Is Abortion acceptable?

One way to look at the issues of abortion is from the following three categories: black, white, grey.

Most people would be more inclined to agree with what falls in the "white" which surrounds medical reasons, for example, a woman might die if she gives birth or a woman's life is in danger because some traditionalists are shamed by the fornication of a family member.

Other scenarios which quite easily fall in the "black" mainly revolve around the timing of the child. Most people obviously disagree with abortion in the extremely late stages of pregnancy without medical reasons.

There are many issues in the "grey" that people are mostly indifferent about or do not have enough expertise within the the field of "morality" to claim that it is right or wrong. Such examples include genetic defects in the infact from a mother's bodily abuse, supporting a child in poverty or pregnancy as a result of rape.

No one can attest to saying that "nothing" should be put it in the "black" category because that would be blindly supporting the notion of abortion without even considering that some cases may go beyond the moral high ground.
People should be just as open with regards to the possibility that if cases of abortion can be justified, there are others that cannot.

Having said that, the biggest topics that revolve around abortion are concerned with deciding on the placement of the "mistake" complex within the above categories.
This particular issue is more deeply seeded than any other issue because there is an element of proactivity that can be introduced.
With this issue, society shouldn't be trying to decide how to deal with abortion, but rather how to prevent the pregnancy from occurring in the first place.

The same can be said about the rise of deaths resulting from drink driving, and the campaigns associated with drinking responsibly and dedicated drivers who need to stay sober.

With this "mistake" complex, campaigns surrounding contraception should be improved, as well as the general decency in society with regards to promiscuity instead of selling sex as bi-products in movies, billboards and ad campaigns. People need to start remembering that a family unit is what keeps a society thriving rather than the self-absorbed animal instincts that do nothing but destroy this unity. Mistakes can be minimised with positive approaches to encouraging alternate options to one's lifestyle.

Despite these remarks, mistakes are still ultimately mistakes, and one should never judge a person until all their own sins are removed.

No one is perfect; everyone can be forgiven.

Are Athiests more intelligent than people of faith?

There are plenty of philosophers, scientists, novelists, essayists, and engineers that fall within the vast spectrum of intellectuals who would also consider themselves strong believers of some form of theological ideology.

On the other hand there are many atheists that live their lives in the blue collar industry as plumbers, painters, taxi-drivers and brick layers, and some who didn't completed their secondary or tertiary education.

These examples on their own cannot "prove" any point as to who would be more intellectual than the other, and so we cannot possibly conclude that the level on which intelligence is measured upon is based on theology or atheism.

A "man of science" fits in both categories, since science has not yet contradicted religion; only theories have. Mainstream society too frequently forgets this. Since theories are still grouped in the category of speculation, one cannot assume that a man of faith falls outside the realms of "reality", and neither can he be labelled as ignorant.

Many of the philosophical ideologies presented by atheists and in particular regarding such concepts as the big-bang theory or Darwinism, is still in fact theory. The very thought process on what "might" or "might-not" have occurred in the history of the universe is in itself a belief; and therefore one may argue that atheism ultimately is a belief system in its own rite.

Just because these concepts are popular today, doesn't necessarily provide a means to measure intelligence.

The Atheist Faith

If we look at the deeper constructs of atheism, it is in actual fact a "rejection" of the concept of God; however that doesn't necessarily mean that atheists don't believe in an entity that binds the universe together.

In reality, atheism tries to justify concepts based on logical reasoning and deductions from specific findings that mankind has been able to muster over the ages.

Such concepts like the theory of evolution has only managed to allow mankind to establish reasoning based on 200 species of fossils over a period of 2 million years. That is, in perspective, similar to reading one page of a 10,000 page novel and then trying to explain what the book is about.

When scientists decided to change their focus from archaeological proofs to the more intricate molecular structures of mankind, more questions rather than answers had arisen.

Based on the lack of conclusive evidence, atheists were drawn to maintain the theoretical elements of their explanations, and some convinced themselves that "surely" the concept of natural selection is "more truer" than any other concept, thus as we witness today, most believe that natural selection is indeed fact.

But in reality, this falls into the categorisation of faith. Belief that natural selection and not a creator of all things is the source of our existence, is in itself a belief.

There are many atheists that understand that "random" selection based on trial and error cannot be possible as a lottery cannot construct such a sophisticated organism like the human being, and therefore the concept that "mother nature finds a way to adapt life" rings more clearly than most other theories.

It is fitting that we call it "mother nature" almost personifying the nurturing entity of nature, just like those who follow star-signs and believe that astrological alignments control our destiny, or New Yorkers who believe that finding a nickel is the city's way to communicate to them.

Ultimately, whether we call it Mother Nature, "the city that protects us while we sleep", the ultimate entity, the creator of all things, God, Allah, or whatever our hearts desire us to call it, the human being naturally seeks solitude with a greater force, even if we don't consciously admit it to ourselves.

Atheists today out-rightly reject the concept of an old man with a white beard sitting in a cloud shouting "good person", "bad person", and justifiably so; especially when most people don't adapt well to discipline from a man-like figure they don't relate to. But that does not necessarily mean that their faith of an entity greater than they can perceive wouldn't exist, rather only that they reject the dogmas of cultures that have taken over the spiritual authenticity of religion, and ultimately corrupted it with their own superstitions and traditions.

Lesley Hazleton - A Jew Reading the Koran

What are Australian Values?

Peter Costello remarked about Muslims, indirectly considering their faith “un-Australian”.

"Anyone who believed Islamic sharia law could co-exist with Australian law should move to a country where they felt more comfortable...

Muslim leaders should be pledging themselves and their followers to Australian values...

Pledge themselves unequivocally to these values first of all, and then call on their followers to pledge themselves unequivocally to these values".

[http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pm-backs-muslim-comments/2006/02/24/1140670238222.html]

But what are Australian values, and what on earth does "un-Australian" actually mean?

As an Australian born citizen I have grown up loving this country. It has provided me with the career opportunity I have always been looking for; it has provided my family with protection; it has given me the right to disagree with whatever I want to disagree on, and has given me the freedom to believe what I choose to believe in.

I choose to believe in Islam. I have found it to be the fundamental reason for living life. This does not deter me from being Australian. On the contrary, it improves my ability to be more proactive as an Australian citizen. It has helped me contribute more towards this country because it demands an urgency to participate in my society

Islam has been able to give me the most important values in building up my character, my dignity and my self-respect.

These values are in no way contradictory to the social aspects found in Australian society and the concept of multiculturalism that has become more popular over the last few decades.

So the question that would naturally arise from this argument would be what then are Australian values regarding multiculturalism?

“...a policy developed in the '70s by Australian governments looking for a way of replacing assimilation policies. It was based on the belief that society would work better if people felt their cultural beliefs were respected and that they did not have to abandon their values to be considered good Australians.”

[http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2010-11/11rp06.pdf]

Since my ancestors were migrants, I have a commonality with the majority of Australians. Whether my ancestors came 20 years ago, or 200 years ago, we share the same basic connection.

Over the years the word “Australian” no longer refers to the people whose ancestors migrated with the First Fleet, rather to anyone whose ancestors migrated here by invitation and earned the right to become citizens.

Therefore, many that feel they have a right to say “go back to your own country” don't realise that this statement is no longer plausible, especially because this is in fact my own country.

If John Howard and Peter Costello do not realise this, then their own lack of embracing such an Australian value has made them fall into the trap of being “un-Australian”.

As a Muslims by faith and an Australian by nationality, I strongly believe in multiculturalism. It has taught me tolerance for all kinds of cultures and religions.

Moreover, in reference to John Howards’s remarks accusing

“…some Muslims of bringing jihadist views and opinions about women that did not fit in Australian society.”

[http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/islam-comments-a-cheap-shot/2006/02/24/1140670236214.html]

Nothing could be further from the truth.

As a Muslim, I have been taught to have the utmost respect for women. I am taught that family values are regarded one of the highest priorities in life. We tend to keep ourselves and our women away from environments that could provoke and threaten their self esteem and dignity. This does not necessarily mean that we fail to "integrate" with Australian society, rather that we refuse to "assimilate" with the majority of the population. There is no need for us to forget our identity and our beliefs in order to "fit in".

We also encourage education and provide protection for our women so that they benefit from their basic human rights. They are our mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters.

There is, however, a significantly high percentage of people in Australia that believe they are in a position to preach such an ethical view towards women.

Today, with the most popular form of advertisement being the exploitation of women, we find more and more billboards with women completely exposed sitting in chocolate ice-cream cones being treated like byproducts; while other women show intimacy as they wash the latest cars; as well as an evident lack of censorship when we are constantly presented with explicit sexual references found on most of our common free-to-air TV shows during the peak hours of the day. Our children grow up in an environment where there is no choice but to be exposed to such indecencies.

People are encouraged to degrade and disrespect their own values by adhering to a lack of dignity.

As an Australian, I fail to recognise such a value that does not conform to the “Australian-way” stipulated in respecting our people in our society.

Being Muslim has made me the equivalent of the modern-day "feminist" as all Muslim men are encouraged to be.

It is clearly unacceptable that Howard would talk about our opinion on women, let alone mentioning our "jihadist" views.

On this note, and regarding these "jihadist" views, one could also question Howard and Costello's Australian values towards violence.

Australia, well known for being a peaceful countr,y has leaders who are appointed with the responsibility of setting a good example for the Australian community. Yet those very leaders send our own troops halfway across the world to a country we barely even know and force a people we’ve never met to conform to a constitution they know nothing about whether they like it or not.
As an Australian, I find this extremely un-Australian.

Ultimately, there are many Muslims that can be more eligible for the banner of being "Australian" over many others who self-appoint themselves with that status by default.

Many people complain about the "growing gap that continually bridges Muslims and the rest of Australian society".

That gap will only grow larger when Muslims realise that rather than being accepted for integrating into Australian society, they are rejected because they refuse to be part of Australian assimilation.

Sheikh Qaradawi Condemns Attacks Against Civilians: Forbidden in Islam

DOHA, Qatar, Sept 13 (IslamOnline & News Agencies) - Renowned Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi denounced the attacks against civilians in the U.S. Tuesday and encouraged Muslims to donate blood to the victims of the attack.

In response to the bloody attack against civilians in the U.S., Sheikh Yusuf issued a statement Wednesday saying that:

"Our hearts bleed for the attacks that has targeted the World Trade Center [WTC], as well as other institutions in the United States despite our strong oppositions to the American biased policy towards Israel on the military, political and economic fronts.

"Islam, the religion of tolerance, holds the human soul in high esteem, and considers the attack against innocent human beings a grave sin, this is backed by the Qur'anic verse which reads:

Who so ever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and who so ever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind," (Al-Ma'dah:32).

"The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is reported to have said, 'A believer remains within the scope of his religion as long as he doesn't kill another person illegally'," the prominent scholar said.

He added that haphazard killing where the rough is taken with the smooth and where innocents are killed along with wrongdoers is totally forbidden in Islam. No one, as far as Islam is concerned, is held responsible for another's actions. Upon seeing a woman killed in the battlefield, the
Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, denied the act and said: "That woman shouldn't have been killed anyway!".

Even in times of war, Muslims are not allowed to kill anybody save the one who is indulged in face-to-face confrontation with them. They are not allowed to kill women, old persons, children, or even a monk in his religious seclusion.

Qaradawi then asserted that is why killing hundreds of helpless civilians who have nothing to do with the decision-making process and are striving hard to earn their daily bread, such as the victims of the latest explosions in America, is a heinous crime in Islam. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is reported to have stated that a woman was qualified to enter Hell because of the cat she locked up to death.

"If such is the ruling applied in protecting animals, no doubt, aggression against human beings, a fortiori, deserves greater protection, for human beings are honoured by Allah Almighty and are His vicegerents on earth," he added.

Al Qaradawi said, "We Arab Muslims are the most affected by the grave consequences of hostile attack on man and life. We share the suffering experienced by innocent Palestinians at the hands of the tyrannical Jewish entity who raze the Palestinian homes to the ground, set fire to their tilth, kill them cold-bloodedly, and leave innocent orphans wailing behind.

"With this in mind, the daily life in Palestine has become a permanent memorial gathering. When Palestinians face such unjust aggression, they tend to stem bloodletting and destruction and not to claim the lives of innocent civilians."

"I categorically go against a committed Muslim's embarking on such attacks.
Islam never allows a Muslim to kill the innocent and the helpless.

"If such attacks were carried out by a Muslim – as some biased groups claim - then we, in the name of our religion, deny the act and incriminate the perpetrator. We do confirm that the aggressor deserves the deterrent punishment irrespective of his religion, race or gender," he added.

"What we warn against, even if becomes a reality, is to hold a whole nation accountable for a crime carried out by a limited number of people or to characterize a certain religion as a faith giving support to violence and terrorism," Qaradawi said.

Qaradawi clarified that when the well-known Oklahoma incident was carried out by a Christian American, who was driven by personal interests, Christianity, America or even the Christian world, were not accused of the attack because a Christian masterminded it.

"I have been asked several questions on TV programs and on public lectures about the martyr operations outside the Palestinian territories, and I always answer that I do agree with those who do not allow such martyr operations to be carried out outside the Palestinian territories.

"Instead we should concentrate on facing the occupying enemy directly. It is not permissible, as far as Islam is concerned, to shift confrontation outside the Palestinian territories. This is backed by the Qur'anic verse that reads: "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loves not, aggressors," the renowned Muslim scholar concluded.