Global Protests Mark Iraq War

SYDNEY, Australia - Anti-war protesters marched in Australia, Asia, Turkey and Europe on Saturday in demonstrations that marked the third anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of
Iraq with a demand that coalition troops pull out.
ADVERTISEMENT

Around 500 protesters marched through central Sydney, chanting "End the war now" and "Troops out of Iraq." Many campaigners waved placards branding
President Bush the "World's No. 1 Terrorist" or expressing concerns that
Iran could be the next country to face invasion.

"Iraq is a quagmire and has been a humanitarian disaster for the Iraqis," said Jean Parker, a member of the Australian branch of the Stop the War Coalition, which organized the march. "There is no way forward without ending the occupation."

Opposition to the war is still evident in Australia, which has some 1,300 troops in and around Iraq. Visiting Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice was heckled by campaigners in Sydney this week, who said she had "blood on her hands."

But Saturday's protest was small compared to the mass demonstrations that swept across the country in the buildup to the invasion — the largest Australia had seen since joining U.S. forces in the Vietnam War.

The turnout also was lower than protesters had hoped in Britain, whose government has been the United States' strongest supporter in the war.

Authorities shut down streets in the heart of London's shopping and theater district for the demonstration, which organizers had predicted would attract up to 100,000 people, but police estimated the crowd was about 15,000 people.

Some protesters carried posters calling Bush a terrorist and other placards pictured Prime Minister
Tony Blair, saying "Blair must go!" Britain has about 8,000 soldiers in Iraq but plans to pull out 800 by May.

"We are against this war, both for religious reasons and on a humanitarian basis, too. No one deserves to be bombarded," said one march, student Imran Saghir, 25.

In Tokyo, about 2,000 people rallied in a downtown park, carrying signs saying "Stop the Occupation" as they listened to a series of anti-war speeches.

"The war is illegal under international law," said Takeshiko Tsukushi, a member of World Peace Now, which helped plan the rally. "We want the immediate withdrawal of the Self Defense Forces and from Iraq along with all foreign troops."

Japanese Prime Minister Junchiro Koizumi is a staunch supporter of the U.S.-led coalition in Japan and dispatched 600 soldiers to the southern city of Samawah in 2004 to purify water and carry out other humanitarian tasks. The Cabinet approved an extension of that mission in December, authorizing the troops to stay in Iraq through the end of the year.

But public opinion polls show the majority of Japanese oppose the mission, which has been criticized as a violation of the country's pacifist constitution. Many say the deployment has made Japan a target for terrorism.

In Turkey, thousands gathered in Istanbul for protests and other demonstrations were planned in the cities of Izmir, Trabzon and the capital, Ankara.

Opposition to the war is nearly universal in Turkey and cuts across all political stripes.

"Murderer USA," read a sign unfurled by a communist in Taksim Square in Istanbul.

"USA, go home!" said red and black signs carried by hundreds of the some 5,000 protesters gathered in Kadikoy on the city's Asian coast.

Turkey is Iraq's northern neighbor and the only Muslim-majority member of the
NATO military alliance. Historically close relations with the U.S. were severely strained after the Turkish parliament refused to allow U.S. troops to launch operations into Iraq from Turkish territory.

U.S. military planners said the move complicated operations by shutting down the U.S. option of opening a northern front in the 2003 invasion.

Since the war, support for the United States has plummeted in Turkey.

In Sweden, about 1,000 demonstrators gathered for a rally in Stockholm before a march to the U.S. Embassy. Some protesters carried banners reading "No to U.S. warmongering" and "USA out of Iraq," while others held up a U.S. flag with the white stars replaced by dollar signs.

"More and more people today are realizing that the Iraq war is becoming a new Vietnam," said Skold Peter Matthis, one of the organizers of the protest. "But today, the USA is even more dangerous than it was then, because they have a monopoly on being a superpower."

Anti-war demonstrations were also planned in Spain, Austria, Germany, Greece and Denmark.

What is all the fuss about?

Many in the West were genuinely surprised at the Muslim reaction to a series of cartoons. They fail to see how pictures could induce such a response. Muslims may empathise with their astonishment. We know firsthand how the Europe has nurtured the masses to think that creedal convictions should be divorced from day-to-day living. We know this because the system of secularism that prevails in the West also prevails in the Islamic world, albeit in a more shrewdly disguised form. That is were the empathy ends. Although we have these foreign systems imposed upon us, we still have the correct thoughts and sentiments when it comes to demonstrating our love for Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam).

We do not hold dear the notion of having a law and economy based on worldly affairs, whilst having a separate spiritual code for affairs relating to our god. This concept is well founded in the West and, ironically, has its origins in their religious texts. "Render unto Caesar, therefore, the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" (Mathew's Gospel 22:21). From the onset Christianity made Jesus god, but marginalised his actual teachings. The extremist atheistic views of the European enlightenment widened this gulf between temporal life and a life lived for the hereafter. The result of this was the forging of a European culture at ease with the irrationality of drinking the blood of Christ on Sunday and then deconstructing every detail of what they consider to be divine on Monday. They view lampooning and lying about a messenger of Allah, Isa ibn Mariam (as), as the height of intellectual and artistic expression. Their rationale being that; the one who can poke fun at that which most consider sacrosanct is truly an artistic genius. In reality this form of expression is the height of human arrogance. Because: "when people stop believing in god they, don¡¦t start believing in nothing. They start to believe in anything" (saying attributed to G.K. Chesterton). So now that god is taken out of the frame, adoration is directed toward man himself. The human-form is therefore celebrated and worshiped. Laws and governance are made by man for man. This is surely the ultimate self worship.

Insulting Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) may be acceptable to the human-centred Western world; where the worship of the human-form; through art and culture is positively praiseworthy. However we hold any communiqué with our Lord to be special and above satire. Therefore the scripture that Allah revealed to us is given pride of place in our lives, and the person and character of Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) is given a unique position in our hearts and minds. This attitude is reflected with regards to every single one of Allah's (swt) messengers (as). It follows that we hold those that were instrumental in bringing this message from our creator, to the created, to be exceptional and excluded from ridicule. So we invoke the peace and blessings of Allah on those that delivered the message of tawhid to mankind when we utter their (as) names. We derive inspiration from the narratives of their life-stories. We name our children after them (as). We desire to emulate the actions of the last prophet, Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam), in as much as we should. The position of Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) is dearer to us than ourselves and our kith and kin.

We suggest that modern secularism is a natural extension of the teachings found in the apocryphal scriptures that were adopted by the what became the Roman Church. Western Christianity is a transmogrification based on revelation, in contrast to Islam which is not based on revelation: it is revelation. According to Islam the core creeds of Christianity such as the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Redemption are all cultural creations: bereft of an unbroken chain of narration leading to Isa ibn Mariam (as). The Qur'an indeed confirms that Allah sent revelation to Isa ibn Mariam (as), in the form of al-Injeel, but it denies the authenticity and accuracy of the transmissions, accounts and epistles produced by the founding fathers of their religion. We believed that Isa ibn Mariam (as) was sent as a messenger to the Children of Israel; charged with the mission of correcting their deviation from the covenant with Allah. He (as) forewarned them of the approach of a Greater Teacher whose name was given as Ahmad.

This is the case of Christianity and how it differs fundamentally from Islam. However the modern secular democracies and constitutional monarchs of Western Europe are worlds apart from iron-age philosophy and teachings. Liberal democracy places human beings as legislator; as well as overseers and regulators of the laws that they have made. Anthropogenic law positions parliamentarians, senators and monarch as "gods". This is in a manner analogous to the way the People of the Scripture took their religious hierarchy as lawmakers rather then the interpreters of law. ¡،±They take their rabbis and priests to be their lords besides Allah and (they take as their Lord) Christ, the son of Mary; Yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah. There is no god but He. Praise and glory be to Him, (far is He) from having the partners they associate (With Him). [TMQ 9:31]¡ئط This was elaborated upon when ¡¥Udai bin Hatim said that I came to Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) while he was reciting this verse, he then said, ¡¥they did not worship them; but if they made something halal, the people made it halal, and if they made it haram, the people made it haram.' Modern liberal democracy is a hybrid born of a battle between atheist and theist zealots. The result was a form of ruling that allowed individual citizens to believe in god (dissimilar to post-revolution France and Soviet periods) whilst insisting that theism was to be kept out of life's affairs and ruling.

In contrast to this we place the law of Allah (swt) at the heart of our individual affairs, our family affairs, our neighbourhood affairs and, just as importantly, our communal and inter-communal affairs. "O you who believe! Obey Allah, obey the Messenger and the rulers from amongst you, and if you disagree on a matter then return it (for judgement) to Allah and the Messenger if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day." [TMQ 4:59] "It is not for the believer (male or female) that when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter that they should have any choice in their matter." [TMQ 33:36] We received this law through the revelation that was sent to Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam). Thus all of our laws, our knowledge of this world and of the hereafter, our moral code and our attitudes to life all come from the utterances and actions of the beloved prophet of Allah, Muhammad, Mustafa Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam). It is paramount for our success as individuals and as an Ummah that we realise the importance of Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) in our lives and the lives of humankind. Allah says (in rough translation), "We did not send you except as a mercy to all the worlds." (21:107) Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Tahir explained this ayat, "Allah imbued Muhammad with mercy, so that his very being was mercy and all his qualities and attributes were mercy to all creatures. Whoever is touched by any aspect of his mercy is saved in both worlds from every hateful thing and obtains everything he loves. Do you not see that Allah says, "We did not send you except as a mercy to all the worlds.?" Ibn Abbas said, "He is a mercy to the believers and also to the unbelievers since they are safe from what befell the other communities who cried lies."

It is related that Umar (ra), said to the Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam), "Part of your excellence with Allah is that He has made obedience to you obedience to Him." Allah says, "Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah" (4:80) and "If you love Allah, then follow me and Allah will love you." (3:31) It is related that when this ayat was sent down, people said, "Muhammad wants us to take him as a mercy in the way the Christians did with Isa", so Allah revealed, "Say: Obey Allah, and the Messenger." (3:32) Allah connected obedience to Muhammad with obedience to Himself in spite of what the people said.

So in answer to the question 'what is all the fuss about?' the answer is everything. To us following Allah's law is all we have been put on this earth to do. Therefore love respect and obedience of Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) is our raison d'être. Allah says, "Believe in Allah and His Messenger and the light which He sent down." (64:8) He says, "We sent you as a witness and a bringer of good news
and a warner so that they might believe in Allah and His Messenger." (48:8-9) He says, "Believe in Allah and His Messenger, the unlettered Prophet."
(7:158).

The Threat From the West

British Defence Secretary John Reid in reaction to the recent footage of British soldiers beating and abusing Iraqi teenagers commented "We ought to recognise the difficult situation our troops now fight in, far more difficult than any time in history because they face an enemy that is completely unconstrained....We face an adversary which is entirely unconstrained by any law....unfettered by any sense of morality". This line of argument has become common since the events of September 11 2001, with many arguing that the 'nature of the threat' facing the West has changed therefore the West's response must also change. The proponents of this view cite 'non state actors' such as Al Qaeda and other groups as posing an 'unprecedented' threat to the West. Yet is this really true? What really has changed?

Whilst the attacks of September 11 2001 were unprecedented in the scale of casualties inflicted on American soil, the fact remains that western countries and their outposts have been a target for attack for many years. Acts which happen today have always happened before. Examples such as the 1983 Beirut embassy bombing which killed hundreds of US marines, the murder of the Israeli athletes in Munich 1972, the ETA Basque separatist bombings, the IRA bombing campaigns in the 70s, 80s and early 90s and countless other such acts which one could cite. Whilst terrorism has always been a problem for society if anything it is the attitude of the West which has changed.

Today we are witnessing wars of aggression, fought on the pretext of the War on Terror, against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan which have collectively killed thousands of innocent people. The prospect of further wars against Syria and Iran underline this policy. Whilst terrorist incidents always happened before, the world did certainly not witness the wholesale slaughter and destruction of whole Muslim nations in the years prior to September 11.

For many people throughout the world, the prevailing view appears that it is the West which is attacking the Muslim world using it's military might. No Muslim state has attacked any Western State. What has brought about this change of doctrine in the West? The West has always launched colonial wars against other nations, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. This is something that litters the pages of history. Today's new bloody campaigns are still being fought for the same old reasons of securing resources such as oil and other geo-political strategic objectives. However it is the nature in which they can be secured that has changed. From covert aggression, in the form of neo-colonialism, in the recent past it has returned to direct colonisation and outright aggression today, emboldened by the collapse of it's former rival, the Soviet Union. Most of the world's energy resources happen to be in Muslim lands. Increasingly the Muslim populations are becoming politically more active and emboldened in their demand for an end to the corrupt regimes that rule these lands as the West's proxy agents. It is their call for Islam to return as a political system of ruling which is why the West's stance has changed.

In an era of modern media and communications the West needs to carry and convince it's own domestic populations. To this end it seeks to explain it's behaviour to it's citizens through a combination of fear and apparent righteousness. Fear of the 'unprecedented terrorist threat' and the righteousness of it's cause in bringing 'Freedom and Democracy' to the lands that it conquers. This is not dissimilar to the claims made in the past that 'savages' in colonised lands needed to be 'civilised' for their own good. Yet in waging this war it is the West which is breaking all known accepted norms and rules. This attempted cover has been blown away by the savageness of it's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that has seen the indiscriminate killing of civilians dismissed as 'collateral damage' in the pursuit of material interest. The litany of abuse seen includes the horrors of Abu Ghraib, the Guantanamo Bay torture camp, 'extraordinary renditions', advocating the right to torture and the denial of due process to captured prisoners. With the curtailing of civil rights within western societies through anti-terror legislation and double standards over "Free Speech", it has made a mockery of the West's claims of being guardians of 'Human Rights' and in spreading 'Freedom and Democracy' throughout the world.

The nature of the threat has not changed; it is the West that has changed. It is redefining it's model of International Relations to suit it's new militant colonial agenda. Leading the West, America has given notice that it intends to wage the 'Long War', a euphemism to replace the tired slogan of the 'War on Terror'. By declaring its intent to wage this war for decades on end reveals the West's true agenda for what it really is; explicit aggression. Under the guise of bringing 'enlightenment' to the Muslim world it seeks to perpetuate and continue it's hold on Muslim lands and usurp its resources. Struggling to reconcile the failing of Western Capitalism to deal with an array of increasing domestic societal problems, it has created a climate of fear at home and incited hatred towards Islam and Muslims in an attempt to divert attention and justify it's naked aggression abroad.

Just Say No To Muhammad's Hit Men...What we've learned from the intoonfada

Three weeks, or maybe five months, into the global intoonfada, it seems as though every conceivable opinion, prejudice and half-baked observation has attached itself to the unlikely controversy over a dozen cartoons in a Danish newspaper. We've seen numberless rallying cries against the "Islamofascists," weird free-speech desertions by professional cartoonists, simpering doubletalk from U.S. government officials, fairly overt censorship by at least one European state, and a war on all things Danish (including, inevitably, Danish).

The politics of immigration in Denmark and of the paper Jyllands-Posten have been examined at length. Anti-American riots that took place in Afghanistan because newspapers in France reprinted illustrations from Denmark led directly to an Iranian paper's call for international illustrators to draw cartoons about the Holocaust—and the disturbing thing is that this chain of events doesn't even seem bizarre. (Meanwhile, the world's most famous Holocaust denier even managed to butt into the narrative for a moment.) American newspaper editors have explained their decision to suppress cartoons that almost nobody has seen not with the understandable admission that they're afraid of being killed but with the absurd claim that the pictures have no news value; and when one editor at a college paper decided to test that bogus consensus, he was fired. Various thought experiments, equally plausible and often mutually exclusive, have made sense of the global explosion: that the intoonfada was stoked by the Baath party; that it was inflamed by the Saudis; that it's a clash of civilizations; that it's not. Contempt for western liberalism has united a postmodernist professor and a reactionary pope in barely disguised admiration for arsonists and murderers. And in what must certainly take the booby prize for inaccurate predictions, we have my own hope that what turned out to be an extremely brief period of solidarity indicated a sea change in western support for free expression.

But all these opinions shrink to insignificance compared to the judgment of Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi, the Pakistani cleric who last week made an offer of $1 million to anybody who kills the cartoonists responsible for the drawings. It's unlikely Qureshi can get the financing for this worthy goal; it's probable that he has not seen the cartoons that have enraged him; it's almost certain that he isn't even aware that the pictures were drawn by 12 artists, not just one; it's beyond dispute that he's got the ugliest beard on Allah's green earth. And it's all too easy to confuse this Qureshi, identified as the prayer leader at Peshawar's Mohabat Khan mosque, with Haj Yaqoob Qureshi, the minister from the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh who is offering $11.5 million for the cartoonists' heads. But with his cash offer, Qureshi cleared up vast fields of navel-gazing and bloviation. If you're undecided on what the cartoon issue is really about, Qureshi has given the answer: It's about people who believe you should commit murder over a difference of opinion. Everything else is just idle chatter.

The violent nature of the intoonfada had of course been established already; more than 50 people have been killed since the beginning of the uprising. But until Qureshi stepped into the breach it was possible to chalk this violence up to mob madness or jittery police and soldiers. That was a condescension. It took a man of Qureshi's vision to demonstrate what an ideological fight this really is.

When we compare the clear dichotomy between cartooning and homicide, related questions about the hypocrisy of European hate speech laws or the conviction of David Irving or the impenetrable principles of political correctness in Canada barely even register. The conflict is not, as Professor Stanley Fish argues, between true believers and effete relativists. With Danish cartoonists risking their lives for a principle and Saudi journalists fighting for their right to free expression, it's exactly the opposite : For a truly relativist position you need to look to Iran, which condemns anti-cartoonist violence at the same time that it is renewing the death sentence against Salman Rushdie. To the degree that clash-of-civilizations language applies, it's the West, not the Islamic world, that is sure of itself in this fight.

This does not mean that all supporters of western-style liberalism are in agreement. With a tiny handful of exceptions, American newspapers have sped up their mad dash to irrelevance by declining to show the most newsworthy images of the past six months. Western leaders have treated the issue merely as a question of dueling cultural stances, with Spanish prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, for example, declaring that the uprising is not "a problem of freedom of expression, but rather a question of sensitivity and respect toward different visions of life." But while editors and politicians see no big difference between a vision of life and a vision of death, between the opinions of cartoonists and the opinions of hit men and bloodthirsty holy rollers, Qureshi knows better.

One of the most useful aspects of the cartoon controversy is the clarity it has given to liberal ideals. It's become abundantly clear since the beginning of the month that separation of church and state, free expression, and making demands on the government are not disparate concepts randomly yoked together in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. They are mutually dependent and essential rights.

Nor are these rights simply offshoots or happy byproducts of a functioning democracy. They are prior to a functioning democracy. That is a hard teaching, and as Secretary of State Rice demonstrated with her idiotic expression of surprise at the results of the recent Palestinian election, even many high-flying Americans don't fully grasp it.

But maybe some people who are too glibly referred to as being on the other side of the civilizational divide are starting to get it. Flemming Rose, the Jyllands-Posten culture editor who first published the cartoons, raised this tantalizing suggestion the other day, in an essay on his decision:

In January, Jyllands-Posten ran three full pages of interviews and photos of moderate Muslims saying no to being represented by the imams. They insist that their faith is compatible with a modern secular democracy. A network of moderate Muslims committed to the constitution has been established, and the anti-immigration People's Party called on its members to differentiate between radical and moderate Muslims, i.e. between Muslims propagating sharia law and Muslims accepting the rule of secular law. The Muslim face of Denmark has changed, and it is becoming clear that this is not a debate between "them" and "us," but between those committed to democracy in Denmark and those who are not.

This is the sort of debate that Jyllands-Posten had hoped to generate when it chose to test the limits of self-censorship by calling on cartoonists to challenge a Muslim taboo. Did we achieve our purpose? Yes and no. Some of the spirited defenses of our freedom of expression have been inspiring. But tragic demonstrations throughout the Middle East and Asia were not what we anticipated, much less desired. Moreover, the newspaper has received 104 registered threats, 10 people have been arrested, cartoonists have been forced into hiding because of threats against their lives and Jyllands-Posten's headquarters have been evacuated several times due to bomb threats. This is hardly a climate for easing self-censorship.

An obscure Pakistani cleric has done us the favor of showing that these death threats and attacks are the products of a coherent philosophy, not just the results of mob rage or hot tempers. It's up to supporters of the open society to reply in kind, to affirm that we have a different and better philosophy, one that is worth defending, supporting, and most of all putting into practice.

The Path to An Intellectual Creed

In a world, where life and truth have been traded for oil and power where the powerful and vicious claim justice and right for themselves, mankind more than ever must seek out the true meaning of life.

The matter of Creed is a very serious one, it is the ultimate question upon which mankind builds not only his values, principles, systems and objectives but also his ultimate purpose and goal in life. And such grave and far reaching conclusions, cannot be taken lightly and therefore cannot be left to emotion and blind faith alone.

Emotion cannot discern between fact and fiction. Nor can we approach certainty, building upon mere conjecture. Therefore in the quest for the answer to this ultimate question, one cannot rely upon myths, esoteric tales, holy books legends, theories (scientific or otherwise). We cannot rely upon anything or anyone other than our own minds, senses, our knowledge as well as the tangible realities that we perceive.

We should not be shallow or narrow in thought nor limiting our studies to matters in isolation, without context. The scope of our search must be the rational study of all that we can sense and understand - man, life and this universe within which we exist.

Man, Life and the Universe
When we look at the human being, we see that no matter how varied the details, he is of a certain height, weight, colour and endowed with certain capabilities. No matter what he came into the world with, and what he makes of himself in life, he is limited. The human being also has needs, from the basic organic needs such as food, water and breathing to the drives that emanate from his instincts, namely the survival instinct, the
instinct to procreate and the instinct to sanctify that which is greater than himself.

Turning to the life of the human being, we find that life that appears in this world, is similarly limited, it begins, expands and invariably ends. Life requires sustenance in order to exist for its limited period.

We live within a universe, which, no matter how seemingly vast is similarly limited. This planet earth consists of organisms, rocks, water, mountains, rivers and oceans. Though expansive it is limited. This solar system, like other stellar systems, consists of planets, satellites and lesser bodies. It exists within a galaxy, which in turn exists within a local group of galaxies. This universe then no matter how vast is ultimately a collection of matter and energy (be it basic or complex) ¡V i.e. limited things; the sum of which is of course limited.

Both matter and energy have a relationship and are governed by certain laws within this universe. We find that energy, matter and these universal laws, are intertwined and interdependent. Once does not exist without the other.

Limited and Needy
Reflecting on the reality of man, life and the universe, it is clear, that everything we see and understand in ourselves, our lives and our universe possesses two common qualities.
Firstly everything is limited, whether in form, mass, duration colour, number etc. they are all defined in some way possessing a beginning, middle and end.
Secondly that everything is needy ¡V that is, their existence, requires or depends upon some other thing. The human being requires food and shelter. Life requires sustenance. The universe requires the existence of universal laws and in turn, these laws cannot be seen to exist without the universe.
We also note one other fact, nothing in this universe is able to bring something into existence from nothing - either itself or any other thing. As everything we perceive, man, life and the universe, is limited and needy, the key question then becomes, how did man, life and this universe come into existence?

The only rational conclusion we can arrive at from our study, is that the nature of whatever power or force that brought about this limited and needy universe, cannot share these same characteristics, that is it cannot be limited or having it¡¦s existence dependent upon another. In other words, the Creator MUST be unlimited and independent absolutely.

Following this, there are only 3 further possible options to the nature of the Creator, either:
i.The Creator was itself created
ii.The Creator created itself ¡V i.e. being both created and creator
iii.The Creator is unlimited all powerful and eternal (azali) without beginning or end
The first proposition is clearly false. The Creator cannot be created, as it would mean that it is limited and therefore would be like every other limited and dependent thing and the rational study of man, life and the universe has shown, that nothing limited is able to create something from nothing. The Creator therefore CANNOT be created.

The second proposition - a Creator that creates itself is even more absurd, as that would mean that it would have to be both limited and unlimited (eternal and subject to time) simultaneously ¡V both matters being mutually exclusive. This therefore must also be false.

Therefore, the only rational conclusion we can arrive at, is that the Creator is UNLIKE this universe ¡V the Creator must be unlimited, eternal and all powerful, independent of all and any other. Existing without beginning, without end. To conclude anything else, would disagree with the reality before us and thus be erroneous and mere conjecture and thus cannot bring about certainty to the mind.
We know therefore, rationally and with certainty, with everything we see, experience through our senses and understand with our mind that the Creator, Alla subhanahu wa taala is unlimited, eternal and all powerful and that Alla subhanahu wa taala created all - man, life and this universe. The corollary is that we are bound by whatever the Creator may command of us and will be accountable in the hereafter. This then gives our present lives, the correct context with respect to our past and future.

Hundreds of ayah within the Qur¡¦an calls upon mankind to think, scrutinise and ponder the reality before them, to consider man, life and this universe so as to find the truth for themselves. The testimony of faith in Islam, requires the person to declare that he or she has indeed witnessed the truth of the fact, that there is no God (Creator) but Allah (God) and that Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam is the Messenger of Alla subhanahu wa taala.

Islam has a rational intellectual basis and censures blind or emotional belief, faith based on fiction or conjecture. It requires a creed built upon decisive certainty. This can only come from the conviction of the mind and a creed that accords with the nature of the human being.

The world has entered a particularly dark period and it may get darker still before light returns. In these times, it is even more necessary for mankind to search for the truth of the life of this world. Only then will we recognise, truth for truth, justice for justice and mankind might once again live in the shade of Light.

Source: KCom Journal