Blessed, I was reading this in his book and it was quite instructive. Thanks. Originally posted by Suleyman: As-salaam Alaikuum Al-Ghazaalee (May Allaah have mercy on him) was indeed one of the imaams of Ahlus-Sunnan. However, his book, where this chapter (The inner dimensions of prayer) is an exerpt from, has been critized by many of the imaams. For example, adh-Dahaabi wrote regarding the Ihyaa ul-Uloom: 'There are many weak Ahadeeth in this book. If this book did not contain traditions and etiquettes of Soofism and philosophers it would be considered a good book'. Many books have been written that identify the errors in the Ihyaa and it's best to approach these books first before you attempt to approach Ihyaa ul-Uloom As-salaam Alaikuum Thus it's best if one ones to approach Suleyman, Ghazzali, in this book, is very critical of some Sufi practices and very harsh in his criticism towards philisophers. He is basically the person who singlehandedly put an end to speculative philosophy in Islam. How can it be that he is accused of it?

Nur, If we take the hadith in a literal sense, how come the countries that exclude women in contributing to the economy do much worse (economically) than those who include them? What is the "success" [the Prophet spoke of] based on? Is it in this world or the hereafter? We know from history that certain circumstances have made women leave their traditional roles and joined i.e. battles, factories etc. in order to help a nation survive. This was the case when the Muslims waged wars and used women as nurses and even swelled up numbers in order to intimidate the enemies. And in Europe during the world wars, the results would have been different if women hadn't been working 24 hours a day in bullet factories etc. We also have to remember that the Arabs are patriachial people which perhaps has contributed to the intepretaion of this hadith. If you look at a country like Malaysia, women are highly educated and contribute largely to the family and economy. The same applies to Shi'a Iran which has women in the Majlis, their vice-president is a woman and about 62% of university students are females. These countries are Muslim countries that are highly advanced nations in terms of technology. Saudi Arabia, which is more of a monarchy than a theocracy excludes women from driving cars, flying aeroplanes, local politics etc. When the Taliban [who are students of the Saudi] came to power, they barred all women from all public duties; teachers, doctors, lawyers and other professions were removed from their posts and forced to stay at home. Females were also excluded from any type of formal education. I know that this is an extreme example, but interpreting this hadith literally as many currently see it is bound to lead to such extremism. Don't we need knowledgable female family doctors, obstetricians, oncologists, midwives, gynaecologists, teachers etc? A country like Saudi Arabia is of one extreme (where it totally excludes women) and the west is of another extreme where it demands that women prioritise education and careers and literally compete with men which often leads to abandonning the building of a family life. This has led the west to a certain amount of monetary prosperity but the negative aspects of this trend is going to haunt them in the future. Since women have opted to have a career and motherhood is put on ice so to speak, many have abstainned from it altogether which has left them with a great need of manpower in the coming decades. There is a huge need for taxpayers because people who have from the 80's chose not to build a family and instead concentrate on careers will be dependant on the atcive generation, a generation they never brought forth. Islam is about moderation and we should not take either extreme, but a middle path. It might not be allowed for a woman to be the head of an Islamic state [with duties and responsibilties laid down by Allah SWT upon the leader] but that doesn't mean that they should be shut out altogether from the workforce and force them to stay at home. Should a company be led by a woman or will the men who work for her be rendered uselsess? Should a woman be able to own a farm and be able to hire male workers without them being frowned upon because they have a female boss? is this hadith only applicable to "head of state" or should it be applied in all walks of life? The hadith is as it is [because it has been accepted by our scholars of the past who scrutised the Prophet's traditions] but how we interpret it makes the difference.

Originally posted by Mr. Moe: By the way, are you the author? Just confused a bit. Do you think Somali people are indigenous to Africa or are immigrants from somewhere (Arabia)? Mr Moe, I'm not the author, he is someone close to me though. We all [originally] come from the same parents and people have been moving around from contintent to continent for millenia. It is said that "Aryans" are originally from India and Somalis have Caucasoid phenotype. I think we can trace most of our history to our continent together with the Berbers, Tuaregs, Tutsi etc., people whose features are very similar to ours (and of course the Oromo whom we have linguistic and other similarities with). mantra, You are welcome sxb.

Nur, Dreams have always fascinated me; I had one dream constantly in my early teens where I took a dive from the top board of a swimming pool (the pool we had at school) only, halfway down, to see all the water vanish underneath me and a deep, light-blue cement base of the pool is my destination (very unpleasant but it seemed to convey a message - I never understood what it meant even long after those dreams went away). LaVie & Waterlily, Dreams should not be dismissed or disregarded as they are usually a valuable barometer of our lives. Western psychology has failed when it comes to dreams because they use scientific tools to measure a Spiritual world. The well-known story in Surah Yusuf (where Yusuf [AS] was translating dreams to his "cell-mates" and then the leader of the land) is a wonderful testimony to the power and significance of certain dreams. It is Allah that takes the souls (of men) at death; and those that die not (He takes) during their sleep: those on whom He has passed the decree of death, He keeps back (from returning to life), but the rest He sends (to their bodies) for a term appointed verily in this are Signs for those who reflect. (Az-Zumar 39:42) It he who take your Spirit by night and has knowledge of an that you have done by day. By day does he raise you up again that a term appointed be fulfilled. In the end unto Him win your return, then He will show you the truth of an that you did. (Al-Anam 6:60) Humans have a "Tripartite nature"; Spirit, Soul and Body. Body + Soul + Spirit = a Living Human Living Human - Spirit = a Living Body 'Sleeping Human' Human Being - (Spirit + Soul) = Dead Body The Spirit is retrieved by Allah SWT during sleep just like it is during death. The Soul (Nafs, what makes us alive) is still in the Body (the vessel with a Soul that enables the the Spirit to "function" in this earthly setting) and that's why a dream can have physiological effects on the body (i.e. sweating, shivering, contracting muscles when scared, smiling etc.). The author explains the different types of dreams as taught by the Prophet SAW; good dreams (glad tidings of reward from Allah SWT), our own dreams (suggestion from our own minds, desires - mainly evil) and evil dreams, scary, horrendous (from Shaytan).

Thanks for the article Darqawi. Nur, I agree with you! That single hadith (and lack of ijtihad in Fiqh) has made Muslims the most "backward" people on earth. How can a nation expect to prosper if it shuts out over half of the population? The author even forgot to mention Khadija ibn Khuwaylid (RA), whose massive role in laying the groundworks for Islam can not be overlooked.

I stumbled upon this interesting piece and thought perhaps others could benefit from it. It's the PhD thesis of a Dr Umar Azam and naturally rather lengthy. I would suggest to bookmark the page and read it in segments whenever possible. Dreams in Islam

Originally posted by Socod_badne: Viking, THere is plenty to answer. For one, produce the verse in the Quran that enjoins lapidation for adultery. Second, will you have any compunctions about stoning to death your own immediate family members IF they were convicted (beyond reasonable doubt) of adultery? Why should it matter to you whether it is 100 lashes or stoning? You are afterall against Divine Law being implemented. Answer this, I've asked you in another post but you keep evading it. You claim you follow the Prophet Muhammad SAWS, but why do you reject the advice he gave to humanity on his last pilgrimage when he said... I am leaving you with the Book of God (the QUR'AN) and my SUNNAH (the life style and the behavioral mode of the Prophet), if you follow them YOU WILL NEVER GO ASTRAY.

Originally posted by Socod_badne: Viking, Stop pus*yfooting, you haven't substantively addressed any of what I've said. BTW, nice attack but up the wrong hill! I don't reject what prophet (Scw) said or did. There is nothing to adress mate, just have a look at your arguments! You reject the Sunnah (Hadiths) and yet you claim you don't reject what the Prophet SAWS said or did? Look at the contradictions and inconsistencies in your statements before demanding people adress them.

Ahura, Is it fairer to say that he's gone astray since he ignores what the Prophet said in his last sermon at the 'Uranah valley of Mount Arafat... O People, no Prophet or Messenger will comeafter me and no new faith will be born. Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand words which I convey to you. I am leaving you with the Book of God (the QUR'AN) and my SUNNAH (the life style and the behavioral mode of the Prophet), if you follow them YOU WILL NEVER GO ASTRAY. All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and may the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly. Be my witness O God, that I have conveyed your message to your people.

Socod_badne, So all 1.2 billion around the globe should find a way to move to the four countries that [claim to] practise Sharia Law or else they are against Sharia Law itself? Is such your reasonning? :eek: Why are you refusing to answer my question? Do you think the laws in the Qur'an are only to be applied in homes and not in governments? Is the law of usury, taxes etc NOT to be applied on state policies? FYI, laws are NEVER based on our whims. Even for nonbelievers. Rather they're imposed on us by our environment and mitigating circumstances. Allah has forbidden the consuption and sale and of alcohol and IF the society (environment) pressures the govt to allow the establishment of a brewery and permission to sell it in shops then the people will be following their own whims/desires while ignoring Islamic Law. Don't you agree? PS: How do you explain away the following verse? To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: SO JUDGE BETWEEN THEM BY WHAT ALLAH HATH REVEALED, AND FOLLOW NOT THEIR VAIN DESIRES, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. TO EACH AMONG YOU WE HAVE PRESCRIBED A LAW AND AN OPEN WAY. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) TO TEST YOU IN WHAT HE HATH GIVEN YOU: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah. it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute; (Qur'an 5:48)

Socod_badne, Originally posted by Socod_badne: If most muslims call themselves muslims while simultaneously rejecting sharia law (that includes YOU as well), then I don't see why not. First of all, how am I rejecting Shari'a Law? Secondly, given the right to vote democratically, almost all countries with a large Muslim population will vote for a theocracy. We've seen this in among others Iran, Turkey and Algeria. The system in Iran (the elections were foiled with coups in Turkey and Algeria) might not be perfect or the way we all want it to be, but there is no perfect system anywhere in the world. A good system is one that constantly seeks to improve. People who lived before Nabi Musa (AS) had no Divine Laws to adhere to, but the generations that came after Muhammad PBUH have to follow Divine Laws the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Now I remember that you reject all Sunnah and only follow the Qur'an; this is peculiar because you follow the Book revealed to the Prophet but not what the Prophet told his followers (us). This puts you in a rather awkward position, but I suppose you find an equally peculiar way to justify this. Originally posted by Socod_badne: No because there's no dependence between being a muslim and Sharia Law. The link is purely fictitious, plucked from thin air. One can't provide 'evidence' to support a conceptual mirage. Are you saying that the Divine Laws in the Qur'an are there just for our amusement? What use are the Laws in the Qur'an governing alcohol, marriage, divorce, adultery, treason, inherictance, taxes (both Zakat and Jizya), trade etc...what are they there for? What do you think Law should be based upon? Our whims, what we deem permissible or fobidden?

Socod_badne and makalajabti, Are you against Sharia Law? Can one call him-/herself a Muslim and still support secular law over Sharia Law? If you say so, can you show how Islam supports this?

We discussed this issue last year without any proper closure Is Killing An Apostate in the Islamic Law?

I agree with xiinfaniin. Most Somalis I've met are hypochondriacs. A Somali woman told me today that she suspected that "baraf baa galey". How does this 'baraf' survive in 37 degrees? :confused:

Africa is poor because... - absence of literacy and numeracy while other continents have had it for many centuries - colonisation brought Africa in touch with the "outer world" (which should have improved our situation) but the colonialists discriminated and often denied Africans education for a long time. - after colonisation, the chains went from the ankles to the pocket; IMF, WTO and WB came into the picture. The financial institutions gave loans irresponsibly to [often] corrupt leaders only to hike the interests immensely and this has made the loans unpayable since the past couple of decades - then came the buzz-word "globalisation". The IMF was at this stage demanding that the govts sell out and privatise quickly before a solid foundation was set up for an efficent private sector. Rapid privatisaion brought a total collapse to the education and healthcare system of most African countries. The Ghanaian govt today pays more to the IMF than it invests in healthcare for its own people. Those who say that Africans as a race are poor or technologically inferior because of their skin colour [their race] should ask themselves why Jews are far superior to whites in the field of commerce. Does this mean that whites are intellectually inferior to the Jews?

Originally posted by naden: My final question is this: A man follows god's commands and beats his wife for nushuz behaviour. She retaliates. We all know the common scenario. A discussion heats up, insults fly back and forth, shouts and screams follow very quickly. Before you know it, fists are flying and more than one person in that marriage is in a corner nursing some injury. This, I guess, is a bad situation all around. I get the multistep conflict resolution is meant to calm spirits down. What happens if a woman retaliates even when those steps are followed carefully? Say, she throws the punch or slap back. What do the hadiths say about that? I searched in the Quran and cannot find any instructions for a woman. In the Holy Qur'an "fearing" signifies subjective but certain, knowledge or judgment about something. I get this beating business is reserved for 'nushuz' behaviour and not your garden variety insolence. In this latter case, disputes are multilayered and prior ones are fair game in a present dispute. If a woman perceives a man to be not fair or fit to exact any punishment on her for a 'disobedience', can she retaliate/refuse without incurring wrath? What can she do within a marriage knowing a divorce is always within reach (though not always socially and economically viable)? naden, It is said that the exegesis Imam Tabari wrote 27 pages on the word 'darb' and had 200 interpretations for the word. Some people choose the word to only mean 'beat' to fulfil their own violent desires even though we hardly see this as something that was done by our Noble Prophet PBUH.

Excellent post Nur! Human beings are usually keen on exercising their rights but not their responsibilities.

Che might not be right...the Islamic revolution of Iran and the Orange revolution of Ukraine are two examples of modern bloodless revolutions.

Zizou is a lot better than Platini. I'd go for Zizou!

Polis in Sweden have been allowed to wear turbans, kippa or any other religious head-gear while on duty. The National Police Board (RPS) reached this decision after deliberations with the Ombudsman for discrimination (DO) and do not wish to exclude certain ethnicities or faiths from the police force. The head-gear has to be "stylish", colour that doesn't clash with the uniform. The head-gear is not allowed to compromise safety, i.e. during demonstrations, helmets will be worn. Source

Originally posted by Castro: Islam is clear on aggression and aggressors. This whole save-my-kid-when-he-brutalizes-another-kid-by-sending-him-to-Somalia sends a terrible message to kids. When I'm done beating the crap out of my kid for misbehaving, I'll release the hounds on them. :cool: Castro, There was a time when a rich woman in Arabia did a crime and people were trying to excuse it somehow. The Prophet PBUH said that in the past people were destroyed because when injustice was committed by someone of a high rank, they were spared, and if it was someone of a low rank they were punished. He swore that if Fatima RA his own daughter had committed a crime he wouldn't hesitate to have her punished. Obviously Saudi Arabia and even Somalis don't act Islamically when it comes to punishing one of their own.

Castro, There is no need of dismantling the borders as long as they still exist in our psyche. Before WWI, the Brits played with the minds of the Arabs and then stabbed them in the back. They spurred Arab pride (something that was erased by our Noble Prophet PBUH) and the new found pride heled kick the Ottomans out. After this hapenned, the Arabs were not 'given' the freedom they aimed to achieve but instead borders were drawn and the territories were divided between the French and the English. Jews were rewarded with parts of Palestine after the powerful Jewish lobby in America managed to drag them into the war. The British did the same to Africa, they managed to divide Somalis into five territories and the divisions are still present in our pscyhe. People of Djibouti are very Francophone in every sense of the word, Somalis in Kenya are very "Anglosized" etc. We don't need to (and are not able) erase the borders yet, what we need is a common asabiya, a group feeling and solidarity that we share with fellow Muslims (first Somalis from other regions in our case) and that would inshaAllah lead to greater things. The same applies to Shari'a Law. It has proved difficult for countries to adopt it even if they are a relatively stable nation. This was the case in Algeria when the Islamic party won the elections by a landslide. The French and other western countries refused to accept an Islamic led govt in Algeria, they undermined the choice of the people and supported the outgoing govt. The result was a civil war that led to deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. As for fair dealings, we need first to educate ourselves and understand how the current world of economics works. Capitalism is dominant and it does not favour poor people because of the way trade is conducted. Institutions like the IMF and WB act as phalangs to the US Treasury Department. The subsidies given to EU farmers devastate agriculture in poorer countries too (cow in the EU is allocated more money than the average human is in poorer nations). There seems to be small changes going on in the WTO to try and balance the situation in favour of people in poorer countries. We don't need internal wars in order to achieve peace. Europe went through turmoil before the Eu was formed (they were slaughtering each others en masse just 60 years ago). If they can achieve peace and unity then so can we, hopefully without the bloodshed. The Point, As I said, back to basics can start with viewing your fellow Muslims in neighbouring countries as brethren. Share in their grief, help them when in need etc. Somalis would benefit immensely if the govts in the Middle East took intitative to help rebuild Somalia after the Americans left. But they don't care and until Muslims start caring for each other, unity can not be achieved. Our Shi'a brothers are showing that kind of unity. Iran supports Hisbullah and Hamas against the Zionist nation, this has been of great help to the Lebanese and Palestinian people. One has to start at grassroots level and change the mentality of the youth, get them to really understand what it means to be a Muslim, as the Prophet PBUH wanted us to and taught us. Sniper, With all due respect sxb, that is a very defeatist attitude. Allah SWT helps those who help themselves, we all know that Islam will prevail, but that might be in ten or a hundred generations to come. We can not just sit back and expect the prophecy to be fulfilled. Although we believe in Qadr as Muslims, we also believe that our destiny is in our own hands, otherwise what would be purpose of The Day of Reckonning?

Originally posted by Castro: quote:Originally posted by Viking: Sharmarkee, Don't you think the values of a liberal party like Lib-Dems might be irreconcillable with Islamic doctrines? Do you? And if yes, what do you propose instead of what Sharmarke suggests? I would like to hear you expand on this, good Viking, and I'm not being facetious. Castro, I was just wondering because liberal parties are more radical when seen from the spectacles of a Muslim (vehemently support homosexuality, abortion, supports privatisation of i.e. healthcare etc). Of the three major parties in the UK, maybe LibDem is not the best option because of its position on the political scale. I would think that Labour, being almost centre-right would be the best option in the UK, but the political parties in the UK and in most western countries are today so similar that there is very little that sets them apart. But on the other hand, Labour has turned out to be more right-wing than the Conservatives themselves. If one was in Germany maybe the best party to support would have been the CDU because they are a Christian party that would presumably hold some similar views as Islam. On the other hand, leftist parties often have positions that most Muslims would find appealing. There isn't much to choose from in the UK for a MUslim, one is left to choose between small pox, plague and cholera, so to speak. In Sweden, there were about six parties in parliament from across the political scale and therefore Muslims have more to choose from. I always went with the Leftist party or the Greens because they questionned the hegemony of USA and didn't support them blindly (they were against GITMO and the invasion of Iraq), they supported the Palestinians, called for fairer trade with the poorer countries etc etc. But the parties in the UK are so similar that the only which sets them apart seems to be whether there should be top-up fees in uni or not, hopefully a nomad who is more familiar with UK politics can shed some light on this issue.

Nadhani wengi wenu mnamjua Kajairo, na kama hamumjui then you'll find out more about him. He is one funny character who changes modern r&b and hip-hop songs and anaifanya version yake kwa kiswahili in a very funny way. He used to be in what was Redykyulass and is now called Red Korna, a stand-up group of uni graduates from Nairobi. Here is a short clip where he is interviewed... Kajairo!

In Europe, the rise of individualism was seen as one of the products of the European Protestant revolution (around the beginning of the 16th century) which they deem led to the rise of capitalism. With the Protestant revolution, it was not necessary for Christians to make confessions or ask for intercessions from the priest; man was held accountable for his own actions. Protestantism also changed the view Europeans had on wealth and the pursuit of it. Protestantism taught that one could acquire wealth without feeling any guilt and the sin of avarice was made morally respectable. Piety was no longer the barometer for success in Europe, but the amount of wealth one had was also seen as a hallmark for success. People were initially taught to make a lot of money but to spend as little as possible, but with time, this changed and people invested more especially as the Industrial Revolution (towards the end of the 18th century) got underway. With the apparent rise of capitalism, the Protestant movement became linked to the rise of modern science. Where does Islam come into all of this? As most of Europe lived in what was referred to as the Dark Ages, science was flourishing in Islamic Spain where the works of the Greek philosophers were translated into Arabic and then [mostly] to Latin and German. Many European scholars traveled to Spain after they heard about this intellectual movement and learnt and took with them a lot of knowledge which was brought forth by the pioneering spirit of Muslims scholars working incorporation with Jewish and Christian scholars in what the Spanish call LA CONVIVENCIA (meaning The Co-existence). This preceded both the Protestant Reformation and Industrial Revolution, so why isn’t it acknowledged as the force that paved way for modern science? If Europe came to know of Aristotle and Plato through the Muslims, why isn’t this acknowledged world-wide? Occidentals today constantly shove terms like “free-trade†down the throats of the rest of the world. They feel that capitalism has been good to them and would like to teach the rest of us (the “Third World†or the “Developing World†as they prefer to often call it). Most of us know that this “free-trade†they vehemently promote is on their terms and benefits them more than it does other parties, but that is a whole chapter, or book, if not volumes of books one needs to cover this topic and there is a lot written about it (both for and against it). But what is the view of Islam on free-trade? Many argue that Islam is socialist because of the amount of control the state is awarded and its welfare system or it is capitalist because it encourages private ownership and free-trade. Was Islam the first “capitalistic†system (as it is commonly defined) or was the European Protestant revolution with its Protestant ethics the force that led to the rise of capitalism in the world (as westerners claim)? Is free-trade a concept that is new to us as Muslims? What did our Noble Prophet PBUH think about such trade? As we all know that our Noble Prophet PBUH started off as a trader working for his wife Khadija RA with trade caravans that traveled to Syria among other places. As a Messenger of God, what was his role in trade and how did he view it and thought it should be regulated? The Prophet Muhammad PBUH always sought to remold the corrupt and morally desperate merchant class of Arabia and confined them to certain moral boundaries. Islam regulated production and consumption, distribution and exchange. He was opposed to price controls, i.e. the setting of a maximum price on products which he deemed unfair to merchants. He believed in an economy in which money and commodities were free to interact without impediments or any sort of external influences. He trusted the forces of supply and demand and wanted them to be the only barometer for prices. He strongly prohibited hoarding which would adversely affect the supply and demand of commodities. He condemned speculation especially of food produce (the Jews often sabotaged Muslims) and the institution of AL-HISBA had the role of checking for foul play (see AL-HISBA FI AL-ISLAM by Ibn Taymiya). The role of the Hisba was [among others] to see to it that merchants were not overcharging for their products. Al-Hisba is a moral and socio-economic institution that ensures morality and protects society from exploitation, fraud, bad workmanship etc. This is naturally based on the Islamic concept of ‘amr bilmacruuf wannahi anil munkar’. The Prophet PBUH also forbade merchants or others gaining an ‘unfair known advantage’, vis-à -vis RIBA. Our Noble Prophet also told merchants to inform consumers about faults in their products, this was a hallmark of a truly honest businessman. This in turn issued consumer protection and ensured that there was fair play. The quality of the component being sold was supposed to determine its marketability and NOT the advertising done by the seller. As it is often today – big companies (i.e. Coca-Cola) that invest millions upon millions in advertising reap huge profits. During the reign of Omar ibn Khattab, Islam spread further beyond Arabia with a larger population and greater prosperity and more opportunities. Slowly the high standards of economic justice that was set by our Noble Prophet declined and regressed as the empire expanded. The empire went forward in terms of ‘culture’, arts, scholarship and as a ‘civilization’. The empire later turned into a kingdom, then smaller and more decentralized fiefdoms. The standards of economic justice declined onwards with time and we can today witness a very fragmented, weakened and downtrodden Ummah that is divided along state lines. We clearly see that Muhammad PBUH believed in free-trade, and the only way to conduct trade (as a Muslim) is to make sure that it is fair to both the seller and the consumer. We can also conclude that Islam is neither right nor left on the political scale, it is neither socialist (despite the welfare state) nor capitalist (although it was the first system to apply capitalistic mentality in trade). The rules of the game are set by the state according to the teachings of Islam. Islam also incorporates both state and private ownership and since our faith is about submission to One True God and subordination to the Laws of the Almighty, secularism and all other -isms westerners shovedown our threats should not be an option for any Muslim indivudal, nation or [future] Islamic state. The conclusion that we naturally ought to come to is that we urgently need to go BACK TO BASICS. I know we have heard this phrase many a times, but whenever this is said, westerners (and alas some Muslims) often see this as regressing, but we know it is definitely not the case. Islam champions justice, fair dealings and the seeking of knowledge, it is about time we really practiced our Deen in the manner our noble Prophet Muhammad PBUH wanted us to practise.