On October 15, 1979, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced that the world’s highest award in Physics would be awarded to three scientists “for their contributions to the theory of the unified weak and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles”. One of them was named Abdus Salam and he was born in Jhang in 1926 to a proud working class Punjabi family. He would go on to become one of the most important theoretical physicists of his day, contribute to one of the most important theories in Physics, the Grand Unified Theory and die a proud Pakistani on November 21, 1996 in Oxford after living a life where he was celebrated as one of the greatest minds of the century. His country however would not celebrate him as a hero and his name remain unknown to a large percentage. The tragedy of his treatment at the hands of his countrymen is unparalleled and there is still visible uneasiness and perhaps even fear in accepting him as a national hero.

Salam left this country once his research work was not appreciated and even frowned upon by the administrators at GC. He had already established himself as a leading theoretical physicist of the day with his doctoral thesis and was given a professorship at Imperial College, aged just 31. He served as the Scientific Secretary of the United Nations Atoms for Peace Conference and remained the Chief Scientific Advisor to the President of Pakistan from 1961 to 1974. He was instrumental in setting up PINSTECH and SUPARCO and remained a board member of PAEC for quite a long time as well. With the IAEA’s support, Salam established the International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) at Trieste in Italy since the Italian government made the most generous offer for the establishment of the centre. Throughout his life he championed the cause of his country and remained loyal to the cause of scientific advancement in third world countries.

When the Nobel Prize was announced, the government of India was the first to invite him and the government of Pakistan only reacted when the High Commissioner in London intimated Islamabad of the Delhi invitation. Out of the 42 honorary doctorates bestowed upon him by universities across the globe, five were from Indian universities. Later, he delivered the convocation address at the Guru Dev Nanak University, Amritsar, in theth (pure) Punjabi and the university had on his request invited four of his primary school teachers as well. The prime minister of India, Indira Gandhi, invited him to tea at her residence, made tea for him with her own hands and sat down at his feet saying this was her traditional way of honouring great people. Country after country, he was welcomed as a state guest, often welcomed by heads of states at airports. In contrast to all this, on his arrival back in his homeland in December 1979 he was received at Lahore, Peshawar and Islamabad by the military secretaries to the governors and the president. The Quaid-e-Azam University had to shift the function of the award of an honorary doctorate to the National Assembly Hall because students of the Islami Jamiat-i-Talaba (the student wing of the Jamaat-e-Islami) had protested and disrupted the event. The event in Lahore had to be shifted to the Senate Hall because of similar protests at the University of Punjab. The protesters threatened to murder him. His alma mater, Government College, did not even invite him.

In his book The Coffee House of Lahore, Pakistan’s pre-eminent historian K K Aziz narrates the incident surrounding the January 1983 honorary degree award upon Dr Salam by the University of Khartoum (Sudan). Saudi Arabia has immense political influence in Sudan and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia tried to intervene and get the event cancelled because of Dr Salam’s religious beliefs. On January 7, the Saudi ambassador met the Sudanese President Field Marshal Nimeiry and asked him to get the event cancelled. The faculty of the university asserted their autonomy and threatened to resign in protest if there were to be any political intervention. The event went ahead but not without controversy as the Secretary General of the Arab Science Foundation found it necessary to interrupt Dr Salam numerous times in his speech. Dr Salam later told Aziz that at an event at the Presidency, Mard-e-Momin Ziaul Haq asked him loudly in the presence of everybody, “Will you offer prayers with everybody or separately?” asserting that he was of a different faith. These are not one-off treatments as in 1986 he wanted to become the Director General of UNESCO but the government of Pakistan refused to nominate him as its candidate. Instead, Lt General Sahibzada Yaqub Ali Khan was nominated as our candidate (he was no less a great man but there is little comparison between the two). In contrast to his motherland, Britain and Italy offered to support his candidature if he were to become their citizen.

Today, the world’s biggest particle physics laboratory, CERN, is conducting the largest experiment in the history of mankind at the Large Hadron Collider in search of fundamental answers to the creation of the universe. The Higgs Boson, predicted and worked on by Salam, is at the centre of this research and CERN proudly boasts a street named in his honour. What was this country able to give to this great man? A solitary Nishan-i-Imtiaz? Abdul Qadeer Khan has two of those and the notorious Sharifuddin Pirzada has one as well. The fact that a leading Urdu magazine, Takbeer, accused Salam of selling our nuclear secrets is just a reminder of how his countrymen treated him. We issued a solitary stamp in his honour, but so did the African country of Benin. The ICTP today is named in his honour in contrast to the National Centre of Physics in Islamabad. In fact, except the Department of Mathematics at GCU, there is no landmark, no institute, no building, no department or university in this country named after the greatest scientist this country has ever produced. Salam has certainly been honoured far more by countries other than his own and perhaps even disowned by his own country.

He was eventually buried in Rabwah (renamed Chenab Nagar in pursuance of the persecution and harassment of the Ahmedis) but the local magistrate had the tombstone defaced and got the word “Muslim” erased from it. Even in his death, his faith was to be the basis of maltreatment and the people of his community live as second grade citizens. Something the government of Pakistan can do today is perhaps name the new Islamabad airport after him. Name an institute or two after him, or maybe even financially and administratively help the documentary being made on his life by Sabiha Sumar and Zakir Thaver (a letter in this regard received no response from any government quarter).

It has been 31 years since he became our first and only Nobel laureate, nearly 14 years since his death. The doctrinal differences over faith seem to have far more importance to this country than anything else. Can we forgive ourselves for how we treated one of the greatest — if not the greatest — citizens of Pakistan? Is there any redemption for the people of Pakistan? It should be a moment of deep reflection for us all.

The writer (Shahid Saeed) is interested in history and public policy.

Source: Daily Times http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\10\20\story_20-10-2010_pg3_4

Mohammad Abdus Salam (1926-1996) was his full name, which may add to the knowledge of those who wish he was either not Ahmadi or Pakistani. The man proudly lived and died as both, and much more, as Pakistan disowned him, in life and in death. The government denied him the honour of a state funeral; the media remained absent from the burial ceremony at Rabwah, which has since been renamed not after Abdus Salam but as Chenab Nagar, just to spite its Ahmadi residents.

The restyled epitaph at his grave near his native Jhang awkwardly reads: “First —— Nobel Laureate”, from which the word “Muslim” has been deleted under court orders; the court, even in its narrow mindedness could have ordered the replacement of “Muslim” with “Pakistani” but that was not to be. This son of Jhang is less known in his own country today than the terrorist Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, even though he had founded and led an abler lashkar (brigade) of some 500 Pakistani physicists and mathematicians over the years whom he arranged to send to UK and US universities on scholarship for higher studies.

He was the guiding spirit and founder of Pakistan’s nuclear programme as well as Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission and Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (Suparco). The pygmies who after him headed the two institutes he was allowed to set up in Pakistan in his pre-non-Muslim years have since been credited with laurels, and honoured more, even in their dishonourable conduct, as father of this and that, while the Godfather remains conspicuous by his absence in official records.

Dr Salam became the victim of rigid social attitudes and state discrimination against his community when Z.A. Bhutto through an act of parliament declared the Ahmadis non-Muslim in 1974. Heartbroken at the humiliation, he left Pakistan in protest to live in Europe where in 1979 he was awarded the Nobel for his groundbreaking research in theoretical physics; soon roads were named after him in Geneva and Trieste, if not in Islamabad or Jhang. The same year, as it happened, Bhutto was hanged by Gen Zia’s kangaroo court, but the Ahmadis’ predicament was Bhutto’s only legacy that Zia embraced wholeheartedly and built on even further. Despite being given the roughshod, Dr Salam from his institute in Italy, continued to patronise bright Pakistani scientists and students through a scholarship programme. His alma mater Government College, Lahore, which has named its mathematics and physics departments after Dr Salam, and Pakistan Post, which issued a two-rupee stamp to honour him, remain the only state institutions to have acknowledged him.

The nascent rock band aptly named as Beghairat Brigade, of Aalu Anday fame, has hit the nail on the spot with their lyrics of the popular song which rightly laments: aithe Abdus Salm noon puchhdai koi nai (nobody values Abdus Salam here) as they point out that murderers Qadri and Qasab have become our heroes. His birth anniversary, January 29, remains a long shot from being celebrated as Dr Abdus Salam Day, even though we invent anomalies like the Yaum-i-Takbir (atomic detonation day) and Sindhi Culture Day, amongst the myriad others, that are officially marked on our calendar. How truly unworthy is Pakistan of its only Nobel laureate.

Rest in peace, Dr Salam.

The writer is a member of the staff at Dawn Newspaper. By Murtaza Razvi. Copyright © 2011 DAWN.COM

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/11/21/salaam-abdus-salam.html

The case of the missing Messiah is a mystery that has intrigued countless minds through the ages. Pope Innocent III predicted Christ’s return and doomsday in 1284. William Miller made his call in October, 1844. Alexander Dowie launched his campaign at the turn of the 20th century. Edgar Whisenant added his pitch for September, 1988. Some throw Nostradamus and Sir Isaac Newton, too, in the ring of doomsday predictors.

And then there is Harold Camping, a quasi-theologian Christian who swears “beyond a doubt” that May 21st, 2011 will hail Christ’s return — and doomsday. Camping was already wrong once before in 1994, but there is a much deeper issue that many are missing.

Orthodox Muslims believe Jesus ascended to heaven, and await his descent to save Muslims and destroy their opponents. Many Christians believe the same, only this time Jesus saves Christians. Jews believe Elijah’s descent from heaven will hail in the Messiah’s coming and victory for the Chosen People. Multiple other religions promulgate similar views but regardless of the religion, each proclaims an absolute monopoly on truth and personal assurance of salvation upon the Messiah’s return.

But of all the people throughout history who have allegedly ascended to heaven, how many actually descended to tell us about it?

This question brings to light a crucial lesson. While adherents of every great religion have followed suit to the exact same claim of ascent, not one can offer even the most basic, let alone substantive, proof of descent.

And herein lay the numerous issues.

First, if the Messiah will descend from heaven to usher in instant peace and salvation, then God should have sent him six thousand years ago to avoid all the bloodshed.

Lest we be accused of questioning God’s will, let us move on.

Second, what makes any one story of alleged ascension (and hopeful descent) more credulous than the other? Such faith is no more or less valid than the ancient Greeks who believed gods descended and walked among them. Actually, historically speaking, the Greeks have more claim than Christians or Muslims (and maybe even Jews) to the awaited descent as the Greeks conceived of the idea before the Abrahamic faiths.

Finally, what is the point of a literal descent and literal destruction of the world? Is God’s message so weak that He can only establish His Truth through a choice of forced conversion or death? How very un-God-like. Whatever happened to, “Come now, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18), or “I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict” (Luke 21:15), or “Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in a way that is best” (Surah An-Nahl 16:126)?

Here is the point to this mystery.

Why do believers not consider the possibility that perhaps the Messiah’s advent will not be a literal descent from heaven and will not spell Earth’s literal destruction?

Rather, what if the Messiah came to unite all religions under one flag of peace with love — not forced conversion? What if he came to revive faith through rational discourse — not violence? And what if he came to establish truth through logic — not dogma? Perhaps it is because this task sounds so daunting, that it is easier to believe in a literal descent from heaven.

How ironic.

We needn’t feel compelled to await a physical descent. It’s a concept Jesus, too, rejected when he pointed to John the Baptist as the spiritual return of Elijah (Matt 17:11-13). The Quran also clarifies, “And call to mind when Jesus, son of Mary, said: O children of Israel, surely, I am God’s Messenger onto you … and give glad tidings of a Messenger who will come after me, his name will be Ahmad. And when he came with clear proofs, they said this is manifest sorcery” (Surah As-Saff 61:7).

But the mystery doesn’t stop here. Now, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad enters the stage.

Ahmad categorically rejected the belief that anyone would physically descend from heaven, and laid claim as that long-awaited Second Coming of the Messiah foretold by all great religions. Ahmad’s message does not espouse violent destruction of the world, but the peaceful reformation of mankind through love, rational discourse, and logic. In more than 80 books and thousands of essays are the “words and wisdom” the first Messiah promised to serve as the proof of his truthfulness.

Go forth with this goodly exhortation; you have Ahmad’s words and wisdom available at your fingertips so that we may reason together. And, as you study Ahmad’s claim as the Messiah, you just might speak two words countless minds never could.

Mystery solved.

Various voices and opinions have emerged from the Muslim world since the death of Osama bin Laden. Some Muslims express relief that his reign of terror has come to an end, whereas others express condemnation for the manner of his death. Some Muslims feel this will help the Muslim world, whereas others argue it will cause more problems. People like Irshad Manji go as far as to say that we must reform Islam itself. With such disunity among Muslims, it is evident that Muslims need a spiritual leader who can unite them all under a single banner of peace and instill in them the correct interpretation of Islam.

But attempts at appointing this reformer will inevitably fail. No average person we choose can perform this duty. Ms. Manji is absolutely right that Muslims need reformation for spiritual advancement. But she forgets that mankind cannot spearhead this cause. True reformation must be divinely guided. After all, the Prophet of Islam warned about this time of disunity and chaos in the Muslim world, but he also explained its solution.

The Prophet once said, “There will come a time upon the people when nothing will remain of Islam except its name and nothing will remain of the Quran except its words. Their mosques will be splendidly furnished but destitute of guidance. Their divines will be the worst people under the Heaven; strife will issue from them and avert to them.” The Prophet of Islam, however, gave glad tidings that in this critical state, God would send the Messiah who will bring about a renaissance of Islam to reform Muslims and mankind, consistent with the pristine teachings of the Holy Quran.

But Jesus is the Messiah whose return Muslims are waiting for, right?

In a review of the history of religions, one finds scores of instances where founders of religions or other divines are reported to have bodily ascended to Heaven. These claims are so numerous and widespread that it seems to be a universal trend of man to conceive such stories in order to elevate their religious leaders. Even if we accept all such claims of religious leaders having ascended to Heaven, throughout human history there is not a single example of bodily return of any person to this world. Absent of literal fulfillment of such claims, one is left with two choices: either reject such claims as untrue or only metaphorically accept them, as Jesus did in the case of Elijah’s second coming.

Regarding the second coming of Christ, many Muslims believe he would come with such glory and clear signs — descending from Heaven in broad daylight with angels supporting him — that it would be impossible for even skeptics to refuse to accept him. But history tells us that all such divines and beings come with humility as opposed to grandeur. They are always treated with callousness, prejudice and fanatic hostility, not welcomed with open arms.

Generation after generation will pass and the wait will continue, but no Jesus will bodily descend from Heaven. They may build a wailing wall as did the others 3,000 years before, but they will not see the Messiah descend.

These are the times of the latter days. The recognition of the Messiah of the age is central to achieving peace in the world today. The Messiah is to have humble beginnings and not the glory and fanfare we associate with his coming. As John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy of the second coming of Elijah, a person with his characteristics will also spiritually fulfill the second coming of Christ. Their missions are similar: revival of religion and reformation of its people.

Only such a divinely appointed Messiah can provide Muslims the reformation they need by reviving the true spirit of Islam and bringing Muslims out from the darkness and away from misguided, violent interpretations of the Quran. Only this reformer can impart Muslims the correct interpretation of Islamic scripture and teachings.

If we cannot understand the second coming of the Messiah, how will we recognize when it occurs? All Muslims must comprehend how this Messiah will appear. The acceptance of this Messiah is key for the unity of the Muslim world and vital for reforming those among us who have misinterpreted the Quran.

In her recent Wall Street Journal opinion-editorial, Irshad Manji claims that not just Muslims, but the Quran and Islam itself needs reformation. In conflating the two, Manji ignores the possibility that the owner’s manual might be fine, while the issues lie with the owner. Manji concludes by assuming, again incorrectly, that Muslims are not addressing the Muslim-on-Muslim violence or extremist’s “violent ideology.”

The Quran commands Muslims to conduct a thorough investigation of its meaning (4:95) and, as Manji rightly noted, to repeatedly reflect (2:220) and meditate (4:83). It warns that those with a perverted heart will ignore the decisive foundational verses of the Quran, and manipulate the interpretive verses to promote discord and incorrect interpretations (3:8). Manji’s defeatist approach of “acknowledging and reinterpreting the [Quran's] awkward verses” solves nothing because it does not explain to extremists, or to the world, why the extremist understanding of Islam is wholly incorrect. This is crucial because otherwise, the false allegation that Islam promotes violence goes unanswered. If Manji is correct that bin Laden represents a real interpretation of Islam, then who represents the perverted understanding of which the Quran warns?

According to Manji, it might be moderate Muslims. Though Manji and I agree that the Quran is being manipulated, we strongly disagree on the solution. Manji glazes over the Quranic guidance to investigate, folds her hand to “publically acknowledge awkward verses,” and seeks a new interpretation, all the while hoping violent Muslims will simply forget the “awkward” meanings. The real solution, instead, is based on logic and explained in the Quran itself, “And none knows its right interpretation except God and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge; they say, ‘We believe in it; the whole is from our Lord.’ — And none heed except those gifted with understanding” (3:8). Only with a firm foundation in knowledge and a concerted investigation — not blind avoidance — can a person properly understand the Quran, including the allegedly awkward verses.

Extremists like bin Laden arrive at their perverted understanding of Islam due to ignorance combined with a lack of sincere investigation. While on the opposite end, self-declared reformists like Manji arrive at their defeatist understanding of Islam for the same reasons. The reformation of those who support violent interpretations of the Quran can never happen with Manji’s proposed solution.

Manji describes the backlash she received from the Muslim community due to her “call to reform,” as if her call was unprecedented. She should take a page out of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s book, who sounded the call to reform Muslims — not Islam — over 120 years ago. Ahmad established the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in 1889 and laid claim to be the long-awaited Messiah, commissioned to re-unite all Muslims through love, logic, and peace. He condemned every type of religious violence as completely un-Islamic and instead championed the Jihad of the Pen. Among his 82 books and thousands of essays he wrote, “that faith which uses the sword to spread itself needs no other proof of its falsification. It slays its own throat before reaching others.”

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, who Manji-described Muslim leaders consider heretical, was founded on an interpretation of Islam that is practical, peaceful, and wholly ingrained in the whole of the Quran. Ahmadi Muslims champion a complete separation of mosque and state (4:60), condemn any compulsion in religion (2:257), promote universal religious freedom (22:41), believe in spiritual equality and practical equity between the sexes (4:125), preach universal salvation (2:63), and teach that war can only be in self-defense (22:40) and as an absolute last resort (4:98).

Ahmadi Muslims do believe 5:33 establishes that killing one is to kill all mankind, and demonstrate that the Qur’an defines “villainy in the land” not as political warfare, but religious persecution (22:39-40). As the Iraq war is a political war, the Quran provides no “loophole for British [extremists]” as Manji would have us believe.

And to be sure, Ahmadi Muslims are not the only peaceful Muslims in the world. Indeed, the vast majority of the Muslim world is peaceful. I present them as one specific example that the aforementioned practical and peaceful Islam works. Consider that tens of millions of Ahmadi Muslims reside peacefully in nearly 200 nations of the world, face vehement state-sanctioned persecution, but have never once instigated, nor retaliated with, violence. Instead, they publicly decry such violence, (including Muslim-on-Muslim violence) and advocate the Islam of self-restraint that Prophet Muhammad taught. United under a system of Khilafat, Ahmadi Muslims continue to advocate for self-reformation, and Muslim-reformation, as they have successfully for over a century. In doing so, they directly address the allegedly “awkward verses.” Thus, unlike defeatists like Manji who accomplish nothing by brushing such verses under the rug, Ahmadi Muslims effectively dismantle extremist’s violent ideology and bring true reformation to the Muslim world.

All eyes are on France this week, as their ban of Islamic veils went into effect last Monday. Extremists on opposite sides of this debate have engaged in a virtual tug-of-war, and Muslim women are the rope. Caught in the middle, they are told what to do, how to act and what to wear. Extremists from both sides claim to know what is best for them, while neither side really listens to what those women want.

On one side you have Muslim men and governments who insist to cover women from head to toe at all cost, creating an image of oppression in people’s minds. On the other side you have European governments and Western groups who insist that Muslim women wear no covering and go to great lengths to remove their headscarves, whether the women like it or not. They forget that Christianity also prescribes the observance of headscarves, which is why First Lady Michelle Obama covered her head when meeting the Pope.
Neither side has the right to force these women on what they can or cannot wear. Yet, both sides have inflicted atrocities against the only victims in this debate — Muslim women.

Religious extremists have victimized Muslim women. Some women in the Middle East have no choice but to cover themselves head-to-toe. There are many sad stories about husbands, fathers or so-called leaders abusing and even murdering women because they were not covered enough. As a student of Islam and practicing Muslim, I know my faith says that such actions are completely wrong. This is oppression. This is un-Islamic. It is absurd that Middle East governments punish such actions. Why don’t they punish men who do not obey God’s commandment to not stare at women? See how ridiculous such “laws” are?

Secular extremists have also victimized Muslim women. Germany forbids Muslim schoolteachers from wearing headscarves because they are not in line with “Western” values. Roman Catholic nuns, however, can wear their head coverings in school. In 2004, France forbade Muslim girls admission into public schools for covering their head (not face, mind you, only the head). Similarly, for decades, Turkey has denied women admission into universities if their heads are covered. President Obama correctly stated that “a woman who is denied an education is denied equality,” and for Germany, France and Turkey, their acts are a stain on their so-called democracies. Sadly, even the virgin mother Mary — always portrayed with her head covered — would be denied education in these countries.

So what should Muslim women do? Should they keep Muslim governments happy? Or should they keep western groups and governments happy? The right answer is: neither! Islam tells women that they should only be concerned with keeping God happy, and they do that by voluntarily obeying His commandments.

In Chapter 24 of the Quran, God tells both men and women to restrain their eyes from ogling at members of the opposite sex and to guard their private parts. Specific to women in this chapter is verse 32, which instructs women to “disclose not their beauty except that which is apparent thereof, and that they draw their head-coverings over their bosoms.”

The variations, however, of the dress are purely cultural. There is the burqa (or niqab), which is a full length dress or outer clothing that covers the head, face and body. The hijab, on the other hand, covers the head and neck, with a separate piece — like a shawl or long coat — covers the body. The face is not covered with the hijab. The Quranic injunction found in chapter 24 is more closely aligned with the hijab. Which style a Muslim woman chooses to wear depends on tradition and cultural variation.

Ultimately, it is each Muslim woman’s individual responsibility to follow God’s commandments. So I say to my Muslim brothers that you cannot force women to practice Islam of your understanding.

Western secularists also must learn that there is nothing wrong with a woman’s choice to cover herself. It does not represent oppression, nor is it a means to impose one’s religion on others. Extremists, both religious and secular, need to be educated on the true nature and intention of Islam’s guidance of dress — moderation and protection. Nobody can force Muslim women to observe or abandon their religion. If their actions are wrong, they are answerable to God, and God alone.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harris-zafar/burqa-france-_b_849473.htm

On Tuesday, I had the pleasure of appearing as a guest on “The O’Reilly Factor” to address accusations Ms. Wafa Sultan had levied against Islam on “The Factor” one day earlier. Ms. Sultan commented on Muammar Qaddafi’s henchmen abducting and raping a Libyan woman. In her commentary, Ms. Sultan made the mistake of conflating the abuse of women in the Middle East that she has witnessed with the teachings of Islam.

Some incorrectly believe that the Koran sanctions (or even promotes) the ill-treatment of women. They allege that verse 35 of Chapter 4 instructs Muslims to beat their wives in order to maintain dominance over them.

As a happily married man, this verse is important to me – and my wife. The verse restricts, rather than sanctions, such behavior. It describes a process of curbing the urge to use physical force in the rare event of gross disobedience or rebellion – a vicious behavior such as adultery or stealing, not a simple disagreement. This verse presents a process of anger management, reformation and reconciliation, with the intention to heal the relationship at every step. Additionally, the Prophet Muhammad commanded not to do anything that would ever harm or leave a mark on a woman. This verse cannot be understood to justify beating, rape or any ill-treatment of women.

The Koran then continues in verse 36 to say that if the husband and wife cannot reconcile, then arbiters should seek to make peace between them on their behalf. The Koran guides towards reconciliation, not abuse.

Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, was the living embodiment of the Koran. If the Koran advocates for the beating of one’s wife, then surely we should see examples of such behavior from the Prophet Muhammad — but we do not. He had disagreements with his wives, but he never raised his hand against them.

To the contrary, we read that he instructed his followers regarding their wives “do not beat them.” One must understand the Koran according to Prophet Muhammad’s understanding and practice. He told his followers that the best among men is the one who is best in his treatment to his wife and instructed that “husbands who beat their wives are not the best among men.”

Alleging that the Prophet Muhammad sanctioned – or even permitted – the beating or raping of women is patently false. If anything Chapter 24, verse 24 says “those who accuse chaste, unwary, believing women are cursed in this world and the Hereafter.” Women must be protected from such evil and despicable acts. It is recorded that the Prophet Muhammad ordered a man to be punished for rape based on the sole testimony of the rape victim.

Some incorrectly assert that Islam requires a rape victim to bring forth four witnesses to prove she has been raped. This is absolutely absurd and has no basis in the Koran.

In truth, the Koran instructs the complete opposite in Chapter 24, verse 5, when it instructs to punish those who falsely accuse chaste women of adultery but do not bring forth four witnesses to prove the adulterous act. Such accusers should be punished for slander and false testimony. Nowhere in the Koran will you find instructions for a victim of rape to present four witnesses to prove she was raped. There is no justice in that.

Far from abusing women, the Koran instructs us to honor them. The final verse of Chapter 66 of the Koran even instructs all believers to follow the example of the Mother Mary to achieve a high spiritual status, citing that despite all odds, she remained so chaste that she was bestowed the Holy Spirit.

In actuality, Islam instructs Muslims to protect women all over the world from this barbarity. Those who mistreat women in so-called “Islamic states” violate the teachings of the Holy Koran and the Prophet of Islam.

As moderate Muslims who believe in the Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community continues to advocate for the equality, education, and empowerment of women. Contrary to the allegations of those who seem not to have read the Koran in its entirety, Islam does not allow beating or rape of its women at all. As followers of the true, documented teachings of Islam, Muslims must help stop the savage and vicious acts perpetrated against women around the world.

Harris Zafar is National Spokesperson of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA — the oldest Muslim organization in America.

The term “Islamic caliphate” often stirs fear of an Islamic uprising where Muslims will acquire global political control. Some, like Sean Hannity, claim that giving control to al Qaeda will lead to an Islamic caliphate. And although caliphate is the English rendition of the Arabic term khilafat, the two terms have different connotations.

Since the revolution began in Egypt, many pundits have continually warned of a possible radical takeover in Egypt that will ultimately resurrect an imperialist caliphate. The system of caliphate is apparently obligated to wage war to bring the world under Islamic rule — and then to enforce Sharia law.

This is a far cry from the actual origins and significance of khilafat. Whereas caliphate implies a politico-religious Muslim state governed by a political leader, khilafat refers to the Islamic institution of spiritual successorship. The word khilafat means succession, and the khalifa is a successor to a prophet of God, whose goal is to complete the tasks of reformation and moral training that the prophet instituted. Therefore, khilafat can exist and flourish without a state, much like the papacy in Catholicism, which provides spiritual guidance and unity.

The Islamic understanding of khilafat is based on the Quran, the teachings of Muhammad (the prophet of Islam), and the examples of the first four khalifas in Islam after the Prophet’s demise. Prophet Muhammad prophesized that a period of khilafat would follow his demise, then monarchy, autocracy would follow, and, after a hiatus, khilafat would be re-established upon the precepts of prophethood.

The first four khalifas were close associates of the Prophet and known for their integrity and great devotion. Of great significance is the qualification of “rightly-guided” that has been used to distinguish them from the caliph-kings who followed.

The reign (632-661) of the rightly-guided khalifas is often remembered as a golden age of Islam. Muslims would often define themselves and their theology according to the way they assessed the glorious, albeit turbulent and short-lived, events of that formative period.

After the assassination of the last of the rightly-guided khalifas, debate over successorship resulted in a major split in Islam into Sunni and Shia branches. Spirituality was lost and replaced by a political institution, or caliphate. Muawiyah declared himself leader of the Muslims and, thereby, laid the foundations of a long line of caliphs or dynastic monarchies — in accordance with Muhammad’s prophecy.

This reign of caliphs continued for centuries until Ottoman sultan Selim I captured the last caliph of Cairo in 1517. The Ottoman sultans then claimed the title of caliph and brandished it for four centuries until Kamal Ataturk, founder of the Turkish Republic, abolished it in 1924.

Osama bin Laden and a number of fundamentalist political parties have called for the restoration of caliphate to unite Muslim nations — either through peaceful political uprising or through force. Two influential and radical pan-Islamic groups, Jamaat-e-Islami and the Muslim Brotherhood, seek to restore the caliphate as a militant Islamic institution.

But, what Muslims need is a spiritual khilafat. Any attempts to impose caliphate are doomed to fail not only because it diverges from the true Islamic system of khilafat but also because of the disunity among Muslims to elect a leader.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, however, stands out. As Muslims who believe in the Messiah — Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, India — the Community was founded in 1889 and spans over 195 countries with membership exceeding tens of millions. After the demise of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in 1908, a large number of followers gathered and unanimously elected the first khalifa. Since then, four more khalifas have been elected, who have focused on serving the faith and transforming the faithful, as opposed to establishing a Muslim state.

From its inception, the Ahmadiyya Khilafat has categorically rejected religious militancy in every form. When faced with bitter persecution, it practices patience and perseverance. When subjected to intolerance, it preaches peace and tolerance. It champions the cause of the dispossessed and works towards uplifting the oppressed through international humanitarian efforts. It has conquered no land and possesses no earthly dominion, but it wields its influence over the hearts and minds of millions as a force for good in the world.

So there need not be any fear of the true Islamic concept of khilafat. This Islamic system of leadership does not threaten to gain any political control, nor does it pursue the establishment of a politico-religious state. Let us walk away from this understanding of caliphate and understand that khilafat can serve to guide Muslims and spiritually reform the world.

In this essay, we will examine the concept of the khilafat, its rise, fall, and reemergence, and discuss its relevance in modern times.

The Arabic word khalifa means successor. The term caliph is simply an anglicized version of khalifa. The terms khilafat and caliphate, though derived from khalifa and caliph respectively, have different connotations. Khilafat refers to the Islamic institution of spiritual successorship, whereas caliphate implies a politico-religious Muslim state governed by a caliph [6, 14].

Theological Foundations of Khilafat

The Holy Quran makes several references to the term khalifa, but it does not expound upon the prerogative, scope, authority, or manner of establishment of khilafat. Our understanding of khilafat and how it draws its legitimacy is essentially based on the following Quranic verse.

Allah has promised to those among you who believe and act righteously, that He will surely make them Successors (khalifas) in the earth, as He made Successors from among those who were before them; and that He will surely establish for them their religion, which He has chosen for them; and that He will surely grant them security and peace in place of their fear. (24:56)

In this verse, the Holy Quran presents the institution of khilafat as a reward for collective piety. It is often interpreted to provide a basis for an Islamic polity founded upon the democratic lines headed by a khalifa whose office is, in principle, elective and bound by the Quran and the sunnah.

In a well-known hadith, the Prophet Muhammed^SAW is reported to have observed:

Prophethood shall remain among you as long as God wills. Then khilafat on the pattern of prophethood will commence and remain as long as He wills. A corrupt monarchy shall then follow and it shall remain as long as God wills. There shall then be a tyrannical despotism which shall remain as long as God wills. Then once again khilafat will emerge on the precept of prophethood. [Masnad-­Ahmad, Mishkat, Chapter Al-Anzar Wal Tahzir].

This hadith not only reassures us about the reemergence of divinely guided khilafat but it also passes a historical judgment on what was to follow the early Khilafat.

Khilafat and State

The Islamic view is that sovereignty over the universe belongs to God, but mankind, as God’s deputy, is vested with authority in certain spheres, as a trust, for which it is accountable to God. Hadhrat Zafrulla Khan wrote:

“As God’s sovereignty extends over the universe, the ultimate ideal of a state in Islam is a universal federation or confederation of autonomous states, associated together for upholding freedom of conscience, for the maintenance of peace, and for cooperation in promoting human welfare throughout the world…” [5]

The role played by a khalifa is both spiritual and secular. According to, Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad^RZ, Khalifatul-Masih IV, the implication of a khalifa being the spiritual head of a confederation of states is that the khalifa, if he sees fit, may relegate most or all his secular authority to the elected representatives of the members of the confederation [3]. Thus the concept of khilafat transcends national sovereignty and ethnic divide and forms a truly universal supra-national entity.

A khalifa has the promise of divine support so long as it remains firmly based on the precept of prophethood – that is, the principles and prototypes exemplified by prophets. He is bound by the ordinances of divine law. He decides questions of policy after consultation with the chosen representatives of the people. The concept of khilafat is thus imbued with both secular and religious characteristics.

The institution of khilafat is based on the precept of prophethood; and therefore, like prophethood, it can exist and flourish without a state.

The Rightly-Guided Khalifas

When the Prophet Muhammed^SAW died (632 C.E.), Hadhrat Abu Bakr succeeded to his spiritual, political, and administrative functions as successor of the messenger of God (khalifa rasul Allah). Bernard Lewis, the preeminent historian of Islam, observes:

“Abu Bakr was given the title of Khalifa or ‘Deputy’ (of the prophet) … and his election marks the inauguration of the great historic institution of the Caliphate. His electors can have no idea of later functions and development of the office. At the time, they made no attempt to delimit his duties or powers. The sole condition of his appointment was the maintenance of the heritage of the Prophet.” [10]

Bernard Lewis captured the essence of the institution of khilafat in the last sentence by re-stating the phrase “on the precept of prophethood” from the hadith. The first four Khalifas, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali, were close associates of the Prophet known for their high integrity and great devotion. The qualification rightly-guided (the rashedun) has been historically applied to them to distinguish them from the kings-caliphs who followed them.

The period of the reign (632-661) the rightly-guided Khalifas constituted what later generations of Muslims would often remember as a golden age of pure Islam. Muslims would often define themselves and their theology according to the way they assessed the glorious, though turbulent and short-lived, events of that formative period [7].

The famous historian of Islam, Muhammad ibn Jarir Al Tabari, relates the following incident [10].

“Umar said to Salman: ‘Am I a king or a khalifa?’ and Salman answered: ‘If you have levied from the lands of the Muslims one dirham, or more, or less, and applied it unlawfully, you are a king not a khalifa’. And Umar wept.” [Al Tabari, Tarikh al-Rusul Wal Muluk]

Here Hadhrat Umar, the second Khalifa, whose piety, sense of justice, and puritanical austerity were proverbial, came to tears by the mere mention of the possibility of misusing a single coin from the public exchequer. This incidence underscores the distinctive characteristics of the rightly-guided khilafat.

The rightly-guided Khalifas played active spiritual and secular roles. They were the head of the Islamic confederation and exercised secular authority often indirectly through appointed governors of various provinces of the empire.

After the assassination of Hadhrat Ali (661 C.E.), the last of the rightly-guided Khalifas, the question of the right to khilafat resulted in a major split in Islam into Sunni and Shia branches [9]. Muawiyah declared himself the khalifa of the ummah and of the Muslim empire and thereby laid down the foundations of a long line of dynastic monarchy – quite in accordance with the prognostications made by the Prophet.

Monarchy and Despotism

After the end of the rightly-guided Khilafat, the title of khalifa was borne by the fourteen Umayyad kings of Damascus (661-750) and subsequently by the thirty-eight Abbasid monarchs of Baghdad (750-1258). After the fall of the Umayyad dynasty, the title was also assumed by the Spanish branch of the family who ruled in Spain at Córdoba (755–1031) and by the Faṭimid rulers of Egypt (909–1171). Thus there existed multiple contemporaneous caliphs from the 7^th to 12^th centuries [6].

The last titular Abbasid caliph of Cairo was captured in 1517 by the Ottoman sultan Selim I. The Ottoman sultans then claimed the title of khalifa and brandished it for four centuries until it was abolished in 1924 by the Mustafa Kamal Ataturk, the founder of Turkish Republic.

It is not uncommon for many scholars [14, 20] to state that the caliphate came to an end in 1924. But, as a matter of fact, it had reached its nadir long time ago. What came to an end in 1924 was a vestigial and vacuous title misappropriated by a decadent monarchy, which, even in its imperial heyday, never represented the Muslim ummah and nor had it exercised any positive influence over them since the 13^th century.

Wishful Thinking

In 2005, President Bush warned [12]: “These Al Qaida terrorists are driven by a radical and perverted vision of Islam that rejects tolerance, crushes all dissent, and justifies the murder of innocent men, women and children in the pursuit of political power.  They hope to establish a violent political utopia across the Middle East, which they call caliphate … where all would be ruled according to their hateful ideology. This caliphate would be a totalitarian Islamic empire encompassing all current and former Muslim lands”.

Mr. Bush is not alone in raising the specter of the caliphate. After the recent unrest and demand for freedom and justice in the Arab lands, many public figures in academia and think tanks have expressed similar alarmist views, while some in the media have circulated wild caliphate conspiracy theories.

On the other end of the spectrum, the collective Muslim soul yearns for a global caliphate, which is cherished as a memory of past glories and timeless ideals. In recent years, interest among Muslims in international unity and the caliphate has grown. Popular Islamic movements identify a lack of spirituality and decline in personal religious observance as the root cause of the Muslim world’s problems, and claim that the caliphate cannot be successfully revived until these deficiencies are addressed.

Osama bin Laden has called [12] the 9/11 attacks “a great step towards the unity of Muslims and establishing the righteous caliphate.” A number of fundamentalist political parties have called for the restoration of the caliphate by uniting Muslim nations, either through peaceful political uprising or through force [13]. Two influential and radical pan-Islamic groups, the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Muslim Brotherhood, seek to restore the caliphate, but fail to differentiate between a militant Islamic state [16, 17] and the spirituality of the rightly-guided khilafat. Some see the ineffectual Organization of the Islamic Conference, an international organization with 57 Muslim member states, as a precursor to the caliphate. Other scholars, like Tarek Masoud of Harvard Kennedy School, take a milder view envisioning the caliphate somewhat like the European Union for Muslims [19].

Clearly, at the core of the divergent ideas of restoration of the caliphate lies a minimal precondition of the political unity of the Muslim ummah [13]. But that seems to be inconceivable in the present climate. In recent memory, Muslim countries have not been a picture of unity and harmony: the world has been a witness to the Black September of Jordan (1970), the failure of the Pan Arabic movement and of the United Arab Republic (1971), division of Pakistan (1971), the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), the Darfur conflict (2003-2008), and the decision of the southern Sudan to secede from the north (2011). In a Friday sermon [18], Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, Khalifatul-Masih V, succinctly put it: “How do they propose to establish khilafat over every Muslim country when they cannot even agree on who could lead the prayer?”

The Ahmadiyya Khilafat

Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^AS, the Messiah and Mahdi, likened khilafat to the second manifestation of God’s power – the advent of prophets being the first manifestation. He drew a parallel and proffered the archetypical Khilafat of Hadhrat Abu Bakr as the second manifestation. He quoted the Quranic verse 24:56 and made a prophetic statement: “The second manifestation cannot come till I go. But when I go, God will send a second manifestation for you which will remain with you forever.” [1] This second manifestation unequivocally refers to the Ahmadiyya Khilafat.

After the death of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^AS in 1908, a large number of leading members of the Ahmadiyya community convened and unanimously decided that Hadhrat Nurud Din^RZ should be his first Khalifa. In 1914, at the time of the election of the second Khalifa, Hadhrat Mirza Mahmood Ahmad^RZ, a small dissenting group formed a separate organization known as Lahoris; their main dispute with the mainstream Ahmadis centered over the scope of and the need for the institution of khilafat [4]. Since then the transitions to three Khalifas have taken place with grace and harmony. These Khalifas have been men of piety and probity, of simplicity and austerity, dedicated to Islam, and engaged in serving the faith and transforming the faithful.

After a hiatus of 13 hundred years, the divinely-guided Ahmadiyya Khilafat in Islam re-emerged in accordance with the prophecies of the Holy Prophet and of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^AS. This was one of the most significant events in the history of Islam whose full impact is yet to be seen [11].

The Ahmadiyya Khilafat categorically rejects militancy in every form and wages an intellectual jihad of the pen. When faced with bitter persecution, it practices patience and perseverance. When subjected to invidious intolerance, it preaches peace and tolerance. It champions the cause of the dispossessed and works towards uplifting the downtrodden.

The Ahmadiyya Khilafat has conquered no land and possesses no earthly dominion, but it wields its influence over the hearts and minds of millions by winning over one man and one woman at a time. It is a force for good in the world, and exemplifies, once again, an institution grounded in the precepts of prophethood.

References

1. Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, The Will, Islam International Publication, Ltd., 2001
2. Hadhrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mehmud Ahmad, Islam May Ikhtilafat Ka Aghaz (The Origin of Dissention in Islam), Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, Qadian, India, 1978.
3. Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad, Islam’s Response to Contemporary Issues, Islam International Publication, Ltd., 1992
4. Yohanan Friedmann, Prophecy Continuous, University of California Press, 1989
5. Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, Islamic Concept of the State, Review of Religions, February 1993
6. “Caliphate”, Encyclopædia Britannica 2006, Ultimate Reference Suite DVD.
7. Phillip K. Hitti, A History of the Arabs, Macmillan & Co. Ltd., New York, 1961
8. Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, Islam and Human Rights, Islam International Publications, 1967
9. Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short History, Modern Library, New York, 2000
10. Bernard Lewis, The Arabs in History, Oxford University Press, New York, 1993
11. Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, Ahmadiyyat: The Renaissance of Islam, Tabshir Publications, London, 1978
12. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/05/AR2006090500656.html
13. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/13/AR2006011301816_pf.html
14. Noah Feldman, The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State, Princeton University Press, 2008.
15. Osama Saeed, The Return of the Caliphate, The Guardian, November 1, 2005.
16. Kalim Bahadur, The Jamaat-e-Islami of Pakistan, Chetana Publications, New Delhi, 1977.
17. R. S. Leiken and S. Brooke, The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood, Foreign Affairs Magazine, Vol. 86, No. 2, March 2007.
18. Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, Friday (25-2-2011) Sermon, http://www.alislam.org/friday-sermon/20110225.html#summary-tab
19. Global Public Square, CNN, February 20, 2011.
20. Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Simon & Schuster, 1996

Verily, Allah enjoins justice, and the doing of good to others; and giving like kindred; and forbids indecency and manifest evil and transgression.  He admonishes you that you may take heed.’ (16:91)

Honored Guests of the Promised Messiah^as:

It is our common observation that to protect society from any serious disease, responsible and knowledgeable leaders of society warn people about the potential risks from that disease and advise them of what they should or should not do.  As human knowledge is not complete and is based on limited experience, such warnings and advice are neither complete nor pre-emptive.  Nonetheless, those who heed such warnings and advice remain relatively safe and those who do not suffer the effects of that disease.

Moral degradation is worse than a complex and serious disease with devastating long term consequences.  It refers to the process of declining from a higher to a lower level of morality and is seen as preceding or concomitant with the decline in quality of life as well as the decline of societies and nations.  It has destroyed individuals, families, dynasties and nations alike from within.  It starts slowly with seemingly harmless choices by some individuals but then it spreads like an epidemic affecting the society at large.

Moral decline or degradation begins when transcendent moral values, which have proven to be beneficial over time, are discarded for vain lustful desires.  A study of human history suggests that moral decline begins with prosperity.  In early America, the tendency to drift away from faith in times of prosperity was observed by a Puritan preacher Cotton Mather (1663-1728) who stated, “Religion begot prosperity, and the daughter devoured the mother.”

Secular society, perhaps in the name of freedom of choice, is unwilling to condemn or prevent the spread of moral degradation; and even when it tries to it is unable to because of human limitations of knowledge, reasoning and wisdom.  Such society goes in circles chasing the symptoms and dressing up the outcomes rather than addressing the root cause.  In our times, examples of this phenomenon abound; like immodesty, adultery, cohabitation, teenage pregnancies, drinking, drugs, pornography, homosexuality, financial and political corruption, etc.

Reflecting on the current condition of man, the Messiah of this age, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, writes:

The remarkable material progress of the current age has been more than counterbalanced by its deplorable spiritual decline, to the extent that the souls of men have lost their ability even to grasp obvious truths.  It is apparent from a close study of humanity that a hidden and formidable force is pulling it downwards, and man is swiftly being dragged into a pit which is termed Asfalus Safilin (the lowest of the low).  Such a complete change has come over the intellects of men that they have come to admire and praise things which are abhorrent and detestable to the spiritual eye.  Pure truths are laughed at and ridiculed, and complete submission to God is looked upon as an absurdity.  (How to be free from sin)

Unlike secular society, religious society looks towards sacred scriptures and traditions to prevent moral degradation.  However, all religions are either silent or inadequate on this subject, except Islam.  No other religion claims to be complete and universal, except Islam.  It is only Islam that claims to provide perfect guidance for all human needs: physical, moral and spiritual.  It is only Islam that addresses the root cause of moral decline in profound ways and provides a panacea to the believers for the cure of this fatal disease when it proclaims:

We gradually reveal understanding of the Qur’an which is a healing and a mercy to the believers…. (17:83)

In the next few minutes I wish to first describe an overview of how Islam purports to prevent moral degradation, then present a specific framework in which Islamic Philosophy and Teachings can be applied to prevent moral decline, and finally some simple Islamic tips that you and I can use on a daily basis to save ourselves and others from moral degradation.

Overview:

Islam prevents moral decline by:

(a)  Explaining the nature of man (i.e., his strengths and weaknesses, his potential to do good and his propensity to do evil)

(b)  Differentiating right from wrong

(c)  Warning about the risks and dangers of moral degradation

(d)  Providing complete guidance (dos & don’ts) on avoiding those risks

(e)  Presenting the Holy Prophet Muhammad^saw as a model of moral excellence:

Verily, you have in the Prophet of Allah an excellent model,… (33:22)

(f)   Exhorting good people to prevent moral degradation with love, wisdom and compassion:

Let there be among you a group of people who should invite to goodness, and enjoin equity and forbid evil. (3:105)

As an example, let me review one profound Islamic teaching on the fundamental chemistry of moral development and degradation.  This is the verse of the Holy Qur’an I recited in the beginning.  Allah says:

Verily, Allah enjoins justice, and the doing of good to others; and giving like kindred; and forbids indecency and manifest evil and transgression.  He admonishes you that you may take heed.’ (16:91)

Paraphrasing the explanation of this verse by Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih II^ra:

This verse contains three commandments and three prohibitions which briefly deal with all the various stages of moral and spiritual development of man.  On the positive side it enjoins justice, the doing of good to others and kindness as between kindred; and on the negative side it forbids indecency, manifest evil and transgression.  Adl (justice) implies that a person should treat others as he is treated by them…  Higher than adl is ihsan (goodness) when man should do good to others regardless of what sort of treatment he receives from them…  The last and highest stage of moral development is ita’e dhil qurba (giving like kindred), where a believer is expected to do good to others prompted by a natural impulse like a mother whose love for her children springs from natural impulse.  After a believer has attained this stage his moral development becomes complete.  Moral decline is identified with three words, viz., fahsha (indecency), munkar (manifest evil) and baghy (transgression).  Fahsha signifies vice of which the knowledge is confined to the doer and munkar signifies those evils which others also see and condemn, though they may not suffer any direct loss or infringement of their own rights by them.  Baghy, however, comprehends all those vices and evils which not only are seen, felt and denounced by others but which do them direct harm as well.  These three simple words cover all conceivable vices.

This commandment and insight into human nature is so profound and critical that it is recited every week in the second portion of the Friday sermon lest we forget.  This also shows that Islam relies heavily on the system of reminders because humans are forgetful by nature.

Framework:

Now, let me apply Islamic Philosophy and Teachings on a specific framework to prevent moral degeneration.  As individuals and families are the fundamental building blocks of society are individuals and families, the building blocks of Prevention of Moral Degeneration are preservation of morals and integrity of individuals and then families.

Individuals:

According to the Holy Qur’an, the fundamental root cause of all evils is shirk (i.e., associating gods with Allah).  To preserve the morals of individuals, Allah says in the Holy Qur’an:

Thy Lord has commanded that ye worship none but Him… (17:24)

Explaining this verse, Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih II^ra states that shirk causes man to sink morally and spiritually.  Belief in Divine Unity is a seed out of which grow all virtues, and lack of which lies at the root of all sins.

We observe that a lot of people proclaim that they believe in One God but still commit sins.  Explaining this paradox, The Promised Messiah^as writes:

Belief only means accepting something in good faith, but true awareness means to actually experience that belief. It is impossible for true awareness—Ma‘rifat—and sin to dwell in one heart, just as it is impossible for it to be day and night at the same time.  (How to be free from sin)

Regarding shirk, The Promised Messiah^as writes:

Anyone who gives reverence to his own plans, mischief or clever designs as he should revere God alone, or depends upon another person as he should depend upon God alone, or reveres his own ego as he should revere God alone, in all such conditions he is an idol-worshipper in the sight of Allah.  (Siraj-ud-Din ‘Isa’i ke Char…)

In this respect, Hadrat Khalifatul Masih I^ra says:

To associate anyone in the name, action, or worship of Allah constitutes shirk, and to carry out all good deeds solely for the pleasure of Allah is called worship.

Warning against shirk, Hahdhrat Khalifatul Masih V^ab states:

Among the ills that take over imperceptibly is shirk.  Even a hint of shirk is unacceptable to God.  A Muslim who claims to be firm on the Unity of God, needs to understand the subtlety of the concept of Unity of God and the subtlety of shirk and be extremely careful in this fast developing world.  (Conditions of Bai’at)

So, the first step in preserving the morals of individuals is belief in the Oneness of God and condemnation of shirk.

The second step in preserving the morals of individuals is his obligation towards his parents.  Allah says:

Thy Lord has commanded, that ye worship none but Him, and that ye show kindness to parents… (17:24)

Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih II^ra states that it is his parents who first of all direct a man’s attention to God and it is in the parental mirror that Divine attributes are reflected and on a minor human scale are given practical expression….Man is told that since it is not possible for him to repay God’s favors, he should at least refrain from shirk.  However, in the case of his parents, man can return their love and kindness, although only very inadequately.  Therefore, he is commanded to be kind and generous to them.

The third step in preserving the morals of individuals is his obligation towards his kinsman, the poor and the wayfarer and proper use of his wealth.  Allah says,

Give to the kinsman his due, and to the poor and the wayfarer, and squander not thy wealth extravagantly.  (17:27)

Families:

To preserve the morals and integrity of families, Islam provides a complete code of conduct.  The ideal Islamic family starts with the marriage of a believing man and a compatible believing woman and culminates with the raising of believing children.  To successfully navigate through this family journey, Islam defines the roles and responsibilities of the married couple first as spouses and then as parents.

Regarding the married couples, Allah admonishes:

Men are guardians over women…..Virtuous women are obedient and guard the secrets of their husbands with Allah’s protection….  (4:35)

Qawwamun means maintainers, protectors, or managers of affairs.  Thus, we infer that the husbands are responsible for the physical, moral and spiritual well being of their wives and children.  Such husbands can become qawwamun only if their wives cooperate with them and protect them by guarding their trusts.

Regarding the married couples as parents, Allah admonishes:

O ye who believe! Save yourselves and your families from Fire… (66:7)

So, as parents believers are responsible for striving hard in protecting themselves and their families from breaching any and all boundaries of human behavior commanded by Allah.  For example, Allah commands:

Slay not your children for fear of poverty… (17:32)

Explaining this verse, Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih II^ra states that:  “Those miserly parents who do not provide proper education (secular, moral, and religious), food and clothing to their children, in fact, contribute to their physical and moral death.”

Tips:

Now, let me review some simple Islamic tips that we can use on a daily basis to save us and others from moral decline.  As a general principal, Islam states that:

Follow not the footsteps of Satan. (2:169)

Who is Satan?  Satan means the rebellious and the one who transgresses or exceeds proper bounds.  So, to protect ourselves from any moral lapse, we should not follow those who exceed the boundaries set by the Islamic code of conduct, rather we should follow the practice of the Holy Prophet^saw.

In this context, peer pressure has a significant impact.  Granted that peer pressure is sometimes not in our control, but the choice of peers is largely in our control.  We need to be very careful in selecting our friends and peers, Allah says:

O ye who believe! Fear Allah and be with the truthful.  (9:119)

The Holy Prophet^saw defines a worthy friend as the one whose very sight makes you remember Allah, whose conversation increases your knowledge and whose deeds remind you of the Hereafter.  (Bukhari)

In selecting our company, we should have the goal, and we all have the potential, to become those seeing whom others may remember Allah, listening to whom others may increase their knowledge and whose deeds may remind others of the Hereafter.  Obviously, in some professional and educational settings we may not have complete choice, but pious company should be our default setting.

We can have such pious company if we frequent our mosques for salaat and other jama’at or auxiliary activities.  Salaat, especially congregational salaat, plays a significant role in preventing moral decline as Allah guarantees that:

Surely, Prayer restrains one from indecency and manifest evil.  (29:46)

Similarly, we can find such company if we frequently watch MTA.

Lastly, Istighfar is the ultimate Islamic shield against moral degradation.  It is the most potent prayer for repentance and forgiveness of past sins and protection from potential future mistakes.

Conclusion:

In short, Islam is the only religion that has complete and perfect guidance on preventing moral degradation.  However, one may ask as to why do we see moral decline in Muslims?  The answer is that Islamic guidance is effective only for those who are righteous and believe in the hereafter.  Allah says:

Those who believe not in the Hereafter, We have made their deeds appear beautiful to them, so they are wandering blindly. (27:5-6)

Explaining this verse, Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih II^ra states:

It is a natural law that when man pursues an evil course, thinking that he is not accountable for what he does, he begins to justify his conduct as good and proper.

Hereafter generally refers to the life after death.  But, in making our daily choices, if we look at the long term consequences of those choices rather than the immediate gratification or expediency, we can save ourselves a lot of grief.  A sense of right and wrong and the potential to be good are built in our DNA.  Allah says:

And by the soul and its perfection – and He revealed to it what is wrong for it and what is right for it – He indeed truly prospers who purifies it; and he who corrupts it is ruined.  (91:8-11)

Explaining this verse, Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih II^ra states:

God has implanted in man’s nature a feeling or sense of what is good and bad and has revealed to him that he could achieve spiritual perfection by eschewing what is bad and wrong and adopting what is right and good.

As torch bearers of Islam, it is our fundamental obligation to prevent moral degradation in our community so that we may attract others to the beauty of Islam.  Ameen.