Introduction: Islamic Approach to Micro

In Fall 2017, I taught the standard Ph.D. first semester course on Micro-Economics using an Islamic Approach. The first lecture, summarized below, explains why an Islamic approach makes a huge difference to the study of Micro. The whole set of 30 lectures for the entire course, together with slides, references, notes, and supporting materials (link: Advanced Microeconomics)    is freely available for ANY teacher who would like use and adopt this approach for their own courses in Microeconomics. I would be happy to provide any necessary support to teachers would like to try this novel experiment. I can promise that the students will very much enjoy this approach, because it speaks directly to the heart, and can easily be understood — in contrast to conventional micro, which just involves memorizing math, and learning things about human behavior which are patently false. [shortlink:]

90min English Video-Lecture on YouTube. 2500 Word English Summary is given below:

Continue reading


On the Vital Importance of Understanding International Financial Architecture

Lecture on First Steps towards Understanding Macroeconomics, on Friday 4th May 2018 in AR Kemal Rm at PIDE, by Dr. Asad Zaman, VC PIDE. 1hr 20m Video Lecture, (shortlink:

3100 word summary of lecture:

Continue reading

Is Islamic Economics for Muslims Only?

There is a lot of controversy on this question. The majority position among Muslim economists is that the message of Islam is universal, and teachings of the Quran applicable to all human beings. Our discipline of Islamic economics should also be universal.

After considerable thought, I have come to the opposite conclusion. I believe that at the present, we should limit our intended audience to Muslims only, and target a Muslim audience for product development both on the theoretical and the practical front. It is only at a later stage that efforts to engage with the West may prove useful. I would like to record the reasons for this view.

Continue reading

The Great Transformation in European Thought

Our Prophet Mohammad SAW made dua both for the acquisition of useful knowledge, and for protection from useless knowledge.  Useful knowledge is that which enters our heart, and advances us in our spiritual journey towards God.  Many types of knowledge can be harmful, and distract us from progress towards achieving the purpose for which we have been given a brief life on this Earth. For example, it is narrated that “Whoever acquires knowledge not learning it except to achieve some worldly gain will not perceive the fragrance of Paradise on the Day of Judgment.” [Ahmad, Saheeh]. Today, Western dominance of the world has led all of us to be deeply influenced by Western conceptions about knowledge, which are precisely the opposite: Knowledge is useful only if it leads to worldly gains. The stark contrasts between Western and Islamic ideas about knowledge and education are highlighted in the first lecture on my course on Introduction to Statistics: An Islamic Approach. The course itself has been constructed to demonstrate that, because of this contrast, it is essential for Muslims to construct alternatives to Western educational models.

Because Western conceptions of knowledge have become deeply embedded in our hearts through the process of a Western education, it is not enough to oppose them by confronting them with Islamic alternatives. Rather, dislodging these ideas from our hearts requires a deeper and more painful process of deconstruction. This involves learning the historical processes which led to the creation of modern secular European ways of thinking which currently dominate the world.  In this complex and multi-threaded story, one essential element is described by Karl Polanyi’s classic “The Great Transformation: Political and Economic Origins of Our Times.” Polanyi describes how the market society emerged in Europe after crushing traditional society, and replacing the traditional social values of cooperation and responsibility by individualistic market values which favor commercialization of all things, including humans and social relationships. My 30 page paper on “The Rise and Fall of the Market Economy” in Review of Islamic Economics, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2010, pp. 123-155 provides a summary of Polanyi, bringing out aspects relevant to Islamic Economics. In this post, I will provide a much shorter summary of 1000 words, which has been among the top 10 posts of a leading heterodox economics blog (RWER Blog) for several years, attracting about 1000 hits every month. The post below is revised and updated version of the original post on RWER blog linked in previous sentence.

The central theme of Polanyi’s book is a historical description of the emergence of the market economy as a competitor to the traditional economy. The market economy won this battle, and ideologies supporting the market economy won the corresponding battle in the marketplace of ideas. Today, the victory of the market economy is so complete that it has become difficult for us to imagine societies where the market does not play a central role. Polanyi argues that contrary to popular belief, markets have been of marginal importance in traditional societies throughout history. The market economy emerged after a prolonged battle against these traditions. As Polanyi clarifies, this is not a good development. The commodification of human beings and land required by the dominance of the market has done tremendous damage to society and environment. The value of human life has been degraded to their earning power. This enables the grim calculations made by Ambassador Albright that sacrificing half a million Iraqi children is worth the control of oil. Similarly, precious rainforests, coral reefs, plants, fish, and animal species which took millions of years in the making, and cannot be replaced at any price, are reduced to the value of timber, food or chemicals. This is the root cause of the social and environmental catastrophes we currently face. The analysis of Polanyi can be summarized in the six points listed below.

1: All societies face the economic task of producing and providing for all members of society. Modern market societies are unique in assigning this responsibility to the marketplace, thereby creating entitlements to production for those with wealth, and depriving the poor of entitlement to food. All traditional societies have used non-market mechanisms based on cooperation and social responsibility to provide for members who cannot take care of their own needs. It is only in a market society that education, health, housing, and social welfare services are only available to those who can pay for it.

2: Market mechanisms for providing goods to members conflict with other social mechanisms and are harmful to society. They emerged to central prominence in Europe after a protracted battle, which was won by markets over society due to certain historical circumstances peculiar to Europe. The rise of markets caused tremendous damage to society, which continues to this day. The replacement of key mechanisms which govern social relations, with those compatible with market mechanisms, was traumatic to human values. Land, labour and money are crucial to the efficient functioning of a market economy. Market societies convert these into commodities causing tremendous damage. This involves (A) changing a nurturing and symbiotic relationship with Mother Earth into a commercial one of exploiting nature, (B) Changing relationships based on trust, intimacy and lifetime commitments into short term impersonal commercial transactions, and (C) Turning human lives into saleable commodities in order to create a labor market.

3:  Unregulated markets are so deadly to human society and environment that creation of markets automatically sets into play movements to protect society and envirnoment from the harm that they cause. Paradoxically, it is this counter-movement, this opposition to markets, that allows markets to survive. If this was not present, markets would destroy the society and the planet. For example, the Great Depression caused the collapse of many free market institutions, and the government stepped in to prop them up and substitute for them. Similarly, only massive government intervention save the world from a major economic crisis following the Global Financial Crisis of 2007. This protective, anti-market, move allowed capitalism to survive. This is called the “Double Movement” by Polanyi, who says that the history of capitalism cannot be understand without looking at both sides — the forces trying to liberate markets from all regulations, and the forces fighting to protect society from the harmful effects of unregulated markets.

4: Certain ideologies, which relate to land, labour and money, and the profit motive are required for efficient functioning of markets. In particular, both poverty, and a certain amount of callousness and indifference to poverty are required for efficient functioning of markets. Capitalist economics require sales, purchase, and exploitation of labor, which cannot be done with creating poverty, and using it to motivate workers. The sanctification of property rights is another essential feature of markets. Thus, the existence of a market economy necessitates the emergence of certain ideologies and mindsets which are harmful to, and in contradiction with, natural human tendencies.

5: Markets have been fragile and crisis-prone and have lurched from disaster to disaster, as amply illustrated by GFC 2007. Polanyi prognosticated in 1944 that the last and biggest of these crises in his time, the Second World War, had finally killed the market system and a new method for organising economic affairs would emerge in its wake. In fact, the Keynesian ideas eliminated the worst excesses of market-based economies and dominated the scene for about 30 years following that war. However, the market system rose from the ashes and came to dominate the globe in an astonishing display of power. This story has been most effectively presented by Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.

6: Market economies require imposition by violence — either natural or created. As noted by the earliest strategists, deception is a crucial element of warfare. One of the essential ingredients in the rise of markets has been a constant battle to misrepresent facts, so that stark failures of markets have been painted as remarkable successes. There are a number of strategies commonly used to portray an economic disaster as progress and development. Without this propaganda, markets could not survive, as the forces of resistance to markets would be too strong. For example, a fundamental message of modern economics textbooks is that capitalism has created tremendous wealth and unprecedented progress. In fact, notwithstanding capitalist propaganda to the contrary, this growth has been extremely costly. We have sold planet Earth and the future of our children, and are celebrating the proceeds without taking into reckoning the costs. Accounting for the costs of destruction of environment, animal species, and human society, shows that that costs of growth have been far higher than the benefits. See “Evaluating the Costs of Growth” (September 21, 2014). Real World Economics Review, issue 67, 9 May 2014, page 41-51.. Available at SSRN:

A 28 minute video-talk expanding on the points made above is available from You-Tube:

Supplementary Readings and Videos:

For links to articles, videos, and posts, explaining various aspects of Polanyi, see Resources for Study of Polanyi’s Great Transformation

My full article, which provides further details of this brief sketch,  can be downloaded from the link below:   “The Rise and Fall of the Market Economy,” Review of Islamic Economics, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2010, pp. 123–155

Polanyi’s analysis cannot be understood by modern economists because it is based on methodological principles radically different from those currently in use.  The Methodology of Polanyi’s Great Transformation explains these principles, which demonstrate the necessity of considering historical and cultural context of economic theories. Polanyi’s analysis provides the basis for a radically different approach to economics, which considers politics, society, environment, and economics as inter-related subjects which cannot be understood in isolation.

The relationship between the Great Transformation and the looming environmental catastrophe which threatens the future of humanity on planet Earth is discussed in Zaman, Asad, Markets and Society (September 17, 2015). Pre-publication Draft of “Unregulated Markets and the Transformation of Society” Chapter 18, Routledge Handbook of Ecological Economics: Nature and Society. Editor Clive Spash. 2016. Available at SSRN: A 50m video talk on this topic is available from


Choosing the Right Regressors

Talk at PIDE Nurturing Minds Seminar on 29th Nov 2017. Based on “Lessons in Econometric Methodology: Axiom of Correct Specification”, International Econometric Review, Vol 9, Issue 2. (download SSRN Version)

First, I need to explain why an apparently technical talk about econometric methodology should be placed in a blog on “Islamic WorldView”.  The real reason for this is very complex, and difficult to understand, but at the same time it is important for Muslims to understand. I will give a very brief sketch here, and expand on it later. More complete details are available in my post and paper on the “Deification of Science“. The use of sophisticated math impresses and deceives people, who are unable to see that the foundations on which this complex dance is done are completely unsound, and the results completely unreliable. Describing serious defects in foundations of econometrics is a way to undo the illusion of Western expertise in everything. The most serious problem facing the Ummah is that our eyes have been dazzled by the superficial brilliance of Western knowledge, and neglect the vast treasures that we have inherited in the form of the Quran and the Sunnah. Iqbal described his own escape from the traps of Western intellect as:


Deep and fundamental flaws in the structures of Western knowledge today arise from their worship of the observable, measurable and quantifiable, and neglect of the qualitative, unmeasurable realities of the complex world we live in. In later posts, I will provide greater clarity, depth, and details about flaws in Western epistemology. Here is I just provide an introductory sketch.

Very briefly, the extremely bloody and cruel fights between different religious factions in Europe led to general dis-enchantment, and eventually, rejection of Christianity. This loss of faith was highly traumatic — Deceived by their religious leaders, the Europeans vowed never to trust anything they could not touch or see. This led to a strong bent on EMPIRICAL and EVIDENCE based decision making, which we see going strong to this day. There are many extremely important decisions which are purely qualitative and subjective, and these have been neglected and ignored in the West. This HUGE emphasis on data and numbers, and complete neglect of the hidden, complex and unmeasurable real world processes that generate the data have led to an EXTREMELY unsound methodological basis for econometrics. I have clarified this issue in Methodological Mistakes and Econometric Consequences. These methodological defects are reflected in sloppy practices, which result in huge numbers of misleading and deceptive regression results — nonesense or meaningless regressions. The paper and talk below deals with one very simple issue regarding choice of regressors which is not explained clearly in textbooks and leads to serious mistakes in applied econometrics papers.

SUMMARY OF PAPER: [One (among many) basic widespread misunderstanding about choice of regressors in a regression model]  The importance of relevant missing regressors.

Conventional econometric methodology, as taught in textbooks, creates serious misunderstandings about applied econometrics. Econometricians try out various models, select one according to different criteria, and then interpret the results. The significance of the fact that interpretations are only valid if the model is CORRECT are not highlighted in textbooks. The result is that everyone presents and interprets their models as if the model was correct. This relaxed assumption – that we can assume correct any model that we put down on paper, subject to minor checks like high R-squared and significant t-stats – leads to dramatically defective inferences. In particular, ten different authors may present 10 different specifications for the same variable, and each may provide an interpretation based on the assumption that his model is correctly specified. What is not realized is that there is only one correct specification, which must include all the determinants as regressor, and also exclude all irrelevant variables (though this is not so important). This means that out of millions of regressions based on different possible choices of regressors, only one is correct, while all the rest are wrong. Thus all 10 authors with 10 different specifications cannot be right – at most one of them can be right. In this particular case, we could see at least 90% of the authors are wrong. This generally applies to models published in journals – the vast majority of different specification must be wrong.

Now the question arises as to how much difference this Axiom of Correct Specification makes. If we can get approximately correct results, then perhaps the current relaxed methodology is good enough as a beginning point. Here the talk/paper demonstrates that if one major variable is omitted from the regression model, than anything can happen. Typically, completely meaningless regressors will appear to be significant. For instance, if we regress the consumption of Australia on the GDP of China, we find a very strong regression relationship with R-squared above 90%. Does this means that China’s GDP determines 90% of the variation in Australian consumption. Absolutely not. This is a nonsense regression, also known as a spurious regression. The nonsense regression is cause by the OMISSION of an important variable – namely Australian GDP, which is the primary determinant of Australian Consumption. A major and important assertion of the paper is that the idea that nonsense regressions are caused by INTEGRATED regressors is wrong. This means that the whole theory of integration and co-integration, developed to resolve the problem of nonsense regression, is searching for solutions in the wrong direction. If we focus on solving the problem of selecting the right regressors – ensuring inclusion of all major determinants – then we can resolve the problem of nonsense or meaningless regressions.

Next we discuss how we can ensure the inclusion of all major determinants in the regression equation. Several strategies currently in use are discussed and rejected. One of these is Leamer’s strategy of extreme bounds analysis, and some variants of it. These do not work in terms of finding the right regressors. Bayesian strategies are also discussed. These work very well in the context of forecasting, by using a large collection of models which have high probabilities of being right. This works by diversifying risk – instead of betting on any one model to be correct, we look at a large collection. However, it does not work well for identifying the one true model that we are looking for.
The best strategy currently in existence for finding the right regressors is the General-to-Simple modeling strategy of David Hendry. This is the opposite of standard simple-to-general strategy advocated and used in conventional econometric methodology. There are several complications in applying this strategy, which make it difficult to apply. It is because of these complications that this strategy was considered and rejected by econometrician. For one thing, if we include a large number of regressors, as GeTS required, multicollinearities emerge which make all of our estimates extremely imprecise. Hendry’s methodology has resolved these, and many other difficulties, which arise upon estimation of very large models. This methodology has been implemented in Autometrics package within the PC-GIVE software for econometrics. This is the state-of-the-art in terms of automatic model selection, based purely on statistical properties. However, it is well established that human guidance, where importance of variables is decided by human judgment about real-world causal factors, can substantially improve upon automatic procedures. It is very possible, and happens often in real world data sets, that a regressor which is statistically inferior, but is known to be relevant from either empirical or theoretical considerations, will outperform a statistically superior regressor, which does not make sense from a theoretical perspective. A 70m video-lecture on YouTube is linked below. PPT Slides for the talk, which provide a convenient outline, are available from SlideShare: Choosing the Right Regressors. The paper itself can be downloaded from “Lessons in Econometric Methodology: The Axiom of Correct Specification

For this talk on my personal website, see:


The Islamic Origins of Science

[Short Link for this page: ]  [See comment after this post for the radical differences between views expressed here, and standard apologetics]

Chalmers in his book “What is this thing called Science?” explains why he is studying the subject. He wants to prove the superiority of scientific knowledge to all other types of knowledge. However. he frankly acknowledges at the outset that the book DOES NOT SUCCEED in its objective — it is unable to find a clear cut definition of science which would prove the superiority of scientific knowledge. This book summarized centuries of Western debate on the subject, as well as the current state of the dialog. He also notes that some participants in this debate, after centuries of Western failure to define science, have come to the conclusion that it cannot be done — scientific knowledge is NOT some special mode of knowing the world which is privileged above others.

One thing that is hidden in Western accounts is the issue of WHY does it matter? Why is it important to prove that scientific knowledge is superior to other forms of knowledge? If we reflect on our lives, we note that most of the knowledge we have of living, loving, spiritual and emotional is NOT scientific. Clearly, the most important things that we know, that make us human, are not derived from science. Then why this urge to prove the superiority of scientific knowledge? Why not accept that is it just one form of knowledge, like any other?

To this question, I offer a radical answer, very different from anything found in the Western intellectual tradition.

Science was invented in the Islamic Civilization — by Ibnul Haytham. This was a distinct and radical advance over Greek methodology which was based on axiomatics instead of empirics. The essence of science is that it reaches beyond the appearances to grasp the underlying reality which generates this appearance. THUS it is a way to reach an understanding of the Creator by looking at the Creation. Extending this methodology to natural sciences — to use study of how light behaves to deduce principles of optics — etc is the essence of Science. Similarly, many underlying HIDDEN UNOBSERVABLE causes and objects are revealed by science.  This position is closely related to the REALIST philosophy of science which is discussed and REJECTED by Chalmers — although the reasons for his rejection are not valid, but this would take us far way from the main points I am trying to make here

After the fall of Islamic Spain, the West acquired a VAST treasure of knowledge in the form of millions of books in Cordoba Library as well as other collections. This is what led to the ending of the dark ages of Europe, and the beginning of the Enlightenment. However, the West had a HUGE AMOUNT of difficulty in ABSORBING, assimilating and HARMONIZING this ALIEN body of knowledge with their own belief systems. The Catholic Church set up CENSORSHIP BOARDS which did a very strict control on translations of Arabic and Islamic books to ensure that no heresies were introduced. Every book had to be approved by the Church Censors before it could be published. The INQUISITION was set up to terrify and torture people and keep them away from the forbidden types of knowledge contained in the Islamic books. See “Is Science Western in Origin?” by CK Raju for further details about this.

Ultimately, the Catholic Church FAILED in its efforts to keep out the dangerous Islamic Knowledge. The book “The Enlightenment Quran” shows the crucial role played by translations of the Quran in influencing the thoughts of leaders of the Enlightenment. [See also Thomas Jefferson’s Quran to see the amazing impact of the Quran on the founding & constitution of America.] One of the impacts was the creation of the Protestant Movements, which shattered the unity of Medieval Church. Ultimately, fighting among Christian factions led to general dis-enchantment with religion in Europe, which led to the rise of SECULAR thought which continues to have monumental and extremely harmful effects on humankind and our planet.

Even though the Catholic Church failed to keep science out of Europe, it SUCCEEDED in its efforts to HIDE the Islamic roots of science. Copernicus was just a translator of Arabic Scientific works; he became known as a revolutionary because he was forced to hide the origins of his writings – he had seen one of his friends, Scultetus, tortured and punished for ten years for heretical writings, and did not want to suffer from a similar fate. He did not publish his writings until he was on his deathbed.  Newton was strongly influenced by Islamic ideas, to the extent that he hid his true religious beliefs to avoid being labeled a heretic. All of his three laws of motions, and much of mathematics, was available to him from the Islamic scientific works. He stated that he had “stood on the shoulder of giants” – however, European history of science hides the fact that these were intellectual giants of the Islamic civilization.  NOTE that the key accomplishment of Newton was to look at the motion of the planets and deduce the existence of gravity. This is the KEY to scientific methodology – deducing the existence of hidden unknown objects and causal laws from the surface appearances.

The enormous battle that took place between Science and Religion, spread out over centuries, has shaped European mindset. The victory of Science over Catholic religion did not end the animosity between the two, and hence the effort, spread over the centuries, to prove the superiority of scientific knowledge. In effect, after abandoning religion, the secular thinkers adopted SCIENCE as their new religion, and put their faith in the idea that Science would eventually provide a solution to all human problems. When we try to prove the superiority of scientific knowledge, we are participating in this program, the goal of which is to prove that all problems we face as human being can be solved by science — and we need not rely on religion for this purpose.

However what is most AMAZING and IRONIC is what I have discovered only recently. The West NEVER actually understood the nature of science which they imported from the Islamic Civilization !!!   It was clear that the Muslims paid a LOT MORE ATTENTION to empirical observations than the Greeks ever did. The Greeks did not think much of lowly CONTINGENT observations as a means to knowledge. These can change from time to time irregularly and cannot form the basis of a GRAND knowledge which spans the universe and the centuries. For the first time, the Europeans tried to make sense of how empirical methods can be used to advance knowledge. They made repeated efforts and repeatedly failed. The first major misunderstanding was expressed by Francis Bacon, in the form of INDUCTION. This fails to understand the essence of the scientific method, already described earlier. The erroneous idea of induction persists in modern econometrics, which is based on the false belief that if we see a pattern in a cluster of points, we can predict that this pattern will continue. This is why regression methodology so often leads to false and meaningless results (spurious regressions).

Later, Leibniz, Descartes, Hume, Kant and many others major Western philosophers tackled the problem of how we can get knowledge from observations — the heart and essence of science — but failed to understand the methodology of science. It is possible to discuss this in detail, and explain the errors made by these giants of Western philosophy, but that is not our purpose here. Chalmers is a good guide in this area. The MAIN reason for their inability to understand scientific methodology was because the battle between science and religion led them to assume that: SCIENTIFIC reasoning is the opposite of RELIGIOUS reasoning. This was taken for granted from the beginning, and continues to be assumed in all Western investigations of the philosophy of science. This automatically blocks the understanding of the key concept of science, which actually allows us to deduce the existence of God from the extremely well-ordered, and precision-tuned universe we see around us.

TO THIS DAY, as Chalmers clearly states in his state of the art book — the West DOES NOT UNDERSTAND “What is this thing called SCIENCE?”. This point is of EXTREME IMPORTANCE — because TODAY we can launch a REVOLUTION in the social sciences by starting with a CORRECT understanding of science and applying it to the study of human beings and societies. An immediate objection to this will arise in the mind of the reader – if Western philosophers have failed to understand science, how could it be that the West has made such spectacular progress in science? To understand this, we must differentiate between theory and practice. Chalmers states that scientists are very poor philosophers. Scientists learn by apprenticeship to other scientists, learning-by-doing. Just like a superbly fluent speaker and writer of a language may have no conception of the rules of grammar for the language, so the scientists know how to do science, but cannot articulate the methodology which lies at the root of what they do. However, misunderstanding scientific methodology has had a tremendous impact on Social Science – this is because in social science an effort was made to follow the philosophers’ ideas about how to do science, leading to very deep and fundamental flaws in the social sciences. In particular, modern economics is based on a logical positivist methodology, and is completely wrong. See my paper on Logical Positivism and Islamic Economics for a detailed explanation.

I am in the process of creating an entirely different approach to economics. In my recent course on Advanced Microeconomics, I have explained how ALL of modern economic theory — utility maximization by consumers, profit maximization by firms, supply and demand equilibrium for determination of prices — IS STRONGLY REJECTED by empirics — if we study consumers, we find that they do not maximize utility ( see my paper: The Empirical Evidence Against Neoclassical Utility Theory: A Survey of the Literature). Similarly, there is very strong empirical evidence that firms do not maximize profits, and that prices are not determined by forces of supply and demand. Nonethless, because modern economic theory is based on an AXIOMATIC methodology which goes back to the pre-scientific Greek Methodology and is NOT based on scientific methodology which pays close attention to empirical evidence, it comes to completely wrong conclusions.

I recently taught a course on economics in which I explained how nearly everything found in current modern economics textbooks is wrong, and how we can replace it with correct knowledge. One lecture within this sequence is linked below. This lecture details the ideas presented briefly above — that is the origins of science in Islamic Civilization,and the failure of the West to understand science.

The video is slightly less that one hour. I have also explained the fundamental methodological mistake made by economists in particular and social scientists in general, in using a misunderstanding of science to analyze human beings and society in a number of short articles. These are available from this link:

Today, the biggest problem of the Ummah is that we have become mesmerized by the IDOL of Western Knowledge — Although it is a bitter thing to say, the Ummah as a whole currently believes that the Western knowledge they acquired over the past few centuries is SUPERIOR to what was given to us in the form the Wahy — The Quran re-assures is that it is FAR BETTER than anything that others can gather. Unfortunately we have lost trust in this promise of the Quran — EVEN TODAY the Quran provides us with far better solutions to our human problems than the latest finding of Western Science. But Muslims as a whole no longer believe this and keep searching for solutions within the Western intellectual traditions.

May Allah bless us with the Noor of Eeman and GUIDE US all from out the darkness and into the Light.