Life-Cycle of a Rumour

"There are many signs in the heavens and the earth which they pass by; yet they pay no attention to them." (Surah Yusuf, ayah 105)

Day One: ‘Disrespecting the Qur’ân: Girl turns into a lizard-like creature’ reads a caption. It has occurred somewhere in India. Girl was listening to music while Mom read the Qur’ân. She ignored Mom’s calls to turn-off the music.

Day Two: A local radio station presenter mentions the ‘incident’ fuelling more curiosity. A caller requests the website address where the ‘creature’ is posted. He wants to show this creature to his children as a lesson.

Day Three: A preacher uses the story to deliver a mimbar ‘lesson’

Day Four: The girl was watching TV

Day Five: Images (semi-nude) of the creature are posted on a masjid board to give musallees a ‘lesson with visual aids’.

Day Six: SkyNews reports of a hospital in India stormed by a riotous mob, curious to catch a glimpse of the girl-turned-lizard-like creature. Regardless, an Arabic website carries the image of the ‘lizard-girl’

Day Seven: Someone provides a web-link of the source page of the ‘creature’

Day Eight: The incident did not happen in India but in Oman

Day Nine: The Arabic website offers an apology for misleading the public. In other words, the matter is a hoax!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• The Jamiatul Ulama is deeply concerned at the rate at which we are looking for ‘miracles’ to prove the validity of Islâm and its symbols such as the Qur’ân and so on.
  
• While there are more than enough signs of Allâh’s Might and Wisdom within our own bodies and in the environment around us, the propensity to clutch on ‘miraculous’ occurrences and stories, regardless of their veracity is on the rise. Is it a symptom of the malaise and hopelessness in the Ummah? Is it a sign of growing inferiority complex?
  
• Others have used numerology. Yet others catch snapshots of the kalimah or the name of Allâh curved in tree branches, on fish, on newborn foreheads, in clouds and so on. Recently, it was the tsunami waves which ‘read’ Allâh as they hit a South-East Asian beach. All this is said to prove the authenticity of our Dîn and its symbols.
  
• Miracles do happen and indeed they point to the Majesty of the Almighty. However, it does not behove a believer to demand of them. That would border on disbelief. The Qur’ân is full of stories of generations who would demand a miracle as a sign but once the sign was given, it drove them deeper into disbelief. May the Almighty protect us.
  
• The converse is also food for thought. If something does not happen to a desecrater of the Qur’ân (Guantanamo, Afghanistan, etc), does it mean (Allâh forbid) the Power of Allâh has failed? Would we doubt the existence of the Almighty then?
  
• In one of the e-mails received on the story in question, one sender labelled the forwarding “unconfirmed.” This ‘unconfirmed’ tag should be the very reason for NOT forwarding such things through e-mails and other media lest we steep into cheap rumour-mongering!
  
• When we send around stories like these, we portray of ourselves as people ready to jump on anything to ‘prove’ the validity of Islam and its symbols. Over time, we will not have anything but ‘miracles’ just as people of other faiths have become. Furthermore we risk clutching on something (possibly digitally-manipulated or otherwise) to prove that Islam is genuine only to discover later that it was all a hoax as has been the case in this ‘lizard’ story. Wouldn't we playing into the hands of those bent at tarnishing the image of Islam?
  
• It is therefore our appeal to all to stick to our heritage of what is sober, clean and elegant such as our own beautiful stories from the Qur’ân, Sunnah and the illustrious predecessors.
  
• Let us leave all that digital manipulation bordering on vices such as nudity or other forms of indecency and stick to the pure and wholesome.

The Fed Is Lifeblood to the Root of Evil

by Alexander "Ace" Baker

Central banking is perhaps the most brilliant scam ever perpetrated, and the U.S. Federal Reserve stands as the most successful of all central banks in history. The Fed is able to transfer wealth away from the people who earned it, and into the hands of the Federal Government and member banks, relentlessly, stealthily, year after year, and all the while maintaining the preposterous claim of social benefit in the form of “managing the economy.” The method of this theft is sophisticated and disguised enough as to escape the attention of most, and when combined with propaganda, leads most people to the conclusion that we’d be in trouble without it. Yet I wish to show here that central banking can be well understood by most people for exactly what it is – the fraudulent theft of trillions of dollars via the monopolization of money. In the companion article, “The Origin of Money, and How It Was Stolen from You,” I will show that the usual justifications given for central banking are dubious.

Central banking makes possible the expansion of government power in all forms, most particularly the wicked godfather of all government programs: war. Without central banking, it is doubtful that any of the great wars of the 20th century, or the current debacle in Iraq , would have ever taken place, certainly not on the scale we have seen.

Kings and Presidents are an ambitious lot. They have long lusted to expand their power and prestige through military conquest and imperialism. But war is very costly, and since government does not produce anything, it must always extract wealth from its productive citizens. Citizens hate this. Raise taxes too high, and they might revolt.

Bankers are an ambitious lot as well. They have long lusted to enrich themselves through the expansion of bank credit (again see “The Origin of Money, and How It Was Stolen from You”). This practice, known as “Fractional Reserve Banking,” works pretty well until too many bank customers begin to smell a rat, and all demand their money at the same time. Expand credit too much, and people will make a run on the bank. This could lead to unpleasantries visited upon bankers.

Central banking is the stroke of evil genius that simultaneously solves the dilemmas of both the King and the Banker. The king gets an almost unlimited supply of financing for his war, and the banker gets the almost unlimited ability to expand credit without fear of a bank run. It is an unholy marriage consummated in the very depths of hell.

Every major industrialized nation has a central bank now. With the possible exception of the Napoleonic wars, every major war in modern times has been financed through central banking, on all sides. It is not a coincidence that the U.S. stayed out of foreign wars until the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, whereupon Woodrow Wilson broke his re-election campaign promise and plunged us headfirst into World War I.

How does it work? How does the creation of new money work to take wealth away from those who earned it and give to others?

The first thing to remember is this: Wealth is not money, and money is not wealth. Real wealth consists of real stuff – houses, cars, food, clothing, etc. Money is simply a medium of exchange. Money is tremendously important, for without it we would be reduced to direct barter, which would present enough problems to prevent mankind from progressing beyond simple agriculture. But ultimately it is not the money we are after, it’s the stuff. If you were stranded on a desert island, little pieces of paper with portraits of dead presidents wouldn’t do you any good.

Suppose you had a printing press in your bedroom and you could create counterfeit $100 bills that were so realistic that not even a bank manager could tell they were bogus. And let’s say that you cranked out a cool $1,000,000. You haven’t built a house, or grown food, or made any clothes, or anything else that people actually need. So while you have created new and additional money, you have not created any new and additional wealth. The total amount of real wealth in the world is exactly the same as before you printed the money.

Now let’s say you take the million bucks and buy yourself a nice little condo at the beach. At this point you have certainly increased your own personal wealth dramatically. Yet since there is no more wealth in total, then logically somebody, somewhere must be poorer as a result. But who? The guy you bought the condo from is O.K., he’s happy with the $1,000,000 which he can turn around and spend on something new for himself.

At first glance it might appear that no one was hurt by your counterfeiting scheme. But this is not true. Because there is now more money being spent on the same amount of goods and services, the prices of those goods and services must go up. Which is another way of saying that every dollar is worth less now than it was before. Prices don’t go up all at the same time, of course. Instead, price increases ripple through the economy in waves, affecting some people sooner than others. This is key to understanding who benefits and who is hurt by the creation of new money. The early receivers of the new money benefit, because they have a chance to spend it before prices go up. The late receivers of the new money get screwed. By the time they get their hands on the new money, it’s too late, prices have already increased.

In the real world of central banking, the chief beneficiaries of the creation of new money are:

The federal government itself
The commercial banks
Government contractors

The creation of new money “out of thin air” takes many forms. One of the most common is that the Federal Reserve prints up pieces of paper called “Federal Reserve Notes” while the Treasury Department prints up pieces of paper called “Government Bonds.” The Fed then “buys” the bonds with the new money, which the government then spends on whatever strikes its fancy, usually guns and missiles and warheads and submarines and jets and satellites. But use your imagination. It could be anything. $500 toilet seat? No problem! These wonderful things use resources that could have otherwise been put to different uses, and this lowers our standard of living. You have less stuff than you would have had if the government had not created any new money. How much less? The loss to our economy is truly incalculable, but I don’t think it is unreasonable to guess that living standards would easily be double what they are now, if not for central banking.

Money creation can also take the form of bank credit expansion. Besides being an inherent fraud and theft, bank credit expansion is the best explanation for the dreaded “business cycle,” the alternating periods of boom and bust we have experienced since around 1750, when fractional reserve banking first became widespread.

As you might guess, many very creative and complicated techniques have been devised for expanding the money supply, it isn’t necessary to go into that here. The thing to keep in mind is that new money can be created, and that this is a powerful and devious method of wealth redistribution. This also explains why governments long wished to eradicate the gold standard, which had evolved over centuries on the free market. Digging gold out of the ground takes work, and is self-limiting. Gold mining, in a free market, ends up being no more profitable than any other business. Printing paper money or changing numbers in a computer file is essentially costless, and therefore unlimited.

I would also point out that most of the great empires in history collapsed, at least in part, because of the continued dilution and devaluation of government money. Money became worthless, and so the division of labor, which depends on money and which is the cause of prosperity, becomes impossible. The people have no choice but to revert to a subsistence economy.

If we want to strike at the root of evil, we must look long and hard at the practice of central banking. If we do, I think we will discover that central banking is the very lifeblood to the root.

The Origin of Money (And How It Was Stolen from You)

by Alexander "Ace" Baker

Money. Everybody wants it, and you can always use more. But what is money? Where does it come from? Is it really the “root of all evil” as the Bible and Pink Floyd have said? Do we really need it? How did we all come to value little slips of paper with portraits of dead presidents on them? Why can’t they just give everybody a million dollars and make us all rich? And why is any of this important to those who are concerned about human liberty?

I’ll anticipate some conclusions here: Money is vital to a prosperous society, without it mankind could do no better than a primitive agricultural society. Money originates and evolves privately, in the market, as a solution to the problems presented by direct barter. Governments (in collusion with large Banks) around the globe have forcibly taken over and monopolized the creation of new money, and abolished the natural gold standard for the sole purpose of expanding their own power and confiscating wealth. All other “justifications” for government money are lies based on completely discredited economic hogwash. The unprecedented and artificial “fiat money” imposed on us now represents a grave threat to civilization itself.

What is Money?
Money can be defined as: A generally accepted medium of exchange. Theoretically, money can be anything that people desire to own, not for its direct use, but rather for its later value in trading for things that are useful. In practice, around the world and throughout history, one substance emerged as “the people’s choice” as the best money, and that substance is gold.

In the Beginning . . .
Imagine a primitive village with a fisherman (Mr. Fisher), a baker (Mr. Baker), a wagon maker (Mr. Wagoner) and a berry picker (Ms. Berry ). Even in primitive societies, workers tend to specialize like this, because of what Ludwig von Mises called the two most important facts about humans(!!):
That a group of people can produce more goods by specializing and trading than they can in self-sufficient isolation.
Man's ability to recognise fact#1:

So trading goods with others is a mutually beneficial, natural way for humans to improve their situation. If Fisher wants bread and Baker wants fish, they will want to trade, say one fish for two loaves of bread. So far, so good. But what happens if Fisher wants bread, but Baker doesn’t like fish? This is the first problem with barter, the so-called “double coincidence of wants.” Fisher has to want what Baker has at the same time Baker wants what Fisher has.

To solve the problem, Fisher might go visit Ms. Berry , the berry picker, because he knows that almost everybody likes berries. He trades his fish for a basket of berries, not because he wants to eat them, but because he thinks that Baker will trade loaves of bread for them. When this happens, berries are beginning to function as money, because they are being demanded not just for their value as food, but for their value in exchange.

So we see that money has a function. It solves problems. And like anything else that has a function, it stands to reason that some items will work better than others. You could pound a nail in with a rock, but a hammer works better, because it has certain qualities (leverage, flat surface) that make it superior to a rock for that purpose. And so it is with money. Some things will possess qualities that make it a better money than other things.

Good Money vs. Bad Money
What are the properties that make for a good money? One we’ve already touched on, and that is that money must be something that nearly everyone values. Another problem with barter is divisibility. Mr. Baker and Mr. Wagoner might agree that a nice wagon is worth 1,000 loaves of bread, but Wagoner doesn’t want 1,000 loaves, he only wants one. He can’t whack off 1/1000th of a wagon, that would be useless. So a good money must be something which is still valuable even when divided into very small amounts. Other qualities that make for useful money include durability and also interchangeability, where one unit is the same as any other.

It’s very unlikely that anything extremely common, like sand, could ever become money because people just don’t value common things as highly as rare things. That’s good, for another very important quality of good, sound money is that it should be costly to produce. Briefly, this is because the ability to create money without cost carries with it the extraordinary power to redistribute real wealth to whoever is allowed to create it. More on this later.

What began to happen, over centuries, in separate societies all over the world, is that people tried out all sorts of things as money - salt, seashells, cattle, etc. This was a spontaneous, natural competition to determine the best money. That is, the best according to function, as determined by the market, not the whim of some tyrant. (as you might have already heard)

And the Winner is . . (as you might have already heard)
Gold. Precious metals in general and gold in particular have been chosen time and time again by the market as the best-functioning money. It happened independently, in separate societies, over and over again before being integrated into a world market, so as the world market did begin to take shape, gold naturally emerged as the chosen money.
At the risk of being annoying, this bears repeating:

Money is not an abstract or arbitrary concept, it is a very real phenomenon with tremendous beneficial consequences for human existence. It has a purpose. Why on earth would we ever want to settle for anything less than the very best tool for such an important job?

The Original Bankers, and The Original Sin :
Now imagine we’re in a somewhat more advanced society, perhaps in the Middle Ages. Picture a village with farmers and various other cobblers, coopers, smiths and shopkeepers readily exchanging gold for their goods and services. The existence of a widely accepted, well functioning money is making possible the wider and wider division of labor, allowing society to produce more, increasing the standard of living for all.

What if you wanted to safely store some of your gold until you needed it? In many towns, the local goldsmith was the only one around with a decent safe, so Mr. Goldsmith (sensing a legitimate business opportunity) would allow you to warehouse your valuable money (for a small fee), issuing you a paper receipt, which would entitle you to reclaim your gold on demand. Once there were many such warehouse receipts floating around, people realized they could conveniently exchange the receipts as money, because everyone knew that these pieces of paper were “as good as gold.”

As you may have guessed, the goldsmiths were the original bankers, and these warehouse receipts were the original paper money. Once paper money backed by gold became established, Mr. Goldsmith noticed something very interesting. On any given day, only a small percentage of townspeople actually came to reclaim their gold. And when they did come to redeem it, they didn’t care if they got exactly the same gold back, only that they got the correct amount.

“Hmmmm” thought the less-than-honorable Mr. Goldsmith, “What’s to stop me from just writing up some extra receipts for myself to spend? Sure, more and more people will come in to claim gold, but so what? Even if two or three times as many people start showing up, I’ll have enough gold in reserve to cover it. I’m rich!” He was so proud of himself for his stroke of genius that he went right over and kissed himself in the mirror. And thus was born the fine art of counterfeiting, or “Fractional Reserve Banking” as bankers came to euphemistically call it.

And this counterfeiting scheme worked like a charm. Goldsmith would print money for himself to spend . . . or lend. People were suspicious of Mr. Goldsmith’s newfound extravagant riches, and they were also curious about something else. Prices on things around the village had been going up and up. You see, the creation of new money must have the effect of chasing up prices, because the amount of money that is spent is closely related to the amount of money that exists. If more money exists, then more money is spent, and if more money is spent to buy the same amount of goods, prices must be higher. This, of course, is called inflation. So if they gave everybody a million dollars, prices on everything would go up correspondingly, and no one would be better off.

The Bank Run - A Beautiful Thing
Anyway, the people’s natural suspicions about Mr. Goldsmith were correct. It is simply fraudulent for the owner of a warehouse to issue receipts for goods that don’t exist, or to lend out someone else’s property that is supposed to be in safekeeping. If you print a deed to a house and there’s no house, that’s wrong. If you print a title to a car and there’s no car, that’s wrong. And if you print a claim to gold when you have no gold, that’s wrong also.

Eventually the villagers smelled a rat. They got together, receipts in hand, and all showed up at bank to demand their gold, most of which simply wasn’t there. This became known as a “bank run.” Needless to say, the people were most unhappy with their discovery that the banker they trusted with their savings was a lying crook who had swindled them. Many a dishonest banker met up with vigilante justice, no doubt. The potential for a bank run became an indispensable free-market check on the integrity of bankers. For while any banker can be tempted to enrich themselves by artificially expanding the money supply, they are fearful of going out of business, and they are damn fearful of an angry mob of swindled customers. The problem then, as bankers thought of it, was to figure out how to expand the money supply endlessly, without cost to themselves, and without fear of a bank run.

Meanwhile, Back at the Royal Palace . . .
The king had a different problem. Kings dream of empowering themselves and securing their place in history through conquest and imperialism. Trouble is, military adventures are very expensive and the peasants hate being taxed. Like bankers, kings too fear the wrath of an angry mob.

Well, leave it to Mr. Goldsmith to be struck with yet another bolt of evil brilliance. He goes to the king and says, “Look, make my bank the official bank, and tell the people they must accept my paper money for all debts. Grant me the exclusive right to print money, take anybody else who prints money and put them in jail. If you do that for me, oh royal one, here’s what I’ll do for you. Anytime you need financing for your war, just print up some pieces of paper and call them “government bonds.” I’ll “buy” the bonds from you with my paper money, then you’ll have all the money you ever need!”

The king, being a politician, was good at lying and making up plausible sounding excuses. So he justified this new central banking cartel by claiming it was necessary to keep those greedy bankers in line. Get it? With a nod and a wink, the government pretends to be the ally of the people, while in reality seizing the money supply, creating a banking cartel, and destroying the market mechanism that was the people’s only real recourse against the inherent dishonesty that is Fractional Reserve Banking.

Keynes, the False Prophet of Econ
The preceding was a stylized fable, but conveys accurately the essence of what has occurred in the real world, e.g. with the Bank of England, and the U.S. Federal Reserve. Nowadays, the excuse given for having a central bank is “managing the economy” (controlling inflation, preventing deflation, keeping interest rates low, stimulating job creation, blah, blah, blah). Belief in the wisdom of government economic meddling is largely based on the theory of “economist” John Maynard Keynes. Keynesian theory holds that a free market will over-produce goods, leaving workers unable to buy their own product, which causes massive business failure and unemployment. The only remedy, according to Keynes, is for government to print and spend lots and lots of new money. It’s not hard to understand why politicians around the world gushed praise and knighthood upon Lord Keynes, while ignoring true economic science, which figured out long ago that government intervention into the economy is always destructive.

It’s beyond the scope of this article to refute Keynes. Suffice it to say here that Keynesianism is utter nonsense from beginning to end. It is self-contradictory, relies on shifting definitions, defies common sense, contains logical absurdities, and disregards human nature. It would be laughable if only it hadn’t been taken seriously. For a scholarly dissection of this evil doctrine, please see “The Misesian Case Against Keynes” by Hans-Hermann Hoppe .

The State vs. The People
A government money monopoly radically changes the relationship between a people and their rulers. In reality, government is utterly dependent on its productive citizens for everything that it buys, just as a blood-sucking parasite is dependent on its host. Under a system of private money, this is obvious to all. All government spending eventually returns back to the hands of private citizens, and if the government wants to spend more, it must again extract wealth from the people. Clearly, government is supported by the productive activity of private citizens.

However, once government acquires the exclusive privilege to create new money without limit, a strong illusion is created that makes it now appear that the people are dependent on government. In truth, government has become the source of money, but not the source of real wealth. Sadly, today millions of people mistakenly believe that their government is the cause of their prosperity. Nothing could be further from the truth. (See “The Fed is Lifeblood to the Root of Evil” for more on how central banking works to confiscate and redistribute wealth).

Clear and Present Danger
Sound money is crucial to the division of labor and thus to society itself, but that doesn’t mean that people will automatically and forever accept something as money for no good reason. The more dollars that are printed, the less each one is worth. The less money is worth, the worse it functions. And if money stops functioning, people will discard it as useless just as they throw away a broken old VCR. The best single explanation of the fall of the Roman empire is that various Caesars had relentlessly diluted the gold content of their coins (inflated the money supply), to the point where people didn’t want to accept them any more. Without good money, the problems of barter reappear, and people have no choice but to revert to a subsistence economy, which is precisely what happened in Europe in the Fifth Century.

It almost happened in Germany in the early 1920s. The German government had gone off the gold standard to finance its war in 1914, and now was printing money as fast as it could, trying to pay off its war debt. In 1923, 1 billion Marks were worth what 1 Mark had been worth a few years before! Creditors were wiped out, savings accounts and life insurance policies became worthless. People would buy anything – soap, hairpins, scrap-metal, anything to avoid holding money, which was visibly losing value every minute. The society was reverting to a direct barter existence. Germany was able to pull back from the brink of complete societal collapse only by issuing a new currency, the Rentenmark, that was backed by real property and factories.

The solution to all this, as in most things, is liberty. Under freedom, gold would almost certainly become money once again. A 100% reserve gold standard would have the benefit of preventing inflation (because the creation of new money is costly), and preventing deflation as well (because once gold money comes into existence, it stays in existence). The complete reliance on irredeemable paper money is unprecedented, having existed only since President Nixon destroyed the last vestige of the gold standard in 1971. Most of the major world currencies (the Yen, the Euro) are backed by the U.S. Dollar, which is backed by nothing. We seem headed toward a single world paper currency controlled by a single world banking cartel. Today there exists no barrier whatsoever to the unlimited creation of new money and bank credit. There is a strong incentive for those in power (the U.S. Federal Government, the large multi-national commercial banks) to enrich themselves by doing so. The only thing restraining them is their judgment and mercy. God help us.

LOVE IS ACCEPTANCE

- by Anonymous

It was a busy morning, approximately 8:30 am, when an elderly gentleman in his 80's, arrived to have stitches removed from his thumb. He stated that he was in a hurry as he had an appointment at 9:00 am. I took his vital signs and had him take a seat, knowing it would be over an hour before someone would be able to see him. I saw him looking at his watch and decided, since I was not busy with another patient, I would evaluate his wound. On exam, it was well healed, so I talked to one of the doctors, got the needed supplies to remove his sutures and redress his wound.

While taking care of his wound, we began to engage in conversation. I asked him if he had a doctor's appointment this morning, as he was in such a hurry. The gentleman told me no, that he needed to go to the nursing home to eat breakfastwith his wife. I then inquired as to her health.He told me that she had been there for a while and that she was a victim of Alzheimer's disease.As we talked, and I finished dressing his wound, I asked if she would be worried if he was a bit late. He replied that she no longer knew who he was; that she had not recognized him in five years now.

I was surprised, and asked him. "And you still go every morning, even though she doesn't know who you are?" He smiled as he patted my hand and said: "She doesn't know me, but I still know who she is." I had to hold back tears as he left, I had goose bumps on my arm, and thought, "That is the kind of love I want in my life." True love is neither physical, nor romantic. True love is an acceptance of all that is, has been, will be, and will not be.

While taking care of his wound, we began to engage in conversation. I asked him if he had a doctor's appointment this morning, as he was in such a hurry. The gentleman told me no, that he needed to go to the nursing home to eat breakfast with his wife. I then inquired as to her health. He told me that she had been there for a while and that she was a victim of Alzheimer's disease. As we talked, and I finished dressing his wound, I asked if she would be worried if he was a bit late. He replied that she no longer knew who he was; that she had not recognized him in five years now.

I was surprised, and asked him. "And you still go every morning, even though she doesn't know who you are?" He smiled as he patted my hand and said: "She doesn't know me, but I still know who she is." I had to hold back tears as he left, I had goose bumps on my arm, and thought, "That is the kind of love I want in my life." True love is neither physical, nor romantic. True love is an acceptance of all that is, has been, will be, and will not be.

Oh, by the way, peace is seeing a sunset and knowing whom to thank. "The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything; they just make the best of everything that comes along their way."

Time for a round of introspection

- Somnath Chatterjee

Newspapers, TV channels and Internet news providers need to institute a process of continuous introspection to ensure that they remain transparent and truthful purveyors of information.
In pre-Independence India, there were two kinds of newspapers and journals. One set was supportive of the colonial power, if not overtly then covertly. The other spoke of the aspirations of the people, pointed out injustice and oppression. Draconian laws were put in place to muzzle the latter. Those who started or owned or published or edited them were themselves actively involved in the freedom movement in one way or the other. The number of copies and the number of publi cations were limited, partly because of administrative obstruction and partly because of technological limitations. Yet the effect of what was printed and circulated was profound, even inspirational.

Independence brought with it within a few years our Constitution, which guaranteed freedom of speech and expression to all citizens. Thus the shackles on press freedom were done away with, except for the ‘reasonable restrictions’ provided for in Article 19(2).

The press in India in the early years of Independence showed its commitment to truth and transparency. The initial years saw the emergence of a new feature: the ownership of some newspapers passed from the founders and editor-publishers to commercial concerns. For some years, while the interest of some of the owners did shift to the revenue earned by the newspapers, the editors were free to determine the editorial policy. That was an age of great editors, who virtually set the standards of impartiality and independence that became an integral part of the print media.

Other factors came into play. Chief among them was the advent of technology that made it possible to print millions of copies, and set pages on computers, making production not only fast but more economical. Then the satellite age made it possible to send content from one office to another, so that local editions could be produced simultaneously. Another factor was the burgeoning advertising industry and the enormous amounts of money it poured into newspapers and journals. Indeed it is said that today some newspapers can afford to give away their copies for free, since their main revenue, that may run to crores of rupees daily, comes from advertising, not from the sale of the newspaper — as used to be the case in pre-Independence India.

In sections of the press, it appears that more importance is now given to the marketing divisions than to editors. It is said that in some newspapers, the marketing division decides what will ‘sell’ the paper in terms of news — and how they will do it. Thus it is that we are no longer surprised to read, on the front pages of some leading newspapers, of the eating habits of some personality from the entertainment industry, or of someone who has won some much publicised contest of some kind. Sadly, news relating to the state of the country is relegated to the inside pages.
But overshadowing all that has been happening to the newspapers is television. From a modest beginning of being the handmaiden of the Central government of the day, television has, since much of it went into private hands, grown exponentially, especially the news channels in different languages. But one has to think whether the development of television, especially television news, in the country has been in the right direction.

Private channels are not merely news providers. They make no secret of the fact that they are entirely dependent on advertising revenue, and it appears that advertisers have poured enormous amounts of money into those channels they perceive as getting the larger numbers of viewers. This has had two effects. One is that in the fierce competition to get more viewers, some channels have not hesitated to compromise with the truth. Others have taken recourse to sensationalism, and all manner of stories are shown as news.

Of course, we have a number of channels that maintain high standards of journalistic integrity, and have as a consequence retained the trust of the viewers. But these are not many in number.
The basic feature of post-Independence media is the change in the nature of ownership. A channel or a newspaper is now seen as a profit-making venture, as indeed it is in all countries where advertising ensures the profitability of a channel or newspaper. This in itself is not necessarily antithetical to credibility. There are owners who are committed to their newspapers and channels observing the highest standards of journalistic propriety. But they are few in number, and the number of those who see the ‘packaging’ of news as an essential requirement to earning more money seems to be growing.

A feature that merits highlighting is the fact that, owing to the single-minded obsession with perceived market requirements, those elements of the governance of our country that were at one time considered to be of vital importance — the proper functioning of the three arms of our democracy, the judiciary, the legislature and the executive — no longer warrant the attention they got in earlier years. They are noticed, by and large, only when there is something of sensationalist value in some event relating to them.

This is not only unfortunate but undesirable, as the power of the media, especially of television, is great in influencing the perceptions of viewers, and the images that remain with people in general are not just negative but incorrect.
Today, newspapers and private channels cover the stock markets in obsessive detail. But they do not do the same with the debates in Parliament on major policy issues. Thus debates have ceased to be reported.

Press freedom is not without responsibility; the media must desist from distorted or concocted reporting that highlights only those aspects of an issue that suit it. The editorial policy of a newspaper should not be dictated by the prejudices of media moguls and media barons. While profit is indeed a motive in the media world, that in itself should not be the sole criterion when it comes to news and views on the issues before the nation. The increasing levels of certain types of content in the print and electronic media are a matter of concern.

It is for the media themselves to ponder on the long-term implications of their acts on society at large. More than ever before, today there is an imperative to strengthen our national fabric and the ideals we cherish, such as democracy, secularism and pluralism. Unfortunately, of late we find a tendency among a section of the media to project partisan points of view in the name of dissemination of views, rather than news that is factual and objective. The glory of the media is in their presentation of information based on truth. Sadly, this basic duty is at times forgotten by sections of the press. Except for some honourable exceptions, today the political leanings and political predilections of newspapers and TV channels are well known, and these obviously affect dispassionate presentation of news and also views.

Democracy is unthinkable without a free press and its success depends to a large extent on the kind of role the media play as an interface between Parliament and the people. Parliament is at the heart of a democracy. That being so, it deserves serious attention from all quarters, be it the people, the executive, the judiciary, civil society groups or the media. It is in Parliament that important decisions are taken and the government is made accountable. It is the responsibility of the media to inform and educate people on various issues that are before Parliament. While trying to expose the misdeeds and corrupt practices of public authorities, including people’s representatives, the media would do well to report their commendable initiatives and work as well. Giving publicity only to interruptions, disturbances and adjournments in Parliament, as if nothing else takes place there, gives a distorted picture of our elected representatives, and projects Parliament and parliamentarians in a negative, even derogatory, manner.

It has been a remarkable journey that the media have had as the voice of the people. That is indeed what they were in the pre-Independence days, and what some newspapers and television channels still are. But what is mentioned in many quarters is that market forces have come into and affected the credibility of the media and done considerable damage — damage that affects even those dedicated, principled newspapers and channels that do not stoop low.
While we can applaud the media for their independence in most matters, it is necessary for all those involved, from newspapers to television channels to Internet news providers, to institute a process of continuous introspection to ensure that they remain transparent and truthful purveyors of information. We have come to expect this of our media and we would like to continue to be as proud of them as we have been in the past.

In this very challenging task the Press Council of India has a key role. It may not need to have draconian powers — indeed, it should not — but it needs to have the respect of all newspapers and news channels, and it is for all of them to sit together to determine how best this can be done. As we have seen time and again, where law has not been effective, consent has been. It is time this matter was given serious thought by all those who profess to abide by the truth above everything else.

(-Based on an address by Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee at a discussion on ‘Media’s role as the people’s voice — Pre and Post-Independence,’ organised by the Press Council of India on the occasion of National Press Day on November 16, in New Delhi.)

Defending the Tablighi Jamaat

- Ml. M. Jawed Iqbal (Sri Lankan),Student Darul Iftaa. Checked and Approved by: Mufti Ebrahim DesaiDarul Iftaa, Madrassah In’aamiyyah.

- I really dislike calling it the “Tablighi Jama’at”, simply because there does exist no sect of that name. It’s the blessed work and responsibilty of every single Muslim. That’s why I’ve until now avoided to post entries or articles making this effort business of a special group. But it’s none the less important to refuse the false accusations spread by ignorant brother and sisters, so I just found this excellent article defending the means of this effort and the book used Faza’il-e-A’maal.

A brief introduction : Tableegh literally means ‘to convey’. Contextually, it refers to conveying the message of Islam. This is the sunnah of all the prophets. The most important rule of tableegh is hikmah. Allah Ta’ala says in the Holy Quran: Invite (people) to the way of your lord with wisdom and good counsel. (Verse: 16:125) Whosoever does tableegh must adopt hikmah. It is only then, that people will understand and accept.

The system conducted by the Tableegh Jama’at was initiated by Moulana Ilyas Saheb (Rahimahullah). He observed that people were too engrossed in their worldly activities and had forgotten the objective for which they had been sent to this world. He realised that they had to free some time from their worldly engagements, to sit and ponder about Allah Ta’ala and their purpose for being sent to this world. Therefore, he started calling people to the masjid, and reminded them about Allah Ta’ala and His greatness. Initially people rebuked him, they discouraged him and used to say that they had no time for all of this; but as time went by, they realised the truth behind it and the need for it, and started joining him in calling others towards Allah Ta’ala.

Thereafter, when more people started joining this work, a few guidelines had to be set, to make sure that the work was done in a proper manner. Different time periods of 3 days, 40 days, etc. were set, so that people knew for how long they had to be away, and could make the necessary arrangements for that period. Their beliefs and objectives of those that are engaged in the work of tableegh are from the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah. They do not have any beliefs that are exclusive to them. Each one is allowed to follow his own mazhab, as long as he does not move away from the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah. Their objective is that each and every Muslim adopts the Islamic way in all aspects of life. They do not advice anyone to leave all their daily activities and join this work, but they encourage people to take out some time from their daily engagements so that the rest of the time could be spent in accordance to the teachings of Islam.

Spending time in the path of Allah is not the objective of the work, but rather the objective is to adopt the Islamic lifestyle whilst engaged in daily activities, whether one is at home with family or at his work place; spending time in the path of Allah Ta’ala only acts as a means to fulfil this objective.

Proof from Quran and Hadith: - There are numerous verses of the Quran and the Ahadith of Nabi (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) that support the practice of tableegh. Hereunder are a few of them:
From the Holy Quran:
1.اInvite (people) to the way of your lord with wisdom and good counsel. (Verse: 16:125)
2.And there has to be a group of people from among you who call towards good and prevent from evil. (Verse: 3:104)
3.And who is better in utterance than the one who called people towards Allah, and acts righteously and says, “I am one of those who submit themselves (to Allah Ta’ala). (Verse: 41:33) From the Ahadith of Nabi (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam):
4.Hazrat Abu Sa’eed (Radhiyallahu Anhu) narrates that he heard Nabi (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) saying, “Whosoever witnesses a forbidden act being committed, he should prevent it by the use of his hands; if he is unable to do so, then he should prevent it with his tongue; if he is unable to do so, he should at least consider it a vice in his heart; and this is a very low level of Iman”. Sahih Muslim Vol.2 Pg.211/2 (Darul Ma’rifah)
5.It has been reported by Nu’man bin Bashir (Radhiyallahu Anhu) that Nabi (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: “There are people who do not transgress the limits (laws) of Allah Ta’ala, and there are others who do so. They are like two groups who boarded a ship; one of them settled on the upper deck, and the other on the lower deck of the ship. When the people of the lower deck needed water, they said, “Why should we cause trouble to the people of the upper deck when we can have plenty of water by making a hole in our deck”. Now, if the people of the upper deck do not prevent this group from such foolishness, all of them will perish; but if they stop them, they will be saved”. Sahih Al Bukhari Vol.3 Pg.152 (Darul fikr)

One may question that the above mentioned Aayaat and Ahadith only prove the practice of tableegh. They do not prove the manner in which it is coordinated by the Tabligh Jama’at (e.g. specifying the time period of 40 days, stipulating time for ta’lim and gusht, etc.). The answer to this is simple. There are some commandments in Shari’ah in which the method is not stipulated. For example, it is a commandment of Shariah to acquire knowledge, but the manner in which the Madrasas are established today, is not proven through Quran and Hadith. Up until the recent past, the scholars used to teach in the masjids of their respective towns and villages. The students had to go to different scholars to learn the different sciences. No arrangements of food or boarding were made. However, the zeal for knowledge had decreased as time went by, and the scholars felt it necessary to establish the system of Darul Ulooms as is established today. Nobody regards such a system to be bid’ah.

Similarly, Shariah has commanded us to do the work of tableegh. This work used to be done on an individual basis. The learned people used to preach the others and prevent them from all vices. As time went on, vice started prevailing, and people had stopped doing the work on an individual basis; therefore, a collective effort had to take place, and rules had to be set up for the work to carry on in order.

The outcome of Tableegh: Anyone with a sound mind and fair thinking will have no option but to accept that the work of Tableegh has been responsible, to a great extent, in the reformation that has taken place in the Muslim Ummah, in the last few decades. Tableegh Jama’at has played a big role in the establishment of madrasas in the last few years. Similarly, it has influenced many Muslim men and women in adapting their attire and appearance in accordance to sunnah. It acts as a deterrent for the Muslim youth from going to cinemas, night clubs, discothèques, raves and all other places of sin. Cricket players like Sa’eed Anver and pop singers like Junaid Jamshed, who were drowned in sin, have now become the means for spreading Islam.

Tabligh Jama’at plays an important role in preaching Islam to those who have even forgotten the kalimah, like those staying in the Kazakhistan, , etc. and the descendants of Arabs staying in South America. Many non Muslims have also accepted Islam through this effort.

Fazail-e-A’mal -A brief introduction: This kithab was compiled by Hazrath Shaikh Zakariya (Rahimahullah). It consists of Aayaats of the Quran, Ahadith, stories of the Sahabah and stories of the pious predecessors that explain the virtues of good deeds. The object of the book is to encourage the Muslims on doing good deeds, and not to explain any ruling of Shari’ah. Shaikh Zakariya (Rahimahullah) was not the first to write a kithab of this manner, but the likes of this kithab have been written by the authors of the past, like Kithab-u-Zuhd by Abdullah bin Mubarak (Rahimahullah), Fadhaiulul Quran by Imam Shafi’ (Rahimahullah), Al Adabul Mufrad by Imam Bukhari (Rahimahullah), Al Targheeb Wal Tarheeb by Ibnul Qayyim Munziri (Rahimahullah), etc.

The role of Fazail-e-A’mal in Tableegh Jama’at: It is a total misconception that Fazail-e-A’mal is the guide book of Tableegh Jama’at. This book only consists of the virtues of good deeds. The concept of Tableegh Jama’at was not derived from this book, nor is the jama’at dependant on this book to do the work of tableegh. They thought it necessary to stipulate such a book that would encourage people towards good deeds, and this book served the purpose; therefore, the people who join this work are advised to stipulate a specific time for the reading of this book. However, it is not compulsory upon each an every person who joins this effort to read this book. Many of the Arabs who are doing this effort chose to read Riyadu-s-Saliheen instead, and they are allowed to carry on with this work. Similarly, Riyadu-s-Saliheen is also read in many of the masjids in Colombo on certain days of the week. Therefore, it is totally incorrect to regard this book as the guide book of Tableegh Jama’at.

Some objections made against Fazail-e-A’mal:
1. A common comment made against Fazail-e-A’mal is that some of the narrations mentioned in it are weak and fabricated. This comment is not totally correct, as there are no fabricated narrations in this book. There are dha’eef (weak) narrations in Fazail-e-A’mal. However, it is important to point out that the word dha’eef, literally translated as ‘weak’, is a terminology and should not be understood in its general sense. Its application is based on the rules explained in the sciences of hadith. Moreover, weak narrations are not acceptable only in regards to aqeedah and the rulings of Islamic jurisprudence. Majority of the scholars have accepted weak narrations as far as virtues of good deeds are concerned. Even Imam Bukhari (Rahimahullah) has brought weak narrations in his book, Al Adabul Mufrad, which shows that he also accepts weak narrations in regards to virtues of good deeds.

2. Some scholars claim that there are such narrations in Fazail-e-A’mal, especially in Fazail-e-Durood, that prove that the author had beliefs of shirk and believed in the Omnipresence of Nabi (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam). These are false allegations made against the author, who was one of the most prominent scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah.Firstly, such allegations are made mostly by Arab scholars, who are unaware of the difference between the Deobandis and the Barelwis. They regard both these groups to be one, as both of them are from Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah, and attribute the beliefs of Barelwis to the Deobandis. It is some of the Barelwis who believe in grave-worshipping and the Omnipresence of Nabi (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam), and these beliefs have been attributed to the Deobandis. Some of these Arab scholars, like Shaikh Ibn Uthaymeen (Rahimahullah), retracted from what they said after the actual situation was explained to them.
Secondly, the author has mentioned references for each and every narration or incident he has mentioned. Therefore, any comments regarding these narrations or incidents should be attributed to the author of the reference provided, as Shaikh Zakariya (Rahimahullah) has absolved himself by giving the reference.
Thirdly, most of the incidents mentioned in Fazail-e-Durood are of pious predecessors. It is incorrect to say that these are fabricated Ahadith, as the word Hadith is used for the sayings of Nabi (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam). It is also incorrect to confirm the beliefs of the author through these incidents, as the object of the author was only to emphasise on the virtues of durood mentioned in them. Moreover, most of the incidents mentioned are dreams, and no rulings of Shari’ah can be derived from dreams. It is farfetched to confirm someone’s faith from a dream, of another person, mentioned in his kithab.
Lastly, most of the copies of Fazail-e-A’mal do not have Fazail-e-Durood attached to them, and it is not considered as part of the kithab-reading stipulated by the Tableegh Jama’at.

3. It is incorrect to compare the Shias, Qadiani, etc. with Tableegh Jama’at as we have clarified above that Tableegh Jama’at is not based on the narrations of Fazail-e-A’mal; and none of the narrations of Fazail-e-A’mal are fabricated. To end thereof, one should not be misguided with all the false accusations on this jama’at, but rather look at how the Ummah has benefited through this jama’at. We should always supplicate to Allah Ta’ala to show us the right path and save us from the misguidance of Shaitan. Moreover, we should always bear in mind that the pious and the learned amongst the Ummah cannot be unanimous upon something that is false or not part of Islam, as Nabi (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) has mentioned: Allah Ta’ala will not unite the Ummah of Muhammed (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) upon misguidance. Allah’s help is with majority. Whoever deviates from them will be thrown into the fire of Jahannum. Sunan Al Tirmizi Vol.2 Pg.39 (H.M. Sa’eed Company)

A thought provoking act - How will one account for the many thousands of people all around the world, Arabs and non-Arabs, and of all works of life, be they great Ulama, Muftis, intellectuals or professionals, to be associated with this noble work. They all cannot be wrong. They must have encountered something positive in this work for them to be part of it. The solution is, come within and see for yourself. And Allah knows best. Wassalam