OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS

[Mustansir]

Anajmi,
As usual you completely missed the point. What I wrote and what you understood from it seriously questions your comprehension ability…honestly. You literally falsified your own argument. With respect to a single plane crash, if a divine creator is intervening to save one baby’s life, why in the world couldn’t he save everyone on that plane? To me it seems preposterous that such a divine entity would be so callous that after deciding to intervene, he chooses to save only one life out of hundreds. The numbers you have mentioned above…it is not at all surprising that once in a while you will have such rare cases of survival by chance alone. In fact, it will be a miracle if such events Do Not happen at all! The problem arises when you invoke a supernatural being capable of creating the whole Universe but appallingly impotent when comes to saving everyone on a plane crash. 550 million people traveling in 2006 were not saved by the grace of any god…it was a directly result of the knowledge gained by Science. If your god is flying all those planes, try attaching paper wings to yourself and jump from a height, you will soon realize that there is something else that make the planes fly…

[anajmi]

if a divine creator is intervening to save one baby’s life, why in the world couldn’t he save everyone on that plane?

So is the divine creator now supposed to take orders from you? If it was science that helped the 550 million reach their destinations safely, then it was science that caused the plane crash and not God. God saved the baby to show a miracle, if he had saved everyone, it wouldn't have been a miracle. It would've been "science". As far as paper wings are concerned, God has given me a brain, and I learned science.

[ozmujaheed]

Mustansir..I think to define Allahs definition or proof using saving babies or plane crashes is under-estimating Allah role and capacity in the Universe.

There are 2 schools of thought...1 is where they state Allah controls all activity which means good and ill, and hence I would question why be judged...another thought states Allah provides mankind with the ability and intelligence for mankind to determine what is good or ill which is like teaching a child to walk and what to avoid but the parent is not responsible if he bumps his head running around. I find the second thought more acceptable!

We kill animals for food and fun but we do not blame Allah for the death of the animal or say too bad it was in the animals destiny to get killed...he gave us the intelligence to decide whether it is for fun or for neccessity.

Another statement is an ant thinks of anything within its dimension so a they want to be a bigger ant or have an image of their creator within their dimesion...in the same way we limit Allahs powers and qualities within human dimesions of form and orientation, this is a distraction as a result of the Christian theology which states man was created in Gods image meaning some similarity or relation. Instead Islam states Allah created man as He wanted it, like a create a car the way I want to and it has not resemblance to me or my attributes.


About spiritual healing this is Psychological and is a comforting thing..on the other extreme this treatment will have no affect on a athiest or a Chritian patient if Hindu rituals are perfromed. Many times we mix miracles with concidence , chance natural events, however miracles are attention grabing as is 6 o'clock news.
Read literature by Al Mahdudi it will help explain better.

[Mustansir]

Well said Ozmujaheed , especially on spiritual healing. I understand where you are coming from. The first of the two schools of thought you are talking about would be categorized probably as a theistic view, in which the creator not only created the whole Universe, but also regularly intervenes with his actions in earthly affairs and cares how he/she/it is worshiped by only one of the million species existing on this planet today. The second school of thought is more in the direction of the deistic view, in which one believes that there was a creator in the beginning who brought the Universe we see today into existence but Does Not intervene at all and lets the universe take its own course. The three primary monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity and even Islam do belong to the first school of thought and not the second. It is the idea of such a theistic god that I criticize. I don’t need to define such a god because the definitions are already there in each religion’s holy book and scriptures including Islam (unless you completely reject the holy books as work of fiction). Of course if one is a deist, then there is no way to know if such a creator does or did ever exist and it is meaningless in trying to prescribe attributes and personality traits to such a god. However, this is not the case in the three major monotheistic religions. The attributes are written out in the holy books including for Allah in the Quran.

As it is written in the Quran repeatedly, Allah is All Forgiving and All Merciful…but he cannot be if he is also unconditionally unforgiving, such as in the case of unbelievers. How can Allah give free will when he clearly tells you to what to do and not do in all aspects of life and threatens you with severe brutality & burning in hell for eternity if you disobey his will in any form or shape? It is like two parents telling their kid that she can do whatever she wants but if she doesn’t do what the parents want, they will burn her in hell for the rest of her life…not much of choice I would say. I don’t blame any type of divine creator for the evils and sufferings in this world…I possibly could not because I do not believe in the existence of such a creator. The problem arises when people invoke a supernatural being, who does intervene in human affairs from time to time and listens to prayers & changes his/her course of action based on the desires of his creation. Such claims and beliefs according to me are not logically or rationally compatible or consistent. However, if one has a deistic view of the world, then there is no way of knowing if that view is correct or not. I will look into the work of Al Mahdudi to better understand this kind of stance. Personally, I have no belief in existence of such a divine creator but if there is any genuine evidence that turns up tomorrow, I will obviously look into it and rethink my position.

[anajmi]

How can Allah give free will when he clearly tells you to what to do and not do in all aspects of life and threatens you with severe brutality & burning in hell for eternity if you disobey his will in any form or shape?

You are the perfect example of Allah's gift of free will. If you didn't have free will, you would've been in a mosque praying. Free will though, isn't free. America touts itself as a beacon of freedom and democracy but are you really free to do what you want? No!! There are laws that you have to obey, which if you don't, you have to pay for it either by your freedom, or may be even your life.

but if there is any genuine evidence that turns up tomorrow, I will obviously look into it and rethink my position.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. The day you get "genuine" evidence, will be the day you won't be able to go back and correct yourself. By the way, I would like to know what you would consider as "genuine" evidence.

[ozmujaheed]

Shia Islam believes in the second thought.infact it is mainly Sunni belief that Allah is responsible for good and ill and controls both hence contradicts His justice if He judges you for something one is not in control of. In terms of Allah being Merciful and Forgiving is his quality of Justice...it would be looked at unfair if he judged mankind on Islamic law if they are not aware of it such as civilizations before Islamic conversions. Secondly it also gives people hope that during judgement time he will consider all deeds.

Your point Allah has set down a law and it is upto mankind to follow it or not, similar to there is no compulsion in joining Islam, however once you join there are compulsory obligations.

Living by free will does not mean overstepping someone else’s freedom.eg drugs, crime, murder, chaos and therefore some kind of law has to be there which is independent of human bias or greed. This is not a human requirements but a universal...similarly worldly law is based on same principle you have freedom to drive but are penalised if you infringe. Why how else would you want...what would you do if I had the freewill to come into your home with 10 thugs without your consent and trash your place.would you setup red carpet treatment since it is my freewill.

The consequences of burning in hell is adjective to demonstrate extreme punishment and displeasure...whether it implies the same heat and pain we feel in the worldly dimension this is open to interpretation and philosophical.

Do you accept intelligent design in creation and evolution...if you look at your biological self and things around you do you really think it is chance and chaos which created life on earth. Can there not be any reason extraordinary event or force which influenced the evolution and matter! If that is so why is wrong to label it with a acronym Allah (I am not saying I imply Allah is one or many but a complex entity beyond simple definition)

[Mustansir]

Ozmujaheed,
There were so many things to address in your response that I could not possible reply back in a few lines or even a few paragraphs. So i apologize in advance for the length of my answer. I disagree with your position that Shia Muslim belongs to a deistic point of view. Deism is a belief system in which one believes that a creator may have been involved in the beginning of the Universe but does not play a role anymore in the workings of the world. Deists thoroughly reject the notion of supernatural or divine revelation as a source of truth & religious dogma. So if you are part of Islam (Shia or Sunni) & take Quran as a genuine holy book and Mohammad & his teachings as truth, you are not a deist.

I am an evolutionist and I definitely do not see any intelligent design in the process of evolution… neither do any of the courts in the US, where the intelligent design movement (which is just another euphemism for creationism) has been struck down repeatedly as not being a scientific theory. I have a strong background in science and my area of work is in neuroscience and understanding the human behavior. I cannot possibly show in a few paragraphs why the process of evolution is a fact and that the best explanation we have for now is the theory of natural selection. To think that evolutionary process is simply a result of chance and getting complexity from chaos is a fundamental & unfortunately a very common mistake. There is nothing random about natural selection. In fact it is exactly the opposite. It is only the mutations in a DNA sequence that are random. Natural selection itself is pretty specific. It is the process where heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce become more common over successive generations of a population. Over millions of years, natural selection works like multiple sieves, arranged on top of one another, each sieve generating a little more complexity in structure that improves the chances of survival & reproduction over the previous one. It takes a significant time to genuinely understand evolution, to understand the evidence provided by various fields of science, all independently corroborating the theory of natural selection.

And once you have some fundamental knowledge about the animal kingdom and how the process of evolution works, it is very easy to see that there is no intelligent design or intelligent designer behind it. For example, the human eye is often used by the proponents of ID movement. But when you have a closer look of how a human eye works, you soon see that it is by most likely not a product of design but a result of the evolutionary process, where very small changes, selected as advantageous, were passed on and multiplied over many generations to produce major advances in complexity of the eye. The result is that we have some flaws because it was build upon a more primitive structure - the retina is placed upside down and the optic nerve goes right through the center of it giving us the blind spot. However, this is not the case with certain other species such as the octopus because the evolution of eye in these other species went through a different ‘route’ to reach a similar result (convergent evolution). The photoreceptor cells in the eye of the octopus point toward the incoming light (more efficient) whereas our own rod cells and cone cells point backwards and absorb light reflecting from the back of the eye. If the eye is so perfect, why do many of us have to wear glasses? What about a hawk’s eye? Just because a hawk has far better eyesight than a human, should we presume that the Universe was actually created specifically for the hawks in mind and we are just tagging along? Surely an intelligent designer would not choose to give hawks far superior eyesight if he created the Universe specifically for us..

With regard to Ethics too, it is well acknowledged that Atheists and agnostics are ethical too. It is obvious that we are not running around raping and killing people. And we don’t need the existence or belief in some form of supernatural being for not doing this. In fact, in many cases one has to go against his religion in order to stick to his or her own ethical standards. The Quran clearly states that – “kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them - 2:191-2).” But here we are, having a decent conversation and an open dialogue without you having any urge to kill me or even hurt me. According to the hadiths, Mohammad repeatedly mentioned that when a war is won, the soldiers can kill all the men and take the women for their pleasure as a reward from Allah. Would you even think of doing such thing to any fellow human being? I am sure one can find many verses in the Quran which says to be humble and kind and do the right things…but there are also verses in this same book where all these things are entirely contradicted. A good person can find good reasons in the Quran to live an ethical life where as a bad person can also find justfied reasons in certain other verses to continue his unethical behaviour and harmful deeds. It comes down to pick and choose. Take the stuff you like and ignore the rest.

I never implied that there should be no laws or rules. Without them, there would be no civilization. What I’m saying is that there is no need to invoke a divine creator for the existence of the laws & regulations we have today. If you take a closer look in the animal kingdom, you clearly see many species (great example: bonobo chimps) living together in a very peaceful, loving, altruistic way because together as a community, they can better survive and reproduce. You don’t see them running around and killing each other willy nilly. Should we assume that the bonobo chimps are religious too & have their own chimp god? Or is it more likely that they have evolved to coexist peacefully in order to survive? If the chimps were senselessly destroying each other, they would not exist today, nor would humans. The laws we have today did not spontaneously come into existence, but evolved gradually step by step as the ethical & moral standards of humanity changed over time. From our hominid ancestors until now, we have traveled a journey of first being social primates evolving gradually into moral primates. Polygamy was legally accepted in the early history but it is not anymore in most countries. Having slaves was the norm for centuries until 150 years ago when things finally started changing due to the Abolitionism. Treating ethnic minorities as physically, intellectually & morally inferior was the consensus just a century ago but that too changed due to the civil rights movement. Equal rights were allocated independent of gender, race, colour or religion, which is the beacon for democracy.

It is more reasonable and probable to have complexity rise from relatively simpler things as opposed to the other way round. If a believer cannot accept that the human race and the Universe which we know of, could not have simply evolved over millions of years and there has to be a intelligent designer…then surely that intelligent designer has to be waaaaaaay more complex than the universe. This clearly begs the question…Where did the intelligent designer come from? Just because you don’t have an explanation for something now doesn’t remotely validate that there is a creator somewhere. Why is it that when we think of the origin of the entire cosmos, we have to come up with a ‘Who’ instead of ‘What’ for an explanation? This is basically trying to explain one unknown with another…and consequently ending up explaining nothing. Thousands of years ago when there was lightning, people thought it was a direct act of god. Now we know it’s simply the interaction between charged particles in the atmosphere. Before the age of enlightenment, sickness & diseases were thought as outcome of god’s wrath and punishment…but now we understand them a lot better because of the discovery of harmful pathogens in the form of bacteria, viruses, parasites etc. Before Galileo, majority of the people thought that the Earth was flat & it was the sun rotating our planet. Now we know better. Faith begins once the evidence runs out. This is pretty much the textbook definition of faith. And when it comes to believers, blind faith is an ironic gift to return to the alleged Creator of human intelligence. A belief is by definition a positive affirmation in something. There are different religions out there & each religion has its own god. And each persists it own belief in that god. And each says here is the evidence for that god. If that evidence is lacking, then it is reasonable to say that either the particular god in question does not exist or the evidence which has been shown has not proven their case. To paraphrase from Dr. Richard Dawkins, everyone is an atheist when it comes to the belief of someone else’s god, I just go one god further.

[anajmi]

If the eye is so perfect, why do many of us have to wear glasses? What about a hawk’s eye? Just because a hawk has far better eyesight than a human, should we presume that the Universe was actually created specifically for the hawks in mind and we are just tagging along? Surely an intelligent designer would not choose to give hawks far superior eyesight if he created the Universe specifically for us..

I am going to respond only to this particular item. Will a hawk with bad eyesight be able to wear glasses to improve it? Have you ever seen an animal with a bad leg create a crutch? How many doctors do you see in the animal kingdom? It is amazing how a person with so much apparent knowledge about science not being able to think about something as simple as that.

Everything else that you posted can be copied from pretty much any anti islamic web site out there, and the responses are plentiful too, so I won't bother.

[ozmujaheed]

Mustansir, Well done your explanation are quite detailed and plausible.

My responses:

On what basis do you claim my Shia explanation of Allah is incorrect ? Bohras and mainstream Shias are different ! I will one more time explain in detail at the bottom. It is sad if the pagan Bohra beliefs which have been tainted in the last few hundred years are causing you and others to doubt the qualities of Allah and the Prophet.

None of your evolutionary explanation proved or clarified non-existence of Allah. As my explanation does not convince you on Allah's existence, my human limitations should not be the basis to justify atheism. Your own statement if mirrored that since we cannot prove something does exist, does not prove its non-existence. You still believe that I should prove to you this defined stuff that is called Allah...I mentioned below it is a force and the time period of Allah vs. our in relative manner is out of scale...it is like if Allah has been experienced in billions of years how can we explain or demonstrate his cause and effects within human civilisation 10,000 years...it is like how do I record the events such as my eyelid movement of a 1 second in my life against a cause and effect for the whole year. I do acknowledge theories that that chemical reactions which took place millions of years ago too up some programmed way and turned into basic cells which over time self programmed to form structures. However I also believe that the trigger was an intelligent force which I attribute to Allah.

Any society cannot prosper without prescribed laws, your argument that people will self adjust is too risky. Human behaviour is continually challenged by greed, power, lust which in controlled manner has allowed human species to civilise and prosper. Unchecked can be catastrophic eg Hitler, Tyrants, serial killers, poachers etc. Animal species do not display greed, lust and power to the same extreme and therefore there was no need, those that try to overrun the planet is kept in check by Natural events, nature is an attribute of Allah too, similar to ecosystem.

I will avoid the tail spin but let me live with this statement: if after death both you and I realise Allah existence if you regret, you will not have a second chance, if he does not exist or there is no hereafter I will not regret as I will not know have the chance to regret

It will be interesting to know if for argument sake you prove non-existence of a god so what then what do you want to do? How has Allah obstructed your progress? What do you expect people will stop fighting for religious sake and all wars will stop? We will find something else to fight about because we are the most dangerous animal to have walked the earth...more dangerous than the dinosaurs.

Good luck

Usool -ad-Deen (Roots of Religion)

* Tawheed - (Oneness of God) - The most fundamental aspect of all beliefs revolves around the total acceptance of the Absolute and Perfect Creator. Belief in the Originator of all causes and effects with no effect on Him and that He is One, Everliving, Beneficent and Merciful. He has neither a colleague nor a partner. He begets not, nor is He begotten, and there is none like Him. The Almighty God is Unique and is Absolute in the Absolute sense. No entity in His Universe can ever comprehend His true state and none should even bother to try for it will lead to futility and insanity. Yet there is no doubt in any sane mind that His existence precedes all and His presence is Absolutely ubiquitous (everpresent). For anyone to say that God does not exist is a liar and a fool because such a person can NEVER disprove His existence, whether scientifically or philosophically, or for that matter in any method known. Because He is Absolute and none is like Him, no one in the relative world can ever physically define Him, and thus all idol worshippers and those who ascribe a shape or a body to Him are wrong. Ascribing a shape to the One who is beyond our limited perceptions would be tantamount to lying and giving a false appearance and a false representation. In addition, to believe that one can see God in the physical sense of sitting on a throne like some mythical being is certainly an untrue statement and should never be accepted. The Almighty Creator brings to existence everything with utmost Perfection and nothing in His Universe is imperfect. Thus to state that the Creator has created imperfect things is certainly a false statement. He is the One and Only and is Absolutely independent of anything and everything that exists. Glorified be His names, the Most High!

* 'Adl - (Justice) - Essentially part of Tawheed. Belief that God is Just. He will reward or punish any person according to his deeds and thus the notion of predestination (where all decisions are God's and not any one else's) in one's deeds does not exist. It is absolutely forbidden in Islam to believe that the Almighty, Merciful Allah planned our destiny and that the good and the bad are just His Will and there is no choice for us between them (God forbid!). Those who ascribe to such lies do so because they want to blame their own evils on Allah and claim the good for themselves! Although the attribute of Allah's Justice is not a separate entity of Allah for certainly the Almighty God can never be compartmentalized nor defined in any relative terms, it is nonetheless absolutely compulsory to believe and fully understand the importance of this attribute in Islam so as not to allow the evil suggestions of Iblees (curse of Allah be upon him and his progeny) and his companions from leading us astray.

[anajmi]

I said I was going to respond to only one item, but then I thought it would be worthwhile to respond to a few other things.

Here is another question. How long do you think a blind hawk or octopus will be able to survive? How long do you think a blind human will be able to survive? Also, if I wait for 50 million years, what are the chances of a hawk evolving into a human with great eyesight?

When Allah created creatures he gave them their means of survival. Do you know what a human uses his eyes for? What does a hawk or an octopus use its eyes for?

Faith begins once the evidence runs out. This is pretty much the textbook definition of faith.

Textbooks written by humans no doubt!!

Thousands of years ago when there was lightning, people thought it was a direct act of god. Now we know it’s simply the interaction between charged particles in the atmosphere.

Charged particles created by God. Atmosphere created by God.

Before the age of enlightenment, sickness & diseases were thought as outcome of god’s wrath and punishment…but now we understand them a lot better because of the discovery of harmful pathogens in the form of bacteria, viruses, parasites etc.

Bacteria, viruses, parasites, all created by God.

Before Galileo, majority of the people thought that the Earth was flat & it was the sun rotating our planet. Now we know better.

Actually the quran talks about the earth being spherical (egg shaped) and that it revolves around the sun, almost a thousand years before Galileo.

[Mustansir]

Ozmujaheed,
From your response, it is evident that your definition of Allah is very different from what is specified in the Quran. I am not saying that it impossible for a divine creator to exist, who could be behind the initial trigger of life. Nor I am implying that absence of proof for existence of a creator can be translated into direct proof for its non-existence. Anything is ultimately possible but my interest is what is more probable. One cannot logically and reasonably prove a negative… that is, I will never be able to prove that there are no unicorns or Bigfoot or leprechauns in this world. It is physically impossible for me to check every spot on earth simultaneously to finally say conclusively that these creatures do not exist. However, does that mean that we should believe in their existence? Most likely not, unless you see some sort of evidence for it. I do not see a child suffering through polio, or born without eyesight, or having brain damage as utmost perfection.

It might seem odd at first that if I don’t believe in existence of a divine power, than where do I find meaning and purpose in my life? Well, I think that both, meaning and purpose in one’s life comes from within and not without. When I see the Universe, the millions of planets along with billions of galaxies… & then realize that we are just a tiny spec on a small planet in a remote corner of one of those galaxies…the experience is very humbling. If you have some basic knowledge of how reproduction works, you will realize that the odds of someone else being born instead of me from those million sperms were astronomically high…but it was me who ended up coming into existence. I feel extremely thrilled to be alive and experience this Universe for what it is and to understand it to the best of my ability while I am here. I find meaning, purpose & happiness in my family, my friends, in what I do for living, in how I can make a positive difference in someone else’s life, even if it’s a small one and overall, in humanity.

I have no problem with what people believe in. The problem comes when someone’s belief negatively affect someone else’s life. There is no boundary to human imagination… I can come up with any idea and make a positive affirmation, which I have the right to do. The difference is that for other people to take your positive affirmation as factual, you need to provide proof. And I think here is where our primary difference lies…in our standard of evidence. Based on what we see in this world, you see it more probable that there could be a divine force responsible for the existence of the Universe & the human race. And I see otherwise:) I really enjoyed this exchange of ideas with you and thank you for time. All the best!

[anajmi]

Mustansir,

What happened my friend? You started so strong and then fizzled out? What about the questions that I asked? Is that how strong the theory of evolution is?

I do not see a child suffering through polio, or born without eyesight, or having brain damage as utmost perfection.

Human beings are not supposed to be perfect. Only Allah is perfect. Humans are supposed to be the best of Allah's creation. A hawk cannot give up hunting and pickup neuroscience as a career. Only a human can.

[ozmujaheed]

Mustansir..all the best to you too, I enjoyed the debate and at the same time educated myself too...may you be granted the ability to witness Allahs force and wonders whether proven or spiritual. I am convinced you live by the hope regardless of your faith and rituals you will be Judged fairly considering your deeds.

[salim]

I am going to respond only to this particular item. Will a hawk with bad eyesight be able to wear glasses to improve it? Have you ever seen an animal with a bad leg create a crutch? How many doctors do you see in the animal kingdom? It is amazing how a person with so much apparent knowledge about science not being able to think about something as simple as that.

Very well said Anajmi

[anajmi]

And by the way, humans can see much further and much deeper than any hawk or octopus can ever see. Humans have invented giant telescopes to look at the farthest regions of space and the sharpest microscopes to look at the tiniest of molecules.

[Mustansir]

Anajmi,
You are doing exactly what some people do when they have no answers to the questions being asked…you create a straw man argument and then conveniently try to shoot that down. When did I say a hawk or an octopus is more intelligent than a human? What a shockingly stupid argument to come up with! No one here has even remotely suggested that any other animal species has more or the same level of intelligence as humans do. I think your problem is that you cannot properly comprehend what is written and that’s why you keep coming up with totally unconnected & irrelevant arguments, which has nothing to do with what is being discussed…while conveniently ignoring the main argument.

This time, please read slowly…the argument was whether the life we see on this planet along with the Universe is a product of some intelligent design or a direct result of millions of years of evolution. And whether there could be a supernatural force before the origin of life itself. The hawk example was supposed to show that if we all were indeed a product of intelligent design, our acute vision would be equal or superior to that of a hawk’s…but it’s not. We would not have to come up with rectifying lenses, or crutches or even microscopes if we were “intelligently designed”. It is precisely because of our evolved intelligence that we can rectify our environment and escape our anatomical flaws & natural selection. I would write more but it is obvious to most of us how much you know and how much you don't know. You show such profound lack of knowledge in areas of science where couple of years in high school would do the job. You can choose to have pseudo-explanations of "God did it" or "God made it" or "God wrote it" for all the events happening in this world..that is your choice...but it is not useful in any sense. You can apply these nonsensical arguments to explain absolutely anything and consequently & logically, ending up explaining nothing. The way you are making these claims seems that you exactly know the nature of god and what he wills. How the hell do you know that? How do you know what he thinks? Direct Conversations? Was written in some book? How can you say you have the right book and all other religions have the wrong one? You don't have any logical or reasonable answers to these questions. So go ahead...create another of your retarded straw man arguments and try to show that it's false...have at it horse! You don't need anyone else for that:)

[anajmi]

Mustansir,

In your rabble you actually proved my point that human beings did not evolve but were created. Millions of years of evolution only led to good eyesight for the hawk, without which the poor hawk is dead. Whereas look at the humans, an imperfect body and yet powerful enough to overcome almost any physical limitation and more intelligent than any other species on earth. If it was all evolution, then we would have a neuroscientist hawk and an octopus wanting to study high school too. Thank you.

[Balki Bartokomous]

Anajmi,

Apparently you've never heard about a species called Neanderthal Man. You know, tools, speech, etc.

Here's a wiki link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

Some unique species we were, back then, huh?

[S. Insaf]

I am not a scholar of religion. But from my study of Islam and the life of holy Prophet Hazrat Mohammad I have come to the conclusion that the best approach is the “practical approach”.
Hazrat Mohammad was a man of modest means but extraordinary qualities of heart and mind. Kind hearted that he was when he came of age he was greatly perturbed about the then prevailing situation in Mecca and set about to search for a solution. Also with the qualities of his mind he proved to be a genius. He was a man of scrupulously upright conduct which had won him a title of Ameen (the trustworthy). His approach was religious in nature to get maximum acceptability but not unconcerned with the existential situation and historic consciousness to bring about a radical restructuring of the society.
Forming of “Hilf al-Fudul” Association (the league of the Virtuous) with different tribes and clans, drawing up a Constitution (Sahifah) and creating a political community in Medina, popularizing Quranic terminology of “mustad’ifin (the weak) and mustakbirin (the rich and powerful), La Ikrah fiddin (there is no compulsion in religion) were some of the unique practical steps which were the secret of his phenomenal success.
As he saw the people near Kaba divided in to different faiths and worshiping more than three hundred different gods, he gave a call "La Ilaha" (there is no god). So please don’t fight with each other. He broke the idols around Kaba. It may sound an atheist approach.
In his time Arab society was full of scarcities, even water was a scarcity. Each one was solely concerned about his/her survival. No one was caring for others. There was no motivation to do otherwise.
The Marxist author of the book “Mohammad” Maxim Radisson has described an incident where an old lady was dieing with thrust. Mohammad saw a young man coming on his horse. He had gone far away distance and fetched a bag of water. When Mohammad asked him to give little water to the dieing woman, the young Arab refused. When Mohammad appealed to him and said “If you will not give water to her she will most certainly die.” Then the man most arrogantly said “So let her die. I will not share my water with her.” But how can Mohammad let her die! So to motivate the young man he said “If you give her water the Allah will be pleased with you. And I give you basharat (foretell) of a nice place in heaven”. Mohammad thus added Illallah with La Ilaha and started preaching “La Ilaha Illallah”.
Leaving aside all the debates this was a practical approach.

[Al Zulfiqar]

an old thread, but revived by bro. insaf.

what most people, 99.99% seem to forget is that islam is not a rigid religion, and the prophet was not a rigid, impractical man. there are innumerable examples from hadees and history to show that he always made judgements or solved problems based on faith in an almighty, love for his fellow human beings, common sense, integrity, and practical wisdom which satisfied all concerned.

what subsequent leaders or mullahs or dai's have done, is not a true reflection on islam. if some misguided characters have hijacked islam for vested interests, islam and its prophet cannot be blamed. my firm opinion is that those who have really understood islam in its deepest sense and studied the life of the prophet minutely are all secular intellectuals. they could be muslims, or of any other faith, anyone. but they will all affirm that God is a loving, flexible and all forgiving entity. Allah is not out to take revenge like some blood thirsty potentate, uttering laanats or hurling thunderbolts.

as bhai Insaf has pointed out, the shahada of islam is very simple, but extremely thought provoking.

La Ilaha = THERE IS NO GOD
Illallah = BUT THERE IS GOD

my reply to mustansir would be: we agree with you that there is no God. then afterward we will agree that there is God!

let us remove from the equation this entire universe, with its zillions of stars, matter, creation, plants, animals, mankind and whatever extra-terrrestrial life there is, let there be nothing. there will still be God. whether you believe in the theory of evolution or the theory of creation, where did that original spark come from? call it what you will, why not call it GOD?

[danishwar]

. Thank you.

Anajmi,
you must thank them for not asking you, why can't children grow on trees? instead of the labor and pain? and nine months wait...

take care

[anajmi]

A little bit of knowledge of science and these people think that they can now challenge God. They run from a discussion like mice from a cat. The reason is that they can only throw a couple of arguments at you. After that, they have nothing.

I have heard of the neanderthal man. But he is now extinct. He is not classified as evolved into humans.

[Mustansir]

Hi Al Zulfiqar,

Thank you for posting your comment. I really appreciate the way you end up looking at the overall role of Islam but I still do disagree with that premise. But let’s assume that even if Islam as an overall religion is close to the way you or Bhai Insaf look at it, there are some logical inconsistencies with your final idea, no matter how intriguing it sounds at first..

Within the vast Universe, comprising of the billions of galaxies, in each of which there are billions of stars, we are only certain about life on this planet for now. From what we understand from the different sub-divisions of Science, the known Universe along with all that is still unknown to us comprises the whole Cosmos. Whatever we know about the Universe, it is based on inferences drawn from vast body of evidence converging from different scientific fields. The usage of the word ‘theory’ in the scientific field is very different from the general public usage. A scientific theory is a convincing explanatory framework that can account for a large body of evidence about the real word, and is not simply a guess or a speculation. And the most important concept of a scientific theory is that it must make testable predictions and should be vulnerable to falsification. Nobody doubts (hopefully) the theory of germ disease anymore or the theory of atoms and chemical bonds, theory of gravitation or the theory that the Earth is spherical. These scientific theories have graduated to becoming scientific facts because of the massive amount of evidence behind them. The same goes for the theory of natural selection to explain the fact of evolution. So when it comes to evolution or gravity, one can choose to accept or reject the theory but you don’t need to ‘believe’ in it as these inferences are not based on faith.

Now it is completely true that at this point we have no idea what happened before the ‘Big Bang’. There are lot of general speculations or hypotheses out there by scientists (not proper scientific theories though) but no one can say which one is more or less likely. And to concur with you, Yes it is totally possible that there might be a God of some kind who created the whole Universe out of nothing, but if we intent to pursue this question courageously then we have to ask the next question - where did God come from? If you think that this is an unanswerable question, then why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the Universe itself is an unanswerable question? Or as you suggested that since God is outside the Universe and he/she always existed, then why not save a step and conclude that may be the Universe always existed? These are questions which have been pondered upon since many centuries now but for the longest time were only limited to religion and myth. But now we have new dependable scientific tools & body of knowledge to at least try to seek answers without any bias, without any invested personal interest, emotions or wishful thinking.

I still get excited whenever I think about these speculations of what was there before the big bang…whether if this is the only Universe we have or may be there are indeed ‘Multiverses’? Whatever the explanation, for now, I feel no shame or embarrassment in conceding my ignorance and simply stating that – I just don’t know. Even if you do believe that a God must be there in the beginning of the Universe, there is no credible argument to accept that that God is in fact Allah and not the God of Judaism or the Christian God. How can you possible know that especially if every major religion in this world is claiming the same thing that it is their God behind the creation process? All the religions cannot be right….that means either some of them are wrong or, as I view it, all of them are wrong…

[anajmi]

there is no credible argument to accept that that God is in fact Allah and not the God of Judaism or the Christian God. How can you possible know that especially if every major religion in this world is claiming the same thing that it is their God behind the creation process?

Just because there are many and hence none of them can be true is not a very scientific approach now is it? The way to figure out which one is true is to study them all. That is how science works. When it comes to religion, scientists are always trying to weasel their way out.

[Mustansir]

The above argument is not a proper scientific one, it is simply a logical one. The fundamental claims made by three major monotheistic religions are mutually exclusive and ergo, they all can't be true. I did study all these religions & that's how I come to this logical conclusion. It is almost embarrassing that I had to literally state the obvious here but evidently not obvious to everyone...

[anajmi]

Mustansir,

I do not believe you. If you had studied all the religions and found flaws, that is what you would've stated. As I said above, when it comes to religion, "scientists" are always trying to weasel their way out.

If you had studied them, you would've known that the three major religions are all really just one. They have the same origin. They all talk about the exact same God. Still embarassed?

[porus]

Mustansir, I think, makes an error in not making a distinction between the two universes of discourse, the scientific and the religious. This issue does not go away easily. NOMA, or Non-Overlapping Magisteria is a view which attempts to differentiate the two by associating unique concepts and methods applicable to each in its own domain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

Both the Big Bang and Evolution by Natural Selection are convincing current models of the way our universe works. However, Natural Selection is of no help in identifying moral and ethical issues faced by human beings. There have been attempts to explain human attributes (the lesser versions of 99 attributes of God) by proposing and searching for the so-called ‘God particle' in the human brain. Even then, science cannot offer a prescription for human behavior.

I believe that God is a creation of humans by a mental fiat to make sense of their world in areas notoriously difficult for them to be the subjects of scientific magistera. It has been suggested that the idea of God is at least 14,000 years old and, according to Karen Armstrong’s research, it started out as a monotheistic God and later evolved into polytheistic God and in some places evolved back into monotheistic God. This is mental speculation and not a deliberate process of scientific enterprise.

Once you accept that this is a mental creation by humans then we immediately see that multiple interpretations are possible depending upon the history and culture of the people among whom these interpretations develop. They derive their legitimacy in one culture by consensus. The humans’ tendency to ascribe the label of exclusive ‘truth’ to their own interpretation is the cause of troubles among humans.

Let us compare this situation to different forms of government in the United States and India. The Constitution of the USA is almost a sacred document to an American and he is willing to defend it with his life. Yet he knows clearly that it is a man made document. The Indian Constitution is similarly a highly respected document in India. Both governments claim to be democracies and they can both coexist with mutual respect.

The same applies to religion or concept of God. There may be differences but the ideas and the ends that they desire to achieve are held to be sacrosanct by each group. And the question of who is right or wrong does not and should not arise.

Why, as long as we respect every religion, we can have healthy relationships among all of them. And still speculate about God and benefit from every group’s views and conclusion within its own culture.

Therefore, the debate about whether there is a God or not is extremely futile. Just as you are prepared to accept that universe always was and is, I suggest that you accept that God always was and is. Just as you think that the speculation about the origin and pre-origin of the universe is a diversionary activity, so also is the speculation about the origin or pre-origin of God.

Just as you accept that there is one dominant explanation of the way universe works and others not so dominant, I suggest that you accept multiple interpretations about God and consider them all valid within their own universes of discourse.

[anajmi]

It is quite amazing how scientists fail to see the obvious and that which is most glaring. Look at the human being. Is there any other species on earth that can come close to what a human being is? If all species on earth were created by nature and "evolution", why is a human so much more different and further away than any other species on earth? Every species on earth, except the human being, can be put into the same bucket. The fact that only the human being has been able to create "science" and "scientists" is still to dawn on these scientists. Natural selection by itself is alright, but as used by the scientist against religion is pure bs. If natural selection led to the creation of human, why is there any other species on earth? Infact some have survived much much longer than the humans will survive. As per one "scientific" theory, if the human population grows at the current rate, in 700 years each human will have only 1 square foot of space available to him on earth.

[Humsafar]

Mustansir, good to see you admit your ignorance, and there's nothing to be embarrassed about it. In fact, "I don't know" is the only true statement we can confidently make. Human faculties have inherent limitations, we can only know so much and to fashion eternal Truths from our limited knowledge is foolish and arrogant - qualities that widely afflict the human species. As for religions and their gods, just know that they are the products of the human mind and suffer from the same limitations as that of the mind. Don't take them seriously.

Porus, what a brilliant post! You have distilled the wisdom of the ages in those few paragraphs. Just want to add that the dichotomy between science and mysticism (would not want use the word religion because of its unsavoury connotations) is false. The two magisterias may seem separate but they emerge from the same Source, they are the components of the larger truth. The mistake science makes is that it uses scientific methodology to investigate mystical truths and finds them wanting. It's like looking into outer space with a microscope and concluding that it does not exist. Similarly vulgar religionists reject science as evil because it exposes their hollow claims. Each discipline must use appropriate "tools" of investigation. A true mystic, the wise one, will never trash science or any other truths for he knows that Totality is one, has always been. It is a human tendency to name and label things, separate and differentiate things to understand and make sense of the world. But the Reality just is, one undifferentiated whole.

[Mustansir]

Porus, I am very familiar with the NOMA concept and in fact, have read about it thoroughly and in great lengths...primarily because the person who came up with this idea and even coined the phrase “Non-overlapping Magisteria” was one of the most credible evolutionary biologist and a palaeontologist in the past few decades – Stephen Jay Gould. This person made a lot of significant contributions to the field of evolutionary biology and apart from the hundreds of publications in highly respected peer-review journals, he also wrote many significant books on the subject.

But when it comes to the principle of NOMA, many in the scientific community thoroughly disagree, even though some of the primary scientific organizations do support this idea because of political correctness. I am not going to make an argument by consensus here but simply show where these two supposedly non-overlapping magesteria do actually overlap. If the primary religions of the world were dealing only with the supernatural and were making no claims about or within the natural world, then yes they would be non-overlapping. But when religion makes claims that there is such a thing as a soul and a mind, which are independent from the material brain…now religion is making existential claims within the natural world. When religion claims that you can heal a person just by praying for him/her, the supposed implications are within the natural world. When religion claims that Heaven or Hell are material facts, there is overlapping. When religion claims that many people die of horrible diseases not because of pathogens but because of their “sins”, there is overlapping. When religion claims that it is the sun which revolves around the earth, and that the whole Universe was specially made with the human species in mind and there is no such thing as evolution – there is obviously significant overlapping. When religion says that women are inferior to men or using contraceptives is a sin - there are horrific consequences in the natural world. When religion says that by sacrificing goats, sheep or camels, you can increase longevity of person/bring financial gain upon you/take away sickness from your loved ones - the implications are definitely within the natural world.

The point here is that the discourse is not simply between the scientific worldview vs. religious worldview. It is between rational & critical thinking vs. irrationality. A person is definitely entitled to his/her opinions but not entitled to his/her facts. If every idea has equal merit & validity, then no idea has any merit at all. Astrology doesn’t have the same validity as Astronomy because the former is nothing but cheap hokum pseudoscience and the latter is based on observations, testable hypotheses & evidence, which is open to scrutiny by anyone interested. Same goes for alchemy vs. chemistry and homeopathy vs. allopathic medicine. If I want to save my child from getting polio, either I can pray for her or I can get her vaccinated. By going one step further and attributing events to God or Gods, we are not providing any further explanation at all. By doing so, we simply replace one unknown with another. If you agree to accept ideas solely based on faith & personal feelings and no evidence, how can you then differentiate between deep thought and deep nonsense? In the world of the supernatural, anything goes. A person can make any subjective claim & assert it as the truth without giving any evidence…all you need in order to ‘believe’ the claim is just a little bit of faith. Such a world based on religious outlook would be a very different place than the world we actually live in… And hence, science and religion are not mutually exclusive methods to understand the Universe but are pretty much directly contradictory when it comes to understanding some of the most important aspects of our lives…