I really believe that this work is as important as that of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr, and could be equally liberating for Arab societies!

Great to see this flower blooming in the desert

PS. Is it hard getting things done when you have to pray so often?

CONGRATULATING AN ATHEIST

Normally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to
congratulate him and say, ” My special congratulations to you”,
because most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief –
he is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; he is a Hindu,
because his father is a Hindu; the majority of the people in the world
are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on
the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses
his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or
qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be
logical to him.

My Muslim brothers may question me, “Zakir, why are you congratulating
an atheist?” The reason that I am congratulating an atheist is because
he agrees with the first part of the Shahada i.e. the Islamic Creed,
‘La ilaaha’ – meaning ‘there is no God’. So half my job is already
done; now the only part left is ‘il lallah’ i.e. ‘BUT ALLAH’ which I
shall do Insha Allah. With others (who are not atheists) I have to
first remove from their minds the wrong concept of God they may have
and then put the correct concept of one true God.

LOGICAL CONCEPT OF GOD

My first question to the atheist will be: “What is the definition of
God?” For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the
meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the
opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the
definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise
or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is
not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an
atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept
of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in
which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got
human qualities – therefore he does not believe in such a god.
Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false
gods.

If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with
something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights
to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense
that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has
a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam,
but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the
correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e. Islam is a merciful
religion, it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible
with logic, reason and science; if I present the correct facts about
Islam, that non-Muslim may Inshallah accept Islam.

Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every
Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha
Allah not refuse.

(You may refer to my article, ‘Concept of God in Islam’, for more
details)

QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE

The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material
provided in the ‘Concept of God in Islam’ to an atheist may satisfy
some but not all.

Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I
agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use
scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove
the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a
revelation of God.

If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen
or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a
question is asked, ” Who is the first person who will be able to
provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little
bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may
say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever
answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always
be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of
the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t
grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be
same, therefore accept it.

SCIENTIFIC FACTS MENTIONED IN THE QUR’AN: for details on this subject
please refer to my book, ‘THE QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE – COMPATIBLE
OR INCOMPATIBLE?

THEORY OF PROBABILITY

In mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If
you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the
chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the
two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly
if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50%
(1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances
that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half.
But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half
multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50%
which is equal to 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that
you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8
or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%.

A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number
between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If
you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will
be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36.
If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three
guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is
less than 0.5 %.

Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that
a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the
Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability
of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.

At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was
flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It
could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal,
heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30
different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says
it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being
correct is 1/30.

The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The
Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the
chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both
the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is
reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.

Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water.
Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper,
aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water,
cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur’an
rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess,
the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of
all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is
reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is
1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.

The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men
at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .
0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the
hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them
being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single
wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses
without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a
logical person that the origin of the Qur’an is Divine.

CREATOR IS THE AUTHOR OF THE QUR’AN

The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned
all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered,
is exactly the same answer initially given by the atheist or any
person, to the question who will be the first person who will be able
to tell the mechanism of the unknown object. It is the ‘CREATOR’, the
producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents. In
the English language He is ‘God’, or more appropriate in the Arabic
language, ‘ALLAH’.

QUR’AN IS A BOOK OF SIGNS AND NOT SCIENCE

Let me remind you that the Qur’an is not a book of Science, ‘S-C-I-E-N-
C-E’ but a book of Signs ‘S-I-G-N-S’ i.e. a book of ayaats. The Qur’an
contains more than 6,000 ayaats, i.e. ’signs’, out of which more than
a thousand speak about Science. I am not trying to prove that the
Qur’an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick
because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is
being checked or verified. For us Muslims the Qur’an is the Furqan
i.e. criteria to judge right from wrong and the ultimate yardstick
which is more superior to scientific knowledge.

But for an educated man who is an atheist, scientific knowledge is the
ultimate test which he believes in. We do know that science many a
times takes ‘U’ turns, therefore I have restricted the examples only
to scientific facts which have sufficient proof and evidence and not
scientific theories based on assumptions. Using the ultimate yardstick
of the atheist, I am trying to prove to him that the Qur’an is the
word of God and it contains the scientific knowledge which is his
yardstick which was discovered recently, while the Qur’an was revealed
1400 year ago. At the end of the discussion, we both come to the same
conclusion that God though superior to science, is not incompatible
with it.

SCIENCE IS ELIMINATING MODELS OF GOD BUT NOT GOD

Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little
knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of
science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating
models of God, but they are not eliminating God. If you translate this
into Arabic, it is La illaha illal la, There is no god, (god with a
small ‘g’ that is fake god) but God (with a capital ‘G’).

Surah Fussilat:

“Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the
earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that
this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all
things?”

[Al-Quran 41:53]

Ok lets go back a bit further in time to the beliefs of the ancient
Egyptians. They were sold on the same tales that Abrehamic religions like
christianity and islam push up to the present day, exept for one caveat,
that is you need you physical body to be preserved to attain immortalty.

The ordinary Egyptian had no chance of this due to expence, while the ruling
classes were able to afford magnificent tombs to preserve their bodies as
mummies which these are at the present day a magnet to thousands of tourist.

In its time the Egyptian book of the dead was a way to survive the afterlife
and in common with its more modern spin offs like the bible and koran could
prove quite expensive to achieve immortality.

Until some god actually shows its face, perhaps we as human beings are
better off not building pyramids of either stone or politics.

All the best

if we really believe that God granted us with ‘free will’ and ‘freedom to choose’, and he created the heaven and hell for good- and bad-doers, then we must let everybody to choose between goodness and badness. otherwise, God’s grant (free will) and creations (heaven and hell) would be meaningless.

there are too many other ideas from Quran which support this idea that everybody must be allowed to choose, while the goodness and badness are frankly distinguished.

ok! I must admit that I already dont have any answer for what you (and many others) claim about the satus of ‘free will’ in Islam and how we can justify/rationally support it. indeed Ive read too many original resources of muslim scholars about it, and my conclusion till now is that the main arguments of Free-Willers is useful just for those who believe in the religion and God, not for disbelievers. (you know what they say: since the God promises heaven and hell for good- and bad-doers, then one can conclude that we are granted with free-will, cuz the otherwise, either reward or punishment for those who have not the right to choose would be meaningless/unfair).

on the other hand, I think you have the same problem with certainity, isn’t it so? do you believe in certainity or not? both yes and no lead to the problem of having 1/more thing/things which has/have no special cause. and how the science is able to justify such a thing? I dont know if there is any.

and, I asked where you are from, plz?

If I were a paranoid person, or at least more paranoid than I am, I might think that they are doing it deliberately to wind the Iranians up.

Jina Says:”What does knighthood has to do with intellectuality? Knighthood is the symbol of oppression. It represent 400 years of slavery and subjection to some of us.”

Well no. I think it represents the successful teaching of hate and general anti-Western feeling. It has nothing to do with slavery or subjection and if it did, the British Empire would still be preferable (or at worst equal to) Muslim rule in Spain. I don’t hear many people complaining about that. Let it go.

infidel57 Says:”It’s the intellectual poverty of those who want to kill those with which the disagree to which I am referring.”

Ahh but the original article has a comment by an Arab atheist pointing out that some Muslims think it is their religious duty to murder him. When does this become an example of the banality of evil? Are we all so bored by this we no longer get outraged by the suggestion? What is to be said about the intellectual poverty of people who find words on the page offensive and worthy of death but laud suicide bombers and beheaders? Ahmadinejad finally stopped using euphemisms the other day and explicitly condemned Jews, Christians (not extremists among same) Judaism and Christianity. Anyone hear a word of complaint? Which American Senator used to talk of defining depravity down?

The fatwah is till on. Respect Islamic leaders? Not now, not ever.

I think it is the only reasonable interpretation of the current status. Certainly it is the case in the West. Issues such as Free will may have problems, but causation is a hands down victory to the scientists as is origins of the Universe. Certainty is an interesting one but as much as theologians and philosophers discuss such things (as with free will) it is the scientists who have put hard evidence on the table.

Mohammad M. (Iran) Says:”I think chances are that one day scientists end up as finding that there cant be any scientific discription/justification for some of these phenomenons, or even prove that science can’t justify a materialist view at all, even if it tries several milleniums.”

That would be a miracle. However there this is not the case at the present nor is there any sign that it is likely to be the case in the foreseeable future. So God remains an unnecessary postulate for science. I think God will remain so but you never know.

Mohammad M. (Iran) Says:”(I) you might mean that there is not such a thing like ‘free will’ in Islam, and due to the fact that God knows what we are going to do, we can not disobey it at all, and we must follow ‘what god knows formerly’, then we are not able to ‘choose’ freely.”

Yes that is what I meant.

Mohammad M. (Iran) Says:”if it was what you meant, you should know that there is a very huge body of debates over this subject in Islam’s history. indeed some branches believe that there is not a ‘free will’ and we all are forced to follow what is prescibed for us. some others claim the other side, and bring some arguments to support their own idea. discussing this subject needs a separate room.”

I am dimly aware of the debate in Islamic history and it seems to me that the “no free will” school has won hands down. It is a logical consequence of God being all knowing. Islam takes this to an extreme. May I ask if you think you can do something other than what God decided in the moment of creating the Universe what you were going to do? Can you surprise Him?

Gosh, I hope this doesn’t sound like an attack. It’s just that very open “I wonder…” attitude, at least on my side.

Thanks to God (if he exists) we are now very close to an agreement.
just few points, again:

1) you said:

What is for sure is that science is slowly restricting the area of religion all the time.

this is your interpretation of the current status/ongoing efforts. it may not be true. a believer may interpret it as getting closer to the ultimate point of surrender. though Im not an expert of this field, recommend you to check the current situation of ‘free will’, ‘causation’ (and, ‘things or events which dont have any cause’), ‘origin of the universe’, ‘certainity’, etc.
I think chances are that one day scientists end up as finding that there cant be any scientific discription/justification for some of these phenomenons, or even prove that science can’t justify a materialist view at all, even if it tries several milleniums.

2) you said:

How do you reconcile that with being a Muslim though? Surely there is no Free Will in Islam in that God knows and has decided what you are going to do?

your quote is somehow ambiguous: I consider 2 possible meanings (I) and (II)
(I) you might mean that there is not such a thing like ‘free will’ in Islam, and due to the fact that God knows what we are going to do, we can not disobey it at all, and we must follow ‘what god knows formerly’, then we are not able to ‘choose’ freely.
if it was what you meant, you should know that there is a very huge body of debates over this subject in Islam’s history. indeed some branches believe that there is not a ‘free will’ and we all are forced to follow what is prescibed for us. some others claim the other side, and bring some arguments to support their own idea. discussing this subject needs a separate room.
(II) though the (I) is more probably what u meant, I consider the 2nd option which is: how can I tolerate others disobeying God as a muslim? and the answer is clear. then, plz set what you meant.

3) (where are you from? chinese, japanese, etc?)

“She is a statue of a female figure. I don’t see how that is part of anyone’s history.” LOL! And yet civilization is built upon statues, commemorative monuments, emblems, heroical figures, all the excess called ‘culture’.

“Even if that means preserving barbarity? If you could prevent all Female Genital Mutilation tomorrow would you or would you preserve it in the interests of diversity?” THANKS FOR SAYING THIS! I talked a lot about abuse in previous fora and I would never claim that diversity should accomodate abuse and crimes of any kind.

For the rest, I kinda agree with what you’re saying.
Here’s a few more insightful quotes from Mr. Einstein:

“It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.” — Albert Einstein

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” — Albert Einstein

“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” — Albert Einstein

Most problems? Well the number of potential problems is probably infinite. So far religion has done little but impede scientists in solving any problems at all. Some scientists might like to find evidence of God, but I think those tiny minority will be waiting for a long time. They may also find proof of God’s non-existence. Who knows? What is for sure is that science is slowly restricting the area of religion all the time. Sensible religions no long make any claims scientists can check. That indicates an attitude towards the confidence of the religious in their own claims.

Mohammad M. (Iran) Says:”massive induction never amounts to proof. in the case of “four color theorem“, computers were used to check finite cases of possible counter-examples. induction in a very special case can be an exact proof, and that can not be applied to this discussion. but you are true that induction “is certainly grounds for leaning one way rather than another.””

In formal terms, these days, it may not. I don’t know. The four color proof relied on the checking of a lot of possible examples. Induction is perhaps not the right word as I don’t mean the mathematical use of that term.

Mohammad M. (Iran) Says:”the same way I (prefer to) believe in God, I believe in the Free Will he granted the human kinds with. indeed, everybody must have the right to choose, even to choose that there is no God. they should never be denied of their basic rights in society.”

How do you reconcile that with being a Muslim though? Surely there is no Free Will in Islam in that God knows and has decided what you are going to do?

But let’s hope we can all agree that atheists like anyone else should not be deprived of their basic rights, such as their life, simply because of what they believe.

OK. I apologise for the “pop”.

Since when did I claim to speak for anyone but myself?

lamer Says:”You doubt that civilization was not achieved peacefully. One minor example: didn’t civilized French, English and Spaniards decimate (or almost) the native-Americans?”

Perhaps they did. But civilisation was not created where the decimation was going on, nor by the people doing it. It was being created in Europe. Building an Empire and creating a civilisation are not precisely the same thing.

lamer Says:”In the long run, yes, the world got more civilized and progressed in all directions, even to the point of ecological failure, and that is a repecution of civilzation as well.”

There is no evidence of ecological failure, and of course it is science that makes us aware of that fact. Look at the environmental devastation and ecological collapsed caused by the concentration on goat herding in the Muslim Mediterranean world. They were not aware of it because they lacked the scientists to tell them.

lamer Says:”All I am saying here is that “Civilization’ is a heavy term that is not devoid of contradictions.”

Well, OK. I don’t see anyone disputing it.

lamer Says:”Arabs are uncivilized, for sure because they eat rice with their hands and sit on their rugs in the dust of the desert, right?”

I don’t see anyone making that claim either. But a lot of Arabs who either behead people on the internet or watch them or support them are highly uncivilised and there is nothing wrong with pointing that out.

lamer Says:”But the world offers a huge diversity. And right now, other than peace and respect, preserving diversity is all I care about.”

Even if that means preserving barbarity? If you could prevent all Female Genital Mutilation tomorrow would you or would you preserve it in the interests of diversity?

lamer Says:”But Mary is the figure of a girl — and that’s part of any woman’s history.”

She is a statue of a female figure. I don’t see how that is part of anyone’s history.

lamer Says:”She is also a maternal figure and impersonates the mother and also the mother who looses her child.”

Well that part is true but she is a very unusual Mother who looses her child.

lamer Says:”I do believe that motherhood is at the core of a women’s experience though, that it is an essential part of how women experience themselves and others”

Except that the Virgin Mary denies the essential first step on that path – sex.

You doubt that civilization was not achieved peacefully. One minor example: didn’t civilized French, English and Spaniards decimate (or almost) the native-Americans? Didn’t they look down at their rituals and ways of living? Didn’t Christian missionaries civilize them by replacing their language and identity with something….more civilized? There are native-Americans in Canada (I spoke with many) who go through a huge loss (their language) and through such a heavy identity struggle that most turned to alcohol in those stupid rezervations that civilized people deemed them worthy of. Of course Canada is trying to repair such mistakes and created `the state of Nunavut for matives, giving back some land and some recognition to civilized uncivilized.

In the long run, yes, the world got more civilized and progressed in all directions, even to the point of ecological failure, and that is a repecution of civilzation as well.

All I am saying here is that “Civilization’ is a heavy term that is not devoid of contradictions. It’s been overused by those who claim to ‘have it’ and to ‘know it all’. Whenever one frowns and looks down at another culture using the word ‘uncivilized’, we should draw an alarm bell. Arabs are uncivilized, for sure because they eat rice with their hands and sit on their rugs in the dust of the desert, right?

Of course, I often wish that everybody was as civilized as … Switzerland and Sweeden, to give but two examples. But the world offers a huge diversity. And right now, other than peace and respect, preserving diversity is all I care about.

To answer your comment on Christian Mary, I think that the fact the Christian church praises openly Mary is a step in a direction that I do not venture to guess now. People make the faith, so it is their need, their desire. In fact there was an interesting article in TIME magazine (March 2005) called ‘Hail Mary’ and bringing devote Western Christians as well as priests to talk about this change. You say that Mary is “Not really a woman at all but a misogynistic male’s view of what women ought to be.”
To a certain extent you are right. But Mary is the figure of a girl — and that’s part of any woman’s history. She is also a maternal figure and impersonates the mother and also the mother who looses her child. I am not reducing women to these sides only but some of those who go through this process certainly can find strength in a figure like Mary. I am not going to be the one who denies the experience of girlhood and maternity from women, maybe you do? This is not all women are, of course. Do men prefer them in these positions? We don’t care`that much anymore. I for one do not care what men prefer when it comes to women. I guess they prefer a mother-like figure at home and a wild woman outside. And women can be comfortably both. I do believe that motherhood is at the core of a women’s experience though, that it is an essential part of how women experience themselves and others (because we are traveresed by the other, we bear the other within ourselves physically and then we take care of the other and let go of “it” eventually and that always is felt as a loss.)
Anyway, my point is that the figure of Mary is but one figure of feminity who deserves attention.

Now, what in the world were we discussing? Atheists? Religious dogmatism? Civilization? Women’s issues? The Arab world. By the way, where are you living, HeiGou?