Monday, January 26, 2015

Charlie Hebdo


Those drawings they have drawn do not belong to our Prophet (saas). The drawer places a mirror in front of him and is drawing, looking carefully at the mirror. This is the whole issue. He draws himself very comprehensively, in full details and those drawings have nothing to do with our Prophet (saas). Our Prophet (saas) was exceedingly handsome.
(A9 TV; January 13th, 2015)

Abu Jahl saw Prophet Muhammad and said: “What an ugly _______ !”
Prophet Muhammad replied: “You're rude, but you're right.”
Abu Bakr saw Prophet Muhammad and said: “You're the beautiful shining sun!”
Prophet Muhammad said: “You're right, my friend. You’ve seen through.”
Someone listening to this asked: How can they both be right when they are contradicting each other?
Prophet Muhammad said: “ I am a mirror polished by Allah.In me everyone sees themselves.”

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Our Prophet (pbuh) was very handsome and majestic. These people are drawing themselves in their cartoons


- Daily Cumhuriyet will publish an addition of the assumed caricatures of our Prophet (pbuh) tomorrow in support of Charlie Hebdo magazine. Since this will cause various provocations Cumhuriyet Daily was called not to publish these.
Adnan Oktar: For one thing, that is not a picture of our Prophet (pbuh). The artist has sat down at the mirror and very carefully drawn a picture of himself. I fail to understand where they get the idea it is a picture of our Prophet. If someone sits at a mirror and makes a drawing, the result will be just like a photograph. That person has just drawn himself, in very great detail. That picture has nothing to do with our Prophet.
Our Prophet (pbuh) was super-handsome. He was tall, majestic and broad-shouldered. He had black, arched eyebrows. He had a broad mouth and bright, white teeth. The hadiths refer to those teeth saying, ‘people looking from a distance could see them shining brightly. His teeth were pearly white. His hands were large and his shoulders were broad. The most famous wrestler of the day who was a heavyweight wrestler told our Prophet, ‘If you can beat me, I will believe.’ And our Prophet promptly laid him flat on his back. The wrestler complained that he was not ready. Our Prophet laid him flat on his back once again. There was nothing more to be said. Our Prophet was very strong. He personally took part in battles. The hadiths say that ‘He had the strength of 40 young men.’ Masha’Allah.
My forebear was terribly handsome. Women who saw him immediately fell in love with him and wanted to marry him. When the situation began becoming unwieldy, Almighty God put a stop to our Prophet getting married. However, He made lawful those women who want to give themselves to the Prophet. He made concubines and the like lawful. But He tells him not to get wives beyond these. Our Prophet used to decide to get married very quickly. The Companions say there is a beautiful woman and the Prophet (pbuh) takes a look and says it is all done when he wishes to marry.
My forebear was a real lion. The hypocrites were wracked by envy of his good looks. There are many verses about that. Their envy drove them crazy. Because they were all weak and feeble types. The Messenger of God was very powerful, masha’Allah. May God keep him strong for all time.
These were the things they were most envious of. Their envy drove them crazy. I will talk about the verses on the subject another day. The only thing they envied in our Prophet was his good looks and strength. All women would fall in love with him at a single glance. The wife of his adopted son also fell in love with our Prophet. God sent verses down about this and revealed that he should not conceal this situation that was already known to God. Our Prophet held out against that love right to the end. But Almighty God sent a verse down and said that God knew his and her hearts, and that he could marry her. That drove the hypocrites crazy. The bigots never mention that verse. They do not like reading these verses at all.
These verses are about our Prophet’s (pbuh) irresistible good looks. Some bigots are embarrassed by these verses. But I am proud of my forebear. Well done to him. I congratulate my mother, as well, for loving such a handsome man as by ancestor. She was quite right. She fell in love with our Prophet’s mind, his faith, his grandeur and his good looks. She was quite right about them all. He constantly told Hazrat Zayd (his adopted son) not to divorce until revelation came from Almighty God. But when the revelation came, there is nothing else to do.
Many bigots are reluctant to discuss this or to broach the subject at all. One well-known bigot said that these verses embarrassed him, saying, ‘If we criticize Christians, they will reply with these verses.’ Look how foolish that is. He is ashamed of these verses. Look at their interpretation of the verses we most esteem is very different. These people are all very feeble types.

See Also:

Jokes and Funs by Prophet Muhammad (SAAS)

Freedom of expression revisited


In the wake of the attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris, non-Muslim countries with significant Muslim populations have faced the prospect of such assaults also being repeated there.
The subject of freedom of expression has also been raised again in several countries. For some countries, freedom of ideas shows respect and sensitivity toward the values of all sections of society, while for others freedom of ideas is perceived as unlimited and as the ability to speak without any restrictions.
Freedom of expression is the foremost prerequisite for the progress of democratic societies.
In recent days, however, some writers have begun referring to "freedom of expression" as "the freedom to speak without respecting any values", and that is completely wrong.
Freedom of expression is regulated for a healthy, just and peaceable society in the rulings of European courts and in various articles of the European Convention of Human Rights.
However, the way that some leaders of opinion and politicians show sensitivity toward the feelings of various faith groups and minorities, especially since attacks on cartoonists began in EU countries in 2013, is considered surrender to the demands of terrorists.
The fact is that when individual freedoms are set out in the European Convention of Human Rights, the conditions under which such freedoms have to be restricted are also explicitly stated.
Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights  examines freedom of expression and the conditions limiting it in detail. The first paragraph of Article 10 defines the freedom, while the second explicitly states the conditions under which it is restricted.
Accordingly, freedom of expression is not immune from regulation, and that is essential in the aim of a democratic society. In other words, while the concept of ‘unlimited freedom’ is philosophically tenable, the view undoubtedly has  no validity in organised, political societies .
We all want to see societies progress, levels of civilization to rise and more democratic systems; all Muslims who grasp the true aim of Islam will support these ideals. However, defamation of values that people hold sacred and personal attacks are not means by which society can progress.
Pope Francis noted this as well when he said, "You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit."
Indeed, when we set out with the intention of civilizing debates and pass our reactions through that filter, we can see that pictures and talk that will trouble the people around us and drive them away are of no use at all. Treating people with whom we disagree with respect, and even love and affection, are signs of genuine civilization. Otherwise, life in our new global world will become intolerable.
When we compare East and West in terms of freedom of expression, we have to admit that Western states are far ahead.
However, there are still problems even there. The problem with these countries is the lack of stress on objectivity and justice. Let us look at the history of Charlie Hebdo as an example.
Many people will be unaware - or forget - that before Charlie Hebdo came on the scene in 1992, the magazine was called Hara-Kiri and was ultimately fined and closed down by the French authorities. The reason for the closure was again the political caricatures it carried. This means that, while supporting a journal that  largely treated the values of religious groups with contempt, French governments prohibited the use of that same language in regard to  themselves.
The impression is given in such cases that human rights are only in fact ‘some people’s’ rights.
Let us look at a few examples: Last week a British citizen by the name of Stuart Rodger  was sentenced to 100 hours’ community service for shouting at Prime Minister David Cameron during a speech.
Bradley Manning, who leaked secret U.S. files, is still regarded as a terrorist by the US.
If Western circles are honest regarding the question of “no limits” being imposed on freedom of expression, then they should behave the same way when they themselves are criticised.
Nobody, and quite rightly so, will agree to himself and the values he holds sacred being defamed.
As David Brooks said in a piece in the New York Times in the immediate wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, titled "I Am Not Charlie Hebdo", almost no publisher in the US would agree to publish cartoons mocking race or religion, and anyone publishing them would most likely find himself unemployed that same week.
Looking at the East, we certainly note that freedom of expression is highly restricted and fully democratic societies fail to emerge because the voice of the opposition has muted. For example, producing an opposition newspaper or writing articles in favour of the opposition in Pakistan can make you a target; the situation is not much different in Saudi Arabia.
Indeed, while the Charlie Hebdo attack was being condemned, a blogger was sentenced to prison and flogging for writing against an item of faith.
In Turkey, opposition writers working for various newspapers close to the government losing their jobs is certainly a factor that weakens the opposition here. This reduces the diversity of content in the press and leads to criticism.
There is therefore a clear need for all societies across the world to adopt a more unifying, supportive, loving and respectful tone and to concentrate on increasing the devotion and brotherhood between us, rather than inciting hatred.
It is here that nonprofit organizations and civil society organizations have a major responsibility. In the same way that a lack of love and education lie behind many of the problems we face today, love and education are at the heart of the solutions to them.
If the articles about freedom of expression in the European Convention on Human Rights can be fully implemented, then the balanced free expression desired in societies can be successfully achieved.
Adnan Oktar's piece on The Malaysian Insider:

When freedom of expression hurts

Democracy is the key to living in peace and freedom in today’s world. People can be free, grow and progress when they can live and speak as they wish.
Democracy needs to be protected for that progress to come about. Two things ensure that, morality and laws. When you have morality, you have respect. And respect allows all ideas to be spoken and listened to. In such an environment, nobody will step beyond the bounds or become angry, even if he opposes certain ideas.
Law determines the bounds of liberty in democracy. You can argue with someone, but you cannot harm him. You can criticize your country but you cannot engage in separatist activity. You can criticize people, but you cannot insult them or provoke them. Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights explicitly sets out when limits apply to freedom of ideas.
Criticism is a democratic right that keeps societies sound and strong; but insults merely seek to silence the other side. It is a defeat, weakness and a state of wretchedness that harms societies.
The last week’s attacks on Charlie Hebdo and the kosher market were without doubt cowardly acts of terror. May Allah grant fortitude to the families of those killed in these ghastly attacks. Islam condemns such barbarity in the strongest terms. These attacks reminded us again of one important fact that the moral values of Islam are a source of peace.
We need to have a close look at the concept of “freedom of expression” which has come to prominence in the wake of the incidents. If you insult things or values that a person holds sacred, then freedom of expression is finished. If defamation is perceived as freedom of expression in democracies protected by law, then democracy will come to an end there. When democracy ends, some people resort to anarchism and terror. Insults trigger anger, not freedom. They strengthen hatred and aggression, not democracy. They stir the ignorant into action and incite the angry.
It is the abdication of reason to seek to equate insults with humor. A defamatory painting or sketch will not make any part of society laugh. It is not a social message that will teach anyone anything or improve them. It will simply incite hatred and create division.
The pain that emerges is the result of that. One segment of society suffers huge pain when things it holds sacred are attacked, and that is hard to repair. That is not the job of humor. That is not freedom of expression at all. It is a blow to the foundations of democracy. It is confronting communities in Europe with great difficulties. It is a move intended to deprive someone in a democratic society of the right to live in freedom with his own identity. It is another way of saying, “I am using insults to fight your belief.”
The slogan “the pen is stronger than barbarism” is certainly true. However, to insist on insulting the sacred values of Muslims is just another form of barbarism perpetrated by the pen. If any magazine wishes to eliminate the scourge of radicalism, the way to do that is not by attacking Islam or its sacred values.
The way the whole world rose up as one against terrorism in the wake of the attacks in France is of course striking and very fine. It declared that barbarity is unacceptable to any country or head of state. It is not a solution, but it is still admirable.
However, it is unacceptable to classify different acts of terror and reject only those that affect one’s own country or society.
That same week when the Charlie Hebdo attack happened, terrible slaughter was committed in 16 towns and villages in Nigeria. Around 2,000 people, women, children and the elderly, were killed; many houses were burned, and 20,000 were forced to flee. Some of those who dived into Lake Chad to try to escape reportedly drowned, while others are facing hunger and disease on little islands in the area. The attacks in Syria still went on. Thirty-six people froze to death because of the blockade in some regions. And again, the attacks in Iraq continued at full speed.
These are all acts of terrorism. That terror is continuing as you read these words. Therefore, if there is a single front against terror, that must be expected to manifest itself against other acts of terror deriving from the same source. Since there is no difference between people living at 46 degrees latitude and those at 9 degrees, protesting against one while remaining silent in the face of another exposes a huge ethical void.
Of course, there are lessons that the Muslim world needs to learn from the terror in France and across the world, and there are solutions that need to be focused on. As I always say in these pages, responding with the Qur’an to the scourge of radicalism requires a global policy. In the process, however, insulting sacred things under the guise of freedom of the press or freedom of speech, or regarding that as a victory, will merely open the door to troubles. Those who wish to express their ideas through insults, who deprive others of the right to reply, merely encourage isolation and anger in the society in which they wish to live. “Free” Europe, therefore, needs to redefine the concept of freedom of ideas; if it wishes to maintain a strong democracy and rein in terror.
Adnan Oktar's piece on Arab News:

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

The Solution to ISIS

The Solution to ISIS

http://www.harunyahya.com/en/pages/id/1920/The-Solution-of-ISIS
  • The Solution to ISIS by Adnan Oktar
  • Adnan Oktar says
  • End of Times
  • Bigotry: The Dark Danger
  • Our Prophet (saas) Foretold the Incidents Happening in Iraq and ISIS 1400 years ago

See Also:

http://pakistan-harunyahya.blogspot.com/2014/08/our-prophet-saas-foretold-incidents.html

Racism in Europe: Who is to blame? in Urdu


Harun Yahya's article "Racism in Europe: Who is to blame?" published at Pakistan's Urdu Daily Paper, Daily Nai Baat


یورپ میں نسلی تعصب : ذمہ دار کون؟


عالم مغرب
ہارون یحییٰ

    جن لوگوں کو تاریخ سے تھوڑی بہت دلچپسی ہے، انہیں بخوبی معلوم ہے کہ نسلی تعصب، یورپ  کے چہرے پر ایک دھبے کی مانند ہے. دیگر بہت سے منفی اور جمہوریت کے رنگ میں رنگے گئے اور روشن خیال مذاہب کے نزدیک، نسلی تعصب ابھی تک تاریخ کی کتابوں تک ہی محدود رہا ہے. نسلی تعصب پر مبنی رجحانات کے علاوہ متشدد کارروائیاں، جن کے متعلق یورپ اور امریکہ کا خیال ہے کے یہ ماضی کا قصہ ہیں، سے ظاہر ہوتا ہے کہ یہ بیماری، کبھی بھی دور نہیں ہوئی-

    نسلی تعصب کے متعلق امریکہ کا اپنا نظریہ ہے جبکہ یوروپ میں اس کا اظہار اس وقت ہوا جب یوروپیوں نے مسلم دشمن رویہ اپنانا شروع کردیا. یوروپ کے مختلف حصوں میں مساجد پر حملے اور مسلم مخالف مظاہرے, مسلمانوں کے خلاف یورپی تعصب کی علامت ہیں لیکن جرمنی میں مسلمانوں کے خلاف نسلی تعصب انتہا کو پہنچ چکا ہے.

    جرمنی میں ایک مسلم مخالف تنظیم، روزانہ کی بنیاد پر مسلمانوں کے خلاف مظاہرے کررہی ہے جن کے دوران مظاہرین یہ نعرے بلند کرتے ہیں "ہم مسلمانوں کو اپنے ملک میں نہیں دیکھنا چاہتے". یہ مظاہرے جرمنی کے ایک ایسے شہر ڈریسڈن میں ہوتے ہیں جہاں مسلمانوں کی تعداد  زیادہ نہیں اور صاف معلوم ہوتا ہے کہ یہ تنظیم، جرمنوں کو مسلمانوں کے خلاف تشدد اور دہست گردی پر اکسارہی ہے. اس تنظیم کا مقصد یہ ہے کے یوروپ میں سے مساجد نابود ہوجائیں. یوروپ بھر میں مساجد پر حملے روزانہ کا معمول بن چکا ہے. جرمنی کے زیادہ تر سیاست دانوں کی طرف سے ان مظاہروں کی مذمت میں ایک فقرہ بھی سامنے نہیں آیا.

    یہ امر قابل تحسین ہے کے کرسمس کے موقع پر جرمن چانسلر نے اپنی تقریر میں ان مظاہرین کی طرف اشارہ کرتے ہوے کہا:

    "ان لوگوں کی طرف توجہ مت دیں جو جرمنی کو تنہا کر دینا چاہتے ہیں. جو لوگ، ہمارے ملک میں باہر سے آنے والے لوگوں کے لیے نفرت کا اظہار کررہے ہیں، ان لوگوں کے لیے ہمارے ملک میں کوئی جگہ نہیں".

    مزید برآں، جرمنی کے وزیر انصاف نے بھی کہا ہے کہ مسلم مخالف یہ مظاہرے، یورپ کے لیے باعث تحقیر ہیں. اس کے علاوہ چرچ، سیاسی جماعتوں اور فنکاروں کی طرف سے ان مظاہرین کی مذمت کے لیے جوابی مظاہرے کیے گئے ہیں.

    اگرچہ مندرجہ بالا بیانات اور اقدامات لائق تحسین ہیں، لیکن کافی نہیں. محض لب کشائی اور علامتی اظہار کے ذریعے نسل پرستوں کو مسلم مخالف اقدامات سے باز نہیں رکھا جا سکتا اور ان مسلم مخالف مظاہروں کی روک تھام کرنے کے لیے ٹھوس کاروائیاں درکار ہیں. جس طریقے کے ذریے جرمنی کی مرکزی حزب مخالف نے مارکل پر نسل پرستانہ مظاہروں میں اضافے کا الزام عائد کیا ہے، اسے بھی نظر انداز نہیں کرنا چاہیے. جرمنی کی حزب مخالف نے کہا ہے کہ مسلمانوں کے خلاف یہ ماحول، ان پالیسیوں کا نتیجہ ہے جو ماضی میں اختیار کی گیئں.

    نسلی تعصب ایک نفسیاتی عارضہ ہے. یہ عارضہ اس وقت پیدا ہوتا ہے جب ایک گروہ، اپنے سے کمزور گروہ کو کچل دینا چاہتا ہے. اگرچہ یہ بھی درست ہے کہ نسل پرست، نفسیاتی طور پر بیمار ہوتے ہیں لیکن دیگر عناصر جن کے باعث ان کی اس بیماری میں اضافہ ہوتا ہے، کو بھی نظر انداز نہیں کرنا چائیے.

    کم علمی کی بنا پر بہت سے یوروپی، مسلم عسکریت پسندوں کو اسلام کے مترادف سمجھتے ہیں. اس کے برعکس، اسلام امن کی تبلیغ کا ایک ایسا مذھب ہے جو معاشرے میں انسانوں کے مساوی حقوق کا حامی ہے. یہ بھی حقیقت ہے کہ اس وقت مسلمانوں کی بڑی تعداد قرانی تعلیمات سے بے بہرہ ہے.

    برحال، نسلی تعصب کے مسلے کو حل کرنے کے لیے ہمیں یہ نہیں سمجھنا چائیے کہ اس کی پہل یوروپ کی طرف سے ہو. بطور مسلمان، ہماری بھی ذمداری ہے کہ ہم نسلی تعصب کے مسلے کو ختم کرنے کے لیے یوروپیوں کے ساتھ محبت و پیار کے ساتھ پیش آییں. ہمیں اپنے اندر بھی باہمی اعتماد اور ہم آہنگی پیدا کرنی چاہے. ہمیں دنیا کے سامنے اسلام کا حقیقی چہرہ پیش کرنا چاہے جو محبت اور دوستی کا علمبردار ہے. یہ ہماری حماقت ہو گی کہ ہم نفرت کے عوض محبت اور دوستی کے طلبگار ہوں.

    (بشکریہ: عرب نیوز، ترجمہ: ریاض محمود انجم)


http://ur.harunyahya.com/ur/%D9%85%D8%B6%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86/196963/%DB%8C%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%BE-%D9%85%DB%8C%DA%BA-%D9%86%D8%B3%D9%84%DB%8C-%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%B5%D8%A8--%D8%B0%D9%85%DB%81-%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1-%DA%A9%D9%88%D9%86%D8%9F

Monday, January 12, 2015

Charlie Hebdo


Mr. Adnan Oktar’s comments about the attack on the office of French magazine Charlie Hebdo

- An armed attack has taken place in Paris on the office of a magazine that published a cartoon of a person under the name of the Prophet Muhammed (saas).
- This afternoon. Twelve people have died, two of them police officers.
- The magazine is a leftist one. It attracted strong criticism from all over the Islamic world for publishing cartoons mocking Islam in 2006 and 2011. However, they also targeted Christianity and Judaism, not just Islam. The editor-in-chief of the magazine, known for its communist leanings, said that all faiths were open to mockery and that this was not against the law. They issued statements along the line of; "Religious people need not read us. I am an atheist. I also hear things I do not wish to when I go to a mosque or a church." That person, who had received threats from al-Qaeda for some time, was one of those who died.
Adnan Oktar: One cannot get anywhere by killing. But you can by criticism and warnings. You can criticize and hold meetings. You can explain that what they are doing is disrespectful and unkind. You can explain that what they are doing has nothing to do with freedom of ideas, and is simply a system that distresses people. In that way you can gather support in society, and they will also be influenced. But going there and killing people with Kalashnikovs is very wrong.
- The French police have announced that the attackers shouted, “We have taken revenge for the Prophet.” One person who hid from the attackers and escaped said that they spoke perfect French and that they said they were acting in revenge for al-Qaeda.
Adnan Oktar: That would be meaningful if there were such a concept as ‘revenge’ in Islam. Their actions are incompatible with Islam. They should approach people with love and affection. You can go and tell people how offended Muslims are. You can say; "I would be equally pained if a communist were treated in that way. But we can have a discussion of ideas. And there may be people who disagree.” You can have religious debates. Nobody will mind that. But insults and defamation are senseless. One can explain how ugly their actions are.
The magazine’s editor-in-chief referred to legal proceedings brought by Muslims against them by saying, “Nothing will come of that, because Islam is illegal.”
That person was speaking unnecessarily and rudely. He wanted to give Muslims the impression that they are helpless, that “Whatever you do, the law does not work for you.”   
But killing them is no good at all. That is not a path compatible with Islam and the Qur’an.
- In the latest issue of the magazine, it carried a very unpleasant cartoon under the names of Jesus and Mary. The presentation was highly defamatory. French President Hollande issued a statement saying that such drawings should be considered within the framework of freedom of thought and that the attack on the journal was a violation of freedom of thought. 
Adnan Oktar: Of course, there is something wrong there. Hollande says it is a violation of freedom of thought. But is it compatible with love and respect? They need to ask that first. No, it is not. Freedom of thought is not all that matters. Love and respect and manners are also important. Freedom of thought does not mean insulting everyone, hurting and offending everyone, or trying to suppress people’s love and joy. They should make love the important thing. Freedom of ideas is sacred, but love is even more sacred. Kindness is even more sacred. Respect is even more sacred. But going and mowing people down is also no good, of course. If the law does not help, you can go and protest.
People need to turn to the Qur’an. And you need the system of the Mahdi for people to turn to the Qur’an. It will be very hard to turn to the Qur’an without the system of the Mahdi. Had it been easy, it would already have happened. But hundreds of years have gone by.
Had the families of the people who drew these cartoons been insulted, someone would have been punished under French law. They would have issued a writ at once. Of course defamation is wrong, but if it had happened they would have sued and won. But French law says nothing about Islam. There are laws preventing the defamation of Judaism and Christianity. Proceedings can be brought. But there is nothing about Islam.
Lovelessness is everywhere. The magazine is also founded on hatred and rejects love. It is all hatred. They know no love. Had they known love they would have had a perfect state of mind and their language would have been immaculate.
Look, 83 people were killed in bombings today in Iraq. Martyred. Another 38 people were bombed and martyred in Yemen, and 18 in Afghanistan. But there were no reports of those anywhere. Yet the events in France brought the whole world to its feet. No value is attached to Muslims. Our Prophet says in the hadiths that this is how it will be. 'Muslims will not be valued in the End Times,’ he says. He sets it all out in detail. 'The faith will flourish again with the return of Muhammed the Mahdi,’ he says. ‘Muslims will enjoy their former prestige. Muslims will be valued,’ he says. We are entering that age. But I said that great things would happen as we entered 2015. Look, tragedies have started right at the beginning of the year. This will continue until the coming of the Mahdi.

Saturday, January 10, 2015

مکہ، شہروں کی ماں، اور کعبہ کی مقدس جگہ



مکہ، شہروں کی ماں، اور کعبہ کی مقدس جگہ

مکہ؛ مقدس شہر جہاں ہمارے پیارے نبی محمد () پیدا اور بڑے ہوئے، اور جو سینکڑوں برسوں سےاسلام کا مرکز ہے...

اور اس کی تعمیر سے لیکر اب تک یہ امن کا مقام ہے جس کی طرف سارے مسلمان رخ کرتے ہیں : کعبہ ... 

وہ مقدس جگہ جو اسلامی تاریخ میں سارے مسلمانوں کو نزدیک لائی ہے، اور جو آج بھی نزدیک لارہی ہے.


اس فلم میں، آپ دیکھے گے کے یہ مقامات کس طرح قرآن میں پیش کئے گے ہیں، ان کی تاریخ اور فریضہ حج کے بارے میں معلومات حاصل کرے گے، جو تمام مسلمانوں میں حوصلہ افزائی اور جوش و خروش میں اضافے کا سبب  بنے گا

Friday, January 9, 2015

The Express Tribune’s error concerning ‘cow-whale’ evolution


The International New York Times-affiliated daily The Express Tribune, published in Pakistan, published an article on November 8, 2014, titled, “Evolution 101: Genetic evidence says cows and whales are related, says doctor.” This article in response discusses the logical inconsistencies of some of the claims and unscientific interpretations in that article.
Whales live in the sea and are the largest mammals on earth. Their metabolisms and reproductive, respiratory, sight, hearing and circulatory systems are unique to them and totally different to those of all other sea dwellers. These differences have always represented an important problem for evolutionists, meaning they have been unable to postulate family ties between whales and other marine creatures.
Darwinists, who on the basis of their theories need to find a terrestrial ancestor for marine mammals, have proposed various “hypothetical ancestors” in the light of certain limited similarities and made various hypotheses about them. The ‘ancestor’ in the article in question is the cow.
Interestingly enough, Charles Darwin himself unwisely proposed bears fishing in rivers as an ancestor of the whale: 
See...
I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.” (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p.184.)
Let us reply to some of the flaws of logic in the article in question:
Cows and whales at one point in time were related to each other. There is  genetic evidence that suggests this.”
First and foremost, there is no scientific evidence for this claim, for example, nothing in the fossil record . The search for evidence over the last century and a half has borne no fruit for Darwinists. Indeed, fossils refute this claim of a ‘family relationship’ between cows and whales. For that reason, Darwinists have turned their attention to genetic similarities and have suggested, on the basis of some of these, that the relationship in question has been ‘confirmed mathematically.’ This is completely false and groundless.
The bias in this popular evolutionist tactic here is also noteworthy. ‘There is genetic evidence to confirm this hypothesis.’ What is needed, instead of saying, “There is a genetic evidence that suggests this,” is for that evidence to be revealed but no concrete evidence in favor of this claim is produced. Instead, heavy emphasis is laid on assumptions in order to concoct a resemblance between the species.
Of course, when compared at the molecular level, similar molecules are used for similar metabolic events between different species. There may be a higher or lower level of difference between the genes that code these, and this can lead to significant differences between life forms. Yet Darwinists depict this as a trivial matter, or else deliberately ignore it.
Formulae set out on the basis of evolutionist prejudices and mathematical calculations formulated to support the idea of evolution are intended to show what kinds of changes may take place for a genetic code to turn into a target genetic code and what kind of time frame might be required. It is therefore assumed that various base pairs making up the initial DNA either disappeared or developed over the course of thousands or millions of years, and the time required for conversion to the target DNA is thus calculated.
The only limit, of course, in establishing familial relationships between two life forms using this method is ‘the power of the imagination.’ Accordingly, the number of mutations and  the millions of years it takes for a porcine insulin gene to turn into a human insulin gene is imaginatively calculated in a computer environment. Calculations produced ‘mathematical’ and ‘statistical’ methods in this way are of course purely speculative, and not really scientific at all.
The workshop helped the participants understand biology and evolution better by using statistics and mathematical data.”
The use of mathematical and statistical techniques does not bestow any scientific quality on Darwinist claims. Such endeavors are simply efforts to corroborate evolutionist prejudices using sleight of hand.
What Darwinists need to do is to corroborate their claims through such branches of science as paleontology, microbiology and genetics, rather than wasting time on speculation. However, the fact that paleontology shows that no such transition as evolution happened is dismissed by evolutionists, and the fact that biochemistry shows that not one single protein can form by chance is certainly no obstacle to Darwinist fantasies. In the absence of any scientific evidence, they resort to fantasies based on calculations they produce while sitting at their computers.
The endeavor to equate life forms with one another on the basis of prejudices concerning their DNA is a purely ideological one. There are huge differences between whales and the land-dwelling mammals proposed as their ancestors in terms of basic physiological characteristics such as water conservation, vision and communication.
What one would expect Darwinists to do is to use science to explain the scientific dilemmas deriving from these differences and to produce evidence for the hypothesized transition from one life form to another in the light of the claims of evolution. For further detail see...
However, they are unable to do that, because all branches of science show that all life forms come into existence fully formed. Some 500 million fossils also show that life forms have come down unchanged to the present day.
Science refutes Darwinism. Anyone investigating the universe in an unbiased manner using scientific methods will immediately see that and come across the proofs of Creation.
See Also:

Thursday, January 8, 2015

Ebola Panic in New York


What He Said?What Happened?
In his conversational programs, Mr. Adnan Oktar reminds his viewers that no one can split Turkey up, and if they even tried to do that, they will encounter big trouble, and we would give 77 million martyrs if needed. Also he says that America shouldn’t be racist; otherwise, they will also get hurt and they will have troubles.
Thus, recently America witnessed big protests after a young black man was killed by a police officer. And lastly, the American doctor who went to Africa to treat Ebola patients got ill after he came back to New York, and it was understood that he was carrying the Ebola virus. Just shortly before the doctor was diagnosed with Ebola, he had visited all around New York City, so panic spread.
A9 TV: August 19th, 2014
About the revolt of black people in the US.
ADNAN OKTAR: Look, a state curfew, this is unbelievable. America is shown as the most powerful country of the world but it is on thin ice. It will fly away if you blow on it. Because it doesn’t have a faithful base. They raise their youth as materialists and Darwinists. In the US, it is an obligation to give a Darwinist education. The Protestants try to resist but they are of course oppressed. They have power up to a certain level. So in America irreligiousness is very prevalent. When a person is irreligious, then he has an anarchist spirit. Not all of them but most of them have. So such mercilessness comes out. This is just a rehearsal. If America tries to destroy Turkey, then Allah would give them very big troubles. Remember, I said, ‘They shouldn’t try to split Turkey up, they should give up this aim, Allah may collapse their country on them.  I said, ‘There may be a rebellion, just a simple thing might happen, but it would become a big thing, there may be rebellions everywhere, and America may collapse’. I said, ‘They should give up trying to split Turkey up’. I have just said it. I said, ‘Allah may punish them immediately’. And immediately this happened afterwards.

A9 TV: August 23rd, 2014
ADNAN OKTAR: We would never let a communist state be established in Turkey, nor we would never let them split Turkey up.  America and Europe are slavering because the PKK wants weapon from them. And now, they are being rude. They are seeking a pretext for weapons. They will have heavy weapons against ISIS. Look, ISIS said, ‘We would take all their weapons from their hands, we would come and take all their weapons from their hands’. They would really do that. The real aim of Europe is to give them weapons and to make them use the weapons against Turkey, against our soldiers.
If Europe or America tries to destroy Turkey, the whole of America and Europe, all of them would be collapsed, let me tell you. Not a building, a tiny mountain doesn’t remain after, everywhere turns into desserts, let me tell you.  The Day of Judgment would come, they should pull themselves together. Look, Allah made His first warning to America. I said, 'There would be a big rebellion’. I said, ‘There may be black people rebelling and you cannot handle it’, I just said it. I said, ‘Don’t mess with Turkey, they would be leveled.' They have the power to burn America from end to end. They would destroy every piece of it. They should pull themselves together.
If you mess with Turkey, then Allah would mess with you. If you try to cause trouble in Turkey, then Allah gives trouble to you. They forget the power of Allah. They think that everything is independent. But it is not like that. America is on thin ice. And it can break anytime.

A9 TV: May 5th, 2014
ADNAN OKTAR: America is obsessed about this: ‘I will split Turkey up, I will make it Kurdistan’. We should talk this with America. We can write a detailed letter to America. They should give up their politics on splitting Turkey up. They have decided a hundred years ago, they say, ‘We will split up’. But this time, they will bring trouble only to themselves, may Allah forbid. We should tell America the dimensions of the danger very clearly. And also we should tell them clearly that Turkey is determined and we would never let them split our country up.

A9 TV: July 15th, 2013
(After George Zimmerman, who killed a black teenager in America, was found innocent, thousands of people from many states poured out into the streets and   protested.)
ADNAN OKTAR: Look, I said, ‘You would cause trouble for yourselves’. ‘There may be a black rebellion, and you would be shocked’. I just said it one or two months ago. And there may be a more comprehensive provocation. They may kill a few black people the same way, and they may put the blame on the American government, and they may cause a great rebellion. The American government is a government that hardly stays up. Very difficult. Very dangerous things may happen. Allah makes them pay back the troubles they caused with Darwinism and materialism and it seems like Allah will make them pay.

Sabah: October 25th, 2014
ebola-panigi-25-ekim-2014-sabah

The American doctor who went to Africa to treat Ebola patients, and got ill after he came back to New York, was diagnosed with Ebola. The American doctor, Craig Spencer, was put in quarantine. But just before Spencer was diagnosed with Ebola, he used the subways in New York, he visited Brooklyn a few times and went to  bowling and this caused a panic to spread all around the city. 
http://www.harunyahya.com/en/What-he-said-What-happened/196404/Ebola-Panic-in-New-York

Tuesday, January 6, 2015

Suicide Attacks Are Incompatible with Islam


Mawlid an-Nabi is an important day for all Muslims. Joyful celebration of the birth of the Prophet of Islam is something all Muslims have in common. Yet even this unifying element has now become a sign of division and fragmentation. Indeed, it has become an opportunity for mutually hostile Muslim groups to attack one another.
All Sunnis and Shiites celebrate Mawlid an-Nabi. Indeed, Houthis in Yemen arrange various activities within the celebrations of the Mawlid. Houthis wishing to hold a celebration in the capital’s al-Sabin Square last week were not allowed to do so, and the celebration was postponed to yesterday. It has been announced that the celebrations in Sana’a will last for a week, with various activities planned.
Members of the Ansarullah Movement, made up of Houthis, perpetrated a suicide attack in the Ibb Governorate the other day because of the Mawlid celebrations: Thirty-three people lost their lives in this attack, aimed at a culture center.
Strapping a bomb to oneself, infiltrating a group regarded as the enemy and blowing oneself up has sadly become equated with Islam. Not a day goes by without suicide attacks in a wide expanse of territory from Afghanistan to Iraq and from Israel to Yemen.
So what is the reason for this increase in suicide attacks? The instability in the countries in the region may represent the primary answer to that question. Attacks are perpetrated either against members of what is regarded as an occupier, such as in Israel, or against Islamic groups that are inimical to one another, such as in Iraq and Yemen.
Thirty-two percent of suicide attacks take place in countries occupied by foreign armies. The other 68% represent attacks by Muslims against one another.
Restaurants, markets and public transport facilities - public places with large civilian populations in other words - are deliberately chosen in suicide attacks. Indeed, attacks can even be perpetrated as Muslims are worshiping during the Friday prayers, as we've seen in Iraq, or while religious celebrations are going on, as in Yemen.
Many Muslim groups condemned Israel for sending its troops into a mosque in Jerusalem, and even denounced it as a foe needing to be destroyed. Interestingly, however, those same groups have remained utterly silent in the face of a suicide attack against a mosque where Muslims were praying, and some have even encouraged such attacks.
If one of those who intended to carry out a suicide attack were to be asked, “Why have you chosen this path?” he would probably say that he was doing this in the name of Islam, since he has been educated with false information and was ignorant of true Qur’anic values such as forgiveness, peace and love.
Yet committing suicide, and thus taking part in suicide attacks - and particularly taking the lives of innocent people in the process - is a blatant violation of the values of Islam; indeed, it is no secret to anyone that suicide is explicitly forbidden in the Qur'an (Surat an-Nisa’, 29). It is therefore impossible for someone who says he believes in Allah and that he abides by the verses of the Qur’an to do such a thing. This is an outrage that only someone wrongly acquainted with the faith, ignorant of true Qur’anic moral values, unable to use his mind and conscience and who has been brainwashed with feelings of hatred and revenge could perpetrate. Everyone, Muslim or not, must oppose such actions.
Allah makes it obligatory in the Qur’an for Muslims to strive to spread goodness across the world and to put an end to evil. However, the means that Muslims are shown in order to bring this about is not “fighting.” On the contrary, they are told in the Qur’an to respond to evil with good and to encourage love, affection, tolerance, patience and goodness. Muslims have a responsibility to call on all mankind until peace, well-being and compassion reign across the world. In other words, Muslims’ struggle must be an intellectual one, not one involving bloodshed, killing or encouraging the taking of life. All Muslims who know the true values of the Qur’an are aware of this and preach the values of the Qur’an in this way. They tell people of the values of the Qur’an and summon them to live in peace by using all the means of modern technology, through books, magazines, films and conferences.
There is absolutely no room for hatred or terror in the moral values of Islam. It is unacceptable in Islam for suicide bombers to perpetrate such treacherous outrages against anyone, for any reason. People who commit such actions and claim to do so in the name of Islam are ignorant fanatics who act in the light of non-Qur’anic nonsense and misinterpretations and who have no idea of what it means to be a true Muslim.
In one verse from the Qur’an Almighty Allah says:
“…if someone kills another person – unless it is in retaliation for someone else or for causing corruption in the earth – it is as if he had murdered all mankind. And if anyone gives life to another person, it is as if he had given life to all mankind…” (Surat al-Ma’ida, 32)
Adnan Oktar's piece on National Yemen: