Tuesday, 20 December 2011

Educating Muslim Girls: A Comparison of Five Cities

By Zoya Hasan, & Ritu Menon, 
(This book was published in New Delhi at  Kali Unlimited, 2005,
pp.186, ISBN: 81-88965-16-2. Reviewed by: Yoginder Sikand)

Muslim girls are among the least educated sections of Indian society. Yet, very little literature is available on the education of Muslim girls, indicating a certain indifference on the part of community leaders, the agencies of the state and non-governmental organizations to their concerns, which makes this study a welcome addition to the limited corpus of writings on the subject.

Based on findings of a survey conducted jointly by the authors and backed by official statistics, the book highlights the dismal state of Muslim female education as well as the efforts being made by several Muslim social activists in different parts of India to address the issue. The authors claim that over 75% of Muslim women in India are illiterate, literacy being officially defined rather generously to include just about anyone who can read and write a sentence or two. The situation in the northern states, especially in rural areas, is said to be particularly dismal. 85% of rural north Indian Muslim women are unable to read or write. On the other hand, the situation in the south, especially in urban areas, was found to be considerably better, with 88% urban south Indian woman said to be literate.

In India as a whole, the authors reveal, Muslim girls’ school enrolment rates continue to be low: 40.6%, as compared to 63.2% in the case of ‘upper’ caste Hindus. In rural north India it is only 13.5%, in urban north India 23.1%, and in rural and urban south India, above 70%, which is above the all-India average for all girls. Only 16.1% of Muslim girls from poor families attend schools, while 70% of Muslim girls from economically better-off families do so, thus clearly suggesting that low levels of education of Muslim girls owe not to religion but to poverty. Less than 17% of Muslim girls finish eight years of schooling and less than 10% complete higher secondary education. In the north the corresponding figures are 4.5% and 4.75% respectively, compared to the national female average of 17.8% and 11.4%. Only 1.5% rural Muslims, both boys and girls, and 4.8% urban Muslim children are enrolled in senior secondary schools. The average number of years that Muslim girls study is a dismal 2.7 years, as compared to 3.8 years in the case of Hindu girls. The number of years that a Muslim girl studies in north India is half that of her south Indian counterpart In other words, on the whole, Muslim girls are characterized by a low enrolment rate and a very high drop-out rate from the formal schooling system.

The study then moves on to examine the condition of Muslim women’s education in five cities in India: Delhi, Aligarh, Hyderabad, Kolkata and Calicut. It highlights the efforts of valiant Muslim women, many of them from poor families, in promoting girls’ education in their own localities by setting up small schools or launching educational awareness drives. Through a series of interviews with these activists, the study points to the numerous hurdles that these women face in their struggle to educate their sisters. These include the indifference of the state to the conditions of Muslim women, reflected in dismal budgetary allocation for their education; widespread poverty in the community; opposition to co-education after a certain level; shortage of girls’ schools and women teachers; and early marriages. The authors also speak about a growing enthusiasm among many Muslims for educating their daughters, although, they argue this is hindered by an anxiety to preserve their cultural identity in the face of the Hindutva onslaught and what the authors term as a ‘widely-shared lack of confidence in being employed by the government’ (p.17) (presumably, a euphemism for ‘discrimination’). While this argument is valid, the authors do not deal with the very contentious issue of the general Hindu ethos of the government school system in large parts of India, the marked Hinduisation of the state school curriculum as well as the negative references to Islam and Muslim personages that abound in many state-approved text-books, which are crucial factors in accounting for the reluctance of many Muslim families to send their girls to school. Likewise, in accounting for the low levels of school enrolment of Muslim girls the authors ignore the influence of the traditionalist ‘ulama, many of whom frown on girls’ secular education, especially higher education, claiming that it would lead them ‘astray’. Further, while the authors’ claim that Muslim educational backwardness does not owe to religion as such is tenable, since the Qur’an itself stresses its importance, it does not interrogate the role of the traditionalist ‘ulama in seeking to limit ‘Islamically’-valid education for girls simply to religious education narrowly defined.

The study shows significant regional similarities as well as difference on the issue of Muslim girls’ education. In Kolkata, where Muslims account for more than 15% of the population, the study found that Muslims lag far behind other communities in terms of education. Although Muslims form 22% of the West Bengal’s population, 64% of them are illiterate, the figure being far more dismal in the rural areas, owing principally to widespread poverty as well as neglect by the state. According to the study, West Bengal has the  dubious distinction of having the lowest proportion of Muslim girls studying at the middle and matriculation levels in both rural and urban areas and the highest disparity between Hindus and Muslims in terms of education. The state, despite being ruled by a party that claims to be ‘Marxist’, has done little for Muslim education, although the Muslims rank among the most economically deprived communities in the state. A good indication of this, the authors say,  is that in 2004 the state spent only 1.84% of its allocation for implementing the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan programme meant ostensibly for the universalisation of education in the state. Teachers in government schools in the state are often involved in politics and the average number of days that they work a year is a mere 90. The report quotes a former West Bengal minister as saying that the government is insincere in its profession of its commitment to primary education for all. ‘The party in power’, he is quoted as saying, ‘plays a negative role in the education sector as illiteracy gives them an assured vote-bank. Literacy may lead people to switch their loyalties’.

In Delhi, the authors note a growing enthusiasm for modern education among many Muslim families, although this is generally thwarted by widespread poverty and the fear that well-educated girls might find it difficult to find suitable husbands because of the relative paucity of well-educated Muslim men. Another hurdle is the desperate shortage of Urdu schools, which many parents would prefer to send their girls to. There are only 15 Urdu-medium government primary schools in the city, and when students pass out from these schools they are faced with either being forced to enroll in Hindi-medium secondary schools or drop-out from the formal schooling system. The Delhi Government has not appointed a single Urdu teacher in over a decade, indicating its lack of interest in promoting Muslim education. There is only one government Urdu-medium primary school in New Delhi, although a large number of Muslims live in this part of the state as well. On the whole, Urdu schools in the state  suffer from shortage of funds, trained teachers, textbooks and inadequate infrastructure, all of which make the task of promoting Muslim girls’ education doubly difficult.

In Hyderabad, where Muslims form almost 40% of the population, the study found that 84% of Muslim women are illiterate. However, a growing number of girls from economically better-off families are now enrolling in English-medium schools and in colleges. Girls’ education has witnessed a considerable degree of progress in recent years due to economic prosperity among some Muslim families because of remittances from relatives working in the Gulf, reservation for girls and  for Muslims in professional colleges and government jobs, state aid to Urdu schools, and recognition of Urdu as the second official language of the state of Andhra Pradesh. A similar enthusiasm among some Muslims for girls’ education is noted by the author in Calicut and Aligarh, although, for the same economic and social reasons mentioned above, Muslim girls’ continue to be characterized by a high drop-out rate from schools. In addition, the book reveals that in recent years a number of Muslim-managed girls’ schools have been set up that impart both modern as well as religious education, which make them more culturally relevant and acceptable to many Muslim families.

The authors conclude by stressing the need for Muslim community leaders as well as the state to take the issue of  educating Muslim girls with the seriousness that it deserves. Given the poor condition of Muslim women’s education, there is a special need, they rightly argue, for the state to take a pro-active role in this regard in order to promote social justice and the empowerment of Muslim women and to remove the barriers that systematically reinforce their marginalization.

The major contribution of the book is the detailed statistics it provides that highlight the levels of Muslim women’s education in different states and in India as a whole, as well as its analysis of the various factors that impede Muslim girls’ education. Although the interviews of Muslim women working to promote girls’ education in the five cities that this study looks at provide interesting information, they appear rather superficial and lack the necessary depth  and rigor, giving the book the appearance of being done in a tearing hurry. In addition, some of the claims that the authors make are untenable. For instance, they claim that 98% of Muslim girls study in government of private schools and only 2% in madrasas, the majority being from poor families. No reference is provided for this claim, which appears factually incorrect. The authors do not define what they mean by the term ‘madrasas’, and appear to conflate maktabs or mosque-schools and madrasas, institutions for  higher Islamic learning. Other studies have indicated a relatively high proportion of girls, from poor and lower-middle class families, who study in maktabs, after which they often do not carry on with any sort of formal education. In many places, girls outnumber boys in the maktabs. Clearly, the figure of 2% that the authors provide is a gross under-estimate. Further, the authors do not refer to the phenomenon of girls’ madrasas that are intended to train girls as religious specialists (‘alimas and fazilas), some of which also provide a modicum of ‘modern’ education as well. Although the number of such madrasas is still small, they are a growing phenomenon, popular not just among the poor but also among some lower-middle class Muslim families, being seen as providing a more culturally relevant and appropriate form of education than do government schools. Yet, the authors seem to labour under the impression that ‘education’ is simply ‘modern’ education, which explains why no t a single of the people interviewed in this book is a madrasa or maktab teacher. This impression is also reflected in the authors’ statement that appears in the very first page of the book: ‘The emergence and spread of women’s education in India in the pre-independence period is the legacy of British colonialism and nineteenth century reform movements among Hindus and Muslims, which were primarily a response to the Westernisation implicit in the colonial process’ (p.1). By thus equating ‘education’ with ‘modern’ or Western-style education, the authors completely ignore the long history of Muslim women’s education in pre-British times. Likewise, ‘ulama voices are totally ignored in the book, further strengthening the view that what the authors consider as education has little for traditional Islamic learning.

Equally untenable is the author’s naïve claim that Hyderabad’s Old City, where most of the city’s Muslims live, is thriving and prosperous (‘Indeed, a visit to the Old City was an eye-opener because it bore no evidence of pervasive poverty; if we had not been told we would not have known we were in the heart of the Old City’, the authors claim [p.105], although, three pages later, they speak of the fact that Muslims in Hyderabad ‘are among the poorest’). So, too, is their argument that West Bengal has the ‘lowest number’ of government schools in the country (p.53). Readers are presented with yet another unsolvable riddle in the authors’ claim that the government of West Bengal has neglected Muslim education while they argue the fact that 27.7% Muslim children in the state attend government schools in contrast to 18.6% in the case of the Hindus suggests the large availability of such schools in Muslim-dominated areas! Equally distressing are the numerous spelling errors: Qoran, instead of Qur’an, salal-e salaam instead of salallaho aleihi wasallam (a phrase generally used after taking the name of the Prophet to beseech God’s blessings on him) and upper caste, instead of ‘upper’ caste or so-called upper caste. All this, however, should not detract from the obvious merits of what is undoubtedly a valuable and insightful book.

Was Jesus - 'Isaa (a.s.) raised "Dead" or "Alive" ?


·  Reading Quran and reflecting over the Noble Quran fulfils an Islamic duty.
·  learn holy quran will be a proof for us on the Day of Judgment.
·  The Noble koran online will intercede for us on the Day of Judgment.
·  Your status in this life will be raised.
·  You will be from the best of the people.
·  There are ten rewards for each letter you recite from the Noble Qur'an.
·  The reciters of the Noble Qur'an will be in the company of the noble and obedient angels.
·  Your position in Paradise is determined by the amount of Noble Qur'an you memorize in this life!
·  The Noble Qur'an will lead you to Paradise!

Recently I  have received serious queries concerning 'Isaa (a.s.)'s final days. Here are the verses of the Qur'an on this important subject.

TWO IDENTICAL BLESSINGS FOR  TWO PROPHETS IN SURA MARYAM (19):

Verse Number 15 of Sura 19:
Translation by Yusuf Ali: 
So Peace on him the day he was born the day that he dies and the day that he will be raised up to life (again)! 
Translation by M. Asad: 
Hence, [God's} peace was upon him on the day when he was born, and on the day of his death, and will be [upon him] on the day when he shall be raised to life [again] 
Transliteration: 
Was salaamun 'alayhi yawma wulida wa yawma yamuutu wa yawma yub-'asu hayyaa!

Verse Number 33 of Sura 19:
Translation by Yusuf Ali: 
"So Peace is on me the day I was born the day that I die and the Day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"! 
Translation by M. Asad: 
"Hence, peace was upon me on the day when I was born, and [will be upon me] on the day of my death, and on the day when I shall be raised to life;! [again]" 
Transliteration: 
Was salaamun 'alayya yawma wulittu wa yawma yamuutu wa yawma yub-'asu hayyaa!

Important Notes:

1.  The verse number 15 was Revealed in connection with Prophet Yahya (a.s.) who is also known as John. 

2.  The verse number 33 was Revealed in connection with Prophet 'Isaa (a.s.) who is also known as Jesus. 

3.  Please note the ORDER OF THE SEQUENCES OF THE EVENTS that  are mentioned in BOTH OF THESE VERSES.    They are identical:
   (a)   The Days of the BIRTHS of these two Prophets. 
   (b)   The Days of the DEATHS of these two Prophets. 
   (c)   The Days of the RAISING TO LIFE AGAIN of these two Prophets. 

If one was to believe that Prophet 'Isaa (a.s.) i.e. Jesus Christ has been  RAISED UP ALIVE with his Physical BODY and he has yet to DIE the Physical DEATH at some future date, then that person has changed the  ORDER OF THE REVEALED SEQUENCES OF EVENTS in verse 33 as well as the person has changed the intended meaning of this Revelation. 

The following Verse 10: 15 clearly tells us that even the Prophet (s.a.s.) could not CHANGE THE TEXT that was once Revealed by Allah (swt). 
Translation by Yusuf Ali: 
But when Our Clear Signs are rehearsed unto them those who rest not their hope on their meeting with Us say: "Bring us a Reading other than this or change this." Say: "It is not for me of my own accord to change it: I follow naught but what is revealed unto me: if I were to disobey my Lord I should myself fear the Penalty of a Great Day (to come)."

VERSES WHEREIN THE WORD  "rafa'a " IS MENTIONED:

Two translations of VERSE No. 4: 158
Transliteration: 
Bar rafa'a -hu'allaahu 'ilayh; wa- kaan'allaahu 'Aziizan Hakiimaa; 
a) Translation by Yusuf Ali: 
Nay Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power Wise. 4: 158
Commentary number 664 by Yusuf Ali to the above verse, as it appears in the original NON REVISED 1977 edition: 
There is difference of opinion as to the exact interpretation of this verse. The words are: The Jews did not kill Jesus, but God raised him up (rafa'u) to Himself. One school holds that  Jesus did not die the usual human death, but still lives in the body in heaven; another holds that he did die (v. 120) but not when he was supposed to have to be crucified, and that his being "raised up" unto God means that instead of being disgraced as a malefactor, as the Jews intended, he was on the contrary honoured by God as His Apostle; see also next verse. The same word rafa'a is used in association with honour in connection with Mustafa in xciv. 4.

Here is the transliteration and the translated text of verse 94: 4: 
Wa rafa' naa laka dhikrak?
And raised high the esteem (in which) thou (art held)? 

b) Translation by M. Asad: 
Nay, God exalted him unto Himself - and God is indeed almighty, wise. 4: 158

Commentary Number 172 by M. Asad to the above verse reads: 
Cf. 3:55, where God says to Jesus, "Verily, I shall cause thee to die, and shall exalt thee to Me." The verb rafa'ahu (lit., "he raised him" or "elevated him") has always, whenever the act of raf' ("elevating") of  human being is attributed to God, the meaning of "honouring" or "exalting". Nowhere in the Qur’an is there any warrant  for the popular belief that God has "taken up" Jesus bodily, in his lifetime, into heaven. The expression "God exalted him unto Himself" in the above verse denotes the elevation of Jesus to the realm of God's special grace - a blessing in which all prophets partake, as it is evident from 19:57, where the verbrafa'nahu ("We exalted him") is used with regard to the Prophet Idris, (See also Muhammad Abduh in Manar III, 316 f., and VI, 20f.) The "nay" (bal) at the beginning of the sentence is meant to stress the contrast between belief of the Jesus that they had put Jesus to a shameful death on the cross and the fact of God's having "exalted him unto Himself."

Here is the text of verse 19: 57 for comparison:
And We raised him to a lofty station.
VERSE 3: 55: (wherein the word "rafa'a" is mentioned)
a) Translation by Yusuf Ali: 
Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject Faith to the Day of Resurrection.... 

b) Translation by M. Asad: 
Lo! God said: "O Jesus! Verily, I shall cause thee to die, and shall exalt thee unto Me, and cleanse thee of [the presence of] those who are bent on denying the truth; and I shall place those who follow thee [far] above those who are bent on denying the truth, unto the Day of Resurrection..... 

Transliteration: 'Idh qaala 'allaahu yaa 'Isaa 'innii muta-waffika wa raafi 'uka 'ilayya wa mutahhi -ruka minalladhiina kafaruu wa jaa-'ilulladhii-nattaba 'uuka faw-qalladhiina kafaruu 'ilaa Yawmil Qiyaamah...


VERSE No. 2: 253 (wherein the word "rafa'a" is mentioned)
a) Translation by Yusuf Ali: 
Those apostles We endowed with gifts some above others: to one of them Allah spoke; others He raised to degrees (of honor)...
b) Translation by M. Asad: 
Some of these apostles have We endowed more highly than others, among them were such as were spoken to by God [Himself], and some He has raised yet higher...

Transliteration: 
Tilka ar- rusulu faz.zalnaa ba'zahum 'alaa ba'z. Min -hum man kallama 'allaahu wa- rafa'a ba' zahum darajaat...

Verses 2: 63, 2: 93 and 4: 154

In these verses the word Rafa'naa is used in connection with  the Mountain of Sinai (Tur-u-Sinin or Jabal Musa) in Arabia.

Did Allah (SWT) literally "LIFT" or raise the Mountain of Sinai high above the heads of Jews as a witness of their Pledge (Covenant) or "RAISED IN HONOUR" the Status of this lofty Mountain? The Israelites were enjoying a special Status of being called the "Chosen People" (chosen to receive and spread the Message of Allah to mankind), during and prior to the days of Musa (a.s.). When Allah gave the 'Ten Commandments' and the 'Law' to His Messenger and took the solemn Covenant from the Israelites that were encamped at the foot of this prominent mountain which is located in the Arabian desert, He raised the Status of Mountain (at-tur) higher than that of the defiant Jews and said: "Hold firmly to what We have given you (at at-tur) and bring to remembrance what is therein so that you might fear Allah" 2: 63     


VERSE No. 43: 61: 
(two distinctly separate renderings - the major cause of confusion)
a) Translation by Yusuf Ali: 
And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): therefore have no doubt about the (Hour) but follow ye Me: this is a Straight Way.

Commentary number 4662 by Yusuf Ali to the above verse reads:
This is understood to refer to the second coming of Jesus in the Last Days before the Resurrection, when he will destroy the false doctrines that pass under his name, and prepare the way for the universal acceptance of Islam, the Gospel of Unity and Peace, the Straight Way of the Qur'an.

Please Note: The name of JESUS is mentioned by the translator within the brackets  (  ). The name of Jesus does not appear in the original Arabic Text.
The term DAJJAL is also not to be found in the Glorious Qur'an nor the supposed Battle between him and Jesus. Translator Abdullah Yusuf Ali was a Musta'aliyan Shiah.
b) Translation by M. Asad: 
AND, BEHOLD, this [divine writ] is indeed a means to know [that] the Last Hour [is bound to come]; (41) hence, have no doubt whatever about it, but follow Me: this [alone] is a straight way. 

Commentary Number 41 by M. Asad to the above verse reads:
Whereas most of the commentators regard the pronoun hu in innahu as relating to Jesus and, consequently, interpret the above phrase as "he is indeed a means to know [i.e., an indication of the coming of] the Last Hour", some authorities - e.g., Qatadah, Al-Hasan Al-Basri and Said ibn Jubayr (all of them quoted by Tabari, Badhawi and Ibn Kathir) - relate the pronoun to the Quran, and understand the phrase in the sense adopted in my rendering. The specific mention of the Last Hour in the above context is meant to stress man's ultimate responsibility before the Creator and, therefore, the fact that worship is due to Him alone: and so this parenthetic passage follows logically upon the mention of the false deification of Jesus.

Transliteration: 
wa- innahu la- 'ilmul lis-Saa 'ti falaa tamtarunna bihaa wattabi 'uun haadhaa Siraatum Mustaqiim
Note:  A careful study of the above quoted verses as well as the next verse indicates that Jesus Christ was not raised ALIVE with his Physical Body. 
Allah (SWT) Exalted Jesus Christ and thus cleared him of the falsehoods.

Was Jesus Nailed to the Cross, but he did not Die on the Cross?

Please read carefully the Two translations and the 
Two commentaries to  Verse number 4: 157:
a) Translation by Yusuf Ali: 
That they said (in boast) "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the Apostle of Allah"; but they killed him not nor crucified him but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts with no (certain) knowledge but only conjecture to follow for of a surety they killed him not. 663

Commentary Number 663 by Yusuf Ali reads: 
The end of the life of Jesus on earth is as much involved in mystery as his birth, and indeed the greater part of his private life, except the three main years of his ministry. It is not profitable to discuss the many doubts and conjectures among the early Christian sects and among Muslim theologians. The Orthodox Christian Churches make it a cardinal point of their doctrine that his life was taken on the Cross, that he died and was buried, that on the third day he rose in the body with his wounds intact, and walked about and conversed, and ate with his disciples, and was afterwards taken up bodily to heaven. This is necessary for the theological doctrine of blood sacrifice and vicarious atonement for sins, which is rejected by Islam. But some of the early Christian sects did not believe that Christ was killed on the Cross. The Basilidans believed that some one else was substituted for him. The Docetae held that Christ never had a real physical or natural body, but only an apparent or phantom body, and that his Crucifixion was only apparent, not real. The Marcionite Gospel (about A.D. 138) denied that Jesus was born, and merely said that he appeared in human form. The Gospel of St. Barnabas supported the theory of substitution on the Cross. The Quranic teaching is that Christ was not crucified nor killed by the Jews, notwithstanding certain apparent circumstances which produced that illusion in the minds of some of his enemies: that disputations, doubts, and conjectures on such matters are vain; and that he was taken up to Allah (see next verse and note). 

NOTE: Earlier we have examined the verse 4: 158 and its note. 

b) Translation by M. Asad of verse 4:157: 
and in their boast, "Behold, we have slain the Christ Jesus, son of Mary, [who claimed to be] an apostle of God!" However, they did not slay him, and neither did they crucify him, but it only seemed to them [as if it had been] so; 171 and, verily, those who hold conflicting views thereon are indeed confused, having no [real] knowledge thereof, and following mere conjecture. For of a certainty, they did not slay him.

Commentary number 171 by M. Asad reads:
Thus, the Qur'an categorically denies the story of the crucifixion of Jesus. There exist, among Muslims, many fanciful legends telling us that at the last moment God substituted for Jesus a person closely resembling him [according to some accounts that person was Judas], who was subsequently crucified in his place. However, none of these Legends finds the slightest support in the Qur'an or in authentic Traditions, and the stories produced in this connections by the classical commentators must be summarily rejected. They represent no more than confused attempts at "harmonizing" the Quranic statement that Jesus was not crucified with the graphic description, in the Gospels, of his crucifixion. The story of crucifixion as such has been succinctly explained in the Quranic phrase wa-lakin shubbiha lahum, which I render as "but it only appeared to them as if it had been so" - implying that in the course of time, long after the time of Jesus, a legend had somehow grown up [possibly under the then-powerful influence of Mithraistic beliefs] to the effect that he had died on the cross in order to atone for the "original sin" with which mankind is allegedly burdened; and this legend became so firmly established among the latter-day followers of Jesus that even his enemies, the Jews, began to believe it - albeit in a derogatory sense [for crucifixion was, in those times, a heinous form of death penalty reserved for the lowest criminals]. This to my mind, is the only satisfactory explanation of the phrase wa-lakin shubbiha lahum, the more so as the expression shubbiha li, "[a thing] became a fancied image to me", i.e., "in my mind" - in other words, "[it] seemed to me" [see Qamus, art. khayala, as well as Lane II, 833, and IV, 1500].

Transliteration of verse 4: 157: 
Wa- qawlihim 'innaa qatalna al- Masiiha 'Iisaa ibn Maryama Rasuul 'allaah; wa- maa qataluuhu wa- maa salabuuhu wa- laakin shubbiha lahum; wa- 'innal-ladhiina ikhtalafuu fiihi la- fii shakkim minh: maa lahum bihii min 'il-min 'illat-tibaa 'azzann; wa- maa qataluuhu yaqiinaa;
TO CRUCIFY:
If one was to open an English Dictionary one would find that the verb  "crucify" means; "Put to death by fastening (or nailing) to a cross."

According to the "Swoon Theory" advocated by Sheikh Ahmed Deedat and discussed at length under the article The Qur'an does not say; *JESUS WAS SUBSTITUTED* on the CROSS  on this web site, Jesus was nailed on the Cross but due to the short period of him being on the Cross for the reasons explained below, he simply fainted, went into a comma  and did not die on the Cross . 

Jesus was tried by the Roman Governor Pilate on the day of Preparation for the Passover at about noon (see John 19: 14). Thereafter Jesus was taken to the Place of the Skull (Golgotha), carrying his own Cross. Here he was nailed in the late afternoon. The Jews did not want the body of Jesus to be left on the Cross after the Sunset because of the Jewish Sabbath -- a day of great solemnity (see John 19: 31). The fainted Jesus was thus lowered only after a few hours of his nailing. Furthermore the Roman soldiers did not break the legs of Jesus (John 19: 32). Jesus was laid down on a big stone in a new rock tomb which was in the nearby garden. A large stone was placed to cover the big entrance of that rock tomb. A disciple of Jesus named Nicodemus wrapped the nailed and fainted body of Jesus, according to the burial customs of the Jews with linen cloths containing a mixture of myrrh, aloes and spices, weighing nearly hundred pounds (see John 19: 39). Jesus awoke and walked his way out of the tomb and sat in the garden expecting his disciples to show. When Mary Magdalene came to the garden in the early morning she saw the stone had been removed from the tomb (see John 20:1). Awakened Jesus spoke to Mary.

Jesus had fainted on the Cross but did not die. Hence, it is incorrect to say that Jesus was Crucified. Jesus was not "CRUCIFIED" but it only appeared to the people watching the Ceremony of the Crucifixion that he had been. The last line of the above verse, "For of a certainty, they did not slay him." supports this theory. When Jesus met his disciples in private, he showed them is nail marks to prove that he was yet in his original physical body in which he was nailed to the Cross. He was the same person with the same body. Since his enemies - the Jews, were not convinced that Jesus could have died on the Cross within such a short time, he withdrew from his disciples and lived the rest of his life in secret and died the natural death. The disciples, spread the word that they saw Jesus being "carried up into heaven" (Luke 24: 51) by angles.
·  Reading Quran and reflecting over the Noble Quran fulfils an Islamic duty.
·  learn holy quran will be a proof for us on the Day of Judgment.
·  The Noble koran online will intercede for us on the Day of Judgment.
·  Your status in this life will be raised.
·  You will be from the best of the people.
·  There are ten rewards for each letter you recite from the Noble Qur'an.
·  The reciters of the Noble Qur'an will be in the company of the noble and obedient angels.
·  Your position in Paradise is determined by the amount of Noble Qur'an you memorize in this life!
·  The Noble Qur'an will lead you to Paradise!


What is wrong with Islam?

By Kareem El-Dahab
April 16, 2006
    Fidelma O'Leary, an Irish-born Muslim, said she never regretted abandoning her Catholic religion for Islam.  I wasn't born in Islam. I chose Islam, O'Leary said.
    The neuroscientist professor at St. Edward's University gave a testimonial last Friday about her life as a convert to Islam. O'Leary received disapproval from her Catholic family back in Ireland for converting, but is still confident she made the right choice.
    I changed my religion. I like to think that Islam was a part of my development, she said.
    O'Leary was one of four Islamic speakers last Friday for a lecture entitled "What is Wrong with Islam?"  hosted by the Muslim Student Association (MSA).
I actually appreciate the fact that people came out to this event,  Ziyad Effendi, MSA member said, because it shows genuine interest and learning for the authentic version of Islam. There is a need for an accurate portrayal of Islam,  he said.
    The other three speakers aside from O'Leary were Mufti Mohammed-Umer Esmail, an Islamic preacher; Abbas Bandali, an Islamic expert from Austin; and Sarwat Hussain, head of the Council  of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) for the San Antonio chapter.
    Jesus Villarreal, the event's master of ceremonies, is also a convert to Islam. He says Muslim-supported events like this are important to spread the truth of his faith.
    You cannot have an explanation from an expert on Islam who is not even Muslim, Villarreal said.
    Yusuf Mohammad, head of the MSA's events committee, said that Friday's lecture was prompted by the offensive cartoons insulting the Prophet Muhammad that were posted by Atheist Agenda.
    We realized that after the Atheist Agenda posted those pictures, we were not doing enough to promote Islam on campus,  Mohammad said. We thank Atheist Agenda for waking us up.
    Effendi agrees that the negative cartoons were an opportunity more than a problem.
   We felt that there was a need for positive dialogue, Effendi said. We have no animosity against the Atheist Agenda.
    O'Leary was the subject of a documentary by National Geographic in 2003. Cameras followed her as she made her first Hajj ”the pilgrimage" all Muslims must make to the city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia.
    In her speech, she described her time in the Islamic holy land and what she felt when she was on Mount Arafat, a site pilgrims visit while on Hajj. I found myself confessing to God all over again, O'Leary said, comparing it to her time confessing to the priest as a Catholic school girl.
    She described her young life as a Catholic in Ireland. Growing up, she disliked the fact that she was not allowed to ask questions about God. O'Leary's mother frowned that she read the Bible on her own so much.
    What God asks me to do, is actually good for me, O'Leary said, saying she feels comforted by Islam and how it has satisfied her need to connect to God.
    Speaker Mufti Mohammed began his speech by saying Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem (In the name of God, the Merciful, the Beneficent).
    The Islamic scholar emphasized the importance of justice in Islam by quoting from the Qurân, the Islamic holy book.
    In the Qurân, chapter 5, verse 8, it was revealed, all you who believe, show justice for the sake of God, Mufti Mohammed said. Fear God alone, God knows what you do.
    Mufti Mohammed said Prophet Muhammad demanded that his followers uphold justice since it is one of the fine points of Islam.
   He [Prophet Muhammad] severally criticizes those who oppressed those because of their ethnicities or their differences, Mufti Mohammed said.
    He recited Prophet Muhammad's  final message to humanity on his death bed.
   An Arab is no better than a non-Arab, a white is no better than a black, a black is no better than a white except by piety in their acts, Mufti Mohammed said.
    Speaker Abbas Bandali, a software engineer in Austin and a self-taught student of Islam, discussed how the three biggest religions in the world are similar.
   The amazing thing is all three religions”Islam, Judaism and Christianity”find their roots in Abraham, Bandali said. All three religions are all saying the same thing.
    One example is the way religions greet one another: Muslims say Salam   and Jews say Shalom.
    Bandali went on to say that God expects us all, regardless of religion, to coexist in the world.
   If God allows it to rain in my backyard, and makes it rain in my neighbor's backyard, who I to question his place on Earth am, Bandali said.
    He denounced the three biggest misconceptions of Islam: that Muslims are intolerant, Allah is a different god and all Muslims are terrorists.
  When we analyze Islam, we need to analyze Islam objectively, Bandali said, calling on non-Muslims to stop categorizing Muslims into the same group, and discussing Islam's diversity.
   Islam is universal and can be practiced anywhere, Bandali said.
    Sarwat Hussain, leader of the San Antonio chapter of CAIR, called herself a born again Muslim and was proud to wrap her head in the traditional Islamic woman's headscarf known as the hijab.
   The Islamic women are the most misunderstood women in the world, Hussain said.
    Hussain lectured mostly on women within Islam and her time as a Muslim woman in the United States. She felt privileged to be a part of a religion that gave so many rights to its women.  The fight for feminism in the West has been done already for Muslim women in Islam, Hussain said. She discussed how women were oppressed throughout history all across the world, from the lack of property rights in Greece to American women receiving their right to vote only within the last 100 years. All those rights were given to women 1,400 years ago [in Islam], Hussain said.
    Hussain also praised the institution of marriage as a vital part of Islam and the rest of society.  In Islam, men and women, husband and wife, complement each other, she said.
    As the leader of CAIR in San Antonio, Hussain volunteers to stand up against injustices locally, just so a Muslim voice has a say in the matter.  CAIR provides legal assistance to Muslims who are discriminated against. Hussain says this assistance is also available for non-Muslims who feel their rights as citizens are being undermined.
    Ziyad Effendi was pleased with the response to the MSA's lecture last Friday. He does not want the education to stop at one lecture though.
    To the general public, Effendi said; don't be afraid to ask questions to Muslims.
Important note to learn and read quran online
 The important note from learning Quran blog the main duty of every Muslim to learn Holy Quran recitation to build our life according to Islam and enhance the knowledge through learning quran online because Holy Quran teacher us the way of life and is the last testimony and is a book of ALLAH; live quran reciters  from top quran reciter online   also you and your kids can read quran online as well and very easy way plz support us by spreading the word of Allah
End of the note

Catholicism and Evolution

By David W. Tschanz
David W. Tschanz, PhD, MSPH, MCSE is a demographer, historian, and computer consultant. A former Jesuit seminarian, he has made a special study of the role of the Catholic Church in relation to science, particularly cosmology, and evolution.
One of the most unfortunate results of the popularity of American author Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code is that it is not only at times wildly factually inaccurate. Its portrayal of the Roman Catholic Church as being anti-science is deplorably false. Sadly, perception is often mistaken for reality, and nowhere is that more obvious than in the current discussion on the topic of evolution.
Cosmology and Catholicism
Before looking at the position of the Catholic Church on human evolution, we should start with the related question, what does the Church believe about how and when the universe came into being?
The Church has declared, as an article of faith (meaning Catholics must accept it as a matter of dogma), that the universe was specially created out of nothing by God, that "the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (First Vatican Council, 1870).
Beyond that declaration, the Church left to each individual Catholic the choice of how this happened. If they wish to believe that God did it all at once, or that the stars, nebulae, and planets developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss), or some place in between, that is perfectly acceptable. In fact, as we shall see shortly, according to Catholic belief, the "how" in cosmology is an irrelevant and pointless question. What is relevant is the role of God. If a Catholic, acting in good faith and intellectual honesty, truly believed that the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan.
Let us restate that the means are not as important as the essential truth of God creating the universe. As a result, and obscured by writers such as Brown, is the fact that many of today's leading scientists and astronomers are Catholic priests (the Vatican Observatory is a leading research facility). They are simply following the long tradition of Catholic clergy (and layman) in the sciences that included astronomer Nicholas Copernicus and geneticist Gregor Mendel, among others. The Vatican Observatory even has its own website.
Evolution and the Bible
On the subject of biological evolution, the Church does not have any official position on whether various life forms developed at once or over the course of time. However, it says that if they did develop over time or all at once, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to Him.
When it comes to human evolution, it comes as a surprise to many Catholics, as well as non-Catholics, to learn how little the Church teaches in this area. This is because the Church has chosen to define only a few tenets as true beyond doubt, leaving a great deal of latitude to Catholics for their personal judgment. This is principally because the Church has not been concerned with evolutionary questions as such, but rather with their possible implications for Catholic belief.
The Church allows for the possibility that man's body developed from previous biological forms, under God's guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. The Church insists that man is not an accident; that no matter how God went about creating Homo Sapiens, God from all eternity intended that man and all creation exist in their present form.
The historical meaning of the first three chapters of Genesis, wrote Pope Pius X in 1909, could not be doubted in regard to "the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future redeemer."
Notice that the Church again says nothing definite about how, in specific detail, God created the world and its various forms of life, or how long any of this took. The only "special creation" mentioned is that of man's spiritual and immortal soul. In the Church's eyes, Genesis deals with historical fact, not scientific process — with the what of creation, not the how. 
As long ago as the fifth century, Augustine of Hippo, the church's most revered ancient theologian, had cautioned Christians not to take the Genesis creation accounts too literally. So it should not be a surprise that Catholics are not obliged to reconcile scientific data with the early verses of Genesis, but can instead view it as containing truths that are expressed in an archaic, pre-scientific Hebrew idiom. They can also accept with "enjoyment and confidence" modern scientific discoveries which, more often than not, raise fundamental questions which science itself cannot answer. Every new discovery is a source of wonder and a reason for giving praise to God.
Ironically, many scientists engaged in evolutionary studies are devout Catholics. These men and women see no contradiction between what the Church teaches and what science has learned. In fact, their efforts are lauded in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (a summary of beliefs and tenets) as follows:
Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.
Evolution Does Not Mean Atheism
While the Church does not oppose evolution per se, it does not allow belief in atheistic evolution, nor does it accept the broader implications of evolutionism. The Church's quarrel with many scientists who call themselves evolutionists is not about evolution itself, which may (or may not) have occurred in a non-Darwinian, teleological manner, but rather about the philosophical materialism that is at the root of so much evolutionary thinking. Evolutionists argue the word came about without divine action, as a pure accident.
To Catholics, the universe is not the result of purely random events that have no direction and operate without the hand of God. A universe without God is purely materialistic and secular, this is a position that the church rejects. It does not oppose evolution, but it opposes the argument that evolution disproves the existence of God, or makes Him irrelevant.
Catholicism and Fundamental Protestantism
The Catholic Church's position clearly contrasts with that of many fundamentalist Protestant sects. Fundamentalists have usually insisted on treating Genesis as a scientifically accurate, as well as historically true, account. Unfortunately, this stance has often appeared in the media as definitive Christian doctrine. Its details have contrasted so sharply with established scientific knowledge that "Christian belief" has been held in ridicule.
To give one example, in the 17th century, Anglican clergyman Bishop James Ussher, made a calculation based on Biblical genealogies that God created the world on an October morning in 4004 BCE. Many fundamentalists today hold this as an article of faith. For virtually all scientists, the figure is absurd. From the Catholic point of view, Bishop Ussher spoke only for himself, not for the Church; his feat was one of arithmetic, not theology.
Of course, Catholics may share many of these fundamentalist beliefs as their personal opinions. The point is they are not required to. With the exception of the few matters mentioned above, Catholics may hold whatever scientific positions seem reasonable and intellectually convincing, as long as they accept that everything comes about as the will of God.

Important note to learn and online quran recitation

Doing Quran recitation is the religious duty of every Muslim.  In saheed Sunnah, it is encouraged to do the recitation of Quran in a melodious voice by the holy Quran reciter by making the voice more melodious and interesting. Reading quran online and Making it melodious does not mean that it should be made more in singing tone but once should at least recite and read quranic Arabic in a good tone so that he/she himself feels good while listening to it and others also feel good while listening to quran. and plz do spread the true knowledge as much as you and Allah knows best listen quran online of the top online quran reciter with English and Urdu translation for quran teacher live