinese mistook the word ‘freedom’ to mean that they too can become rich. Indians made mockery of ‘Democratic systems’ like ‘liberty & secularism’ and Chinese are not democratic at all. The ‘democratic system’ we put in place in Iraq and Afghanistan need to be emulated by both. If only Indians and Chinese were to become noble souls like Americans, earth would be a paradise. Terrorism is unleashed on this planet because the middle-class Indians and Chinese are becoming prosperous.
Living in a fool’s paradise, Indians and Chinese don’t realize that World Trade Organisation (WTO), Global Agreement on Trades and Tariffs (GATT), Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), Genetically Modified (GM) Foods, Agricultural Subsidies – Globalisation in all its pristine forms is the real benefactor. Despite all this, food riots are caused because of the prosperity of India and China.
Mr. President, unfortunately now more Americans have to travel by public transport because the rising oil prices are siphoning their wallets. One wonders if the saying, ‘Those who live by the sword die by the sword’ is coming true for you - the Big-Bully. After repeated rebuffs from Iran, cold-shoulders from allies, snubs by India on the nuclear issue and the Iranian President visit – you and your America are clearly sinking. Gasping for breath, the gurgle is amusing to the ears of the world.
The icing on the cake is the coming of the Caliphate. Muslims the world over are inching to their goal – a borderless Islamic State with a Caliph at the helm. Your failed systems must give way to the tried and tested ways of Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) and his lieutenants. It does not need a ghost called Al-Qaeda to topple you; for you are your own enemy.
Abu Farhaan
Changing World Scenarios – Their Effects & The Blame Game
Mr. Bush, the Indians and Chinese are not just eating-up the corn and the meat of the earth; they are sipping-up precious potable water; inhaling precious oxygen and guzzling the oil of the earth too. In fitness of things, you must ban the export of your nuclear submarines and bombers to them. Alternatively, you could kill half of them or even bomb half of their industry so that development is stalled! They should be taught to live frugally!
Mr. President, how far do you agree with me? Your development, progress and prosperity for the past more than a century was good for the world, but the recent prosperity of India and China have caused all the troubles of the earth. The two culprits are responsible for your diving Dollar, the sub-prime collapse, the crash of your stock markets, the run in your credit-card market, the cave in of your banks and businesses – all this because of them. They took you to Afghanistan and Iraq for war. And yes, even the Hurricane Katrina, bursting of water pipes in Washington and wild fires are because of India and China.
Your lieutenant Ms. Rice and EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel are right, the diversion of corn & wheat for making biofuel is not the culprit for the food riots in the world. It’s the teaming millions in India and China who have begun to eat and have forsaken their habits of starvation, which has caused this scarcity. If only they had continued to remain under-nourished and in malnutrition, the world would have been a better place.
Mr. President, if I read your mind correctly – global warming, greenhouse gases, earthquakes and tsunamis can all be contained if ‘Capitalism’ is followed in true letter and sprit. The stupid Indians and Chinese mistook the word ‘freedom’ to mean that they too can become rich. Indians made mockery of ‘Democratic systems’ like ‘liberty & secularism’ and Chinese are not democratic at all. The ‘democratic system’ we put in place in Iraq and Afghanistan need to be emulated by both. If only Indians and Chinese were to become noble souls like Americans, earth would be a paradise. Terrorism is unleashed on this planet because the middle-class Indians and Chinese are becoming prosperous.
Living in a fool’s paradise, Indians and Chinese don’t realize that World Trade Organisation (WTO), Global Agreement on Trades and Tariffs (GATT), Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), Genetically Modified (GM) Foods, Agricultural Subsidies – Globalisation in all its pristine forms is the real benefactor. Despite all this, food riots are caused because of the prosperity of India and China.
Mr. President, unfortunately now more Americans have to travel by public transport because the rising oil prices are siphoning their wallets. One wonders if the saying, ‘Those who live by the sword die by the sword’ is coming true for you - the Big-Bully. After repeated rebuffs from Iran, cold-shoulders from allies, snubs by India on the nuclear issue and the Iranian President visit – you and your America are clearly sinking. Gasping for breath, the gurgle is amusing to the ears of the world.
The icing on the cake is the coming of the Caliphate. Muslims the world over are inching to their goal – a borderless Islamic State with a Caliph at the helm. Your failed systems must give way to the tried and tested ways of Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) and his lieutenants. It does not need a ghost called Al-Qaeda to topple you; for you are your own enemy.
Abu Farhaan
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Clarifying the meaning of Jihad
‘Jihad’ is extracted from the source, ‘Jaahada’ and it measured upon the fourth verb structure, which means interaction between two sides, al-Mufa’ala. Another example is ‘Al-Khisaam’ which means to quarrel and is extracted from its roots source – Khaasama. Also, there is the example of ‘Jidaal’, which means to discuss or to argue and is taken from the root source ‘Jaadala’.
In the tongue of the Arabs, al-Jihad means, ‘exerting ability and effort to do an action or express opinions’.
In Al-Munjid, the words Jaahada, Mujaahada and Jihadan means, ‘exerting effort and ability to push the other away’. In the Tafseer of al-Naysaboori it is clearly stated that ‘al-Jihad’ means to exert effort to achieve the objective or what is intended.
After all of these related definitions of the word ‘al-Jihad’ in the language, it is possible to give a clear linguistic definition, which is: ‘al-Jihad is the exerting of all effort and ability between two sides by the least.’
Based on the linguistic definition, the exerted effort could be via material weapons or without a weapon, with money or without money. Also it could be the struggle between two opposing desires exerting effort (Jihad) to overcome the other. It could also be by words and could be by refusing to do an action or to speak. An example of this is like the one who disobeys his parents when they order him to disobey Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) and the person becomes patient and perseveres when his parents insist in ordering him. And it is like the one who abstains from committing a haram desire when his nafs calls him to it. This is what is mentioned in Hashiyat Al-Jamal in al-Jalalayn: “Jihad is to have patience on difficulties. It could be during war and it could be inside the nafs.”
Based on this linguistic definition, the opponent that the Muslim engages Jihad against could be his own nafs, or the shaiytan, or the transgressor or the kuffar. Additionally, by this definition, Jihad could also be that which is in the way of Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) ‘Fi Sabeel Lillah’’. So the Jihad could be undertaken to please Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) or to please the shaiytan, like the Jihad of the Kuffar against others. Al-Naysaboori, wrote, “It is exerting effort to achieve the objective or what is intended regardless of the nature of the objective intended by the one who is exerting the effort.” The Quran used the word ‘Jihad’ in describing the activity of the kaafir fathers to make their believing children reject true belief. Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) says:
وَإِن جَاهَدَاكَ عَلى أَن تُشْرِكَ بِي مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ فَلَا تُطِعْهُمَا
“If they do Jihad to make commit association with me…do not obey them” (tmq Surah Luqman 31:15)
In the Shariyah, the word ‘al-Jihad’ was transferred from the general linguistic meaning to a special confined (restricted) meaning in the Quran and the Sunnah. It is, “the exerting of the effort to fight in the Way of Allah directly or by financial aid, or opinion and the like” This special meaning of Jihad was given in Medina. In Mecca, the legislation concerning Jihad was not revealed and that is why the subject of Jihad in the Mecci surahs carries the general linguistic meaning. They are the three verses (ayaat) in Surah al-Ainkaboot:
وَمَن جَاهَدَ فَإِنَّمَا يُجَاهِدُ لِنَفْسِهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَغَنِيٌّ عَنِ الْعَالَمِين
“And if any struggle ‘Jaahid’ (with might and main), they do so for their own souls: for Allah is free of all needs from all creation.” (tmq 29:6)
وَإِن جَاهَدَاكَ لِتُشْرِكَ بِي مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ فَلَا تُطِعْهُمَا إِلَيَّ مَرْجِعُكُمْ فَأُنَبِّئُكُم بِمَا كُنتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ
“But if they (either of them) struggle ‘Jaahada’ (to force) you to join with Me (in worship) anything of which you have no knowledge, obey them not. You have (all) to return to me, and I will tell you (the truth) of all that ye did.” (tmq 29:8)
وَالَّذِينَ جَاهَدُوا فِينَا لَنَهْدِيَنَّهُمْ سُبُلَنَا وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ لَمَعَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ
“And those who strive in Our cause ‘Jaahadu’- We will certainly guide them to our Paths: For verily Allah is with those who do right.” (tmq 29:69)
Also in surah Luqman verse 15, the word Jihad is used in the linguistic context. Regarding the verse in surah Al-Nahl talking about Jihad, it mentioned ‘al-Hijra’, which means that this is a Madani verse in a Mecci surah (chapter) – and this was mentioned by the al-Mufasiroon. The verse is:
ثُمَّ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ لِلَّذِينَ هَاجَرُواْ مِن بَعْدِ مَا فُتِنُواْ ثُمَّ جَاهَدُواْ وَصَبَرُواْ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ مِن بَعْدِهَا لَغَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
“But verily Your Lord- those who leave their homes after trials and persecutions,- and who thereafter struggle ‘Jaahadu’ and fight for the faith and patiently persevere,- Your Lord, after all this is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful”. (tmq 16:110)
The subject of Jihad in Medina occurs 26 (twenty-six) times and the majority of them carry the clear meaning of Fighting, ‘Qitaal’. From these verses are:
لاَّ يَسْتَوِي الْقَاعِدُونَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ غَيْرُ أُوْلِي الضَّرَرِ وَالْمُجَاهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ فَضَّلَ اللّهُ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ عَلَى الْقَاعِدِينَ دَرَجَةً وَكُـلاًّ وَعَدَ اللّهُ الْحُسْنَى وَفَضَّلَ اللّهُ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ عَلَى الْقَاعِدِينَ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا
“Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah has granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). To all (in Faith) has Allah promised good. But those who strive and fight has He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.” (tmq 4:95)
It is clear in this verse that al-Jihad is in the meaning of going out to fight and that it is better than staying at home. Also from the verses about Jihad in surah Al-Tawba:
انْفِرُواْ خِفَافًا وَثِقَالاً وَجَاهِدُواْ بِأَمْوَالِكُمْ وَأَنفُسِكُمْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ ذَلِكُمْ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ
“Go forth, (whether equipped) lightly or heavily, and strive and struggle, with your goods and your persons, in the cause of Allah. That is best for you, if you (but) knew.” (tmq 9:41)
The order of ‘Nafr’ (going out) means that Jihad is fighting.
لَـكِنِ الرَّسُولُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ مَعَهُ جَاهَدُواْ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ وَأُوْلَـئِكَ لَهُمُ الْخَيْرَاتُ وَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ
“But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.” (tmq 9:88)
Also in surah Al-Saf, after mentioning fighting (Jihad) at the beginning, Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) says:
إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِهِ صَفًّا كَأَنَّهُم بُنيَانٌ مَّرْصُوصٌ
“Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure.” (tmq 61:4)
It is clear in the Madani verses that the subject of Jihad is specifically related to fighting and what fighting entails naturally from finance, weapons and the like. Also these verses demonstrate aspects of the conditions that precede the action of fighting and are conditional for its legality i.e. propagating the invitation for non-Muslims to embrace Islam (as this is the original condition for fighting as has been mentioned in ‘Mughni al-Muhtaj) and/or accept the Islamic authority over them. From the Sunnah of Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam), Jihad has been mentioned also with this shariyah meaning i.e. fighting and what it entails.
On the authority of Abi Hurayrah, who said: “People asked, “Oh Rasoolallah, tell us about an action that is equal to the Jihad fi Sabeel Lillah?” Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) replied, “You will not find it bearable.” They replied, “Tell us oh Rasoolallah, maybe we can be able to withstand it.” Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “The example of a mujahid Fi Sabeel Lillah is like the fasting man, the one who stays up at its night and prays and the one who is obedient to the verses of Allah, does not get tired of fasting, nor stops sadaqah until the mujahid returns back to his family.”
It is clear from the wording of the hadith that the question was about the mujahid with the meaning of the fighter in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) specifically. The answer also indicated the same meaning when Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “Until the mujahid returns back to his family” i.e. returns back from the fighting. Also by the authority of Jaabir, that the people asked Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam), “Which Jihad is better?” He (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “The one in which one’s horse is wounded and one’s blood is split in it.” On the authority of ibn Abbas, he said that Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “When your brothers were killed in the battle of Uhud, Allah put their souls inside green birds that wonder inside Jannah landing on the rivers of Jannah and eats from its fruits. When they see how they spend their time and they look at their food and drink and how great it was, they say, ‘How we wish that our people know about how Allah rewarded us, so that they may love Jihad and not refrain from it.’ So then Allah says to them that, ‘I will tell you people and your brothers on your behalf.’ So they became happy with that news.” Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) sent this in surah Al-Imran on the occasion of the Battle of Uhud:
وَلاَ تَحْسَبَنَّ الَّذِينَ قُتِلُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ أَمْوَاتًا بَلْ أَحْيَاء عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ يُرْزَقُونَ
“Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord.” (tmq 3:169)
From all of these shariyah texts, it is clear that the Legislator transferred the word Jihad from its general linguistic meaning to a special meaning, which is ‘al-Qitaal’ (fighting) and whatever is linked to it directly and indirectly, as has been mentioned earlier. Moreover, it relates to the words, which carry the same meaning of al-Jihad like war. From this we can see that the shariyah texts defined Jihad as fighting (qitaal) in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) and this can be found in the books of fiqh, which dealt with the shariyah meaning of Jihad and laws related to it.
In Badi’ul Sanai’ of the Hanafi Mazhab, it states the following: “Jihad in the language is exerting effort. In the understanding of the Shara, it is exerting effort and energy in fighting fi sabeel lillah by nafs, finance, tongue or another.”
In Manhul Jaleel of the Maliki Mazhab, al-Jihad is defined as the, “fighting by a Muslim against a kaafir (who does not have a treaty with the Muslims) to make the word of Allah the highest…. or for a Muslim to arrive to do Jihad or to enter the Kaafir’s land for fighting.” Ibn Arafa defined this.
According to the Shafi Mazhab in Al-Iqna, Jihad is fighting ‘Fi Sabeel Lillah’. Al-Shirazi in Al-Muhazab said that Jihad is ‘qitaal’.
In Al-Mughni according to the Hanbali Mazhab, Ibn Qudama did not give any other definition. In the section ‘kitab ul-Jihad’ whatever is related to war, whether it was fard ul-kifaya (collective obligation) or fard ul-ayn (individual obligation) or whether it was in the form of guarding the believers from the enemy and the guards ‘ribat’ at the borders, all of this is connected to Jihad. He also said, “If the enemy arrives, Jihad becomes fard ul-ayn on the murabitoon (border guards). If it becomes evident that the enemy arrived, then they do not leave to meet them except by an order of the Ameer, since the Ameer is the one who has the authority for issuing orders in the matters of war.”
So it is clear that the meaning of Jihad was transferred from the linguistic to the shariyah meaning, such that it was understood to mean fighting and nothing else. Such purity and clarity over its meaning today is clearly vague, from what is heard from the lips of rulers over the Islamic lands and even amongst the Muslim ummah itself, as a result of the dominance and pollution of western political thought and reeling from a defeatist mentality that seeks to be apologetic.
So what emerged and dominated the opinion were those who sincerely but incorrectly took Jihad as the rule for all matters whilst others reduced Jihad as a matter connected to defending the ‘nafs’ and identity i.e. defensive fighting as opposed to offensive fighting. Others went further to say that Jihad is of the ‘nafs’ and overcoming desires only, calling it the ‘Great Jihad’, further saying that it is better than the small Jihad which is ‘qitaal’ (fighting). Such are those that have become lazy and feeble, with their hearts filled with the fear of the enemy.
So the protection of the Deen, hatred of the Kuffar and the love of Jihad has become replaced with the protection of the nation-state (nationalism), pleasing the colonialists and the love of excessive material gain. Since these incorrect concepts have become common between Muslims and the clear definition of Jihad is absent from the minds, the incentive and love to do Jihad, for many, has died (though the increased hostility and aggression of the western nations in the Islamic lands has served to re-kindle the correct desire).
It is, therefore, naturally important to clarify this matter such that the Muslims are able to refute the erroneous misunderstandings that exist, refute false claims and rekindle the love of Jihad.
Greater/Smaller Jihad
Firstly, the common understanding of Muslims is that Jihad is divided into two sections: Jihad ul-Akbar (the ‘Greater Jihad’), which is connected to Jihad ul-Nafs i.e. fighting the inner desires and shaiytan etc… Jihad ul-Asghar (the ‘Smaller Jihad’), which is fighting the kaafir enemy in battles and what is related to it.
Of the evidences that are quoted from the Islamic texts, the main one is the hadith, where Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: “We have arrived from the small Jihad to the great Jihad”. So they asked, “What is the great Jihad?” He (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) replied, “It is Jihad ul-Nafs (against the inner self).”
In another narration, Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) referred to the“…Jihad of the slave against his desires.”
Though it is correct that there is a Jihad against the nafs, like against shaiytan, however, it is not greater in the sight of Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) from the physical Jihad against the Kuffar and it (Jihad ul-Nafs) does not cancel nor invalidate it.
This Jihad against the Kaafir enemies is continuous until the Day of Judgment as is the Jihad against the nafs also continuous until the Day of Judgement. But one should know that the evidences of doing Jihad against the nafs are different to the evidences of Jihad against the Kuffar.
Each has a situation different from the other (context) and it is not permitted to mix the two or to use the evidence of one for the other or to change one in place of the other. Rather there is a need for each, but in its correct context and each of them is a responsibility when put in their correct contexts.
This is why saying that ‘Jihad ul-nafs’ is better and greater in the sight of Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) is both very dangerous and an outright mistake, which contradicts the understanding of Jihad in the Way of Allah.
It is invalid from many angles:
1. Jihad has two meanings as mentioned previously, a linguistic and a shariyah meaning. Jihad of the nafs comes under the linguistic meaning and not the shariyah meaning. 2. The evidences used to say that Jihad ul-nafs is greater than Jihad against the Kuffar cannot be used to prove this and this is clear from the reality of the evidences that are used. This is because,
a. The hadith is ‘mardood riwayatan’
b. The hadith is ‘mardood dirayatan’
With regards to its invalidation from narration that is because the hadith is weak ‘Da’eef’ as is clarified in Al-Ajmi Al-Saghir by Imam Suyuti. As for its invalidation by meaning that is because it is contradicting definite text, which makes Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah obligatory and makes it the greatest of action.
This can be seen from three aspects:
a. The verses that mention the value of the Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah and that it is from the best actions like the verse:
لاَّ يَسْتَوِي الْقَاعِدُونَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ غَيْرُ أُوْلِي الضَّرَرِ وَالْمُجَاهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ فَضَّلَ اللّهُ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ عَلَى الْقَاعِدِينَ دَرَجَةً وَكُـلاًّ وَعَدَ اللّهُ الْحُسْنَى وَفَضَّلَ اللّهُ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ عَلَى الْقَاعِدِينَ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا
“Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah has granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). To all (in Faith) has Allah promised good. But those who strive and fight has He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.” (tmq 4:95)
b. The verses that praise Jihad and the Mujahideen Fi Sabeel Lillah like the verse,
لَـكِنِ الرَّسُولُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ مَعَهُ جَاهَدُواْ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ وَأُوْلَـئِكَ لَهُمُ الْخَيْرَاتُ وَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ
“But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.” (tmq 9:88)
إِنَّ اللّهَ اشْتَرَى مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَنفُسَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُم بِأَنَّ لَهُمُ الجَنَّةَ يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ فَيَقْتُلُونَ وَيُقْتَلُونَ وَعْدًا عَلَيْهِ حَقًّا فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالإِنجِيلِ وَالْقُرْآنِ وَمَنْ أَوْفَى بِعَهْدِهِ مِنَ اللّهِ فَاسْتَبْشِرُواْ بِبَيْعِكُمُ الَّذِي بَايَعْتُم بِهِ وَذَلِكَ هُوَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ
“Allah has purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.” (tmq 9:111)
c. The verses that condemn and promises punishment to those who do not participate in Jihad, the ones left behind and the lazy neglectful ones,
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ مَا لَكُمْ إِذَا قِيلَ لَكُمُ انفِرُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ اثَّاقَلْتُمْ إِلَى الأَرْضِ أَرَضِيتُم بِالْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا مِنَ الآخِرَةِ فَمَا مَتَاعُ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا فِي الآخِرَةِ إِلاَّ قَلِيلٌ
“O you who believe! What is the matter with you, that, when you are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, you cling heavily to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter.” (tmq 9:38)
In addition to this are the sayings of Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) that the best action to Allah is Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah and the fighting (qitaal) against the Kuffar: From the many narrations, Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, ”Taking a journey in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) is better than the duniya and what is in it.”
“Those who guard (the borders) for one day in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) is better than the duniya and what is in it.” ”If anyone takes a position in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) it is better than his prayer ‘salah’ in his house for 70 years. Don’t you want Allah to forgive you your sins and enter you in the Jannah? Invade, in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah).”
Therefore what has been mentioned in the text shows clearly that Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah is one of the best actions and of the highest degree, which is clearly shown by the shariyah indicators, ‘Qarain’, that connect praise, condemnation, reward and punishment to expose the fact that Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah is greater and better than Jihad against the nafs. This is why the hadith is invalid in meaning ‘dirayatan’ because it contradicts the definite texts and therefore it is invalid ‘baatil’ to use as an evidence (i.e. to show that Jihad ul-nafs is a greater action).
Is Jihad is defensive only?
As for the opinion that Jihad in Islam is defensive and not offensive by using the evidence (and similar evidences):
وَإِنْ جَنَحُوا لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ
“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do you (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that Hears and Knows (all things)” (tmq 8:61)
وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ
“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors.” (tmq 2:190)
This is also incorrect and invalid for its application upon this matter is incorrect for the following reasons:
1. The evidences of Jihad are general ‘mutlaq’ evidences and include all offensive and defensive actions e.g. waging warm to pre-empt an attack, to protect the borders, killing on the battlefield. To restrict or specify the evidences only to defensive and not offensive Jihad, requires a textual evidence to show that the Jihad is restricted to defensive Jihad only. And there is no such text in the Quran or the Sunnah that restricts or specifies this. Therefore, the evidences regarding Jihad remain general and to be used for all types of war and all types of fighting with the enemy. So it is invalid (baatil) to use the verse,
وَإِن جَنَحُواْ لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا
“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do you…” (tmq 8:61), to show that Jihad is only defensive.
That is also the case with the rest of the evidences that are used by proponents of this erroneous understanding. This and similar verses cannot be used to specify or restrict the generality of the verses in surah al-Tawba because they were the last verses revealed regarding Jihad and what came prior to these verses regarding Jihad does not specify the verses which were revealed after them or came afterwards. And the verse does not restrict the latter revealed verses either. There has to be a text present to restrict or specify the general verse and they also must be revealed after the initial, which are general or mutlaq or even they (i.e. those verses which are restricted or specific) should be mentioned together with the general verses so that the two situations can be shown (i.e. to show the different situations upon which they apply). So Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) says: وَإِن جَنَحُواْ لِلسَّلْمِ , which is regarding the time of the peace. And He (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) says,
قَاتِلُواْ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّهِ وَلاَ بِالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَلاَ يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلاَ يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَابَ حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”, (tmq 9:29) which is at the time of war and fighting.
So peace and fighting are two situations, which remain un-abrogated, i.e. neither abrogates the other.
2. In addition to this, the saying and actions of Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) show that Jihad definitely is to start (offensive) fighting the kuffar to make the Words of Allah the highest and to propagate (da’wa) the call of Islam. Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said,
“I have been ordered to fight the people until they bear witness that, ‘there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger’ and they establish the prayer and the zakat. And if they do this, then from me is protected their blood and their wealth except by the right granted by Allah.”
As for his (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) actions, they are full of actions that show Jihad is to start the fighting. So when he went out to Badr to take the caravan belonging to the Quraysh, this was going out to fight, this is offensive – as Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) initiated the action before the Quraysh.
Likewise, when Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) invaded Hawazin in the battle of Hunayn, when he (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) seiged Ta’if and the battle of Mutah to fight the Romans and the Battle of Tabuk – all of these are evidences to show that Jihad is to start fighting kuffar (offensive). This should clarify the erroneous view that in origin Jihad is defensive.
3. From Ijma as-Sahabah, it is clear that Jihad is fighting Fi Sabeel Lillah to carry Islam and that it is offensive. The evidence, which is sufficient to explain this, is the opening of Iraq, Persia, Sham, Egypt and North Africa. They were all opened at the time of the Sahabah with their Ijma’ (consensus). Therefore, all what we mentioned are sufficient evidences to refute the claim that Jihad is defensive.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Muslims should gain the confidence to present the reality of Jihad to our ummah and raise the level of thinking on this issue such that the Muslims become clearer about its meaning, obligation, gain an increased love for it and importantly, understand the contexts in which it exists and is applied.
The Islamic Ummah, served with the responsibility to present and guard Islam should not allow the rulers over the Islamic lands to pollute the meaning of Jihad and remove its love from the hearts of the believers. Indeed, the Islamic Ummah should not allow these rulers to commit the greater crime to rule over her by other than Islam and dilute the purity of the whole of Islam with their shamelessness, implementation of kufr and humiliating subservience to a part of the creation i.e. their colonial masters, instead of their subservience to the Creator and Master of all that is seen and unseen, Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala).
As for the interaction with the non-Muslims, it is important that the Muslims have the clarity and strength to tackle the malicious, incorrect and hateful propaganda that is focussed on Jihad that is presented as barbaric against peaceful people with the objective to force them to embrace Islam by compulsion and the sword.
The Islamic ummah should tackle this from two perspectives.
Firstly, the Muslims should expose the violent, barbaric and inhumane foreign policy of the ‘civilised’ colonial powers that have destroyed nations, states and people; left millions to starve for the sake of securing capitalist interests, appointed and protected oppressive regimes that suppress the will of their people; plundered resources of the lesser developed and invade lands with brute force, terrorising the local civilian people with indiscriminate policies of killing, imprisonment, rape, ‘carpet bombing’; razing whole villages and towns into the ground; and forcing the people to adopt their life-styles, values and political structures. What right do such people have after witnessing the implementation of such a wicked and brutal foreign policy with their own eyes – in South America, Africa, Palestine, Afghanistan and more recently in Iraq, from the various credible news sources – to even begin laying a criticism against Jihad.
Non-Muslims need to see the reality of their own governments and not be blinded the hysterical and deceitful propaganda that increasingly is aimed at Islam and its values.
Secondly, Muslims should demonstrate some of the rules that surround Jihad and state that offensively carrying the struggle against non-Islam does not permit Muslims to compel the local people to embrace Islam. This is because Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) does not allow compulsion:
لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ
"There is no compulsion in deen" (tmq)
Likewise Islam does not allow the exploitation, plundering, razing and desecration of places of worship, people’s homes and honour – when Jihad is carried offensively. Rather Jihad is carried offensively to cleanse the earth from the kufr, with the implementation of Islam as a system thus liberating man from the rule of man. The history of the Islamic conquests, the presence of Christians and Jews, who lived in security and prosperity under the Islamic State and the safe-haven that the Islamic authority provided for people savaged by the forefathers of the modern colonialists is sufficient proof for this.
On the horizon, as the struggle between Iman and kufr increases day by day – it is imperative for the Muslims to hold to the truth of Islam, its rules and not permit the dilution of its intellectual wealth – a wealth which soon will transform the darkness of colonial rule to the mercy and shade of the Islamic authority, Al-Khilafah, by Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala's) permission.
Source
In the tongue of the Arabs, al-Jihad means, ‘exerting ability and effort to do an action or express opinions’.
In Al-Munjid, the words Jaahada, Mujaahada and Jihadan means, ‘exerting effort and ability to push the other away’. In the Tafseer of al-Naysaboori it is clearly stated that ‘al-Jihad’ means to exert effort to achieve the objective or what is intended.
After all of these related definitions of the word ‘al-Jihad’ in the language, it is possible to give a clear linguistic definition, which is: ‘al-Jihad is the exerting of all effort and ability between two sides by the least.’
Based on the linguistic definition, the exerted effort could be via material weapons or without a weapon, with money or without money. Also it could be the struggle between two opposing desires exerting effort (Jihad) to overcome the other. It could also be by words and could be by refusing to do an action or to speak. An example of this is like the one who disobeys his parents when they order him to disobey Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) and the person becomes patient and perseveres when his parents insist in ordering him. And it is like the one who abstains from committing a haram desire when his nafs calls him to it. This is what is mentioned in Hashiyat Al-Jamal in al-Jalalayn: “Jihad is to have patience on difficulties. It could be during war and it could be inside the nafs.”
Based on this linguistic definition, the opponent that the Muslim engages Jihad against could be his own nafs, or the shaiytan, or the transgressor or the kuffar. Additionally, by this definition, Jihad could also be that which is in the way of Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) ‘Fi Sabeel Lillah’’. So the Jihad could be undertaken to please Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) or to please the shaiytan, like the Jihad of the Kuffar against others. Al-Naysaboori, wrote, “It is exerting effort to achieve the objective or what is intended regardless of the nature of the objective intended by the one who is exerting the effort.” The Quran used the word ‘Jihad’ in describing the activity of the kaafir fathers to make their believing children reject true belief. Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) says:
وَإِن جَاهَدَاكَ عَلى أَن تُشْرِكَ بِي مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ فَلَا تُطِعْهُمَا
“If they do Jihad to make commit association with me…do not obey them” (tmq Surah Luqman 31:15)
In the Shariyah, the word ‘al-Jihad’ was transferred from the general linguistic meaning to a special confined (restricted) meaning in the Quran and the Sunnah. It is, “the exerting of the effort to fight in the Way of Allah directly or by financial aid, or opinion and the like” This special meaning of Jihad was given in Medina. In Mecca, the legislation concerning Jihad was not revealed and that is why the subject of Jihad in the Mecci surahs carries the general linguistic meaning. They are the three verses (ayaat) in Surah al-Ainkaboot:
وَمَن جَاهَدَ فَإِنَّمَا يُجَاهِدُ لِنَفْسِهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَغَنِيٌّ عَنِ الْعَالَمِين
“And if any struggle ‘Jaahid’ (with might and main), they do so for their own souls: for Allah is free of all needs from all creation.” (tmq 29:6)
وَإِن جَاهَدَاكَ لِتُشْرِكَ بِي مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ فَلَا تُطِعْهُمَا إِلَيَّ مَرْجِعُكُمْ فَأُنَبِّئُكُم بِمَا كُنتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ
“But if they (either of them) struggle ‘Jaahada’ (to force) you to join with Me (in worship) anything of which you have no knowledge, obey them not. You have (all) to return to me, and I will tell you (the truth) of all that ye did.” (tmq 29:8)
وَالَّذِينَ جَاهَدُوا فِينَا لَنَهْدِيَنَّهُمْ سُبُلَنَا وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ لَمَعَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ
“And those who strive in Our cause ‘Jaahadu’- We will certainly guide them to our Paths: For verily Allah is with those who do right.” (tmq 29:69)
Also in surah Luqman verse 15, the word Jihad is used in the linguistic context. Regarding the verse in surah Al-Nahl talking about Jihad, it mentioned ‘al-Hijra’, which means that this is a Madani verse in a Mecci surah (chapter) – and this was mentioned by the al-Mufasiroon. The verse is:
ثُمَّ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ لِلَّذِينَ هَاجَرُواْ مِن بَعْدِ مَا فُتِنُواْ ثُمَّ جَاهَدُواْ وَصَبَرُواْ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ مِن بَعْدِهَا لَغَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
“But verily Your Lord- those who leave their homes after trials and persecutions,- and who thereafter struggle ‘Jaahadu’ and fight for the faith and patiently persevere,- Your Lord, after all this is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful”. (tmq 16:110)
The subject of Jihad in Medina occurs 26 (twenty-six) times and the majority of them carry the clear meaning of Fighting, ‘Qitaal’. From these verses are:
لاَّ يَسْتَوِي الْقَاعِدُونَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ غَيْرُ أُوْلِي الضَّرَرِ وَالْمُجَاهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ فَضَّلَ اللّهُ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ عَلَى الْقَاعِدِينَ دَرَجَةً وَكُـلاًّ وَعَدَ اللّهُ الْحُسْنَى وَفَضَّلَ اللّهُ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ عَلَى الْقَاعِدِينَ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا
“Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah has granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). To all (in Faith) has Allah promised good. But those who strive and fight has He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.” (tmq 4:95)
It is clear in this verse that al-Jihad is in the meaning of going out to fight and that it is better than staying at home. Also from the verses about Jihad in surah Al-Tawba:
انْفِرُواْ خِفَافًا وَثِقَالاً وَجَاهِدُواْ بِأَمْوَالِكُمْ وَأَنفُسِكُمْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ ذَلِكُمْ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ
“Go forth, (whether equipped) lightly or heavily, and strive and struggle, with your goods and your persons, in the cause of Allah. That is best for you, if you (but) knew.” (tmq 9:41)
The order of ‘Nafr’ (going out) means that Jihad is fighting.
لَـكِنِ الرَّسُولُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ مَعَهُ جَاهَدُواْ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ وَأُوْلَـئِكَ لَهُمُ الْخَيْرَاتُ وَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ
“But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.” (tmq 9:88)
Also in surah Al-Saf, after mentioning fighting (Jihad) at the beginning, Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) says:
إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِهِ صَفًّا كَأَنَّهُم بُنيَانٌ مَّرْصُوصٌ
“Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure.” (tmq 61:4)
It is clear in the Madani verses that the subject of Jihad is specifically related to fighting and what fighting entails naturally from finance, weapons and the like. Also these verses demonstrate aspects of the conditions that precede the action of fighting and are conditional for its legality i.e. propagating the invitation for non-Muslims to embrace Islam (as this is the original condition for fighting as has been mentioned in ‘Mughni al-Muhtaj) and/or accept the Islamic authority over them. From the Sunnah of Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam), Jihad has been mentioned also with this shariyah meaning i.e. fighting and what it entails.
On the authority of Abi Hurayrah, who said: “People asked, “Oh Rasoolallah, tell us about an action that is equal to the Jihad fi Sabeel Lillah?” Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) replied, “You will not find it bearable.” They replied, “Tell us oh Rasoolallah, maybe we can be able to withstand it.” Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “The example of a mujahid Fi Sabeel Lillah is like the fasting man, the one who stays up at its night and prays and the one who is obedient to the verses of Allah, does not get tired of fasting, nor stops sadaqah until the mujahid returns back to his family.”
It is clear from the wording of the hadith that the question was about the mujahid with the meaning of the fighter in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) specifically. The answer also indicated the same meaning when Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “Until the mujahid returns back to his family” i.e. returns back from the fighting. Also by the authority of Jaabir, that the people asked Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam), “Which Jihad is better?” He (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “The one in which one’s horse is wounded and one’s blood is split in it.” On the authority of ibn Abbas, he said that Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “When your brothers were killed in the battle of Uhud, Allah put their souls inside green birds that wonder inside Jannah landing on the rivers of Jannah and eats from its fruits. When they see how they spend their time and they look at their food and drink and how great it was, they say, ‘How we wish that our people know about how Allah rewarded us, so that they may love Jihad and not refrain from it.’ So then Allah says to them that, ‘I will tell you people and your brothers on your behalf.’ So they became happy with that news.” Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) sent this in surah Al-Imran on the occasion of the Battle of Uhud:
وَلاَ تَحْسَبَنَّ الَّذِينَ قُتِلُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ أَمْوَاتًا بَلْ أَحْيَاء عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ يُرْزَقُونَ
“Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord.” (tmq 3:169)
From all of these shariyah texts, it is clear that the Legislator transferred the word Jihad from its general linguistic meaning to a special meaning, which is ‘al-Qitaal’ (fighting) and whatever is linked to it directly and indirectly, as has been mentioned earlier. Moreover, it relates to the words, which carry the same meaning of al-Jihad like war. From this we can see that the shariyah texts defined Jihad as fighting (qitaal) in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) and this can be found in the books of fiqh, which dealt with the shariyah meaning of Jihad and laws related to it.
In Badi’ul Sanai’ of the Hanafi Mazhab, it states the following: “Jihad in the language is exerting effort. In the understanding of the Shara, it is exerting effort and energy in fighting fi sabeel lillah by nafs, finance, tongue or another.”
In Manhul Jaleel of the Maliki Mazhab, al-Jihad is defined as the, “fighting by a Muslim against a kaafir (who does not have a treaty with the Muslims) to make the word of Allah the highest…. or for a Muslim to arrive to do Jihad or to enter the Kaafir’s land for fighting.” Ibn Arafa defined this.
According to the Shafi Mazhab in Al-Iqna, Jihad is fighting ‘Fi Sabeel Lillah’. Al-Shirazi in Al-Muhazab said that Jihad is ‘qitaal’.
In Al-Mughni according to the Hanbali Mazhab, Ibn Qudama did not give any other definition. In the section ‘kitab ul-Jihad’ whatever is related to war, whether it was fard ul-kifaya (collective obligation) or fard ul-ayn (individual obligation) or whether it was in the form of guarding the believers from the enemy and the guards ‘ribat’ at the borders, all of this is connected to Jihad. He also said, “If the enemy arrives, Jihad becomes fard ul-ayn on the murabitoon (border guards). If it becomes evident that the enemy arrived, then they do not leave to meet them except by an order of the Ameer, since the Ameer is the one who has the authority for issuing orders in the matters of war.”
So it is clear that the meaning of Jihad was transferred from the linguistic to the shariyah meaning, such that it was understood to mean fighting and nothing else. Such purity and clarity over its meaning today is clearly vague, from what is heard from the lips of rulers over the Islamic lands and even amongst the Muslim ummah itself, as a result of the dominance and pollution of western political thought and reeling from a defeatist mentality that seeks to be apologetic.
So what emerged and dominated the opinion were those who sincerely but incorrectly took Jihad as the rule for all matters whilst others reduced Jihad as a matter connected to defending the ‘nafs’ and identity i.e. defensive fighting as opposed to offensive fighting. Others went further to say that Jihad is of the ‘nafs’ and overcoming desires only, calling it the ‘Great Jihad’, further saying that it is better than the small Jihad which is ‘qitaal’ (fighting). Such are those that have become lazy and feeble, with their hearts filled with the fear of the enemy.
So the protection of the Deen, hatred of the Kuffar and the love of Jihad has become replaced with the protection of the nation-state (nationalism), pleasing the colonialists and the love of excessive material gain. Since these incorrect concepts have become common between Muslims and the clear definition of Jihad is absent from the minds, the incentive and love to do Jihad, for many, has died (though the increased hostility and aggression of the western nations in the Islamic lands has served to re-kindle the correct desire).
It is, therefore, naturally important to clarify this matter such that the Muslims are able to refute the erroneous misunderstandings that exist, refute false claims and rekindle the love of Jihad.
Greater/Smaller Jihad
Firstly, the common understanding of Muslims is that Jihad is divided into two sections: Jihad ul-Akbar (the ‘Greater Jihad’), which is connected to Jihad ul-Nafs i.e. fighting the inner desires and shaiytan etc… Jihad ul-Asghar (the ‘Smaller Jihad’), which is fighting the kaafir enemy in battles and what is related to it.
Of the evidences that are quoted from the Islamic texts, the main one is the hadith, where Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: “We have arrived from the small Jihad to the great Jihad”. So they asked, “What is the great Jihad?” He (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) replied, “It is Jihad ul-Nafs (against the inner self).”
In another narration, Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) referred to the“…Jihad of the slave against his desires.”
Though it is correct that there is a Jihad against the nafs, like against shaiytan, however, it is not greater in the sight of Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) from the physical Jihad against the Kuffar and it (Jihad ul-Nafs) does not cancel nor invalidate it.
This Jihad against the Kaafir enemies is continuous until the Day of Judgment as is the Jihad against the nafs also continuous until the Day of Judgement. But one should know that the evidences of doing Jihad against the nafs are different to the evidences of Jihad against the Kuffar.
Each has a situation different from the other (context) and it is not permitted to mix the two or to use the evidence of one for the other or to change one in place of the other. Rather there is a need for each, but in its correct context and each of them is a responsibility when put in their correct contexts.
This is why saying that ‘Jihad ul-nafs’ is better and greater in the sight of Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) is both very dangerous and an outright mistake, which contradicts the understanding of Jihad in the Way of Allah.
It is invalid from many angles:
1. Jihad has two meanings as mentioned previously, a linguistic and a shariyah meaning. Jihad of the nafs comes under the linguistic meaning and not the shariyah meaning. 2. The evidences used to say that Jihad ul-nafs is greater than Jihad against the Kuffar cannot be used to prove this and this is clear from the reality of the evidences that are used. This is because,
a. The hadith is ‘mardood riwayatan’
b. The hadith is ‘mardood dirayatan’
With regards to its invalidation from narration that is because the hadith is weak ‘Da’eef’ as is clarified in Al-Ajmi Al-Saghir by Imam Suyuti. As for its invalidation by meaning that is because it is contradicting definite text, which makes Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah obligatory and makes it the greatest of action.
This can be seen from three aspects:
a. The verses that mention the value of the Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah and that it is from the best actions like the verse:
لاَّ يَسْتَوِي الْقَاعِدُونَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ غَيْرُ أُوْلِي الضَّرَرِ وَالْمُجَاهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ فَضَّلَ اللّهُ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ عَلَى الْقَاعِدِينَ دَرَجَةً وَكُـلاًّ وَعَدَ اللّهُ الْحُسْنَى وَفَضَّلَ اللّهُ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ عَلَى الْقَاعِدِينَ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا
“Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah has granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). To all (in Faith) has Allah promised good. But those who strive and fight has He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.” (tmq 4:95)
b. The verses that praise Jihad and the Mujahideen Fi Sabeel Lillah like the verse,
لَـكِنِ الرَّسُولُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ مَعَهُ جَاهَدُواْ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ وَأُوْلَـئِكَ لَهُمُ الْخَيْرَاتُ وَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ
“But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.” (tmq 9:88)
إِنَّ اللّهَ اشْتَرَى مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَنفُسَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُم بِأَنَّ لَهُمُ الجَنَّةَ يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ فَيَقْتُلُونَ وَيُقْتَلُونَ وَعْدًا عَلَيْهِ حَقًّا فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالإِنجِيلِ وَالْقُرْآنِ وَمَنْ أَوْفَى بِعَهْدِهِ مِنَ اللّهِ فَاسْتَبْشِرُواْ بِبَيْعِكُمُ الَّذِي بَايَعْتُم بِهِ وَذَلِكَ هُوَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ
“Allah has purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.” (tmq 9:111)
c. The verses that condemn and promises punishment to those who do not participate in Jihad, the ones left behind and the lazy neglectful ones,
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ مَا لَكُمْ إِذَا قِيلَ لَكُمُ انفِرُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ اثَّاقَلْتُمْ إِلَى الأَرْضِ أَرَضِيتُم بِالْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا مِنَ الآخِرَةِ فَمَا مَتَاعُ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا فِي الآخِرَةِ إِلاَّ قَلِيلٌ
“O you who believe! What is the matter with you, that, when you are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, you cling heavily to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter.” (tmq 9:38)
In addition to this are the sayings of Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) that the best action to Allah is Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah and the fighting (qitaal) against the Kuffar: From the many narrations, Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, ”Taking a journey in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) is better than the duniya and what is in it.”
“Those who guard (the borders) for one day in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) is better than the duniya and what is in it.” ”If anyone takes a position in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) it is better than his prayer ‘salah’ in his house for 70 years. Don’t you want Allah to forgive you your sins and enter you in the Jannah? Invade, in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah).”
Therefore what has been mentioned in the text shows clearly that Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah is one of the best actions and of the highest degree, which is clearly shown by the shariyah indicators, ‘Qarain’, that connect praise, condemnation, reward and punishment to expose the fact that Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah is greater and better than Jihad against the nafs. This is why the hadith is invalid in meaning ‘dirayatan’ because it contradicts the definite texts and therefore it is invalid ‘baatil’ to use as an evidence (i.e. to show that Jihad ul-nafs is a greater action).
Is Jihad is defensive only?
As for the opinion that Jihad in Islam is defensive and not offensive by using the evidence (and similar evidences):
وَإِنْ جَنَحُوا لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ
“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do you (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that Hears and Knows (all things)” (tmq 8:61)
وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ
“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors.” (tmq 2:190)
This is also incorrect and invalid for its application upon this matter is incorrect for the following reasons:
1. The evidences of Jihad are general ‘mutlaq’ evidences and include all offensive and defensive actions e.g. waging warm to pre-empt an attack, to protect the borders, killing on the battlefield. To restrict or specify the evidences only to defensive and not offensive Jihad, requires a textual evidence to show that the Jihad is restricted to defensive Jihad only. And there is no such text in the Quran or the Sunnah that restricts or specifies this. Therefore, the evidences regarding Jihad remain general and to be used for all types of war and all types of fighting with the enemy. So it is invalid (baatil) to use the verse,
وَإِن جَنَحُواْ لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا
“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do you…” (tmq 8:61), to show that Jihad is only defensive.
That is also the case with the rest of the evidences that are used by proponents of this erroneous understanding. This and similar verses cannot be used to specify or restrict the generality of the verses in surah al-Tawba because they were the last verses revealed regarding Jihad and what came prior to these verses regarding Jihad does not specify the verses which were revealed after them or came afterwards. And the verse does not restrict the latter revealed verses either. There has to be a text present to restrict or specify the general verse and they also must be revealed after the initial, which are general or mutlaq or even they (i.e. those verses which are restricted or specific) should be mentioned together with the general verses so that the two situations can be shown (i.e. to show the different situations upon which they apply). So Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) says: وَإِن جَنَحُواْ لِلسَّلْمِ , which is regarding the time of the peace. And He (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) says,
قَاتِلُواْ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّهِ وَلاَ بِالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَلاَ يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلاَ يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَابَ حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”, (tmq 9:29) which is at the time of war and fighting.
So peace and fighting are two situations, which remain un-abrogated, i.e. neither abrogates the other.
2. In addition to this, the saying and actions of Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) show that Jihad definitely is to start (offensive) fighting the kuffar to make the Words of Allah the highest and to propagate (da’wa) the call of Islam. Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said,
“I have been ordered to fight the people until they bear witness that, ‘there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger’ and they establish the prayer and the zakat. And if they do this, then from me is protected their blood and their wealth except by the right granted by Allah.”
As for his (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) actions, they are full of actions that show Jihad is to start the fighting. So when he went out to Badr to take the caravan belonging to the Quraysh, this was going out to fight, this is offensive – as Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) initiated the action before the Quraysh.
Likewise, when Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) invaded Hawazin in the battle of Hunayn, when he (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) seiged Ta’if and the battle of Mutah to fight the Romans and the Battle of Tabuk – all of these are evidences to show that Jihad is to start fighting kuffar (offensive). This should clarify the erroneous view that in origin Jihad is defensive.
3. From Ijma as-Sahabah, it is clear that Jihad is fighting Fi Sabeel Lillah to carry Islam and that it is offensive. The evidence, which is sufficient to explain this, is the opening of Iraq, Persia, Sham, Egypt and North Africa. They were all opened at the time of the Sahabah with their Ijma’ (consensus). Therefore, all what we mentioned are sufficient evidences to refute the claim that Jihad is defensive.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Muslims should gain the confidence to present the reality of Jihad to our ummah and raise the level of thinking on this issue such that the Muslims become clearer about its meaning, obligation, gain an increased love for it and importantly, understand the contexts in which it exists and is applied.
The Islamic Ummah, served with the responsibility to present and guard Islam should not allow the rulers over the Islamic lands to pollute the meaning of Jihad and remove its love from the hearts of the believers. Indeed, the Islamic Ummah should not allow these rulers to commit the greater crime to rule over her by other than Islam and dilute the purity of the whole of Islam with their shamelessness, implementation of kufr and humiliating subservience to a part of the creation i.e. their colonial masters, instead of their subservience to the Creator and Master of all that is seen and unseen, Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala).
As for the interaction with the non-Muslims, it is important that the Muslims have the clarity and strength to tackle the malicious, incorrect and hateful propaganda that is focussed on Jihad that is presented as barbaric against peaceful people with the objective to force them to embrace Islam by compulsion and the sword.
The Islamic ummah should tackle this from two perspectives.
Firstly, the Muslims should expose the violent, barbaric and inhumane foreign policy of the ‘civilised’ colonial powers that have destroyed nations, states and people; left millions to starve for the sake of securing capitalist interests, appointed and protected oppressive regimes that suppress the will of their people; plundered resources of the lesser developed and invade lands with brute force, terrorising the local civilian people with indiscriminate policies of killing, imprisonment, rape, ‘carpet bombing’; razing whole villages and towns into the ground; and forcing the people to adopt their life-styles, values and political structures. What right do such people have after witnessing the implementation of such a wicked and brutal foreign policy with their own eyes – in South America, Africa, Palestine, Afghanistan and more recently in Iraq, from the various credible news sources – to even begin laying a criticism against Jihad.
Non-Muslims need to see the reality of their own governments and not be blinded the hysterical and deceitful propaganda that increasingly is aimed at Islam and its values.
Secondly, Muslims should demonstrate some of the rules that surround Jihad and state that offensively carrying the struggle against non-Islam does not permit Muslims to compel the local people to embrace Islam. This is because Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) does not allow compulsion:
لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ
"There is no compulsion in deen" (tmq)
Likewise Islam does not allow the exploitation, plundering, razing and desecration of places of worship, people’s homes and honour – when Jihad is carried offensively. Rather Jihad is carried offensively to cleanse the earth from the kufr, with the implementation of Islam as a system thus liberating man from the rule of man. The history of the Islamic conquests, the presence of Christians and Jews, who lived in security and prosperity under the Islamic State and the safe-haven that the Islamic authority provided for people savaged by the forefathers of the modern colonialists is sufficient proof for this.
On the horizon, as the struggle between Iman and kufr increases day by day – it is imperative for the Muslims to hold to the truth of Islam, its rules and not permit the dilution of its intellectual wealth – a wealth which soon will transform the darkness of colonial rule to the mercy and shade of the Islamic authority, Al-Khilafah, by Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala's) permission.
Source
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Why America Must Support The Caliphate?
In the Name of Allah, The most Beneficent, The most Merciful
Changing Worldviews amidst Global Revival of Islamic spirit in Muslims.
It would make good sense for the U.S.A. and its allies to change their attitude towards the coming of the Caliphate. Foreign policies don’t change overnight and especially if nations that have arrogated to themselves the position of ‘world-policing, peace-keeping, protectors of freedom’ etc., because of the iron-clad, rigid mind-set. It would be better for them if they stepped out of their conceit and viewed the ground reality, repositioning their stands so that they are redeemed and not consigned to oblivion in changed situations.
America and its allies have incurred the wrath of nations and masses due to the injustice and mischief that they have committed. Now that the power of the ‘Big Bully’ is waning, the nations of the world are waiting to take revenge. Iran’s standoff with America followed by India’s refusing to take the bait and sign the nuclear deal and yet another snub by India when U.S.A. advised it about Iran and its visiting President; all go to show that U.S.A.’s edict is no more effective. Seeing no coercive steps, more and more countries will rebuff the U.S.A. It’s woes come from unforeseen quarters. As if the economic meltdown was not enough, even the century old water pipes are giving way due to ageing, not to speak of hurricane, tornadoes and wild fires. All this is pointing to an inevitable collapse of the superpower, and America must see this. Perished nations of the past are glaring illustrations of how the high and mighty bit the dust.
The collapse of U.S.A. is not just of a country, it is the collapse of an entire ideology – Capitalism. With it, will go, Britain, France, Germany, Japan…you name it. Now, America should foresee who is likely to take power and what will be its (U.S.A.’s) fate then? If nation states of today get a chance to settle their scores, they will not hesitate to rip U.S.A. apart by the jungle law. U.S.A. well knows that it has caused maximum harm to the Muslims and their countries, plundering every straw it could. If nations remain as independent countries, they will treat U.S.A. with all the contempt their vengeance can muster.
The other option is the re-established Caliphate. Pardon will be the guiding word for the Caliph, as was the case of Mecca when Prophet Muhammad captured it in 630 C.E. If U.S.A. is pardoned for its wrong-doings, only then it can survive, and survive honorably. But that will come only if it gives-up its resistance to the coming Caliphate. One cannot expect it to support it, but don’t oppose it. Even if absolute pardon is not given to U.S.A., the fact that torture is forbidden by Islam and hence the Caliph cannot resort to it, is itself a great respite for U.S.A. and its allies. The future treatment by the Caliphate will depend upon the America’s attitude today towards the Muslims and the Caliphate. That it is coming is a foregone conclusion. The CIA has spoken of the year 2020 for a possible emergence of the Caliphate for the entire Muslim world. Who knows, they may be well off the mark. It may come in months from now.
The problem with the U.S.A. is that it has too many power centers. Not just the American public, even the U.S. President is ill-informed about the ground reality. The surging waves of a unified Muslim world under one Caliphate are overwhelming the globe. U.S. Intelligence is either too engrossed in running after mirages that they call terrorist; or they know of the ground-reality, but are suppressing it through the control of the media. Either way, it is self inflicting for the U.S.A. as a whole. Why do these intelligent-fools not understand that they have lost the war of minds, even if they have won the battle of the media?
Mr. President and people of America, your redemption lies in the Caliphate.
Abu Farhaan
Changing Worldviews amidst Global Revival of Islamic spirit in Muslims.
It would make good sense for the U.S.A. and its allies to change their attitude towards the coming of the Caliphate. Foreign policies don’t change overnight and especially if nations that have arrogated to themselves the position of ‘world-policing, peace-keeping, protectors of freedom’ etc., because of the iron-clad, rigid mind-set. It would be better for them if they stepped out of their conceit and viewed the ground reality, repositioning their stands so that they are redeemed and not consigned to oblivion in changed situations.
America and its allies have incurred the wrath of nations and masses due to the injustice and mischief that they have committed. Now that the power of the ‘Big Bully’ is waning, the nations of the world are waiting to take revenge. Iran’s standoff with America followed by India’s refusing to take the bait and sign the nuclear deal and yet another snub by India when U.S.A. advised it about Iran and its visiting President; all go to show that U.S.A.’s edict is no more effective. Seeing no coercive steps, more and more countries will rebuff the U.S.A. It’s woes come from unforeseen quarters. As if the economic meltdown was not enough, even the century old water pipes are giving way due to ageing, not to speak of hurricane, tornadoes and wild fires. All this is pointing to an inevitable collapse of the superpower, and America must see this. Perished nations of the past are glaring illustrations of how the high and mighty bit the dust.
The collapse of U.S.A. is not just of a country, it is the collapse of an entire ideology – Capitalism. With it, will go, Britain, France, Germany, Japan…you name it. Now, America should foresee who is likely to take power and what will be its (U.S.A.’s) fate then? If nation states of today get a chance to settle their scores, they will not hesitate to rip U.S.A. apart by the jungle law. U.S.A. well knows that it has caused maximum harm to the Muslims and their countries, plundering every straw it could. If nations remain as independent countries, they will treat U.S.A. with all the contempt their vengeance can muster.
The other option is the re-established Caliphate. Pardon will be the guiding word for the Caliph, as was the case of Mecca when Prophet Muhammad captured it in 630 C.E. If U.S.A. is pardoned for its wrong-doings, only then it can survive, and survive honorably. But that will come only if it gives-up its resistance to the coming Caliphate. One cannot expect it to support it, but don’t oppose it. Even if absolute pardon is not given to U.S.A., the fact that torture is forbidden by Islam and hence the Caliph cannot resort to it, is itself a great respite for U.S.A. and its allies. The future treatment by the Caliphate will depend upon the America’s attitude today towards the Muslims and the Caliphate. That it is coming is a foregone conclusion. The CIA has spoken of the year 2020 for a possible emergence of the Caliphate for the entire Muslim world. Who knows, they may be well off the mark. It may come in months from now.
The problem with the U.S.A. is that it has too many power centers. Not just the American public, even the U.S. President is ill-informed about the ground reality. The surging waves of a unified Muslim world under one Caliphate are overwhelming the globe. U.S. Intelligence is either too engrossed in running after mirages that they call terrorist; or they know of the ground-reality, but are suppressing it through the control of the media. Either way, it is self inflicting for the U.S.A. as a whole. Why do these intelligent-fools not understand that they have lost the war of minds, even if they have won the battle of the media?
Mr. President and people of America, your redemption lies in the Caliphate.
Abu Farhaan
Friday, May 2, 2008
The Hejaz Railroad: A symbol of Muslim Unity
At the turn of the 20th century the Ottoman Caliphate was in a severely weakened state. Nicknamed the “sick man of Europe” much of the Caliphate’s lands were under control of colonial powers Britain and France. Growing discontentment in the Arabs lands was surfacing as the concept of Arab nationalism, first introduced by the western powers, took a strong hold among some of the influentials. This nationalism eventually led to the British backed Arab revolt in 1916 that saw the Arab lands declare independence from the Ottoman Caliphate.
Faced with growing disunity and discontentment with the Ottoman Caliphate, the Caliph Sultan Abdul-Hamid II devised an ambitious plan to awaken the feelings of Islamic unity among the Ummah and strengthen the Caliphate’s authority over the Arab provinces. This plan was the building of a railroad from Damascus all the way to Medina for use by the pilgrims travelling for hajj that become known as the Hejaz Railroad. The project was started in 1900 and finally reached Medina in 1908 when the railroad officially opened.
Before the railroad the journey between Damascus and Medina usually took two months by camel caravan and was full of hardships. Since the Islamic calendar is a lunar calendar, that moves each year, the hajj changes from season to season. Sometimes it meant travelling through the winter, enduring freezing temperatures or torrential rains. At the height of summer, it meant crossing scorching hot deserts. Towns and settlements were sparse and there were hostile tribes along the way.
With the introduction of the railroad the journey time for pilgrims was cut from two months to four days. The arduous journey of travelling by camel through the desert was replaced with a few days travelling in comfort on the train. The cost of the journey was reduced from £40 to just £3.50 for a train ticket.
On 1 September 1908 the Hejaz railroad officially opened, and by the year 1912 it was transporting 30,000 pilgrims a year. As word spread that travelling for hajj was now quicker and easier more Muslims were able to perform the hajj. The pilgrims using the railway soared to 300,000 in 1914.
The Hejaz railroad linked the Caliphate’s capital in Istanbul to the Arab provinces by extending the existing rail link between Istanbul and Damascus. The Caliphate used the railroad to quickly deploy military units to the Arab provinces when needed and so strengthened the authority of the Caliphate in these areas.
Sultan Abdul-Hameed also introduced a sophisticated fax system with fax lines established between Yemen, Hejaz, Greater Syria, Iraq and Turkey. These fax lines like the railroad were heavily used by the pilgrims and paid for themselves in just a few years.
Muslims performing the hajj saw that the Caliphate was trying to practically unify the Ummah and aid them in their worship of Allah (swt) through these initiatives. This led to a growing unity and appreciation for the Ottoman Caliphate among the Ummah. Unfortunately, despite the efforts of Abdul-Hameed he was deposed from office in 1908 in a coup by the Young Turks. The conspiracies by the colonialists against the Caliphate accelerated and after the First World War the Caliphate was defeated and finally destroyed a few years later in 1924.
The Hejaz end of the railroad was sabotaged during the Arab revolt led by Lawrence of Arabia and Sharif Hussein of Mecca severing its link with Damascus and Istanbul. With the destruction of the Caliphate in 1924 and the carving up of the Arab lands under Sykes-Picot the possibility of such a unity project emerging ever again disappeared. All that remains today are some of the stations and locomotives as a reminder of this bygone era.
Although the Hejaz railroad is now discarded to the pages of history it shows just what can be achieved with the authority and power of the Caliphate.
Islam is not a religion like Christianity or Judaism that only has laws governing the personal beliefs, worships and morals. Islam is a deen (ideology) that contains sharia rules governing all aspects of life and society. The sharia not only contains solutions to problems but details the practical method (tareeqa) of implementing these solutions on society. This method is the Caliphate that practically implements the Islamic belief of La ilaha ilAllah onto life’s affairs.
The Caliphate will not just be Islamic in name or on paper. Rather it will practically show the Muslims and the world the superiority of the sharia and how it resolves life’s problems.
When the Ummah sees the oil wealth removed from the personal bank accounts of the Kings and Sultans to the Bait ul-Mal (state treasury) as a public property for the benefit of the entire Ummah, they will see the practical manifestation of the hadith:
The Prophet (saw) said: “People share in three things: Water, Pasture lands, and Fire.” [Ahmed] Fire here refers to fire based fuels such as oil.
When the Muslims of Darfur and Somalia see the vast natural resources in the Middle East and Central Asia used for alleviating their poverty and building much needed infrastructure, they will see practically the concept mentioned by the Prophet (saw) when he (saw) said in his last sermon:
“All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.”
When the Muslims under occupation in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan see the army of the Caliphate marching to protect them and expel the occupiers they will see the practical implementation of the verse of Qur’an:
“Fight them until there is no more persecution, and all worship is devoted to Allah alone.” [TMQ 8:39]
The Muslim Ummah are sick and tired of the empty promises and inaction of their so-called Muslim governments. These governments who give lip service to Islam or pretend to have secret “Islamic” agendas in order for the Ummah to support them, yet in practise they do nothing for the interests of Islam. Thousands are killed in the occupied lands of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Kashmir without any Muslim regime lifting a finger to help. Even worse they actively support the occupation through opening up their airspace, lands and borders for the occupiers.
Compare this to the Abbasid Caliph Haroon Al-Rashid’s response to Byzantine Emperor Nicephorus refusal to abide by its treaty obligations with the Caliphate.
Haroon Al Rashid sent a letter to Constantinople saying: "From Haroon Al Rashid, Caliph of the Faithful to Nicephorus, the Roman dog: I have read your letter. You will not hear, you will see my reply." The Caliph then sent a huge army to the Byzantine Empire and forced Nicephorus to abide by the treaty.
The absence of a Caliphate to protect, implement and propagate Islam is at the root of all the Muslim Ummah’s problems today. Only with its re-establishment can we begin to resolve these problems and make Allah’s (swt) word the highest on the earth once again.
Source
Faced with growing disunity and discontentment with the Ottoman Caliphate, the Caliph Sultan Abdul-Hamid II devised an ambitious plan to awaken the feelings of Islamic unity among the Ummah and strengthen the Caliphate’s authority over the Arab provinces. This plan was the building of a railroad from Damascus all the way to Medina for use by the pilgrims travelling for hajj that become known as the Hejaz Railroad. The project was started in 1900 and finally reached Medina in 1908 when the railroad officially opened.
Before the railroad the journey between Damascus and Medina usually took two months by camel caravan and was full of hardships. Since the Islamic calendar is a lunar calendar, that moves each year, the hajj changes from season to season. Sometimes it meant travelling through the winter, enduring freezing temperatures or torrential rains. At the height of summer, it meant crossing scorching hot deserts. Towns and settlements were sparse and there were hostile tribes along the way.
With the introduction of the railroad the journey time for pilgrims was cut from two months to four days. The arduous journey of travelling by camel through the desert was replaced with a few days travelling in comfort on the train. The cost of the journey was reduced from £40 to just £3.50 for a train ticket.
On 1 September 1908 the Hejaz railroad officially opened, and by the year 1912 it was transporting 30,000 pilgrims a year. As word spread that travelling for hajj was now quicker and easier more Muslims were able to perform the hajj. The pilgrims using the railway soared to 300,000 in 1914.
The Hejaz railroad linked the Caliphate’s capital in Istanbul to the Arab provinces by extending the existing rail link between Istanbul and Damascus. The Caliphate used the railroad to quickly deploy military units to the Arab provinces when needed and so strengthened the authority of the Caliphate in these areas.
Sultan Abdul-Hameed also introduced a sophisticated fax system with fax lines established between Yemen, Hejaz, Greater Syria, Iraq and Turkey. These fax lines like the railroad were heavily used by the pilgrims and paid for themselves in just a few years.
Muslims performing the hajj saw that the Caliphate was trying to practically unify the Ummah and aid them in their worship of Allah (swt) through these initiatives. This led to a growing unity and appreciation for the Ottoman Caliphate among the Ummah. Unfortunately, despite the efforts of Abdul-Hameed he was deposed from office in 1908 in a coup by the Young Turks. The conspiracies by the colonialists against the Caliphate accelerated and after the First World War the Caliphate was defeated and finally destroyed a few years later in 1924.
The Hejaz end of the railroad was sabotaged during the Arab revolt led by Lawrence of Arabia and Sharif Hussein of Mecca severing its link with Damascus and Istanbul. With the destruction of the Caliphate in 1924 and the carving up of the Arab lands under Sykes-Picot the possibility of such a unity project emerging ever again disappeared. All that remains today are some of the stations and locomotives as a reminder of this bygone era.
Although the Hejaz railroad is now discarded to the pages of history it shows just what can be achieved with the authority and power of the Caliphate.
Islam is not a religion like Christianity or Judaism that only has laws governing the personal beliefs, worships and morals. Islam is a deen (ideology) that contains sharia rules governing all aspects of life and society. The sharia not only contains solutions to problems but details the practical method (tareeqa) of implementing these solutions on society. This method is the Caliphate that practically implements the Islamic belief of La ilaha ilAllah onto life’s affairs.
The Caliphate will not just be Islamic in name or on paper. Rather it will practically show the Muslims and the world the superiority of the sharia and how it resolves life’s problems.
When the Ummah sees the oil wealth removed from the personal bank accounts of the Kings and Sultans to the Bait ul-Mal (state treasury) as a public property for the benefit of the entire Ummah, they will see the practical manifestation of the hadith:
The Prophet (saw) said: “People share in three things: Water, Pasture lands, and Fire.” [Ahmed] Fire here refers to fire based fuels such as oil.
When the Muslims of Darfur and Somalia see the vast natural resources in the Middle East and Central Asia used for alleviating their poverty and building much needed infrastructure, they will see practically the concept mentioned by the Prophet (saw) when he (saw) said in his last sermon:
“All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.”
When the Muslims under occupation in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan see the army of the Caliphate marching to protect them and expel the occupiers they will see the practical implementation of the verse of Qur’an:
“Fight them until there is no more persecution, and all worship is devoted to Allah alone.” [TMQ 8:39]
The Muslim Ummah are sick and tired of the empty promises and inaction of their so-called Muslim governments. These governments who give lip service to Islam or pretend to have secret “Islamic” agendas in order for the Ummah to support them, yet in practise they do nothing for the interests of Islam. Thousands are killed in the occupied lands of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Kashmir without any Muslim regime lifting a finger to help. Even worse they actively support the occupation through opening up their airspace, lands and borders for the occupiers.
Compare this to the Abbasid Caliph Haroon Al-Rashid’s response to Byzantine Emperor Nicephorus refusal to abide by its treaty obligations with the Caliphate.
Haroon Al Rashid sent a letter to Constantinople saying: "From Haroon Al Rashid, Caliph of the Faithful to Nicephorus, the Roman dog: I have read your letter. You will not hear, you will see my reply." The Caliph then sent a huge army to the Byzantine Empire and forced Nicephorus to abide by the treaty.
The absence of a Caliphate to protect, implement and propagate Islam is at the root of all the Muslim Ummah’s problems today. Only with its re-establishment can we begin to resolve these problems and make Allah’s (swt) word the highest on the earth once again.
Source
Exposing the flaws in the Theory of Evolution
This article will describe and explore the Theory of Evolution. It will attempt to describe the theory, defining its main elements, and also take a brief look at the historical changes to the Theory – a kind of evolution of the Theory of Evolution! In addition, the article will seek to discuss the evidences used by the proponents of this theory and then provide a synopsis of the counter arguments.
Introduction
The Theory of Evolution has become the de facto standard used in the West, and indeed beyond, to explain the existence of creation and life. It is described as rational and scientific; many statements are made to demonstrate the strength of the Theory – such as the number of scientists who have given it their blessings and its widespread acceptance beyond the scientific community. Nonetheless, there is a strong perception existing in our day and age of the credibility of the Theory of Evolution. To some extent, it is discussed and taught in schools and educational establishments and promoted in the mainstream media. In stark contrast, other arguments that explain the existence of life are considered to be irrational, backward and steeped in ignorance borne out of belief in religion. In other words, there are essentially two clear camps: the ‘scientific’ and progressive camp which espouses the virtues of the Theory, and the apparently ‘unscientific’ contingent which clings to outmoded explanations such as the existence of a Creator. In recent times, thanks in no small part to various Christian elements in the U.S., the clashes between these two sides have become more visible and the tempo seems to have been raised. There have been calls for a restructuring to the way in which the Theory is taught to children, or at the very least provision for a balanced approach, so that the young are taught about other explanations as well. Many establishments have insisted on giving religious teaching the priority, leading to conflict with those who believe religion should have no such role in schools.
The Theory of Evolution
The theory of evolution is sometimes described using complex and convoluted language, which can be a significant source of confusion. What adds to the confusion is the fact that aspects of the theory do undergo change and revision. In this article I will try to explain the main points that constitute the theory, on which those who propose this theory are agreed, without getting bogged down in the finer details or indeed the many arguments and assumptions in relation to areas where there may be some difference of opinion and divergence of views. I have also tried to simplify the description so it can be understood without recourse to a dictionary and constant definition of scientific terminology.
To understand the thrust of the theory, it is useful to have an idea of some of the concepts that are used and an appreciation of the context.
Firstly, the definition: biological evolution is defined as descent with modification from a common ancestor. In this context, descent means going down from one generation through to the following generations. Modification alludes to alterations in genetic make-up and changes in gene frequencies. This definition encompasses what is known as small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).
Of course biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.
Secondly, a key central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as our cousins and we share a common grandmother. It is argued that through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we are all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.
The process of evolution produces a pattern of relationships between species. As lineages evolve and split and modifications are inherited, their evolutionary paths diverge. This produces a branching pattern of evolutionary relationships. These relationships can be reconstructed and represented on a "family tree," called a phylogeny.
As a consequence of this ‘family tree’ understanding, it is important to remember that:
1. Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. Humans and chimpanzees are evolutionary cousins and share a recent common ancestor that was neither chimpanzee nor human.
2. Humans are not "higher" or "more evolved" than other living lineages. Since these lineages split, humans and chimpanzees have each evolved traits unique to their own lineages.
Thirdly, another important aspect of evolution is the linking of speciation events to time i.e. trying to understand when different species evolved. Using various methods, such as radiometric dating, scientists are able to conclude that life began 3.8 billion years ago, and insects diversified 290 million years ago, but the human and chimpanzee lineages diverged only five million years ago.
To give an analogy for this, imagine squeezing the billions of years of the history of life on Earth into a single minute. Then it would take about 50 seconds for multi-cellular life to evolve, another four seconds for vertebrates to invade the land, and another four seconds for flowers to evolve — and only in the last 0.002 seconds would "modern" humans arise.
So, the claim is made that evolution is the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient ancestors. Evolution is apparently responsible for both the remarkable similarities we see across all life and the amazing diversity of that life — but exactly how does it work?
Fundamental to the process is genetic variation upon which selective forces can act in order for evolution to occur. Evolution only occurs when there is a change in gene frequency within a population over time. These genetic differences are heritable and can be passed on to the next generation — which is what really matters in evolution: long term change. Therefore, we need to examine the actual mechanisms of evolution.
In essence there are four basic processes, which constitute the mechanisms of evolution. These are mutation, migration, genetic drift and natural selection.
Mutation refers to the actual changes in the DNA within cells. The DNA affects how an organism looks, behaves and so on. Thus a change in the DNA can alter all aspects of its life.
When cells divide the DNA is copied exactly as it is. However, on occasion, it is possible for they’re to be a discrepancy in the copying of the DNA. This difference is considered a mutation. It must be kept in mind that mutations are random – and so do not normally depend on external factors. That said, it is possible for there to be mutation as a result of exposure to radiation or chemicals, causing the DNA to break down. In this case, when the cells repair the DNA, the result is not a perfect repair – and so the resultant DNA is a mutation.
Whether a particular mutation occurs is not related to how useful that mutation would be. The mutation in the genes can yield a beneficial, neutral or harmful change for the organism.
Although mutation can occur with any gene, it is the mutation that affects genes, which can be transmitted from one generation to the next that is of interest, since this is a form of evolution. If genes mutate and cannot be passed to future generations, then these mutations cannot be considered as having any relation to evolution. These are called Somatic Mutations and occur in non-reproductive cells. Hence the genes that are affected by mutation related to biological evolution are the reproductive cells, like eggs and sperm. Any mutations in the sex cells mean that potentially the change (the mutation) can be passed onto following generations. These mutations are labelled Germ Line Mutations.
Migration is the flow of genes from one population to another. This Gene Flow can include various different events, such as pollen being blown to a new destination or people moving to new cities or countries. In a situation where genes are carried to a population where those genes previously did not exist, gene flow becomes a very important source of genetic variation.
Thus, as well as being mechanisms of evolution, Mutation and Migration also constitute sources of genetic variation. Another source of genetic variation is sex, which can introduce new gene combinations into a population.
Genetic drift refers to the situation where, just ‘by chance’, some individuals leave behind a few more descendents and thus genes than other individuals. This happens to all populations since there can be no avoidance of chance. So for example, every time somebody steps on an insect with a certain characteristic, this reduces the number within that particular population and hence means there is one less insect remaining to pass on its genes to a new generation. Conversely, this also means that there are now more insects with different characteristics within the same population, who are able to pass on their genes. Clearly, this shows that genetic drift affects the genetic makeup of a population through entirely random means.
Natural Selection is the fourth cog in the wheel of evolution. This in itself requires three components: variation in traits, differential reproduction and heredity. To understand this, consider a population of beetles. Some beetles are brown and others are green – this is a variation in a trait or a characteristic.
The environment is not able to support unlimited growth of the population and so not all individuals are able to reproduce to their full potential. For example, we could say that green beetles are easily visible on the ground and so tend to get eaten more by birds – so less survive to reproduce compared to brown beetles. In other words, we have differential reproduction.
Finally, the brown beetles have brown baby beetles since this trait has a genetic basis i.e. they pass on a gene that determines the colour to be brown. This is what is meant by heredity. Putting these components together, evolution by natural selection is seen at work. The more advantageous trait of brown colour becomes more common in the population with time and if this process continues, then eventually all the beetles will be brown.
It is claimed that natural selection is also able to shape behaviour. The mating rituals that many birds have, the wiggle dance that bee’s do or the human capacity to learn language, have genetic components.
In some cases, natural selection can be observed directly. Data shows that the shape of finches' beaks on the Galapagos Islands is related to weather patterns: after droughts, the finch population has deeper, stronger beaks that let them eat tougher seeds.
In other cases, human activity has led to environmental changes that have caused populations to evolve through natural selection. A striking example is that of the population of dark moths in the 19th century in England, which rose and fell in parallel to industrial pollution. These changes can often be observed and documented.
‘Fitness’ is a concept used to describe how good a particular organism is at leaving its set of genes in the next generation compared with others with a different set of genes. Going back to the example of beetles, if brown beetles were to consistently leave more off spring than green beetles, then they would be considered to have a higher fitness. Fitness however does depend on the environment in which an organism lives. Also, from this perspective, the fittest individual is not necessarily the strongest, fastest or biggest. What matters is leaving it’s genes in the next generation and so survival ability, finding a mate and producing off spring is more important. This sub-category of natural selection in relation to finding a mate and reproductive behaviour is labelled sexual selection.
Another category of natural selection is artificial selection. This is where, instead of nature, humans consciously select for or against particular features in organisms. For example, the human may allow only organisms with the desired feature to reproduce or may provide more resources to the organisms with the desired feature. Historically, farmers and breeders have used this idea of selection to cause major changes in the features of their plants and animals.
One key aspect of natural selection is known as adaptation. An adaptation is a feature that is common in a population because it seems to provide an improved function. Adaptations can take many forms: a behaviour that allows better evasion of predators, a protein that functions better at body temperature, or an anatomical feature that allows the organism to access a valuable new resource — all of these might be adaptations. For example, mimicry of leaves by insects is an adaptation for evading predators or the use of echolocation by bats to help them catch insects. Similarly, the creosote bush is a desert-dwelling plant that produces toxins that prevent other plants from growing nearby, thus reducing competition for nutrients and water.
To summarise, all of the mechanisms discussed above (mutation, migration, genetic drift and natural selection) can cause changes in the frequencies of genes in populations, and so all of them are mechanisms of evolutionary change. However, it is worth keeping in mind that natural selection and genetic drift cannot operate unless there is genetic variation — that is, unless some individuals are genetically different from others.
A historical perspective
Although Charles Darwin is synonymous with the Theory of Evolution, he was not the first naturalist to propose that species changed over time into new species i.e. that life evolves. In the eighteenth century, a naturalist called Buffon along with others began to introduce the idea that life might not have been fixed since creation. By the end of the 1700s, palaeontologists had swelled the fossil collections of Europe, offering a picture of the past at odds with an unchanging natural world. And in 1801, a French naturalist named Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet; Chevalier de Lamarck took a great conceptual step and proposed a full-blown theory of evolution.
Lamarck was struck by the similarities of many of the animals he studied, and was impressed too by the burgeoning fossil record. It led him to argue that life was not fixed. When environments changed, organisms had to change their behaviour to survive. If they began to use an organ more than they had in the past, it would increase in its lifetime. If a giraffe stretched its neck for leaves, for example, a "nervous fluid" would flow into its neck and make it longer. Its offspring would inherit the longer neck, and continued stretching would make it longer still over several generations. Meanwhile organs that organisms stopped using would shrink (called vestigial structures).
Lamarck was mocked and attacked by many of his contemporary naturalists such as Cuvier. While they questioned him on scientific grounds, many of them were also disturbed by the theological implications of his work. Lamarck was proposing that life took on its current form through natural processes, not through miraculous interventions. For British naturalists in particular, steeped as they were in natural theology, this was appalling. They believed that nature was a reflection of God's benevolent design. To them, it seemed Lamarck was claiming that it was the result of blind primal forces. Shunned by the scientific community, Lamarck died in 1829 in poverty and obscurity.
In many ways, Darwin's central argument was very different from Lamarck's. He argued that complexity evolved simply as a result of life adapting to its local conditions from one generation to the next. He also argued that species could go extinct rather than change into new forms. But Darwin relied on much the same evidence for evolution that Lamarck did and Darwin wrongly accepted that changes acquired during an organism's lifetime could be passed on to its offspring.
Lamarckian inheritance remained popular throughout the 1800s, in large part because scientists did not yet understand how heredity works. With the discovery of genes, it was finally abandoned for the most part. But Lamarck, whom Darwin described as "this justly celebrated naturalist," remains a major figure in the history of biology for envisioning evolutionary change for the first time.
Throughout the nineteenth century, heredity remained a puzzle to scientists. How was it that children ended up looking similar to, but not exactly like, their parents? These questions fascinated and frustrated Charles Darwin deeply. After all, heredity lies at the heart of evolution.
Ironically, it was just as Darwin was publishing the Origin of Species in 1859 that someone got the first real glimpse of the biological machinery behind heredity. In a secluded monastery in what is now the Czech Republic, a monk named Gregor Mendel was studying heredity in a garden of peas. Through his experiments, Mendel discovered what later scientists called "dominant" and "recessive" alleles i.e. part of genetics.
Darwin and a British biologist called Alfred Russel Wallace had independently conceived of a natural, even observable, way for life to change: a process Darwin called natural selection. Within a few decades, most scientists accepted that evolution and the descent of species from common ancestors were real. But natural selection had a harder time finding acceptance.
Even in 1900, whilst many scientists were rediscovering Mendel's insights, they continued to remain opposed to natural selection. After all, Darwin had talked of natural selection gradually altering a species by working on tiny variations. But the Mendelist’s found major differences between traits encoded by alleles. In order to jump from one allele to another, evolution must make giant jumps—an idea that seemed to clash with Darwin.
But in the 1920s geneticists began to recognize that natural selection could indeed act on genes. For one thing, it became clear that any given trait was usually the product of many genes rather than a single one. A mutation to any one of the genes involved could create small changes to the trait rather than some drastic transformation. Just as importantly, several scientists — foremost among them Ronald Fisher, JBS Haldane and Sewall Wright — showed how natural selection could operate in a Mendelian world. They carried out breeding experiments like previous geneticists, but they also did something new: they built sophisticated mathematical models of evolution.
Known as "population genetics," their approach revealed how mutations arise and, if they are favoured by natural selection, can spread through a population. Even a slight advantage can let genes spread rapidly through a group of animals or plants and drive other forms extinct. Evolution, these population geneticists argued, is carried out mainly by small mutations, since drastic mutations would almost always be harmful rather than helpful.
Thus, population genetics became one of the key elements of what would be called the Modern Synthesis.
In 1937, a Soviet-born geneticist named Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote a landmark book called Genetics and the Origin of Species. Dobzhansky's ability to combine genetics and natural history attracted many other biologists to join him in the effort to find a unified explanation of how evolution happens. Their combined work known as "The Modern Synthesis" brought together genetics, palaeontology and many other sciences into one powerful explanation of evolution, showing how mutations and natural selection could produce large-scale evolutionary change.
While evolutionary biologists were fashioning the Modern Synthesis, geneticists around the world searched furiously for the molecules that carried genetic information. They knew that cells contained several different types of molecules, such as proteins and nucleic acids. But which had the capacity to bear information and be copied into new cells?
The answer came through the discovery of DNA by Francis Crick and James Watson, which revolutionized evolutionary biology. Mutations, researchers realized, change the structure of the DNA. A single base pair may change, or a set of genes may be duplicated. Hence, those mutations that confer a selective advantage to an individual become more common over time, and ultimately these mutant genes could drive the older versions out of existence.
Evidences used by the proponents of the Theory
The mechanisms covered thus far are the basic building blocks of the theory of evolution. The next logical step is to look at the evidence that is given to claim these processes are responsible for both micro and macroevolution. In other words, what evidence is there that evolution has occurred and is responsible for the variety of life around us, and also is there evidence that demonstrates the mechanisms discussed in this article are indeed behind all these changes?
Those who support the theory of evolution present proofs that can loosely be gathered into a number of categories. We will examine these in turn.
The primary source of proof for the theory comes from Fossil Evidence. The argument is that fossil records provide excellent snapshots of the past and when assembled they illustrate evolutionary change over many millions of years.
As well as being actual remains of organisms, and thus giving an understanding as to the shape, appearance and skeletal structure, fossils can give additional clues. For example, they can indicate interactions that took place many years previously. A fossil may contain punctures or holes that could be teeth records of various animals, allowing scientists to extrapolate about what kind of organism may have been responsible, the shape of its jaws, and so on.
Fossils can tell us about the growth patterns in ancient animals. For example, examining a cross section of a bone that has been found, it is possible to see the number of blood vessels; this in turn would indicate the speed of growth and so on.
An important section of fossil records are transitional forms. These are fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between ancient organisms and their descendents. Since scientists have found so many transitional forms, it is claimed there is an abundance of evidence for evolution. An example of this is the case of the beluga whale. The beluga whale has its nostrils at the top of its skull. A fossil record of an animal that is considered to be related to today’s whales and dolphins, called Pakicetus, had its nostrils at the front of its skull. This animal lived about 50 million years ago. So scientists would expect that there might be a transitional form i.e. an animal that had some variation in the position of its nostrils compared to Pakicetus and the beluga whale. In fact, fossil records have been discovered of a skull, about 25 million years old, where the nostrils are in the middle of the skull. This animal has been labelled Aetiocetus.
So Aetiocetus could plausibly be the transitional form, linking Pakicetus to the beluga whale and demonstrating a steady evolution.
The second source of evidence is garnered from studying homologies. Evolutionary theory predicts that organisms that come from the same ancestor will share similarities. These similar characteristics are known as homologies. As mentioned earlier, the logic is essentially that historically every species shares a common ancestor. As we move forward in time, new species evolve, but since they share a number of common ancestors, so we would expect them to share some characteristics that exist or existed in those ancestors. A crude example would be that of humans and apes. At some stage, going back in time, there was a common ancestor from which both species evolved. So humans and chimpanzees would have similar characteristics, based on the fact that they share common ancestors. Another example of homology is that of leaves. If we were to examine the leaves of say the pitcher plant (which has leaves shaped to capture insects), the Venus Flytrap, the Poinsettia (which has bright red leaves) and the cactus plant (where its leaves are essentially spines) then we would see that each type of leave has a different shape and function. Yet they are all derived from a common ancestral form.
Yet another example of homology is the forelimb of tetrapods (vertebrates with legs). Frogs, birds, rabbits and lizards all have different forelimbs, reflecting their different lifestyles. But those different forelimbs all share the same set of bones - the humerus, the radius, and the ulna. These are the same bones seen in fossils of the extinct transitional animal, Eusthenopteron, which demonstrates their common ancestry.
Comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences and studying embryological development can reveal homologies.
Studying the embryological development of living things (i.e. prior to birth) provides clues to the evolution of present-day organisms. During some stages of development, organisms exhibit ancestral features in whole or incomplete form. For example, some species of living snakes have hind limb-buds as early embryos but rapidly lose the buds and develop into legless adults. The study of developmental stages of snakes, combined with fossil evidence of snakes with hind limbs, supports the hypothesis that snakes evolved from a limbed ancestor.
Similarly, toothed whales have full sets of teeth throughout their lives. Baleen whales, however, only possess teeth in the early foetal stage and lose them before birth. The possession of teeth in foetal baleen whales provides evidence of common ancestry with toothed whales and other mammals. In addition, fossil evidence indicates that the late Oligocene whale Aetiocetus (the same Aetiocetus - our transitional friend with the nostrils in the middle of its skull), which is considered to be the earliest example of baleen whales, also bore a full set of teeth.
From a cellular and molecular level we find fundamental similarities between the cells of living things, which can be explained by the theory of evolution. All organisms are made of cells, which consist of membranes filled with water containing genetic material, proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, salts and other substances. The cells of most living things use sugar for fuel while producing proteins as building blocks and messengers. Comparing a typical animal cell with that of a plant, there are only three structures unique to one or the other (these are the cell wall, the centriole and the chloroplast). All other aspects are similar, such as the nucleus, cytoplasm and the vacuole.
Comparison of genes between species also reveals striking similarities – for example, even roundworms share 25% of their genes with humans. In many ways, DNA is itself a homology for all living things – i.e. everything has DNA and so this is a common trait that must have come from a common ancestor.
In a nutshell, homologies are used as proof for the theory, since the existence of similarities between groups of organisms is an indication of common ancestors and thus evolution.
A third source of evidence for evolution is the fact that there has been sufficient time for this process to have produced the diversity we see. The age of the earth has been determined through both relative dating (i.e. examining the different layers of rocks on the surface of the earth) and numerical dating which relies on the decay of radioactive elements such as uranium and potassium. The conclusion made is that the timescales involved are adequate for evolution to take its course.
Artificial selection, mentioned earlier, is also an evidence for evolution. This is because people have been using selective breeding with plants and animals for many hundreds of years, and this breeding has shown how species can change dramatically. It can be argued that artificial selection has the ability to modify the forms and behaviours of populations to the point they are seemingly very different to their ancestors. So artificial selection is a model that helps with understanding natural selection.
The variation in the environment and ecology is also a proof of sorts. As predicted by evolutionary theory, populations evolve in response to their surroundings. In any ecosystem there are finite opportunities to make a living. Organisms either have the genetic tools to take advantage of those opportunities or they do not.
For example, house sparrows arrived in North America from Europe in the nineteenth century. Since then, genetic variation within the population and selection in various habitats, have allowed them to inhabit most of the continent. House sparrows in the north are larger and darker coloured than those in the south. Darker colours absorb sunlight better than light colours and larger size allows less surface area per unit volume, thus reducing heat loss — both advantages in a cold climate. This is an example of natural selection acting upon a population, producing microevolution on a continental scale.
Finally, experiments also show that populations can evolve. As an example, John Endler of the University of California has conducted experiments with guppies (a type of fish) of Trinidad that clearly show selection at work. The scenario is as follows: female guppies prefer colourful males for mating purposes. Predatory fish also "prefer" colourful males, but for a less complimentary purpose — a source of food that is easy to spot. Some portions of the streams where guppies live have fewer predators than others and in these locations the males are more colourful. Not surprisingly, males in locations where there are more predators tend to be less colourful.
When Dr. Endler transferred predatory fish to the regions with brightly coloured male guppies, selection acted rapidly to produce a population of duller males. So this demonstrates that persistent variation within a population provides the raw material for rapid evolution when environmental conditions change.
Arguments against the Theory of Evolution
The previous section outlined some of the proofs that are presented for the theory of evolution. We will now consider briefly a few of the arguments against the theory.
1. The theory of evolution is usually described as fact, and many people see it like this due to a moulding of public opinion. Yet the trouble is that it is simply a theory. And like many theories it is wont to constantly chop and change. Indeed we can see on numerous occasions how it has changed over time and undergone revisions. For example, according to Darwin himself, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”.
Another example is the proposition of a slightly different model in recent times. Called "punctuated equilibrium", this model rejects the Darwinist idea of a cumulative, step-by-step evolution and holds that evolution took place instead in big, discontinuous "jumps". This is because those who ascribe to it believe the fossil record does not support gradual evolution. Sadly for the proponents, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Gould (American palaeontologists) their own theory is bankrupt – since for one thing, it conflicts with the understanding that genes cannot undergo radical mutations.
2. The sources of proof given for the theory essentially rely on retro-fitting the supposed evidence to the theory i.e. the theory states evolution occurred from a common ancestor, and then study of fossils and homologies is used to indicate that indeed the theory is correct and evolution does occur. But equally we could state there is a creator who created the amazing diversity of life and also the similarities between species – in fact this is more plausible. Thus fossils and homologies would just as much, if not more, support this ‘theory’ of a Creator.
3. Fossils are a record of what may have existed. They do not indicate anything more than this. By examining a fossil we could equally state that the organism was created as opposed to evolving from an ancestor. The fossil record is also very much incomplete – there are massive, gaping holes. This presents a staggering problem for proponents of the Theory. The somewhat weak argument is that the bulk of the fossil record may have been destroyed or is yet to be discovered. According to Neville George, a professor of Palaeontology at Glasgow University:
“There is no need to apologise any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration…” Yet he goes on to say, “The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps”.
Contrary to what evolutionists claim, there are only limited (if any) transitional forms. Importantly, for example, we don’t see transitional forms that show the alleged evolution of apes to humans [and to try and explain the many loopholes regarding this, there is a current debate among evolutionists themselves about whether it occurred in steps or smoothly which we alluded to earlier i.e. punctuated equilibrium]. The fossil record back then (and still today) is nearly totally void of transitional species. If species are continually mutating, never constant, why do we find several of the same, certain prehistoric creatures, but never any that appear to be in transition? Why do palaeontologists find lots of dinosaurs but never where dinosaurs come from, nor what they turned into?
In Darwin's own words, 'Why, if species have descended by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of species being, as we see them, well defined?' It is an excellent question, which he answers himself, 'I can give no satisfactory answer.'
Indeed British evolutionist Derek Ager admits, “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find - over and over again - not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another”.
Yet another problem in using the fossil record as evidence for evolution is that under closer examination, it appears to be a proof for exactly the opposite argument – i.e. creation. For example, one of the oldest strata of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years. The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period seemed to emerge all of a sudden in the fossil record – there appeared to be no ancestors, although in relatively recent times palaeontologists believe fossils have been found dating from the preceding Vendian (or Ediacaran) period. The fossils found in the Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature.
“A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures. The large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and they were as distinct from each other as they are today”.
And one of the most vociferous advocates for atheism and evolution in today’s age, Richard Dawkins, comments “the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists”.
4. The basic mechanism for gene variation is mutation. And it is known that mutations are random and limited in their scope. We should note that what is not a point of debate here is the fact that genes undergo mutation; neither is there a point of conflict with the various biological processes within organisms. For example, we know that insects can build up resistance against forms of pesticide over time – in fact, in the same manner humans have long believed that taking poison in small quantities can help survive what would normally be a fatal dose. These observations do not really constitute evolution. However, even if we agreed to define these particular cases as examples of microevolution, the fact is that they can be explained by what we have come to know through scientific study and resulting conclusions. The argument for a Creator also accepts scientific facts and conclusions – it no more denies the laws of biology being created, than it denies the laws of physics being put in place by the Creator. Hence, change within the framework of the laws of biology is possible – and there is sufficient evidence for this. The main problem however is with macroevolution. To even begin to consider macroevolution, mutations would need to be dramatic – trying to get round this, it is claimed that there has been sufficient time for many small scale mutations to eventually yield the different species we see. But frankly this isn’t plausible – we have seen no evidence to support such a claim - and so this is again nothing more than a pure hypothesis.
In addition, there are many other problems with the mutation argument. If mutations occur, they actually cause harmful effects and not beneficial ones. We can witness the effects of mutations caused in humans following radiation poisoning at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl – that is, a litany of death, disability and illness.
According to the evolutionist scientist Warren Weavers commenting in the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that may have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:
“Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are necessary parts of the process of evolution. How can good effects - evolution to higher forms of life - results from mutations practically all of which are harmful?”
Similarly, another scientist B.G. Ranganathan states in his book ‘Origins?’ that “Mutations are small, random, and harmful. They rarely occur and the best possibility is that they will be ineffectual. These four characteristics of mutations imply that mutations cannot lead to an evolutionary development. A random change in a highly specialised organism is either ineffectual or harmful. A random change in a watch cannot improve the watch. It will most probably harm it or at best be ineffectual. An earthquake does not improve the city, it brings destruction”.
Finally, mutations do not actually add any new information to an organisms DNA. During a mutation, the genetic information is either destroyed or rearranged, but since there is no new information, it is impossible for mutations to cause a new trait or organ within a living organism.
5. Artificial selection (breeding) and sexual selection do produce new combinations but these are limited in their scope. They are restricted to a finite set of possible gene combinations. So breeding cannot introduce a radically new species – it simply gives a result based on the limited pool of combined genes. It cannot give a result outside of this. E.g. Horse plus donkey gives a mule. Or an African married to a Caucasian can result in off spring described as half-cast. The latter cannot produce a human whose skin colour is red or purple, etc.
6. The odds are heavily stacked against evolution. Evolution cannot answer where the first cell came from. The best guess is that came about through a random coincidence. Fred Hoyle, a well-known English mathematician and astronomer, and someone who believes in evolution, made the analogy that the chances of the first cell forming in this manner were comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials present. And according to Professor of Applied Mathematics and astronomy from University College (Cardiff, Wales), Chandra Wickramasinghe:
“The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence”. In other words the random formation of such a first cell is an impossibility.
But still let’s assume we suddenly have a cell. The first cell would then have to self-reproduce otherwise there would only ever be one cell. This becomes problematic for evolutionists so they suggest self-replication – i.e. the first cell has the ability to clone itself. However, organic matter can only self reproduces if it exists as a fully developed cell with existing support structures such as the particular environment and energy. This then requires more leaps of faith – so let’s make another assumption, this time that the cell does have a complex structure and the ability to reproduce. But, for evolution, mutation needs to happen. So firstly, since mutation is random, even given an absolute age, mutation might not occur. And secondly, mutation can only take place if the cell is forced to repair itself or if it makes a copy of itself. Thus, for a handful of cells, to copy and mutate successfully and form different cells and for this process to continue onwards to produce the complexity of life we see is something, which cannot happen. Leaving aside time, and the random nature of mutation, just the series of mutations necessary to produce even the simplest of species are impossible.
7. There is no actual hard evidence for the process of evolution itself. We don’t witness evolution. All that experiments (such as the one involving guppies) or observations in the field (such as the house sparrows example) demonstrate is a form of selection. But this is not real evolution – the fact that a population may change due to various factors (such as environment, predators, etc) or that it may become extinct is not a change from one species to another. So even if we can see natural selection of sorts, this is based on rational factors, and is not evolution.
8. Evolution cannot answer why only the human species has the clear faculty of intelligence, thought and reasoning that has allowed it to progress. It cannot explain the existence of emotions, except through an undefined notion such as chemicals within the body. And it is unable to offer any satisfactory explanation for issues such as the existence of the soul – indeed according to evolutionary theory, there cannot be a soul, rather life itself must be caused by the functioning of cells since after all everything has evolved from a single cell.
9. Adaptation is mentioned as a feature of evolution. That is, the manner in which organisms have evolved beneficial characteristics adapted to their environment, which help them survive. So one example we gave earlier was that of stick insects, where their body itself is a form of camouflage protecting them against predators. However, evolutionists themselves state that mutation is random and can lead to beneficial as well as harmful results. The environment cannot influence the occurrence or form of any mutation. So in this case, the evolutionary argument would have to be that today’s stick insects evolved from ancestors, which did randomly mutate to have this beneficial characteristic of camouflage. Those within the population that didn’t inherit this mutation would have died out due to their inability to survive. But once again, claiming that a series of mutations occurred, that lead to stick insects possessing characteristics that are suited to their environment, is nothing but conjecture. As before, we could equally state that a Creator has created various species and organisms of life with these inherent varying characteristics. So, organisms were in fact created with characteristics that we interpret as beneficial to them, instead of these traits evolving through time. Thus, the fact that many organisms seem well matched to their environments cannot be cited as any kind of proof or indication of evolution.
10. Let’s take a look at another argument that shows the fallacy of evolution. Many organisms and parts of organisms do not appear to have evolved from lesser things because they are 'irreducibly complex' life forms. Irreducible complexity is a concept that has been developed to describe something that is made of interacting parts that all work together. To understand this, take the example of a mousetrap. A mousetrap cannot be assembled through gradual improvement. You cannot start with a wooden base, catching a few mice, then add a hammer, and catch more, then add a spring, improving it further. To even begin catching mice one must assemble all the components completely with design and intent. Furthermore, if one of these parts changes or evolves independently, the entire thing will stop working. The mousetrap, for instance, will become useless if even one part malfunctions.
Likewise, many biological structures are irreducibly complex. Bats are a well-known example. They are said to have evolved from a small rodent whose front toes became wings. This presents a multitude of problems. As the front toes grow skin between them, the creature has limbs that are too long to run, or even walk well, yet too short to help it fly. There is no plausible way that a bat wing can evolve from a rodent's front toes. In fact, the fossil record supports this, because the first time bats are seen in the fossil record, they have completely developed wings and are virtually identical to modern bats.
Consider another example, that of the eye. Suppose that before animals had sight, one species decided it would be advantageous to be able to decrypt light rays. So, what is evolved first? The retina? The iris? The eye is made of many tiny parts, each totally useless without the others. The probability that a genetic mutation that would create each of these at the same time, in the same organism, is zero. If, however, one organism evolved just a retina, then the logic of Darwin suggests that the only solution is to rid oneself of useless traits replacing them with beneficial ones, so the idea of the eye evolving one segment at a time is also bogus.
Conclusion
In a time where the theory of evolution has been catapulted to the level of fact, it is useful for us to have a firm grasp of what this theory is, and with the emerging discussion gaining more and more profile (that between creationism on the one side and evolutionary thought on the other) it is vital that we are able to show the strength of the correct argument.
One big problem of presenting the topic of evolution is finding a reasonable balance: on the one hand, simplifying and leaving out some of the terminology risks not being able to convey the subject matter accurately; on the other, by not revising and simplifying at all, there is a distinct possibility that only those with a solid understanding of biology and science will grasp what is being presented. This article has attempted to run through the basic mechanics of the theory, proofs that are presented for it and some of the arguments against evolution. Many points are too elaborate and wide ranging to touch upon in this discussion. In any event, there is an abundance of material available regarding the theory and surrounding issues that discuss these aspects in much more detail and is worth exploring for those that are interested in doing so. The theory is often cloaked in scientific language and complex terminology, and presented as a solid and viable explanation for the existence of life. Although the focus and objective of the article was not to prove the fallacy of the theory, but rather to be informative with respect to the whole discussion regarding evolution as a concept, nevertheless it has hopefully been shown that evolutionary understanding, far from being fact, is nothing more than speculation and hypothesis.
Source
Introduction
The Theory of Evolution has become the de facto standard used in the West, and indeed beyond, to explain the existence of creation and life. It is described as rational and scientific; many statements are made to demonstrate the strength of the Theory – such as the number of scientists who have given it their blessings and its widespread acceptance beyond the scientific community. Nonetheless, there is a strong perception existing in our day and age of the credibility of the Theory of Evolution. To some extent, it is discussed and taught in schools and educational establishments and promoted in the mainstream media. In stark contrast, other arguments that explain the existence of life are considered to be irrational, backward and steeped in ignorance borne out of belief in religion. In other words, there are essentially two clear camps: the ‘scientific’ and progressive camp which espouses the virtues of the Theory, and the apparently ‘unscientific’ contingent which clings to outmoded explanations such as the existence of a Creator. In recent times, thanks in no small part to various Christian elements in the U.S., the clashes between these two sides have become more visible and the tempo seems to have been raised. There have been calls for a restructuring to the way in which the Theory is taught to children, or at the very least provision for a balanced approach, so that the young are taught about other explanations as well. Many establishments have insisted on giving religious teaching the priority, leading to conflict with those who believe religion should have no such role in schools.
The Theory of Evolution
The theory of evolution is sometimes described using complex and convoluted language, which can be a significant source of confusion. What adds to the confusion is the fact that aspects of the theory do undergo change and revision. In this article I will try to explain the main points that constitute the theory, on which those who propose this theory are agreed, without getting bogged down in the finer details or indeed the many arguments and assumptions in relation to areas where there may be some difference of opinion and divergence of views. I have also tried to simplify the description so it can be understood without recourse to a dictionary and constant definition of scientific terminology.
To understand the thrust of the theory, it is useful to have an idea of some of the concepts that are used and an appreciation of the context.
Firstly, the definition: biological evolution is defined as descent with modification from a common ancestor. In this context, descent means going down from one generation through to the following generations. Modification alludes to alterations in genetic make-up and changes in gene frequencies. This definition encompasses what is known as small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).
Of course biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.
Secondly, a key central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as our cousins and we share a common grandmother. It is argued that through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we are all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.
The process of evolution produces a pattern of relationships between species. As lineages evolve and split and modifications are inherited, their evolutionary paths diverge. This produces a branching pattern of evolutionary relationships. These relationships can be reconstructed and represented on a "family tree," called a phylogeny.
As a consequence of this ‘family tree’ understanding, it is important to remember that:
1. Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. Humans and chimpanzees are evolutionary cousins and share a recent common ancestor that was neither chimpanzee nor human.
2. Humans are not "higher" or "more evolved" than other living lineages. Since these lineages split, humans and chimpanzees have each evolved traits unique to their own lineages.
Thirdly, another important aspect of evolution is the linking of speciation events to time i.e. trying to understand when different species evolved. Using various methods, such as radiometric dating, scientists are able to conclude that life began 3.8 billion years ago, and insects diversified 290 million years ago, but the human and chimpanzee lineages diverged only five million years ago.
To give an analogy for this, imagine squeezing the billions of years of the history of life on Earth into a single minute. Then it would take about 50 seconds for multi-cellular life to evolve, another four seconds for vertebrates to invade the land, and another four seconds for flowers to evolve — and only in the last 0.002 seconds would "modern" humans arise.
So, the claim is made that evolution is the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient ancestors. Evolution is apparently responsible for both the remarkable similarities we see across all life and the amazing diversity of that life — but exactly how does it work?
Fundamental to the process is genetic variation upon which selective forces can act in order for evolution to occur. Evolution only occurs when there is a change in gene frequency within a population over time. These genetic differences are heritable and can be passed on to the next generation — which is what really matters in evolution: long term change. Therefore, we need to examine the actual mechanisms of evolution.
In essence there are four basic processes, which constitute the mechanisms of evolution. These are mutation, migration, genetic drift and natural selection.
Mutation refers to the actual changes in the DNA within cells. The DNA affects how an organism looks, behaves and so on. Thus a change in the DNA can alter all aspects of its life.
When cells divide the DNA is copied exactly as it is. However, on occasion, it is possible for they’re to be a discrepancy in the copying of the DNA. This difference is considered a mutation. It must be kept in mind that mutations are random – and so do not normally depend on external factors. That said, it is possible for there to be mutation as a result of exposure to radiation or chemicals, causing the DNA to break down. In this case, when the cells repair the DNA, the result is not a perfect repair – and so the resultant DNA is a mutation.
Whether a particular mutation occurs is not related to how useful that mutation would be. The mutation in the genes can yield a beneficial, neutral or harmful change for the organism.
Although mutation can occur with any gene, it is the mutation that affects genes, which can be transmitted from one generation to the next that is of interest, since this is a form of evolution. If genes mutate and cannot be passed to future generations, then these mutations cannot be considered as having any relation to evolution. These are called Somatic Mutations and occur in non-reproductive cells. Hence the genes that are affected by mutation related to biological evolution are the reproductive cells, like eggs and sperm. Any mutations in the sex cells mean that potentially the change (the mutation) can be passed onto following generations. These mutations are labelled Germ Line Mutations.
Migration is the flow of genes from one population to another. This Gene Flow can include various different events, such as pollen being blown to a new destination or people moving to new cities or countries. In a situation where genes are carried to a population where those genes previously did not exist, gene flow becomes a very important source of genetic variation.
Thus, as well as being mechanisms of evolution, Mutation and Migration also constitute sources of genetic variation. Another source of genetic variation is sex, which can introduce new gene combinations into a population.
Genetic drift refers to the situation where, just ‘by chance’, some individuals leave behind a few more descendents and thus genes than other individuals. This happens to all populations since there can be no avoidance of chance. So for example, every time somebody steps on an insect with a certain characteristic, this reduces the number within that particular population and hence means there is one less insect remaining to pass on its genes to a new generation. Conversely, this also means that there are now more insects with different characteristics within the same population, who are able to pass on their genes. Clearly, this shows that genetic drift affects the genetic makeup of a population through entirely random means.
Natural Selection is the fourth cog in the wheel of evolution. This in itself requires three components: variation in traits, differential reproduction and heredity. To understand this, consider a population of beetles. Some beetles are brown and others are green – this is a variation in a trait or a characteristic.
The environment is not able to support unlimited growth of the population and so not all individuals are able to reproduce to their full potential. For example, we could say that green beetles are easily visible on the ground and so tend to get eaten more by birds – so less survive to reproduce compared to brown beetles. In other words, we have differential reproduction.
Finally, the brown beetles have brown baby beetles since this trait has a genetic basis i.e. they pass on a gene that determines the colour to be brown. This is what is meant by heredity. Putting these components together, evolution by natural selection is seen at work. The more advantageous trait of brown colour becomes more common in the population with time and if this process continues, then eventually all the beetles will be brown.
It is claimed that natural selection is also able to shape behaviour. The mating rituals that many birds have, the wiggle dance that bee’s do or the human capacity to learn language, have genetic components.
In some cases, natural selection can be observed directly. Data shows that the shape of finches' beaks on the Galapagos Islands is related to weather patterns: after droughts, the finch population has deeper, stronger beaks that let them eat tougher seeds.
In other cases, human activity has led to environmental changes that have caused populations to evolve through natural selection. A striking example is that of the population of dark moths in the 19th century in England, which rose and fell in parallel to industrial pollution. These changes can often be observed and documented.
‘Fitness’ is a concept used to describe how good a particular organism is at leaving its set of genes in the next generation compared with others with a different set of genes. Going back to the example of beetles, if brown beetles were to consistently leave more off spring than green beetles, then they would be considered to have a higher fitness. Fitness however does depend on the environment in which an organism lives. Also, from this perspective, the fittest individual is not necessarily the strongest, fastest or biggest. What matters is leaving it’s genes in the next generation and so survival ability, finding a mate and producing off spring is more important. This sub-category of natural selection in relation to finding a mate and reproductive behaviour is labelled sexual selection.
Another category of natural selection is artificial selection. This is where, instead of nature, humans consciously select for or against particular features in organisms. For example, the human may allow only organisms with the desired feature to reproduce or may provide more resources to the organisms with the desired feature. Historically, farmers and breeders have used this idea of selection to cause major changes in the features of their plants and animals.
One key aspect of natural selection is known as adaptation. An adaptation is a feature that is common in a population because it seems to provide an improved function. Adaptations can take many forms: a behaviour that allows better evasion of predators, a protein that functions better at body temperature, or an anatomical feature that allows the organism to access a valuable new resource — all of these might be adaptations. For example, mimicry of leaves by insects is an adaptation for evading predators or the use of echolocation by bats to help them catch insects. Similarly, the creosote bush is a desert-dwelling plant that produces toxins that prevent other plants from growing nearby, thus reducing competition for nutrients and water.
To summarise, all of the mechanisms discussed above (mutation, migration, genetic drift and natural selection) can cause changes in the frequencies of genes in populations, and so all of them are mechanisms of evolutionary change. However, it is worth keeping in mind that natural selection and genetic drift cannot operate unless there is genetic variation — that is, unless some individuals are genetically different from others.
A historical perspective
Although Charles Darwin is synonymous with the Theory of Evolution, he was not the first naturalist to propose that species changed over time into new species i.e. that life evolves. In the eighteenth century, a naturalist called Buffon along with others began to introduce the idea that life might not have been fixed since creation. By the end of the 1700s, palaeontologists had swelled the fossil collections of Europe, offering a picture of the past at odds with an unchanging natural world. And in 1801, a French naturalist named Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet; Chevalier de Lamarck took a great conceptual step and proposed a full-blown theory of evolution.
Lamarck was struck by the similarities of many of the animals he studied, and was impressed too by the burgeoning fossil record. It led him to argue that life was not fixed. When environments changed, organisms had to change their behaviour to survive. If they began to use an organ more than they had in the past, it would increase in its lifetime. If a giraffe stretched its neck for leaves, for example, a "nervous fluid" would flow into its neck and make it longer. Its offspring would inherit the longer neck, and continued stretching would make it longer still over several generations. Meanwhile organs that organisms stopped using would shrink (called vestigial structures).
Lamarck was mocked and attacked by many of his contemporary naturalists such as Cuvier. While they questioned him on scientific grounds, many of them were also disturbed by the theological implications of his work. Lamarck was proposing that life took on its current form through natural processes, not through miraculous interventions. For British naturalists in particular, steeped as they were in natural theology, this was appalling. They believed that nature was a reflection of God's benevolent design. To them, it seemed Lamarck was claiming that it was the result of blind primal forces. Shunned by the scientific community, Lamarck died in 1829 in poverty and obscurity.
In many ways, Darwin's central argument was very different from Lamarck's. He argued that complexity evolved simply as a result of life adapting to its local conditions from one generation to the next. He also argued that species could go extinct rather than change into new forms. But Darwin relied on much the same evidence for evolution that Lamarck did and Darwin wrongly accepted that changes acquired during an organism's lifetime could be passed on to its offspring.
Lamarckian inheritance remained popular throughout the 1800s, in large part because scientists did not yet understand how heredity works. With the discovery of genes, it was finally abandoned for the most part. But Lamarck, whom Darwin described as "this justly celebrated naturalist," remains a major figure in the history of biology for envisioning evolutionary change for the first time.
Throughout the nineteenth century, heredity remained a puzzle to scientists. How was it that children ended up looking similar to, but not exactly like, their parents? These questions fascinated and frustrated Charles Darwin deeply. After all, heredity lies at the heart of evolution.
Ironically, it was just as Darwin was publishing the Origin of Species in 1859 that someone got the first real glimpse of the biological machinery behind heredity. In a secluded monastery in what is now the Czech Republic, a monk named Gregor Mendel was studying heredity in a garden of peas. Through his experiments, Mendel discovered what later scientists called "dominant" and "recessive" alleles i.e. part of genetics.
Darwin and a British biologist called Alfred Russel Wallace had independently conceived of a natural, even observable, way for life to change: a process Darwin called natural selection. Within a few decades, most scientists accepted that evolution and the descent of species from common ancestors were real. But natural selection had a harder time finding acceptance.
Even in 1900, whilst many scientists were rediscovering Mendel's insights, they continued to remain opposed to natural selection. After all, Darwin had talked of natural selection gradually altering a species by working on tiny variations. But the Mendelist’s found major differences between traits encoded by alleles. In order to jump from one allele to another, evolution must make giant jumps—an idea that seemed to clash with Darwin.
But in the 1920s geneticists began to recognize that natural selection could indeed act on genes. For one thing, it became clear that any given trait was usually the product of many genes rather than a single one. A mutation to any one of the genes involved could create small changes to the trait rather than some drastic transformation. Just as importantly, several scientists — foremost among them Ronald Fisher, JBS Haldane and Sewall Wright — showed how natural selection could operate in a Mendelian world. They carried out breeding experiments like previous geneticists, but they also did something new: they built sophisticated mathematical models of evolution.
Known as "population genetics," their approach revealed how mutations arise and, if they are favoured by natural selection, can spread through a population. Even a slight advantage can let genes spread rapidly through a group of animals or plants and drive other forms extinct. Evolution, these population geneticists argued, is carried out mainly by small mutations, since drastic mutations would almost always be harmful rather than helpful.
Thus, population genetics became one of the key elements of what would be called the Modern Synthesis.
In 1937, a Soviet-born geneticist named Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote a landmark book called Genetics and the Origin of Species. Dobzhansky's ability to combine genetics and natural history attracted many other biologists to join him in the effort to find a unified explanation of how evolution happens. Their combined work known as "The Modern Synthesis" brought together genetics, palaeontology and many other sciences into one powerful explanation of evolution, showing how mutations and natural selection could produce large-scale evolutionary change.
While evolutionary biologists were fashioning the Modern Synthesis, geneticists around the world searched furiously for the molecules that carried genetic information. They knew that cells contained several different types of molecules, such as proteins and nucleic acids. But which had the capacity to bear information and be copied into new cells?
The answer came through the discovery of DNA by Francis Crick and James Watson, which revolutionized evolutionary biology. Mutations, researchers realized, change the structure of the DNA. A single base pair may change, or a set of genes may be duplicated. Hence, those mutations that confer a selective advantage to an individual become more common over time, and ultimately these mutant genes could drive the older versions out of existence.
Evidences used by the proponents of the Theory
The mechanisms covered thus far are the basic building blocks of the theory of evolution. The next logical step is to look at the evidence that is given to claim these processes are responsible for both micro and macroevolution. In other words, what evidence is there that evolution has occurred and is responsible for the variety of life around us, and also is there evidence that demonstrates the mechanisms discussed in this article are indeed behind all these changes?
Those who support the theory of evolution present proofs that can loosely be gathered into a number of categories. We will examine these in turn.
The primary source of proof for the theory comes from Fossil Evidence. The argument is that fossil records provide excellent snapshots of the past and when assembled they illustrate evolutionary change over many millions of years.
As well as being actual remains of organisms, and thus giving an understanding as to the shape, appearance and skeletal structure, fossils can give additional clues. For example, they can indicate interactions that took place many years previously. A fossil may contain punctures or holes that could be teeth records of various animals, allowing scientists to extrapolate about what kind of organism may have been responsible, the shape of its jaws, and so on.
Fossils can tell us about the growth patterns in ancient animals. For example, examining a cross section of a bone that has been found, it is possible to see the number of blood vessels; this in turn would indicate the speed of growth and so on.
An important section of fossil records are transitional forms. These are fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between ancient organisms and their descendents. Since scientists have found so many transitional forms, it is claimed there is an abundance of evidence for evolution. An example of this is the case of the beluga whale. The beluga whale has its nostrils at the top of its skull. A fossil record of an animal that is considered to be related to today’s whales and dolphins, called Pakicetus, had its nostrils at the front of its skull. This animal lived about 50 million years ago. So scientists would expect that there might be a transitional form i.e. an animal that had some variation in the position of its nostrils compared to Pakicetus and the beluga whale. In fact, fossil records have been discovered of a skull, about 25 million years old, where the nostrils are in the middle of the skull. This animal has been labelled Aetiocetus.
So Aetiocetus could plausibly be the transitional form, linking Pakicetus to the beluga whale and demonstrating a steady evolution.
The second source of evidence is garnered from studying homologies. Evolutionary theory predicts that organisms that come from the same ancestor will share similarities. These similar characteristics are known as homologies. As mentioned earlier, the logic is essentially that historically every species shares a common ancestor. As we move forward in time, new species evolve, but since they share a number of common ancestors, so we would expect them to share some characteristics that exist or existed in those ancestors. A crude example would be that of humans and apes. At some stage, going back in time, there was a common ancestor from which both species evolved. So humans and chimpanzees would have similar characteristics, based on the fact that they share common ancestors. Another example of homology is that of leaves. If we were to examine the leaves of say the pitcher plant (which has leaves shaped to capture insects), the Venus Flytrap, the Poinsettia (which has bright red leaves) and the cactus plant (where its leaves are essentially spines) then we would see that each type of leave has a different shape and function. Yet they are all derived from a common ancestral form.
Yet another example of homology is the forelimb of tetrapods (vertebrates with legs). Frogs, birds, rabbits and lizards all have different forelimbs, reflecting their different lifestyles. But those different forelimbs all share the same set of bones - the humerus, the radius, and the ulna. These are the same bones seen in fossils of the extinct transitional animal, Eusthenopteron, which demonstrates their common ancestry.
Comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences and studying embryological development can reveal homologies.
Studying the embryological development of living things (i.e. prior to birth) provides clues to the evolution of present-day organisms. During some stages of development, organisms exhibit ancestral features in whole or incomplete form. For example, some species of living snakes have hind limb-buds as early embryos but rapidly lose the buds and develop into legless adults. The study of developmental stages of snakes, combined with fossil evidence of snakes with hind limbs, supports the hypothesis that snakes evolved from a limbed ancestor.
Similarly, toothed whales have full sets of teeth throughout their lives. Baleen whales, however, only possess teeth in the early foetal stage and lose them before birth. The possession of teeth in foetal baleen whales provides evidence of common ancestry with toothed whales and other mammals. In addition, fossil evidence indicates that the late Oligocene whale Aetiocetus (the same Aetiocetus - our transitional friend with the nostrils in the middle of its skull), which is considered to be the earliest example of baleen whales, also bore a full set of teeth.
From a cellular and molecular level we find fundamental similarities between the cells of living things, which can be explained by the theory of evolution. All organisms are made of cells, which consist of membranes filled with water containing genetic material, proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, salts and other substances. The cells of most living things use sugar for fuel while producing proteins as building blocks and messengers. Comparing a typical animal cell with that of a plant, there are only three structures unique to one or the other (these are the cell wall, the centriole and the chloroplast). All other aspects are similar, such as the nucleus, cytoplasm and the vacuole.
Comparison of genes between species also reveals striking similarities – for example, even roundworms share 25% of their genes with humans. In many ways, DNA is itself a homology for all living things – i.e. everything has DNA and so this is a common trait that must have come from a common ancestor.
In a nutshell, homologies are used as proof for the theory, since the existence of similarities between groups of organisms is an indication of common ancestors and thus evolution.
A third source of evidence for evolution is the fact that there has been sufficient time for this process to have produced the diversity we see. The age of the earth has been determined through both relative dating (i.e. examining the different layers of rocks on the surface of the earth) and numerical dating which relies on the decay of radioactive elements such as uranium and potassium. The conclusion made is that the timescales involved are adequate for evolution to take its course.
Artificial selection, mentioned earlier, is also an evidence for evolution. This is because people have been using selective breeding with plants and animals for many hundreds of years, and this breeding has shown how species can change dramatically. It can be argued that artificial selection has the ability to modify the forms and behaviours of populations to the point they are seemingly very different to their ancestors. So artificial selection is a model that helps with understanding natural selection.
The variation in the environment and ecology is also a proof of sorts. As predicted by evolutionary theory, populations evolve in response to their surroundings. In any ecosystem there are finite opportunities to make a living. Organisms either have the genetic tools to take advantage of those opportunities or they do not.
For example, house sparrows arrived in North America from Europe in the nineteenth century. Since then, genetic variation within the population and selection in various habitats, have allowed them to inhabit most of the continent. House sparrows in the north are larger and darker coloured than those in the south. Darker colours absorb sunlight better than light colours and larger size allows less surface area per unit volume, thus reducing heat loss — both advantages in a cold climate. This is an example of natural selection acting upon a population, producing microevolution on a continental scale.
Finally, experiments also show that populations can evolve. As an example, John Endler of the University of California has conducted experiments with guppies (a type of fish) of Trinidad that clearly show selection at work. The scenario is as follows: female guppies prefer colourful males for mating purposes. Predatory fish also "prefer" colourful males, but for a less complimentary purpose — a source of food that is easy to spot. Some portions of the streams where guppies live have fewer predators than others and in these locations the males are more colourful. Not surprisingly, males in locations where there are more predators tend to be less colourful.
When Dr. Endler transferred predatory fish to the regions with brightly coloured male guppies, selection acted rapidly to produce a population of duller males. So this demonstrates that persistent variation within a population provides the raw material for rapid evolution when environmental conditions change.
Arguments against the Theory of Evolution
The previous section outlined some of the proofs that are presented for the theory of evolution. We will now consider briefly a few of the arguments against the theory.
1. The theory of evolution is usually described as fact, and many people see it like this due to a moulding of public opinion. Yet the trouble is that it is simply a theory. And like many theories it is wont to constantly chop and change. Indeed we can see on numerous occasions how it has changed over time and undergone revisions. For example, according to Darwin himself, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”.
Another example is the proposition of a slightly different model in recent times. Called "punctuated equilibrium", this model rejects the Darwinist idea of a cumulative, step-by-step evolution and holds that evolution took place instead in big, discontinuous "jumps". This is because those who ascribe to it believe the fossil record does not support gradual evolution. Sadly for the proponents, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Gould (American palaeontologists) their own theory is bankrupt – since for one thing, it conflicts with the understanding that genes cannot undergo radical mutations.
2. The sources of proof given for the theory essentially rely on retro-fitting the supposed evidence to the theory i.e. the theory states evolution occurred from a common ancestor, and then study of fossils and homologies is used to indicate that indeed the theory is correct and evolution does occur. But equally we could state there is a creator who created the amazing diversity of life and also the similarities between species – in fact this is more plausible. Thus fossils and homologies would just as much, if not more, support this ‘theory’ of a Creator.
3. Fossils are a record of what may have existed. They do not indicate anything more than this. By examining a fossil we could equally state that the organism was created as opposed to evolving from an ancestor. The fossil record is also very much incomplete – there are massive, gaping holes. This presents a staggering problem for proponents of the Theory. The somewhat weak argument is that the bulk of the fossil record may have been destroyed or is yet to be discovered. According to Neville George, a professor of Palaeontology at Glasgow University:
“There is no need to apologise any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration…” Yet he goes on to say, “The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps”.
Contrary to what evolutionists claim, there are only limited (if any) transitional forms. Importantly, for example, we don’t see transitional forms that show the alleged evolution of apes to humans [and to try and explain the many loopholes regarding this, there is a current debate among evolutionists themselves about whether it occurred in steps or smoothly which we alluded to earlier i.e. punctuated equilibrium]. The fossil record back then (and still today) is nearly totally void of transitional species. If species are continually mutating, never constant, why do we find several of the same, certain prehistoric creatures, but never any that appear to be in transition? Why do palaeontologists find lots of dinosaurs but never where dinosaurs come from, nor what they turned into?
In Darwin's own words, 'Why, if species have descended by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of species being, as we see them, well defined?' It is an excellent question, which he answers himself, 'I can give no satisfactory answer.'
Indeed British evolutionist Derek Ager admits, “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find - over and over again - not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another”.
Yet another problem in using the fossil record as evidence for evolution is that under closer examination, it appears to be a proof for exactly the opposite argument – i.e. creation. For example, one of the oldest strata of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years. The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period seemed to emerge all of a sudden in the fossil record – there appeared to be no ancestors, although in relatively recent times palaeontologists believe fossils have been found dating from the preceding Vendian (or Ediacaran) period. The fossils found in the Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature.
“A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures. The large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and they were as distinct from each other as they are today”.
And one of the most vociferous advocates for atheism and evolution in today’s age, Richard Dawkins, comments “the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists”.
4. The basic mechanism for gene variation is mutation. And it is known that mutations are random and limited in their scope. We should note that what is not a point of debate here is the fact that genes undergo mutation; neither is there a point of conflict with the various biological processes within organisms. For example, we know that insects can build up resistance against forms of pesticide over time – in fact, in the same manner humans have long believed that taking poison in small quantities can help survive what would normally be a fatal dose. These observations do not really constitute evolution. However, even if we agreed to define these particular cases as examples of microevolution, the fact is that they can be explained by what we have come to know through scientific study and resulting conclusions. The argument for a Creator also accepts scientific facts and conclusions – it no more denies the laws of biology being created, than it denies the laws of physics being put in place by the Creator. Hence, change within the framework of the laws of biology is possible – and there is sufficient evidence for this. The main problem however is with macroevolution. To even begin to consider macroevolution, mutations would need to be dramatic – trying to get round this, it is claimed that there has been sufficient time for many small scale mutations to eventually yield the different species we see. But frankly this isn’t plausible – we have seen no evidence to support such a claim - and so this is again nothing more than a pure hypothesis.
In addition, there are many other problems with the mutation argument. If mutations occur, they actually cause harmful effects and not beneficial ones. We can witness the effects of mutations caused in humans following radiation poisoning at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl – that is, a litany of death, disability and illness.
According to the evolutionist scientist Warren Weavers commenting in the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that may have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:
“Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are necessary parts of the process of evolution. How can good effects - evolution to higher forms of life - results from mutations practically all of which are harmful?”
Similarly, another scientist B.G. Ranganathan states in his book ‘Origins?’ that “Mutations are small, random, and harmful. They rarely occur and the best possibility is that they will be ineffectual. These four characteristics of mutations imply that mutations cannot lead to an evolutionary development. A random change in a highly specialised organism is either ineffectual or harmful. A random change in a watch cannot improve the watch. It will most probably harm it or at best be ineffectual. An earthquake does not improve the city, it brings destruction”.
Finally, mutations do not actually add any new information to an organisms DNA. During a mutation, the genetic information is either destroyed or rearranged, but since there is no new information, it is impossible for mutations to cause a new trait or organ within a living organism.
5. Artificial selection (breeding) and sexual selection do produce new combinations but these are limited in their scope. They are restricted to a finite set of possible gene combinations. So breeding cannot introduce a radically new species – it simply gives a result based on the limited pool of combined genes. It cannot give a result outside of this. E.g. Horse plus donkey gives a mule. Or an African married to a Caucasian can result in off spring described as half-cast. The latter cannot produce a human whose skin colour is red or purple, etc.
6. The odds are heavily stacked against evolution. Evolution cannot answer where the first cell came from. The best guess is that came about through a random coincidence. Fred Hoyle, a well-known English mathematician and astronomer, and someone who believes in evolution, made the analogy that the chances of the first cell forming in this manner were comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials present. And according to Professor of Applied Mathematics and astronomy from University College (Cardiff, Wales), Chandra Wickramasinghe:
“The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence”. In other words the random formation of such a first cell is an impossibility.
But still let’s assume we suddenly have a cell. The first cell would then have to self-reproduce otherwise there would only ever be one cell. This becomes problematic for evolutionists so they suggest self-replication – i.e. the first cell has the ability to clone itself. However, organic matter can only self reproduces if it exists as a fully developed cell with existing support structures such as the particular environment and energy. This then requires more leaps of faith – so let’s make another assumption, this time that the cell does have a complex structure and the ability to reproduce. But, for evolution, mutation needs to happen. So firstly, since mutation is random, even given an absolute age, mutation might not occur. And secondly, mutation can only take place if the cell is forced to repair itself or if it makes a copy of itself. Thus, for a handful of cells, to copy and mutate successfully and form different cells and for this process to continue onwards to produce the complexity of life we see is something, which cannot happen. Leaving aside time, and the random nature of mutation, just the series of mutations necessary to produce even the simplest of species are impossible.
7. There is no actual hard evidence for the process of evolution itself. We don’t witness evolution. All that experiments (such as the one involving guppies) or observations in the field (such as the house sparrows example) demonstrate is a form of selection. But this is not real evolution – the fact that a population may change due to various factors (such as environment, predators, etc) or that it may become extinct is not a change from one species to another. So even if we can see natural selection of sorts, this is based on rational factors, and is not evolution.
8. Evolution cannot answer why only the human species has the clear faculty of intelligence, thought and reasoning that has allowed it to progress. It cannot explain the existence of emotions, except through an undefined notion such as chemicals within the body. And it is unable to offer any satisfactory explanation for issues such as the existence of the soul – indeed according to evolutionary theory, there cannot be a soul, rather life itself must be caused by the functioning of cells since after all everything has evolved from a single cell.
9. Adaptation is mentioned as a feature of evolution. That is, the manner in which organisms have evolved beneficial characteristics adapted to their environment, which help them survive. So one example we gave earlier was that of stick insects, where their body itself is a form of camouflage protecting them against predators. However, evolutionists themselves state that mutation is random and can lead to beneficial as well as harmful results. The environment cannot influence the occurrence or form of any mutation. So in this case, the evolutionary argument would have to be that today’s stick insects evolved from ancestors, which did randomly mutate to have this beneficial characteristic of camouflage. Those within the population that didn’t inherit this mutation would have died out due to their inability to survive. But once again, claiming that a series of mutations occurred, that lead to stick insects possessing characteristics that are suited to their environment, is nothing but conjecture. As before, we could equally state that a Creator has created various species and organisms of life with these inherent varying characteristics. So, organisms were in fact created with characteristics that we interpret as beneficial to them, instead of these traits evolving through time. Thus, the fact that many organisms seem well matched to their environments cannot be cited as any kind of proof or indication of evolution.
10. Let’s take a look at another argument that shows the fallacy of evolution. Many organisms and parts of organisms do not appear to have evolved from lesser things because they are 'irreducibly complex' life forms. Irreducible complexity is a concept that has been developed to describe something that is made of interacting parts that all work together. To understand this, take the example of a mousetrap. A mousetrap cannot be assembled through gradual improvement. You cannot start with a wooden base, catching a few mice, then add a hammer, and catch more, then add a spring, improving it further. To even begin catching mice one must assemble all the components completely with design and intent. Furthermore, if one of these parts changes or evolves independently, the entire thing will stop working. The mousetrap, for instance, will become useless if even one part malfunctions.
Likewise, many biological structures are irreducibly complex. Bats are a well-known example. They are said to have evolved from a small rodent whose front toes became wings. This presents a multitude of problems. As the front toes grow skin between them, the creature has limbs that are too long to run, or even walk well, yet too short to help it fly. There is no plausible way that a bat wing can evolve from a rodent's front toes. In fact, the fossil record supports this, because the first time bats are seen in the fossil record, they have completely developed wings and are virtually identical to modern bats.
Consider another example, that of the eye. Suppose that before animals had sight, one species decided it would be advantageous to be able to decrypt light rays. So, what is evolved first? The retina? The iris? The eye is made of many tiny parts, each totally useless without the others. The probability that a genetic mutation that would create each of these at the same time, in the same organism, is zero. If, however, one organism evolved just a retina, then the logic of Darwin suggests that the only solution is to rid oneself of useless traits replacing them with beneficial ones, so the idea of the eye evolving one segment at a time is also bogus.
Conclusion
In a time where the theory of evolution has been catapulted to the level of fact, it is useful for us to have a firm grasp of what this theory is, and with the emerging discussion gaining more and more profile (that between creationism on the one side and evolutionary thought on the other) it is vital that we are able to show the strength of the correct argument.
One big problem of presenting the topic of evolution is finding a reasonable balance: on the one hand, simplifying and leaving out some of the terminology risks not being able to convey the subject matter accurately; on the other, by not revising and simplifying at all, there is a distinct possibility that only those with a solid understanding of biology and science will grasp what is being presented. This article has attempted to run through the basic mechanics of the theory, proofs that are presented for it and some of the arguments against evolution. Many points are too elaborate and wide ranging to touch upon in this discussion. In any event, there is an abundance of material available regarding the theory and surrounding issues that discuss these aspects in much more detail and is worth exploring for those that are interested in doing so. The theory is often cloaked in scientific language and complex terminology, and presented as a solid and viable explanation for the existence of life. Although the focus and objective of the article was not to prove the fallacy of the theory, but rather to be informative with respect to the whole discussion regarding evolution as a concept, nevertheless it has hopefully been shown that evolutionary understanding, far from being fact, is nothing more than speculation and hypothesis.
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)