1. Muslims love Jesus. We also love Abraham, Moses, and Noah, to name just a few other Prophets Muslims revere. May God's peace be upon all of these great messengers of God.
2. Muslims also love the mother of Jesus, the Virgin Mary. We believe she was a pious and noble woman chosen over all of the women of the world.
3. Muslims believe that Jesus was born miraculously of a virgin mother and no father. His birth is miraculous like the birth of Adam, the first human being, who was created with neither mother nor father.
4. Muslims do not believe that Jesus was the son of God. God is so powerful and self-sufficient that He does not need a son or any kind of partner.
5. In Arabic Bible the name for God is Allah. Therefore all Arab Christian call God Allah as Muslim do as well.
6. Jesus did not die on the cross. Rather, God saved  him as his enemies were confused about him. Jesus was taken up by God to Heaven.
7. Jesus is called Isa (pronounced Eesa) in Arabic.
8. Jesus performed miracles by the Will of God, like healing the blind and those with leprosy.
9. Jesus prayed to the same God as all Prophets and we pray to.
10. Jesus will return before the end of the world.

Jesus ( pbuh) is the most mentioned  in the blessed Quran  

Many non-Muslims are surprised to find out that according to Muslim belief, Jesus, the son of Mary, is one of the greatest messengers of God. Muslims are taught to love Jesus, and a person cannot be a Muslim without believing in the virgin birth and miracles of Jesus  peace be upon him. Muslims believe these things about Jesus not because of the Bible or any other religion, but simply because the Holy Qur'an says these things about him. However, Muslims always emphasize that the miracles of Jesus, and all other prophets, were by "God's permission". This having been said, many Christians feel to not believe that Jesus is the "Son of God", "God Incarnate" or the "Third Person" of the Trinity. This is because the Qur'an clearly says that Almighty God does not have a "Son" --- neither allegorically, physically, metaphorically or metaphysically. The Pure Monotheism of Islam rejects the notion of "defining" God (which is basically what the "Doctrine of the Trinity" does), saying that someone is "like" God or equal to him, or praying to someone else besides God. Also, Islam teaches that titles such as "Lord" and "Savior" are due to God alone. In order to avoid misunderstanding, it should be clarified that when Muslims criticize the Bible or the teachings of Christianity, they are not attacking "God's Word" or Jesus Christ, peace be upon him. From the Muslim point of view, they are defending Jesus and God's Word --- which they have in the form of the Qur'an. Muslim criticism is targeted at writings that some people claim are God's word, but Muslim's simply don't accept their claim that they are really God's word in toto. Additionally, Christian doctrines such as the Trinity and the Atonement are criticized by Muslims precisely because they did not originate from Jesus, peace be upon him. In this way, Muslims are the true followers of Jesus, peace be upon him, because they defend him from the exaggerations of the Christians and teach the Pure Monotheism that Jesus himself followed.

These are intelligent Jewish scholars, so there can be no other conclusion than that these Zionists are purposely ignoring historical facts such as the Palestine Regiment, a unit in which Jews and Muslims fought side-by-side against Hitler's Nazis.

To ignore such a historic event of unity between Jews and Muslims, who fought one of the world's greatest evils, is in itself an evil act.  It is an evil effort in trying to reverse the love Jews and Muslims shared and instead, disgustingly twist it to suggest Muslims did not help Jews during the Nazi invasion.

This history revisionism is the greatest act of anti-Semitism, because both Jews and Arabs are Semitic people, and those who wish to separate them are the true anti-Semites.

It is evil to try to purposely manipulate young Jewish minds into thinking Muslims and Nazis were partners, rather than the truth, that the Jews and Muslims were partners against the Nazis.

Shame on the Zionist manipulators, you use your knowledge to make your lies sound authoritative.  In the cemeteries of El-Alamein lie the dead Muslims, the Mohammeds, the Alis and the Ismails who gave their lives so that Nazism could be defeated. The cemeteries of Stalingrad bear the names of the young Central Asian Muslims who lie buried, unable to refute the falsehoods being spread by these false historians.

The souls of the thousands of Muslims from countries and regions as diverse and Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, India, Pakistan, Palestine and other Middle Eastern nations laid down their lives in the Second World War in battles as significant as those of Stalingrad, which broke Hitler's back, and North Africa, which sent Hitler's Desert Fox, General Rommel, scurrying back to his den in Berlin!

"While six million Jews were being exterminated by the Nazis, the rescue of some 15,000 Turkish Jews from France, and even of some 100,000 Jews from Eastern Europe might well be considered as relatively insignificant in comparison. It was, however, very significant to the people who were rescued, and above all it showed that, as had been the case for more than five centuries, Turks and Jews continued to help each other in times of great crises."

Turkish diplomats in France spent a good deal of time organizing 'train caravans' to take Turkish Jews back to Turkey. This actually was encouraged by the Vichy government was well as the French authorities in German-occupied France as the only way to make sure that Turkish Jews were not subjected to the anti Jewish laws applied to French Jews, because the Nazi occupation officials themselves were increasingly unhappy about the exemptions and were regularly demanding that they be brought to an end. Thus the French Foreign Ministry wrote to the Turkish Embassy at Vichy on 13 January 1943, after the French finally had accepted the Turkish argument that it was illegal for them to discriminate among Turkish citizens of different religions:

To avoid the application of these measures to Turkish citizens, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would be disposed to look favorably on the return of the interested parties to their countries of origin.

In the middle of 1943, the Nazi occupying authorities, inspired by Adolph Eichmann, finally issued an ultimatum to Turkey and other neutral countries that they would have to repatriate all their Jewish citizens in France, after which all those who remained would be treated the same as French Jews.

Most of the neutral countries agreed to this right away and evacuated their Jews quickly because they were able to send them home directly without having to send them through third countries. Turkey was unable to do the same because with the Mediterranean closed to shipping, the only way to send Turkish Jews back was by train through Southeastern Europe. The Nazis issued group visas for the Jews being evacuated, but the various countries located along the path of the trains were not at all anxious to help Jews escape extermination. The most notorious of these were Croatia, Serbia and Bulgaria, which caused many difficulties to prevent the trains from passing through their territory on their way to Turkey. Finally, however, the Turkish diplomats were able to organize some four train caravans during 1943 and eight more in 1944, which together transported some 2,000 Jews to Istanbul.

 Other Jews were helped to flee to the areas of southern France under Italian occupation, where they were treated much better until Mussolini fell and Italy was occupied by the Germans in the middle of 1943. They also fled across the Pyranees into Franco's Spain, where they were given refugee despite Spain's alliance with Germany, or across the Mediterranean to North Africa. There they were interned but not persecuted, except in Algeria, where the French colons were even more anti-Semitic than were the Germans. 

In 1944, when the Vichy government was thinking of deporting all 10,000 Turkish Jews living in its territory to the East for extermination, Turkish Foreign Minister Numan Menemencioglu intervened with the French government, on the direct orders of President Ismet Inönü, stating that such an act would be considered unfriendly by Turkey and would cause a major diplomatic incident, including perhaps a complete break in diplomatic relations. This convinced Vichy to abandon the plan and saved these Jews from almost certain death. The original correspondence on this matter has not yet been uncovered. Turkey's key roll in this matter is, however, well documented in other sources. The American Ambassador at Ankara, Laurence Steinhart, himself a Jew, wrote the head of the Jewish Agency office in Istanbul, Chaim (Charles) Barlas on 9 February 1944:

... It has been a great satisfaction to me personally to have been in a position to have intervened with at least some degree of success on behalf of former Turkish citizens in France of Jewish origin. As I explained to you yesterday, while the Vichy government has as yet given no commitment to the Turkish Government, there is every evidence that the intervention of the Turkish authorities has caused the Vichy authorities to at least postpone if altogether abandon their apparent intention to exile these unfortunates to almost certain death by turning them over to the Nazi authorities.

This is confirmed in the memoirs of Steinhart's German counterpart in Ankara, Ambassador Franz von papen, who, of course, emphasized his own role in the affair:

I learned through one of the German émigré professors that the Secretary of the Jewish Agency had asked me to intervene in the matter of the threatened deportation to camps in Poland of 10,000 Jews living in Southern France. Most of them were former Turkish citizens of Levantine origin. I promised my help and discussed the matter with m. Menemencioglu. There was no legal basis to warrant any official action on his part, but he authorized me to inform Hitler that the deportation of these former Turkish citizens would cause a sensation in Turkey and endanger friendly relations between the two countries. This demarche succeeded in quashing the whole affair.

Finally, one of Barlas's associates at the Jewish Agency office in Istanbul, Dr. Chaim Pazner, stated to the Second Yad Vashem International Historical Conference on Rescue Attempts during the Holocaust, held in Jerusalem in April 1974:

In December 1943, Chaim Barlas notified me from Istanbul that he had received a cable from Isaac Wiesman, representative of the World Jewish Congress in Lisbon, that approximately ten thousand Jews who were Turkish citizens, but had been living in France for years and had neglected to register and renew their Turkish citizenship with the Turkish representation in France, were in danger of being deported to the death camps. Weismann requrested that Barlas contact the competent Turkish authorities and attempt to save the above-mentioned Jews. Upon receiving the telegram, Barlas immediately turned to the Turkish Foreign Ministry in Ankara, submitted a detailed memorandum on the subject, and requested urgent action by the Turkish legation in Paris.... We later received word from Istanbul and Paris that, with the exception of several score, these ten thousand Jews were saved from extinction.

In addition to providing material assistance to Turkish Jews persecuted in France and other countries occupied by the Nazis in Western Europe, Turkey also helped East European Jews persecuted in countries such as Greece, Lithuania, Rumania, Hungary, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. Right from the start of the war, the Turkish government permitted the Jewish Agency to maintain a rescue office at the Pera Palas and other hotels in the Tepebasi section of Istanbul, overlooking the Golden Horn, under the direction of Chaim (Charles) Barlas, as we have seen. Ina ddition, other Jewish organizations based in Palestine were allowed to maintain representative offices in Istanbul. Many were sent by kibbutzim wanting to rescue members from persecution or death in Eastern Europe. First, however, they had to learn what was going on in those countries. Fore this purpose they sent their agents from Istanbul to these countries to gather information. They used the Turkish post office to send letters to Jews in these countries and toreceive responses. They sent packages of clothing and food to help out when needed. In all of these activities, the Turkish Ministry of Finance, despite Turkey's severe financial problems resulting from the war, provided them with the hard currency needed to meet their expenses, and the Turkish diplomats stationed in these countries allowed their facilities to be used when needed.

With this help, the Jewish rescue groups based in Istanbul were able to organize trains and steamships which carried to safety in Turkey and beyond as many refugees that could leave their homes. In this they were vigorously opposed, not only by the Nazis, but also by the British government, which correctly feared that most of the refugees arriving in Turkey would go on in Palestine. Turkey as a matter of fact made this a condition of its agreement to allow these refugees to enter its territory. It would not support large number of immigrants of this sort since people in Turkey were already starving as a result of wartime shortages and blockades in the Mediterranean. It did allow the Jewish Agency and other organizations to bring these refugees through Turkey on their way to Palestine, however, permitting the Mossad organization to send them in small boats across the Mediterranean from southern Turkey. When the British were successful in preventing some of these refugees from going to Palestine, instead interring them on Cyprus, the Turkish government allowed them to remain in Turkey far beyond the limits of their transit visas, in many cases right until the end of the war.

The Vatican's reluctance to help the persecuted Jews of Europe is well documented. This was not the case, however, with the Papal Nuncio in Istanbul from 1935 until 1944, Archbishop Angelo Roncalli, who later became Pope John XXIII. Roncalli was a very unusual person. When he first came to Turkey even before the war, he taught his parishioners, including many Greeks and Armenians, that they should forget their prejudices against Turks and Muslims, that they should follow the precepts of Christian charity and love in dealing with them, that they should forget the bigotries of the past and work together with their fellow Turkish citizens to build a new and modern Republic. Roncalli learned Turkish himself and recited the Christmas mass in Turkish at least one in Istanbul. This greatly pleased the Turkish people, who had become increasingly disgusted with the insistence of Christians in Turkey to continue using Greek, Italian, French or Armenian in preference to Turkish, unlike the Jews who had emphasized the ue of Turkish instead of French and Ladino since the mid 1930's. During the war Roncalli went much further. He got the Sisters of Sion order of nuns to use their own communications network in Eastern Europe to help the Jewish Agency pass communications, clothing and food to Jews in Hungary in particular. Other Vatican couriers going from Istanbul to Eastern Europe did the same thing as the result of Roncalli's orders. He even got them to carry false Certificates of Conversion to Hungarian Jews to help save them from the Nazis. A remarkable person indeed, early in the year 2000 was recognized as a Saint by the Catholic Church.

Turkey also acted to help the Jews of Greece during the Holocaust. Just as was the case in the areas of southern France occupied by Italy, so also in Greece, during the time it was under Italian occupation early in the war, Greek Jews did reasonably well, despite pressure from Greeks themselves, whose long tradition of anti-Semitism led them to hope that the foreign occupation would at least enable them to get rid of their Jewish fellow-citizens. Even after German troops entered Greece to help the Italians against Greek guerilla resistance. The Italian troops protected Greek Jews from persecution at the hands of the Germans and the Greeks. Once Italy fell out of the war in 1943 and the Germans took over, however, the situation of Jews in Greece became worse than anywhere else in Europe, since while many Frenchmen and Dutchmen, and egven Germans had helped the Jews to escape the Nazi persecution, most Greeks did none of this due to their long history of pervasive anti-Semitism. The only Greeks who helped Jewswere the partisans fighting against the Nazis, who did help Jewish groups spiriting Jews out of Greece, either across the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean to Turkey or Palestine, or by land across the Maritza river into Turkey. Most Greek jews were in fact exterminated by the Nazis. Jewish synagogues and schools were systematically destroyed. Even the great Jewish cemetery at Salonica was wiped out. After the war, instead of restoring it, Greece built the new Aristotle University of Salonica on the cemetery lands.. The Turkish consuls in Greece, at Athens, Salonica and Gümülcine as well as on the islands of Midilli and Rhodes provided the same sort of assistance that the Turkish consuls did in France, also organizing boats to carry Jews to safety in Turkey and intervening with the Germans to exempt Turkish Jews from persecution and extermination. The most outstanding example of this came with the activities of Consul Selahattin Ülkümen in Rhodes, who got the Nazis to spare the Turkish Jews on the island, and who as a result was subsequently imprisoned by the Nazis after his consulate was bombed and his pregnant wife killed by the Germans. The Turkish guards on the Greek-Turkish border allowed Jews coming from Greece as well as Bulgaria to enter turkey even though most of them had no papers at all. Camps were set up for them near Edirne, and ultimately they were allowed to pass on to Istanbul, and, for most of them, to join the other refugees doing by small boats from the Mediterranean coast of southern Turkey to Palestine. Turkey thus provided major assistance to Jews being persecuted by the Nazis, despite pressure from the British, who wanted to stop Jewish immigration to Palestine, and by the Nazis, who demanded not only that this rescue work be stopped, but also that all Turkish Jews, as well as the refugees, be sent to Germany for extermination. Turkey steadfastly refused these demands and continued to assist European Jewry to escape from the Holocaust and in most cases go to Palestine. . Only after it was assured of an Allied victory, and the impossibility of a German invasion, by late 1943, was it ready to enter the war. Even then, however, it reacted to appeals for delay from the Jewish Agency, which understood that immediate Turkish entry would cut off the escape routes through Turkey which were enabling thousand of Jews to escape the Nazis throughout Europe, postponing its entry for almost a year. While six million Jews were being exterminated by the Nazis, the rescue of some 15,000 Turkish Jews from France, and even of some 100,000 Jews from Eastern Europe might well be considered as relatively insignificant in comparison. It was, however, very significant to the people who were rescued, and above all it showed that, as had been the case for more than five centuries, Turks and Jews continued to help each other in times of great crises.

Stanford J. Shaw is Professor Emeritus of Turkish History, University of California Los Angeles Professor of Turkish History, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey

Bibliography :

Stanford J. Shaw, Turkey and the Holocaust: Turkey's Role in Rescuing Turkish and European Jewry from Nazi Persecution, 1933-1945.

Stanford J. Shaw, The Jews of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic. Both books were published both by the New York University Press and by MacMillian publishers in England (now called Palgrave Publishers).

Unfortunately the American editions, which were in paperback, are out of print, but I understand that the British editions (only in hardcover) are still available.

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

All allege that Prophet Muhammad(pbuh), was subject to the Judeo-Christian influence of his time and that the Quran reflects this influence. It was suggested that Prophet Muhammad, , had faced two big problems if he were to embrace Judaism or Christianity. If he became a Christian, he would be bringing in the Christian Byzantine regime to Makkah, which would not be tolerated by the people of Makkah. The second problem was that he could not pretend that he knew more than the older members and priests of those two religions -- Judaism and Christianity. Thus, in both instances, he could not acquire leadership. Hence, Orientalists suggest that the Prophet, , decided to reproduce the role of Moosaa (Moses) or ‘Eesaa (Jesus), may Allaah exalt their mention, because he saw that "they were men, and he could do what they had done."

Orientalists allege that the monotheistic influence on Islam was due to the presence of Christians and Jews in Makkah. They also suggested that there was a monotheist informant from one of those religions. However at a different stage, they also suggested that what the Prophet, , received from his informant "would be factual knowledge" but the "meaning and interpretation of the facts" came to him "by the usual process of revelation".

They suggested that the gradual growth in accuracy of the Quran’s narration pertinent to biblical stories is evidence that Prophet Muhammad, , got these stories from an informant.

They alleged that the Quran replicated contemporary errors that were originally found in the Judeo-Christian scriptures.

Refutations

The Prophet, , was only 12 years old when he met Baheera (a Christian monk) for a very short period of time on the way to Syria. Such a brief meeting would not have been sufficient to discuss religious doctrines. It is illogical to assume that a young boy could discuss religious doctrines and scriptural prophecy about the coming of the Messenger, etc, at this tender age.

The Orientalists acknowledged a part of this meeting, but they fail to acknowledge the other aspects, which speak about:

·        Baheera's knowledge concerning the prophecy in the Scriptures regarding the coming of the new prophet

·        Baheera’s recognition of the sign of prophethood in Muhammad,

·        Baheera’s advice to Abu Talib to take the boy home.

When confronted with the above information, William Muir (a Scottish Orientalist, 1819 – 1905 CE) even tried to explain it as a mistake or as a forgery of a designing monk. In order to downplay the importance of Baheera’s recognition of the sign of prophethood, Muir wrote a footnote saying that the report is full of absurdities, but later realizing his recklessness, he omitted the footnote in subsequent editions without altering the main text.

It is common knowledge that a trade caravan traveling in the harsh desert would concentrate their trade in populated areas only, and avoid wandering into deserted habitations and ruined townships or empty church assemblies, just for the sight seeing pleasure of a young boy. Yet Muir suggests that the caravan passed near Petra, Jerash, Ammon and other ruined cities and that these sights influenced the young Muhammad, .

In Makkah, there were only a few Christians of humble social and intellectual status, being either slaves or petty retailers and mostly immigrants. Only one or two original residents of Makkah such as `Uthmaan bin Al-Huwayrith and Waraqah bin Nawfal had become Christians, the former out of personal or political considerations, and the latter as a result of his search for better faith. The Makkan community had some second-hand knowledge of these two religions of Judaism and Christianity.

The question is, would a person of the stature, knowledge and intelligence of Prophet Muhammad, , proceed to propound a new religion and challenge the credibility of both the prevailing systems of Judaism and Christianity only on the basis of hearsay and superficial knowledge of them, as suggested by Orientalists?

The Orientalists are not consistent in their allegation that:

·        The Prophet, , was ambitious and therefore careful enough to avoid the political implications of embracing either Judaism or Christianity

·        He was careless enough to institute a new religion based on information picked up from bazaar gossips and Jewish storytellers at wine shops.

Monotheistic Judeo-Christian Influence.

It is naïve to say that Islam is blend of second-hand information about Judaism and Christianity with an inkling of Arab elements in it. It is absurd to suggest that the Prophet, , was cognizant of the two religious systems.

The concept of prophethood, the memory of Ibraaheem (Abraham) as a prophet and founder of the Ka`bah, which the Arabs universally cherished, as well as the rites of Hajj (pilgrimage to the Ka’bah) instituted by Ibraaheem were unquestionably from before the time of Jews and Christians. Pre-Islamic Arabs, independent of any Jewish or Christian influence, knew the concept of Allaah as the supreme God. The teachings of Ibraaheem found haven in Arabia long before the arrival of Judaism or Christianity and the Arabs were already acquainted with the word ‘Haneef’ as the worshipper of One God.

The Prophet, , accused the contemporary Arabs, Jews and Christians of having deviated from the original teachings of their prophets and of having degenerated into polytheism. He also rejected what they claimed to be the teachings of their scriptures. So he cannot be misconstrued as having conceived the idea of monotheism from the Judeo-Christian influence.

The Quran does not maintain that it is teaching a new religion. Instead it upholds and revives the original teachings God has given through all Prophets of all nations. It claims that its teachings are the same as that of Ibraaheem (Abraham), Mosa (Moses) and ‘Eisa (Jesus), may Allah exalt their mention, and speaks about all of them in glowing terms. Since every Orientalist agrees on the fact that Prophet Muhammad, , has not read any of the scriptures, therefore, his source of knowledge must be something else.

The rejection of Biblical teachings about the son or father of god was rejected even in the Makkan Soorahs (chapters of the Quran) long before the Prophet’s migration to Al-Madeenah. Hence, it is not correct to say that these renunciations came about, at the wake of the separation from the Jews and Christians in Al-Madeenah.

It was impossible to get even a glimpse of monotheism by observing Judaism and Christianity in those days. The practices of these two religious groups were steeped in the most debasing corruption and superstitions, which are vastly removed from monotheism.

The various reform movements in Christianity, particularly the Cluniac Movement, the Iconoclastic Movement and the Reformation started by Martin Luther bear testimony to the depth of degradation into which the Christians and Christianity of the day had descended. In a way, all these reform movements and the subsequent emphasis on monotheism, in spite of an adherence to the doctrines of Trinity and divinity of Christ are largely, results of the uncompromising monotheism enunciated and propagated by Islam. In other words, it was Islam that influenced the revival movements in Christianity and not the other way around.

The tradition that the Prophet, , , heard Qayss bin Saa`idah preach at the `Ukaath fair is forged and discarded, as one of its narrators, Muhammad bin Hallaaj Al-Laakhmi, is a confirmed liar. The suggestion that the Prophet, , learnt from Zayd bin Haarithah  is discarded on the ground that Zayd came to the Prophet, ,  as a little boy and as a result he could not have taught Christianity to his foster father. Moreover, Zayd  had genuine faith in the Prophet’s message and followed him, , until his death.

The allegation that the Prophet, , received instructions from Waraqah bin Nawfal on Christianity is rejected on the ground that, if this information is true, then the Quraysh would have made a very big issue about it. The assertion that the Prophet, , was instructed by a foreigner, is already properly addressed and rebutted by the Quran itself, and is not discussed here. If some of the Christians and Jews of Makkah had provided the Prophet, , with information about former religions, they would not have faith in the Prophet’s mission and leadership and would never have become Muslims themselves.

The Makkan tribes tortured a number of such converts in order to extort an admission that Prophet Muhammad, , had obtained help from them. Jaabir  one of the victims of oppression when persecuted and tortured to the extreme, gave a significant reply: "It is not I who teaches Muhammad, , rather it is he who teaches and guides me." [Tafseer Al-Qurtubi]

Some of the points raised in this connection by Dr. Jamal Badawi, a renowned propagator of Islam in Canada are worth noting. He says: “It would be highly imaginary to say that through his occasional chats with Jews and Christians, while busy with his caravan, Muhammad, , learned enough about either or both religions to formulate a new powerful and viable religion, a task that defies the collective efforts of scholars for centuries.”

Furthermore, the above assertion raises a number of questions. Dr. Jamal Badawi puts forth the following six questions:

1.     Why is it, that in spite of the abundance of historical material on the life of Prophet Muhammad, , and in spite of the extensive research on his life for centuries by his critics, why was it not possible to discover the mysterious teacher who allegedly taught Muhammad, , all that he learned?

2.     It is known that Muhammad, , was opposed, ridiculed and persecuted for nearly thirteen years by his own contemporaries. Was it not possible for his enemies to prove to the masses that Prophet Muhammad's, , claim of revelation was sheer fabrication? Was it not possible for them to reveal and name whom they alleged to be the human sources of his teachings? Even some of his adversaries who made this assertion changed their minds later on, and accused him, instead, of magic or of being possessed by evil.

3.     Prophet Muhammad, , was raised among his people and every aspect of his life was exposed to them, especially by the openness that characterizes tribal life in the desert. How could his contemporaries, including many of his close relatives who knew him so well, believe in his truthfulness if they had any doubt that he was claiming credit for ideas taught to him by some other teachers, without bothering to give them credit?

4.     What kind of teacher might have taught Muhammad, , a coherent and complete religion that changed the face of history? Why did he or they (if any) not speak against the alleged student who continued learning from them, while ignoring them and claiming some other Divine source for his teachings?

5.     How could many Jews and Christians amongst his contemporaries become Muslims and believe in his truthfulness, if they knew that he was copying from their scriptures or learning from their priests or rabbis?

6.     It is known that some of the Quranic revelations came to Prophet Muhammad, , in the presence of people. The Quran was revealed during the span of 23 years. If the Prophet, , had a teacher, where was he? How could he, , have hidden the teacher for so long? On the other hand, how could Prophet Muhammad, , who was constantly surrounded by followers, be able to make frequent secret visits to that mysterious teacher or teachers for 23 years without being ‘caught’ even once?

Gradual Growth of Accuracy in the Quran.

The teachings of Islam in the Quran such as the rules and duties are indeed spelt out gradually over a period of 23 years, and the arrangement of the revealed verses and chapters are according to the need of the society at the time. A good example is the warning regarding intoxicants in the Quran, and how they were finally prohibited. The prohibition did not come all of a sudden. The society was first spiritually prepared to accept such a prohibition, and when the prohibition came into effect, it was accepted openly and gladly. This may look as a gradual growth in accuracy for some of the Orientalists who may make an issue out of it, but it is not so. However, it is worth noticing that some of the Orientalists have started to discard this line of thinking.

The Quran is not a derivation from the Judeo-Christian scriptures as claimed by the Orientalists and as evidenced by the following:

Some Information Given in the Quran that is Not Mentioned in the Bible:

·        Some of the Prophets mentioned in the Quran i.e. Hood (for the Thamood) and Saalih (for the `Aad), may Allaah exalt their mention, are not even mentioned in the Bible

·        Information given in the Quran about Prophet Ibraaheem (Abraham)  specifically about his teachings on monotheism and the resulting struggle is not found in the Bible

·        The incidents of ‘Eisa (Jesus)  speaking in the cradle and confirming the chastity of his mother; giving life to the birds made by clay by God's permission, and the table of food descending from heaven

·        Mosa (Moses)  traveling to the "meeting place of two seas"

·        The incident of Pharaoh's plan to kill Mosa  and that a "believer" in Pharaoh's court dissuaded him from carrying out his plan

·        Mosa  striking the 12 springs for each Jewish tribe

·        The magicians in Pharaoh’s court dying for their belief in God.

Instances where the Quran contradicts accounts given in the Bible

·        The preaching of Nooh (Noah)  was specifically monotheism according to Quran

·        The Quran categorically denies the concept of Trinity and confirms that ‘Eesaa  was no more than a Prophet -- not god, not the son-of-god and not part of a Trinity

·        The Quran categorically states that ‘Eisa was not crucified or killed

·         The Quran states that all the Prophets, may Allah exalt their mention, were noble men sent by Allah and clears all the Prophets from evil intention or evil actions, as against what can be found in the Bible

·        The Quran testifies that all the Prophets of God, may Allaah exalt their mention,  were sincere in their mission for which they were sent by God, and never betrayed their mission as suggested in the Bible in the case of Mosa (Moses) and Haaroon (Aaron), may Allaah exalt their mention; or sinned as in the case of Loot (Lut), Daawood (David), Sulaymaan (Solomon), may Allah exalt their mention,  and others.

More Details are given in the Quran as Compared to the Bible

1. Incidents relating to Prophet Nooh (Noah) .

2. Maryam (Mary)  being asked to pray to Allah -- implying that she was a human being who required the mercy of God.

3. The whole story of Yoosuf (Joseph)  delivered in a spiritual atmosphere with more details of his life that are not found in the Bible.

It is true that some of the historical incidents are mentioned in both the Bible and the Quran, but this does not mean that the Quran selected them from these sources. Instead, it is a confirmation of the events of the past but looking at them with a clear vision. There was no library or museum in Makkah, and the Prophet, , could not read or write. There were no scholars and philologists in Makkah to unravel the secrets of ancient work to the Prophet, .

While casually recognizing that there are new elements in the Quran, the Orientalists seem to have never paid attention to find the sources of these elements. If they had done so, the Orientalists would surely have found reason to see that the assumptions under which they have been laboring so diligently and impressively need revision.

One of the many short comings which has arisen in the West, is judging Islam by the conduct of a minority of its people. By doing this, segments of Western society have deliberately played off the desperate actions of many Muslims, and have given it the name of Islam. Such behaviour is clearly not objective and seeks to distort the reality of Islam. For if such a thing was done Judge a religion by the conduct of its people) then we too could say that all Christianity is about is child molesting and homosexuality,whilst Hinduism was all about looting and breaking up mosques . Generalising in such a manner is not seen as being objective, yet we find that the Western world is foremost in propagating this outlook on Islam. So what is the reality of Islam? How does one dispel the myths which have been created and spread so viciously? The only way to examine Islam is to simply examine its belief system. Look at its sources, the Qur'an and Sunna, and see what they have to say. This is the way to find the truth about what Islam says about terror, terrorism and terrorists. One who is sincerely searching for the truth, will do it no other way. The very name Islam comes from the Arabic root word 'salama' which means peace. Islam is a religion which is based upon achieving peace through the submission to the will of Allah. Thus, by this very simple linguistic definition, one can ascertain as to what the nature of this religion is. If such a religion is based on the notion of peace, then how is it that so many acts done by its adherents are contrary to peace? The answer is simple. Such actions, if not sanctioned by the religion, have no place with it. They are not Islamic and should not be thought of as Islamic.

Jihad

The word jihad sends shivers down the spines of many Westerners. They readily equate this term with violence and oppression. However, it must be said that the meaning of jihad, as a 'holy war', is something which is totally foreign and not from Islam. If anything, such a description belongs more so to Christianity and its adherents. It was terms like this which were used to justify the slaughter and pillage of towns and cities during the crusades by the Christians. By simply looking into the sources of Islam, one is able to know that the true meaning of jihad is to strive/make effort in the way of Allah. Thus striving in the way of Allah can be both peaceful and physical. The Prophet Muhammed (saws) said:

"The best jihad is (by) the one who strives against his own self for Allah, The Mighty and Majestic"  

In the Qur'an, Allah also says:

"So obey not the disbelievers, but make a great jihad (effort) against them (by preaching) with it (the Qur'an)"
(Surah Al-Furqan 25:52)

By controlling and fighting against ones desires, the Muslims can then also physically exert themselves in the path of Allah. It is this physical or combative jihad which receives so much criticism. Because of the sheer ignorance of this type of jihad Islam is regarded as terror, and Muslims are regarded as terrorists. However, the very purpose of this physical jihad is to raise the word of Allah uppermost. By doing this, it liberates and emancipates all those who are crying out for freedom all over the world. If the likes of the pacifists of this world had their way, then the world would indeed be full of anarchy and mischief. The combative jihad seeks to correct this as Allah says in the Qur'an:

"And if Allah did not check one set of people by means of another, the Earth would be full of mischief. But Allah is full of bounty to the worlds"
(Surah Al-Baqarah 2:251) 

Such would be the corruption on this Earth if there had never been a combative jihad that Allah says:

"For had it not been that Allah checks one set of people by means of another, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is mentioned much, would surely have been pulled down. Indeed Allah will help those who help His (cause). Truly Allah is All strong, All mighty"
(Surah Al-Hajj 22:40)

This combative jihad being both defensive and offensive, is something which is commanded by Allah upon the Muslims. Through this command the oppressed and weak are rescued from the tyranny of the world:

"And what is the matter with you that you do not fight in the cause of Allah and for those weak, ill treated and oppressed among men, women and children whose only cry is; 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors and raise for us from you one who will protect and raise for us from you one who will help"
(Surah An-Nisa 4:75)

Anyone who knows the early history of Islam, will know that all those nations and empires which came under the fold of Islam were indeed previously oppressed. When the companions of the Prophet Muhammed (saws) went out for the offensive jihad against the Egyptians, the Persians and the Romans, we find that the people did not resist against them at all. Rather, they accepted Islam on such a scale, that it is inconceivable that the jihad of Islam could be anything other then a liberation for these people; a liberation from centuries of tyranny. In fact, with the Byzantine Egyptians and the people of Spain, the Muslims were even beckoned to come and liberate these lands from the oppression of their kings. This is the glorious track record of the Muslim jihad Compare this with the brutal track record of warfare in the Western world over the centuries. From the crusades against the Muslims to the days of colonial warfare, the Western world has killed, destroyed and plundered everything which has come in its way. Even today this merciless killing goes on by the Western nations. While claiming to be about world peace and security, Western nations are ready to bomb innocent civilians at the drop of a hat. The classic example of this is the recent bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan. Whilst claiming that Sudan and Afghanistan were havens for Islamic terrorists, the bombings of these two nations could not have come at a better time for the American president Bill Clinton. The destruction of innocent lives which were a result of these bombings clearly seem to have been an attempt by Clinton to avert attention away from his sexual misdemeanours; [4] something which he so often gets caught up in. Without doubt this was the reason for such terror from the American military upon innocent people. This is the same American military which claims to enter the worlds trouble spots under the guise of being peace keepers. But

"… when it is said to them; 'Make not mischief on the Earth', they say; 'We are only peace makers'. Indeed they are the ones who make mischief, but they perceive it not"
(Surah Al-Baqarah 2:11-12)

By looking at the rules and regulations of this combative jihad it will be clear to any sincere person that this is indeed the religion of truth. When fighting an unjust enemy, no matter how unjust they are, it is forbidden by Islam that their retreating forces are mutilated, tortured or slaughtered. The treacherous violation of treaties and carrying out assassinations after a cease fire, are also prohibited. Allah says in the Qur'an:

"And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you. But do not transgress the limits. Truly Allah loves not the transgressors"
(Surah Al-Baqarah 2:190) 

Not transgressing the limits means not to kill women and children, for the Messenger of Allah (saws) "forbade the killing of women and children" . Not transgressing the limits means that the elderly, the sick, monks, worshipers and hired laborers are not attacked. Not transgressing the limits means not killing animals wantonly, burning crops and vegetation, polluting waters and destroying homes, monasteries, churches and synagogues:

"Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion, nor drove you out of your homes. Indeed, Allah loves those who deal with equity"
(Surah Al-Mumtahinah 60:8) 

After reading such passages from the Qur'an and knowing about what Islam commands and prohibits in jihad, the rules of warfare are given a new meaning; a meaning of justice. How sad it is then, that whilst Islam is condemned for striking terror into the hearts of the people, the likes of the Serbs, the Indian army in Kashmir and the Israeli soldiers in Palestine are left untarnished for the atrocities they have committed in the name of warfare.

So what about suicide bombing, is this too a part of jihad in Allah's path? From what has already been stated above, it can be deduced that this is not from the religion. However, unfortunately many Muslims have taken suicide bombing as being a virtuous act by which one receives reward. This could not be further from the truth. The Prophet (saws) said: "Those who go to extremes are destroyed". Suicide bombing is undoubtedly an extremity which has reached the ranks of the Muslims. In the rules of warfare, we find no sanction for such an act from the behaviour and words of the Prophet Muhammed (saws) and his companions. Unfortunately, today (some misguided) Muslims believe that such acts are paving the way for an Islamic revival and a return to the rule of Islam's glorious law. However, we fail to bear in mind that the Prophet (saws) said:

"Do not be delighted by the action of anyone, until you see how he ends up" 

So, for example what is the end of a suicide bomber in Palestine?, a leg here, an arm there. Massive retaliation by the Israeli's in the West Bank and Gaza. More Muslims killed and persecuted. How can we be delighted with such an end? What really hammers the final nail in the coffin of this act, is that it is suicide; something which is clearly forbidden in Islam. The Messenger of Allah (saws) said:

"He who kills himself with anything, Allah will torment him with that in the fire of Hell" 

Some are under the misconception that by killing oneself for an Islamic cause, one commits an act which deserves Paradise. Once when a man killed himself, the Prophet (saws) said: "He is a dweller of the Fire". When the people were surprised at this, the Prophet (saws) said:

"A person performs the deeds which to the people appears to be the deeds befitting the dweller of Paradise, but he is in fact one of the dwellers of the Fire" 

The taking of ones life which Allah has given as a trust to the human, is a great sin. Likewise the taking of other lives (which is so often the case with suicide bombing) is also forbidden, as human life is indeed precious:

"...If anyone killed a person not in retaliation for murder or to spread mischief in the land, it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind. And (likewise) if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the whole of mankind"
(Surah Al-Maaida 5:32)

Thus, all other types of extremities such as hostage taking, hijacking and planting bombs in public places, are clearly forbidden in Islam.

The Media

By going through the teachings of Islam, it is clear that such a religion has only come to benefit mankind - not to destroy it. So why is there so much hatred for this noble religion in the West? The answer is simple, the media. It is the Jewish influenced media of the West which has portrayed Islam to be something that it is not. During the 70's and 80's when the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) were carrying out daring highjacks on the worlds airways, the media in the West portrayed it as being Islamic. When the Shi'ite suicide bombers of the 80's were causing so much havoc in the Lebanon and in the Gulf region, the media in the West portrayed it as a part of Islam. However, it is known by the heads of the media that the likes of the PLO were not an Islamic organization, and that according to Islam, Shi'ites are outside the fold of Islam  Yet such facts are never portrayed by a media which seeks to cover the truth of this religion. A number of years ago, when the Oklahoma City bomb went off, a headline in one of the newspapers, 'Today' , summed up this attitude. With a picture of a fire fighter holding a dead child in his arms, the headline read: "In The Name of Islam" Time has of course proven that this bigoted assumption was incorrect, as Timothy McVeigh, a right wing radical now faces the death penalty for the crime . Likewise the bombs which went off in the Paris metro in 1995, were also blamed on Muslim fanatics. It has now emerged that the Algerian secret service who having routinely bribed many European journalists and MPs, were actually behind it. The desire to throw a veil over Islam is immense by these people:

"They intend to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will complete His light even though the disbelievers hate (it)"
(Surah As-Saff 61:8)

Whilst trying to destroy Islam through this instrument of the media, the Jews clearly try to portray an image of themselves as being the oppressed people. Every year, we are reminded as to how many Jews perished under the Nazis in World War II. We are made to feel sorry for these same people who have gone on to commit so many crimes upon the Palestinian people. Some may say that this is a racist and biased viewpoint. But we say; If this media was not run and orchestrated by the Jews and was truly neutral, then why are Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, two former Israeli prime ministers, not held aloft as being terrorists? Anyone who knows about the history of the Palestinian occupation will tell you that these two men were members of the Stern Gang and Irgun, two notorious Jewish terror groups who killed many innocent people If this media was truly impartial, then why does it not tell about the extent of the Israeli bombardment and illegal occupation of Southern Lebanon and its people?  And if this media really had nothing against the religion of Allah, then why does it not inform the people that every day hundreds are entering the religion of Islam? Such things will never be highlighted in the Western media, simply because to do so would be against their very interests.

With such immense pressure against it, it is indeed a blessing from Allah that Islam goes from strength to strength. It continues to grow faster then any other religion in the Western world, conquering the hearts and minds of thousands. All this should not even surprise us though, for Allah has promised us that this religion will prevail:

"It is He who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, so that He may make it victorious over all other religions, even though the disbelievers detest it"
(Surah As-Saff 61:9)

It is a must that humanity comes towards the religion of Islam. Without it, we will continue to slip down the road of inequity and darkness. With it we can establish a society of justice and peace. Religion of terror? ... no. The way forward? ... yes.

WOMAN IN ISLAM

In the midst of the darkness that engulfed the world, the divine revelation echoed in the wide desert of Arabia with a fresh, noble, and universal message to humanity: "O Mankind, keep your duty to your Lord who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate (of same kind) and from them twain has spread a multitude of men and women" (Qur'an 4: 1).

A scholar who pondered about this verse states: "It is believed that there is no text, old or new, that deals with the humanity of the woman from all aspects with such amazing brevity, eloquence, depth, and originality as this divine decree."

Stressing this noble and natural conception, them Qur'an states:

He (God) it is who did create you from a single soul and therefrom did create his mate, that he might dwell with her (in love)...(Qur'an 7:189)

The Creator of heavens and earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves ...Qur'an 42:1 1

 

And Allah has given you mates of your own nature, and has given you from your mates, children and grandchildren, and has made provision of good things for you. Is it then in vanity that they believe and in the grace of God that they disbelieve? Qur'an 16:72

 

The rest of this paper outlines the position of Islam regarding the status of woman in society from its various aspects - spiritually, socially, economically and politically.

1. The Spiritual Aspect

The Qur'an provides clear-cut evidence that woman iscompletely equated with man in the sight of God interms of her rights and responsibilities. The Qur'an states:

"Every soul will be (held) in pledge for its deeds" (Qur'an 74:38). It also states:

...So their Lord accepted their prayers, (saying): I will not suffer to be lost the work of any of you whether male or female. You proceed one from another ...(Qur'an 3: 195).

 

Whoever works righteousness, man or woman, and has faith, verily to him will We give a new life that is good and pure, and We will bestow on such their reward according to the their actions. (Qur'an 16:97, see also 4:124).

 

Woman according to the Qur'an is not blamed for Adam's first mistake. Both were jointly wrong in their disobedience to God, both repented, and both were forgiven. (Qur'an 2:36, 7:20 - 24). In one verse in fact (20:121), Adam specifically, was blamed.

In terms of religious obligations, such as the Daily Prayers, Fasting, Poor-due, and Pilgrimage, woman is no different from man. In some cases indeed, woman has certain advantages over man. For example, the woman is exempted from the daily prayers and from fasting during her menstrual periods and forty days after childbirth. She is also exempted from fasting during her pregnancy and when she is nursing her baby if there is any threat to her health or her baby's. If the missed fasting is obligatory (during the month of Ramadan), she can make up for the missed days whenever she can. She does not have to make up for the prayers missed for any of the above reasons. Although women can and did go into the mosque during the days of the prophet and thereafter attendance et the Friday congregational prayers is optional for them while it is mandatory for men (on Friday).

This is clearly a tender touch of the Islamic teachings for they are considerate of the fact that a woman may be nursing her baby or caring for him, and thus may be unable to go out to the mosque at the time of the prayers. They also take into account the physiological and psychological changes associated with her natural female functions.

2. The Social Aspect

a) As a child and an adolescent

Despite the social acceptance of female infanticide among some Arabian tribes, the Qur'an forbade this custom, and considered it a crime like any other murder.

"And when the female (infant) buried alive - is questioned, for what crime she was killed." (Qur'an 81:8-9).

Criticizing the attitudes of such parents who reject their female children, the Qur'an states:

When news is brought to one of them, of (the Birth of) a female (child), his face darkens and he is filled with inward grief! With shame does he hide himself from his people because of the bad news he has had! Shall he retain her on (sufferance) and contempt, or bury her in the dust? Ah! What an evil (choice) they decide on? (Qur'an 16: 58-59).

 

Far from saving the girl's life so that she may later suffer injustice and inequality, Islam requires kind and just treatment for her. Among the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (P.) in this regard are the following:

Whosoever has a daughter and he does not bury her alive, does not insult her, and does not favor his son over her, God will enter him into Paradise. (Ibn Hanbal, No. 1957).

Whosoever supports two daughters till they mature, he and I will come in the day of judgment as this (and he pointed with his two fingers held together).

A similar Hadeeth deals in like manner with one who supports two sisters. (Ibn-Hanbal, No. 2104).

The right of females to seek knowledge is not different from that of males. Prophet Muhammad (P.) said:

"Seeking knowledge is mandatory for every Muslim". (AlBayhaqi). Muslim as used here including both males and females.

b) As a wife:

The Qur'an clearly indicates that marriage is sharing between the two halves of the society, and that its objectives, beside perpetuating human life, are emotional well-being and spiritual harmony. Its bases are love and mercy.

Among the most impressive verses in the Qur'an about marriage is the following.

"And among His signs is this: That He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest, peace of mind in them, and He ordained between you love and mercy. Lo, herein indeed are signs for people who reflect." (Qur'an 30:2 1).

According to Islamic Law, women cannot be forced to marry anyone without their consent.

Ibn Abbas reported that a girl came to the Messenger of God, Muhammad (P.), and she reported that her father had forced her to marry without her consent. The Messenger of God gave her the choice . . . (between accepting the marriage or invalidating it). (Ibn Hanbal No. 2469). In another version, the girl said: "Actually I accept this marriage but I wanted to let women know that parents have no right (to force a husband on them)" (Ibn Maja, No. 1873).

Besides all other provisions for her protection at the time of marriage, it was specifically decreed that woman has the full right to her Mahr, a marriage gift, which is presented to her by her husband and is included in the nuptial contract, and that such ownership does not transfer to her father or husband. The concept of Mahr in Islam is neither an actual or symbolic price for the woman, as was the case in certain cultures, but rather it is a gift symbolizing love and affection.

The rules for married life in Islam are clear and in harmony with upright human nature. In consideration of the physiological and psychological make-up of man and woman, both have equal rights and claims on one another, except for one responsibility, that of leadership. This is a matter which is natural in any collective life and which is consistent with the nature of man.

The Qur'an thus states:

"And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them, and men are a degree above them." (Qur'an 2:228).

 

Such degree is Quiwama (maintenance and protection). This refers to that natural difference between the sexes which entitles the weaker sex to protection. It implies no superiority or advantage before the law. Yet, man's role of leadership in relation to his family does not mean the husband's dictatorship over his wife. Islam emphasizes the importance of taking counsel and mutual agreement in family decisions. The Qur'an gives us an example:

"...If they (husband wife) desire to wean the child by mutual consent and (after) consultation, there is no blame on them..." (Qur'an 2: 233).

 

Over and above her basic rights as a wife comes the right which is emphasized by the Qur'an and is strongly recommended by the Prophet (P); kind treatment and companionship.

The Qur'an states:

"...But consort with them in kindness, for if you hate them it may happen that you hate a thing wherein God has placed much good." (Qur'an 4: l9).

Prophet Muhammad. (P) said:

The best of you is the best to his family and I am the best among you to my family.

The most perfect believers are the best in conduct and best of you are those who are best to their wives. (Ibn-Hanbal, No. 7396)

Behold, many women came to Muhammad's wives complaining against their husbands (because they Miss treat them) - - those (husbands) are not the best of you.

 

As the woman's right to decide about her marriage is recognized, so also her right to seek an end for an unsuccessful marriage is recognized. To provide for the stability of the family, however, and in order to protect it from hasty decisions under temporary emotional stress, certain steps and waiting periods should be observed by men and women seeking divorce. Considering the relatively more emotional nature of women, a good reason for asking for divorce should be brought before the judge. Like the man, however, the woman can divorce her husband with out resorting to the court, if the nuptial contract allows that.

More specifically, some aspects of Islamic Law concerning marriage and divorce are interesting and are worthy of separate treatment.

When the continuation of the marriage relationship is impossible for any reason, men are still taught to seek a gracious end for it.

The Qur'an states about such cases:

When you divorce women, and they reach their prescribed term, then retain them in kindness and retain them not for injury so that you transgress (the limits). (Qur'an 2:231). (See also Qur'an 2:229 and 33:49).

c) As a mother:

Islam considered kindness to parents next to the worship of God.

"And we have enjoined upon man (to be good) to his parents: His mother bears him in weakness upon weakness..." (Qur'an 31:14) (See also Qur'an 46:15, 29:8).

 

Moreover, the Qur'an has a special recommendation for the good treatment of mothers:

"Your Lord has decreed that you worship none save Him, and that you be kind to your parents. . ." (Qur'an 17:23).

 

A man came to Prophet Muhammad (P) asking:

O Messenger of God, who among the people is the most worthy of my good company? The Prophet (P) said, Your mother. The man said then who else: The Prophet (P) said, Your mother. The man asked, Then who else? Only then did the Prophet (P) say, Your father. (Al-Bukhari and Muslim).

A famous saying of The Prophet is "Paradise is at the feet of mothers." (In Al'Nisa'I, Ibn Majah, Ahmad).

"It is the generous (in character) who is good to women, and it is the wicked who insults them."

3. The Economic Aspect

Islam decreed a right of which woman was deprived both before Islam and after it (even as late as this century), the right of independent ownership. According to Islamic Law, woman's right to her money, real estate, or other properties is fully acknowledged. This right undergoes no change whether she is single or married. She retains her full rights to buy, sell, mortgage or lease any or all her properties. It is nowhere suggested in the Law that a woman is a minor simply because she is a female. It is also noteworthy that such right applies to her properties before marriage as well as to whatever she acquires thereafter.

With regard to the woman's right to seek employment it should be stated first that Islam regards her role in society as a mother and a wife as the most sacred and essential one. Neither maids nor baby-sitters can possibly take the mother's place as the educator of an upright, complex free, and carefully-reared children. Such a noble and vital role, which largely shapes the future of nations, cannot be regarded as "idleness".

However, there is no decree in Islam which forbids woman from seeking employment whenever there is a necessity for it, especially in positions which fit her nature and in which society needs her most. Examples of these professions are nursing, teaching (especially for children), and medicine. Moreover, there is no restriction on benefiting from woman's exceptional talent in any field. Even for the position of a judge, where there may be a tendency to doubt the woman's fitness for the post due to her more emotional nature, we find early Muslim scholars such as Abu-Hanifa and Al-Tabary holding there is nothing wrong with it. In addition, Islam restored to woman the right of inheritance, after she herself was an object of inheritance in some cultures. Her share is completely hers and no one can make any claim on it, including her father and her husband.

"Unto men (of the family) belongs a share of that which Parents and near kindred leave, and unto women a share of that which parents and near kindred leave, whether it be a little or much - a determinate share." ((Qur'an 4:7).

 

Her share in most cases is one-half the man's share, with no implication that she is worth half a man! It would seem grossly inconsistent after the overwhelming evidence of woman's equitable treatment in Islam, which was discussed in the preceding pages, to make such an inference. This variation in inheritance rights is only consistent with the variations in financial responsibilities of man and woman according to the Islamic Law. Man in Islam is fully responsible for the maintenance of his wife, his children, and in some cases of his needy relatives, especially the females. This responsibility is neither waived nor reduced because of his wife's wealth or because of her access to any personal income gained from work, rent, profit, or any other legal means.

Woman, on the other hand, is far more secure financially and is far less burdened with any claims on her possessions. Her possessions before marriage do not transfer to her husband and she even keeps her maiden name. She has no obligation to spend on her family out of such properties or out of her income after marriage. She is entitled to the "Mahr" which she takes from her husband at the time of marriage. If she is divorced, she may get an alimony from her ex-husband.

An examination of the inheritance law within the overall framework of the Islamic Law reveals not only justice but also an abundance of compassion for woman.

4. The Political Aspect

Any fair investigation of the teachings of Islam o~ into the history of the Islamic civilization will surely find a clear evidence of woman's equality with man in what we call today "political rights".

This includes the right of election as well as the nomination to political offices. It also includes woman's right to participate in public affairs. Both in the Qur'an and in Islamic history we find examples of women who participated in serious discussions and argued even with the Prophet (P) himself, (see Qur'an 58: 14 and 60: 10-12).

During the Caliphate of Omar Ibn al-Khattab, a woman argued with him in the mosque, proved her point, and caused him to declare in the presence of people: "A woman is right and Omar is wrong."

Although not mentioned in the Qur'an, one Hadeeth of the Prophet is interpreted to make woman ineligible for the position of head of state. The Hadeeth referred to is roughly translated: "A people will not prosper if they let a woman be their leader." This limitation, however, has nothing to do with the dignity of woman or with her rights. It is rather, related to the natural differences in the biological and psychological make-up of men and women.

According to Islam, the head of the state is no mere figurehead. He leads people in the prayers, especially on Fridays and festivities; he is continuously engaged in the process of decision-making pertaining to the security and well-being of his people. This demanding position, or any similar one, such as the Commander of the Army, is generally inconsistent with the physiological and psychological make-up of woman in general. It is a medical fact that during their monthly periods and during their pregnancies, women undergo various physiological and psychological changes. Such changes may occur during an emergency situation, thus affecting her decision, without considering the excessive strain which is produced. Moreover, some decisions require a maximum of rationality and a minimum of emotionality - a requirement which does not coincide with the instinctive nature of women.

Even in modern times, and in the most developed countries, it is rare to find a woman in the position of a head of state acting as more than a figurehead, a woman commander of the armed services, or even a proportionate number of women representatives in parliaments, or similar bodies. One can not possibly ascribe this to backwardness of various nations or to any constitutional limitation on woman's right to be in such a position as a head of state or as a member of the parliament. It is more logical to explain the present situation in terms of the natural and indisputable differences between man and woman, a difference which does not imply any "supremacy" of one over the other. The difference implies rather the "complementary" roles of both the sexes in life.