Sunday, April 29, 2012

On Red Mosque (Lal Masjid)

Courtesy : This Blog

Lal Masjid Operation

 A factual analysis of its background, the operation itself and the aftermath

The Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) Operation was carried out by Pakistani armed forces against clerics and students of Lal Masjid, Islamabad, Pakistan in July of 2007. The operation divided opinions among Pakistanis at home and abroad.

Very few people outside or inside of Pakistan received accurate information on the Operation as their primary source of knowledge was the Pakistani or International media. Therefore several of the opinions lack hard factual basis, are contradictory to one another or simply going against eye-witness accounts. In this article we analyze a discussion by the Grand Mufti of Pakistan Mufti Rafi Uthmani (DB) who was at Islamabad at the time of the operation. We shall attempt to scrutinize his claims and those of the media using hard evidences and endeavor to separate fact from fiction.

The following is an English translation of the speech Mufti Rafi Uthmani (DB) gave sometime after the operation. (The original in Urdu can be found here.)

Speech begins here:
“Respected Elders and dear brothers, I know that you are eager to know what happened at Lal Masjid and that you are sad and frustrated at this bloody game. Whole of Pakistan is frustrated.
The details are more or less in front of you; via newspapers, radio and televisions. But we have one complaint with the media that they did not elaborate on the Truth (of what happened) in the manner that Truth should be elaborated. They are not clarifying what is obvious. They are leaving doubts, and the media has adopted a hostile attitude. Hostile attitude towards ulema and religious circles such as adopted towards an enemy nation. This is a worrisome situation.

We can only complain of this situation to Allah (SWT). We are without power, army and weapons; and to use arms against your own government is not permissible either. In this situation, except that we repent for our sins to Allah, this is the first step, because all the problems that come upon us are the fruit of our own doings. In our own Pakistan the widespread disobedience to Allah that is prevalent, from the government offices to the lower echelon. In this situation no matter which punishments befall us are not unexpected. We had rainstorm and killer winds. Half the country was being destroyed by them but this second problem arose.

I am repeating again that Prophet (SAW) foretold of these fitnah. That there will be a time that there will be fitnah after fitnah, one after the other, and the next one bigger than the previous. On 12th May, a blood game was played, of innocent blood. Whole world watched, TV broadcasted it, everyone watched. The killers’ faces were even shown . None of them were ever caught. As though it wasn’t a crime.

Background and the demands of Lal Masjid clerics:

The people of Lal masjid made good demands. They are requirements of our emaan and religion. But they method they chose to pursue them was against the methods of the elders and the scholars. Everyone tried to tell me that. But what was their crime? What was the wrong method they adopted?

They captured a children’s library. That was wrong. They had captured a woman who ran a brothel. This capture was wrong. To complain against that brothel and to strive for its closure, using permitted and lawful methods, was absolutely correct. But they say that we, the people of the neighborhood, used to take complaints to the authorities but they were not stopping the brothel and it was running. The people of the neighborhood were worried, the decent people were worried. Many men used to come there in the night to commit Zina. One girl came and told her tale that she was deceived in being taken there and then forcibly she was molested, her photos were taken and she was blackmailed that if she told her parents these photos will be published. She was continuously blackmailed and called up again and again to commit Zina. She was helpless. She took her plea to Jamia faridiya/Jamia Hafsah.

But despite all this we say that their act of capturing Aunty Shamim was wrong. This was not their job. If the government wasn’t capturing her they should have gone to the newspapers etc. But this job was beyond your responsibilities. This would have spread fitnah, started fighting and the government would be reared to adopt a harsh tone; and the people whose hands the government is in you all know. As a result the blood that would have been shed was shed.

Illegal actions of the Lal Masjid clerics

So their mistake was that they called Aunty Shamim and made her repent and confess; then sent her back. Not one slap, not one cane, not one needle pinched into her, not one thorn inserted into her body.
Second thing they did (was bout) that the massage center, co-massage center, and who does the massage on entire body? Chinese women. Who gets the massage? Muslim men of Islamabad…while naked. This is the massage. The center was there. So this was against the law, the constitution of Pakistan, against our religious values; it was a crime from every angle. Those who gave a license to this center they had also committed a crime. But their (Lal masjid people) crime was that they captured the Chinese women, clad them in burqa and then returned them. This was a mistake. So how many mistakes?

Police arrested their men, they arrested some policemen. This was fourth mistake. The mistake of the police aside, but this was their fourth mistake. How many mistakes? They brought Aunty Shamim without torture they returned her. Brought Chinese women from the massage center and returned them without physical abuse. Police arrested their students; they arrested their students (policemen) so their students would be released. How many crimes? Three. Fourth crime was that they captured the library. These four were crimes, we admit. We are not going to make an explanation. We kept telling them that you are doing wrong. You don’t have a right to do this. Government within a government, federation within a federation, taking the law into your hands, is not permitted in Sharia.

Did the Wafaq-ul-Madaris and Ulema play their role?

What is interesting, this is good so that this matter is clarified. The world is saying today, our writers and columnists are also saying and the journalists too ‘look the madrasahs got maligned, the image sent to the world about them, are madrasahs like this? They spread such anarchy, they stock arms, they are oppressive, they are violence-mongers, and they are extreme separatists ’. A TV person asked me, I replied I am astonished you are saying this. Do you know this or not? That these five points (mistakes) of jamia hafsah were called wrong by all or not? The madrasahs registered with Wifaq-ul-madaris, in thousands, it was the most prominent among them. There were about 10,000 male and female students in jamia hafsah and its branches. Almost. But wifaq-ul-madaris, just because of this reason, removed them from the board, because wifaq-ul-madaris does not agree with this anarchy. It does not support such separatism; does not condone this violence. And the affiliation got cancelled. The students kept applying and calling. Teachers kept applying and their groups kept visiting us that please save one year of our students from being wasted, but we said no.

The operation was at jamia hafsah, but since the operation was being done by maulana Abdul Aziz and he was the head of this (jamia faridiya) as well, so we also cancelled the affiliation of jamia faridiya and refused to include their students in the annual examination. Wifaq ul madaris published their announcement repeatedly, and all this that I am telling you, was explained in it.

So is this not proof that Wifaq ul madaris does not permit any of its madrasahs to condone violence and extremism. Not just making it impermissible it does not even tolerate such madrasahs where there is terrorism, extremism, violence or where law is taken into their own hands. Then not just wifaq ul madaris but all the ulema of the country and all scholars of thought refuted these wrong methods of jamia hafsah heads and called it wrong. Is this not proof that all madrasahs and all ulema are against extremism, violence, anarchy and separatism? This should have been the message sent to the whole world regarding this incident that all ulema and madaris believe the way of extremism and violence to be wrong, and consider it so wrong that they separated their old mates from themselves because they did not agree to these aforementioned beliefs of ours. You people are understanding or not?

Then those TV personnel said you are saying something very important and I said then convey this message of ours. Convey it to the world.

The Government policy towards the demands of Lal Masjid clerics

But what our government did was that it did not act on even one demand of the Lal masjid clerics. Till now people of Pakistan are waiting that who were the people in office who had for so many years supported Aunty Shamim’s brothel. Who had permitted that brothel? Which people went there for Zina? They all are innocent. They are faultless. They did not commit any crime. The crime was committed by those who brought Aunty Shamim peacefully, had her repent and then sent her back. Tell me whose crime is bigger? Brothel owners or the people of jamia hafsah? Crime was on both sides. But the crime of the brothel owners was greater than the crime of the people of jamia hafsah.

Mosques were martyred in Islamabad, in capital of Islamic republic of Pakistan…the Houses of Allah (SWT) were martyred. From here the people of Jamia Hafsah started their movement. The method of our government is that until one stands up to them with sticks and shoes and until stones are not thrown at them and until the way of anarchy is not adopted they are not ready to listen to any demand. This is the methodology of the government. If this persists then there can never be peace in this country.
You do not listen to us in civilized conversation. Do not accept proofs . Do not pay least attention to what Qur’an and Sunnat say. Not ready to listen to what constitution and law says. But they will remain adamant on anti-Islamic policies. So what will be the result? The result will be that the people will spring into action. The emotional and arduous will stand up. They will take the law into their hand. Then they will neither listen to us nor you. Hence this is what happened in Jamia Hafsah.

Mosques were martyred. People protested and talked, the ulema did, but they (government) did not take the slight notice. So the people of jamia hafsah said you martyred the House of our Allah, we capture your library. Not martyr (destroy) it, capture it. This was wrong. No, this was right, the method was incorrect. Should not have captured it. The ulema went and advised them as well as the elders and people from wifaq. But they said that you tell us that these government leaders are like this that without harshness they do not listen. Acceptance is something for after, they are not even ready to listen. Tell us how (else) we do it?
We said you take help in patience and make dua to Allah (SWT) and do not deviate from the path of the law. But they were not ready to accept this. So how many crimes were there? Four crimes: brought Aunty Shamim peacefully and returned her peacefully, brought Chinese women peacefully and returned her peacefully, policemen were captured and kept peacefully and were also served during their capture, captured children’s library (and) did not do any damage or carried out any violence inside (and) did not hurt anyone. In all these actions not even one person was hurt by even a thorn. Not one slap. The whole world made the noise of ‘Sharia with canes, sharia with canes’ but give even one example when the students used even one cane on anyone. These were just for show, that these sticks were taken by the female students.

Such noise on this.
On this crime more than 300 hundred, hundreds of students were killed here.
Say how is this justice?

And on 12th may a blood game was played. 40, or more than that, people were killed. The killers were seen by the world. The TV showed it and till today not one murderer has been arrested.
They say that the writ of the government was challenged, by the people of jamia hafsah. So didn’t the murderers of 40 people not challenge your writ? Here you did not consider the respect and prestige of your ‘writ’? But since those 40 killed were poor helpless people and their killers backed by non-Pakistani agencies so you did not feel any mercy for those 40 people nor did you worry about your writ.
Today your writ is being challenged by NATO forces, inside Pakistani soil, they are bombing innocent Muslims from Afghanistan. How many Pakistani Muslims have been martyred by them till now? Bombed from aero planes even.

Over there you do not worry about your writ, that your writ is being challenged by someone? It is because you consider them your overlords. You have made them your sovereign. You are protecting their writ. You do not feel the need to protect your honor there. You do not see the disrespect of your own law over there.
On the helpless your bravery works. On the innocent, the women, children, the disarmed. That Pakistani force that, with the Grace of Allah (SWT), showed the merit of their strength, ability, bravery, sacrifice, and emaan in the jihad of 1965 and Alhamdulillah the opinion even today is that on the whole our army is brimming with emaan and among the best armies of the world.

This army has been nurtured and supported by the people of Pakistan by suffering financially and paying the taxes. It is our trust. It is our earning. It is our power , the protector of our borders, we are proud of it, but you are using our superb army in these cowardly deeds. This superb army that our nation prepared for the enemies of Islam , the army that was created for the protection of Pakistan, today you are endeavoring to make this army act on the orders of the enemy. Today your bravery does not work in Kashmir; you brought the army back from kargil, nor does your bravery work in defending our western borders from NATO.
Your bravery works on the madrasah of bajaur; on killing the students there. Your bravery works on madrasah of jamia hafsah, on the male and female students. These are your cowardly deeds and you say that peace and law and order should be maintained. Every way to usurp the law and order has been adopted by you and then you tell us that ‘ulema must play their role’. The ulema went (to jamia hafsah) to play their role (in) Islamabad. We went. You gentlemen must have read it in the newspapers.

The negotiations and the peace agreement

All deals were decided. First we talked to Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, he said I will deliver your formula, he understood it and said he will deliver the formula to the upper echelons. At night Ejaz ul Haq arrived and we placed the matter before him and after some discussion he also accepted it that this formula is applicable and the government’s writ will be preserved , respect of law will be maintained , blood will be prevented from being shed and the matter will be over. But he did not make a promise and said that I will arrange a meeting for you with the Prime Minister.

So I asked Ejaz ul Haq that whether our PM was in the position to make a decision; because the people knew in which position our PM was. He said he is 100%. That is what he said and that he was 100% in position to make a decision. So we said let us meet. We met. The formula was placed there even and he explained some of his difficulties , which were also told by Ejaz ul Haq, and its solution was also decided. It was said that this should be implemented now.

What was decided was that Abdur rasheed Ghazi, he had told us daily on the phone repeatedly that I will not allow myself to be arrested, will lay down my life but not be arrested willingly. Perhaps the reason for it was how Maulana Abdul Aziz sahib was arrested and humiliated on TV and how the arrested students were stripped of their upper body clothing, blindfolded and shown in humiliation on TV, that he decided maybe that an honorable death was better than a disgraced life. So he told me clearly and repeatedly that I am not ready to be arrested willingly, I will lay down my life but not be arrested willingly. But I am ready to accept that me, my wife and kids, my personal belongings be taken to my village, I leave Jamia Hafsah too and Jamia Faridiya also. I leave Lal Masjid, the children library and all the weapons I shall surrender. Let me go to my home. However I will give the two Jamia in the administration of Wifaq ul madaris so that they are not damaged by the government. Masjid will be taken care of by the Auqaaf and run it.

So this deal, was agreed verbally, and PM gave the green signal on its implementation. This is after dhuhr, before asr.
After this for its implementation, Chaudhry Shujaat, Ejaz ul Haq, Mr. Durrani (minister of broadcasting), Mr. Tariq Azeem (wazeer e mumlikat) and our delegation went there in a caravan of cars. That prohibited area was opened for us but when we reached Lal Masjid we had to walk to reach it, or we could have gone by these cars. Then a senior ranger’s officer, or the most senior one I do not know, he stopped us from going further and said do not go further. He said that to the Ministers and also to Chaudhry Shujaat Hussein. His behavior was such as though he did not know were signing an agreement. He was not concerned with this agreement, he just said you cannot go further.
“Why couldn’t we go ahead?”
“Sir there is risk, there is risk”
“What is the risk?”
“We fear they will take you hostage”
So some of the scholars who were from Karachi and accompanying us said we will take that risk. We are hopeful they will not take us hostage. They are our brothers. But even if they did take us hostage we are ready to take this risk and we will go and talk to them, and we will tell them all these things.
But they said no, this will not happen. Then some of our delegates also expressed this concern. We told everyone that if you wish to go back on your own responsibility then you may do so. But some of our delegates came to us quietly and said there was danger of one thing: there are rangers everywhere. We believe strongly that these rangers will kill our men who are going inside so that the blame falls on Abdur rasheed Ghazi.

So it was deiced among us and Chaudhry Shujaat etc. in a house nearby taken over by the rangers and we wrote an agreement and the implementation and details were agreed according to the guidelines already decided in the meeting earlier with the PM; after discussions with the Ministers. Maulana Zahid ur raashdee , Tariq Azeem, both wrote the agreement document. Every word was pondered upon and discussed. Wherever anyone had concerns they were addressed. An envoy from Abdur rasheed Ghazi also came and through him we also talked continuously with Abdur rasheed Ghazi on telephone. His battery was getting finished so a set was sent to him so that the discussion could be continued.

He also agreed to the prepared manifesto. However one thing he kept insisting upon was that he kept asking me to make them accept one demand of his that they should go inside the mosque along with the media and the ministers so that I can show them the weapons inside, that which weapons I possess. I am certain that they will kill me then they will carry out this business, or if I am taken to my village they will do their business either way: they will bring weapons and place them inside and put the blame on me that he had amassed weapons. That is my request and I beg you to bring them inside so I can show them what weapons we have.
But there was nowhere to go, neither the media could go inside, nor the ministers nor us. The agreement was done, everything was settled and we also expressed our joy and Ejaz ul Haq said that if Allah (SWT) decrees the peace deal today I will go to umrah the next day. We are worried for a week our worries will finish.

The Presidency’s amendment

The time for signatures arrived. So these gentlemen went downstairs. It was a small house of 2-stories and we were in a room upstairs where the manuscript was being written and our delegates were downstairs and these gentlemen, whether they talked to the presidency or not I do not know, said we have to go to Presidency now to get permission from President.
I was amazed that the PM, in full gathering had made the decision, and according to that decision this manuscript was written with the collaboration between our delegates and the Ministers. It was done in the presence of Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain whom we all respect, he is an elder.

So why the need to go and ask permission from Presidency when the PM…he had told us one thing in the meeting that we have also discussed this with President Musharraf; which means from bottom to the top everything was agreed upon. Abdur rasheed Ghazi was also prepared to accept it. Now we had started saying that the students must be hungry so he asked Ejaz ul Haq that food must be prepared for them.
What was agreed was that four of us (the delegates) and four ministers would take control of the students (male and female) and arrange for them to be returned to their families. This committee of eight would take the students to a safe place and if there is any court case we could deal with that later. Those upon whom there would be no court case would be set free. However it was decided that those convicted of crimes before Lal Masjid would not be set free but the rest would be set free.
This all was decided.

Then these people said they had to go so we let them, and they pleaded they would return in half an hour. We knew they would reach presidency in half an hour so when will they return? Summary is that after all this hard work, the entire day we could not rest, and the night before too, and now this deadlock had materialized. We feared that when they went to Presidency there was something amiss.

Anyway, we waited for two, two and a half hours and it rang midnight. We feared something else was going to happen there so when the gentlemen returned from there they were an entirely different persona. They had brought back a few points written on a page and the summary of it was, the words were pretty, just like the words are pretty of the deceivers, and the summary was that all the facilities that were being provided to Abdur rasheed Ghazi, all of them were being denied.

For example it was written on that paper, read by Tariq Azeem that the first point is that Abdur rasheed Ghazi along with his supporters would come out, Abdur Rasheed Ghazi along with his family and belongings would be held in a house. We asked which house? He has already said I will not accept any house-arrest. I will lay down my life but not accept this. We had agreed that he would be kept in his house in his village. We insisted that according to the agreement he would be held in a particular house i.e. in his village and we asked him which house they were aiming for and they said it would be just a house. To which we replied that agreement said his house in his village to which they said this was not possible. No word can be altered from this page. We have brought a final decision.

So I asked them to write on it that he would be held in his own house and I took the pen and wrote it quickly on that paper. Added the words ‘his’ to it. So as these gentlemen were saying they would publish the manuscript so my writing could be matched on both documents; that they did not write it, I wrote it.
But they said it was useless to edit it as the actual document was at Presidency. It cannot be altered. Tariq Azeem told me quietly that we have been given half an hour you have to either get a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’. Then said fifteen minutes have passed. So I said the agreement which was accepted by Abdur rasheed Ghazi is no more and this is a new matter brought before us and we are not responsible for it. Abdur Rasheed Ghazi’s envoy is here show him the new manuscript and if he approves and gets it approved from Abdur rasheed ghazi then that is fine and good.

We were discussing this that a commander of the rangers came into the small room where we eight, the four ulema and the four ministers were seated. He kept looking at us and then at the watch, as though he was indicating for us to leave. He was waiting for us to leave. So we decided among ourselves that our stay here was fruitless and their intentions are wicked and we should leave.

So as we were heading towards the door another officer asked us ‘are you leaving?’ and I replied ‘our work is finished’. So he immediately telephoned someone and said ‘but they are leaving’. Anyhow we got in our car and came back to the hotel, it was 2:30 AM…Also this was the image portrayed in TV that they went where the government had arranged for their stay. No government had arranged our stay. We had made our own arrangements, went on our own money and responsibility, went there as we considered it our duty to broker peace.

Anyway we discussed back at our hotel and decided that right now…TV people kept calling us all the time, so we shut off our mobile phones. So that no TV reporter could contact us in a situation which was not clear because there was a chance of one thing to happen, a tiny ray of hope, and it was that Abdur rasheed Ghazi’s envoy was there with the ministers and he was talking to Abdur rasheed Ghazi. Abdur rasheed Ghazi as far as we know of latest happenings had rejected that new proposal. He had said I would give up my life, this is deception and I cannot accept. We had returned after that.

But there was that slim chance till the end that Abdur rasheed Ghazi with the discussion between his envoy and ministers might accept something. Maybe the government people might accept something of his demands. So we shut down our mobiles because if we announced at this point that the negotiations had failed then this small glimmer of hope could be damaged. We shut down our mobiles. We decided, (and) we wrote down a statement that no one would make individual announcements of this failed negotiation. Everyone’s mobiles were shut.

The Truth and the Operation

What was decided, it was time for Fajr, and after we prayed Fajr we decided we should sleep. During this I found out that the operation had started there. That there was tremendous bombing as when Muslim forces attack a non-Muslim enemy country such was the bombing, shelling and firing. Destruction was rampant. When we opened the TV the situation was totally different where opinions and analysis were dished out that ‘what happened’, ‘a little while ago it was heard that negotiations were successful, what suddenly happened’. Everyone was giving their opinions as I was watching the TV.

So we decided that we will do a press conference in the afternoon to announce what had happened. But I wondered that entire country was drowned in confusion. So I switched ON my mobile. Geo TV called me immediately and they asked me ‘what had happened? The operation has started’.
I told him everything.

This was 5 in the morning. Immediately they ran the reel of it and started to show what was happening. At 6 am, after some sleepless nights I finally laid down. At 8 I woke up and someone was cupping my feet. Hamid Mir stood there. He said all the ministers are lying please tell what happened. He had brought a camera along.

I told him everything and it was also recorded and said I would run it within 45 minutes but it was broadcast in the evening. We had had our press conference before that.
This is the entire story. I was asked by a TV channel personnel that upon whom do you place the blame for this? I said ‘on President Pervez. May Allah give him guidance’”

End of Speech.

Mufti Rafi Uthmani’s account is a very detailed discussion on the events and we have tried our best to locate references for what he has stated. In the following discussion we elaborate on some points he made that were not highlighted in the media, and also scrutinize many media and Pakistan Army accounts of the events of the operation.

Why was Maulana Abdul Aziz wearing a Burqa when he was arrested?

Maulana Abdul Aziz, the older brother of Abdul Rasheed Ghazi was arrested while, as the government put it, trying to escape in a Burqa from Lal Masjid during the operation. When asked about this Maulana Shah Abdul Aziz, who is charged with negotiating a deal between the military and Lal Masjid, answered:
“This is all government propaganda. The night Maulana Abdul Aziz was arrested and brought to [state-run television] PTV, I had just finished a talk show and was on the way out with Ejazul Haq [minister for religious affairs] and the anchor of the program. I saw Maulana Aziz along with security officials. He hugged me, but only touched fingers when Ejaz tried to shake hands with him.
He immediately told me that he had been deceived. He said he was called by a senior official of an intelligence agency with whom he had been in touch for a long time. Since the official could not enter the mosque to meet him [to save his cover and identity] he asked Maulana Aziz to come to Aabpara police station [in walking distance of the mosque] and asked him to dress in a burqa to avoid being identified. [Aziz admitted that he and his brother Ghazi had done this many times before when they were declared wanted by the government]. But as soon as Maulana Aziz left the mosque he was arrested. “

He was shown on national televison in a manner that leaves no doubt that this was an attempt to humiliate him and Islamic scholars in general. What was the need to force him to unveil himself right in front of live camera in such a dramatic fashion? Couldn’t they have presented him without the Burqa? This is not the way how honest media works, using cheap tactics to submerge the truth under a wave of propaganda.
The media unfortunately axed their own foot by this tactic and lent further legitimacy to the claims that the government deceived the clerics and the students, while itself extinguishing the oft-repeated claim that Maulana Abdul Aziz was saving his own life while the students were in danger.

Asma bint Abdul Aziz also denied that her father wanted to escape and said authorities had asked him to cover his face to avoid the media and told him a meeting had been arranged with a top government official, she said. “He wanted to save the lives of hundreds of men, women and children,” she reportedly said. “I know him as his daughter, he would have never surrendered.”
Talking to reporters after the funeral prayers, Maulana Abdul Aziz said his failed escape from Lal Masjid was according to a plan made by the two brothers. He said the government had humiliated him by forcing him to wear Burqa. He said his wife and son were missing and the government was not ready to provide any information about them.
The plight of those inside the mosque

The government of Pakistan it turns out did not provide any food to the students inside the mosque during the siege. There are many reports from during that time of students not having eaten anything for 6-7 days. Here is an example from an interview with some female students of Jamia Hafsa. These two valiant sisters who were present in the madrasa came on GeoTV saying they left the madrasa with more than 100 bodies of only women. Qur’ans and religious of books were burning there with no water to put them out. Blood was all over the place. The relatives had no news of their kin’s whereabouts.

Another student, Asma Mazhar describes the horrific conditions of food and water inside the Lal Masjid and how they were prevented by the soldiers from getting any food:
“Bhai jaan (brother), we ate the same which brothers like you sent us from outside. What did you people send to us? We ate trees’ leaves; we plucked leaves off grape wine and drank dirty water, later that also finished. We soaked cloths in that water and put them on our eyes to protect from the tear gassing, and then the same water we drank. Once brothers sent us some boxes of juice and biscuits from masjid, we asked the young boy who brought them, ‘What have brothers eaten?’, and he said, ‘Nothing, that’s all they had which they sent you’, on that we asked the boy, ‘Go and take this back and tell them, the sisters are saying, they have eaten their meals, so you eat them’, as soon as the boy left the house a burst of bullets came and he got martyred. I saw through the window, he was lying on the ground by the face and was moving his foot, the blood was spreading out from his body. A little while later, the boy was fired at again and the biscuits and juice packets were destroyed. The juice ran out and biscuits were of no use. For many days the body of that child was laid there.”

Here is Asma’s mother’s account of how much she and her students loved Umm Hassan (the Principal). She also accounts how Police men under captivity were treated well (just as Mufti Rafi said). She also shows support for Ghazi Shaheed despite her daughter being inside Lal Masjid and in grave danger.

A female student’s account

She said when the fighthing started, it was the day when 550 female students (talibaat) were to be given chadaars, it was their graduation day. She said that day 30 talibaat were in one room when a bomb hit that room and they all died. She said we were ordered by Umm Hassan to make a list of all the talibaat present that day, and it was around 1500. After the whole thing was over, ladies police took that list from us.
She said we didnt have anything to eat but honey with leaves. This way leaves were not bitter with honey. She said Maulana Abdul Azeez told us many times that if anyone wants to leave, they can. Whatever media said that we were held hostages is nothing but a lie.

She said all the talibaat did isthikhara those days and we saw that negotiaions would fail. One of the taliba saw Prophet s.a.w in her dream and Prophet s.a.w gave a wird for all the talibaat to read.
She also said many of the talibaat there were from Kashmir whose families were dead in the Kashmir earthquake. She said that was the day 550 talibaat were to receive their sanads and degrees but it never happened. She said first day 30 talibaat, 2nd say 85 and the 3rd day 270 talibaat died. Army took those dead at night and burried them.

Who were they? Where did they go?

Dr. Shahid Masood describes the horrific massacre two little girls witnessed in this article in Urdu. It talks about two little girls in the Madrassa that Dr. Shahid Masood met. He used to visit the Madrassa and talk to the leaders of the Masjid and was also given the opportunity to talk to the female students. Thats the place where he met these girls. Umm Hassaan just said they were nagging to meet him although they don’t talk to strange men. One was a 8/10 years old girl called Asma with her elder sis Aisha [names were changed in the article]. He had some innocent talks with the girls and the article mentions how they were asking questions to them and annoying him to get his phone number and also asked for an autograph.

This was before the attack. After the attack he wondered about what happened to those innocent girls and wished he could contact them. Eventually the girls messaged him and had several conversations on the phone.

Dr Shahid Masood wrote that he told the girls a number of times to leave the complex because the army was going to attack and they luaghed it off saying that “why would the army attack us? we’re not criminals.” They mentioned the army are ‘kattar musulmaan’ which means hardcore/strong Muslims and why would their own army attack at them. That shows the innocence of these girls.

In the end this little girl Asma sent a message from the Madrassa to call back which Dr. Masood did. He heard the little girl crying with lots of noises in the background. Saying her elder sister died and the phone call got disconnected then.

And now the questions that Dr. Shahid Masood is posing is: Who where they? And where did they go?

Were the students held at Lal Masjid against their will? Were they human shields?

The government prior to the operation made this claim. However as can be seen from the link posted in last paragraph of the female survivor that is hardly the case. It can also be seen from this video here that and this one as well that a large number of students were staying behind (despite numerous attempts by the Lal masjid clerics to send them back) out of their own choice. Many left Lal Masjid before the start of the operation (1250 to be precise), while those remaining out of the estimated 5000 chose to fight with their teachers. Therefore the students themselves debunked this government propaganda.

Maulana Abdul Aziz and Abdur Rasheed Ghazi’s love for the students was something totally neglected by the media but it seemed to surface in almost every interview the students gave afterwards or before the operation (sometimes inadvertently) or when information on the brothers prior to Lal Masjid was published. For example they used to spend 10 million PKR on the students and supported nearly 10,000 students, yet they themselves are known to eat from the students’ leftovers. Despite having so much funds to spend on students Abdur Rasheed Ghazi drove a small Suzuki Mehran. When the library was taken over by the students of Jamia Hafsa he told them not to damage anything in the library as the library was trust of the nation. In almost every interview the nostalgic students who made it alive speak of the repeated requests of the Lal Masjid clerics to the students to leave and save themselves. Yet, as one survivor describes it was immense love for Shahadat that they did not budge. This is the human side of the students and the clerics that was never made part of the barrage of articles by the Pakistani liberal media that flooded the Internet in the wake of the massacre.

Compare this with the treatment meted out by the Pakistan armed forces to the female students. Mufti Muhammad Na’eemur Rahman of wifaq ul madaris during the heart of the operation said live on Geo tv that many female students had been raped and molested by the armed personnel. This should not be surprising since the female students who made out alive always stated the same thing : the soldiers had asked them to remove their hijab and veils while arresting them.They had slaughtered the young boys accompanying these women and left them to rot for days (as described by Ms. Mazhar above). A sister also describes this breifly here:

“Then later on she and 30 students came out, army was on the walls of the masjid, they started to fire. We yelled at them not to fire. Those soldiers started to make fun of us and told us to take of our niqab/hijabs. We refused so they did by force.”
– Umber Salim, student of Jami’ah Hafsah: “Ghazi’s leg was bleeding, we refused to go out but he asked us to go for the sake of Allah.”

Asma Mazhar continues:
“When Ghazi sahib had been wounded, he said to Umm Hassaan, ‘If you stay inside, these girls will also not go out and will be martyred. People as well are saying we have made them hostage, for the sake of Allah, take them out and tell the people about our calamity’, on that we all agreed to go out, though we all the time wore burqa, we didn’t take them off the whole week, who knew they would intrude anytime and we wouldn’t be in hijab.”

If the hostage theory was true we ask that why had the media not reported on the 1200 students who left the Jamia on the first day (before the siege started)? What happened to those students, where did they go, why weren’t they all over the news channels denouncing the clerics?

Further – we ask that if the students were hostages then the tens that came out one particular day, why were they coming out with the Nara of Takbeer? Why have none of these students been put infront of the camera to say how they were held hostage?

The Independent in their editions of 11 – 13 July 2007 had a small line on one of their articles stating that it appears the students were not kept as hostages.

If one reads the interviews linked in this article of the surviving female students one thing could be ascertained : Umm Hassan (the Principal) had ‘tricked’ the female students into leaving the Jamia and the madrassah by telling them everyone including Maulana Abdul Aziz was planning to go out and surrender. In reality when the girls got away they realized Umm Hassan was not with them. Upon hearing this, according to Asma Mazhar, Fatima and Umamah some girls came back and asked her why she did that to which she replied it was her home, where else would she go? Upon hearing this, according to Ms. Mazhar 27 students refused to leave without Umm Hassan.

Hence the hostage theory was simply government and Pakistan media propaganda that was not well-thought of.

How many weapons did the Lal Masjid fighters have?

From the plethora of the photos and videos of stick-wielding women one can safely ascertain they had no automatic weapons or weapons of any sort. Abdur Rasheed Ghazi and his fighters frequently claimed they had 13-14 AK47. It is also established from local accounts that many of the fighters were the students themselves joined by local people from nearby mosques in Islamabad and Rawalpindi who had decided to take part in this battle by siding with those propagating Islamic Law. They were simply volunteers who at best had private weapons to fight with.

The question is should Abudr Rasheed Ghazi and his fighters have weapons at all? This was answered by Sheikh Abu Hajira:
“And why can they not have weapons? Is it that the people want their Imaams and Maulanas to be monks? Next we will say why do so purified and high morale inheritors of the Prophet (PBUH) need to marry? They need weapons to defend themselves just like Musharaf needs his commando guards to defend him.”
If Ghazi was indeed lying why would he ask journalists and Ministers to come inside Lal Masjid and have a look while the government did the exact opposite and after the operation prevented them for three days from entering it?

In reality he had only 13-14 AK 47, and those were for their portection. Few months before the operation there was attack on his life. He had the right to depend himself and carry arms.

Even a senior army colonel who prayed in Lal Masjid on 3rd July 2007 recalls how there were no weapons inside. You would expect the place to be brimming with weapons after what the government showed via the media, no?

Were there foreigners?

This is best answered by Ms. Mazhar who states:
“We all came out of the house of Ghazi sahib and there were a few steps between us and the security forces, that is when we came out, they were a few steps away from Ghazi sahab’s house and in this distance I saw three bodies, all were of brothers (boy students). Two of the bodies were at the door step and they were bleeding, one of them was later called a foreigner, and when I saw his picture in the newspaper I recognized him that he was lying martyred at the door step of Ghazi sahib. Another body outside the house was lying between the security forces.’

What happened to the dead of the Lal Masjid?

Abdul Sattar Edhi proclaimed he had been asked to prepare 400 coffins by the government after the operation. The government varied in the amount of casualties that often did not tally with existing records. For example the government claimed 1500 females were alive in Jamia Hafsa at one point. Then it stated 87 of them were killed. But no mention was made of what happened to the rest of the 1400. Almost every female student who made it alive gives the number of female students inside between 1500 and 1600. Yet where did the remaining women vanish? When reporters asked these quesitions, government officials have refused to answer. One day it was in news that women who gave up few days before the operation, most of them are still missing. No on knows where have they gone.

What happened to the hundreds of female students that were in the Jamia? The government stated famously that about 50 “militants” have been “killed”, that about 70 have been arrested, that makes 120. Where are the 1400 – 1500 other students and why have they not been put on the news? This also quizzed prominent journalists at the time but no conclusion was given by them.

What everyone knows and agrees is that 3 days after the operation entire Lal Masjid was under lock down and no journalists were allowed in. Neither were they allowed to see the injured or dead in hospitals by the order of the government.

What was the government doing for three days in Lal Masjid?

Reports began to surface from the scholars and also ground witnesses that mass graves were being dug. Reports also surfaced of ‘WP’ used by the Pakistan Army better known an White Phosphorus. On 12th July, AAJ Tv boradcasted a program of Live with Talat in which Talat Hussain visited Jamia Hafsa. While touring the bullet ridden compound a number of military personal hovered around, at a certain point Talat Hussain asked an accompanying Army personal about all the evidence of smoke around the area asking, “Why is there so much smoke?”, the solider replied “WP”, Talat put another question “Please explain WP?”, the solider answered “White Phosphorus.”

Other reports emerged of men and women being buried together in single coffins and that the Qur’an and other sacred texts burnt by the armed forces during the massacre were thrown in a nearby gutter.

When the journalists were allowed to enter after three days it was exactly how Abdur Rasheed Ghazi had feared: the complex was filled with weapons supposedly left behind by the Lal Masjid group. Moreover barring the bullet holes and charred structures the place was almost spotless. The government did not comment on the allegations made on it of what it was doing inside for three days and why journalists weren’t allowed inside.

However as mentioned earlier the plethora of eye witness accounts, not published by mainstream media gave a very accurate picture of what they were doing: planting false weapons to implicate Ghazi Shaheed and cleaning up the place of dead bodies either destroyed by the intensive bombing or WP. This was how the government axed its foot again in the aftermath of the massacre.
Afterwards the building of Jamia Hafsah was bulldozed to hide evidence. It was severely criticized most prominently by the Chief Justice of Pakistan.

Were all the scholars against the Lal Masjid clerics?

It is clear from Mufti Rafi’s article that he did not approve of the clerics’ methodologies. However there were many senior scholars who did support it and had good reason. One may cite this:
“The Religious Decree By Imaam Abu Hanifah: Striving For The Promulgation Of Sharee`ah Is More Excellent Than Performing Fifty Optional (Nafl) Hajj
During the year 145 Hijrah, there was an uprising in Basrah against Mansoor `Abbasi, an `Abbasid Caliph, Muhammad Nafs Zakiyyah and Ibraheem Nafs Mardhiyyah proclaimed battle against caliph for the promulgation of Sharee`ah. They conquered many cities. They enforced Sharee`ah fully, wherever they prevailed. Imaam Abu Hanifah also supported both brothers, along with the other `Ulama.
Al-Yafi`ee writes: “Imaam Abu Hanifah incited people to favour Ibraheem and ordered them to fight with government.” Imaam Zufar recollects: “Imaam Abu Hanifah supported Ibraheem vociferously.”
(With reference to Imaam Abu Hanifah Ki Siyasi Zindagi p. 343).
It means that Imaam Abu Hanifah caring little for the retaliation from the government openly supported Ibraheem; and whosoever was underImaam’s influence, he persuaded and ordained him to support Ibraheem also. If the term ‘Ordain’ be taken in its literal sense, then it meant that to support him (Ibraheem) against tyrant was obligatory (Fardh).
And in what context obligatory?!
The Renowned Traditionist of Kufa Ibraheem bin Suwaid states that during the rebellion of Ibraheem bin `AbdulLah, I asked from Imaam AbuHanifah his opinion about someone who performed his obligatory (Fardh) Hajj; would it be better for him to do optional (Nafl) Hajj or to fight against government under the command of Ibraheem. Ibraheem bin Suwaid says, “I heard Imaam Abu Hanifah saying: “To participate in this battle is more preferable to performing such fifty Hajj.”
(With reference to Imaam Abu Hanifah Ki Siyasi Zindagi, compiled by Manazir Ahsan Gilani, p. 343) .”

Further on we can also cite from amongst the Tab’een such as Sa’eed ibn Jubayr who were martyred by Hajjaj ibn Yusuf for the charge of rebellion. There were many who joined the rebellion against the Ummayads and were martyred by Hujjaj. Can they be termed vigilantes and not be called shaheed? Also, what about Abdullah ibn Zubayr who was also martyred as a rebel?

The list of scholars who supported his methodology included majority of the scholars of KPK such as Mufti Shamzai Shaheed, scholars of Jamia Ashrafia, many scholars of Rawalpindi, Muhaqqiq Sarfraz who has large followers among the scholars and Dr. Sher Ali Shah. Others such as majority of Wifaq ul Madaris and Mufti Taqi Uthmani gave a similar verdict as Mufti Rafi.

Did no army officer oppose this?

Apart from the colonel whose opinion we read a couple of paragraphs ago not many army officers put into writing what they really thought of the massacre. Some like Hamid Gul and a retired major did but on the whole one must ask, did they all agree unanimously with Musharraf that the Lal Masjid clerics and students should all be slaughtered mercilessly? There were news of a Colonel being killed because he refused to enter the Masjid. There was nothing on the media about it. Ghazi Shaheed himself said he heard ‘Ya Ali Madad’ among the army ranks when they attacked. It could mean two things: The Rafidhis were hired to carry out the attack or Sind/Baloch regiment was hired since both have the same slogan.

One thing is clear. The paid soldiers felt no sympathy for the Muslim blood they were shedding as part of their job. Did this man who is making a victory signal not feel even a slight ounce of pain after inflicting such horrors on those students?

What happened after Lal Masjid is well-known. All over Pakistan and particularly in Northern Areas the army personnel, vehicles and even their families were attacked in retaliation for Lal Masjid. Let us see who is to blame for that.
Kill the hostages? Whose hands are red?

Mufti Rafi Uthmani claims Musharraf is the one to blame for Lal Masjid massacre. Pakistan’s liberal lobby and secular extremists lay the blame on the clerics, citing that they made the Pakistani armed forces kill the 500 – 1000 students and fighters present at the Mosque (and in the process desecrate and burn the religious books)

As evident from Mufti Rafi Uthmani’s speech and the evidence in various media that when Ghazi finally accepted to surrender and negotiations had been settled, he was entitled free passage. This was overruled by Musharraf. So in the least he was a madhloom (oppressed) devoid of his right. He was killed by a leader who opressively violated the negotiations and attacked them.

Ghazi mentioned that during negotiations instead of talks the govt official kept threatening that they will start the operation if he doesnt accept. He said that they should not do the negotiation this way. His refusal to not be house-arrested in any home except that in his village is said to have borne out of the humiliation his brother faced at the hands of the Pakistani media. Yet he continuously asked his students to leave.
The media and the liberal masses slandered him to this day. One must see what weight their claims hold. They stated he would rip the city apart using suicide bombings. Here is what Ms. Mazhar’s response to that was:
“Alas, that’s what is sad that we didn’t have arms, or we wouldn’t only curse helplessly, we even asked Ghazi sahib, ‘You talked about suicide bombing, now give us something so we can carry them out’, then he said, ‘My daughter, that I said just as the part of strategy, you should never think about that, we won’t even think of killing our own people. We only had sticks in the madrasah as well as in the house, so if anyone could try to get us inside, we would defend ourselves.’”

His kindness to his students is evident from each and every interview of the survivors. Yet many other gems in his personality never surfaced in the media. For example he gave naseehat (advice) to an unknown journalist who had come to meet him and promised him of leaving alcohol. Ghazi requested him to please do so as one of his last requests.

The need to do self action was out of complete anoyance of the useless government that promised and didn’t deliver. They claimed to be islamic and yet harbored prostitutes pornography and vulgarity. These people couldnt sit idle while sisters around them got sucked into the western plague of materialism. So they acted. But one must not blame them, government should be blamed which didnt do its job in the first place..
Yes, modes were questionable, actions were incorrect, but intentions were sincere. It was against the law, but law was against islam.

Mufti Rafi has said it clearly, that if they fought with sincere intention then they are martyr and inshAllah in Jannah. If only our young blood could have such zeal to do whatever it takes in following of ulama to attain the truth, establish an environment where they would do dhikr instead of xboxes, where they would go for five times salaah instead of going to internet cafe for porn, where they could walk in streets for dawah instead of glancing and gazing girls.

Musharraf, as posted in a link above deliberately annulled the agreement to appease the United States juggernaut. A situation which could have been solved amicably was turned into a horrific massacre that he and his paid media tried their best to cover up. Musharraf’s approval of torture is not hidden when he publicly admired the Israeli General responsible for the massacre in Sabra and Shatila, Palestine. His soft stance towards Israel, despite their almost daily pogrom of innocent Palestinians is further proof of where his loyalties lie. His enlightened moderation and extremist nationalism was nothing but an attempt to dilute Islam and mold it to suit western ideologies – his admiration of Ataturk and his dream of making Pakistan like Turkey is proof of this.

He could have granted a safe passage to Ghazi to prevent bloodhshed. It is a policy he himself is not opposed to nor does world politics dictate otherwise. Indian Airlines aircraft was hijacked in 1999 and taken to Kabul. The hijackers demanded safe passage to Maulana Mas’ud Azhar and 35 people locked in Indian jails. According to Indian sources they were charged with terrorism. But to guarantee the safety of their 180 passengers the Indian government gave them a safe passage.

Take British citizen Tahir Hussain for example, who had killed a Pakistani taxi driver who was given death sentence by Supreme Court. But on Price Charles visit to Pakistan he appealed to Musharraf, of all people, and Musharraf not only prevented the death sentence from being carried out but released Tahir Hussain via the Court and sent him back to Britain in a special plane. But here Musharraf was a different man who did not care for his own citizens and the children he and the media repeatedly lied were taken ‘hostages’. Is this how a ‘hostage’ situation is resolved? Kill all the hostages? Remove all evidence?

With the Lal Masjid operation Musharraf proved to what extent he could go to appease his western allies and protect his self-created version of Islam. He did all he could to silence the Ghazi. No wonder the operation was called Operation Silence. But in his brutality he inadvertently turned the sympathy of anyone who was not a secular extremist towards the plight of the Ghazi and his poor kids. He is responsible for the massacre at Lal Masjid and he and his army supporters are responsible for the attacks on army vehicles, personnel and families in retaliation to Lal Masjid. You simply do not massacre people mercilessly and expect the other party to remain civil.

Ghazi Shaheed’s innocence however is proven in his death – or more properly in his smiling death face. Have a look:
Now compare his smiling face to the smiles of these martyrs from different parts of the Islamic world who laid down their lives in the way of Allah and were admitted into Jannah straight away. The video you just saw; might be a good idea to look at it’s description. Is this not a sign of his innocence?

Ghazi Shaheed is no more with us yet his wife gave birth to his son, who was named after him, right on that very day he was martyred . He and his fellows were unanimously declared martyrs by the scholars of Islam, prominent among them Mufti Rafi himself and Mufti Raheem Usmani. As for the Pakistan Army Mufti Rafi himself said that those who fought with sincere intentions and not as paid mercenaries and died were also martyrs. But he may be the only one who said that. A reporter from Aaj TV inadvertently told the audience that during the Lal Masjid operation one of the soldiers was ‘unfortunately martyred’. The truth comes out in such unexpected ways. The Pakistan Army made us revisit 1971 again yet this time it was not housands of kilometres away that they could fool us.

Ghazi is no longer with us but his legacy continues, upholding the honorable Standard of Islam against the tides of secularism, atheism, vulgarity, moral and ethical degradation and the danger to world peace that they all pose.

These kids that were slaughtered were not anti-Pakistani or foreign agents. In one of the rooms of their madrassah where there was blood and broken bangles, written on the black board were the words: “Pakistan Zindabad”. Here are accounts of the Ghazi’s last moments and here is his will and his last message
He was no more than a Surgeon who amputated the Gangrene- ridden arm of a patient that threatened to spread to his entire body, killing him in great pain; rather than sit idly and watch the patient suffer endlessly.
We are the patients. We are just unaware of the Gangrene creeping into our veins every day because of lack of Islam. It is only people like Abdur Rasheed Ghazi Shaheed that shake us awake.

We are obliged to thank Mufti Rafi Uthmani for this balanced and eloquent lecture. We admire the fact he worked tirelessly for days before the Operation trying to resolve the crisis. May Allah increase the love and respect for the Ulema in our hearts. The superiority of his account can be ascertained by his last words, which are a prayer for Musharraf. Should we trust a man of such noble manners over a media that does not even verify news before publishing and does not even know that January 1st 2001 was a Monday not a Friday?

(English translation of the Speech by Mufti Rafi Uthmani titled “What happened in Lal Masjid?” can be downloaded in the form of a booklet from here)


Friday, April 27, 2012

Genetic Engineering - 1

Science can be a wonderful route to gnosis - recognizing the Signs of Allah (SWT).

For example the science of biology. Genetics is one such topic in this field.
How does an egg lead to the whole chicken? It does because it has the whole blue print for that production including the raw material. This blue print in the DNA tucked deep inside the smallest living units that our bodies are made of - the cells. In fact inside the core of the cells called the nucleus.

And this is not true for chicken and eggs only - it is true for all living beings. The information of their whole design is present in the DNA. This is true for amoeba, amongst the simplest living beings, and it is true for plants and it is true for animals and it is true for man.

And if all of the above things differ from each other then that is because their DNAs differ from each other.
And the DNAs are just some big molecules. And everyone knows that molecules are nothing but collections of atoms.

And this realization has spilled over to the applications of this field. This is called genetic engineering.

If you have the DNA of  carrot then this DNA will have all the information about the carrot.
Say, for example, the information for its colour.
The DNA for red carrot should be like DNA for purple carrot.
Except for the segments having the information about colour .
Now let us take the DNA for red carrot. Suppose we replace the segment for red colour by the segment suitable for purple colour. And then we grow the carrot from it. Will it be purple?

It should be.

We have just discussed an example of genetic engineering. It is hardly more complicated than tailoring. Conceptually.

What are other possibilities?

That is where the Pandora's box full of troubles opens.

Afterlife of Church

Copenhagen: Churches shouldn't be turned into mosques since 'Islam is an enemy of Christianty'

Islam is an enemy of Christianity, says former Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs, Birthe Rønn Hornbech (Liberals), and therefore Muslims shouldn't be taking over churches which have closed down.  16-17 churches in Copenhagen face closure.
Herr Hornbech,
Islam is not an enemy of Christianity. Islam is the final form of the religion of God whose penultimate form is Christianity. You believe in half of the Bible and you do not believe in the other half. Worse - yo believe those parts that are changed and you ignore those that are original.

The former minister spoke on the issue after Per Ramsdal, pastor of Brorson's Church in Nørrebro, suggested the churches can be used by Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus.

Birthe Rønn Hornbech wrote in a mail to Berlinkske News that he will publicly oppose the churches being turned over to another religious, when that religious is a direct enemy of Christianity, as is Islam, for example.  Even if it doesn't necessarily apply to Danish Muslims, Islam is an enemy of Christianity.
It is kind of you to spare Danish Muslims but you have got the other part terribly wrong. If you read the Noble Qur'an carefully it favours the Romans - the Christians. It also says that amongst those whom you meet the best are the followers of Jesus Christ - I kid you not.

Kirkefondet (Church Foundation), which owns half the churches due to be closed down, has denied that their churches will be sold to Muslims or other faiths.  General Secretary Morten Skrubbeltrang 'fears there will be public resistance, if a church will be turned into a mosque'.
Let us get it clear Mr Morten Skrubbeltrang. You are paranoid of Islam and that is all. If there is a resistance then it will be because of people like you. You are Islamophobic. In simple words you harbour enmity towards Islam and not the other way round. Honestly you are invited to Islam.
Birthe Rønn Hornbech backs Kirkefondet's right to decide who the churches will be sold to.  However, he expects them to use the money for a new church where it is needed. 
It is not likely. You are not having children and your youth is either becoming atheist or Muslim. So just relax.

Source : IiE

Thursday, April 26, 2012

What is Behind It?

BBC celebrates that a girl in Rajasthan has annulled her child marriage.
Good for BBC and good for her.
Apparently the groom agreed only after counseling. That is fishy enough.
Not that he might have had any option when the modernity had decided to strike in Rajasthan.
The puzzling thing is that the west has turned its attention to these things sounds so deja vu.
Yesterday there was a similar news by BBC from Bangladesh where a would be child bride was saved by the western media supported modern educated activists.
Why this renewed interest?
A simplistic explanation could be that our saviours have realized that getting photographed with dead Afghans is not appreciated by the audience.
If that is indeed the case, as it most probably is, then they should get bored with it soon.
But there is another worry. After that they will come back with something else that will help them in keeping us under their thumb.
At least their history does not tell us otherwise.
Why should we choose to remain at the receiving end?

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Lot of Bad News

(1) Euro Crisis Back - Not With A Whimper
(2) Somebody to Stage American Psycho
And in case one is curios as to why is your poor Alig questioning the wisdom then some explanation is due.
The book is a satire that explores the deprivation of American psyche.
Apparently Silence of the Lambs and Ed Gein are not the end of the road.
Apparently the deprivation is more common - hope it remains in the fiction only.
But even in this form of book reviews the things are truly sickening.
America heal thyself.
Europe heal thyself.

Saturday, April 21, 2012

What Was That Again?

You thought Kuwait was an oily country.
Ergo they will have enough oil for electricity production.
But they are considering nuclear energy.
What was that again?

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Cosmic Ray Puzzle

What is the source of high energy cosmic rays?
When you get a radiation you just have to look back to see the source. Unless the situation is like those pesky laser pointers.
That is the cosmic ray source puzzle in a nut-shell.
Still unsolved.

Alan Turing Papers

From BBC:

"Alan Turing just had brilliant ideas way ahead of their time which were terribly important to the future of the world if you like," Mr Harper said.


(1) BBC (2) TOI (3) ET (4) BS (5) Rediff (6) Z-News

From Orissa, east coast of India, to Indonesia in flat 20 minutes.
But it comes with all the associated pros and cons.
Including the romantics of various kinds.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

IMF Magic

According to BBC:
The IMF's Christine Lagarde has said that austerity is not the only solution to the woes of the global economy.
Strange that people cab bluff about real serious things.

Columbia Submit Scandal

One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six

They were only preparing for the would be meeting of the most powerful man on the planet.
They helped themselves with women of easy virtue.
Indeed it is difficult to not use circumlocution.
The good thing about it is that even if it is for public consumption they are out raged by it.
And another good thing about it is that the world finds this newsworthy.
One hopes, at least one gets the feeling,  that the world has not abandoned morality altogether.

Of course one could always wish for more and ask for more. Why are people not outraged by the very fact that this kind of possibility, we mean the facility, exists? More than that why are those women do not feel outraged, by this very existence of this possibility, who are bent upon equalizing with men? What can one do in order to wake up this dormant feeling that the very existence of this profession is a blot on our collective capabilities, attitudes, responsibility and morality?

What is Well Being?

Hazrat Hanif Sahab Luharvi (DB) said that people asked my first Shaikh Mufti Mahmood-ul-Hasan Gangohi (RA) what is well being (actually Arabic-Urdu 'aafiyat). A person is in the state of well being if he has got three things. Obedience to Sunnah, normal breathing (without medical help) and a halaal diet in time. Such person should think of himself being in a state of well being and prosperity.

Countries Colonized by USA

Every country in the world. Including Britain and France. Just remember how Tony Blair dovetailed George Bush. So much for the European self-respect. All is good as long as the people on the receiving end belong to either Asia or Muslim countries or Africa or the original inhabitants of uncivilized world.

Countries Colonized by France

(A) - Americas / (Af) - Africa / (As) - Asia / (I)- Islands / (M) - Middle East

  1. Canada (A)
  2. Lebanon (M)
  3. Syria (M)
  4. Laos (As)
  5. Vietnam (As)
  6. Cambodia (As)
  7. Algeria (Af)
  8. Madagscar (Af)
  9. Morroco (Af)
  10. Mali (Af)
  11. Togo (Af)
  12. Cameroon (Af)
  13. Central African Republic (Af)
  14. Djibouti (Af)
  15. Tunisia (Af)
  16. Senegal (Af)
  17. Chad (Af)
  18. Mauritania (Af)
  19. Guinea (Af)
  20. French Guinea (A)
  21. Rep. of Congo (Af)
  22. Gabon (Af)
  23. Cameroon (Af)
  24. Cote d'Ivoire (Af)
  25. Benin (Af)
  26. Niger (Af)
  27. Mauritus (I)
  28. Guadelope (I)
  29. French Polynesia (I)
  30. Seychelles (I)
  31. Tobago (I)
  32. St. Kitts (I)
  33. Haiti (I)
  34. St. Lucia (I)
  35. Reunion (I)

Monday, April 16, 2012

Countries Colonized by Britain

Countries Colonized By The British Empire

Countries Colonized By The British Empire

Botswana, Cameroon, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius,
Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa,
Swaziland, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe

The Americas
Belize, Bermuda, Canada, Falkland Islands, Guyana, St Helena

Bangladesh, Brunei, India, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Singapore,
Sri Lanka

Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, British Virgin
Islands, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, St
Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad &
Tobago, Turks & Caicos

Cyprus, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Jersey, Malta, Northern
Ireland, Scotland, Wales

Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue,
Norfolk Islands, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga,
Tuvalu, Vanuatu

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Is Islam Violent?

What's so good about Suras 48:29, 8:12, 9:5, 3:151 or other such verses that always DEMAND VIOLENCE AND EVIL against us infidels (including backstabbing, lying, etc.)?
Answer :  (1) Surah Al-Fath (48:29) : 
Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah ; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves.
While passing through a cantonment area, cantonment established by the British, yours truly saw a motto written on the wall. Purpose of (technical name for shooting practice) : one bullet, one enemy. Is it like turning the other cheek? Not by any stretch of imagination. And if you get worked up by war situations then there is of course a way out. Just do not create war situations. Any just analysis of present situation will tell you that Muslims are the victims of war rather than perpetrators.

And if the proposition in above excerpt seems to be asymmetric then please rest assured that there is no assertion here for atrocity. It might demand a tooth for a tooth in case of disbelievers but not more then that. Of course the implications for believers are bit different - they might be forgiven altogether. If you find that a very attractive preposition then Marhaba - you are invited to Islam.

(2) Surah Al-'Anfal (8:12) :
[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."
To be honest this is not a statement from Muslims. This is a statement from God. You may not believe in it but we do. Again if it disturbs you too much then know that this too is from war situation. Please know here the instructions from God are for fighting only - not for those things that we hear from your battle fields. Think of Afghanistan (Bagram), Iraq (Abu Gharayb), Guantanamo bay - just for a sample.

And as usual the best situation is not create a war situation - Muslims are duty bound not to be aggressive.

(3)  Surah At-Taubah (9:5) :
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
If it disturbs you then just think that it a commander instructing his battalion. Have you ever picked up the instructions of a commander from the battlefield and complained about it? Most probably not. In case you are connected with the rest of the Noble Qur'an you shall realize that there was a wait period of thirteen years with extremely grave situation such that the wars with the tormentors of beloved Prophet (PBUH) were wholly justified. But if you are bent upon denying any right to defend to Muslims then there is precious little that can be done.

(4) Surah Al-i-Imran ((4)  3:151) :
We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down [any] authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers.
 Brother again please understand that this again from God. And we believe it even if you do not. If you dislike it then take your fight to God. If you have decided to be disbeliever then it is between you and your God and please sort it out yourself. You can not hold Muslims responsible for God's actions.

(5) No we do not agree that God always demands violence against disbelievers.You just saw in point (3) above : Surah At-Taubah (9:5) :
 But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
This is a clear instruction to cease action. And just in case this makes you believe that it is still gives upper hand to believers then it is bit naive because why should you expect God to treat believers and unbelievers at the same level - it is silly to expect God to fall in line with your demands.

Finally you should understand that there is no assertion in all of these things for unilateral aggression on part of believers.

Hope this clarifies some of the matters.

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Hubb-e-Ilahi : Filter Test

Here is a useful advice via the blog Hubb-e-Ilahi.

Filter Test

Rasul Allah (sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam) said: “Keep away from ill-thinking/suspicions because ill-thinking is the greatest falsehood.” [Sahih Bukhari]

Commentary: During the Abbasid period one of the scholars in Baghdad was greeted by an acquaintance who said, "Do you know what I just heard about your friend?"

Scholar: "Hold on a minute, before telling me anything I'd like you to pass a little test. It's called the Triple Filter Test."

The Man: "Triple Filter Test?"

Scholar: "That's right, before you talk to me about my friend it might be a good idea to take a moment and filter what you're going to say. That's why I call it the triple filter test. The first filter is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is true?"

The Man: "No, actually I just heard about it and ..."

Scholar: "All right, so you don't really know if it's true or not. Now let's try the second filter, the filter of Goodness. Is what you are about to tell me about my friend something good?"

The Man: "No, on the contrary..."

Scholar: "So, you want to tell me something bad about him, but you're not certain it's true. You may still pass the test though, because there's one filter left: The filter of Usefulness. Is what you want to tell me about my friend going to be useful to me?"

The Man: "No, not really."

Scholar: "Well, if what you want to tell me is neither true nor good nor even useful, why tell it to me at all?"

Allah (subhana wa ta’ala) asks us: "O you who believe! Avoid much suspicion, indeed some suspicions are sins. And spy not, neither backbite one another. Would one of you like to eat the flesh (meat) of his dead brother? You would hate it (so hate backbiting). And fear Allah. Verily, Allah is the One Who accepts repentance, the Most Merciful." [Qur'an 49:12]

Let's pass our intended speech through the triple filter test before we madly utter our every thought. And lets subject others to the triple filter test too before we hear any number of damaging things from them.

Friday, April 13, 2012

One to One with Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins : I am reasonably optimistic in America and Europe.
YT (Yours Truly) : We too. One day they shall all accept Islam.
 RD : I am pessimistic about the Islamic world.
YT : Sad - you are doomed.
RD : I regard Islam as one of the great evils in the world.
YT : No, no it is the other way round. You are one of the great evils of the world. Of course you do not realize it but that does not meant that others do not realize it. You have got it all wrong - badly.
RD : I fear that we have a very difficult struggle there.
YT : Indeed. By the Grace of Allah (SWT) Muslims are the only people who are defending God as a society. We are ill equipped in every which way but we are out there in the sun.
RD :  There is a belief that every word of Qur'an is true.
YT : This one you got right.
RD : There is a close mindedness which has not been there in the former Christendom.
YT : That is a dishonest phrase - close mindedness, nothing unexpected from an atheist. The proper phrase is sure faith - certainty. You are jealous of it. And you do not have it - just have a look at your own heart. Of course we doubt that you shall have any courage to look into your heart - you do not enjoy looking and stark darkness.
RD : I do not know why but we had a long tradition of questioning.
YT : See you do not know why. Ask us. We know. You had a long tradition of question because your ancestors did the wrong thing called changing the word of God - modifying the Injeel. Once you do that it becomes questionable thing called the Bible. After that questioning follows naturally. Is that too difficult thing to understand.
RD : There are people in the Islamic world who simply say that Islam is right.
YT : Let us make it easy for you - all of us are like that, the ones the west has scared into saying otherwise are rather miniscule in number. Believe us.
RD : They say that, "We are going to impose our will".
YT : There is no compulsion in religion - according to Islam. You are simply indulging in calumny. You might have to eat your words.
RD : There is an asymmetry - we are being too nice.
YT : The colonial past of your country might be glorious for you but for the former colonies the final edict of history is still not out. This boast of being too nice is just a ripple - get over it.
RD : It is possible to be naively over optimistic.
YT : Sooner or later people will realize, even if you do not, that this is a branch of homophobia called Islamophobia.
RD : If you reach out to people who have absolutely no intention to reach out to you then you may be dis-illusioned.
YT : Please see previous answer. You are trying to spread hatred. It was alright from British standards to have a theory like yours but you can not take it so far as to create animosity towards the followers of Islam. Better thing will be to take back your words before you are asked to account for them - it is strange that you are getting carried away by your own academic worth - over blown worth.

Confused by Khan

US is confused by a man named Shah Rukh Khan.
His is an extremely well recognized name and face in India.
But the security at a US airport had a few questions.
What is your height?
Silly Americans. You have him in front of you and you ask this question.
What is your colour?
Really? Are they colour blind too?
By the Grace of God that country is going down and soon it should be another Greece fighting for its economic survival.
Terminal arrogance is unpleasant in the extreme - every one knows that. Nearly every one.

PS: Yours truly is not amongst those who approve S.R.Khan's choice of vocation.
Having said that there no no need to assume that there is animosity towards him.
And having said that we hope that some of the unnecessary headlines are out of the way.

The good news is that Foreign Minister S.K.Krishna has taken due cognition of this arrogance on part of US authorities. India's High Commissioner Nirupama Rao has been instructed to file a protest with the US Government.

I hope some one will declare that days of US hegemony are over. India can take lead in that direction. We kicked out the colonizers decades ago. It is long over due that we kick out residual colonialism  from our psyche - even if it is to the economic colonizer US.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

News Burden of the Day

Economics and Philosophy

“Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.”
Richard P. Feynman

“An economist is someone who knows more about money than the people who have it.”

On Philosophy of Science

(Again a personal reminder)

History of the Philosophy Of Science

For centuries, the history of the philosophy of science has been important for plotting the course of human endeavor.
by Martyn Shuttleworth (2009)

Until the 18th and 19th centuries, there was no real distinction between scientist and philosopher, and many of the great scientist-philosophers of antiquity were also theologians.

Science gave philosophy a way of empirically testing theories and concepts, whilst philosophy has helped to develop the scientific method used today.

Philosophy also dictates what areas science can and cannot test, delineating the boundary between physical and metaphysical questions. These boundaries and the rules governing research have developed over the centuries, and philosophy and science are intertwined.

The history of the philosophy of science shows the development of the underlying methodology and foundations of the scientific process, and shaped science, as we know it today.

Science could not exist without philosophy, and even the experiments underway in the Large Hadron Collider owe homage to Aristotle, Bacon and Kuhn.

The history of the philosophy of science, certainly in the Western world, begins with the philosophers of Ancient Greece.

Whilst many other philosophers contributed to the very beginning of the scientific process, the genesis of science began with the contrast between Platonism and Aristotleism.

Plato (428/427 BC[a] – 348/347 BC) had the archetypal Greek belief, that humanity was born with an innate knowledge of everything, and that learning was a process of unlocking the memories.

His argument was that everything had a perfect potential abstract form, and that any knowledge gained through observation and experiment was filtered by the senses. Empirical knowledge, according to Plato, was mere opinion. Therefore, he reasoned, that pure knowledge could be advanced by deduction alone.

Aristotle (384 – 322 BCE), by contrast, believed that Plato had everything the wrong way around, and that knowledge could only be gained by comparing it with what was already known and perceived.

For example, Plato’s famous idealized Republic required a perfect Philosopher King to rule it, with wisdom and benevolence. He argued that because such a perfect human being could exist, therefore such a king would be possible to find.

Aristotle countered this concept by stating that because he had never seen or heard of such a human in recorded history, then it was an impossible concept. He believed that inductive reasoning was required to establish some basic premises before scientific demonstrations.

Between the two schools of thought, the idea of deductive reasoning emerged, which has remained a cornerstone of the scientific method. This idea remained a common theme throughout the history of the philosophy of science.

Reasoning Cycle - Scientific Research

Aristotle used the term ‘first principles’ to illustrate his belief that gathering knowledge was a process of gaining experience, building upon what is already known to be true.

Even in the modern world, each scientific field has its own unique first principles upon which research is built, postulates that cannot be deduced and act as a foundation. Aristotle still used deduction for building up his view of the universe, believing that every phenomenon could be explained through reason, as long as the first principles were sound.

The split is why Aristotle is referred to as the Father of Science and Plato as the Father of Philosophy, with Aristotle credited as the initiator of the scientific method.

Throughout the history of the philosophy of science has, science has built slowly knowledge upon what is already known, measuring phenomena and trying to uncover the rules governing them. In this way, humanity undergoes a gradual accumulation of knowledge.

Aristotle believed in observational science, and performed many measurements and observations, including describing the hydrological cycle and undertaking taxonomic work, separating many animals into families according to shared characteristics.

This is not to say that Plato has no place in science; for example, physicists generating beautiful and elegant mathematical theories to explain the cosmos are far closer to Plato than Aristotle. They generate theories and empirical scientists follow behind, attempting to prove or disprove them.

The Romans were the next to take the burgeoning science, developing the scientific method of the Greeks.

The Romans, as their architecture and engineering shows, were far more interested in the empirical applied side of science, using mathematics and practical knowledge to create some great technological advances. They did not, however, have too much of a contribution to the philosophical side, simply building upon the methods used by Aristotle and Ptolemy.

Their contribution to practical science was immense, but they had a minimal effect upon the history of the philosophy of science, leaving the field largely devoid of momentum for hundreds of years.

The Islamic world took up the baton and preserved the philosophical knowledge of the Ancient Greek philosophers, adding to it techniques and philosophies learned from the Vedics in India.

Whilst there were many Islamic scholars generating and developing ideas, there were a few whose names became enshrined within the history of the philosophy of science.

The great scientist and polymath, Ibn-Sina (980 – 1037), also known as Avicenna, built upon the scientific processes postulated by Aristotle, but was one of the first philosophers to bring the metaphysical issue of God into the picture. He believed that general and universal questions were the first stage, and experiments uncovered the truth.

Ibn al-Haytham is commonly regarded as the first scholar to define the modern scientific method, laying down the steps of the scientific process and attempting to unite the induction of predictions and generalizations with the deduction of experiments.

He also pointed out that scientists should not regard themselves as infallible, and that they should be open to criticism.

The other great contributor to the history of the philosophy of science during the Islamic Golden Age was Al-Biruni, who was the first philosopher to understand the importance of errors within scientific experimentation. He understood that any experiment would contain small and random fluctuations, and that repeated experimentation was the only way to neutralize these inaccuracies.

As the Islamic ‘Houses of Learning’ became less influential, and the Muslim stronghold of Al-Andalus, in Spain, declined, much of this knowledge was taken to Europe, where it formed the basis of the first Renaissance.

Here, during a time of great philosophical and theological discovery, the collaboration of science and religion continued, in an attempt to understand the nature of reality.

Roger Grosseteste and Roger Bacon, in the 13th century, further refined the scientific method, but the history of the philosophy of science began to take shape with the meticulous and innovative work of Francis Bacon.

In 1620, the great philosopher Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626) made great leaps in determining the course of modern science by making a great leap in the process of scientific reasoning and method.

He believed that Aristotle’s work, whilst broadly true, needed to be adapted to fit the reality of science, and he set out a new philosophy and scientific method to address the issues.

His main criticism of Aristotle was that deduction from first principles was impossible in reality – the Greeks had a belief in the perfection of the cosmos, and so deduction could find answers to fit their view of the universe.

In the many centuries since, the view of the world had changed, and Bacon believed that the universe was much too complicated to explain by deduction alone. He redesigned the scientific method to utilize a largely induction based philosophy, where a series of observations could be applied to the universe as a whole.

Bacon was the first philosopher in the history of the philosophy of science to realize that pure Aristotelian methods taught scientists nothing about the universe, finding answers for observed phenomena, but lacking the great leaps made by Platonist thought.

He realized that whilst deduction allowed the application of a general rule to a particular and specific circumstance, induction was needed to allow observations of small or specific circumstances to a larger population, or the wider universe.

Cleverly, he also stated that induction did need to be used with caution, and that to try to explain the universe by inductive reasoning alone was inherently dangerous.

Francis Bacon believed that pure empiricists gathered important information, but had little idea how to use their knowledge or advance science. There was no goal or ultimate aim to the patient gathering of data.

Rationalists, on the other hand, made great leaps and generated ideas but, without careful measurement, there was no method for determining which were correct, or how accurate any theory was. This process is still apparent in modern science.

Theoretical physicists like Einstein, Hawking and Feynman generate beautiful mathematical formulas and models to explain the unknown areas of quantum physics and cosmology. However, they understand that actual experimental and empirical evidence always takes precedence, potentially leading to the adjustment or abandonment of one of these theories, if proved incorrect.

The other major addition to the scientific method made by Bacon, possibly his biggest contribution to the history of the philosophy of science, was the idea of experimental science, the basis of induction. He believed research could be used to test the validity of real world observations, with inductive postulations made to generalize the findings to the population as a whole.

He also developed the practice that he called the Instance of the Fingerpost,’ where he proposed that an experiment should be designed around two discrete hypotheses; the researcher should aim to find in favor of one and refute the other.

Whilst there was no split between science and philosophy during this Early Modern period, Bacon laid the foundation stone for the divergence of the two disciplines. As a side effect, his work also planted the seed of the first divisions between science and theology, a shift in the focus of the history of the philosophy of science.

Previously, science was very much seen as attempting to explain the perfection of creation, with God as the initial first principle, but science began to shift towards different principles.

Descartes (1596 – 1650) famously attempted to explain the cosmos and epistemology by deduction from Aristotelian first principles, based around the divine, but, at the end of his life, even he realized that the cosmos was simply too complex to be derived from first principles alone.

Galileo (1564 – 1642), whilst most famous as a scientist, was also a highly respected philosopher. He took the Baconian views of science to another level, further emphasizing the need for both empiricism and rationalist thinking.

Whilst he was a great proponent of carefully designed experiments, he believed that, in physics especially, mathematics and geometry were essential to idealize concepts. This was the first example of using modeling as a foundation of the scientific method.

Deduction, as shown by Bacon and later admitted by Descartes, could not explain the complexities of the universe, and so a simplified and idealized model would give the scientist another tool of discovery.

Empiricists argued that his idealized concepts could not be adapted to the real universe, but the idea of mixing mathematical theory with empirical ‘proof’ was set.

The 18th century history of the philosophy of science began to see the first real development in a specific scientific method that would distinguish it from non-sciences.

It is difficult, even now, to give a definition of science, and it is perhaps more fruitful to define what it is not, a process started by the philosopher Christian Huygens (1629 - 1695). He argued that science and mathematics were actually different fields, and could not be treated the same way.

The distinction he made between the two was the idea of proof. He stated that mathematics and geometry could prove something beyond doubt, whereas science can never prove something emphatically; merely give a probability that a certain finding is true.

Huygens was the first proponent of the hypothetico-deductive method, where a scientist proposes a hypothesis and then tries to deduce the probability that it is correct, through observational and empirical observation.

This built upon the work of Bacon, but also developed the idea that scientists could approach the truth by constantly refining experiments and increasing the probability of their hypothesis being correct. This period saw the first divergence of the history of the philosophy of science from metaphysical philosophy.

At this time, Newton also entered the fray, initially possessing a divergent view from Huygens, possibly because of his differing viewpoint as a mathematician. He did not advocate hypotheses, believing that any research using a hypothesis could not be scientific.

Newton argued that any scientific undertaking should begin with analysis, where a scholar performed observations and experiments and then made conclusions depending upon he results.

His viewpoint was christened synthesis, where these inductive conclusions should be applied to the universe as a whole, to build up a model of the universe.

Newton was also an example of a scientist/philosopher who believed that the almighty was behind every process in the universe, and that it was too complex to be explained by physics alone. He saw his works as uncovering the laws of the universe behind creation.

Huygens and Newton did both agree that science could not give definite answers, only a probability that something was correct, because humanity could not possibly understand or comprehend the complexities lying behind the universe.

The other main contributor of this period, to the history of the philosophy of science, was David Hume (1711–1776), who first highlighted the problem of induction, in that any inductively derived ‘proof’ could be undone by a single contrary observation.

This idea was elaborated upon by the Twentieth century philosopher Hempel, in his Raven Paradox.

During the nineteenth century, the history of the philosophy of science took on a form recognizable to modern science, and the debate took a new turn.

Philosophers were now satisfied that science needed to be largely empirical, albeit with a deductive aspect for generating new ideas and theories.

The debate now addressed the link between science and theology, with the growing schism started during the Galileo debate beginning to widen.

The Catholic Church felt that science was undermining the teachings of religious scripture, and philosophers began to address this issue.

John Herschel (1792 – 1871) published a groundbreaking book, A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, in 1830, which addressed this very issue, and attempted to breach the growing divide, possibly realizing the damage that this widening rift could cause.

Herschel argued that science was not questioning religious beliefs, such as the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. He stated that rather than attempting to doubt the existence of God, science should be used as a tool to undermine the burgeoning trend of atheism.

Herschel’s other contribution to the history of the philosophy of science was his refinement of the structure of the scientific process, building upon the earlier work of Bacon and Huygens. Herschel believed that science should use inductive processes to arrive at laws, in tandem with forming a hypothesis and attempting to test it through rigorous and repeated experimentation.

Comparing the results with known facts strengthened the foundations of the hypothetico deductive method. He also made the first attempt to address the fact that it was becoming increasingly difficult to speak of science as a united body, with science starting to separate into many different fields and disciplines.

For some areas, such as physics, it was possible to combine induction and the hypothetico-deductive methods, but for many types of experimentation, this was not always possible.

The next great contributor of this period to the history of the philosophy of science is Whewell (1794 – 1866), a philosopher who attempted to update the philosophy of Bacon.

Importantly, he believed that scientific philosophers needed to not only try to develop philosophical ideas, but that they should look back at how science had developed.

He postulated that philosophers needed to take a historical view, looking at the processes that scientists already used rather than merely attempting to tell them what they should do. With the increasing preponderance of scientists who were not necessarily philosophers, this became an increasingly important development in modern science.

Whewell believed that the inductive processes could lead to absolute proof and that science could generate unbreakable truth. Whilst this view is not used by modern scientists, who understand that scientists can only work with probabilities, it is important to remember that most of these philosophers and scientists believed firmly in God. The history of the philosophy of science shows that most philosophers also believed in God, and that the laws of the universe had some perfection that empiricism and rationalism could uncover.

The British philosopher, John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873), vehemently disagreed with Whewell, believing that science could not use induction to arrive at absolute truth. He stipulated that however many times a hypothesis was found to be proved by the empirical evidence, this could not guarantee that this would always be the case and so science could only ever be possibility, as believed by Herschel and Newton.

The other great contribution to the history of the philosophy of science made by Mill is the Laws of Agreement, also known as Mill’s Methods, used to determine a causal effect in any relationship, by a process of elimination.

This period of the history of the philosophy of science is where the subject became almost completely disentangled from theology.

Napoleon’s secular ideals caused a separation and, instead of trying to reconcile science with religion, philosophers concentrated upon refining the basic underlying tenets of science.

Victorian philosophers attempted to discern what constitutes science, and set down the protocols of the scientific method.

Science, inspired by Darwin and J.J. Thomson began to unveil new discoveries at a breakneck pace, burgeoned by the second industrial revolution. This period also saw the first real division between the philosophies governing the various fields of science.

For example, physicists required a completely different approach to naturalists.

Pierre Duhem, 1861–1916, was the first philosopher to divide physics from the other fields, arguing that it was a very different beast from the other sciences. Physics, more than any other field, relies heavily upon theory and maths, and so needs different structures than the previously accepted Baconian and Newtonian view of things.

He advocated holism, believing that the universe cannot be divided into discrete and individual hypotheses, because it is interlinked and intertwined, needing this united view. His contribution to the history of the philosophy of science was mainly in the field of physics, but his ideas had some wider appeal.

Duhem was a devout Catholic, and attempted to make a distinction between science and religion, arguing that the two fields could not answer the same questions. He strongly believed that physics was only able to systematically uncover structures and processes, without questioning the very nature of reality.

Metaphysical questions were only answerable by metaphysics and theology. He did stipulate, however, that a good theologian should understand the physical aspects to be able to enquire into the metaphysical structure of the universe.

This statement was a clear attempt to show the church that science was essential and did not harm Christianity. He also produced histories documenting his firm belief that the Church had been the driving force behind science.

The great scientist, philosopher and mathematician, Poincare (1854–1912), began the twentieth century history of the philosophy of science. He questioned the very nature of scientific hypotheses, arguing that there were many different types.

Poincare also brought the idea of ‘convention’ to the history of the philosophy of science, believing that scientists often used the most convenient methods to describe the universe. He used the example of geometry, where Euclidian geometry was used to describe space, even though it was not the only correct method.

Poincare also argued that there were many types of hypothesis, some fulfilling the scientific ideal of empiricism, testing and generalization, whereas others were incorporated into the building blocks of scientific theory and were always the last to be abandoned. His famous ‘indifferent hypotheses’ possessed an auxiliary role in building theories, but were not vastly important. He used the example of the hypothesis that unseen atoms exist.

Whilst each discipline had its own burgeoning underlying philosophy, there was still a consensus upon the basic structures and forms defining the entire nature of science, whilst laying out protocols for the scientific method.

One of the biggest names in the history of the philosophy of science, Karl Popper (1902 – 1994) tried to delineate the boundary between science and non-science, arguing that metaphysics was non-observational, and therefore could not be science.

He championed the idea of falsification, where a hypothesis must be potentially disprovable for it to be regarded as scientific. He believed that theological, epistemological and metaphysical questions were not falsifiable, and therefore not scientific. Popper firmly believed that such concepts should not be given credence by science.

One of the major problems with Popper’s analysis is that he tries to impose a strict boundary upon a grey and fuzzy delineation.

Many fields, such as social science, anthropology and even psychology are not sciences according to his strict definition. These fields rely upon case studies, which, by definition, are non-falsifiable.

Popper believed that how the hypothesis was derived was an unimportant part of the scientific method. He believed that the only important issue was that the hypothesis was testable and falsifiable. He felt that instead of attempting to prove theories, scientists should instead try to falsify them, a belief still held by many scientists and fields.

The idea of falsifiability earned Popper a place amongst the great philosophers apparent throughout the history of the philosophy of science.

The main criticism of Popper’s idea was that he did not actually look at the reality of how scientists worked, and that the actual scientific processes did concentrate upon obtaining proof rather than rejection.

Scientists rarely abandon their theory if it is falsified, usually clinging to it and modifying it. One of Popper’s students, Lakatos, attempted to resurrect the idea by stratifying the idea. He postulated that there was a ‘hardcore’ scientific theory that was taken as given, and needed no falsification.

A hierarchy of strata provided a layer of protection to the central theory – these hypotheses could fail and be rejected, but not the hardcore itself.

Only when the entire research program shuddered to a halt and it failed to corroborate predictions would the hardcore be abandoned, in a similar way to Kuhn’s idea of paradigms and paradigm shifts.

Hempel (1905 – 1997) was one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century history of the philosophy of science, known especially for his criticism of the inductive method, known as the Raven Paradox.

He built upon the work of Hume, and realized that any scientific finding relying upon induction could only give a probability of an answer being correct, not a black or white yes or no. He reaffirmed the belief that science required a strong hypothesis predicting certain results, derived at through observation, and testing measured results against the predictions.

The 1960’s saw a complete change in view, with the publication of Thomas Kuhn’s work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in 1962. This work is commonly regarded as the most influential text in the history of the philosophy of science.

This blew away the logical positivism and concerns about the scientific method, with Kuhn feeling that the philosophy of science had become bogged down in the minutiae.

Once again, he brought up the idea that the philosophy of science had to look at the history and evolution of science. He did not subscribe to the Aristotelian notion of science as cumulative; instead, Kuhn’s greatest contribution to the philosophy of science was the idea of paradigms and paradigm shifts.

Feyerabend (1924 – 1994) believed that the scientific method was an artificial construct, and restricted the free thought of ideas.

He suggested that very few scientists actually followed any such method, and took a very open view of science, implying that there can never be a strict definition of what constitutes science.

This definition may have some credibility, because it is not always apparent what disciplines constitute science. For example, fields such as social science, economics, archaeology and even psychology fall somewhere in-between science and non - science.

Feyerabend was a student of Popper, but believed in ‘Scientific anarchy,’ a principle of anything goes, and that scientists would develop a good method that would work for their particular research field.

His landmark book, Against Method, in 1978, coined the phrase epistemological anarchy. Despite sharing completely different philosophies, Feyerabend and Lakatos were great friends, and both had an effect upon the history of the philosophy of science.

Lakatos’ idea is often regarded as an ideal, whereas Feyerabend’s theory is possibly closer to how scientists actually work, in a type of organized chaos.

The modern scientific method is built upon the work of all of these great philosophers. Whilst a scientist may believe that they are following the methods of Kuhn or Popper, there is also a tribute to Aristotle, Avicenna or Bacon in their work.

Ironically, many scientists have not heard of any of these philosophers and blindly use the scientific method, without realizing how it grew and developed.

In terms of the direction of the philosophy of science, the most recent philosophers concentrate upon trying to define the very nature of science, as boundaries between the various fields blur and the amount of poorly constructed pseudoscience and junk science grows exponentially.

The history of the philosophy of science is added to daily, and the next revolution in scientific thought may be just around the corner.