Disbelievers are mad, mad, mad

Mad not in the sense being suffering from some mental or biological disorder but not being reasonable and logical, and being contradictory. There are many living concepts, so to speak part of the world, which we recognize to be existent but we don't observe them, or know them by seeing, or, even, fully understand them. We don't know how such things as gravity, unconscious, invisible rays, etc., as work. We don't know how they make things behave, and on and on and on. We don't know their inner processes or reality through our senses, but know that these exist through their manifestations. Gravity exists because we its effects. Unconscious exists because we see its effects. Although these forces and entities are hidden and beyond our observations, their behavior, their 'products' are however observable.

Take the Freud's unconscious. Despite all criticisms made against him on purely scientific grounds (not that i believe in absolute truthiness of scientific methods), his idea of the "unconscious is intact," as per professor Bloom of Yale. Unconscious is fascinating. All the slip tongues, memory gaps, and other crazy stuff comes from unconscious of which we have no conscious trace or understanding. Still its there. A better example than this is gravity that we can feel but don't observe the way we want to observe God, which is impossible for our perceptions.

The simple logic behind believing in these unobservables is their fruits, to be poetic. Then how we deny the Creator? Dr Asad Zaman in his lecture on logical positivism [lecture # 7] shows how these atheistic scientific theories are so grounded and motivated by this urge of non-believing communities to deny the Maker of the Universe. This logically explains their consistent efforts to deny Allah despite their admission about existence of life and universe being nothing short of a miracle. Allah shows the disbelieving miracles but they deny, as their predecessors did. Allah knows best.

Sidi (late) Charles Gai Eaton shows difference between a Muslim-believer and modern agnostic/atheist western's approach towards faith:

"Formerly, this confrontation [b/w Muslims and Christians in middle ages] was between men of faith who had more in common than they could ever have acknowledged. That likeness, that shared devotion to an almighty and unseen God, no longer exists. The gulf has become infinitely wider and mutual comprehension has become far more difficult. The believer to whom the transcendent reality of God is the most compelling fact known to him cannot really understand unbelief or imagine its sterility. The unbeliever, try as he may, cannot even guess what the experience of faith is; his imagination is baffled by this strange, other-worldly phenomenon."

Miracles: To be or not to be?

Why should miracles be important to prove, or to serve as an evidence for the truthfulness of a Prophet?

Miracles did take place in the time of Last Prophet, as per sound narrations and consensus of ulema. Miracles did take in the times of Prophet Moses and Isa. It's very curious to know how the magicians/illusionists of Firoun's responded to Prophet Moses' miracle that was granted to him by Allah: they accepted Prophet Moses as Messenger of Allah and recongized his miracle to out of this world! That was nothing short of an experimental testimony.

However, i was puzzled by this statement of Imam Ghazzali in his autobiography: if a person was come to me and say 2+1 = 10; and he'll prove the truth of this statement by turning a stick into a snake - i should never lose certitude in my knowledge that 2 + 1 = 3 and not 10.

Hence, can a rational person [not rationalist per se] demand miracles? The miracle we need to believe in today is: "... Islamic view of a universe created by God, where the trees and the stars worship their Creator, and the sun and the moon follow exquisitely designed laws." And the only time when veils were removed from the people, as public, was the time of Prophets, when trees and stone would talk to Prophet.

We should also know that the nations which self-abdicated themselves, like that of Saleh, requested miracles of their choice. When those miracles were performed, even then they didn't accept Islam. This is true for the scientists of today. Dr Asad Zaman in his brief essay Big Bang writes:

"Sometimes, the evidence is so strong that it breaks through the barriers of unbelief. For example, one of the discoverers of the genetic basis of human life, Crick was quoted as saying, ‘An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” Very unwillingly, against his atheistic beliefs, Crick gave testimony to what the Quran (Surah Al-Waqi’ah 57-58) asserts as challenge: In the creation of man and the seed from which man is created are signs which cannot be denied by those who reflect. Just like many nations mentioned in the Quran, Crick continued to deny God even after witnessing the miracles of creation."

Apart from the so-called supernatural miracles, the evidences regarding the coming of the last Prophet is of utmost importance. Please read the chapter on Bahira the Monk in Martin Lings Muhammad. 

For me, miracles are an important testimony and evidence. They happen today with the righteous ones. Moreover, it is hard evidence for a very strong alternative view of physical world. It is anti-dote to a mechanistic view of things, which 'cuts the hand of God his creation'. However, with the very miracle of life, my own being and the tree that grows out of the earth naturally, is enough a proof for me. One should also know that Dajjal will use real life CG effects to show miracles to people and claim to be Divine.

Disclaimer: Allah knows best. These thoughts are still very pre-mature and at least some parts are doubtful to me too.

Delusions of Progressive Muslims: Critique of Shaykh GF Haddad

Introduction - first draft :P - to a paper by Shyakh Gibril Haddad, "Amina Wadud's Innovation of Misguidance"



There are two ways to shake, challenge or try destroying the Pillars of Islam: from outside without using any argument from Islamic Tradition, and the second is to manipulate arguments, evidences from within to make a caricature out of the religion to meet a given ideological, political or cultural agenda. 

I've no problem with the first mode or type of critique on Islam. The proponents of that type are usually academic in their style, many of them are honest in their critical statements which are in congruence with their own world-view, and are not usually stimulated externally to attack Islam. I cannot pass the judgment of these type of critics as being truly intellectual, although the challenge is intellectual in its appearance, because rationalism is not Intellectuality (see works of Rene Guenon, Seyyed Hossein Nasr and other 'traditionalist' writers).

The second type of critique of Islam is not critique or critical at all, but a set of cacophonies - usually by pro-regressive Muslims & Islamophobics - aimed at twisting, modifying, and changing the rituals, practices, doctrines and overall world-view of Islam as such. I also include world-view because they hardly understand the genius of Islamic world-view and since they are purely sentimental, reactionary or politically motivated in their approach, it has nothing to do with any sort of systematic world-view. This explains their utter contradictions and huge blunders. This is the lowest of all kinds of attacks on any religion, because these stem from the stimulation to surrender a divinely revealed religion to one's whims or to satisfy others. And it is exactly in this category that the Progressive Muslim movements fall. 

The beginnings of these movements can easily be traced to post-establishment of colonial rule in Muslim world, when 'spirited' "thinkers" of the ummah relegated to themselves the task of defining the orientation of the efforts, inclinations, thoughts and inspirations of all Muslims: namely, to reform, modernize, and colonize Islam so as to catch-up with more "advanced" nations. One wonders what has reforming a Divinely revealed religion to do with gaining expertise at man made things we call technology. The contradiction was evident. The self-proclaimed reformists were not moved by the ideals and philosophies of Islam to present the world with alternatives to atheistic and man-made ideologies/discourses, but by their unchangeable inferiority complexes vis-a-vis the glitter of Western world. Many of them, even today, also in West, mistake the success of profane physical sciences with Western social sciences (see, 'Origin of Western Social Science', by Dr Asad Zaman).

Come 2004, post-9/11, Muslims needed to go many steps further to please New Colonial/Imperial masters of West. It was America's turn to launch war of ignorance coupled with that of terror to neutralize once for all the 'edges' in Muslim - intellectual, cultural and political - that threatened for centuries the Europeans. American academia may not have been fervent at all about taking the propaganda of Orientalists of reformation or an Islamic renaissance a step further - of the sympathetic ones perhaps. The urgency was felt more in westernized circles of pro-regressive Muslims who are the lowest of lowest in character than their predecessors in British and post-British Raj.

And this brings us to Amina Wadud. I would not like  to spoil the show for you with my incoherent, non-scholarly ramblings about such an "esteemed liberator" and her "magnanimous movement," namely, that of Progressive Muslims. Please read and benefit from this scholarly paper by Shaykh Gibril F Haddad, a Lebanese Islamic scholar. It's in PDF format with beautiful type-font and 2-column format that makes it more readable.

Amina Wadud's Innovation of Misguidance

__________________________
Further reading: 

1. Quran-only Feminists by Shaykh GF Haddad

2. For forensic and direct exposition of treacheries and lies of Islam-sellers in USA and West, visit the archives of: Dr Maxtor's Blog

Maryam Jameelah (ra): Authenticity, Revival, Rain & Victory

'Thematic Approach'

There are things which i believe are peculiar to Jews. They all seem to be crazy readers and seekers of knowledge. Leaving aside the conduct of Zionists, whose founder i believe was atheist (?); but what i'm certain of as a fact is that the founder professed conversion of Jews to Christianity for their assimilation into European culture! How "befitting" for a "Jew" to proclaim that who for centuries kept things to themselves - notwithstanding the conspiring and warring elements, whose archetype may be those leaving in Madeena who relentlessly fought against Prophet of Islam. And i'm really fond of Jews fond of Arabs! Maryam Jameelah (formerly, Margret Marcus) was one such Jew (who later converted to Islam), fascinated with Arabs and a crazy reader. Other example in your mind is obviously Muhammad Asad; this obviousness creates a curiosity of knowing no less profound "Jewish souls" who might have accepted Islam as the Seal of Religions. Knowing Jeemlah and Asad is very critical for Muslims, who in their honest opposition of Israel go to another extreme of imaging all Jews as those Zio-Nazis who take Hitler as their educational, moral and state-level godfather.

It is very moving to read a American-Jew, now a muslim, in exile in a country alien to her, meticulously analyzing clinically the wretched unIslamic state of Muslims; her compelling diagnosis that any layman reader can grasp, absorb and assimilate; her wholehearted passion for inner re-orientation of Muslims; her call for de-westernization of psyche, for it is that inner, hidden element that is the source, and all the outward diseases are merely its manifestations. Dobrah Baker can go to any length to prove she might have been totally disillusioned, disenchanted with her beliefs and passions, but i doubt that more than she can doubt anything else. More of that later. Don't miss this part.

Biography

A brief biographical-literary sketch of her life & works by John L Esposito: Makers of Contemporary Islam, chapter on M Jameelah. I found a factual fallacy in the account by John: Ameer Ali wasn't a Shiah as he mentions, but an Ahmadi. I'd love to read chapter by Jameelah on Ameer's books; the name of chapter tells all: "The Spirit of Unbelief." Although I consider John to my sympathetic to Islam, but he seems more sympathetic to Islamic modernists. I like what Seyyed Hossein Nasr used to describe one of her books in his book Ideals & Realities of Islam: "an uncompromising" defense of traditional Islam (or something to that effect).

How sharp was her criticism of secular fundamentalists and "Islamic" modernists/reformists, who shared a lot common that the ordinary eye could discern:

pioneers of westernization in the Muslims world - Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Shaikh Muhammad Abduh, Qassim Amin, Shaikh Ali Abd ar-Raziq, Dr. Taha Hussein, Ziya Gokalp, and Mustafa Kamel Ataturk. ... [All] of these men were merely the mediocre end-product of their circumstances and more specifically, the result of an over-whelming sense of inferiority which engulfed the East after its humiliating capitulation under the feet of the imperialist West. [Emphasis mine]

*********
Psychological Analysis of 'Story told' by Dobrah Baker, a western writer

Dobrah Baker

My question:

Here's a review of a book by an American writer on her which shows her teenage mental instability, and her later "ultimate disillusionment in a search for impossible certainties about life and death" - basically with Islam. Source of the quotes.

However here's a comment that critiques the logic of the book:

"using the story of this mentally unstable woman as somehow anything but a peek into insanity is absurd. There are thousands of examples of people just as crazy who cut off body parts and other acts of self-abuse and to highlight a story like this because she "converted" to a religion that thought her crazy enough to have her committed to the hell of a lunatic asylum is equally crazy.this film is a sick as the people who made it or watch it."

Want your psychological analysis on the intentions of the writer? And whether her assertions are justified? Sure she would have been critical of Maulana Moudodi, but can "disillusionment" with Islam - in which she sought meaning and justice - because she used to be mentally unstable sometime or as an "old woman full of fears" be a mere polemic by the author? 

Reply by Rhodara online [link it]

"I certainly expect no objectivity on two highly charged topics (religion and mental illness) from these authors. Confusing the emotional turmoils of a person with psychological troubles with an ordinary course of discovering one's true calling in Islam is also not advisable. Her later disillusionment with the negative aspects of the overall Islamic culture as it stands today (inclusive of terrorism, disregarding the whole debate on the topic) won't be too surprising in any given person. But they will be of huge importance and of turmoil to a person who not only has a history but probably a personal tendency of being extremely passionate with things. "filled with fears" could mean anything. Was she merely expressing her 'muttaqi' fears of forgiveness for sins and acceptance of good deeds in the afterlife like we all do, plus expressing fears for the future of Muslims and the practice of their religion, again, like we all entertain? It could be a fact that she never gained a mental state of peace and contentment which might be not too unexpected given her nature. Let us pray that Allah ta'ala disregards all her weaknesses (and ours when our time comes) and highlight her faith and good deeds, Amen. Many converts that were 'disillusioned' in their ways have 'reverted' happily one example being in my own family; why did she not? That is all I have to say." [italics mine]

******

Read her illuminating and thought-provoking articles that can only leave an open minded one changed by her moving prose that operates with the Sword of Furqan/Discernment: Maryam Jameelah.

"Even before i formally embraced Islam, i found the integrity of the faith in the contemporary world greatly threatened by the so-called modernist movement which aimed at adulterating its teachings with man-made philosophies and reforms. I was convinced that had these modernizes had their way , nothing of the original would be left ! As a child I had witnessed with my own eyes in my own family how the liberals had mutilated what had once been a Divinely revealed faith." -- Maryam Jameelah.

Islam, Family & Muslim Feminists

The following excerpt is perhaps one the most authentic critiques on feminism from islamic point of view from Dr Seyyed Hossein Nasr's book Ideals and Realities of Islam:

From the point of view of social structure, the teachings of the Shariah emphasize the role of the family as the unit of society - the family in the extended sense and not in its atomized, nuclear modem form. The greatest social achievement of the Prophet in Medina was precisely in breaking the existing tribal bonds and substituting religious ones which were connected on the one hand with the totality of the Muslim community and on the other hand with the family. The Muslim family is the miniature of the whole of Muslim society and its firm basis. In it, the man or father functions as the Imam in accordance with the patriarchal nature of Islam. The religious responsibility of the family rests upon his shoulders. In the family, the father upholds the tenets of the faith and his authority symbolizes that of God in the world. The man is in fact respected in the family precisely because of the sacerdotal function that he fulfils. The rebellion of Muslim women in certain quarters of Islamic society came when men themselves ceased to fulfil their religious function and lost their virile and patriarchal character. By becoming themselves effemi­nate, they caused the reaction of revolt among certain women who no longer felt the authority of religion upon themselves.

The traditional family is also the unit of stability of society and the four wives that a Muslim can marry, like the four-sided Ka’aba, symbolize this stability. Many have not understood why such a family structure is permitted in Islam and attack Islam for it as if polygamy belongs to Islam alone. Here and again Muslim modernism carries with it the prejudice of Christianity against polygamy to the extent that some have gone even so far as to call it immoral and prefer promiscuity to a social pattern which minimizes all illicit relations to the extent possible. The problem of the attitude of the Western observer is not as important as that segment of modernized Muslim society which itself cannot understand the teachings of the Shariah on this point simply because it uses as criteria categories borrowed from the modern West.

There is no doubt that in a small but significant segment of Muslim society today, there is a revolt of women against traditional Islamic society. In every civilisation a reaction always comes against an existing force or action. In Islam, the very patriarchal and masculine nature of the tradition makes the revolt of those women who have become aggressively modernised more violent and virulent than, let us say, in Hinduism, where the maternal element has always been strong. What many modernised Muslim women are doing in rebelling against the traditional Muslim family structure is to rebel against fourteen centuries of Islam itself although many may not be aware of the inner forces that drive them on. It is the patriarchal nature of Islam that makes the reaction of some modernised women today so vehement. Although very limited in number, they are, in fact, more than Muslim men, thirsting for all things Western. They seek to become modernised in their dress and habits with impetuosity, which would be difficult to understand unless one considers the deep psychological factors involved.

From the Islamic point of view, the question of the equality of men and women is meaningless. It is like discussing the equality of a rose and a jasmine. Each has its own perfume, colour, shape and beauty. Men and women are not the same. Each has particular features and characteristics. Women are not equal to men. But neither are men equal to women. Islam envisages their roles in society not as competing but as complimentary. Each has certain duties and functions in accordance with his or her nature and constitution.

Man possesses certain privileges such as social authority and mobility against which he has to perform many heavy duties. First of all, he bears all economic responsibility. It is his duty to support his family completely even if his wife is rich and despite the fact that she is economically independent. A woman in a traditional Islamic society does not have to worry about earning a living. There is always the larger family structure in which she can find a place and take refuge from social and economic pressures even if she has no husband or father. In the extended family system, a man often supports not only his wife and children but also his mother, sister, aunts, in-laws and sometimes even cousins and more distant relatives. Therefore in city life, the necessity of having to find a job at all costs and having to bear the economic pressure of life is lifted from the shoulders of women. As for the countryside, the family is itself the economic unit and the work is achieved by the larger family or tribal unit together.

Secondly, a woman does not have to find a husband for herself. Site does not have to display her charms and make the thousand and one plans through which she hopes to attract a future mate. The terrible anxiety of having to find a husband and of missing the opportunity if one does not try hard enough at the right moment is spared the Muslim woman. Being able to remain true to her nature, she can afford to sit at home and wait for her parents or guardian to choose a suitable match. This usually leads to a marriage which, being based on the sense of religious duty and enduring family and social bonds between the two sides, is more lasting arid ends much more rarely in divorce than the marriages which are based on the sentiments of the moment that often do not develop into more permanent relationships.

Thirdly the Muslim woman is spared direct military and political responsibility although in rare cases there have been women warriors. This point may appear as a deprivation to some but in the light of the real needs of feminine nature, it is easy to see that for most women, such duties weigh heavily upon them. Even in modern societies, which through the equalitarian process have tried to equate men and women as if there were no difference in the two sexes, Women are usually spared the military draft except in extreme circumstances.

In return for these privileges which the woman receives, she has also certain responsibilities of which the most important is to provide a home for her family and to bring up her children properly. In the home the woman rules as queen and a Muslim man is in a sense the guest of his wife at home. The home and the larger family structure in which she lives are for the Muslim woman her world. To be cut off from it would be like being cut off from the world or like dying. She finds the meaning of her existence in this extended family structure which is constructed so as to give her the maximum possibility of realizing her basic needs and fulfilling herself.

The Shariah therefore envisages the role of men and women according to their nature, which is complimentary. It gives the man the privilege of social and political authority and movement for which he has to pay by bearing heavy responsibilities, by protecting his family from all the forces and pressures of society, economic and otherwise. Although a master in the world at large and the head of his own family, the man acts in his home as one who recognize the rule of his wife, in this domain and respects it. Through mutual understanding and the realization of the responsibilities that God has placed on each other’s shoulders, the Muslim man and woman are able to fulfill their personalities and create a firm family unit which is the basic struc­ture of Muslim society.

Reference: Ideals and Realities of Islam,  George AIIen &; Unwin, London, 1966, pp. 110-113.


Found the piece at: http://www.islam101.com/women/jameelah.htm

Reflections on my Faith Islam & how Muslims Encounter Faith Today

In the Name of Allah; I seek refuge in Allah from the evil of Satan

[Forgive v poor sentence structures & grammar.]

Like Imam Ghazzali (r.a.) i've immutable belief on 3 things:

- In the Existence of Allah (swt) - is there any doubt about Allah?
- The Day of Judgement
- Truth of the institution of Prophethood

With these beliefs, one may presume that there is no room for skepticism, not that kind which doubts one's own existence. But, that is not the case- one can still have doubts about one's religion with these beliefs. When we're born we become Muslims, Christians, Atheists, etc., if we were born in that particular family. But, its only with the dawn of consciousness, if you might call it, that we're sometimes forced to reexamine our acquired belief, perhaps due to external stimuli or even due to one's own disposition to question things. In this age, former is more true than the later. Nonetheless. Having watched videos/stories of so many converts to Islam - be them atheists, Christians, etc. - it was either of the two, while predominantly external stimuli played a greater role, thanks to 9/11, terrible news about Muslims, new Biblical scholarship that proves almost all the stances of Islam on Christianity such as tehreef or human interference in Bible, etc.

Muslims rarely venture into uncomfortable waters of examination and use of intellect, especially those who're not well trained in traditional Islam, because the students of Qur'an and Sunnah know the proofs, evidences, and narrations of the truth of Islam. Nonetheless, overall atmosphere is that of fear when it comes to talking to people of other belief and to those having no faith at all, except, perhaps, in the desires of their nafs. (I'm not proposing that their kufr is due to following their desires of soul, merely, but perhaps a historical process that led to 'the eclipse of soul and intellect', namely modernity or renaissance, which has very well defined features, that really closed their eyes to Divine Realities.)

This is not how our great scholars of the past behaved. Imam Abu Hanifa used to debate (in most beautiful manner) with atheists in the masjid saying to the effect, "Let's see what you've got." Imam Ghazzali wrote in his autobiography that he had (so deeply) analyzed the skeptics and atheists that they could not hide their real reasons for disbelief. This is very interesting.

It is high time we see/question things logically - because logic can even give us life through Islam or kill us with disbelief. It is only those confused people who're afraid of not talking to other. We've to start from understanding the hidden assumptions of this deen and that of disbelief. Our assumption is that there is an Unseen, and we believe in it, we believe in the ghaib. Why we believe in it and we humanity cannot risk not believing in it - this is the point from where the discussion may start. And, everything that is Islamic worldview is very logical and is very clear. Most of the rational people in US or West who came to Islam came to it because they could not bring an argument against islam that Qur'an or Muslims could not refute or at least provide an equally logical perspective on that.

In the end, i'd like to say that because of our heedlessness in acquiring both Islamic worldview and modern sciences, our own brothers and sisters are becoming mental victim of a Dajjalic civilization that is based on the idea and force of deception and deceiving people from seeing things the way they actually are. Biggest enemies of Islam are living within us, and they just like us, but it's logical fallacies they're really a victim of; a lack of clear understanding of world, matter and soul.

wa ma taufiqi illa billah

Soulless Education

"I fear most the new highly educated class of this country. They have high IQs, are very intelligent, very skilled and professional. They're eloquent as well. But. They lack basic human elements and qualities & courtesies such as humbleness, sacrifice, humility, etc. etc. They have become soulless."

This thought reminds me of the conversion story of former British PM's relative, who went to Palestine on a visit. During a cold night, she was trembling in cold because she didn't have blanket or stuff to sleep in. Then a Muslim lady, her destitute host, shared her own blanket, so that her guest could sleep well. This display of generosity changed her perceptions about Muslims, where she previously considered Muslims to be sort of demons of terror, and now she encountered angelic behavior from same people.

The lady might be very poor and be ill-educated (by educated i strictly mean getting modern school/college education), she might have least of IQ, or awareness about social sciences and what not. But, the quality of character, which impressed an educated lady, is also unmatched and operates at a different plane, of which modern education has no sense of.

In fact this moral education is no more a part of modern university education (at the least). "Julie Reuben, a professor at Harvard has written a book about how morality and character development were explicit goals of university education in the early twentieth century, but these goals were abandoned in favor of a purely technical education later on," writes Dr Asad Zaman who became a victim of the social sciences of West during his education at MIT. In the same article, he narrates how imitation of Western professionals and philosophies of life turned him into a soulless human:

At a personal level, I saw my fellow students attitudes towards others to be selfish andexploitative, instead of caring and compassionate. Having absorbed the implicit message that professional accomplishment was the goal of life, I was shocked to learn of the really pathetic personal lives of many of the professionals I had thought to emulate. The general philosophy that individual goals are valued above social ones leads to betrayal of wives and families, violation of commitments of all types, and pursuit of personal and career goals even at expense of society. The purely technical education offered by the West does not teach us anything about the crucial parameters which govern how meaningful our lives are. In several crucial dimensions, the lessons of Tableegh were diametrically opposed to those which I had absorbed in the course of my Western education. These lessons showed me that the teachings of Islam are as fresh and as revolutionary today as they were fourteen centuries ago; they do not stand in need of updates for modern times. It is impossible to convey these experience-based lessons in writing, so I will just describe one of them.

Fear & Hope

I was standing before water pot put on fire - it was boiling. I saw the bubbles develop slowly but at a fast pace, and i shrank into meditation. I recalled category A industries our professor was telling us about, which operate at temperatures above 5000 degree Celsius. I shrugged at very thought of boiling tea water touching human skin, too painful to imagine, let alone of 5000 degree Celsius. Again i was reminded of what our scholars and pious men and women tell us about when they recite Qur'an and narrate Prophetic hadith - about the destiny of man. There are three different destinies that all of us would share: heaven (inshaAllah), hell, and a neutral place between the two. I thought, looking at boiling water reaching its climax, how to better to fear hell. Fear of one object is better than all fears of this world, which in fact is the fear of one Rabb... Make your deal...

It is very urgently important to mention a fallacy many good Muslims sometimes fall into: they are told not to fear hell, portraying it as human weakness, in fact the perpetrators of such fallacies make fun of those who fear hell and hope for paradise. Some Muslims, unfortunately, are moved by such profane arguments, which are in fact sentimental in nature, and have you reality attached to it.

Dear Rushdie... (A Guest Post)

Copyright. Uni: Sniggers and Sniffles of a moron

(What follows is a response to Salman Rushdie's letter denigrating religious traditions answered by a Pakistani blogger, link to whose blog is given in start of the post. Italics text is Rushdie's words, green is by the Pakistani blogger, "Uni".)

***

Rushdie: Dear little Six - Billionth Living Person: As one of the newest members of a notoriously inquisitive species, it probably won't be too long before you start asking the two $64,000 questions with which the other 5,999,999,999 of us have been wrestling for some time.
How did we get here? And, now that we are here, how shall we live?

Uni: Dear Rushdi. As one of the newest member of the notoriously sneering species, it is a pleasure to note that you at least admit that the whatever dollar questions remain unanswered - still being wrestled with.

Oddly - as if six billion of us weren't enough to be going on with - it will almost certainly be suggested to you that the answer to the question of origins requires you to believe in the existence of a further, invisible, innefable Being "somewhere up there", an omnipotent creature whom we poor limited creatures are unable even to perceive, much less to understand. That is, you will be strongly encouraged to imagine a heaven, with at least one god in residence.

Oddly, it has occured to you that we the inquisitive EXIST and all on our own... function and procreate, all on our own... the entire universe runs smoothly all on its own - down to the whole factory running within a single cell - all on its own. The fact that you're unable to percieve THIS little piece of clear logic, is what's beyond us poor creatures.

This sky god, it's said, made the universe by churning its matter in a giant pot. Or, he danced. Or, he vomited creation out of himself. Or, he simply called it into being, and lo, it Was. In some of the more interesting creation stories, the singly mighty sky god is subdivided into many lesser forces - junior dieties, avatars, gigantic metamorphic "ancestors" whose adventures create the landscape, or the whimsical, wanton, meddling, cruel pantheons of the great polytheisms, whose wild doings will convince you that the real engine of creation was lust; for infinite power, for too easily broken human bodies, for clouds of glory. But it's only fair to add that there are also stories which offer the message that the primary creative impulse was, and is, love.

Creation stories might be many - yes, but the truth is only one. If you're not convinced by it, cool. But this gives you no right to ridicule all the versions with a singlemindedness worthy of an award, really. You can't prove your theory, even if you're unconvinced by the opposing theory. There are far too many out there who (despite, not having seen it)... believe in God. And you don't find them ridiculing the opinions you hold.

Many of these stories will strike you extremely beautiful, and therefore seductive.

No. That's not the reason why we believe in them. Sorry. Wrong guess.

It is possible that they may at some point come to feel inescapable, not in the way that the truth is inescapable, but in the way that a jail is. They may at some point cease to feel like the texts in which human beings have tried to solve a great mystery, and feel, instead, like the pretexts for other properly anointed human beings to order you around. And it's true that human history is full of the public oppression wrought by the charioteers of the gods.
In the opinion of religious people, however, the private comfort that religion brings more than compensates for the evil done in its name.

Firstly, for people who do believe in God (with their hearts and minds) do not feel the truth to be like a jail, confining them. So wrong guess here again. And secondly, the teaching of human beings that led to this truth, wasn't forced upon us. Nobody pointed a gun at us to believe in God. And thus, the argument that they only did it to order us around, stands totally invalid. The fact is, that evil can take any excuse for committing evil. If religion is one such excuse, then the blame on religion itself is foolish. Go blame those particular people.

As human knowledge has grown, it has also become plain that every religious story ever told about how we got here is quite simply wrong. This, finally, is what all religions have in common. They didn't get it right. There was no celestial churning, no maker's dance, no vomiting of galaxies, no snake or kangaroo ancestors, no Valhalla, no Olympus, no six-day conjuring trick followed by a day of rest. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Your opinion, your opinion, your opinion. We don't consider the creation process as wrong.

But here's something genuinly odd. The wrongness of the sacred tales hasn't lessened the zeal of the devout in the least. If anything, the sheer out-of-step zaniness of religion leads the religious to insist ever more stridently on the importance of blind faith.

It's not blind. As I said (and I'm a believer so I know what I'm saying), the decision is a sound one, made by the heart and mind. If you don't believe that, your problem.

As a result of this faith, by the way, lt has proved impossible, in many parts of the world, to prevent the human race's numbers from swelling alarmingly. Blame the overcrowded planet at least partly on the misguidedness of the races spiritual guides. In your own lifetime, you may witness the arrival of the nine billionth world citizen. (If too many people are being born as a result, in part, of religious strictures against birth control, then too many people are also dying because religious culture, by refusing to face the facts of human sexuality, also refuses to fight against sexually transmitted diseases.)

Weird it is, that you, not having had control of when to enter this world (did you decide your birthday hmm?), and not in control of when you'll leave this world... think it's prudent to think that we all have control over the population size of this planet?

There are those who say that the great wars of the new century will once again be wars of religion, jihads and crusades, as they were in the Middle Ages. I don't believe them, or not in the way they mean it. Take a look at the Muslim world, or rather the Islamist world, to use the word coined to describe Islam's present day "political arm". The divisions between its great powers (Afghanistan against Iran against Iraq against Saudi Arabia against Syria against Egypt) are what strike you most forcefully. There's very little resembling a common purpose. Even after the non-Islamic NATO fought a war for the Muslim Kosovan Albanians, the Muslim world was slow in coming forward with much needed humanitarian aid.

Oh you don't need to remind us about the ''efforts'' of the Muslim nations right now. They are deplorable. But we also know that it's the leaders of these states that are quite oblivious to events around them. Not the common man. If the common man were like this, there would be no flotilla towards Gaza .. knowing that Israeli forces aren't going to give them a red carpet welcome. And btw, the war b/w religions is already going on. And yes, ideology remains the key war instigator even now.

The real wars of religion are the wars religions unleash against ordinary citizens within their "sphere of influence." They are wars of the godly against the largely defenceless - American fundamentalists against pro-choice doctors, Iranian mullahs against their country's Jewish minority, Hindu fundamentalists in Bombay against that city's increasingly fearful Muslims.

If you're calling state laws as wars... then even more weird is that you didn't mention in this list of yours one very very important one... the policies of the state of Israel, the policies of India on Kashmiri Muslims... it's not only the godly who impose their laws. Secular governments do the same thing. If one opinion is unacceptable to you, doesn't mean you go about calling it war and then select a subset of state policies as examples. Puny indeed.

The victors in that war must not be the closed-minded, marching into battle with, as ever, God on their side. To choose unbelief is to choose mind over dogma, to trust in our humanity instead of all these dangerous divinities. So, how did we get here? Don't look for the answer in story books. Imperfect human knowledge may be a bumpy, pot-holed street, but it's the only road to wisdom worth taking. Virgil, who believed that the apiarist Aristaeus could spontaneously generate new bees from the rotting carcess of a cow, was closer to a truth about origins than all the revered old books.

To choose unbelief is your choice, we're open to believing in God, despite you thinking of it as being closed minded. Trusting in humanity can't go side by side with belief in God? Apparently, you haven't read much into history. Imperfect human knowledge was enlightened with scriptures, and this knowledge was the source of illumination for a great number of minds. And then you ask, how did we get here? Didn't you, in the beginning talk about this as a notoriously inquisitive display to ask these questions? Consistent, aren't you?

The ancient wisdoms are modern non-senses.

Live in your own time, use what we know and, as you grow up, perhaps the human race will finally grow up with you and put aside childish things. As the song says, "It's easy if you try."

As for mortality, the second great question - how to live? What is right action, and what wrong?- it comes down to your willingness to think for yourself. Only you can decide if you want to be handed down the law by priests, and accept that good and evil are somehow external to ourselves.

The blind wanderings and backtrackings of modern sciences is also a lot of claptrap, no worries. And sure, go ahead with this logical mode. Hand over the morality reigns to each and everybody's own individual self. So if a thief thinks its moral to steal (because he/she felt it inside that its okay!), then don't blame him. Sure.

To my mind, religion - even at its most sophisticated - essentially infantalizes our ethical selves by setting infallible moral Arbiters and irredeemably immoral Tempters above us; the eternal parents, good and bad, light and dark, of the supernatural realm.

To each, his or her own. We don't (and won't) mock your ideas. Follow what you will, but at least you shouldn't mock the things you don't agree with.

How, then, are we to make ethical choices without a divine rulebook or judge?

You're not supposed to. That's the thing, see.

Intellectual freedom, in European history, has mostly meant freedom from the restraints of the Church and not the state.

The Church men had made the laws that were suffocating mankind. Christianity had nothing to do with it. Even now, the lobbying for doing away with celibacy laws prove that the original teaching did NOT contain celibacy - nothing unnatural is ever promulgated in the main religions.

This is the battle Voltaire was fighting, and it's also what all six billion of us could do for ourselves, the revolution in which each of us could play our small, six-billionth part; once and for all we could refuse to allow priests, and the fictions on whose behalf they claim to speak, to be the policemen of our liberties and behavior. Once and for all we could put the stories back into the books, put the books back on the shelves, and see the world undogmatized and plain.

You mean, see the world in chaos and disorder. Even right now, the world's in disorder because of lack of belief in accountability (yes, even by those who CLAIM they're following religion and do heinous crimes - all acts of people who don't believe in God, Hereafter and Judgement).

Imagine there's no heaven, my dear Six-Billionth, and at once the sky's the limit.

Imagine a Just God, and imagine trying to follow His Teachings, being good to fellow humans and doing good in all spheres of life. The sky is certainly the limit.

Alpha and Omega: Why Muslims must excel in Scientific Research

Copyright/write - Dr. M. Zaman Khan,
Tranlsated (& notes) by, Yours Truly.

Many Pakistani professors, with the exception of few noble souls, follow this line of pattern: They come, they teach Western science, glorify it, make pupils memorize it, and then criticize their students of their impotence, as concluding remarks. However, rarely they are self-critical of the fact that they do very little research at their own, locally. If they do so, only then they can have the moral authority of criticizing young students about their lack of interest in scientific research. This matter of doing research locally is first and the last thing Pakistani and Muslim teachers and students should be aware of.

Why it is so? According to a Prophetic tradition of Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him), a non-believing man once came to him and challenged him a match of wrestling. He said he could beat ten persons at a time. Prophet accepted the challenge and beat him three times in a row. Impressed by his physical strength, the non-believer could not resist believing his religious message. Therefore, he accepted Islam.

The example illustrates that if you are impressed by one aspect or part of a person or a thing, you are also prone to be impressed by its whole. One reason for studying science and doing independent research lies in this psychological aspect of human being to preserve one’s own identity, world-view and civilization. If we go back it time and explore Muslim history, there was a time when Greek philosophy and sciences were encountered by Muslims. When Muslim youth experienced the brilliance of Greek science (mathematics, physics, etc.) they could not avoid taking Greek metaphysics and religious knowledge as sound as its physical sciences. It was a grave mistake from Islamic point of view. They could not decide what to take, and what to reject.

The very same problem is being encountered by contemporary Muslim youth getting education based on Western models and content. Today, as then, they study Western science and research, which is of top quality, and they cannot remain unimpressed by its vitality. But, they mistakenly consider that Western social sciences and their views on religion would be as accurate and sound as their physical sciences. Truth is that the results of their social sciences and views on religion have been disastrous for humanity, completely opposite to their success in physical sciences*. Their religious world-views need to be studied at all as a source of guidance by Muslim youth blessed with the gift of Islam.

Our future needs in science are not being met due a lack of interest in research. Due to this gap and inferiority complex generated by this very reason vis-à-vis Western science, we also observe that contemporary Muslim universities teaching non-religious sciences don’t value much their religious educational institutions. Having seen the importance of ‘innovation’, ‘change’ and ‘evolution’ in scientific theories and experimentation, they come to fancy that religion (i.e., of Islam) would be something similar to a laboratory experiment or a science text-book which needs to be updated regularly. Nothing can be farther from truth than this, due to the ‘eclipse of intellect and soul’, in words of Seyyed Hossein Nasr**.

To avoid this clash and to bridge this gap, it is indispensable to meet the need of scientific research in Muslim world. If this cannot be done, then it is safe to fear that our future generations cannot overcome the inferiority complex vis-à-vis west; and they may end up depriving themselves, and humanity, of treasures of religious knowledge of Islam and also a sense of Sacred, to which we owe our existence, which is supreme science.

________________________
* Prof. Dr. Asad Zaman, International Islamic University, has written a research paper discussing this very fact. He compares the tragic consequences of Western social sciences for humanity. See, The Origins of Western Social Science, Dr Asad Zaman available on his personal website: http://sites.google.com/site/asaduzaman. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Ph.D. Harvard in history and philosophy of science, has also shown the tragic consequence of Western humanism for environment, see his book, Religion and the Order of the Nature, Suhail Academy, Lahore.

** For a refutation of this and similar modern mental fashions and erratic views on religion, see The Reign of Quantity; The Crisis of Modern World; East and West, by Rene Guenon, Islam and the Plight of Modern Man; Knowledge and Sacred; Islamic Life and Thought; Science, Civilization and Islam, by Dr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr.

Are you retiring?

On the news, they're informing inhabitants of this 20th century "nation-state" (a dubious invention of moderns) about the retirement schedule of its giants and men of courage and honour (and this and that), namely, Lt. Generals of Pure Pakistan Ltd. dot-com - "Give me cash, Give me extension", the company site says.

As a corollary, being a "self-examining" person, I wondered if I had any retirement schedules waiting for me. Then, as I recalled and shared with my home's care-takers, I too would be retiring from university education in 2012. They became happy about it, as many of the generals, burden of nation, would be retiring from their (hunting and killing) job in 2012. We have a match, at least.

Let us pray that our generals live long. May Allah provide them best of the garments and food and drinkable stuff as per their likings. May they sleep and we protect them. May we never use 'fear-tactics' to curtail their civil rights and their liberty. May we never create problems for them traveling freely from one province to the other. May we never kill their rabbits and pet animals in northern areas and Baluchistan. May we never allow India to supply its dirty ammunition through our roads, and never allow private companies to provide it logistic support, to win Russia's praise. May we never create situation in which bad people can bribe them and loot and pillage their stuff. May we become shields in the sky to help foreign bombs avoid hitting their camps and cantonment areas, even if we have to become carpets to avoid carpet bombing our their units. But we would never make apologies over the civilian deaths, and kill all "Islamist militants" that come their way. Ameen! Ameen! *tears*

Inspired

Still an athiest/agnostic, having given up his pure Roman-Catholic background, Nuh Keller here reveals what the unjust hides:

On a vacation home from school, I was walking upon a dirt road between some fields of wheat, and it happened that the sun went down. By some inspiration, I realized that it was a time of worship, a time to bow and pray to the one God. But it was not something one could rely on oneself to provide the details of, but rather a passing fancy, or perhaps the beginning of an awareness that atheism was an inauthentic way of being.

These words keep resonating in my mind. Its a kind of a testament. Hence as inspiration. Therefore beautiful.