The Map of the Middle East Was Drawn by the Contemporary 40 Thieves

1 12 2016

by Harun Yahya

According to historians, the cause of the wars in the Middle East is the artificial borders drawn up at the beginning of the 20th Century. The post-Ottoman states of the region were not founded upon historical, sociological or geographical facts. Iraq and Syria being in particular, the new borders were drawn in line with the interests of the British Empire. Many political analysts believe it was the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement – signed between Britain and France – that shaped the modern Middle East. But in reality, the map that threw the region into turmoil for a hundred years was drawn at the Cairo Conference held with the attendance of many British diplomats, military figures, spies and politicians. The then Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill, dubbed this crew, who divided the Ottoman Empire on paper, as “40 Thieves”.

churchill-abdullah-samuel-jerusalem 2

The Ottoman Empire’s separation accelerated in the early 19th Century. Britain, France and Russia, the three great imperialist empires of the era, were in a fierce competition to seize this 20 million square kilometers of territory. Although history books present it as a three-way competition, the de facto leader and decision maker of this alliance had always been the British Empire. The decisions of war and peace would be taken in London, and the British statesmen would always have the final say when the territorial distribution was concerned. In the period of more than a century leading up to the World War I, three-fourths of the Ottoman territories were separated among these three empires. The Northern Black Sea and Caucasus was granted to the Russians; the Balkan countries became supposedly sovereign states under British protectorate and North Africa largely came under British rule. Algeria was occupied by the French and from this division, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was granted Bosnia-Herzegovina as an appeasement.

For the remaining territories, Britain, France and Russia signed the Sykes-Picot-Sazonov Agreement in 1916 behind closed doors while World War I was still raging on. Following the October Revolution (the Bolshevik coup d’etat), Russia withdrew from the agreement; thus, the agreement was renamed as ‘Sykes-Picot’. After the war, Britain decided to form the borders on its own, pushing France aside as well. To that end, a conference was held at the Semiramis Hotel, Cairo in March 12th, 1921.

The meeting was chaired by the British Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill. The meeting was held in great secrecy and was featured in neither the press nor the memoirs of the attendees.

Among the “40 Thieves”, all of whom were British citizens, were the British spies archaeologist Gerthrude Bell and T. E. Lawrence, their local collaborators Jafar al-Askari and Sassoon Hasqauil; the British invasion commanders General Edmund Allenby, Marshal Sir Hugh Trenchard, Hubert Young, and the British Invasion Civil Administrative Herbert Samuel, Francis Archer and Arnold Wilson and the Baghdad High Commissioner Sir Percy Cox.

The decisions that were put into practice following the congress in Cairo constitute the basis of the problems the Middle East faces today. As per the decisions taken in this meeting, the Ottoman territories were split up as follows:

  1. The Palestine region was to be ceded to the British mandate. Abdullah of the Hashemite Dynasty was to become the King of Jordan.
  2. Lebanon and Syria were to be temporarily ceded to French rule and the system of governance there was to be determined by the French.
  3. The Hejaz region was to be granted to Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca.
  4. The Arabian Peninsula and Nejd were to be granted to the House of Ibn Saud.
  5. Britain was to continue paying subsidies to the House of Ibn Saud and the Sharif of Mecca. Britain’s Royal Air Force was to be responsible for ensuring the safety of the entire region. (In accordance with this particular assignment, the British bombed thousands of settlements in the Middle East, martyring tens of thousands of innocent civilians).
  6. And finally, Faisal, the son of Sharif Hussein of the Hashemite dynasty, who staged the Arab Revolt, was to be installed as the King of Iraq.

One of the most significant decisions of the meeting was the foundation of the Iraqi state. Until then, no country named Iraq had existed in history, nor a nation labeled as “Iraqi”. Throughout history, the region had always been known as ‘Mesopotamia’: It was in this meeting that the name ‘Iraq’, which means ‘country far from sea’, was mentioned for the first time. Determined as the King of Iraq by the “40 Thieves”, Faisal was a member of the Hashemite Dynasty and he had been chosen as the King of Syria. Once the rule of Syria had been ceded to France, Faisal ended up as the King of Iraq. Faisal was not from Mesopotamia, incidentally; he was actually born in Hejaz. A person who had never been in Iraq was thereby duly appointed as the King of those lands.













When King Faisal ascended to the throne of Iraq, the land was in a state of complete disorder. The rival Turkish, Arabic and Kurdish communities

rebelled against the new British mandate government. The British were able to quell this rebellion and successfully installed the King only by paying around 40 million Pounds.

Since the reign of King Faisal to our day, 15 separate insurrections have occurred in Iraq. Shiite and Kurdish massacres took place. The country was ruled by dictators for a period of almost 50 years. Iraqi territories faced two occupations and virtually all the major cities were destroyed: The death toll reached 500,000 in the Iran-Iraq War alone. Since the day it was artificially founded to our day, the country has seen no shortage of death and blood.

Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Israel and Yemen also share a similar history. As for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, there has been no period that has not been beset by greater or lesser degrees of internal turmoil and political instability. Royal Air Force warplanes had to step in to be able to implement the decisions made in the Cairo Conference. The revolts that broke out in Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Iraq and Palestine were suppressed in the most brutal manner. Cities, towns, villages were levelled to the ground under heavy bombardments. During the 100 years following the meeting in Cairo, many Christians, Jews and Muslims lost their lives in never-ending wars. Shiites, Sunnis, Nusayris, Wahhabis, Alawites had forgotten their ties of brotherhood and slaughtered each other. Arab, Yazidi, Assyrian, Turkmen and Kurdish women and children have been the victims of the most ruthless persecution. Millions of Middle Easterners were massacred because of the maps devised by the “40 Thieves”.

The map that was drawn back then is still being fine-tuned to this day and this is still refined a bit further through bloodshed, war, animosity and conflict. There is only one way to change this picture: Regardless of their religion, language and race, the people of the region must regard their differences as a blessing and remember that they are brothers. In that regard, a major responsibility falls on the shoulders of Muslims that are being overwhelmed by denominational wars. Muslims should come to the realization that ‘sectarian conflict’ is nothing but an artificial feud. At the same time, they should be the guardians of other religions. This is the only solution that will put an end to the war that has been raging for a century and thwart the schemes being played on the Middle East.


The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and

Why Did The Americans Elect Trump?

22 11 2016


by Harun Yahya

The American people voted for their new President and Congress members on November 8th. Not only the US but the entire world monitored the election campaign of both parties with great interest since everyone was curious about how their countries would be affected with the new government. They were wondering if the US would continue to interfere in foreign countries’ conflicts or if it would focus on their own people’s needs and interests.

The election resulted in an unexpected way and Trump became the 45thPresident of the United States. Some of the statements he made during his election campaign vis a vis immigrants, women or Islam are wholly unacceptable; however, we hope that he will change once he actively comes to office because he gave messages of unity to his fellow citizens and promised to have good relations with those states that would like to get along with them in his acceptance speech. Besides, he corrected some of his comments by saying he would not allow illegal immigrants to enter the country while numerous legal immigrants were in the queue for being accepted to America. It is noteworthy to mention here that the main cause for the immigration issue is the current situation in the Middle East. Everybody is cognizant that it was the erroneous American policy that turned the region into a warzone because according to the analyses Pentagon put forth in 2003, 2007 and 2014, both climate change and the regime changes they made would be the threat multiplier to increase immigration.

It is not hard to predict how the situation in the Middle East would be if Clinton were elected as the President. She held quite a hawkish policy in the Middle East when she was incumbent as the Secretary of State and she kept a similar stance in her statements during her campaign. This would definitely mean more war in the region. Even though Obama came to office with promises of change in America and his 2008 campaign slogans included expressions closely related to his stance such as, “Yes, we can,” “Change,” “Hope”, he did not keep to his words. During his campaign, he promised to keep America away from foreign conflicts and crises and to hold a peaceful policy and he even received Noble Peace Prize during his incumbency. Yet, what we see now is that the United States is actively in multiple military operations in the Middle East. Similarly, Secretary Clinton would be very likely to follow his route since she adopts a parallel foreign policy and she is under the influence of some US lobbies just as Obama was and it is very unlikely to make decisions discrepant from these lobbies supporting the Democratic Party.

Consequently, this election result is indicating the frustration of the American people of the status quo they have been dealing with for more than eight years. They elected Obama because they thought he would make a difference but he could not make it happen. It would not be fair to put the blame only on him because the President is not the sole authority to make the decisions in the US; he has to take the consent of the Congress, which consists of the House of Representatives and the House of Senates. The senators and the representatives have the right to veto the President’s decisions with the exception of his executive orders. When we take Obama administration into consideration, we see the dominance of GOP members in both of the branches of the Congress, and thus Obama’s hands were tied to implement what he wanted. From this perspective, this new American government is fortunate since the new President and the Congress are all from the same party and it is something Americans have not witnessed since the 1920s. Despite the fact that it is not a secret some of the Republican members are not in favor of Trump’s policy, with his new administration Trump will probably seek ways to get along with them and find a common ground as to their disputes.

If we analyze the election from a Middle Eastern standpoint, we see some countries who are at ease with the results and some who are worried. It is good to see an America extending a peaceful hand to Russia because such an alliance may well mean a solution for the bloodshed in Syria and Iraq. Trump’s stance regarding Turkey is also pleasing as his Secretary of Defense candidate Lieutenant General Michael T. Flynn penned an article in the Hill stating the importance of Turkey as America’s ally and that Turkey needs their support. It is hopeful for our country since Turkey had very tense relations with the US lately due to their operations in Syria and their supply of weapons to the YPG, an affiliate of the PKK terrorist organization. When Iran is taken into account, we view a disappointed country regarding Trump’s election. It is because Trump made some criticism touching on the Iran Nuclear Deal signed after on and off negotiations with the associated states. It was considered a democratic victory for the Iranians since it meant lifting of the sanctions and an opportunity of involving into the international arena after a long waiting. Our Iranian brothers should not be disturbed with the result because first of all the Iranian Nuclear agreement is an international contract signed by P5+1 and cannot be abrogated only by the US. Additionally, after the elections his tone changed and he said he would review the nuclear deal instead of cancelling it. Everyone knows very well that campaign statements do not always coincide with what they do when they officially take office.

Since Trump would like to have dovish foreign policy in the Middle East, he will very likely seek to keep the good relations recently built with Iranian people. Being a good partner of Russia and Turkey will also affect America by continuing to make progress with Iran. Such a stance will definitely win the hearts of Iranians and this would be a fair deal to prevent anti-American reactions that would rise in Iran if the contract is broken and this would not benefit anyone either in the States or in our region. As Muslims from the Middle East who have suffered from the ongoing bloodshed long enough, we expect President Trump to have a better policy for the Middle East than the former administration and find a diplomatic solution for the crisis in Iraq and Syria.


The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and

The Knot Can Be Untied Only Through Moral Values

13 11 2016


by Harun Yahya

Our world is in conflict in almost every corner drawing a number of nations into some level of warfare, instability and inevitably, terrorism. In the heart of this firestorm lies the Middle East, spreading over a transcontinental region often referred to as the “Cradle of Civilisations”. This particular part of the world has played a crucial part globally in terms of politics, strategy, religion, culture and economics. Yet, today we see that this historical accumulation woven with the contributions of many of the greatest states and empires from all faiths and nations is being destroyed both by the bloody actions of terrorist groups and radical organisations and the military interventions of foreign powers.

Looking deep into the truth of the matter in regard to the issues in the Middle East, we see that superstitions, fabricated hadiths and bigoted beliefs that have no place in Islam are the main reasons of the terror, violence and fragmentation that encompasses the entire region.

The main problem of the Arab world is not radical militants, but the radical ideology within their minds and brains. The adherents of this radical and bigoted system have in fact abandoned the core essence and spirit of Islam and the Qur’an and have thus been misled to violence, hatred, wars and suffering between sects and various groups.

What needs to be done is not to wipe out the followers of this deviant mindset but to eradicate the fanaticism and bigotry that emerge in the name of true religion.

Incorporating the beauties of love, compassion, brotherhood, unity and harmony, religion is the assurance of peace, prosperity, human rights, social justice, democracy, freedom and equality for all of humanity.

If the societies in the Middle East had lived perfectly in compliance with these superior values of Islam, that would be the end of all the bloodshed, hostility and troubles in the region. There is definitely no place for pressure and compulsion in Islam. Freedom of religion, faith and thought perfectly complies with the Qur’an.

Knowing that religion shapes the Arabic and Middle Eastern cultures, and has a huge impact on all spheres of life such as politics, economics, law, culture, science, art, and education, it is not possible to bring a solution to the problems in the Arabic world without incorporating religion.

In the Middle East, everything is based on Islamic traditions and almost the entire region carries motives based on Islam. Therefore, it is essential to place religious values at the centreof any resolution in the Middle East.

That is why strict military policies and bombs are not the key to peace, tranquility and security as desperately awaited by millions of people for many long years. Quite the contrary, violence only yields more violence.

Smart bombs and modern warfare have always fostered more hatred, rage, and radicalisation. Radical organisations that are the main reasons of instability and confusion continue their attacks and gain more followers.

The deeply-rooted problems of the Middle East can be solved with diplomacy, reconciliation and love rather than war, conflict and hatred. Diplomatic and peaceful methods should be continuously employed until peace is achieved.

This necessitates the communication of real Islam to wipe away the mistaken beliefs that have sprouted in some people’s minds. Societies are in need of a spiritual education and must be revived spiritually. This spiritual education should definitely be an education based on the Qur’an and not on the fabricated hadiths that lead the masses to radical ideas.

As is known, clergymen and spiritual leaders are important in Arab societies; they are cultural ambassadors and opinion leaders. Of course it is very important for these cultural ambassadors to be sincere, rational people acting with the spirit of love and compassion.

The existence of leaders who live, preach and exemplify the moral values of the Qur’an in the best way is the key aspect for solving problems.

Therefore, they would play a substantial role in this education. Indeed, most of the time the role of religious leaders are more important than politicians, academicians, artists, international media pundits or corporations in the Middle East.

To that end, the spiritual leaders of the Middle East can become the real saviors of the region by embracing a language of love, unity, brotherhood, understanding, peace, and by carefully avoiding speeches that will provoke hatred, rage and hostility. In order to efficiently break major deadlocks, they may attain meaningful and fruitful results based on sound religious values that demand peace and good conduct between all parties.

During these difficult days that the region is passing through, all efforts should be made and supported for encouraging this massively under-appreciated method of moral diplomacy to repair the broken relations and bring about the anticipated security, stability and welfare. Those taking part in this diplomatic effort will be the real contributors to peace in the Middle East.


The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and

UNESCO’s Political Decision and the Temple Mount

5 11 2016


by Harun Yahya

Last week, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Executive Board approved the decision taken by the external relations commission regarding “Al-Aqsa region having no affiliation with Judaism”. The decision, which met with negative reactions from the Israeli government and all the Jews around the world, passed after 24 out of 58 member countries voted in favor of the measure. Regarding the issue, the executive board spokesperson Michael Worbs said the following: “The result shows it is a very divisive issue. And the origin of this division is not from inside UNESCO, it’s from the real world.”

Prepared and proposed as a draft by seven countries including Egypt, Algeria, Lebanon and Qatar, the resolution aimed to “preserve the Palestinian cultural heritage and the distinct character of East Jerusalem.” The historical city center of Jerusalem, wherein the Islamic holy sites Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock are located, was also addressed within this scope. The decision taken ruled that the region in question only belonged to the Muslims.

There are some conspicuous factors regarding the aforementioned vote held by UNESCO, which undertakes a cultural mission within the United Nations. The first one is that the countries voting in favor of the decision are those who have had a problematic past with Israel. The point in question shows that the assessment has more of a political ground rather than “cultural heritage”. The fact that 26 countries abstained from voting is another factor that supports this opinion. Twenty-six countries refraining from announcing any decisions regarding a cultural assessment clearly indicates some political reservations on their part. Upon reactions, the decision is expected to be voted once again in the upcoming days.

However, the main problem lies in questioning via an international vote “which religion the Temple Mount, wherein Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock is located, belongs to.”

The location and significance of the Temple Mount along with all the religious symbols within was relayed to us through Sacred Books. While the Torah deems the Temple Mount and the Al-Aqsa Mosque inside it holy for the Jews, the Quran places importance on Al-Aqsa as the place of our Prophet, Hazrat Muhammad’s Ascension [Mi’raj]. Al-Aqsa Mosque is also the first qibla [the direction that should be faced during prayers] for Muslims. Christians also consider this region important as the place of the ascension of the Prophet Jesus (pbuh).

The claim that the site is only holy for Muslims is, first and foremost, in contradiction with the Quran. Because, the Quran explicitly expresses that the Jews have the right to live on the Holy Land, which includes Jerusalem as well.

In the Quran, God informs about the Prophet Moses’ call for his tribe, saying; “My people! Enter the Holy Land which God has ordained for you. Do not turn back in your tracks and so become transformed into losers.”(5/21) God rendered the Holy Land a sacred location for the tribe of Israel to settle and live according to the Torah of the Prophet Moses (pbuh).

Likewise, in another verse of the Quran, God says, “We settled the tribe of Israel in a noble place and gave them good things as provision” (10/93), stating that He chose these lands exclusively for the Jews.

In the 58th verse of the Surah al-Baqara, saying, “Remember when We said, ‘Go into this town and eat from it wherever you like, freely. Enter the gate prostrating and say, Relieve us of our burdens!” Your mistakes will be forgiven. We will grant increase to all good-doers,’” our Lord grants Jerusalem to the Jews as their homeland and points out to the fact that the region is a sacred location for them.

Through the aforementioned verses of the Quran, our Lord enunciates to the Muslims that the Jews have the right to live on the Holy Land, and that these lands are considered sacred for them as well. If a Muslim claims that this land is not sacred for the Jews, he is either acting in contradiction with the Quran, or he is oblivious to this major fact that is stated in the Quran.

When the Torah and the Quran deem these lands sacred for the Jews, certain Islamic countries coming together and trying to render this commandment invalid via an international cultural organization is objectionable both in logical and religious sense. Trying to invalidate a fact specified by our Almighty Lord through Sacred Books is clearly an exercise in futility. The status and sacredness of the region has been defined by Almighty God. Trying to deny and annul it might have major consequences in the Sight of God.

The decision in question also has other objectionable points.

The organization’s spokesperson, Worbs, says that the achieved result originates from the issue being “divisive.” However, the decision taken by UNESCO is the actual factor that paves the way for a very harmful division.

The fact that location of the Al-Aqsa Mosque is considered holy by all three Abrahamic religions is quite significant for the unity and solidarity among religions. This is undoubtedly one of the reasons why our Almighty Lord deems this blessed city sacred for all three religions. Members of the three religions worshiping and praying at the same locations is a beauty and a blessing. However, claiming via a vote that this city is only sacred for the Muslims is a potential danger, which might give rise to discrimination among nescient individuals, paving the way for polarization and possible dissension. Making such a radical claim for an exceedingly fragile region beset with major problems caused by superstitious religious conception will result in nothing but escalated tension in the region.

It should be known that a location sacred for Muslims is also considered sacred for the Jews, and should be considered a blessing for the entire Islamic world. As Muslims, the Prophet Moses is our prophet as well. Sharing the beauty of these lands his followers lived should be seen as a merit and beauty.

What is expected from Islamic countries is to stand for this obvious and beautiful fact that is in complete conformance with the Quran, not to cover it up. What is expected from an organization protecting historical and cultural values such as UNESCO is to take the Holy Books into consideration rather than individual and governmental political interests and views when addressing religious and spiritual values. And what is needed for all these to happen is for the Islamic community to make rationalistic decisions based on the Quran by abandoning superstitious, traditional orthodox and bigoted conceptions, and for international organizations to cast the political priorities of certain “masterminds” aside and become conscientious institutions.

In the meantime, there is no reason for sincere Jews and sincere Muslims to worry. If God is willing, the Temple Mount is the site where King Moshiach will soon open the Ark of the Covenant along with Muslims and Jews. Then, those who are currently in denial will unquestionably witness that the region is a holy site for both the Jews and the Muslims. No one has the power to obstruct a truth destined by God.


The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and

The Quran Protects Rights, Freedoms

24 10 2016

by Harun Yahya

There are fundamental rights and freedoms that form the basis of modern constitutions, laws and declarations. Freedom of thought and belief are also essential in this regard. The extent that these freedoms can be exercised is considered a concrete indication of the difference in the levels of development in Western and Eastern societies.

The general perception in some Western communities is that the freedoms of thought and belief are dramatically restricted in the Middle East and Islamic countries. The popular view among them states that a life based on the Islamic faith and rules is being forced upon people and that those who act contrary face severe pressure, threats, sanctions and penalties.

Regrettably, that is the case, to a certain extent, not for all Islamic countries and communities of course, but for many of them. Yet, the fallacy of these claims is that they unjustly argue that Islam is the reason for these adverse conditions.

These criticisms and claims, arising from prejudice and ignorance, are often raised without taking into consideration the fact that the Quran is the only and true source of Islam. The misunderstandings and malpractices of both people and societies, the interpretations and explanations contradicting the Quran made by some people regarded as religious scholars, the use of sources other than the Quran and the groundless rumours fabricated using the name of our Prophet are presented as evidence of these claims.

As a matter of fact, when only the Quran is taken as reference, it would easily be seen that Islam entails an understanding of freedom far more advanced than that of all of the civilisations, philosophies and ideologies of all time. The concept of freedom explained by the Quran is far beyond the restrictions adopted by advanced and modern societies.

The Quran ensures the rights and freedoms of belief, thought and worship of the members of all religions and forbids behaviours restricting these rights and freedoms. Provided that the meaning of the concept of “secularism”, today manipulated to imply atheism, is “to respect the freedoms of religion, belief and worship”, it would be clear to anyone that this concept is a teaching prevalent in the Quran.

The following verses of the Quran refer to the freedom of belief in Islam in the most succinct way: “(Say:) I do not worship what you worship and you do not worship what I worship. Nor will I worship what you worship, nor will you worship what I worship. You have your religion and I have my religion.” (Surat Al-Kafirun 2-6) Such freedom holds true for all religions, from Christianity to Judaism, and all belief systems — and disbelief — including Buddhism and atheism.

In the same way, with the verse that reads, “If God had not driven some people back by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, where God’s name is mentioned much, would have been pulled down and destroyed…” (Surat Al-Hajj, 40) God protects the places of worships that belong to not only Muslims, but also members of other religions.

The Quran definitively declares that no one may be forced to adopt Islam or practise the rules entailed by Islam under any circumstances. The following verses are just a few of the many verses in this regard: “There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned. Right guidance has become clearly distinct from error…” (Surat Al-Baqara, 256); “You are not a dictator over them. So remind, with the Quran, whoever fears My Threat” (Surah Qaf, 45); “Do you think you can force people to be believers?” (Surah Yunus, 99); “So remind them! You are only a reminder. You are not in control of them” (Surat Al-Ghashiyya, 21-22). Even these few verses are clear demonstrations that the Quran does not permit the lightest compulsion that will intervene in beliefs and worships, let alone any restriction or pressure, violence or terrorism.

For that reason, any matter on Islam should be addressed not based on malpractices, misinterpretations or use of other resources, but the only valid resource of the religion, namely the Quran. Moreover, the fact of which many people are not aware is that some countries regarded as “free” are indeed not all that free.

The United States and many countries in Europe, considered as the cradle of civilisation, human rights and freedom, are enchained by countless laws and codes developed by states and communities.

The people, who consider themselves free in these countries, are actually oppressed by thousands of sanctions, restrictions and prohibitions, fabricated rules of morality or public pressure.

The extreme right-wing, racist mentality that first escalated after a flow of immigrants into Europe in the 1950s — and a mentality that does not have any tolerance for different cultures and belief systems — has reached dangerously high levels. The political parties with such a mentality are receiving the highest number of votes by means of their Islamophobic propaganda. There is more and more news every day on attacks and murders of innocent, inoffensive Muslims and arson attacks on mosques in the US and Europe. For instance, threats such as “the enforcement of a deportation and an exclusion order for Muslims”, made to gain votes in the US presidential election primaries, have gained the support of millions of Americans.

Furthermore, many countries in the West have remained silent about the disgraceful massacres that still take place in Myanmar and in east Turkestan, as well as what happened in Bosnia some two decades ago on account of different beliefs. Actually, the situation of some countries in the West, which criticise and denounce other societies in regard to freedom of belief and thought at every turn, speaks for itself.

On the other hand, it is a historical fact that human rights and freedoms are severely trampled by irreligious communist systems, similar to that of North Korea, which spy on the private lives of their people, prohibit every idea, thought or belief other than their official ideologies and brutally punish those who act contrary to it.

However, the Quran abolished such pressures, prohibitions and tyranny 1,400 years ago and ensured not only the freedoms of thought and opinion, but also all other human rights and freedoms in the most comprehensive way. Other than the lawful and unlawful — of which the believers are accountable to God — the limited number of social rules and restrictions in the Quran are defined to protect the rights and freedoms of people, to prevent the exploitation of these freedoms and the use of these freedoms to violate the rights and freedoms of others or to prevent the harm and unsettling of others and ensure social order. None of these rules aim to create pressure or restrictions.

As it has always been and always will be, the system brought by the Quran stands head and shoulders above all of the civilisations, ideologies, philosophies and political orders. The happiness of not only Muslims, but every individual in the world, depends on the adoption and implementation of this system that values people the most.


The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and

Murder, By Any Other Name

15 10 2016


by Harun Yahya

A FEW days ago, the life of a 17-year-old terminally ill minor was ended by medical intervention in Belgium. Authorities issued a statement, saying euthanasia was performed on the request of the minor. Wim Distelmans, chairman of Belgium’s Federal Control and Evaluation Committee on Euthanasia, who approved the request, justified the astounding practice on the grounds of a strange reason, such as “children should not be denied a dignified death”, trying, in his own way, to present euthanasia as an honourable practice.

Euthanasia is divided into various categories, such as “patient giving consent”, “patient is unconscious and unable to give consent”, “assisting a patient to commit suicide by medical means” and “killing the patient by withholding treatment or direct medical intervention”. The categories are given names, such as “active”, “passive”, “voluntary”, “involuntary”, “assisted suicide”, etc.

Just like Distelmans, advocates of euthanasia try to justify the practice in their own way with seemingly innocent definitions, such as “an honourable, dignified and comfortable death” or “a civil right to die”. However, in truth, euthanasia is no different from the act of suicide or premeditated murder. Regardless of the health or mental status of the individual requesting euthanasia, making the decision for it means ending a person’s life. In other words, deciding on that person’s death and performing it with the consent of the victim or through medical methods does not change the absolute truth.

Today, in countries such as Belgium, Holland, Colombia and Luxembourg, and in certain states in the United States and Canada, euthanasia and assisted suicide have been legalised and are performed frequently. In China and Switzerland, it is performed in exclusive clinics.

Among these countries, Holland and Belgium are the only ones where performing euthanasia on children under 18 is legal. The laws of Holland require that the child to be euthanised is older than 12. On the other hand, owing to legislation enacted in 2014 given the strong reaction from international public opinion, Belgium legalised performing euthanasia on children of all ages.

Euthanasia laws require that certain conditions be met before it can be performed, such as the patient requesting euthanasia must be mentally healthy, terminally ill, or suffering from unbearable physical or psychological pain.

However, these laws have been inconsistent from the beginning because it is medically impossible to talk about the sanity and mental health of an individual who wants to commit suicide, and further, make another person an accomplice to the act. Considering the decision made by a patient, who is of unsound mind and judgment, has a weak willpower and is mostly suffering from depression due to physical problems, regarding euthanasia as valid is a grave mistake. Most particularly, it is most abnormal to honour as extreme a request as the “suicide” of a child, who is not considered psychologically and mentally mature, and not granted authority or liability by laws.

Therefore, it is quite clear that just as a person who has attempted suicide is provided psychological support and administered rehabilitative treatment or medication, so, too, should those requesting euthanasia. Otherwise, killing such patients through medical methods or assisting them in committing suicide will be no different than pushing an unconscious person who has gone up to the roof of a building to commit suicide.

The most appropriate and humane way to act towards terminally ill patients is to exert all available medical and humanitarian means to treat and cure them, and bring them back to health, not unperturbedly and remorselessly deciding on their deaths.

There are countless cases where patients overcome the most hopeless illnesses, recover from the most severe paralyses or wake up from years-long comas. Therefore, killing or assisting in the suicide of those who might have the chance to recover at any moment as long as they are alive, and denying them this chance, is utterly unacceptable. The condition that “the patient must be suffering from unbearable physical pain”, which is included in euthanasia decisions, is exploited to legitimise euthanasia. After all, there are various medications and treatment methods that relieve pain of all kinds and severity, and their quality and effectiveness are constantly being improved.

“Psychological pain”, another reason for euthanasia, is, as the name implies, a psychological disorder, and its remedy does not lie in killing or assisting in the suicide of a patient; again — it lies in treating and curing the patient.

Furthermore, euthanasia is a practice that is susceptible to exploitation.

In Switzerland, there are clinics that fulfil euthanasia requests in exchange for thousands of dollars. In Holland, where euthanasia is performed in the thousands every year, records show that only a very small percentage of patients undergo a psychological evaluation. What’s more is that one does not have to be terminally ill for this; patients can be sent to death merely over regular psychological complaints, such as depression and anxiety.

This situation has escalated to such a point that even reasons like “the elderly suffering psychological pain for being a burden on their relatives” can be considered sufficient for the approval of euthanasia requests. Some elders being forced into taking the decision for reasons of inheritance or intra-familial grudges and enmity are among the possibilities that cannot be ignored.

Dutch laws even permit the killing of disabled babies through active euthanasia. Statistics reveal horrifying information regarding how euthanasia is performed on some patients without their open consent and how doctors rarely face inquiry for this.

For that reason, today, euthanasia laws, which can be stretched to the point of killing patients, the crippled, the disabled, babies, coma patients, the elderly and unwanted people, should urgently be investigated, and necessary measures should be taken. The ever-expanding rights on euthanasia are also disquieting in the sense that they bring to mind the atrocious practice of eugenics of the Nazi era, which aimed at weeding out those who were unwanted, considered to be lesser and sick, while increasing the number of healthy individuals.

Let alone being a humanistic right, euthanasia is an utterly inhumane and barbaric practice. It reflects the materialistic and apathetic approach towards human life of societies that have departed from spiritual values, such as faith, love, compassion and mercy, and among which a lacklustre, languid, selfish and loveless lifestyle quickly becomes prevalent.

It is quite apparent that, be it voluntary or involuntary, active or assisted, ending a human life does not conform with a good conscience, and should be considered a major crime. Although the parliaments of a few countries and states have legalised the inhumane practice, the majority of the world considers euthanasia to be murder, and those who commit the crime will stand trial and face the possibility of lifelong imprisonment or even the death penalty. Divine religions consider it a cardinal sin to take a person’s life, including one’s own. Believer or not, it is the duty of every person, as a human being, to express the wrongness of the practice and offer a solution.

The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and

Page 5 of 112« First...34567...102030...Last »