certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islam and Science (02 Jun 2017 NewAgeIslam.Com)




TOTAL COMMENTS:-   158


  • Good explanation. Zakir Naik is making people fool by his tactics I read an article about Zakir Naik and knew from that article that he is causing problems for Muslims. That article is here http://www.newageislam.com/d/108003
    By Kaniz Fatma - 12/26/2018 10:41:28 PM



  • Why people get inspired by Zakir Naik?

    https://bit.ly/2PwEFB3


    By Urooj Fatma - 11/16/2018 1:00:00 AM



  • Very well rounded off, Mr. Nasser Ahmed.
    By Manzurul Haque - 6/23/2017 5:22:01 AM



  • Having started it, let us complete the discussion on creation.

     (50:38) We created the heavens and the earth and all between them in Six Days, nor did any sense of weariness touch Us.

    The above verse negates the belief that God rested on the 7th Day. God only commands “Be, and it is”. We have seen that in one context, a day is like our thousand years and in another, it is like fifty thousand years. What is a day like in this context? It is not specified. The largest unit of number used in the Quran is thousand. Using thousand as the highest unit, it would be very awkward to indicate a very large number. A million would be a thousand thousands and a billion would be a thousand, thousand thousands! Quite awkward and difficult to understand by simple folks. Moreover, what if 6 days means 6 phases (which it certainly does) and the phases are of unequal duration? I repeat, the Quran not being a book of Science, says as much as it can, as accurately as possible, in as few words as it is appropriate to communicate the Majesty of Allah and His creation. Now let us look at the interesting part it has communicated by saying 6 days by examining the following verses:

     (41:9) Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.

    (10) He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measure therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in four Days, in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance).

     What we understand from the above, is that mere creation of the earth and the heavens took only 2 days, but to make the earth habitable, took another 4 days. Gives an idea of how rich and unique the earth is vis-à-vis the rest of the universe.

     (11) Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."

    (12) So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.

     The Quran also takes care to avoid unnecessary controversy when man’s knowledge is defective. Take for example the story of the people of The Cave in Suarh Al-Kahaf:

    (18:22) (Some) say they were three, the dog being the fourth among them; (others) say they were five, the dog being the sixth,- doubtfully guessing at the unknown; (yet others) say they were seven, the dog being the eighth. Say thou: "My Lord knoweth best their number; It is but few that know their (real case)." Enter not, therefore, into controversies concerning them, except on a matter that is clear, nor consult any of them about (the affair of) the Sleepers.

    When there is a controversy about the correct number, even if the Quran gave the correct number, how can it be confirmed? Those who believe a different number as correct, will continue to believe so, raising unnecessary controversy. The correct number in the story is in any case of no consequence.

     Similarly, what if the Quran had mentioned an exact number of years (which is quite unnecessary to communicate God’s majesty), and Science came up with a wrong number which does not get corrected with the correct number for a thousand years? During these thousand years, people would have unnecessarily argued over the issue of what the Quran says vs what Science says without being sure of either number.

     God in His infinite wisdom, chooses the exact words to communicate. Man, in his arrogance, tries to teach God what to say, how to say it, what not to say and define His limits (nauzobillah)!


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/23/2017 2:39:06 AM



  • Poor Hats Off is now reduced to nitpicking! He is now badmouthing psychotherapy because the question of his oedipal conflicts was once raised half-jestingly. I base my denunciation of him not on psychoanalytical theories but simply on his carrying on an unbridled and relentless hate war against moderate Muslims, and that too on a moderate Muslim website. It require a lot of cheek to do that.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 6/22/2017 11:28:58 PM



  • You are very poor in your observations Hats Off. I do psychoanalyze people but only when I have sufficient data. I am never hasty about it.

    People reveal a lot about themselves through what they say and when they talk about parents, parenting and kind of parents, it is partly a projection of their own family history. I have cited a research paper to show the connection between defective fathering and hostility to a person's father's religion.

    In your case, you have provided some fresh data which is interesting when you said in one your recent comments that the present day Muslims are the progeny of raped non-Muslim women. Explains the intensity of your hatred and how immediate in your family history that event may have occurred. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/22/2017 11:02:56 PM



  • Thank you Haque sb for your kind words.

    I am surprised at Zuma's calculations. The very fact that two verses give two different numbers in different contexts means that this number can vary with the context. Creation of the universe is a different context where a day is certainly not a 24 hour day and could be any number since the number is not specified in the Quran. From the two verses quoted, what we know for sure, is that a day means a very long period or eon which varies from context to context. 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/22/2017 9:56:07 PM



  • Nasser Ahmed sb, 
    I think we are on the same page as regards fundamental precepts of Islam as well as  the approach to the understanding of Islam. I read with great interest everything that you write. Since I don't find any disagreement I let it pass. I have already praised your works, which I find full of facts with references,   and with very satisfying and logical reasoning. I can say I wouldn't have been able to the same job better. So please keep it up. No doubt Zuma sb (somehow I feel uncomfortable with such names which sound secretive), I feel has overstretched his point. There was no need for him to do all the calculations, once he has been told both by you and by me that the actual import of references to this time frame is to highlight the majesty of Allah about which we have no doubt. I agree with expression that Allah is what He chooses to be. He is so absolute in power that no lesser statement would do. 

    It is important for us to train younger commentators by commending them  and nudging  them (by sound arguments and appeals) into our way of thinking to make our activism complete.

    By Manzurul Haque - 6/22/2017 8:36:00 PM



  • To my view, it is best to drop the topic since we do not know how Allah did in the past whether it was 6 days or billion years according to science instead of thousand years.
    Let's proceed with other meaningful discussion rather than merely on this topic.

    By zuma - 6/22/2017 7:54:00 PM



  • Quran 2:129 mentions that Allah is almighty.  The following is the extract:
    (سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #129)-Mohsin Khan translation
    Our Lord! Send amongst them a Messenger of their own (and indeed allah answered their invocation by sending Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم), who shall recite unto them Your Verses and instruct them in the Book (this Qur'an) and Al-Hikmah (full knowledge of the Islamic laws and jurisprudence or wisdom or Prophethood), and purify them. Verily! You are the All-mighty, the All-Wise."
    As Allah is almighty, it could be that it could perform mighty work.  As he is almighty, how do you know his mighty work has assisted him to perform impossible work as creating this universe within 6 days?
    By zuma - 6/22/2017 7:43:58 PM



  • by the usual rules of debate with mr. naseer ahmed, it is surprising that he has not yet pseudo-psychoanalyzed mr. ikram ahmed and his relationship with his parents.

    making blind allegations against the fathers of apostates and atheists is the SOP adopted the "oh-so-moderate" quack psychiatrist and his trained psychiatrist friend.

    mr.ghulam mohiyuddin should have chimed in with his outdated and discredited psychotherapy.

    but that it has not happened speaks volumes about mr. naseer ahmed's quack psychiatry and mr. ghulam mohiyuddin's accredited psychiatry.

    to imagine mr. naseer ahmed recommending chanting some Quranic verses for mr rational to solve some medical problem of his is still fresh in allah's memory.

    may allah be pleased with him.

    By hats off! - 6/22/2017 7:09:39 PM



  • if a day is 50,000 years, 6 days is 6 x 50,000 years = 300,000 years and yet scientists mention that this universe needs billion years to be formed. Dinosaurs, scientists mention, exist million years ago.
    By zuma - 6/22/2017 5:57:16 PM



  • Naseer Ahmad, Yes, you quote the verse that a day is a thousand years. How could it link with science that mentions it takes billion years to form? If a year is a thousand years, 6 days should be 6000 days and yet science mentions it takes billion years to form.
    By zuma - 6/22/2017 5:55:15 PM



  • To believe in Allah is to have faith in faith.  There is no need of evidence to prove the existence of Allah in order to believe.  Just like, do you see Allah in existence?  You do not see Allah in existence and yet you believe.  That is so called, believe. 


    By zuma - 6/22/2017 5:51:14 PM



  • Haque sb, 

    I have not responded to the silly argument about omnipotence of Allah because it was irrelevant for what was being discussed and the topic cuts across all faiths.

    Otherwise it can be discussed. Islam provides a very straight answer. God is what God chooses to be and if He has decreed what is logical and what isn't, and made what is logical possible and the illogical not possible, that is it whether you like it or not. God has decided that He will not change his decrees/laws and said so in the Quran. That is the reason we have unerring order in the universe and perfect causality. 


    God is independent of all and high above the silly arguments of man.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/22/2017 12:43:37 PM



  • The Khalifa-e- rashidin or the first four Caliphs were godly people and not born rulers or politicians. They did not take the simplest of precautions for the safety of their lives and paid a price for it. What will happen to any political leader if he does not take necessary precautions for his safety? He will most certainly be killed. How many rulers are there today or from history who did not need protection from being assassinated? So what is surprising about three of the first four Caliphs getting assassinated? Hazrat Usman and Hazrat Ali were both very soft rulers who could not even contain dissidence.
    The fifth Caliph onwards were politicians who took care of their safety, knew how to control dissidence and rule firmly. They were also scoundrels but good administrators.
    Take the comparison with Christianity. The early Christians had no political power. The political power came when the Roman emperors adopted Christianity as the state religion. They were already emperors and adept in the art of ruling and taking care of their own protection. There can therefore be no comparison.
    There is nothing more to this story of early Islam and nothing that modern Muslims have to think about or retrospect.
    The enemies of Islam and the hostile apostates however cite this to say that Islam is inherently violent and has been so right from the day the Prophet died, and that Islam has not been a religion of peace even for a single day. The extremists agree with them to justify their violent acts. The extremists and the enemies of Islam support each other with their false narratives.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/22/2017 12:29:41 PM



  • I agree with the views of Naseer Ahmed sb about rational validity of a religion, which is not the same as using the holy Quran for scientific research. Fears of Zuma may be avoidable in case of Islam. 'My Islam' which is a rationally valid Islam (in my eyes) teaches me however not to ridicule anyone's religion which may be a result of his / her 'not reaching enlightenment'  which omission in any case I do not see as  a chargeable offence.  I am comfortable in my enlightenment and not uncomfortable with the absence of enlightenment of someone else, and hence the genesis of 'My Islam'. At the most,  if I am in loving relationship with someone,  I could pass a mild advisory in today's situation. That's all.

    The important question is not to discuss Allah's powers,  His nature  etc,  in great detail ( of which  we know little) but rather examine whether a religious doctrine can help ameliorate the conditions of human beings on earth. Our religion should pass this test first.

    By Manzurul Haque - 6/22/2017 11:31:48 AM



  • Admin. One post of mine is missing which has the effect of disturbing the chain. The post starts with " The more the merrier..."
    By Manzurul Haque - 6/22/2017 10:49:05 AM



  • RoyalJ Jee. This time you have hit the bull's eye and I have really liked. I can smell the khushboo of constructive criticism. Please keep it up. 
    By Manzurul Haque - 6/22/2017 10:12:01 AM



  • The NASA boss, Thomas O Pine who handled 20,000 firms and 40,000 engineers once quipped “We can reach 250,000 mile distant moon, but cannot reach the heart of another man. It is true husbands wives live together and sleep together for years, yet they do not understand each other. What we need to know the other side. We need critical views. Why a congress man reads BJP party paper, or the vice versa? We should learn lessons from our past life. There is a big question stuck in the throats of non-Muslims “Why ISIS, al Qaeda, Boko haram, Taliban & al Shabab etc have not learn lessons from the past. Perhaps they have not asked the pertinent questions. Why the great Caliph ‘Uthman who formulated the Holy Quran was brutally assassinated by his own people? Why great Caliph Umar was assassinated? Why Ali, son-in-law of our holiest prophet Mohammad was assassinated? If there was a golden age of Islam, how it was lost? Can the glowing enlightenment of a group of people be doused? Why there is reactionary response to the political, religious and intellectual challenges faced by the Muslim world in the modern period?

    The philosopher George Santayana said “Those who forget the past are condemned to relive it.”  Supremacism is a dangerous disease.  Those swollen headed people deny others view. The terrorists are doing a great damage to Islam. Imams are issuing bizarre fatwas. We cannot keep on writing rosy things about Islam. Animosity and personal attacks among intellectuals in this thread speak volumes of intolerance and supremacism. Criticism is vital for the progress of an individual, society, religion and a nation. Ugly kafirs’ criticisms in NAI are essential to have a balanced thinking so as to keep reminding the follies. Rasoolalah Khomenei, Ayatollah Khamenei and Caliph al Buckdadi are great theologians and pray five times. I do not know what they pray.

    Oh Allah make me an instrument of your peace. Where there is hatred let me sow love. Where there is injury pardon. Where there is doubt, faith. Where there is despair hope. Where there is darkness light. Where there is sadness joy.


    By Royalj - 6/22/2017 4:44:42 AM



  • Haque Sb, What is clear is that a day referred to is not a 24 hour day. It means a period or an eon.

    (22:47) Yet they ask thee to hasten on the Punishment! But Allah will not fail in His Promise. Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning.

    (70:4) The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/22/2017 12:45:30 AM



  • Zuma asks "Does faith need evidence?" The answer is "yes it does". If it were not so, Ibrahim (AS) may not have asked for it and the Quran would not have repeatedly stressed on the indisputable "signs of God" as well as the challenge to mankind to falsify its claims of:

     1. being inimitable

    2. Lacking discrepancy.

     The kind of evidence people of earlier times relied upon, were “miracles” that the Prophets performed, and prophesies that came true viz utter destruction of the people who rejected belief. The examples are the people of Noah, Hud, Saleh,  Lut Musa and Ibrahim. The Quran narrates these stories to tell us that the Word of God always comes true and to describe the mission of His messengers.

     A similar proof is available regarding the prophetic mission of Muhammad. A very early and precise warning of the fate of those who oppose Islam and unfolding of events which made the prophesy come true against all odds. Read my series on the subject.

     The Story of the Prophetic mission of Muhammad (pbuh) from the Qu’ran (part 1): The early opposition

    The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (pbuh) From the Qu’ran (Part 2): The Clear Warning to the Meccan Pagans

    The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (Pbuh) In the Qu’ran (Part 3): Important Pointers from the Stories of the Prophets

    The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (Pbuh) In the Qu’ran (Part 4): The Medinian Period

    The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (pbuh) in the Qu’ran (Concluding Part) Summary

     The era of Muhammad may be described as the beginning of the era of reason. He did not resort to any “miracles”. His achievements although miraculous, are not what can be described as miracles..

     The proofs that we can seek in the truth of the Quran, are based on its explicit claims as listed above, one of which is covered in my article:

     Science and Religion

     As regarding the second matter of discrepancy, it can also be understood as contradiction. My following article touches upon this aspect:

     Is the Quran a Book of Contradictions?

     In the comments section, Rational Muhammad Yunus tried to prove contradictions in the Quran without success.

     If faith did not require evidence, then what is wrong with other beliefs? What was wrong with the faith of the Arabs before Muhammad? What is wrong with atheism?

     The Quran asks for belief in the Unseen God but that is not the same as blind belief.  We believe in the unseen atom and all its sub particles not because we have seen them, but because of observed behaviour in controlled experiments and a theory that explains the model well. We also realise that it is only a model of reality and not reality itself. It is possible that a different model may explain the behaviour better.

     What is God is different for you and different for me based on our knowledge of the universe. The Quran also describes a model of reality and not the reality itself to the Arabs of the 7th century using the limited vocabulary of those times. Vocabulary is limited by knowledge. As knowledge grows, new words are coined to mean things which may otherwise have required a thousand words to describe. The Quran uses extreme economy of words and cannot therefore be a book of science at all. Get that idea out of your mind. However, whatever it says in those few words, is remarkably accurate. Nothing it says flies in the face of science. When discussing science, one must keep the distinction between theory and fact and between mere theory and theory validated by an experiment which establishes the truth of that theory.

     The composition of the Moon or Mars or any other heavenly body cannot be predicted based on theory alone. That is why man sends space missions to collect data and samples. So, what may be the sky is mere speculation even in science. What is seen by the human eye may be described as the “celestial dome” or canopy which appears blue in the daytime. Since the Quran does not even refer to the blue sky of the daytime, what it means by sky in its verses, where it uses one of the three Arabic words, can only be speculated. It can also be something beyond what the human eye can see. What the sky means, often depends upon how the word is used, which is so even as far as the Quran is concerned. When the word sky is used in the Quran without describing it, it may refer to any region distant from the earth. It therefore rains from the skies. The birds fly in the sky. The heavenly bodies are part of the sky or part of the region distant from the earth.

      Most of the Muslims make a virtue of blind belief and a virtue of blind imitation of their respective imams. As a matter of fact, they have made it a cardinal principle of their faith. If this position is acceptable in the eyes of God, then what is wrong in people of every faith following the same? However, the Quran categorically rejects such a position.

     (2:170) When it is said to them: "Follow what Allah hath revealed:" They say: "Nay! we shall follow the ways of our fathers." What! even though their fathers Were void of wisdom and guidance?

     Blind faith is superstition and not faith. Faith requires evidence, validation and proof. We have faith in people based on past record of their behaviour and performance and based on legal contracts with them and efficacy of the country’s judicial system to enforce the contract etc. or based on common laws that can be invoked to ensure proper behaviour.

     Please give up blind faith even though what I say goes against the dominant theology of every sect. If Muslims continue to believe blindly, they will remain backward and weak in their faith also.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/22/2017 12:37:30 AM



  • Want to make a small appeal based on my instinct, as indeed all my writings are based on my instinct rather than scholarship. 

    Could it be that Quran has been expressed in the language of the people for the purpose of  proper communication? Isn't it fundamental common sense that expression of ideas should be framed in a texture that is intelligible to the communicatee?

    From this premise the use of 'six day' as an expression makes sense. I recall in the history of maths , seven remained an important number  because, for a long time, very primitive human beings,  counted only up to seven. By Prophet's time however people were conscious of thousands  of years  of time-frame and in that comparison six-day time frame was used to mean a small stretch of time that Allah takes to create world emphasizing upon majesty of Allah, which is the main theme. I think elsewhere too Allah's creative power has been described by the word kun. My father was very fond of telling that Allah says 'ho ja'  aur ho jata hai. Strangely now I understand better with the understanding of programming. It is the software of creation that sets it in motion and carries on for enormous time over enormous space. The laws of Physics is the set of softwares.

    Incidentally Ali Shariati of Iran has explained in an ethereal language the major concepts of Quran by using the words of Quran as symbolic for which he cites authority from Quran itself. We should be proud that he considers himself in the line of Iqbal as a thinker and a spiritualist.

    By Manzurul Haque - 6/21/2017 9:25:28 PM



  • N
    By zuma - 6/21/2017 7:37:37 PM



  • Naseer Ahmad,

    As Quran is not initially meant for scientific research, I am afraid the person who assisted Muhammad to write the Quran might not be so cautious to the words used, whether it be literally or not, at the time when he received the revelation from Allah.

    To be cautious in the interpretation of Quran, it is best not to be used for scientific research in case if Muslims might have twisted the meaning of the words in which Allah did not intend that to be or it was not so in the beginning of the creation of this universe.

    Preferably to be conservatism rather than to go extreme to turn up to have different view that the world originally to be.

    The entire Quran should base on the faith in Allah to what it is written. 

    Does faith need evidence, i.e. scientific proof, in order that one should believe in Allah?  If one has to rely on evidence, i.e. scientific proof, in order to believe in Allah, should this be considered to have faith in Allah.  Better is one to have faith in Allah without relying on evidence.


    By zuma - 6/21/2017 5:31:07 PM



  • Zuma, It took me an hour’s research to answer this question. Please do not tax me further without carrying out a similar exercise yourself and presenting the findings.
    The Quran uses similitudes to describe things for which an exact word did not exist in the Arabic language because knowledge of that thing was imperfect or only rudimentary or even non-existent. For the sky, the Quran uses three different words, which is proof that the exact meaning was elusive and none of the three words may be taken literally to mean what the sky means. The three words and the verses in which they are found are given below:
    bināan 40:64, 2:22
    wal-saqfi   52:5, 21:32,
    samkahā 79:28
    The Quran has a way of communicating when to take any word literally and when to avoid doing so. What the sky may be is a good example where it has used three different words to caution against taking any of them literally.
    The Quran, not being a book of science, did not try to tell us what the sky actually is by writing a 1000 word description.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/21/2017 2:42:03 AM



  • Hats Off,

    Why do Naseersaab's faith and scientific knowledge concern you? Your sole aim is to smear Islam and to sabotage the mission of New Age Islam. Since there are no editorial bars to your doing so, just get on with your dirty task.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 6/21/2017 12:41:50 AM



  • Hats Off may read:

    .wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

     which describes the Scientific Method.

     While the scientific method is based on statistical analysis of observed data, my research finding is that 100% of the data supports the thesis of the theists and not even one counter example is found in the observed data that goes against the thesis. Statistically speaking, there cannot be stronger proof than this. Hats Off takes out his frustrations on not being able to produce a counter example to disprove the thesis.

     Even without such detailed analysis of available data, we know that religion has given us rule based ethics or Deontological ethics which man has converted into practical ethics based on pragmatism and reason. This was possible, only when sufficient data was available of the good to the individual and the society, from following the rule based ethics from religion. These were and are still followed by the religious as a duty to God, even though the benefit is not immediately clear, and often it goes against immediate self-interest.

     The flow from rule based ethics from religion to reason based practical ethics is obvious. If we had reason based ethics to start with, there would have been no need for religion.

     Religion has given us something so valuable, that without it, there would have been no progress from living like savages, which we would have continued to do till today.

     Man, in his arrogance however, rejects God, because now he thinks he has become self-sufficient and assumes that he was always self-sufficient.

     Religion as a Civilizing Influence

    Wasn't the above one of the two "brilliant" articles against which Hats Off said he found it difficult to counter? 

    The second was:

    Is There A Rational Basis For The Atheists To Oppose Religion?

    The third which is written 3 years later and is part of the same series is:

    Science and Religion

    It completes the argument in the first article based on extensive research carried out to try to prove/disprove the hypothesis that was formed in the first article.

    Thanks to Hats Off for periodically calling attention to three very significant articles. He has made sure that people do not forget these and that new readers of NAI also read them.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/20/2017 11:44:04 PM



  • Zuma,

    I reproduce below from an earlier comment.

    Did I say that the Quran should be treated as a book of science? What I said was the reverse - every ayat that has to do with this world or a subject of science is amenable for validation or invalidation by science. I didn't say Science should be validated by Quranic verses. Also, what I said was that it is science that has helped us understand several of the verses of the Quran which were misunderstood earlier giving specific examples.  I didn’t say that the Quran helped in scientific breakthroughs. The difference may be kept in mind.

    As far as creation in 6 days is concerned, the Quran clarifies in other verses that it does not mean  a 24 hour day and a cosmic day could be thousands of years.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/20/2017 10:53:58 PM



  • Hats Off is an ignoramus. 

     All research in the empirical Sciences, use the method employed by me. 

    Even if one was ignorant of methods of research, the process described is simple to understand even by a lay person. He is a person who understands neither the language of Science nor that of a lay person. It is his perversity that blocks all understanding.

    Being an apostate is not the issue nor even criticism of his former religion. The issue is the distortion of truth and misrepresentation of facts to deliberately tarnish the image. 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/20/2017 10:48:27 PM



  • East or West, 
    Islam is the best,
    Vermins of the Word, 
    Watch out for the 'life next' !

    By Manzurul Haque - 6/20/2017 9:33:59 PM



  • when isamist extremists lose their argument, their final effort at salvage is accusations of "islamophobe" and "apostate". this is the strongest argument that muslims can provide against all that is nasty and abhorrent in islam.

    mr. naseer ahmed whose ancestors were hostile apostates and islamophobes, from hinduism or buddhism is now lecturing others.

    when he tries to prove the divinity of scriptures through a null hypothesis, it becomes pathetically clear what islam does to muslims.

    or he tries to prove god by market research we know how hollow his faith as well as his "scientific" knowledge.

    there was a time when he was praising the saudi arabians as one of the best, kindest and most tolerant people in this world.

    maybe he thought better of it.

    By hats off! - 6/20/2017 6:41:56 PM



  •  Quran is meant for spiritual edification instead of scientific research.
    If every word in Quran has to be used literally for scientific research, the entire Quran might be subject to criticism.  Let’s take an example of the following statement:
    (سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #22)-Mohsin Khan translation:
    ‘Who has made the earth a resting place for you, and the sky as a canopy, and sent down water (rain) from the sky and brought forth therewith fruits as a provision for you. Then do not set up rivals unto Allah (in worship) while you know (that He Alone has the right to be worshipped).’
    The phrase, the sky as a canopy, is mentioned in the verse above.  If one would interpret this verse literally, it would turn up to be the entire sky does look like canopy.  This interpretation would certainly be subject to many criticisms since how the sky could look like canopy.  Neither the shape of the sky does look like canopy.  The word, canopy, in Quran 2:22 might mean the entire sky could be created in such a way that it prevents the oxygen to leak out to the universe as if that the entire sky has a layer of canopy to protect the human beings.  Thus, one should leave the content of Quran what it should be instead of using it to be meant for scientific exploration.
    What if Allah is so mighty and powerful and Allah did create the universe within 6 days, by twisting the universe to billion years so as to match with science, Muslims would indirectly change the meaning of what Allah intends them to know from Quran’s point of view.  The best is to leave all these to Allah with unquestionable mind.  Simply believe what it states to be true.  To human beings, nothing is possible.  Even if one would mention that Allah creates the nature of law and makes it to work for billion years of creation, how could Allah create the nature of law and to demand all the rock and soil and dust or whatever to follow the law to work on it?  Does this mean rock or soil or dust or whatever could obey the law of nature that has been developed by Allah in order that the entire universe could be created as if that all these materials could listen to Allah’s command? 
    The entire quran should be meant for spiritual edification instead of to be meant for scientific research.  This is what Allah’s revelation initially intended to be.  By abusing it to be meant for scientific research, it would lead to false teaching since it would cause Muslims to believe what it should not have done in the past.  Who know God could have such power to create this universe within 6 days?  Who know God might take years to create?  The best is to leave all these questions to Allah.
    If every word in Quran has to be used literally for scientific research, the entire Quran might be subject to criticism.  Let’s take an example of the following statement:
    (سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #22)-Mohsin Khan translation:
    ‘Who has made the earth a resting place for you, and the sky as a canopy, and sent down water (rain) from the sky and brought forth therewith fruits as a provision for you. Then do not set up rivals unto Allah (in worship) while you know (that He Alone has the right to be worshipped).’
    The phrase, the sky as a canopy, is mentioned in the verse above.  If one would interpret this verse literally, it would turn up to be the entire sky does look like canopy.  This interpretation would certainly be subject to many criticisms since how the sky could look like canopy.  Neither the shape of the sky does look like canopy.  The word, canopy, in Quran 2:22 might mean the entire sky could be created in such a way that it prevents the oxygen to leak out to the universe as if that the entire sky has a layer of canopy to protect the human beings.  Thus, one should leave the content of Quran what it should be instead of using it to be meant for scientific exploration.
    What if Allah is so mighty and powerful and Allah did create the universe within 6 days, by twisting the universe to billion years so as to match with science, Muslims would indirectly change the meaning of what Allah intends them to know from Quran’s point of view.  The best is to leave all these to Allah with unquestionable mind.  Simply believe what it states to be true.  To human beings, nothing is possible.  Even if one would mention that Allah creates the nature of law and makes it to work for billion years of creation, how could Allah create the nature of law and to demand all the rock and soil and dust or whatever to follow the law to work on it?  Does this mean rock or soil or dust or whatever could obey the law of nature that has been developed by Allah in order that the entire universe could be created as if that all these materials could listen to Allah’s command? 
    The entire quran should be meant for spiritual edification instead of to be meant for scientific research.  This is what Allah’s revelation initially intended to be.  By abusing it to be meant for scientific research, it would lead to false teaching since it would cause Muslims to believe what it should not have done in the past.  Who know God could have such power to create this universe within 6 days?  Who know God might take years to create?  The best is to leave all these questions to Allah.
    By zuma - 6/20/2017 5:51:52 PM



  • nobody, but a father like figure, could have taken so much trouble to sudharo, a bigda hua ladla like you. Sudhar ja bete, abhi waqt hai!
    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/20/2017 12:08:29 AM



  • What a compulsive liar devoid of all dignity says is of no consequence.
    It is you who must be in the mental asylum laughing deliriously one moment and frothing at the mouth in an apoplectic fit the next. Or maybe I just cured you of your insane laughing fits. If you had a father like me, you would have learned tameez and known your limits and how to stay within it. The problem that you have is that you are such a mediocre with a cliched approach not even knowing the meanings of words that you use and yet you argue with such insolence! Do you even realize that it is you who has an extremely irrational meaning dogmatic approach to religion? You are what maybe called a dogmatic atheist with dogmatic beliefs about his father’s religion. Do you also realize that starting from a position of “I know nothing” is not atheism but agnosticism? Do you realize that the question “how many books of philosophy have you read” is asinine when a proposition is easily verifiable? Accept, your limitations Ikram Ahmed and learn to stay within your limits.
    Now the ample evidence that you provide of being an Islamophobe and a hostile apostate. Remember, I called you that even before you revealed that you are an atheist.
    Who but an Islamophobe argues as follows:
    “It is interesting that many Muslims take pride in the contribution of the medieval Muslims to science, and yet, if they really spend some quality time to find out the true beliefs of those intellectuals, they might unearth plenty of heresy. If those intellectuals were alive today, no Muslim country would have accepted them. They would be running around the world like refugees, their only hope would be some western country (Minus trump), and no respite in the Muslim land; also the impending danger of blasphemy charges, and getting killed.”
    It is only an Islamophobe who loves to judge all Muslims and Islam by the Islam of the extremists. And if those luminaries were not judged as heretics in their time, it is only an Islamophbe who advances the specious argument that it was because of some accident of a particularly liberal Caliph when the facts are that Islamic civilization was extremely liberal for the most part of its history. You have insulted all Muslims by your argument and only a hostile apostate or an Islamophobe is capable of that.
    And who except the Islamophobes and the hostile apostates engage in trying to prove Muslim luminaries as heretics posthumously a thousand years after their death? And who but an Islamophobe suppresses the fact that a number of contradictory works and statements about religion have been ascribed to Razi while presenting “evidence” that he was a heretic?
    My calling you a hostile apostate and an Islamophobe is well-grounded in the ample evidence that you have provided. As I said, it is written all over you.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/19/2017 11:47:14 PM



  • "The one who repeatedly called me a terrorist etc." Absolutely because you called me an Islamophobe . You deserve worse abuses .
    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/19/2017 3:45:53 PM



  • Naseer Ahmed "He also explained his attempt to be decent as an act of mere diplomacy or hikmat. The insincerity was palpable and a mere show. If it was genuine, and not simply a mask, he would have endured anything that I had to give him and shamed me by his forbearance. If I had even the slightest faith in his sincerity, I wouldn't have risked attempting to rip off his mask." Forbearance towards a bully like you no chance boss.
    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/19/2017 3:44:16 PM



  • Naseer Ahmed , Do you live in a mental asylum or an old age home. I'm sure your children must have disown you . Thank goodness I never had to bear elders like you who are full of hatred . By the way which mental asylum are you staying right now? At least give me your e-mail you coward ? Dum nahi hai kya? Kitna baigairat hai apnay sey kam umar kay admmi kay galiya sunrai.
    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/19/2017 3:37:12 PM



  • Naseer Ahmed one dirty scum bag . Do you now how to use an e-mail. Maybe we can settle it out side . At least thing of your age . You are getting abused by a person younger than you. Budha pagal ho gaya. It's a pitty that you are a known scholar here who stoop to such level . Your character is similar to Ravan . 
    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/19/2017 3:29:48 PM



  • Dear Yunus Sb,
    Your comment has so many relevant quotes that I did not have. Thanks for the same.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/19/2017 5:11:59 AM



  • Ikram Ahmed is one helluva slime.

    Does he know the meaning of slander? It means to vilify through a lie. He is the one who has slandered repeatedly. 

    He is the one who insists on treating religion as dogma and not amenable to either falsification or validation but accusing the one who says that it is amenable for both and should be rejected if falsified or invalidated as being dogmatic! What an idiot!

    The one who repeatedly made the laughable charge of "cut and paste".

    The one who repeatedly called me a terrorist etc.

    I haven't employed a single lie and there is no need for me to do so.

    Take his so called attempt to be decent. It is preceded by a missive to the editor where for good measure he has included my responses to Hats Off  and Royalj omitting what I was responding to.

    He also explained his attempt to be decent as an act of mere diplomacy or hikmat. The insincerity was palpable and a mere show. If it was genuine, and not simply a mask, he would have endured anything that I had to give him and shamed me by his forbearance. If I had even the slightest faith in his sincerity, I wouldn't have risked attempting to rip off his mask.

    He fired all his abusive comments before the comment about avoiding the public forum and giving his email id.

     The sheer duplicity that this slime is capable of! A man devoid of even a semblance of dignity. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/19/2017 3:30:34 AM



  • Dear Naseer Sahab,

    Thanks for providing a valuable link, which I did not have. If I knew you will be responding to hats off, I would have remained silence. bearing in mind the Qur'anic dictum 'arid 'anil jahileen.
    Thanks!

    By muhammd yunus - 6/19/2017 3:14:39 AM



  • Muhammd yunus, 

    I personally never entertain people like Hataoff . But there are scholars of Quran in this forum who slander anyone who disagree with them. They have this supremacist attitude ,which is no different from other fanatics. I think they are also responsible . 

    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/19/2017 2:07:41 AM



  • If hats off is a Muslim, he might be a typical Muslim extremist.

    Muslim extremists usually take a verse or a sentence to conclude what it means without reading the entire paragraphs or even analyzing historical background or whatever.


    By zuma - 6/19/2017 12:15:20 AM



  • “It was not until the Western nations broke away from their religious law that they became more tolerant; and it was only when the Muslims fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance and other evidences of the highest culture.” Pickthall 

     “There is no doubt but that, in the eyes of history, religious toleration is the highest evidence of culture in a people. Let no Muslim, when looking on the ruin of the Muslim realm which was compassed through the agency of those very peoples whom the Muslims had tolerated and protected through the centuries when Western Europe thought it a religious duty to exterminate or forcibly convert all peoples of another faith than theirs - let no Muslim, seeing this, imagine that toleration is a weakness in Islam. It is the greatest strength of Islam because it is the attitude of truth.” Pickthall

    ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?36463-Tolerance-in-Islam-by-Muhammad-Marmaduke-Pickthall


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/18/2017 11:53:29 PM



  • Hats Off,
    Why bother about what Naseersaab has called us in the past when your own pen is dripping with unconscionable hatred on a daily basis? It seems every time Naseersaab is under attack you come out from the woodwork to join in!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 6/18/2017 11:44:52 PM



  • Dear hats off!
     While my mind has slowed down in this last quarter of Ramadan, it received great stimulation from your comment below in this thread beginning with the statement:

    “Islamic history stands out not for its imagined tolerance but its relentless conquests, blood baths, destruction of temples, whole sale plunder and mass slave taking. read any Islamic historian who rode with the marauders.”

    You put me in catch 22 position on this day of Ramadan by making a statement which is totally out of historical context and relativism and singles out Islamic civilization as an intolerant and brutal. If I remain silent I will be accepting your preposterous proposition. So I respond as below: 

    No civilization of the world is judged by the tyranny, chaos, bloodshed, and harrowing accounts of war. These accounts must be judged on historical relativism and on the bitter truth that mercy, compassion and justice have no place in battlefield that operates only one on principle – you kill your adversary or you are killed. You enslave or you are enslaved. I can assure you that you will find no internationally recognized historian of the world agreeing with your comment. I am quoting below some of the iconic figures of history to bring home to you that what you wrote is whimsical, dictated by your hatred of Islam, or provoked by a first-hand of account of a battle left by an eye-witness that does not represent the mores of any civilization: 

    “Alphonse de LaMartaine (1790-1869) while recounting the remarkable rise of Arabs declares: “As regards all the standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask IS THE RE ANY MAN GREATER THAN HE (Mohammed)?” [5].

    Robert Briffault (1867-1948) states:  “Science is the most momentous contribution of Arab [Muslim] civilization to the modern world; but its fruits were slow in ripening. Not until long after Moorish Islamic] culture had sunk back into darkness did the giant to which it had given birth, rise to its might” [Making of Humanity, p. 202, Extracted from Muhammad Iqbal’s Reconstruction of Islamic thoughts, 6th reprint, New Delhi 1998, p. 130].

    Jonathan Bloom and Sheila Blair  (the husband wife team, jointly appointed to the Norma Jean Calderwood University Professorship in Islamic and Asian Art), declare: “Islam, which is only half a dozen centuries younger than Christianity, created a long and brilliant civilization, which is responsible for much of the way we are today. … When a few medieval monks were desperately trying to preserve what little they knew of Greco-Roman civilization, academies and universities flourished in the splendid cities of the Muslim lands” [Jonathan Bloom and Sheila Blair, Islam, Empire of Faith, BBC Series, UK 2001, p. 11.].

    Count Leon Ostrorog declares: “The Eastern thinkers of the ninth century laid down on the basis of their theology, the principle of the Rights of Man, ....of which the humane and chivalrous prescriptions would have put to blush certain belligerents in the Great War; expounded a doctrine of toleration of non-Muslim creeds so liberal that our West had to wait a thousand years before seeing equivalent principles adopted.” [Asaf A.A. Fyzee, Outlines of Mohammedan Law, 5th Edition, New Delhi 2005, p. 53/54.]     

    “….the Muslim faith enjoins toleration and freedom of religious life for all those followers of other faiths who pay tribute in return for protection …, The very existence of so many Christian sects and communities in countries that have been for centuries under Mohammadan rule is an abiding testimony to the toleration they have enjoyed, and shows that the persecutions, they have from time to time been called upon to endure at the hands of bigots and fanatics, have been excited by some special and local circumstances, rather than inspired by a settled principal of intolerance."[Thomas W. Arnold, Preaching of Islam, 2nd revised edition, 1913, reprinted Delhi 1990, p. 419/420.]

    The pre-eminence of the quoted scholars and the diversity of their backgrounds and regions sufficiently demonstrate the positively remarkable, rather, benevolently revolutionary role of Islam on world history.

    I see you very active in posting incendiary comments against Islam and the Qur’an. I normally let it go but from time to time, try to bring you out of your closed circuit Islam/ Qur’an-bashing scholarship. Ghulam Mohiuddin Sahab takes you seriously and regularly responds to your sweeping comments which only reminds me of my following remark appearing in my article referenced below against unlicensed freedom of speech or expression at this forum:

    “..if used to malign other’s faith or mock a rival group of people, it can open a floodgate of unhealthy discussions that will conduce to ill will among people, spawn evil and render this website into a vicious gossip forum.”

    Tell me honestly, do you want this forum to turn into a “vicious gossip forum.”

    And believe me, your homologous comments seem really tailored more to create or add to confusion than to add any value.

    Use and Misuse of Freedom of Expression on This Islamic Website (New Age Islam) and Need for a Clear 

    http://www.newageislam.com/debating-islam/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/use-and-misuse-of-freedom-of-expression-on-this-islamic-website-(new-age-islam)-and-need-for-a-clear-agenda/d/8997


    By muhammd yunus - 6/18/2017 10:36:47 PM



  • mr. ghulam mohiyuddin has been called an apostate and islamophobe by the renowned IIT trained islamic scholar mr. naseer ahmed.

    mr. muhammad yunus has been called worse. Mr. sultan shahin has been called the enemy of islam by this brilliant scientist trained in market research.

    but then the world loves a bully.

    By hats off! - 6/18/2017 6:32:16 PM



  • Ikram Ahmad sb, 
    I am an old hand at New Age Islam. I have some personal engagements due to which  I  cannot do systematic research work. Further, I have a constructive agenda so when I find the discussion going nowhere due to repetitive-ness or direction-less-ness, I withdraw.  I was on Facebook making political comments and trying to de-communalizing the environment since the last Parliamentary elections. It is one area of my concern to reclaim the Constitution of India as conceived by Gandhi, Nehru and Ambedkar. The second area of my concern is preparing Muslims to cope up with their surroundings by accepting change. I am not alone in this. Of course the king pin is Mr Sultan Shaheen, but we have some great finds also,  two of whom are very seniour IIT graduates, namely Md Yunus sb and Naseer Ahmed sb.  Mr Mohiyddin sb is probably a doctor (?) in US and has maintained remarkable consistency of  writing positive comments on every  useful write-up. I generally read an article only after same has  been commented upon by  Mohiyuddin an. But this shows that he reads entire New Age Islam end to end. If I were to seek Quranic clarification on any question, I would seek the help of Md Yunus sb or Naseer Ahmed sb. They are infused with incredible love for Islam and they can work hard  beyond words. It is unfortunate you could not click with Naseer Ahmed sb  and probably there was  an accident of communication between the two of you. I  would suggest  to both of you to bury the hatchet and give yourselves  some time.   Your other concerns will insha Allah be addressed by all of us.


     PS: was feeling very sleepy while writing this important piece.

    By Manzurul Haque - 6/18/2017 12:35:10 PM



  • Naseer Ahmed , I've already given my e-mail . This is a forum . Do the dirty laundering outside. Al least have some basic decency and elementary manners.
    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/18/2017 2:24:16 AM



  • Manzurul Haque sahab, 

    It was an interesting write-up. I like your writing style even though our views are diametrically opposite in theological matters. But talking to you makes me feel like there is a possibility of synthesis . I mean it would be a utopia to consider the entire world to turn to one single ideology. There will be Atheist, theist, extremist . You are absolutely right that some Atheist in India were morons . Especially the Veer Savarkars.    

    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/18/2017 2:22:16 AM



  • Summarised for the benefit of serious readers.

    The correlation between religiosity in an individual and his achievements in science is negative in all cultures and among the followers of all religions. The reason for that is not far to see. Right from the heydays of Greek Philosophy and Science, modern education has had a marked anti-God slant meaning a deliberate rejection of God. This is not to deny the extraordinary exceptions and many who were not considered to be religious by the standards of ordinary people but were highly “spiritual” or their beliefs were far more refined than that of the ordinary people.  

    This marked negative correlation is responsible for the anti-modern education stance among the religious which is not without reason since the Hereafter is given primacy in all religions. What was required of the religious was to neutralize by rebutting rationally, the anti-God slant of modern education.  This was not an easy task without a complete view of the history of religions and of philosophy and neither was such comprehensive information available till recently. For example, the universality of the Golden Principle in all religions was a discovery of the 17th century. This rule is widely recognized as contributing to our transition from the state of savage to civilization. In economics, Richard Swift, referring to ideas from David Graeber, suggests that "without some kind of reciprocity society would no longer be able to exist."

    My articles  Science and Religion  and Is There A Rational Basis For The Atheists To Oppose Religion? rebut the anti-God slant of the philosophers and modern education.

    So what did contribute to the great achievements of Islamic society in their Golden era? This is answered comprehensively in my article:

    Causes For The Rise And Fall Of The Muslims

    The causes for the rise was the early innocence of Islamic society and the extraordinary freedoms all sections of society enjoyed based on injunctions in the Quran.  Islamic society turned reactionary in later years on account of the “ill-effects” of philosophy and science on religious beliefs.

    Through my articles I have comprehensively covered the subject and provided an answer to the following questions:

    1.       Causes for the great achievements of Muslims during their golden period. Cause for subsequent decline. What needs to be done to regain past glory.

    2.       Reasons for the anti-modern education stance among the Muslims. How this can be removed by rebutting the anti-God stance of modern education.

     

    Now for the false charge of being dogmatic:

    A person is dogmatic when he is unwilling to discuss rationally any issue. Who was being dogmatic?

    Ikram: Do you think the faith in Allah would become secondary if hypothetically  Quran is proved unscientific.

    Naseer: Most certainly, if any verse of the Quran is proved to be false, faith in religion, God and the Quran will collapse. I am most certainly not a blind believer.

     

    Ikram:Then you rebutted my rhetorical question , “Does faith require scientific validity?”

    You said that Quran does not demand blind belief but invites a person to belief based on the undeniable signs of God.  

     

    Naseer: I repeat, faith does require scientific validity of all that can be scientifically validated. And if what can be scientifically invalidated is invalidated, there is no reason then to accept the Book as the word of God.

     

    Ikram: “religion is not always open to the idea of falsification”,

    Naseer: The Quran openly challenges man to falsify the Quran!  This is discussed in my article: Science and Religion

    Ikram: The problem is you are replacing one dogma with another. No matter how fascinating your dogma is , it still remains a dogma.

    Naseer: which dogma is being replaced by what dogma???

     

    A completely RATIONAL approach to faith is labeled dogmatic!

     


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/18/2017 1:11:04 AM



  • Hats Off's anti-Islam obsession seems to color his every thought and his every word. Never does he mention the intolerance in the Old Testament or in Christian Europe or in the institution of untouchability. Just blindly condemning the past histories of religions is meaningless. All religions can improve and must constantly try to improve. But Hats Off loves to revel in his hate-fest against one religion!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 6/18/2017 12:07:51 AM



  • Some vermins of the nether world lament about the past history of Muslims and while doing so they compare orange with apple. In Indian context, I ask people to compare long periods of Muslim history  over vast stretches of land, with comparatively a shorter period of Hindu history, in South India just prior to  The arrival of Muslims. The sheer ferocity, cruelty and normless-ness  for indulging in tribal loot has no parallel in the word history. When pointed out, they cite dancing girls as their symbol of civilization, neatly forgetting that  low-caste devdasis in their temples were slaves, who were sexually used indiscriminately and even jointly by sons and fathers belonging to high caste. A people inferiority-complexed by history are busy obliterating history. But this only has the rebound effect of highlighting. Better get over with the complex.

    Such vermins can only think in terms like enemy,  an enmity, loaded with violence. Their progenies today, with some power coming in their hands , are busy destroying masjid, grudwara,  and church,  and properties and lives of Muslims. For them,  the cause of gau- moot is enough to spread all these  violence, hatred  and injustices. They do not  understand the element of spiritual progress, underlying in an infidel deciding to become a monotheist.  For them progress is stunted vikas,  that refuses to come out of the womb,  even if  it means death to mother India. Such perverts are ruling the roost.  These fuckers have no sense of justice and have no words on the illegal indiscriminate  killings and bombings of innocent Muslims in 21st century. Such is their state of character. No matter I treat them as trash.

    By Manzurul Haque - 6/17/2017 11:32:46 PM



  • Hats Off,

    You don't have to go far but look at the history of  Muslim  rule in India. There have been well known atheists among Urdu poets such as Mir and Ghalib. Who punished them? They were loved and admired and continue to be read and admired. Atheism and apostasy was never a problem in Muslim society. The tolerance levels have been high.

    Apostates among Muslims who are hostile to their former religion and its followers have to be necessarily strongly rebutted taking into account the rising phenomenon of Islamophobia and the fact that many of them are trying to make a profession out of it. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/17/2017 10:57:45 PM



  • “By a lie, a man ….annihilates his dignity as a man”

    His repeated false charge of “cut and paste” is based on his low self-esteem and extreme mediocrity. He cannot imagine another person with originality. His refusal to respond to cut and paste was simply inability to respond

    His repeated charge of “terrorist” is a measure of his desperation. It flies in the face of everything that I have written.

    And how easily his charade of geniality has been ripped apart!

    “A man who himself does not believe what he tells another ... has even less worth than if he were a mere thing. ... makes himself a mere deceptive appearance of man, not man himself.” – Imanuel Kant

    Ikram is without any dignity and with less worth than a mere thing having knowingly and repeatedly lied. What such a person says, is worthless and must be ignored. And he is also a proven Islamophobe to boot - the ultimate vermin!


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/17/2017 10:33:51 PM



  • islamic history stands out not for its imagined tolerance but its relentless conquests, blood baths, destruction of temples, whole sale plunder and mass slave taking. read any islamic historian who rode with the marauders.

    if two and a half islamic caliphs were touted as tolerant, it just implies the rest of them were among the most bloodthirsty, land-lusty conquerors to have soiled the pages of history.

    and those whose forefathers were hostile apostates from their natal religion and who slept with the enemy have the gall to accuse others of apostasy.

    in any case it is perfectly clear how peaceful islam is and islamists are. while other faithfuls drive lorries into crowds, the apologists here without stomach for the gore keep white washing every nasty religious immorality as something exemplary.

    is it not a wonder that those who support jizya, sex slavery, slave taking and wife beating are dying to cal themselves moderates? while those who point out the immorality inherent in religions are hostile apostates?


    By hats off! - 6/17/2017 8:26:53 PM



  • Mr Naseer Ahmed.

    My conclusion of God is very diffrent than yours, your blind statement that " As far as flying....The Arrogant want belive".
    The person not believing in God is arrogant in your statement is completely arrogant about you only. 
    I( may be some other person keep belive)do not believe in God is just, on the contrary since development of God in human society this he/she/pho..pho../? is favouring one group of human over other and ready to kill as well.
    So even God exist for person like me is useless, it is something like dad give born to fuc....... her daughter later on.
    After this type of injustice, anyone would not belive in God, so stop your blind statement on the general public.

    By Aayina - 6/17/2017 4:01:08 PM



  • To all readers of New Age,

    Already 12.30 night. But if don’t write, I will miss the threads heavily.  I understand the game plan here, which to my mind, is to demoralize the Muslims in their ideological mooring. Initially some buggers like Lee Jay Walker used to abuse Muslims and Islam outright, in the ‘andh-bhakt’ traditions of India. Now I find some people are attacking Islam by donning the cloak of atheism. Don’t have to name them, you can smell them here.  I have told you my friends; there are no genuine atheists amongst Hindus. There cannot be, because of their philosophy, which has made them the greatest survivors on the earth even, if through go-mutra and cow-dung.  When they have to attack Islam they pretend to be atheists.

    Now I want to make it clear that the purpose of my writing here is constructive, because I believe, that the Truth should correspond to constructiveness. However, I shall be necessarily brief in my submissions. Sometimes, I may be deliberately vague, if it amounts to raking up unnecessary issue by my clarity. If I think, that my language has spelled out the matter clearly, then I shall not explain my contents further. Please learn to get things, as they come, else don’t. And If you can do it decently, it is better.  I see many posts which are so badly drafted in language or common sense that it is impossible to understand, but I ignore. So please learn to ignore if you have not understood my comments. I am here not to satisfy my ego. I shall terminate a discussion at my will. You should take it as ‘my defeat’ to bolster your ego and stew in your juice. I have already made it clear that I have a folder of My Islam and if anybody else also has, I respect his/her ‘My Islam’ folder. Thus I am not going to be dictated even in the name of Islam. To you, your religion, to me mine.  If after one round of interaction one a subject, you pester, then I would assume that you are abusive and you are abusing me, and therefore you deserve no response. I have said my thing, and I have heard your thing, if we support each other’s arguments and complement each other, we carry on. If we are at cross-purpose, then this is the end-point of discussion. I, hereby, issue all of you a pre-printed certificate of honor, for having won over me in debate, which you can utilize at will. However, if you have anything new and interesting and above all constructive, to say, I am all ears.   But for God’s sake, please don’t be verbose or overloaded. Please understand time constraint of others. Also please honor other person’s intelligence by being mild in argument. At least with me, please don’t quote any literature which is less than current, because I don’t follow persons, less educated than I am. The only written words that I do not consider literature is the holy Quran, which is the word of God. Anything that supports Quran is obviously welcome. And if you want to criticize Quran, then you are doing it from outside,  as somebody was mentioning,  so for him I don’t have to quote Quran or supporting Quranic literature. That’s fine with me. For him I have my secular arguments and I am not shying away.  Since the holy Quran is well organized you just have to refer to the verse No. and tell in your own language, what you want to say. I fully believe that none of you, Hindu, Muslim, Christian or a religious person, would misquote Quran, but if I do develop doubt about the correctness of the quote, may be due to inadequacy of language used, I would refer to the verse myself.

     Sometimes, but rarely, I may have to name a commentator to identify a post, but take it as an impersonal communication and not a direct communication to you. You can also send your views by naming me, in an impersonal fashion, which I may like to ignore, if same is not to my taste or understanding.

    To my mind Siratul Mustaqim, for which we constantly pray,  lies down  the middle, neither to left extreme nor to right extreme.

    As a believer in Allah and Islam, I don’t know Allah’s mind fully. If an atheist is speaking the mind of Allah, we know what he is.

    We have discussed a lot of ground breaking ideas on the pages of New Age but those have been obfuscated by pedantry, whereas those needed to be supported by persons who consider themselves wise.

    As recently,  I have suggested that talaq-system can be brought back to rails, by criminalizing ‘halala’, which should not be difficult. About the procedure of talaq I have read erudite articles on this website, but my question on IRF website and another Islamic website is pending, where I have asked simply, if after the husband has gone thru conciliation, witnessing etc and then he has still pronounced talaq there times, whether you will count same as one – they have had no courage to answer my query.   Recently one Zubaida, asked a funnily intelligent question, and I gave her an answer that I thought she or her sponsors deserved. These are the occasions, we should unite in action. What’s the point in showing scholarship if you can’t act in time? Or you are too egotistic to come in support of someone, who is using his voice to carry your message?  

    In 21st century we cannot afford to talk too much of apostasy. I think Mr Naseer Ahmad has pointed out, what I am repeating, in my words, but which  I have been talking on Facebook, where lots of comments were lost, because I don’t keep a record. This one – Khashqa khaincha, dair mein baitha, kab ka tark Islam kiya? Was Meer pulled out of his house for this? Hamko maaloom hai jannat ki haqeeqat lekin, dil ke bahlaane ko… and ..peeta hoon roze  abre shabe mahtaab mein, or daaman nichor dein to farsihte wazoo karen etc. Those who are trying to revive the offence of apostasy are not from us. Otherwise right of excommunication of an individual is constitutionally available to every ethnic group in India (and elsewhere)  , which balances the individual freedom and community rights.  

    One post that I wrote to Naseer sahib, because he had specifically raised a question, quoting my verse about co-existence of science and religion. I have very large-scale views on the subject, but I compressed the ideas in a short write-up which was only partly understood by Ikram sahib, though he was not on my mind when I wrote. The style of my language is symbolic, and I use models, so no need to take things literally.  In fact best and most noble ideas are expressed through mystic language. If you revisit that piece of write-up, you will find that it did politely and intellectually attack the spurious atheists of India, like -----, but not persons like Ikram sb who has not attained faith in Allah (or lost in due course) , though he is not hostile to Allah and certainly not hostile to Muslims ( A case of Rushdie in point. He did try to reclaim his place, through Mahfouz of Egypt but our howling, threw him out of the orbit). It is not easy to have faith in Allah, if your curiosity is of a high order. But that process belongs to quite a different genre and I have no time to elaborate.  Towards the end of my write-up, I have made one point which may be considered out of the box. Just please discern. Thanks.


    By Manzurul Haque - 6/17/2017 2:44:26 PM



  • Hats Off's pathetic attempts to equate Islam with terrorism is the ultimate salvo of a desperate Islam basher. How beautiful or how ugly Islam is depends upon the observer. That's why Hats Off deserves our commiseration.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 6/17/2017 1:16:46 PM



  • By the way Naseer Ahmed . This is a public forum and the mudslinging is not a nice thing . Here is my E-mail id hindsights@rediffmail.com

    Send all your stupid comments there. We can take it outside. 

    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/17/2017 1:09:29 PM



  • Mr Naseer stupid old man here is my source . 
     ‘Muslim Philosophy and Philosophers’ by Mohammed Sharif Khan & Mohammed Anwar Saleem.

    By the way you have nothing worth to say . Your stupid myopic worldview are rebutted . You couldn't argue any further . No counter arguments and nothing . So the next best thing is mudslinging which you've been involved from the very first post. 

    Are you suffering from OCD . Obsessive compulsive disorder . I pity you . 

    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/17/2017 12:50:59 PM



  • Naseer Ahmed is back to his awqaat. ..Sultan Shahin I tried to my best to reason out with this man who is a third grade idiot and is hell bent in mudslinging.  This will not be tolerated anymore . So please don't blame me of any personal attack . 
    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/17/2017 12:45:48 PM



  • Is Ikram completely ignorant of Islamic history? Islamic society has been very tolerant of what he may choose to call the heretics. Caliph Harun Al-Rashid and Mamun were not exceptions. Tolerance was the rule and not the exception. The Mullahs may have cried hoarse at times but the Qazi (judges) and the rulers were very tolerant. Thankfully, it has not been the practice among Muslims to probe the religious beliefs of people too closely and declare those who did not conform as heretics. Witch hunting for heresy has been more of a Christian occupation in the medieval ages and not in the Islamic society of the past.

    Islam has entered its dark ages only recently and Ikram is quite right when he says “But who knows if they were born in this age, with the Salafi wahabi puritanical interpretation spreading around the Muslim world like a wild fire. They could be marginalized, persecuted. Probably charged for blasphemy or apostasy. Let’s be honest here , according to PEW research there is an overwhelming majority of Muslims who believe that apostates should be put to death.”

    So my question simply is ‘why is he applying the present day standards of the most extremist among the salafi groups and not the tolerant norms of the major part of Islam’s 1400 year history?’

    Now in his comment he says something about Al-Razi and asks a question whether he is a heretic or not. First of all, he does not quote his sources. Most likely he has picked up the “information” from an Islamophobic site. Otherwise, Wikipedia says “A number of contradictory works and statements about religion have been ascribed to Razi.” So why should I judge Al-Razi today on the basis of several contradictory secondary sources when none of his original books survive? In any case what is the objective of this ridiculous exercise?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/17/2017 10:39:29 AM



  • there was a time when mr. naseer ahmed accused mr. ghulam mohiyuddin, mr. muhammad yunus, and mr. sultan shahin as hypocrites and worse. (use the search box) and we have an accredited psychiatrist supporting the most outrageous propositions in his effort justify the mean and the mendacious to white-wash the worst as if it were a historical necessity (the last resort).

    but all is forgiven and forgotten as long as it is me, my brother and my cousin against the whole world with this seventh century arabian imperialism mistaken for religion.

    it is probably a mistake to call the extremists as such when moderates such as mr naseer ahmed are afflicted with illusions of grandeur, magical thinking and dishonest scholarship are impelled to prove the divinity of scriptures through a null hypothesis and market reasearch.

    and "moderates" such as mr. ghulam mohiyuddin mumbling inanities as the terrorists unleash a bombathon to prove how peaceful their religion is.

    By hats off! - 6/17/2017 10:02:12 AM



  • I have used ignited mind in the sense of burning mind. Hope this was not taken by him as compliment. He  is malicious and arsonist.
    By Manzurul Haque - 6/17/2017 7:48:50 AM



  • It takes extraordinary mediocrity to write an article copying from Islamophobic websites their common approach of belittling the achievements of Muslims by saying that their luminaries were heretics and Ikram is such a mediocre.

    If it is not the Quran that perfectly describes who is a Muslim then what does? It takes colossal stupidity to argue against a Quran centric definition of a Muslim. Ikram has displayed such colossal stupidity.

    He takes my sentence “Blind believers are worse than non-believers. They are emotional fools who can be easily manipulated. For too long, the religious have kept a distance from the sciences to the detriment of religion as well as to their society.”

    And completely misunderstands it. It takes colossal stupidity to understand the above sentence as saying just the opposite of what it says! He has apparently understood it as : non- believers are worse than blind believers and are emotional fools! What colossal stupidity all over again!

     

     What does the buffoon think of his Islamophobia if it is not rank hatred? What does the month of Ramzan mean to this apostate except eating Haleem? 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/17/2017 5:30:22 AM



  • Naseer Ahmed said: "They hate you, Yunus Sb and me because we prevent the narrative of the extremists to prevail and do a very good job of it."

    Yunus Saab and Naseer Ahmed, It would be foolish to hate someone like Yunus saab . I respect him. People who are fighting against Salafi version should be encouraged. You are hope for humanity. The problem is with you Naseer Ahmed .You are becoming part of the problem . The problem is you are replacing one dogma with another. No matter how fascinating your dogma is , it still remains a dogma. 

    Friedrich Nietzsche:“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster."

    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/17/2017 5:12:24 AM



  • Naseer Ahmed : Again misquoted

     “Why would Ikram otherwise judge Muslim scientists by the standards of the most extremist among the salafis today and not go by whether these were judged apostate by the ruler of their times?  “

    This is what you inferred and your inferences are always wrong . I’m not judging them by any standards , but they were hostile critics of Islam who could face blasphemy charges if there were other rulers or Judges . They could find safe heaven only because of the benevolence of the rulers . Hence, I mentioned in my article – “Thankfully, there was Khalifa Mamun and no Baghdadi who to an extent tolerated deviant believes.”

    How is that judging Muslim scientist by the standards of extremist ?

    Al Razi  was an 8th century physician born in Ravy lived in Baghdad.

    These are his ideas about theology:

    1) He did not believe in revelation and prophecy.

    2) He does not feel any need of Prophet.

    3) He criticizes all religions for imitation, tradition power of clergy and external manifestation of religions.

    4) He severely criticizes revealed books.

    5) He denies the miraculousness of the Quran.

    6) He considers that Prophets are harmful to the people.

    If the above ideas of Al- Razi are not heretical then what is heretical ?

    Naseer Ahmed I repeat you are entitled to your interpretation , It’s a great idea to counter salafi Islam narrative.

    My question is what are the standards by which we should judge Muslim scientist ?


    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/17/2017 4:58:46 AM



  • Naseer Saab you are fun and predictable . Here is another statement of mine taken out of context : Ikram Ahmed says “To become a Muslim one should believe in the final revelation and also Mohammed as a final messenger.” You again started of with Quran centric debate , and you conveniently misquoted : Here is the complete statement . “You will find Atheist who are capitalist and Communist . Nationalist and Anti-National. In a similar way every monotheism may not be a Muslim . To become a Muslim one should believe in the final revelation and also Mohammed as a final messenger.” Any person may arrive at an Atheistic conclusion . But that cannot remain his identity. What he choose after that is his identity for eg; Javed Akhtar calls himself an ‘Atheist Muslim’, which to me personally is an oxymoron statement. Maybe he connects to Islam on a cultural level, but may not believe in the doctrine. But he is entitled to his views . I’m personally delighted Naseer Ahmed saab with your narrative . But that is only your interpretation. How on earth can a monotheist who does not believe in the final revelation of Quran or someone who does not believe in the Mohammed who is the seal of Prophet- and the Prophets before him- call his self a Muslim. He could be anyone but not a Muslim. This is called nit picking . A monotheist may not believe in any Prophet . He believes that there is a creator up there who created this world and doesn’t care a shit about it. Ever heard of ‘Deism?’..There are people who are monotheist not by definition . Their proclivity is towards Deism. Although Monotheism by definition comes in the ambit of organized religion . I’m referring to monotheist who doesn’t believe in any organized religion . Their views can be eclectic . They believe in God. Your Quran centric argument style is getting repetitive . This is seriously hampering your world-view.
    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/17/2017 4:32:14 AM



  • Dear Naseer saab ,

    Unfortunately you never learn . Once again personal attack when all I did was to attempt a decent conversation . You are a paradox . The attempt was to establish good-will and you started with personal attacks  ,because my views doesn’t match with your’s . You are full of hatred , but there is no point in returning hatred with hatred .  At least that’s not what a Humanist should do. By the way Atheism is my conclusion and humanism is my identity. I don’t generalize Muslims as you generalize apostates and other non-believers . There is one problem with you and that is generalizing, also, you inconspicuously make personal remarks , maybe it’s in your nature.

    To begin with there was no counter-argument or any substantiation from you, all I could find was disagreements which is perfectly fine,but that doesn’t answer my question. It doesn’t matter who believes that Quran is a word of God or which Muslim believes in it . But every argument cannot be based on that premise . That was my objection . Hence, your pattern of argument is similar to Zakir Naik but not identical to him . He is more radical than you . You are not soo bad. So out of the scale of 10 he gets 10/10 . I won’t give you marks at this moment.  Your Quran centric arguments will not work all the time.

    There is a deep rooted problem in your statement when you say that there is one right way in reading and interpreting Quran . Naseer bhai I honestly respect books . I don’t attack them , even if I may not agree with it. One should respect books , and Quran is a book that should be read and understood . I may not consider it divine or  I may not believe in its content . But I will not disrespect it . However, what is wrong if I interpret Quran . What if I have a different narrative of Quran . I’m sorry but your one right way attitude tantamount to a very talibanic stance. They have a one right interpretation that you consider wrong , and you have a one right interpretation that they consider blasphemous. I repeat Scriptures don’t speak for itself . People read and interpret it. When Quran was revealed for the benefit of the entire Humanity . I’m sure the message might have taken the diversity into consideration. Humanity is diverse. Therefore, how can there be one single interpretation of the scripture. You have your own way , and the illiterate has its own way. I may or may not agree with your narrative , but I will not stop you from it. You may have your own way of finding meaning , but you  can’t stop others .  Parvez Hoodbhoy has his own interpretation. He’s not a lesser Muslim than you.  

    I’m happy that you refused to answer about Christianity after your vitriol against Christianity in one of the posts. Otherwise you had no counter-argument here.

    You said “I repeat, faith does require scientific validity of all that can be scientifically validated. And if what can be scientifically invalidated is invalidated, there is no reason then to accept the Book as the word of God. Unfortunately, the meaning of Siddiq is poorly understood. A Siddiq is a highly knowledgeable believer and there is nothing wishy washy about his beliefs. A Muslim is asked to seek knowledge wherever he can find it because it is knowledge of the outside world that helps him to understand the Quran correctly. I gave examples of verses that were misunderstood until we gained correct knowledge from science. “

    You are becoming repetitive , and you are again indulging in  the same ‘Quran centric’ debate.Premise of any argument is not set by you alone. You have no monopoly over it.  On the contrary it was through science that your belief centric rationalism received some  legitimacy. There is another huge problem with faith based scientific validity . The person will start with a preconceived notion , they would initially form a belief system and then the inquiry will begin . This often hampers scientific inquiry. This methodology is similar to the medieval Al-Chemy . Where the aim was to transmute base metals into Gold. They were simply chasing a mirage . They ended up discovering new elements .This chemical discovery helped in the advancement of science.  The tragic part in your argument is that you are trying to validate Al-Chemy with Chemistry. It might be helpful if your narrative is based on Principle , that in Principle Quran encourages inquiry and seeking knowledge . But it keeps a safe distance from science. This might be a synthesis  of our anti-thesis.

     

    You said –“You now call me a moderate now but you called me a terrorist etc a number of times which apparently you do not even believe to be true. You have employed deliberate falsehood in your personal attack and vilification campaign. Also, the highly laughable charge of cut and paste although you could not substantiate the same.”

    Look at the hatred and grudge that you hold for people who differ with you. Hatred is not good in this holy month . Have some haleem or Biryani , that is what we eat in Hyderabad. Ramzan Haleem is awesome in Hyderabad , and also there is no Beef ban . You get awesome beef haleem here. Naseer saab hikmat bhi koi cheez hoti hai . Chor ko chor thodi bola jata. The intention was to establish good-will and it’s up to you to either continue it or destroy . I hope you stop this personal attack, because you started it first, and two matured people can put an end to it.   

    You said “Blind believers are worse than non-believers. They are emotional fools who can be easily manipulated. For too long, the religious have kept a distance from the sciences to the detriment of religion as well as to their society.  “

    More vituperation and hatred .

    Why so much hatredtowards non-believers ?

    I mean on any given day you are alive in this country because of the secular left forces . The non believers like Jawaharlal  Nehru’s legacy is the reason why minorities are still safe . Unfortunately, that legacy is being trampled . I hope we concur on this issue at least . By the way Bhagat Singh was an Atheist . He was an emotional fool .  Had these secular leaders not been around people like you and me would be second class citizen . The RSS would have taken over India.

    Here is a list of some emotional fools who are not soo bad than blind believers :

    1)  1)    Bertand Russell (Philosopher and Mathematician)

    2)    2)  Isaac Asimov (Author Professor of Bio Chemistry)

    3)      3) Stephen Hawking

    4)    4)   Alan Turing : He's been called the founder of computer science, and the founder of artificial intelligence. It’s because of him that you’re ableto spread the Al-Chemy. What an emotional fool her was.

    5)      5) Neil deGrasse Tyson : He’s an agnostic , but certainly not an emotional fool .

    6)      6) Thomas Edison : This emotional fool invented light bulb.

         


    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/17/2017 3:47:00 AM



  • Ikram Ahmed says “To become a Muslim one should  believe in the final revelation and also Mohammed as a final messenger.”

     But that is not how the Quran describes a Muslim. A Muslim is one whose religion is Islam and Islam is the religion of those who submit to God. Tell me one religion which is not about submitting to God but submitting to Satan? Every religion that is about submission to God is the religion of Islam.

    The Quran is quite clear on this point.

    (3:85) If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).

     Islam and Muslim however have a broader meaning and cover the righteous of every faith.

    (2:62) Those who believe (in the Qur´an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

     Anyone who believes in God and the last Day or The Day of Judgment and works righteousness is a Muslim. The previous sentence can be reworded as follows:

    A belief in God as pure intelligence that ensures through unchanging laws that govern us, unerring order, perfect causality, and in justice that finds ultimate perfection.

    A belief in the Day of judgment or in the law of karma, is nothing but a belief in justice that finds ultimate perfection which lead to righteous behaviour. A belief in perfect causality is what helps us discover the laws of nature and of human behavior and live in harmony with these or use them for our benefit.

     (22:34) To every people did We appoint rites (of sacrifice), that they might celebrate the name of Allah over the sustenance He gave them from animals (fit for food). But your god is One God: submit then your wills to Him (in Islam): and give thou the good news to those who humble themselves,-

     The verse above refers to people of other faiths. Since there is only one God and all of them follow the rites appointed to them in submission to Allah (by whatever name), their faith is Islam.

    (27:44) She was asked to enter the lofty Palace: but when she saw it, she thought it was a lake of water, and she (tucked up her skirts), uncovering her legs. He said: "This is but a palace paved smooth with slabs of glass." She said: "O my Lord! I have indeed wronged my soul: I do (now) submit (in Islam), with Solomon, to the Lord of the Worlds."

    The above verse is about Prophet and King Solomon and Queen Sheba who preceded Jesus and their religion is Islam.

    (2:132) And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; "Oh my sons! Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam."

    (2:136) Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma´il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."

    Islam is the religion of every prophet and of every person who believes in God (by whatever name), and in the consequences of his deeds beyond this life, and works righteousness.

    House of God

    Monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. (22:40)


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/17/2017 2:42:41 AM



  • Thank you GM Sb for your support.

    Hats Off and other hostile apostates are actually quite transparent. They hate you, Yunus Sb and me because we prevent the narrative of the extremists to prevail and do a very good job of it. How frustrating that can be to the hostile apostates who have made it their mission to destroy Islam? They would rather the extremist's view prevail which gives them the scope to attack Islam and the Muslims. They are therefore forever trying to put across the extremist version as the true version of Islam. It is these people who are the very active supporters and enablers of terrorism. Why would Ikram otherwise judge Muslim scientists by the standards of the most extremist among the salafis today and not go by whether these were judged apostate by the ruler of their times?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/17/2017 2:09:23 AM



  • Haque Sb,

    As far as flying away from a belief in God is concerned, it can happen with ordinary people as well as the geniuses. What is common between them is arrogance. The arrogant will not believe. What is common among the believers is humility in the face of the awe inspiring wonder that he is surrounded with which makes him feel insignificant and realize the power behind the magnificent order. The belief of the geniuses is at a different level from that of the ordinary people. God is in any case unfathomable. Ordinary people may visualize an anthropomorphic God.  The geniuses may recognize God as pure intelligence, unerring order and causality, and in justice that ultimately finds perfection. If we scratch the surface to understand the essence of every religion, a person who believes in justice that ultimately finds perfection satisfies the definition of a believer by every religion. That is as good a definition of belief as any other and yet sounds very different. Scientists such as Einstein were such believers. He may not have cared much for traditional Jewish beliefs, rituals and traditions, but was a believer nevertheless. Richard Dawkins on the other hand is a disbelieving atheist.

    It is only a person who believes in justice that ultimately finds perfection who can be a moral person. All others are ethical to the extent it serves their purpose and are otherwise amoral.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/17/2017 12:47:36 AM



  • Dear Ikram Ahmed,

    You talk about atheists also being good people. However, morality does not exist outside religion. What you find is only practical ethics. Atheists are ethical to the extent they deem it necessary.

    Take your own example. You used two lies repeatedly to vilify me and you are quite shameless about it.

    I never used a lie. I called you a hostile apostate because that is written all over you. Your article is, word for word, what any Islamophobe would have said on the same subject, and is in fact a reflection of what is found on every Islamophobic site. You are obviously fond of visiting such sites.

    Now you admit that you are an atheist. And you also say that you are afraid. I was also right in saying that only an apostate is a coward and afraid for his life. Atheists and apostates have never had any problem living among Muslims and even being loved and admired by them. Many of the celebrated poets such as Ghalib, Mir, Kaifi Azmi, Faiz, Javed Akhtar etc have been or are atheists. It is the hostile apostates and the Islamophobes who may have a problem. So, why do you have to be an Islamophobe? If  it is your mission to oppose Islam, take a pseudonym like Hats Off. 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/16/2017 11:56:44 PM



  • What makes Hats Off such a vile, compulsively lying  Islamophobe and an apostate?
    Does he grasp the rudiments of religion? The answer is obviously a no. If he did, he would be telling us what religion is or should be.
    Does he grasp the rudiments of science? The answer is obviously a no.
    Does he grasp the rudiments of logic? The answer is also demonstrably a no.
    His rant is a measure of his frustration at being proved wrong every time.
    He talks about hating the kuffar. He however never fails to remind time and again that according to me, kuffar does not mean non-Muslim. So what does hating the kuffar mean?
    The rest of his rant is equally illogical and flies in the face of what I have written. It is just an outpouring oh his venom.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/16/2017 11:38:16 PM



  • Although I have had my disagreements with Naseersaab, Hats Off's attack on him is beyond the pale. There is more hate and intolerance in Hats Off's posts than I have ever seen in Naseersaab's comments.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 6/16/2017 11:26:25 PM



  • hats off to the ignited mind !
    By Manzurul Haque - 6/16/2017 10:38:05 PM



  • In my last post the word philip should be read as fillip.
    By Manzurul Haque - 6/16/2017 8:43:21 PM



  • the naseer ahmeds are the raw material out of which terrorists are made. their filthy supremacism, their denigration of other religions and scriptures, their utter failure in grasping the rudiments of science as well as religions make them what they are - intolerant, supercilious, pseudo-scientific and inherent apologists for all that is nasty and ugly in religion - such as slave taking, sex slavery, wife beating and hatred of the kuffar.

    or otherwise, they are the enablers and justfiers of all that is vile and disgusting in islam.

    you can dress a chicken in a bow tie, but you will never make penguin out of him.

    By hats off! - 6/16/2017 5:56:41 PM



  • Manzurul Haque saab,

     There is no discomfort for Atheist . On the contrary there is enough discomfort for religious fanatics these days . I personally liked your post , and I’m an  Atheist fortunately alive among Muslims, and  facing plenty of discrimination and threats . I’m not here to defend Atheist , because I don’t defend Joseph Stalin , Pol Pot , Mao Zedong and Veer Savarkar. They were Atheist , but they were also scoundrels .  But their acts were not inspired by Atheism . It was Communism . Not ever Atheist is a communist and not every communist is an Atheist . In-fact there are religious people who are communist . Communism is a soci-economic theory , and it may or may not influence Atheists. Atheism is a conclusion and what you follow after that becomes your identity. You will find Atheist who are capitalist and Communist . Nationalist and Anti-National.  In a similar way every monotheism may not be a Muslim . To become a Muslim one should  believe in the final revelation and also Mohammed as a final messenger.


    It’s quite ironic but being an Atheist myself , I find more issues with Atheist . I could make friends with very few Atheist , most of my friends believe in God.  Maybe my conclusions are similar to the believers in God.  I would beg to differ with you but I never shouted that ‘YOU KNOW NOTHING’, on the contrary I was shouted down by religious people that , ‘ I KNOW NOTHING’. The fact is my journey towards skepticism started from ‘I KNOW NOTHING’, and I still believe that I know nothing . There is soo much to know that even one life is insufficient .


    I found this point form you , rather weird :

    "I think Muslim community can afford to let some electrons (humans) fly away while exploring the world. Allah will take care of them.

    The question is whether this will necessarily happen this way. My answer is not necessarily. Science can have two components -  A, acceptor of God, B, denier of God. Similarly religion can have two components, A, pursuer of science and B fearer of science. If both A components combine in one head, then science and religion both can flourish in the same man mufti-scientist. Now my personal hunch is, that such a man/ woman can do wonders, because my experience is that when human being with faith, strives, that 'Unseen Power' nudges him slightly,  in a very unseen way."

    Are you taking about some mystic Guru . There is some kind of New Age conclusion to what you are saying.

     What difference would it make if (A,A) come together?

    What is wrong with B-(denier of God) and A (pursuer of science)?


    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/16/2017 12:07:04 PM



  • Dear Ikram sb, 

     Unfortunately, you inadvertently endorsed Zakir Naik, who quotes verses from the Quran and create a premise where  ‘Quran is infallible’ .

    The Quran being the word of God is infallible. Muhammad Yunus Sb and every believing Muslim would agree on this.

    Then the entire argument revolves around it. The good thing is that you are not soo dogmatic like him. This ploy unfortunately does not work all the time. Not every one believes that Quran is sacrosanct, and everyone may not agree with your interpretation of Quran. Nevertheless, you have all the right to interpret Quran for yourself . I have read Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation of Quran , and my interpretation was completely different.  We have all the right to interpret it. In that case we should rather speak about principles , because a Salifist has the right to interpret . But the outcome is a disaster.  

    I wonder if there is any one right way to interpret Quran?

    There is no way knowing in how many ways one may interpret the Quran. However, the Quran has a way of making its meaning crystal clear and it has only one meaning. I have demonstrated the art and science of getting to the meaning of any verse a number of times.

    Do you think the faith in Allah would become secondary if hypothetically  Quran is proved unscientific.

    Most certainly, if any verse of the Quran is proved to be false, faith in religion, God and the Quran will collapse because the claim of God would be proved to be false. Who would like to believe in a false book, a false prophet or a false god? I am most certainly not a blind believer.

    Then you rebutted my rhetorical question , “Does faith require scientific validity?”

    You said that Quran does not demand blind belief but invites a person to belief based on the undeniable signs of God.  

    I repeat, faith does require scientific validity of all that can be scientifically validated. And if what can be scientifically invalidated is invalidated, there is no reason then to accept the Book as the word of God. Unfortunately, the meaning of Siddiq is poorly understood. A Siddiq is a highly knowledgeable believer and there is nothing wishy washy about his beliefs. A Muslim is asked to seek knowledge wherever he can find it because it is knowledge of the outside world that helps him to understand the Quran correctly. I gave examples of verses that were misunderstood until we gained correct knowledge from science.

     Naseer Ahmed saab not everyone believe in God , there are people around who are outright rationalist and Atheists and probably have a different take on the creation of Universe and other scientific theories. Their theories are scientifically sound . They don’t require Quran for any scientific validity or to find meaning in life. They are moral people who don’t lie, cheat and kill , and like every religion or sect there are bad apples among them.

    I have no problem with atheists. I have never said science should be validated by the Quran. Do read my article:

    Is There A Rational Basis For The Atheists To Oppose Religion?

    Do think a Christian require scientific validity to believe that Jesus died for the sins for humanity , and if that Christian happens to be a Medical Doctor, how will that make any difference to his medical practice. He won’t take his Bible to the operation theater.  

    I do not wish to comment on Christianity unless the question is raised by a Christian.

    Then your rebuttal turned personal, and you became judgmental . That’s when you drifted from the topic and started making  personal remark which was not required.   The most unrealistic part came when you asked who stops me from falsifying religion. This shouldn’t surprise you , but 9 bloggers were killed in Bangladesh for questioning religion . There will be instant death threats from Muslims. Followed by Fatwas.  The fanatics stop me from falsifying religion . I was threatened many times for questioning religion . I come from the land of Owaisi.  Now , maybe according to your interpretation of Quran I have all the right to falsify and question religion. But when there is a Fanatic at my door-step who’s about to shoot me then should I simple quote verses from the Quran or maybe explain him that a moderate elderly Muslim Mr Naseer Ahmed told me that I can falsify and criticize religion. Don’t you think that you are being unrealistic . Naseer Ahmed Sahab I’m all ears with your interpretation of Quran , but I cannot close my eyes to the dominant Salafi narrative.  Hence, I mentioned in my article, “impending possibility of blasphemy or heresy.”

    Take anyone of my articles. Each one goes against the prevailing theology common to every sect. I am in the eyes of every sect a heretic. I have even described the so call saheeh ahadith of Bukhari, Muslim etc as Satanic. So I repeat my question to you -  what prevents you from falsifying any verse of the Quran if you are in a position to do so? Forget what I say. The Quran expects you to do so if you can, when it claims that there is no discrepancy. When it says that there is no discrepancy, it expects you to look for one if you can find it. India is not Bangla Desh or Pakistan and no one has been killed for his views. The threat is more to my life than yours because I have a very consistent and holistic view of what true Islam is which is very much different from the prevailing theology of every sect. Forgive my saying so, but it is only the apostate and the hypocrite who is a coward and fears for his life.

    You now call me a moderate now but you called me a terrorist etc a number of times which apparently you do not even believe to be true. You have employed deliberate falsehood in your personal attack and vilification campaign. Also, the highly laughable charge of cut and paste although you could not substantiate the same.

    Then you rebutted on “fragile barrier”. Unfortunately you take things quite literally without understanding the gist of it . I mentioned that they are separate, but never argued that they are impenetrable. They could be juxtaposed.  Please don’t put words in my mouth. 

    Faith without reason is what leads to obscurantism. What we need are Siddiq or firm believers based on sound knowledge. Blind believers are worse than non-believers. They are emotional fools who can be easily manipulated. For too long, the religious have kept a distance from the sciences to the detriment of religion as well as to their society.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/16/2017 12:04:34 PM



  • Dear Naseer Ahmed ,

    Time is precious and I’m surprised that you have all the time in the world to vilify others in this holy month of Ramzan. The intention was not to get into the nitty gritty of Quran . Scriptures do not speak for itself people read and interpret it.  Unfortunately, you inadvertently endorsed Zakir Naik, who quotes verses from the Quran and create a premise where  ‘Quran is infallible’ . Then the entire argument revolves around it. The good thing is that you are not soo dogmatic like him. This ploy unfortunately does not work all the time. Not every one believes that Quran is sacrosanct, and everyone may not agree with your interpretation of Quran. Nevertheless, you have all the right to interpret Quran for yourself . I have read Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation of Quran , and my interpretation was completely different.  We have all the right to interpret it. In that case we should rather speak about principles , because a Salifist has the right to interpret . But the outcome is a disaster.  

    I wonder if there is any one right way to interpret Quran?

    That could be an argument. Unfortunately, I cannot take your interpretation as a dominant narrative . Your interpretation is perfectly fine and could be palatable to scientific inquiry , but  how does that matter . You cannot say that  the other party has no right to interpret it. The fact is we are not contesting the scientific validity of Quran . Do you think the faith in Allah would become secondary if hypothetically  Quran is proved unscientific.

    Then you rebutted my rhetorical question , “Does faith require scientific validity?”

    You said that Quran does not demand blind belief but invites a person to belief based on the undeniable signs of God.  Naseer Ahmed saab not everyone believe in God , there are people around who are outright rationalist and Atheists and probably have a different take on the creation of Universe and other scientific theories. Their theories are scientifically sound . They don’t require Quran for any scientific validity or to find meaning in life. They are moral people who don’t lie, cheat and kill , and like every religion or sect there are bad apples among them. Do think a Christian require scientific validity to believe that Jesus died for the sins for humanity , and if that Christian happens to be a Medical Doctor, how will that make any difference to his medical practice. He won’t take his Bible to the operation theater.  

    Then your rebuttal turned personal, and you became judgmental . That’s when you drifted from the topic and started making  personal remark which was not required.   The most unrealistic part came when you asked who stops me from falsifying religion. This shouldn’t surprise you , but 9 bloggers were killed in Bangladesh for questioning religion . There will be instant death threats from Muslims. Followed by Fatwas.  The fanatics stop me from falsifying religion . I was threatened many times for questioning religion . I come from the land of Owaisi.  Now , maybe according to your interpretation of Quran I have all the right to falsify and question religion. But when there is a Fanatic at my door-step who’s about to shoot me then should I simple quote verses from the Quran or maybe explain him that a moderate elderly Muslim Mr Naseer Ahmed told me that I can falsify and criticize religion. Don’t you think that you are being unrealistic . Naseer Ahmed Sahab I’m all ears with your interpretation of Quran , but I cannot close my eyes to the dominant Salafi narrative.  Hence, I mentioned in my article, “impending possibility of blasphemy or heresy.”

    Then you rebutted on “fragile barrier”. Unfortunately you take things quite literally without understanding the gist of it . I mentioned that they are separate , but never argued that they are impenetrable. They could be juxtaposed.  Please don’t put words in my mouth. 


    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/16/2017 10:39:56 AM



  • Sultan Shahin saab,

    Here is a list of personal attacks by Mohammed Naseer :

    “Only the other day, Ikram was laughing hysterically. He is now reduced to frothing at the mouth fit of apoplexy. This is what happens to every lying apostate!”

    “Kafir does not mean non-Muslim in the Quran. Not all polytheists are referred to as Kafir even in a single verse of the Quran. The Quran refers to even the kafir among the Muslims. There you have with logical reasoning that kafir does not mean non-Muslim. But logic is a weak point with you.”

    “A person dumb enough not to recognize an Islamophobic site when all the articles on its website are anti-Islam has the gall to argue.”

    "Ikram Ahmed asks "Is this faith freedom some freethinker organization?" Is he deaf, dumb and blind that he cannot see that it is an Islamophobic site run by either hostile apostates like him or Islamophobes pretending to be Muslim? It is his article which is very unoriginal since every Islamophobic site carries the stuff that he writes trying to prove that every celebrated Muslim was not really a Muslim.!"

    “The ad hominem is in the title of the article itself and Ikram Ahmed has the gall to talk about personal attack and ad hominem.”

    “Royalj, Why can't you use your brains to see what the subject of the discussion in the thread is? There are enough articles on the subject of your interest where you disgorge your anti-Islam and pro-Christianity spiel. And what do you think of Donald Trump's recent trip to Saudi Arabia and selling of $350 billions worth of "beautiful weapons"? How Christian is that?”

    Direct attack on Christians :

    "Supremacism is a gift of the Christians to the world. It is such supremacism that resulted in the persecution of the Jews for centuries,  culminating in the holocaust, in the enslavementof blacks and other people, in the systematic genocide of indigenous populations, in apartheid, in white supremacism and racial supremacism and in the ridiculous belief that redemption is possible only through Christ."

    Making some Bizarreconclusions without knowing me personally :

    Ikram Ahmed talks about a “fragile barrier” between science and religion that must not be broken. He seems to be unsure and therefore said “fragile” barrier but argues as if it is an impenetrable barrier. The fact is that the barrier exists only in his mind and a result of his being both poor in matters of science and of faith.

    I started attacking him because he was relentless in personal attack . There was no choice but to intervene. 


    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/16/2017 8:58:50 AM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin , 

     To begin with I was politely ignoring Naseer Ahmed. But he was incessantly spewing venom and was constantly attacking personally . He was personally attacking everyone who disagreed with his views . This started from his first post. The communication with Muhammad Yunus was cordial and civil . I kept ignoring Naseer Ahmed but he never stop .  I was compelled to intervene . 

    Regards, 
    Ikram Ahmed. 

    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/16/2017 7:05:43 AM



  • @Royalj

    “You shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31)

    The truth is that it was the Father of all Democratic countries that “tested” the weapon of mass destruction first, not once but twice on a country and that too three days apart when the result of the first one was well and truly established—you would say that was ‘just war’ and 'proportionate' according to the Bible.

    Sorry for the delay.


    By Skeptical - 6/16/2017 6:36:11 AM



  • Naseer Ahmed sb. 
    The conflict of science and religion is a deeply embedded conflict in human mind. This does not yield to easy solution. I have a volume of vague ideas in my mind which probably must have developed as my attempt to try to untangle the conflict but my personal commitments elsewhere do not give me chance to sit down and crystallize those ideas. I am writing this in a one inch by half inch box on my five inch screen. However I do consider a great role  in my life, of the Unseen Power  described in 'Qul huwallah'.  If He wills, we will do. We would need to  try to approximately. understand  to the maximum possible, the true nature of Allah. It is easy for an atheist to dismiss the existence of Allah but in the end it becomes ridiculous because, he shouts at me, "(as a Muslim) you know nothing (true) about life, you know nothing, you know nothing, YOU KNOW NOTHING (in a hysterical mode now)  - and then he collapses to say, he also knows nothing." Now why the heck was  I listening to him in the first place! The truth is, we may deny Allah, but we cannot deny existence, which is manifest. When a Hindu says world is maya, or young Muslim engineer (interestingly) says that life is a drop in the ocean, they do not deny existence, they only suggest that there is a greater reality somewhere. The position of an atheist is untenable also in the face of an absolutely perfectly designed clockwork of a world - demanding explanation, even if we cannot explain! I know the greatest philip to an atheist comes from disproportionality.  Billions of light years expanse, millions of galaxies, millions of years passing by, but here again Physics puts us to mat . The dimension of our existence lies just mid-between the extremes of micro and macro. 10 to -24>< 10 to +24 is the scale of our existence. This is a mind boggling balancing act for a Physicist. In the least he feels humbled.

    Now the position of Quran is that it goads human beings to explore physical world. Why would Allah be afraid of some scientists losing their faith in him? You may never know Allah might feel mighty happy with Einstein  types, for artistically frog-jumping into the world of unknown,  unthinkable for  an average human  being. We must acknowledgethe majesty of Allah. In my article Existence vs Non-existence I had tried to explain that Allah, being what He is, plays.  He would  be most interested to watch how his creation - 'that man in question',  frog-jumps (woman also are allowed to frog-jump).

     I think Muslim community can afford to let some electrons (humans) fly away while exploring the world. Allah will take care of them. 
    The question is whether this will necessarily happen this way. My answer is not necessarily. Science can have two components -  A, acceptor of God, B, denier of God. Similarly religion can have two components, A, pursuer of science and B fearer of science. If both A components combine in one head, then science and religion both can flourish in the same man mufti-scientist. Now my personal hunch is, that such a man/ woman can do wonders, because my experience is that when human being with faith, strives, that 'Unseen Power' nudges him slightly,  in a very unseen way. 

    Now my point is, of course we expect modern educated Muslims to break new grounds. That's precisely what we are aiming at, under New Age Islam. Your works have been pioneering in this regard,  but there are  still miles to go before coming to rest, insha Allah. Just carry on, marhaba ! When I wrote, I have opened a new folder,  My Islam,  I have taken a vow that I will  not succumb to any clergy,  other than myself (most humbly). Ibn Tabaya and Ibn Batuta, and the wheel dug up in Sumeria,  have great antique value for me but it is ridiculous for me to follow/ use them. The only document I follow is the holy Quran not as book of science of the 7th century,  but as the Word of Allah even though for an atheist it is difficult  to acknowledge the Word, in the blanks of his head. But remember if the  exceptional atheist has been able to  frog-jump into unknown territories, he might be welcomed by Allah,  without his knowing or seeking it - the philosophy of Buddha and Charak. Before I close, I beg to be excused by the atheists, if I have given them slightest discomfort. If not, then they are free to look at me, any which way.

    By Manzurul Haque - 6/16/2017 6:01:03 AM



  • Royalj Jee.  Plz watch your self against viral infections of thought, and the worst comes from the genetically modified ones. Your mixing Saudi with Iran and Egypt suggests some genetic interference.. Iran  is more comparable  to China  and Russia,  and North Korea to Saudi Arabia. 

    I don't know whether you have ever been  able to think of the difference between democracy and democratic temperament. A people who are inherently majoritarian because of their inferiority complex  rooted in their historical humiliation may have a democratic apparatus but will not have democratic outlook. On the other hand a moral structure rooted in one man receiving revelation may create a democratic temperament by training individuals to stand for the rights of individuals and weaker sections. Therefore some people are trying to seek free and fair treatment for all humans under a revelatory system - such as in Muslim countries and some people are seeking to establish majoritoan control in a democracy like India. The level of contol can be so high that mobs in a democracy can kill human beings  on mere suspicion of having eaten properly purchased bufalloe's meat! Actually democracy has become a tamasha !

    By Manzurul Haque - 6/16/2017 2:37:51 AM



  • “But,Oh,Oh,Oh! You have let so much blood to flow. Wish I had a say, To let science and religion - independently grow !”

    Poetically put across Haque Sb. The question however is, can we have scientists who are also religious and muftis who are well versed in the sciences? Historically, from the early days of Islam, and also of Christianity and Judaism, we find that those who pursued Science and Philosophy veered away from religion which is what made the religious shun philosophy and the sciences. These two have been at logger heads ever since.

    The simple reason why Muslims are more backward in the sciences than other communities is because they are more religious! Is Islam of the Quran anti science? Far from it, it encourages the pursuit of all knowledge but the Muslims are anti-modern education because of its effects on those who pursue it.

    Both science and religion have become irrational in not allowing the other its legitimate place. Philosophy carries on the charade that it can do without religion when all of Moral Philosophy rests entirely on the moral principles from religion. Without these moral principles, there would have been no science since civilizationally, we would have remained at the stage of ‘savage”. Exposing the falsehood of philosophy in denying God and arrogating to itself the moral principles from religion without acknowledging their source, insulates those who pursue the sciences from falling prey to the deceit of philosophy in making you believe that religion is unnecessary. Both can co-exist. Importantly, my interest in this subject is to break the resistance of the religious to modern education without which the Muslims will remain backward.

     

    The great period of Islam’s achievements in the sciences was also Islam’s period of innocence. They lost their innocence when they discovered that their scientists were becoming atheists. Islam turned reactionary ever since like other religions. However, since religion has a greater hold on the Muslims than on the Christians for example, this attitude has done them more harm.

     Anybody can see that my diagnosis of the problem is 100% original which is mainly the reason why it is opposed so vehemently. The mediocre feel that if what I say is true, then why have no one else said the same thing before. 

    It is not difficult to disprove what I say if it is false, but far from being false, the evidence of its truth is overwhelming. Right upto the modern day, Kant, while formulating philosophy's most celebrated moral philosophy in the  "the supreme principle of morality", ended up only restating the  Golden principle from religion!



    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/15/2017 11:47:31 PM



  • Hats Off, there is far more to what I say. You do me injustice by remembering only one article!

    1. Kafir does not mean non-Muslim in the Quran. Not all polytheists are referred to as Kafir even in a single verse of the Quran. The Quran refers to even the kafir among the Muslims. There you have with logical reasoning that kafir does not mean non-Muslim. But logic is a weak point with you.

    2. In the Quran, shuhuda/shaheed does not mean those slain in the cause of Allah . These are invariably referred to only as qutelu fi sabilillah. Shuhuda means (exemplary) witnesses and paragons of Islamic virtues.

    3. The Quran does not support the concept of "soul" at all.

    4. The Quran does not support the concept of Triple Talaq whether given in one sitting or given in three sittings. What it refers to are the two stages of divorce. The first pronouncement followed by the mandatory period of iddat after which either they part as a divorced couple which makes the divorce irrevocable or they reconcile. There is no third stage. Strictly speaking, a single pronouncement is enough after which the wife can walk out at the end of the period of iddat if reconciliation has not taken place during the iddat period. She does not have to wait for a second pronouncement.

    5. The Quran allows two women to witness a legal document jointly. This is a concession to women and not a legal requirement. Two women can therefore testify jointly which will be treated as a single testimony. The Quran does not require two women to give independent testimonies and treat these as one. It is therefore incorrect to say that two testimonies of a women equal that of one man.

    6. The Quran does not permit war for ideological reasons, or for establishing any truth or for the faith to prevail or spread. The Quran permits war only to fight oppression and to establish justice and the law of Allah which includes "Let there be no compulsion in religion".

    7. The Quran does not allow war by non-state actors, or acts of rebellion or even civil wars. Only the legitimate ruler with a territory under his political control  can wage a war with his people alone. The Quran's verses regarding fighting were only applicable to the Muslims who were with the Prophet in Medina. These were not applicable to those who had stayed behind in Mecca unless they first migrated to join the Prophet in Medina. Any act to rebellion, terrorism or a civil war by Muslims remaining behind in Mecca was therefore not permissible. This rule applies to this day putting in perspective all acts of terrorism as against Islam.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/15/2017 11:10:43 PM



  • It was great to see the word fight.

    जींस तरह से लीखते है ये, अंवल ज्ञानी लोग, लगता है, रास्ते मे मिलते तो कपड़े फाड़ देते. 

    रोज़ा जा चल रहा है, लाल ख़ून अब काला हो चूका है, डिजीटल साही बनकर, पन्नेह पर उतर रहा है उम्मीद थी फूल बन के महक रहा हो. जय मूम्बा देवी.



    By Aayina - 6/15/2017 10:54:33 PM



  • mr. naseer ahmed's signal contribution to islamic obfuscation is to re-write the dictionary to imply that kaffir/kuffar does not mean non-muslim.

    but the defeaning silence from the sufis and the great exegete on this earth-shattering discovery tells a very different story.

    By hats off! - 6/15/2017 6:08:55 PM



  • Hi Manzurul, you are back on track. I love your comments.
    By Royalj - 6/15/2017 4:48:40 PM



  •  @Septicals, I love young Muslims take part in the discussion. You should know that Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt are totalitarian states like North Korea. Turkey is slowly becoming totalitarian. They are more prone to use atomic bombs than the democratic governments. If they make monumental mistake their ruling parties will not come to power for generations. Many believed, during Iran-Iraq eight year war, Ayatollah/ Rasolallah Khomenei or Saddam would have used atomic bomb if they had. The war was so ferocious that they both started bombing civilian targets. When you grow up you will know atomic bombs know no borders. For instance if Iran use an atomic bomb in Israel not only West bank Muslims, but Gaza Muslims also will die.

    “You shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31)


    By Royalj - 6/15/2017 4:47:03 PM



  • Dear Ikram Saheb. Too much bad blood on this page. I wish you all could cease fire at least for the month of Ramazan. 
    One thing, I can't understand. Your cut-paste comment.  Naseer Saheb is an original thinker. His articles have brought new insights. You may or may not agree. But cut-paste? 

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/15/2017 6:35:39 AM



  • But,Oh,Oh,Oh! You have let so much blood to flow. Wish I had a say, To let science and religion - independently grow !
    By Manzurul Haque - 6/15/2017 4:08:38 AM



  • Royalj ji. Hammer the prostitute may mean something else. Please rectify. Also please don't use screw !
    By Manzurul Haque - 6/15/2017 3:59:22 AM



  • Good on ya.

    “…without knowing, as a consequence, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey will also subsequently build atomic bombs, …”

    USA, UK, France, Russia, China, Israel, …………………………………………….India, Pakistan, North Korea!

    They all know the consequences, no?


    By Skeptical - 6/14/2017 1:32:10 AM



  • Only the other day, Ikram was laughing hysterically. He is now reduced to frothing at the mouth fit of apoplexy. This is what happens to every lying apostate! 
    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/14/2017 1:29:21 AM



  • Mohammad (Mr.Yunus) I have gone through your articles but they are not tackling the core issues such as “Where do these hundreds of world-wide Jihadi groups got the ideas of terrorism”. If you had a genuine search, you would have thanked me for identifying at least two core issues; Islamic supremacism and world caliphate.

    After seeing the glorious days of Caliph Abu bucker al Baghdadi I have imagined how America would look like after the glad tidings. Many Jihadists believe world caliphate means heaven on earth. We need to prove to the Jihadists that it will be hell on earth. I always emphasize self-criticism. I think Sultan is attempting to tackle some core issues when he wrote “If Islam Means Peace, Why Is Much Of Its theology Soaked In Hatred, Humiliation, And Offensive War?” Many Muslim intellectuals hardly address the core issues but always ready to criticize the West. Who is to blame if Donald Trump committed to give 100 billion dollar worth arms to Saudi Arabia? If my son goes to a prostitute should I go and hammer the prostitute? The onus rests with holy Saudis, who never allow other religious books, pictures, symbols etc. into their country, nor allow the infidels inside Mecca and Medina. .

    So the holy Saudis should decide whether to buy sophisticated arms and attack fellow Muslims in Yemen and other Muslims. The important reason they buy arms in order to protect their country from another holy person perhaps second to prophet Mohammad, His Holiness Ayatollah Khamenei, who is hell bent on producing atomic bomb, without knowing, as a consequence, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey will also subsequently build atomic bombs, making Middle East a dangerous place. Mohammad, have you or Naseer ever asked why a Japanese (famous for Harakiri) suicide bomber did not blast an American restaurant for the sins of nuking two cities? Or Why a Jewish suicide bomber did not do the same to Germany for gassing six million Jews? If you have asked such questions you would have seen the panoramic view of Islamic world vis a vis the rest of the world.

    Then you would have known the foolishness of America trying to establish democracy in Afghanistan and in the Middle East.After the World war it has successfully help established democracy in Germany, Japan, South Korea and ultimately Russia. Hope you will write about the core issues that Islam faces today rather than ‘countering terrorism’ ‘warning radicalization’ Allah warns those who are lukewarm. Who are these lukewarm people? Edmund Burk who has taken cue from Scripture, said “Evil triumphs because good people do nothing” “ I know your deeds. So because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth” (Revelations 3:16)


    By Royalj - 6/13/2017 8:34:22 PM



  • Allah is not omnipotent as we inclined to believe. He cannot make 2+2=5. The fact is He governs by laws. We have identified some of His laws are as scientific laws, mathematical laws etc. Scriptures ask around 4000 years ago “Do you know how the clouds hang poised?” (Job 37:16). We now know that condensed moisture descending by gravity, meets warmer temperatures rising from the land. Then that moisture then changes into vapour and ascends back into the air. That is a natural explanation for the phenomenon.

    But natural phenomenon are not final answers. Clouds float because God in his wisdom has ordered the natural laws in such a way they reveal the “wonders of Him who has perfect knowledge” He does so to call us to wonder and adoration.

    Why does zakir Naik requires scientific evidence to prove Koran is a word of God? It is nothing but his supremacism requires so.

    Why he wants to prove Koran was not fabricated or altered for centuries? Because he wants to prove that Allah has shown no concern to protect the holy books of Moses, Davis and Jesus from corruption, but He has taken great concern to protect Koran.


    By Royalj - 6/13/2017 8:30:58 PM



  • Cut copy Paste terrorist Naseer Ahmed . The best word to describe you is Beghairat . maybe you are frustrated or you need some counselling, either way I'm least interested in your stupid arguments and you keep posting nonsense. 

    "Now here is another sweeping statement form you ."

    You said .."From trying to prove that every Muslim scientist was a heretic -" 

     I never said all Muslim scientist were heretics . I said, "Many great thinkers in the Muslim world were Heretics"  ..Comprehension problem looks like you are sea . Are you by the way educated?

    How many books have you read in your entire life?

    Did you read any books on philosophy?

    I doubt with all the gibberish arguments and the  venom that you are spewing.  I  wonder how you get time to write such long stupid comments , which is cut copy paste .
     Are you unemployed? 

    Get a life 

     And stop this nonsense. You aren't making any sense now . You have nothing original to say .  



    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/13/2017 3:17:00 PM



  • Hats Off's "Islam 101" is a vicious invention of Hats Off himself to buttress his relentless  hate war against Islam. Diversity of views is as vigorous in Islam as in any of the world's major religions.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 6/12/2017 12:50:00 PM



  • "its me against my brother. me and my brother against our cousins. me my brother and cousins against my tribe. it me, my brother, my cousins and my tribe against other tribes. me, my brother, my cousins, my tribe and muslims against the world" - islam 101.

    this is what islam has successfully done to those brought under its sway. the prophet kept the poeple under a single flag with an iron hand. as soon as he died, tribalism triumphed and is continuing unabated to this day.

    this forum faithfully follows this tribalism. formalized tribalism is another name of islam.

    By hats off! - 6/12/2017 5:32:03 AM



  • ....and also the article:

     Causes For The Rise And Fall Of The Muslims

    This article which was written four years back, does not credit religious beliefs or religiosity for the great achievements, but for the environment of individual freedoms, of academic independence and tolerance of other views and faiths established under Muslim rule. 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/12/2017 1:09:09 AM



  • A person dumb enough not to recognize an Islamophobic site when all the articles on its website are anti-Islam has the gall to argue! From trying to prove that every Muslim scientist was a heretic, he is now engaged in proving how many Christian scientists are believing and practicing Christians! He is completely at sea!

     What has the quality of science education in Pakistan got to do with what I said? Did I say that the Quran should be treated as a book of science? What I said was the reverse - every ayat that has to do with this world or a subject of science is amenable for validation or invalidation by science. I didn't say Science should be validated by Quranic verses. Also, what I said was that it is science that has helped us understand several of the verses of the Quran which were misunderstood earlier giving specific examples.  I didn’t say that the Quran helped in scientific breakthroughs. The difference however escapes the blockhead that Ikram is.

     As far as Dr Naik’s response to the question is concerned, it can be easily shown to be false, without cutting off one’s nose to spite the face as the blockhead Ikram has done, copying what every Islamophobic site has done, which is to discredit every Muslim scientist as a “heretic”.

     The world over, and among the followers of all religions, the correlation between advancement in science and religiosity has been negative, and more so among the Muslims. The reason why the Muslims are more backward in science than other communities, is because they are far more religious. Therefore, Naik exhorting Muslims to get closer to religion will make the Muslims more backward in science and not the other way around. This, however, need not be so, and was not so in the past, when Islam was in its ascendancy and at its peak. That was a period of tremendous dynamism in every field and great achievements by the Islamic society in all the sciences. Those were the days when Greek Philosophy and the sciences were taught in the madrassas. However, the anti-God slant in Greek Philosophy soon showed its effect and those who pursued Greek Philosophy and the sciences began showing a tendency to reject God. It was Imam Ghazali, who made the Muslims turn reactionary and banned the study of Greek Philosophy and the sciences in the madrassas. The marked bias against modern education continues to this day in our madrassas.

     What I have shown, is that the main objective of the scriptures has been to lay down the law and the rules for a moral way of living and in this sphere, it remains supreme having contributed 100% of the moral principles. The philosophers have not contributed a single moral principle in the entire recorded history of philosophy starting around 600 BC. Even Kant’s most celebrated “supreme principle of morality” only rephrased the Golden principle from religion. The contribution of the philosophers in the field of ethics has however been to make us understand the utilitarian value of every moral principle. When every moral principle is seen to be rational in hind sight, the philosophers assume that these have been be rationally derived and are not divine revelations. Religion and God are assumed by them to be a human construct. If only Philosophy had succeeded in giving us one moral principle, this stance would have been tenable but not when every moral principle has come to us from religion only. There is a distinct sphere in which the scriptures are inimitable and incomparable and that is in giving us the deen or the moral way of living. Man has built only on these principles, and all their laws are based on the moral principles from religion. Once the utilitarian value of a moral principle becomes clear, man is then capable of building on it and framing necessary laws to maximize on the utilitarian value which changes from time to time. The laws should and do change from time to time but the principles behind them are eternal.

     Man has proved to be excellent in every utilitarian discipline but quite at sea in the moral sphere. Religion laid down the rules and laws of proper conduct and behaviour for humans to follow. These were initially followed as a religious duty but as the utilitarian value became obvious, these were followed for their own sake and made part of our laws.

     We have therefore, a perfectly rational basis to believe in God, who gave us the moral way of living, without which we would have remained savages to this day. None of our achievements would have been possible, if we had not learnt to trust others and cooperate with each other. This trust is based on shared values which were first given to us by religion. Else, there was only distrust and killing of each other. Today, it is based on the laws and systems of governance but beyond the laws and its arms to implement the same, voluntary moral behaviour continues to be important. God has given us the intelligence to recognize and accept our shortcoming in this sphere, and to appreciate the role that God has played in our lives, helping us to become what we have become. The rational basis for belief in the existence of God is therefore undeniable. God has also equipped us to excel in all utilitarian disciplines using our intellect and this is the domain of science. There is no reason why we should not use the God given gift and excel in science and as shown, it is science that helps us understand our scriptures better. With such an understanding, the anti-God slant in modern education can be completely neutralised, and Muslims can take to the sciences without the fear that doing so may turn them into atheists.

     These topics have been covered in detail in my articles:

     Science and Religion

    Deen-e-Islam or the Moral Way of Living in Islam

    The Quran and the Golden Rule: ‘Do unto Others as You Would Have Them Do unto You’

    An Exposition of the Verse of Light (Ayat al-Nur)


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/12/2017 12:52:07 AM



  • Some bad habits are infectious . Unfortunately I was infected by a bigot whose name is Naseer Ahmed . Let me Copy paste some excerpts from  Pavez Hoodbhoy article. Hope he is not an Islamophobe or an Anti Muslim. 

     Friends please take a closer look at Naseer Ahmed world-view which palatable to the present education system of Pakistan.

    when Pakistani students open a physics or biology textbook, it is sometimes unclear whether they are actually learning science or, instead, theology. The reason: every science textbook, published by a government-run textbook board in Pakistan, by law must contain in its first chapter how Allah made our world, as well as how Muslims and Pakistanis have created science. - 

    Demanding that science and faith be tied together has resulted in national bewilderment and mass intellectual enfeeblement. Millions of Pakistanis have studied science subjects in school and then gone on to study technical, science-based subjects in college and university. And yet most — including science teachers — would flunk if given even the simplest science quiz.

    How did this come about? Let’s take a quick browse through a current 10th grade physics book. The introductory section has the customary holy verses. These are followed by a comical overview of the history of physics. Newton and Einstein — the two greatest names — are unmentioned. Instead there’s Ptolemy the Greek, Al-Kindi, Al-Beruni, Ibn-e-Haytham, A.Q. Khan, and — amusingly — the heretical Abdus Salam.

    The end-of-chapter exercises test the mettle of students with such questions as: Mark true/false; A) The first revelation sent to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) was about the creation of Heaven? B) The pin-hole camera was invented by Ibn-e-Haytham? C) Al-Beruni declared that Sind was an underwater valley that gradually filled with sand? D) Islam teaches that only men must acquire knowledge?

    Dear Reader: You may well gasp in disbelief, or just hold your head in despair. How could Pakistan’s collective intelligence and the quality of what we teach our children have sunk so low? To see more such questions, or to check my translation from Urdu into English, please visit the website http://eacpe.org/ where relevant pages from the above text (as well as from those discussed below) have been scanned and posted.

    Take another physics book — this one (English) is for sixth-grade students. It makes abundantly clear its discomfort with the modern understanding of our universe’s beginning. The theory of the Big Bang is attributed to “a priest, George Lamaitre [sic] of Belgium”. The authors cunningly mention his faith hoping to discredit his science. Continuing, they declare that “although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved”.

    While Georges Lemaître was indeed a Catholic priest, he was so much more. A professor of physics, he worked out the expanding universe solution to Einstein’s equations. Lemaître insisted on separating science from religion; he had publicly chided Pope Pius XII when the pontiff grandly declared that Lemaître’s results provided a scientific validation to Catholicism.

     

    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/11/2017 11:34:50 AM



  • Naseer Ahmed :Nobody however tries to discredit the Jews or the Christians of their achievements in science because their scientists turned atheist -om/islam-f

    Naseer Ahmed;Nobody however tries to discredit the Jews or the Christians of their achievements in science because their scientists turned atheist.  That is because phobia against other religions is not as rampant. - See more at: 

    Mr Naseer Ahmed is there something wrong with you, are you Pathological liar ?

    You are third grade apologist. Who is brainwashing you ?

    Coming to your first response phobia . Well! ask Asia Bibi a Christian women from Pakistan who is in Jail under some stupid blasphemy charged. She'll rather explain you what is Christian phobia. THE Yezidi women will explain you what is persecution and phobia . The Armenians will tell you about phobias and persecution . Muslims majority countries have a third rate record in treating minorities and you have the audacity to talk about persecution and Islamophobia . You are shameless . 

    Another sweeping statement without any validation . There are Christian and Jewish scientist around . Not everyone is Atheist. You generalize everything like an idiot. There are even born again Christians like Francis Sellers Collins . He's American physician-geneticist noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project. This man follows Christianity . At least you should have googles or wikipedia once before making these brazen generalizations. Anyways  it's useless to convince a Jihadi like you 
    Please start something original . My views on religion and science is seconded by Pervez Hoodbhoy. Who is a Pakistani nuclear physicist. You should read his works.But it seems like a snowball chance that a Jihadi like you will read them . Stop copy pasting. 

    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/11/2017 11:23:26 AM



  • ROFL ...Naseer Ahmed said.."Also, it should be obvious to all, that every single verse of the Quran that touches a subject of science, is amenable for validation or invalidation" This is hilarious. How can a person lose is objectivity . Anyways blinded by faith a person can do absurd things.Try invalidating or amend anything from the scriptures and your head will be chopped . The Mullahs will start the Fatwabazi . This person is strange . Some sanity please. where are you Muhamad Yunus ?
    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/11/2017 11:03:31 AM



  • Cut copy paste Jihadi Naseer Ahmed back to his auqat . One more stupid word,  'anti-God'. There is nothing called as Anti -God . It maybe some heavy metal band. You can either call them Atheist or agnostic . This what happens with Jihadi education . Anyways when is the next bomb blast Naseer Ahmed . Are you involved with some terrorist organization? , your information seems to be precise about Islamophobe organizations. Are you planning to kill them . I know your jihadi mind must be plotting some plan. Anyways you have nothing worth to contribute and discuss. So next time join TALIBAN OR ISIS, or maybe Zoker Naiks organization . Phukat kaa zakal mikjaiga . Par Arab ki chamhagiiri karna parega . Tum par too thokengay bhi nahi . You are a second grade Muslim for an Arab .   
    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/11/2017 10:58:33 AM



  • Ikram Ahmed asks "Is this faith freedom some freethinker organization?" Is he deaf, dumb and blind that he cannot see that it is an Islamophobic site run by either hostile apostates like him or Islamophobes pretending to be Muslim? It is his article which is very unoriginal since every Islamophobic site carries the stuff that he writes trying to prove that every celebrated Muslim was not really a Muslim.

    I have pointed out the heavy anti-God slant in Greek Philosophy as well as modern education and there is nothing surprising about scientists veering towards atheism. This is true of all scientists whether they are born as a Jew, Christian, Hindu or Muslim. Nobody however tries to discredit the Jews or the Christians of their achievements in science because their scientists turned atheist.  That is because phobia against other religions is not as rampant. While, I can understand Islamophobia among the Christians and other people, and I can understand apostasy among Muslims, it takes a particularly vile and hostile apostate to indulge in Islamophobia.

    Ikram Ahmed is a liar. He has not backed up his charge of cut and paste with evidence. Neither can he back up a patently false charge. Such is the stuff the disgusting Islamophobes and hostile apostates are made of.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/10/2017 10:58:13 PM



  • This is what I said “As discussed in my article cited above, the Quran itself invites man to undertake the falsification test of its claims and if he cannot do that, then be warned about the consequences if he continues to rebel and fail to submit to God and His Deen."

    Ikram Ahmed’s response is:

     “I wonder why he's worried about me , and warning me of some weird consequences, instead of that he should be worrying about his amal and stop preaching others. Why is he forcing me to submit to God and His Deen." is he a Jihadi or some fanatic?”

    From what I said, it is clear that it is the Quran that is warning and I have paraphrased a verse from the Quran from my memory. The exact verse is below:

    (2:23) And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true. (24) But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith.

    Ikram Ahmed apparently has no knowledge of the Quran to know what was being said. However, if he had only read my cited article: Science and Religion, he would have known what was being said where the relevant verses are cited and the Quran’s challenge of the  falsifiability test discussed in detail. While the Ikram Ahmed says that “religion is not always open to the idea of falsification”, the Quran openly challenges man to falsify the Quran! 

    Also, it should be obvious to all, that every single verse of the Quran that touches a subject of science, is amenable for validation or invalidation. There are verses in the Quran that touch many subjects. In one of my comments below, I have discussed verses on procreation and genetics. These verses were misunderstood and explained poorly because they touched upon knowledge, which was discovered by man 12 centuries later. 

    Ikram Ahmed makes the empty and laughable charge of cut and paste. There is plenty of stuff available on the www covering the subject of "Quran and Science". Let him point out anything that I have discussed in my comments and articles that he can find on the www. The problem people have with what I say is not that  somebody has said the same thing before, but the fact that nobody has said it before. 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/10/2017 12:18:07 PM



  • Zakaria Virk Is this faith freedom some freethinker organization ?
    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/10/2017 12:10:00 PM



  • Cut copy paste is not refuting . ROFL ..comprehensively refuted . You've been ignored and considered not worthy of any reply . Anyways there are people who are good enough in counter arguments and understand what debating is all about . Learn from them.  
    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/10/2017 12:07:47 PM



  • The ad hominem is in the title of the article itself and Ikram Ahmed has the gall to talk about personal attack and ad hominem.

    He talks about cut and paste. Can he show even one sentence or a single idea which is cut and paste?

    All his arguments have been comprehensively refuted.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/10/2017 11:05:27 AM



  • More gibberish and cut copy paste material lol ...nothing original . 
    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/10/2017 10:19:53 AM



  • It is true Muslim scientists were free thinkers. I liked the article for refuting Mr Naik reference to al-Razi. I suggest this .faithfreedom.org/Articles/SherKhan50401.htm
    Also read the Doubt by Jennifer M. Hecht and Sara Strousma book. For Urdu reader i have briefly touched upon the religious views of Muslim Scientists in "111 Muslim Sciencedan" published from Varanasi, India 2014. 

    By Zakaria Virk - 6/10/2017 6:49:45 AM



  • Dear Royal j,

    All sensible Muslims are as opposed to ISIS as any Christian or non-Muslim because they all know what will happen if that brand of Islam (or anti-Islam) takes root in their land.

    You have proved to be gracious by not confusing the debate and by adamantly sticking to a point you tried to make cursorily though not quite convincingly. 

    You must be aware that ISIS and other terror outfits are driven by an extremists anti-Islamic ideology that comes from countries which have close ties with America. In his recent visit American President committed over 100 billion dollar arms sale to Saudi Arabia but made no overture about the militant strain of wahabi-salafi ideology that is exported from there. So there is no point trying to convince Naseer Sahab about the evils of terrorism. You should try to influence through papal channels the Western powers who remain the ultimate financier and arms supplier to these groups. 

    As for writing articles denouncing or outlawing them, below is a list and if you wish to enhance your understanding of this issue, you may read them but I have seen many brilliant people making passing remarks as it suits them but when you try to explain things out, they either pick at you as our friend picked at Naseer Sahab on this very thread, or change the subject. 

    List of articles posted over last four years - the captions for which speak for themselves:

    1.      A COMPREHENSIVE AND CONCLUSIVE REFUTATION OF “AZAN: A CALL TO JIHAD - ON THE ROAD TO KHILAFAH” DATED MARCH 2013

    http://www.newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/‘azan--a-call-to-jihad---on-the-road-to-khilafah’--a-comprehensive-and-conclusive-refutation-by-an-authoritative-quran-exegete/d/11812

     

    2.      Call For International Fatwas To Declare The Terrorists Who Advocate Wanton Killing Of Innocent People In The Name Of Islam As ‘Terrorist Apostates’, Like The Kharijites Of Early Islam

     

    http://www.newageislam.com/islam,terrorism-and-jihad/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/call-for-international-fatwas-to-declare-the-terrorists-who-advocate-wanton-killing-of-innocent-people-in-the-name-of-islam-as-‘terrorist-apostates’,-like-the-kharijites-of-early-islam/d/14090.

     

    3.      Declare The ISIS As The Kharijites (Those Who Seceded From Islam) As This Article Demonstrates And Declares: Global SOS To The Ulama, Muftis, Intellectuals And Scholars Of Islam

     

    http://www.newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/declare-the-isis-as-the-kharijites-(those-who-seceded-from-islam)-as-this-article-demonstrates-and-declares--global-sos-to-the-ulama,-muftis,-intellectuals-and-scholars-of-islam/d/101373

     

     

    4.      The ISIS And Its Likes – The Muslim Violent Extremists Of This Era Must Be Outlawed On Historical Precedent To Save The Middle East From A Tsunami Of Bloodshed And The World From A Clash Of Civilizations

     

    http://www.newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/the-isis-and-its-likes–-the-muslim-violent-extremists-must-be-outlawed-to-save-the-middle-east-from-a-tsunami-of-bloodshed-and-the-world-from-a-clash-of-civilizations/d/102650

     

    5.      Countering Violent Terrorism – Muslim Community Leaders Must Warn Youngsters against the Dangers of Radicalization

                                                                                                                                          

    http://www.newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/countering-violent-terrorism-–-muslim-community-leaders-must-warn-youngsters-against-the-dangers-of-radicalization/d/102767

     

    6.      Countering Violent Extremism – Muslim Ulama And Custodians Of Faith Must Avert A Potential Holocaust

    http://newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/countering-violent-extremism-–-muslim-ulema-and-custodians-of-faith-must-avert-a-potential-holocaust/d/103021

     

    7.      The Heinous Crimes That ISIS Is Perpetrating Totally Opposed To Islam And Those Killed Fighting For ISIS May Earn Divine Wrath Instead Of Paradise And ‘Hurs’ – An SOS To All Mosque Imams

     

    http://www.newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/the-heinous-crimes-that-isis-is-perpetrating-totally-opposed-to-islam-and-those-killed-fighting-for-isis-may-earn-divine-wrath-instead-of-paradise-and-‘hurs’-–-an-sos-to-all-mosque-imams/d/102227

     

    1.     8. Radicalism under the banner of Islam is mutation of Islam into a Cult of Satan – so Muslims must create an anti-Radicalization narrative to defeat and disown it.  Part-1

    http://www.newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/radicalism-under-the-banner-of-islam-is-mutation-of-islam-into-a-cult-of-satan-–-so-muslims-must-create-an-anti-radicalization-narrative-to-defeat-and-disown-it-–-part-1/d/109310



    By muhammd yunus - 6/10/2017 4:30:35 AM



  • Royalj, 

    Why can't you use your brains to see what the subject of the discussion in the thread is? 

    There are enough articles on the subject of your interest where you disgorge your anti-Islam and pro-Christianity spiel. And what do you think of Donald Trump's recent trip to Saudi Arabia and selling of $350 billions worth of "beautiful weapons"? How Christian is that?
     

    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/10/2017 4:14:09 AM



  • I respect you muhammad yunus and I'm learning from your posts . 

    But why is Naseer Ahmed offended when Royal made this statement . "Who will understand the spiritual truths of Koran? Of course the meek and the humble". 

    Why get offended and start attacking Christianity .


    The below statements he made in the earlier posts were bizarre . There no counter argument . Only preaching and nothing original.   

    Naseer Ahmed said "He further says “It is a bizarre idea to use scientific principle to justify religion.”
    That is a bizarre statement to make! What is Ikram Ahmed - a blind believer or an apostate? He appears to be an apostate who is extremely uncomfortable when the Quran is shown to be a divinely inspired message, without a flaw and amenable to scientific scrutiny of any and all of its verses touching almost every subject known to man.
    He further says “religion is not always open to the idea of falsification”


    Naseer Ahmed said "He further says “religion is not always open to the idea of falsification”
    That is a nonsensical statement to make. What prevents Ikram Ahmed from falsifying religion if he can do it? As discussed in my article cited above, the Quran itself invites man to undertake the falsification test of its claims and if he cannot do that, then be warned about the consequences if he continues to rebel and fail to submit to God and His Deen."

    I wonder why he's worried about me , and warning me of some weird consequences, instead of that he should be worrying about his amal and stop preaching others. Why is he forcing me to submit to God and His Deen." is he a Jihadi or some fanatic?  I don't respond to Jihadis. I respect you Yunus saab please understand this is a forum to discuss to make personal remarks and judge other faith . As you mentioned in your earlier post 'we are in doctrinal phase'. 

    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/10/2017 4:03:16 AM



  • Royalj , Mr Naseer Ahmed is a Jihadi Islamist who couldn't comprehend your post and made some personal remarks . The best place for him is Taliban or ISIS where his myopic world view will come true.  I think your points were sensible , but this man never argues but makes personal remarks. There is nothing original about his writings . He's very similar to his Guru 'Joker Nalayak'. His long posts are jarring. Maybe, a frustrated soul with no career option. He couldn't comprehend your simple point that you were criticizing Muslims and not their belief system. I think this was excellent . 
    "
    Who will understand the spiritual truths of Koran? Of course the meek and the humble."

    I think he should stop the cut copy  paste . By the way there are sensible people like Muhammd yunus were discussion is possible .

    Also , there is another troll hats off who should stop trolling. 

    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/10/2017 3:39:52 AM



  • To conclude, belief can be as rational as you can get in Physics for example, and rejection of belief has been shown to be irrational, since it means turning a blind eye and paying a deaf ear to the easily demonstrable truth of the inimitability of the scriptures on the most important aspect of our lives which is the foundation of our civilization.

    Science does not depend on blind belief in the non-existence of God either. That is an irrational and unscientific position to take. A religion based on scriptures, is amenable to scientific scrutiny of every verse that deals with this world, and therefore for validation or invalidation of its truth claims.

    The marked anti-God slant in the manner in which the Sciences are taught, is responsible for many who pursue the sciences turning against religion. This was true of those who pursued Greek Philosophy in the past and true of those who pursue modern education today. This in turn, has created a marked anti-modern education slant among the followers of a religion.

    Neither the anti-God stance of modern education, nor the anti-modern education stance of the followers of a religion is justified in these times. Historically speaking, the stance was justified because scientists were persecuted by bigoted priests of organized religion especially Christianity and many of those who took up the sciences, turned against religion. Thanks to science, faith in a religion can today be as rational as belief in any theory of science and both can co-exist without compromising on the objective and universal standards of rationality. To keep Science and religion apart, would be to let faith remain in the clutches of the bigots, the superstitious, and the frauds, and to allow obscurantism and extremism to thrive. The Quran, specifically challenges its truth claims to be tested and to explore and seek knowledge. As shown in my comments, many of its verses were misunderstood, and could be understood correctly only when we gained accurate knowledge of our world from the pursuit of knowledge, which the Quran very much exhorts. As a matter of fact, those who do not pursue the study of science, ignore an important tenet of Islam.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/10/2017 12:32:46 AM



  • Dear hats off!

    Rather than thanking Naseer Sahab for countering Royal j's jibe in a scholarly manner, you post a left handed remark and ridicule the most prestigious technological institution of India.

    What are you after on this forum. If you think you are great, then please remember this quote from Cicero:
    "The higher we are placed, the more humbly we should walk. Marcus Tullius Cicero
    By muhammd yunus - 6/9/2017 11:54:31 PM



  • Hats Off talking of manners! I had to laugh!


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 6/9/2017 11:43:00 PM



  • Hats Off can only wistfully wonder what they teach at the IIT. The question may well be asked, 'what do they not teach?'


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/9/2017 11:13:41 PM



  • Thanks Naseer for your comments. I don’t intend to hurt anyone here or to find cheap thrills. I cannot help if truth hurts. I readily concede the fact that Christians are sinners and persecuted the Jews. They rightly or wrongly thought that Jews killed their spiritual leader on the cross. However Pope John Paul made a visit to Jerusalem and sought forgiveness for the sins, including holocaust. I think American government cannot take responsibility for the killings of indigenous population from 1492 to 1776, since there was no government. Europeans migrated to America not with the intention of killing the indigenous people. They attacked with bow and arrow, these people retaliated with guns. From time immemorial assimilation of races takes place. In this case we have 500 year records. Anyhow it should be appreciated within 200 years from 1776 the white supremacists have put a black man in the White House.

    Naseer since you are knowledgeable, I always think you are an ideal person to convince the Jihadi youth about the foolishness of world caliphate. Let us imagine for a while of glad tidings and the capture of USA by the ISIS/Taliban/Boko Haram. What will be USA like? Half of the population (150 million) will lose all type of jobs and will be bundled up with black clothes, and become children producing machines. Men in the cinema industry (Hollywood), in music industry, in the dog food industry, all type of liquor/wine industry, all the artists in TV programmes, will lose jobs. All churches will be converted mosques. All those Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, humanists, Shias, Ahmadis, Sufis who refused to accept their version of Islam will have to pay jizya or be beheaded. In short America will become like what we see in Syria today.

    If you agree with the above scenario please write an article. Thanks.

    Search me O Allah, and know my heart, and see if there is any wicked way in me and lead me in the everlasting” (psalm 139:23-24).


    By Royalj - 6/9/2017 11:10:27 PM



  • mr. naseer ahmed lecturing on manners is the best joke of the year!

    looks like they even teach manners in the IIT.

    By hats off! - 6/9/2017 9:05:08 PM



  • Supremacism is a gift of the Christians to the world. It is such supremacism that resulted in the persecution of the Jews for centuries,  culminating in the holocaust, in the enslavementof blacks and other people, in the systematic genocide of indigenous populations, in apartheid, in white supremacism and racial supremacism and in the ridiculous belief that redemption is possible only through Christ.

    Worry about Christian supremacism rather than lecture on this website interjecting in an ill mannered way.

    I can see that you are out here for some cheap thrills Mr Royalj.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/9/2017 11:28:06 AM



  •  Will the 17 rakats of prayer make the devotees humble before Allah and peaceful before the people?  Who will understand the spiritual truths of Koran? Of course the meek and the humble.

    To my little understanding, Islamic supremacism is the main enemy of Islam.

    It is Islamic supremacism that makes the existential threat to Islam from its ardent followers.

    It is Islamic supremacism that the Iran Parliamentarians chant “Death to America”. Although IS claimed responsibility for the attack, and the whole world believe such a terrorist attack can be executed only by them, why Iran could not accept the fact? Because it is a disgrace that they could not prevent it. It is infra-dig.  In order to save face they shout ‘Death to America’ unnecessarily infuriating 90 million Iranians.

    It is Islamic supremacism that Qatar shows defiance and challenging all the neighboring Arab and other Muslim countries.

    It is Islamic supremacism that Pakistan, instead of thanking Allah for relieving it from the clutches of ‘cruel Hindu hegemony’, and showcasing the world of a superior Islamic republic, it continues for the last 70 years in offensive wars and terrorism thus making Pakistan a beggar state.

    It is Islamic supremacism that people of Kashmir, Palestine, Mindanao, Myanmar, are unable to live under a regional set up, and demand sovereign states.

    It is Islamic supremacism that  90% of Muslims could not appreciate the benefits of Democracy, even after seeing what Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, Mubarak have done to them, even after seeing that Trump, the mighty President, could not execute the evil ‘Muslim Ban’ in a democratic set up. How many Muslims have appreciated such democratic values? Almost no one.

    It is Islamic Supremacism that deny sober judgement of an issue; the excessive demands of Muslim refugees made multi-culturism a failure in the West. It is really sad.

    Allah says “Everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think” (Romans 12.3)

    “Where there is no vision people perish” (proverbs 29:18)

    “Allah opposes the proud and give grace to the humble” (James 4:6)


    By Royalj - 6/9/2017 3:10:18 AM



  • Dear Yunus Sb,

    You say “the truth is the Qur'anic diction had stunned its immediate audience and many turned away from it like a frightened donkey fleeing a lion and some put their fingers into their ears to block its recitation entering it.”

     Can diction alone achieve such an effect? Or is it the import of those words? It is certainly the import of those words using powerful imagery and eloquence and not just the beauty of the language.

     Take away the clearly demonstrable and provable inimitability of the Quran as proof of the divinity of the source and what have you left? Very little that cannot be explained by the rationalists.

     Take prayer for example. The obligatory prayers are five times a day and if we take only the farz prayers, there are 17 rakats and in each of these rakats, we recite Surah Fateha, in which we pray:

    (1:5) Thee alone do we worship, and it is Thine aid alone that we seek.

    (6) Show us the straight way,

    (7) The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.

     The very fact that we repeat this prayer at least 17 times a day or upto 50 times if we count the sunnat and nawafil also, clearly means that the prayer is designed to work through auto-suggestion. For auto-suggestion to work best, prayer must be performed in a devout frame of mind, bringing to mind that we are in the presence of God etc. The power of auto-suggestion is beyond doubt. So much so that even the Quran says so. Consider the following ayat:

     (3:124) Remember thou saidst to the Faithful: "Is it not enough for you that Allah should help you with three thousand angels (Specially) sent down?

    (125) "Yea, - if ye remain firm, and act aright, even if the enemy should rush here on you in hot haste, your Lord would help you with five thousand angels Making a terrific onslaught.

    (126) Allah made it but a message of hope for you, and an assurance to your hearts: (in any case) there is no help except from Allah. The Exalted, the Wise:

     So was it real help with angels or only a message of hope and an assurance to their hearts that victory was theirs no matter what the strength of the enemy? The fact is that this message worked as a charm as if the help was real. The heavily outnumbered Muslims attacked believing victory to be theirs and defeated their enemy on the field of battle in battle after battle. It continued to work its charm for the next hundred years and helped the believing Muslims to build an empire larger than the Roman empire at its peak which took them a thousand years to build. Historians are still unable to fathom how this was achieved with such small a force.

     Again, consider the following verses:

    (8:65) O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.

    (66) For the present, Allah hath lightened your (task), for He knoweth that there is a weak spot in you: But (even so), if there are a hundred of you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred, and if a thousand, they will vanquish two thousand, with the leave of Allah: for Allah is with those who patiently persevere.

     So, it is not the number of Angels that God sends that determines the outcome but the strength of conviction in one’s ability to vanquish the enemy. There were subsequent battles in which the Muslims overcame an enemy force that was larger than ten times and in one battle it was 33:1. The earlier successes in the times of the Prophet were smaller in comparison and what was at work was growing confidence built on past successes starting with a ratio of 2:1 and not the number of angels God sent to help.  

     I find the Quran to be the best Book on practical psychology and why not? God has created man and knows best what works best.

     So, one can be rational in the extreme and yet if one has the humility to realise and acknowledge the demonstrable and provable inimitability of the scriptures and accept that as proof of Divinity as its source, one can be a very rational believer in the existence of God and of God as the entity that revealed the scriptures to guide mankind.

     However, since the scriptures can be understood by man using his reason (if this was not so, the scriptures would have been useless), man in his arrogance can and does think that all of it could be and therefore is a construct of the human mind. This is where Greek philosophy and western education display a marked slant against religion since they start with the axiom that God is non-existent and merely a construct of the human mind. That is the reason why those who pursued it in the past and in the present easily turn “heretic”. Logic and reasoning could be highly intoxicating and make us believe that we are god (nauzobillah).


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/8/2017 12:31:16 AM



  • Dear Naseer Sahab,
    Though I agree with you arguments, the truth is the Qur'anic diction had stunned its immediate audience and many turned away from it like a frightened donkey fleeing a lion and some put their fingers into their ears to block its recitation entering it.
    Anyway I admire your debating skill and many good points you make. Let us move on to other topics.
    Let me share with you what appears about Loh e  mahfuz in our book:
    "This (85:22) is the only verse with the phrase lauh al-mahfuz, rendered as ‘Tablet (well) guarded’. The literalist scholars advocate that the Qur’an has been preserved in the heaven since eternity in an imperishable Tablet. Others hold that this expression implies God’s promise to protect the Qur’anic text from any corruption. In the early centuries of Islam, this generated much debate and confusion as it bore on the highly contentious and sensitive issue of whether the Qur’an is created or uncreated and that of divine predestination. These are, however, purely theological questions and God best knows their answers."

    By muhammd yunus - 6/7/2017 6:40:12 PM



  • Dear Yunus Sb,

     First of all the debate about whether the Quran is created or uncreated has more to do with competing claims about other books of scriptures. Notably the Vedas are claimed to be uncreated. So, why would the Muslims not make similar claims and be left behind? They too make the most ridiculous claim that the Quran is uncreated when the Quran itself says that it is produced by Allah.

     

    (10:37) This Qur´an is not such as can be produced (yuftara) by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.

    The nature of the Book as described above is that it is progressive revelation. Many of the verses are answers to questions asked by Muslims as well as non-Muslims. An entire Surah Kahaf is an answer to three questions asked by Christians. There is another verse that says that any question asked will be answered while cautioning against asking vain questions. The contents of the Book also have a context which is the times of the Prophet from 610 to 632 CE. So is the context, the questions asked and the answers uncreated? That is taking determinism to such an extreme that we cease to be accountable for anything since everything was determined before we were born!

    So what is preserved in Loh-e-Mahfooz? It is the unchanging laws of Allah - those that govern the physical world and the laws that govern human behavior and provide the criterion for judging mankind on the Day of Judgment.  

     

    Nobody would contest that the physical laws are a creation of God. Nobody would also contest that man is God’s creation. Nobody can contest that without man, there would have been no need for moral principles to live by. So what is in Loh-e-Mahfooz is also a creation of God. There would have been no need for Allah to produce the Quran if He had not created mankind. So not only is the Quran created but it is a creation of an order lower than the creation of man. Now, if imam Ghazali says otherwise, then I don’t know what to say!

     

    The very first revelation gave the first moral principle to shape human behavior for his good and for the good of society and to provide the criterion for judging his deeds for the degree of conformity with the moral principle. All subsequent revelations are progressive detailing and fuller explanation of that basic moral principle which we know as the Golden rule – “do unto others as you wish to be done by”. Immanuel Kant did no better than restate the same rule differently as “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”

     

    Even when it comes to detailing, the contribution of the philosophers is zilch and the complete deen has come only from religion. The philosophers have only succeeded in rephrasing and discovering the utilitarian value of the moral principles given to us by religion. However, since even religion is deemed to be a construct of the human mind by these philosophers, they carry on the charade as if they are the authors of the moral principles given to us exclusively by religion.

     

    God has gifted us with intellect which has made us see the utilitarian value of these moral principles in hindsight. Man is excellent in all the utilitarian disciplines but completely at sea in the moral field except that he can appreciate a good moral principle from hind sight and see its utilitarian value and adopt the same and make laws based on them. However, since religion itself is projected by these philosophers as a construct of the human mind, they dismiss God altogether. The question that I have asked repeatedly, is, if religion is simply a construct of the human mind, then why has Philosophy failed to produce even one durable moral principle in its entire recorded history from 600 BC? Why is it that every moral principle has come from religion only? Man in his arrogance however, dismisses God only because he can now see good practical reason behind every moral principle which makes him think that all the moral principles could have been or have been produced through reason alone failing to acknowledge that while Religion succeeded, philosophy failed to produce even one moral principle.

     

    That is where I see the inimitability and irreproducibility of a Book of scriptures by man or jinn and the challenge of the Quran to produce a Surah similar to a Surah from the Quran. It is not a challenge to match the linguistic eloquence of the Quran as such a mundane challenge from God on a very subjective criteria would be most ridiculous. Quran is distinct from other Books of scriptures in that the detailing takes the most refined form being the last in a series of progressive revelations. The substantive content of the Quran is the detailing of the complete Deen or the moral way of living and it is this aspect which is inimitable by man and jinn and the ultimate proof of God’s word in the books of scripture. The books of scriptures simply do not contain what man could have produced on his own but everything that it contains can be understood by man using his reason.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/7/2017 12:41:29 PM



  • Dear Naseer Sahab,

     I fully agree with yur comments: We have got both rationalism and faith from the Qur’an. The para which I quoted to you last is preceded by the following para that takes care of your point:

     “Historically, barring exceptions, Muslims have remained divided in two diagonally opposite camps: one, the majority, seek the easiest path and regard salah as the ‘key to the paradise.’ The other, a small section, knowingly or unknowingly pursue the ‘steep path,’ use reason and rationalism, and focus on the universal dimensions of the Qur’anic message, notably good deeds and social, moral and ethical responsibilities. Both the groups have to maintain a balance, and bear in mind the risks of tottering on the extremities.

     I may share with you the following very short introduction to Mutazilizm that I included in my jt. publication to summarily appraise the Muslim readers – how few may ever  read it - that the early Muslim scholars got their foundation in rationalism from the Qur’an:

     The rise and fall of Mu‘tazila school and emergence of orthodox Sunni Islam [3rd –6th centuries].

     “The Mu‘tazila School (1.3 above) enjoyed the patronage of the Caliphs and intellectual elite during the third and fourth centuries of Islam. Although its rationalism was rooted in the belief in God and the revelation, it was condemned and bitterly opposed by the traditionalists as it challenged many of their notions and doctrines. However, soon the Mu‘tazilites grew arrogant and fanatic. Thus in 217/833, the Caliph [al-Mamun] decreed that no judge (qadi) could hold his office or be appointed to one unless he subscribed to the Mu‘tazili view that the Qur’an was created. Later he instituted summary trials (minha) and convicted the opponents of his dogma - Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, of whom we have heard earlier (1.4 above) being among his victims. His two successors continued the persecution of ‘ulama, until 233/848, when al-Mutawakkil abrogated it and restored the dogma of the Qur’an being uncreated, preserved in the ‘Guarded Tablet’ (Note 22/Ch. 1). However, Mu‘tazila school remained dominant through to the end of the century until al-‘Ashari (d. 323/936) refuted their theories in favor of traditional Islam. The succeeding generations saw a gradual waning of Mu‘tazili influence and increasing popularity of orthodox Islam and finally al-Ghazzali (d. 504/1111), a supremely gifted religious scholar, regarded as the master of dialectical theology,8 exploded Mu‘tazila theories, and fully established the orthodox views. The major schools of Sunni Islam were canonized, and Mu‘tazilasm was declared unlawful. The mainstream Sunni Islam was thus set on an orthodox course: the doctrine of taqlid (1.6 above) was espoused as the most popular way of learning, independent intellectual probe (ijtihad) was discouraged, and rationalism was forbidden.”   

     While touching on juristic development in early Islam, the book defines usul al-fiqha as the principle of rational logic and reasoning – though I am fully aware that in classical Islamic jurisprudence, this term is used to denote the domain of Islamic law in its entirety.  I have defined it based on the Qur’anic usage of the term fiqha.

     So it is obvious that rational thought is as intrinsic to the Qur’anic message as its spiritual calls.


    By Muhammad yunus - 6/7/2017 4:01:50 AM



  • Yunus Sb,

     You say: “Pure rationalism or dynamism (that underlined the Islam's successes) can open the door successively to gnosticism, agnosticism, through to atheism, while singular emphasis on prayer can grout the Muslims to the seventh century Arabia and lead to intellectual stagnation and social and cultural mortification."

     The fact however is that both prayer and pure rationalism are part of Islam and the Quran. We do not depend upon the philosophers or the mystics to tell us how to pray or how to remember Allah. This is taught to us directly by the Quran. What is it that the “mystics” and the philosophers have given us except myths that lead us to false beliefs? The myth of Alam-e-Arwah from Sufi cosmology for example, which surprisingly is followed unquestioningly by both Dr Israr Ahmed and Dr. Tahir-ul- Quadri because the explanation of verse 7:172 otherwise escapes them!

      Prayer and remembrance (zikr) of Allah

     (13:28) "Those who believe, and whose hearts find satisfaction/contentment in the remembrance of Allah (bizikrillah): for without doubt in the remembrance of Allah do hearts find satisfaction/contentment.

    8:45) O ye who believe! When ye meet a force, be firm, and call Allah in remembrance much (and often); that ye may prosper:

    24:36 and 37 paraphrased: Allah’s light is lit in His houses of worship where His name is celebrated and He is glorified excessively all through the day and night by men whom neither traffic nor merchandise can divert from the Remembrance of Allah

     (7:205) And do thou (O reader!) Bring thy Lord to remembrance in your innermost being, with humility and in reverence, without loudness in words, in the mornings and evenings; and be not thou of those who are unheedful.

    (29:45) Recite what is sent of the Book by inspiration to thee, and establish regular Prayer: for Prayer restrains from shameful and unjust deeds; and remembrance of Allah is the greatest (thing in life) without doubt. And Allah knows the (deeds) that ye do.

    (57:16) Has not the Time arrived for the Believers that their hearts in all humility should engage in the remembrance of Allah and of the Truth which has been revealed (to them), and that they should not become like those to whom was given Revelation aforetime, but long ages passed over them and their hearts grew hard? For many among them are rebellious transgressors.

    (73:6) Truly the rising by night is most potent for governing (the soul), and most suitable for (framing) the Word (of Prayer and Praise).

     (73:8) But keep in remembrance the name of thy Lord and devote thyself to Him whole-heartedly.

     (39:9) Is one who worships devoutly during the hour of the night prostrating himself or standing (in adoration), who takes heed of the Hereafter, and who places his hope in the Mercy of his Lord - (like one who does not)? Say: "Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know? It is those who are endued with understanding that receive admonition.

    (2:238) Guard strictly your (habit of) prayers, especially the Middle Prayer; and stand before Allah in a devout (frame of mind).

     (63:9) O ye who believe! Let not your riches or your children divert you from the remembrance of Allah. If any act thus, the loss is their own.

     (62:9) O ye who believe! When the call is proclaimed to prayer on Friday (the Day of Assembly), hasten earnestly to the Remembrance of Allah, and leave off business (and traffic): That is best for you if ye but knew!

     Consequences of failing to remember Allah

     (43:36) If anyone withdraws himself from remembrance of (Allah) Most Gracious, We appoint for him an evil one, to be an intimate companion to him.

     (58:19) The Evil One has got the better of them: so he has made them lose the remembrance of Allah. They are the Party of the Evil One. Truly, it is the Party of the Evil One that will perish!

     (72:17) But if any turns away from the remembrance of his Lord, He will cause him to undergo a severe Penalty.

     (4:142) The Hypocrites - they think they are over-reaching Allah, but He will over-reach them: When they stand up to prayer, they stand without earnestness, to be seen of men, but little do they hold Allah in remembrance;



    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/7/2017 1:43:33 AM



  •  “How does religion contribute to the development of science?”

    What shall we say about Christianity and Judaism? The followers of these religions have produced more than 800 Nobel laureates out of 830 or so. Most of the scientific inventions and discoveries are made by them.  I agree, nowadays, most scientists are agnostics or atheists.Though the Pope put Galileo into house arrest, the whole worldview of Christianity was what counted. They believed, as per their scriptures, that man was created in the image of God and he was appointed as the steward of the resources of the earth. So they have concerns about the extinction of pandas by the Chinese or the whales by the Japanese or the elephants by the Africans. They believe that Jesus Christ has died on the cross for every one of us as no other gods have demonstrated such a love for humanity. Hence the Christian civilisation originates from the fact that LIFE IS VERY PRECIOUS for which their son of God had shed blood. And for this fact millions of Christian oriented NGOs and 700,000 nuns are working round the clock. In fact world’s 85% of good works are done by them.

    In short, when we begin to love fellow human beings as children of God, and when the human dignity is promoted, automatically, advances in science, technology, medicine literature, philosophy, economics, democracy, governance, law and order, sports etc. occur.

    Allah says “A new command I give you. Love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciple”. (John 13:34-35)


    By Royalj - 6/7/2017 12:04:12 AM



  • Dear Ikram Ahmed! I have read all his five volumes of Ahya ul ulum [urdu] back to back and realized that he is too great a scholar for me to fathom and that all that he wrote - with due respect, were his personal views - commensurate to his era which are different from mine 1000 years down the history. So i did not pursue him. i am sure you can get it in Delhi.

    List of works from wiki: Abdel Rahman Badawi, an Egyptian scholar, prepared a comprehensive list of al-Ghazali's works under 457 titles: from 1 to 72: works definitely written by al-Ghazali from 73 to 95: works of doubtful attribution 96 - 127: works which are not those of al-Ghazali with most certainty 128 - 224: are the names of the Chapters or Sections of al-Ghazali's books that are mistakenly thought books of his 225 - 273: books written by other authors regarding al-Ghazali's works 274 - 389: books of other unknown scholars/writers regarding al-Ghazali's life and personality 389 - 457: the name of the manuscripts of al-Ghazali's works in different libraries of the world. ------------

    I must however warn you that any attempt for a person of this era to fathom his philosophical insights and prodigious scholarship will be no less challenging than the preparation for participating in a marathon race for a man weak in legs.


    By muhammad yunus - 6/6/2017 4:54:23 AM



  • Dear Naseer Sahab,  Thank you for giving a broad heads up on al-Ghazali’s doctrine – which I had put in a highly compressed diction.   
    I am not commenting on your exposition point by point as there is no need – for you have simply explained the disconnect between Greek godless view of morality and religion’s emphasis on its divine nature. I am sure many people will benefit from your clear write-up – a mini-discourse.
    I will only share with you my folllowig view.
    From the Qur’anic perspective God is the source of all knowledge and He programmed man to acquire knowledge by use of reason, linguistic skill, memory and the instincts to differentite between right and wrong. He also graced all humanity with a touch of divine spirit – so no matter what an atheist or a godless Greek philiosopher may claim, God remains his ultimate source of knowledge.     
    Religion brings in the notions of mercy, forgiveness, compassion, charity, generosity, care and concern of human life and above all the prmacy of justice and equity. The Qur’an says that man faces the two highways – the easy one – use reason and do whatever you wish – get your slaves to face a hungry tiger in the arena to entertain yourself – or bar the entry of all the people of a religion or a race or a vast region to enter your land for the crime of a few odd individuals. So, for me, he role of religion or God is clear and I put the transmutation of rationalism to godless ness and in the same breath the futility  of pure spirituality in these words in the conluding para of my chapter on Prayers (Ch. 45) in my jt, publication:
    “Pure rationalism or dynamism (that underlined the Islam's successes) can open the door successively to gnosticism, agnosticism, through to atheism, while singular emphasis on prayer can grout the Muslims to the seventh century Arabia and lead to intellectual stagnation and social and cultural mortification. Prayer is somewhat like the fragrance of a flower (the soul of Islam), and the dynamic forces of Islam its body. Without fragrance the body may not have any value in the court of God and without the body, it is a piece of fossil on the desert sand”
    Nothing more can be said about the impact of al-Ghazali on Islam.
    But some 1000 years past his era it is only the liberals and the extremsist who conflate Islam with his doctrine – but all said I do not say one word to undermine his contribution in he era, nor will I suggest to bring him down from the lofty pedestal of honour he occupies in Islamic/ world history for then I wilbe punching beyond my weight.
    By muhammd yunus - 6/6/2017 4:25:14 AM



  • Dear Yunus Sb,

     

    I would like to comment on your very interesting comment about Al-Ghazali.

     

    "Al-Ghazali revolutionized early Islamic philosophy by helping develop Neoplatonism, which is often described as the “mystical” or “religious” interpretation of Greek philosophy. 

     

    That truly is the reverse of what the Greek philosophers were trying to do. They were engaged in trying to show that Moral Principles from religion could be arrived at through reasoning alone, and that religion was unnecessary. However, as I have pointed out earlier, in the entire history of philosophy beginning somewhere from 600 BC, the philosophers have not produced a single durable moral principle on their own. They however did make a great contribution in making us understand the utilitarian value of those moral principles, and helping to make these the rational basis for the man-made laws covering individual freedoms and human rights. What religion handed down to us as the Divine Law, was turned into a systematic study or a science to make these understandable through reason by these philosophers.

     

    Just because the moral principles from religion were found to be logical and rational from a utilitarian perspective from hind-sight, they assumed that these were or should be equally available from foresight from human reasoning alone. However, the fact that they could not come up with even one good durable moral principle on their own, gives the lie to their assumption. The Greek Philosophers however played down the role of religion and its contribution to their thinking, and carried on the facade that their moral philosophy was based on human reason alone, since they could now explain it rationally. We see in this, the all too familiar arrogance of man, in their rejection of God. Greek Philosophy shows an unmistakable slant against religion which has carried forward in the western education. This is also the reason why many of the Muslim scholars who studied Greek Philosophy turned into “heretics” as Ikram Ahmed says.

     

    Daniel Kahneman, makes a very insightful observation about human nature:

     

    “We’re not aware of changing our minds even when we do change our minds. And most people, after they change their minds, reconstruct their past opinion
    — they believe they always thought that.”

     

    It is a very common experience for me to find that people repeat to me what I said to them on an earlier occasion as if what they are saying is their own thought.  If people find something appealing, they immediately make it part of their own thinking, forgetting its source, and believing that they always thought that.

    Even when religion or God is the source, they easily forget that, and pretend that it is their own thought.

     

    Now if Ghazali was trying to give a mystical” or “religious” interpretation of Greek moral philosophy, which itself is based on religion although unacknowledged, he was taking the process a full circle! Was he trying to prove that God copied the Greek Philosophers?

     

     

    He adopted the techniques of Aristotelian logic and the Neoplatonic ways to diminish the negative influences of excessive Islamic rationalism." –

     

    Now what is excessive Islamic rationalism? What could be more rational than science or philosophy? Now if Islam was more rational than Greek philosophy, was he trying to soften it? Al-Ghazali was certainly an “Islamic Philosopher” which is an oxymoron since Physics and revealed religion killed philosophy. Traditionally, philosophy attempted to answers questions such as “How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator?” These questions are now fully answered by Physics and revealed religion. A revealed religion does not need a philosopher and an Islamic philosopher is therefore a fraud.

     

    Let us look at the most celebrated work of Al-Ghazali where his philosophy and “mysticism” are at their eloquent best. In his famous treatise Mishkatal-Anwar (The Niche of Lights) Ghazali explains the following verse:

    (24:35) Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! Allah doth guide whom He will to His Light: Allah doth set forth Parables for men: and Allah doth know all things.

    He likens the niche to the rib cage and the glass to the human heart and the light to spiritual knowledge from Allah. This explanation is problematic in several ways.

    The beginning of the verse, the ending of the verse and every simile/metaphor in between refer to only things that are perfect or divine and not to what is imperfect or to man at all. Words of perfection are never used to describe a human being. A human heart is not perfect transparent glass or the best protection of divine knowledge. There is no human being who is perfect and without human frailties. This analogy has not been used by the Quran even when speaking about the heart of any of the prophets let alone using it for lesser mortals. The Prophet (pbuh) himself hid in his heart what Allah made manifest (33:37). The analogy of the perfect glass for the human heart that hides nothing fails right here.

     In the Quran, the heart is made stronger by reading the Quran and not cleaner. It hides secrets which is the opposite of revealing everything. A person may bring a sound heart (Qalb in Saleem) or may have a disease (Marz) in his heart. Prophet David is advised not follow the lusts of his heart (38:26). Hearts are soft or hard like rocks but never like glass let alone perfectly clean and transparent glass.

     

    Moreover, Ghazali’s explanation falls flat on its face when we read the very next verse:

     (24:36) (Lit is such a Light) in houses, which Allah hath permitted to be raised to honour; for the celebration, in them, of His name: In them is He glorified in the mornings and in the evenings, (again and again).

    You may also read my article An Exposition of the Verse of Light (Ayat al-Nur), in which I have explained the verse according to my insights and understanding.

     

    The fact that Imam Ghazali’s famous treatise Mishkatal-Anwar (The Niche of Lights) is in error should have been obvious even to a kid. While the correct interpretation was not possible for any scholar of his times, the incorrectness of his explanation is obvious and is falsified by the very next verse from which it is apparent that the Light is external to man. What made Ghazali give an erroneous explanation without acknowledging the flaw or shortcoming? He is also the scholar who is responsible for advocating the end of Ijtehad in Islam when his inability to come to grips with a single verse or Ayat was proof that man was far from discovering every truth. Verse 41:53 is a verse which makes it clear that more truths are going to be made manifest in the future. It is appropriate that such a scholar should fall from his pedestal paving the way for the end of Taqleed (blind imitation) of all such scholars and opening the doors of Ijtehad. No scholar of the past or even the present has shown the intellectual honesty to throw doubt on Imam Ghazali’s interpretation and they have all followed it. Nobody has been critical of it. No wonder with such poor scholarship and blind imitation of the same, both bigotry and extremism thrive. Hopefully, this realization will pave the way for sweeping clean all the muck from the past. With more people realizing the reality of the stagnant cesspool that Islam has become, we may be able to build a brave new world free from bigotry and all forms of extremism. This needs to be based on an understanding of the Quran free from the polluting influence of every other source of “Islamic” literature but based on our authentic understanding of the world from Science.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/6/2017 1:01:36 AM



  • Muhammad yunus are there any good books on Al Gazali . I think his works are misconstrued . I would love to read something which is fair and give a proper understanding about him.
    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/6/2017 12:10:29 AM



  • What does Ghazali's statements on jihad have to do with this discussion on his scientific outlook? Does Hats Off's mudslinging know no limits?


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 6/5/2017 10:53:53 PM



  • imam al-ghazzali recommended that muslims go on a jihad campaign against the unbelievers at least once every year.
    By hats off! - 6/5/2017 7:53:25 PM



  • Dear Raman,
    My commentary does not suggest the al-Ghazali contributed to 'advancement of scientific cause'. It says only this about him:

    "Al-Ghazali revolutionized early Islamic philosophy by helping develop Neoplatonism, which is often described as the “mystical” or “religious” interpretation of Greek philosophy.

    He adopted the techniques of Aristotelian logic and the Neoplatonic ways to diminish the negative influences of excessive Islamic rationalism."
     
    I am afraid you got mixed up reading such a long commentary with so many names - for which I remain grateful to you.

    By muhammd yunus - 6/5/2017 5:05:14 AM



  • The question that remains is how does religion contribute to the development of science if at all it does contribute. The answer simply is that Science has nothing to do with the religious belief of the scientist. Science flourishes in an environment of free inquiry, where academic freedom is unlimited and tolerance of varying views is absolute. Islam, when it was in ascendance between the 7th and the 10th century, provided precisely such an environment. In such an environment, anyone gifted for science will contribute whether he is Muslim, Jew, Christian, Polytheist, Atheist or whatever.

     This is covered in my article:

    Causes For The Rise And Fall Of The Muslims

    To get an idea of those times of absolute academic independence and of individual freedoms for all sections of the society, here are a few facts:

    1. Scholarship among women was high and three of Ibn Taymiyya's teachers/mentors were women scholars.

    2. Even the slaves enjoyed the independence to pursue any career for which they were gifted. They rose to high positions in administration and the military and even became rulers.

    3. Although the ahadith are today followed as if these are gospel truth, it required an environment of academic independence for the compilers to compile this body of knowledge although these often contradict the Quran.

    4. The very fact that people today point out to a few of the prominent Muslim scientists of those days as heretics, is proof of the environment of tolerance of those times, in which they were not branded as heretics and even those who openly forsake religion, were not punished/persecuted, as indeed in Islam, there is no punishment for a simple act of apostasy.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/5/2017 2:21:23 AM



  • It is good that muslims are debating issues and bringing Koran and other literature into realm of discussion.

    It is only debate / discussion that will bring solution to any problem.

    I would appreciate in case Ikram Ahmed can provide references from the original books written by great muslim scientists - relying on others work is a suspect. Maybe some effor will be required but it will be a worth.

    Mohammed Yunus mentioned Ghazali as one of the Islamic thinkers who contributed to the advancement of scientific cause. 

    He is wrong - it is in fact  Ghazali who is responsible for the ending of the rational thought within islamic lands. If we look back the main villain for radical islamism is Ghazali. 


    By Raman - 6/5/2017 12:38:42 AM



  • Many of the verses of the Quran cannot be understood correctly, except with the help of discoveries made by Science in the 19th century. Until such discoveries were made, these verses were mistranslated and misunderstood. Science corroborates what the Quran tells us. Science and the Quran are never at loggerheads.
    There are many verses in the Quran the truth of which is not self-evident but have been proved correct by scientific discovery.
    The Mutashabihat verses:
    There are verses which deal with this world but the knowledge of which was unknown to the people of the seventh century. For example, comprehending the meaning of “genetic memory” requires knowledge developed in the last hundred years – knowledge that did not exist in the seventh century. If the Quran had to use the term “genetic memory” it could have communicated the meaning only through an allegory. For example (7:172) “When thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants, and made them testify concerning themselves, (saying): "Am I not your Lord (who cherishes and sustains you)?"- They said: "Yea! We do testify!" (This), lest ye should say on the Day of Judgment: "Of this we were never mindful":”
    The verse 7:172 has been interpreted to conjure a scene of A’alam-e-Arwah where every soul that is yet to be born was gathered to testify. Such interpretations born of a fertile imagination inevitably lead to false beliefs. The belief that follows from the myth of ‘A’alam-e-Arwah’  is that all those who will be born is pre-ordained since the souls are already created and birth control is therefore both meaningless and going against the will of God and therefore a sin.
    However, souls are not drawn from the loins of man/Adam nor is there a concept of soul in the Quran as it is commonly understood. What is drawn from the loins of Adam/man is his seed and the verse only means that belief in a single God who is the Cherisher and Sustainer of the Universe is instinctive or part of every human’s genetic memory.
    Incidentally recent studies appear to support the same view. The Quran does not support the view that the souls of all those who will take birth were all created much earlier (alongwith Adam?) nor does it even contain the concept of soul.
    Belief in God is part of human nature - Oxford study
    Is Belief in God Ingrained in Our ‘Human Nature’? A New Study Says So
    The question that one may ask is why did the Muslims invent the myth of Alam-e-Arwah to explain this verse and why did this verse not lead them to scientific discoveries and development of the Science of Genetics? Well, that is a separate topic by itself
    The irony is that the myth of Alam-e-Arwah is firmly fixed in the Muslim psyche so much so that anybody who questions it may be declared a heretic and the idea of genetic memory to explain this verse completely escapes them even today.
    Now if we are to keep the Quran and Science in distinct realms, then one must believe in the myth of Alam-e-Arwah and not understand the verse correctly which is also closest to what it’s literal meaning conveys and what Science confirms today as true! This is however precisely what the bigoted Mullah would want us to do – keep science and religion in different realms and believe in their myths! And people like Ikram Ahmed support the same but for different reasons. The bigoted Mullah, the Islamophobe and the apostate have much in common.
    Now consider the following mistranslated verses:
    (86:5) Now let man but think from what he is created!
    (6) He is created from a drop emitted-
    (7) Proceeding from between the backbone (sulb) and the ribs (taraib):
    The incorrect interpretation by the translators and commentators of the verses 86:7 is proof that the verse is not authored by man. At no point in the history of mankind did man think that conception takes place from a fluid that emanates from “between the ribs and the backbone” of a man. The role of testicles in conception was well known and so also the practice of castration to prevent procreation was well established. Clearly, therefore, any verse authored by man would have been worded differently and none of the commentators and translators understood their own version of the translated verse. It is easy to see how they went wrong. If the verse had contained only the word `sulb’, 100% of the commentators/translators would have translated it as “from the loins of man”. For example, no translator/commentator has gone wrong in the case of verse 4:23  “ ….wives of your sons proceeding from your Aslabikum (which is translated as loins by all) …..”. In this verse, the reference is only to sons of the man irrespective of their mother and therefore there is no place for the word “taraib”.
    Also consider:
     (76:2) Verily We created Man from a drop of mingled seed (nuṭ'fatin amshājin), in order to try him: So We gave him (the gifts), of Hearing and Sight.
    Verily, it is We who have created man out of a drop of sperm intermingled  (with the female ovum) –Asad
    The literal translation of nuṭ'fatin amshājin is mingled seed
    The correct understanding of mingled seed is the mingling of sperm and ovum
     The earlier translators only wondered what mingled seed meant but did not possess knowledge of the biological process to translate correctly. Asad went a step further and added in explanation what you find in the parenthesis.
     The word “taraib” in 86:7 is what confused the earlier commentators/translators lacking knowledge of the biological process. We also know from William Lane’s lexicon, that “taraib” most definitely refers to female anatomy but the commentators had no knowledge of the role of ovum in conception and therefore took the word “Taraib” also to refer to male anatomy.
     Now consider the various meanings of Sulb from William Lane’s lexicon:
    Sulb:  said of a thing (and of a man) , It (and he) was or became hard, firm rigid, stiff, tough, strong, robust, sturdy or hardy.
    The back-bone ie the bone extended from the base of the neck to the rump bone. And any portion of the back containing vertebrae and particlularly the lumbar portion; the loins.
    Example of phrase of the Arabs: These are the sons of their loins; because the sperma of the man is held to proceed from the sulb of the man as is said in the Ksh & c in (86:7).
    Taraib: The plural noun tara'ib, rendered by Asad as "pelvic arch", has also the meaning of "ribs" or "arch of bones"; according to most of the authorities who have specialized in the etymology of rare Quranic expressions this term relates specifically to female anatomy (Taj al-'Arus).
     The commentators and translators not having knowledge of the role of ovum in conception, and taking both “sulb” and “taraib” to refer to male anatomy made the obvious incorrect conclusion that if the liquid came from between “sulb” and “taraib” it could not be between loins and ribs but between the backbone and the ribs and as usual when bewildered, may have added under their breath "Allah knows best"!
     Now consider the correct translation in accordance with the most obvious and common usage of the words “sulb” and “taraib” in Arabic which is correctly rendered by Asad.
     86:5 LET MAN, then, observe out of what he has been created: (6) he has been created out of a seminal fluid  issuing from between the loins [of man] and the pelvic arch [of woman].
    The literal translation of the verse:
    Man is created from a fluid ejected. Coming forth from between (bayni)  the loins (sulb) and the pelvic arch (taraib)
    The Arabic word bayni is suggestive that the loins and the pelvic arch do not belong to the same person and the ejected fluid is therefore  from the loins of the man and the pelvic arch of the woman. While we know that semen is ejected from the loins of a man, is the egg ejected from the pelvic arch? Yes, it is.
      The egg is transported to the entrance of the fallopian tube. Once inside the walls of the fallopian tube, muscle contractions push the egg gently towards the uterus.
    ·         The egg will either meet sperm on its journey through the fallopian tube and fertilisation will happen, or it will arrive in the uterus unfertilised and be absorbed back into the body.
     The wrong translation is itself proof that the verse is not authored by man! If it was authored by man, it would have omitted the word “taraib” and like in 4:23, used only “Sulb” which then would have been translated by all as “issuing from the loins of man”
    Can we ignore Science and understand the Quran correctly? The Quran contains amazingly accurate knowledge about the world described using the limited vocabulary of the 7th century.
    It contains notions of instinct as genetic memory, conception because of mingling of the fluids containing the seed from both the man and the woman as against the 7th century notion that the seed came only from the father etc. Scientists discovered the dynamics of human fertilization only in the nineteenth century which is why the translators and commentators struggled to translate the verses 86:6,7 correctly. Notions of instinct as genetic memory also emerged only in the 19th century but explicitly contained in verse 7:172. Translators and commentators have similarly struggled with the translation of 7:172 and concocted the myth of Alam-e-Arwah.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/4/2017 9:45:10 PM



  • Islam does not need any corroboration from science. It is enough to know that Islam encourages scientific pursuits and researching nature. Scientific discoveries only add to the glory of God irrespective of whether such discoveries were made by Muslim, Christian Jewish, Hindu or atheistic scientists.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 6/4/2017 11:20:30 AM



  • Ikram Ahmed says: “I was personally disappointed with the response from Naseer Ahmed who was hostile and personal.”

    Ikram Ahmd fails to appreciate that my question whether he is “a blind believer or an apostate” logically follows from the position he has taken on religion which according to him is entirely faith based and has no connection with Science. Logically therefore, if he is a believer, then he is a blind believer, and if he is not a believer, then he is an apostate.

    Perfectly logical conclusions cannot be described as “ad hominem” or personal attacks. There is nothing personal about logical conclusions.

     

    If his article is about Zakir Naik, then it does not even deserve a comment.

    His attempt to prove certain luminaries of the past as heretics is laughable when he himself admits that they were not judged so by the rulers of those times. Is it Ikram Ahmed who is then judging them as heretics? He is, and he is applying the present day Salafist standards to do so. Is he a Salafist then? He cannot be both a Salafist and an apostate. For some strange reason, he appears to hold the present day Salafists to be more right than the past rulers under whom those luminaries prospered. Why does he not take the liberal environment of the past as a true reflection of the spirit of Islam rather than the present day extremism of the most extreme Muslims? Is he also trying to say that Science and Religion are at loggerheads and a Scientist is always a disbeliever? 

    Religion is definitely a facilitator or an inhibitor but never the sole reason for Science to flourish. To know what it takes, one may read:

    Causes For The Rise And Fall Of The Muslims



    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/3/2017 11:18:58 PM



  • Dear Ikram Ahmed,

    Thank you very much for explaining your points in a very elaborate manner and also being so kind to me and taking my criticism in a positive manner. Some of the points you noted have have indeed added to my knowledge like the detail on doctrinal aberration of some of the icons figures of Islamic civilization, though I still call them Muslim because free thinkers like you and me go through different doctrinal phases in life but retain their Muslim identity. I on my part had been skeptical of God for a long time completely failing to reconcile divine mercy with gross injustices against helpless humanity – from a tiger tearing apart a child before its mother’s eyes in ancient times to tyranny of war, pogroms, communal riots, horrendous petty crimes and institutionalized  tyranny in the name of religion that the All Kind and All Merciful  God’ has been witnessing without saving the helpless victims since ancient times till this very day. This is apart form the biological tragedies and natural calamities. But this is my freedom of thought. In my understanding of the Qur’anic message, radical or heretical doctrinal views do not necessarily expunge a person from the pale of Islam – though I may be in error – God is the best judge in matters of faith. Besides, the historical fact is the names you quoted have remembered in the history as iconic figures of Islam. As for their faith, the wiki says this:

     

    1.       Al-Razi

    ] Edward Granville Browne considers him as "probably the greatest and most original of all the Muslim physicians, and one of the most prolific as an author".[10]

     

    "Rhazes was the greatest physician of Islam and the Medieval Ages."– George Sarton[56]

     

    Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Zakariya_al-Razi#Views_on_religion

     

    2.       Ibn al-Rawandi: he was an early skeptic of Islam and a critic of religion in general. In his early days, he was a Mu'tazilite scholar, but after rejecting the Mu'tazilite doctrine, he adhered to Shia Islam for a brief period before becoming a freethinker who repudiated Islam and revealed religion.[2

     

    So anyone who says that he was a Muslim is obviously not well read. And if he is well read, he is a denier of a historical fact if not a false propagandist of Islam as a faith.

     

    3.       Ibn Sina – [Avicenna] was a devout Muslim and sought to reconcile rational philosophy with Islamic theology. His aim was to prove the existence of God and His creation of the world scientifically and through reason and logic.[48] Avicenna's views on Islamic theology (and philosophy) were enormously influential, forming part of the core of the curriculum at Islamic religious schools until the 19th century.[49]

     

    Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna#cite_note-49

      

    Your point is fully appreciated. Anyone who claims all the scientific and technical advancement of Islam’s Golden Age [as it is referred to in the annals of history] were achieved Muslim scientist is simply telling a lie if he is a well read person like Zakir Naik and if he telling so to masses he is simply misguiding them.

     Of late I have read the following recently published Western publications by non-Muslim authors of great repute. I recommend you get NAI to procure them, read them and post summary:

     

    1.       Lost History – The Enduring Legacy of Muslims by Michael Hamilton Morgan, Washington, June 2008

    2.       What Islam did for us – Tim Wallace Murphy, New York 2006.


    By muhammd yunus - 6/3/2017 9:53:20 PM



  • Technological breakthroughs can happen anywhere but for the scientific discoveries and inventions we need a group of people who are not only intelligent and educated but also humble and committed people; who can honestly transfer ideas back and forth without any discrimination or personal agenda. ‘During the dark ages of Europe’ under the leadership of St. Benedict, who was called ‘Father of Europe’ Benedictine monks were able to build in their monasteries, watermill, windmill, crankshaft, wheel burrow, flywheel, lanteen sail etc. However it took 500 years to turn their monasteries into universities and laid the foundation for scientific discoveries. They established Bologna University in 1088, Paris University in 1150, Oxford in 1196, Cambridge in 1209. Protestant missionaries established Princeton University in 1636 and Harvard in 1746.  A Benedictine monk ‘Elmer of Malmesburry’ who first tried to fly through a glider in 1010 and broken his legs.

    Flawless exchange of ideas, establishing scientific laws based upon on previous laws are prerequisites for scientific inventions. Inventors’ names should be honoured as we studied in our class ‘Ohms law’, ‘Boyle law’, Newton law, Kips apparatus’ without any discrimination. Although antisemitism was high among Christians in those days, Jews were given their due credit.

    To the girl’s question “Why is the Muslim world backward in science?” Zakir Naik should have given the honest answer. “We as Muslim have not given priority to education. Moguls during their 800 years in India built Taj Mahal but no university. Because of our sectarian divide we cannot freely exchange our scientific data. We discard out Muslim intellectuals and scientists as heretics. What happened to our Noble laureate Abdul Kalam? We discarded him because he belonged to Ahmadis sect. What happened to Malala? This teenage girl given speeches in many high places including Canadian parliament. But she cannot come back home. What happened to Shirin Ebadi another Nobel laureate? She is in USA, unable to return to Iran. Her husband is in jail. The writer Ikram Ahmed is correct. “These Muslim intellectuals would have taken the first flight to any Western country”.

    Allah says in Koran 5:82 “YOU WILL FIND THE NEAREST OF THEM IN AFFECTION TO THE BELIEVERS THOSE WHO SAY ‘WE ARE CHRISTIANS’ THAT IS BECAUSE AMONG THEM ARE LEARNED PRIESTS AND MONKS AND BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT AROGANT”


    By Royalj - 6/3/2017 6:57:02 PM



  • Ibrahim B Syed..
    Greek Philosophy , Hinduism , Buddhism and many sciences and philosophies . 
    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/3/2017 12:49:28 PM



  • Dear Muhammd Yunus,

      I’m delighted that you gave your valuable time to read and respond to my article. Every piece of writing should be critically evaluated and nothing should be spared. Even though you were critical , but civility was maintained . There was no ad hominem and insults. I was personally disappointed with the response from Naseer Ahmed who was hostile and personal.  

    I’m glad that we concur when it comes to Zakir Naik. The disagreements can be discussed. I think you misconstrued when I mentioned ‘heretic’ in my article. The word was used in the context of the youtube video by Zakir Naik where is blatantly lie that Muslims were scientifically advanced because they were closer to Islam. This statement was false, because the fact is there were intellectuals in the Muslim world whose personal believes were heretical. Maybe, they were not persecuted in those days because of the benevolence of Khalifas ; perhaps they were in good books of the rulers. Hence, there is a possibility that there names might not go down as heretic. But who knows if they were born in this age, with the Salafi wahabi puritanical interpretation spreading around the Muslim world like a wild fire. They could be marginalized, persecuted. Probably charged for blasphemy or apostasy. Let’s be honest here , according to PEW research there is an overwhelming majority of Muslims who believe that apostates should be put to death. This website is fighting the narrative of Wahabism . So I’m not generalizing here. When I’m saying overwhelming majority. It does not include you and many other Muslims.

    I’ve given the names of the intellectuals in my article, and I’ll discuss three of them in detail.

    I’m taking reference from the book, ‘Muslim Philosophy and Philosophers’ by Mohammed Sharif Khan & Mohammed Anwar Saleem.

    Al Razi : He was an 8th century physician born in Ravy lived in Baghdad.

    These are his ideas about theology:

    1) He did not believe in revelation and prophecy.

    2) He does not feel any need of Prophet.

    3) He criticizes all religions for imitation, tradition power of clergy and external manifestation of religions.

    4) He severely criticizes revealed books.

    5) He denies the miraculousness of the Quran.

    6) He considers that Prophets are harmful to the people.

    If the above ideas of Al- Razi are not heretical then what is heretical ?

    Ibn Al Sina : He was a 9th century physician and philosopher. His father was a partisan of a deviant Shia Ismaili sect, and the enormous influence of the Ismaili theology can be found in his philosophy. This sect believes in reincarnation. Although there is no specific evidence, that Ibn Sina believed in reincarnation. But his philosophy is overwhelmingly deviant. Although he was influenced by Aristotle , but there is enough influence of  ‘Ikhwan Al safah’ Epistles of the Brethen of Purity’ . He believed in God as the first unmoved first mover. God created the First intelligence, by a creative activity of thought. This should ring the bell if you are aware of Hindu philosophy where there is a similar concept of Brahman creates the world according to its own thought. The first Intelligence creates the second intelligence which subsequently creates the third, fourth, fifth and ends with the creation of tenth intelligence.  He believed that this world was created by the tenth intelligence. Interestingly, this idea poses a huge problem to the Islamic views on monotheism. There is enough ambiguity in this ideology, which gives an indication of dualism.

    Ibn al-Rawandi was a Persian skeptic, critic of Islam and religion in general who lived between  827 and 911 CE. He abandoned Islam for atheism and used his knowledge of Islam to refute the Koran. He rejected the authority of any scriptural or revealed religion. He described the Muslim traditions as "lies endorsed by conspiracies".

     

    al-Rawandi ridicules certain Muslim traditions. For example, the tradition that angels rallied round to help Muhammad is not believable because if they were willing to help him at Badr why were they absent at Uhud when they were so badly needed?

     

    In the Book of the Emerald he criticizes prayer, ritual purity and the ceremonies of the hajj; throwing stones, circumambulating a house that cannot respond to prayers, and running between stones that can neither help nor harm.

    I’ll provide another two skeptics in my next post . There is a lot to be discussed , and it’s always good to have an open minded discussion.

    Thank you,

    Ikram Ahmed.


    By Ikram Ahmed - 6/3/2017 11:44:25 AM



  • What inspired the Muslim scientists during the Golden Age of Islam?
    By Ibrahim B Syed - 6/3/2017 5:31:39 AM



  • Ikram Ahmed asks “Does faith require scientific validity?

    Yes, it does. The Quran does not demand blind belief but invites a person to belief based on the undeniable signs of God. Among these signs of God are the unchanging laws governing the Universe, physical phenomena and the laws governing human behavior many of which were undiscovered and unknown at the time of revelation. The Quran does contain verses that touch almost every subject. How are we to discuss and understand these except by way of validation available through science?

    The Quran also throws an open challenge to invalidate its claim of unmatched irreproducibility by any human or by all of the people together. This claim is amenable to scientific scrutiny and is discussed in detail in my article:

    Science and Religion

    And the following articles are related to the above cited article:

    The Quran and the Golden Rule: ‘Do unto Others as You Would Have Them Do unto You’

    An Exposition of the Verse of Light (Ayat al-Nur)

    Deen-e-Islam or the Moral Way of Living in Islam

     

    He further says “It is a bizarre idea to use scientific principle to justify religion.”

    That is a bizarre statement to make! What is Ikram Ahmed - a blind believer or an apostate? He appears to be an apostate who is extremely uncomfortable when the Quran is shown to be a divinely inspired message, without a flaw and amenable to scientific scrutiny of any and all of its verses touching almost every subject known to man.

    He further says “religion is not always open to the idea of falsification”

    That is a nonsensical statement to make. What prevents Ikram Ahmed from falsifying religion if he can do it? As discussed in my article cited above, the Quran itself invites man to undertake the falsification test of its claims and if he cannot do that, then be warned about the consequences if he continues to rebel and fail to submit to God and His Deen.

    Ikram Ahmed talks about a “fragile barrier” between science and religion that must not be broken. He seems to be unsure and therefore said “fragile” barrier but argues as if it is an impenetrable barrier. The fact is that the barrier exists only in his mind and a result of his being both poor in matters of science and of faith.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/3/2017 1:15:18 AM



  • Dear hats off!

    Now you have punched far beyond your weight in the opening statement of your last comment: ‘this justification of the Holy Qur'an should be left to the IIT graduates’

    Arguments aside (words are subject to diverse perception), the Qur’an defends itself as this ex-IITian has expounded  in his joit exegetic work that he is cut-pating below [Ch. 1.3] to avoid taxing himself on this day of fsting:

    “The revelation came like ad hoc passages, without any continuity of theme or rhythm. Moreover, no attempt was made by the scribes to record the revealed passages in a chronological order: the Prophet directed their exact location in the Qur'an. This led the Prophet’s Meccan enemies to question his claim to being God's messenger. At an early stage of the the revelation, the Qur’an responded by challenging its audience to produce a discourse like it:

    “Do they say, ‘He made it all up? No! they simply don’t believe (52:33). Let them produce a discourse (hadith) like this, if they are truthful” (52:34). 

    As the Arabs failed to meet the challenge, the Qur’an softened its challenge to forging ten or producing a single chapter like it (11:13, 2:23)17 and warned them that they can never do it (2:24):

    “Or do they say that he has forged it? Say (to them), ‘Bring ten forged chapters like it, and call (for help) on whomever you can besides God, if you are truthful.” (Quran 11:13).

    “If you (O people,) are in doubt concerning what We have revealed to Our Servant, then produce a chapter like it; and call on your witnesses besides God – if indeed you are truthful (2:23). But if you do not do (it) - and you can never do (it), then heed hellfire, whose fuel is human beings and stones - prepared for the disbelievers” (2:24).

    The Qur’an also claims that no one can even forge it (10:38)18, and asserts that it is of such a literary grandeur that only God Almighty could be its Author:

    “This Qur'an could not possibly have been devised by (anyone) other than God – rather, (it) is a confirmation of what was (revealed) before it; and a fuller explanation of the Book in which there is nothing doubtful, from the Lord of the worlds (10:37). Do they say, he [Muhammad] forged it?’ Say (to them): ‘Then bring a chapter like this, and call upon anyone besides God you can - if indeed you are truthful’”(10:38).

    At the height of literary eloquence, the Arabs had great poets and poetry was big part of their lives, but they recognized in the Qur’an, the most eloquent language they had ever heard. The Qur’an virtually cast a spell on the listeners, so much so that the Quraysh kept away from it, deterred others from it and asked people to chat and make noise during Qur’anic recitation, understandably, to foil its magical effect.19  

    The Qur’an also challenged the priests and the learned among its audience to probe into it and find any contradiction in it and asserted that its self-consistency is yet another illustration of its divine character (18:1)20:

    “Don’t they ponder over the Qur’an?  Had it been from (someone) other than God, they would have surely found much contradiction in it” (4:82).

    “Praise be to God who has revealed to His devotee the Book, and did not put any distortion in it” (18:1).

    As the revelation progressed, the seemingly unrelated passages fell in place and created an immensely intricate and inexplicably harmonious pattern of the Qur’anic text. This fully convinced the Arabs, who had opposed Muhammad for almost two decades, of the divinity of the Qur’an, and they came to the Prophet in large numbers from all over Arabia to embrace the new faith.”

    It is for you to say whatever you want to say but for heaven sake, do not appoint me as a helper of God in defending the extraordinary character of his words.     


    By muhammd yunus - 6/2/2017 8:55:10 PM



  • Dear Ikram Ahmed, This follows up on my last comment: while you hit right at the head of the nail in your concluding remark:

    “The reality is that if the Muslim world wants to make progress in science, then it needs to unshackle science from faith and respect them as separate lines of thought” there is nothing to be ashamed to claim that the Muslim world during its hey days had made tremendous advancement in scientific and other fields of knowledge. You cannot take the non-Muslims living and working in the Muslim world [as it is historically called] as aliens as much as you as a Muslim living in India - a predominantly Hindu country ate not an alien there.

    Until the emergence of nation states in the post war era, the world demography was based on religious lines. So the term 'Muslim Land' simply means the land that were under the governance of Muslim rulers, or so to say Islamic caliphate. Just to check what the Western world say about the Scientific contribution of the Islamic civilization I Google searched “contribution of Islam to scientific advancement” to avoid taxing myself on this day of Ramadan, I got the following:

    1. A report appearing in the Guardian per following link: theguardian.com/science/2010/feb/01/islamic-science Title: The greatest scientific advances from the Muslim world Relevant Contents: There is no such thing as Islamic science – for science is the most universal of human activities. But the means to facilitating scientific advances have always been dictated by culture, political will and economic wealth. What is only now becoming clear (to many in the west) is that during the dark ages of medieval Europe, incredible scientific advances were made in the Muslim world....

    The 1001 Inventions exhibition at London's Science Museum tells some of the stories of this forgotten age. Here are my top six exhibits:

     1 The elephant clock (below) This centrepiece of the exhibition is a three-metre high replica of an early 13th-century water clock and one of the engineering marvels of the medieval world. It was built by al-Jazari, and gives physical form to the concept of multiculturalism. It features an Indian elephant, Chinese dragons, a Greek water mechanism, an Egyptian phoenix, and wooden robots in traditional Arabian attire. The timing mechanism is based on a water-filled bucket hidden inside the elephant.

    2 The camera obscura The greatest scientist of the medieval world was a 10th century Arab by the name of Ibn al-Haytham. Among his many contributions to optics was the first correct explanation of how vision works. He used the Chinese invention of the camera obscura (or pinhole camera) to show how light travels in straight lines from the object to form an inverted image on the retina. Advertisement

    3 Al-Idrisi's world map This three-metre reproduction of the famous 12th-century map by the Andalusian cartographer, Al-Idrisi (1100-1166), was produced in Sicily and is regarded as the most elaborate and complete description of the world made in medieval times. It was used extensively by travellers for several centuries and contained detailed descriptions of the Christian north as well as the Islamic world, Africa and the Far East.

    4 The Banu Musa brothers' "ingenious devices" These three brothers were celebrated mathematicians and engineers in ninth-century Baghdad. Their Book of Ingenious Devices, published in 850, was a large illustrated work on mechanical devices that included automata, puzzles and magic tricks as well as what we would today refer to as "executive toys".

     5 Al-Zahrawi's surgical instruments This array of weird and wonderful devices shows the sort of instruments being used by the 10th-century surgeon al-Zahrawi, who practised in Cordoba. His work was hugely influential in Europe and many of his instruments are still in use today. Among his best-known inventions were the syringe, the forceps, the surgical hook and needle, the bone saw and the lithotomy scalpel.

    6 Ibn Firnas' flying contraption (above) Abbas Ibn Firnas was a legendary ninth-century inventor and the Da Vinci of the Islamic world. He is honoured on Arabic postage stamps and has a crater on the moon named after him. He made his famous attempt at controlled flight when, aged 65, he built a rudimentary hang glider and launched himself from the side of a mountain. Some accounts claim he remained airborne for several minutes before landing badly and hurting his back.

     Jim Al-Khalili is an author and broadcaster. He is professor of physics and of the public engagement in science at the University of Surrey.

    1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/overcoming-historical-amnesia_b_4135868.html Caption: Overcoming Historical Amnesia: Muslim Contributions to Civilization by By Craig Considine

    Contents: Muslims have actually made enormous contributions to civilization, perhaps due to the heavy emphasis that Islam places on knowledge. People who forget or blatantly ignore major trends or events in world history can be said to suffer from “historical amnesia.” Though this mindset cannot be cured in one short blog post, I hope to dispel some of the stereotypes and misperceptions exacerbated by Harris and other anti-Islam activists by highlighting the contributions that Muslims have made to civilization over the years. Contributions to philosophy One of the greatest Muslim contributions to civilization began in the 8th century when Muslim scholars inherited volumes of Greek philosophy.

    The wisdom in ancient Greece texts, which had been lost to Europeans, was translated from Latin to Arabic by Muslim scholars, thus creating one of the greatest transmissions of knowledge in world history. Muslims scholars would eventually bring the ideas of great ancient Greek minds such as Socrates, Aristotle and Plato into Europe, where their philosophy was translated into other European languages.

    This is why Muslims are the main threshold behind the European Renaissance and the Enlightenment, two movements that resurrected Greek philosophy and gave new life into a European continent that was bogged down with religious dogma and bloody internal conflicts. Many Muslim scholars made acquiring knowledge their life goal. Perhaps the most notable of these scholars is Al-Ghazali, a Sufi Muslim who in the 11th and 12th centuries revolutionized early Islamic philosophy by helping develop Neoplatonism, which is often described as the “mystical” or “religious” interpretation of Greek philosophy. At the time of Al-Ghazali’s writing, Muslim philosophers had read about the ideas of ancient Greece, but these ideas were generally perceived to be in conflict with Islamic teachings.

    Al-Ghazali helped synthesize these elements by adopting the techniques of Aristotelian logic and the Neoplatonic ways to diminish the negative influences of excessive Islamic rationalism. Ibn Khaldun is another one of the most important Muslim thinkers in history. Recognized as one of the greatest historians ever and the founder of sociological sciences in the 14th and 15th centuries, Khaldun created one of the earliest nonreligious philosophies in history in his work, the Muqaddimah.

     He also paved the way for our expectations of modern-day Presidents and Prime Ministers by creating a framework for evaluating “good rulers,” stating “the sovereign exists for the good of the people... The necessity of a Ruler arises from the fact that human beings have to live together and unless there is someone to maintain order, society would break to pieces.” Contributions to health care Medicine is another crucial contribution to civilization made by Muslims in addition to education and the university system.

    In 872 in Cairo, Egypt, the Ahmad ibn Tulun hospital was created and equipped with an elaborate institution and a range of functions. Like other Islamic hospitals that soon followed, Tulun was a secular institution open to men and women, adults and children, the rich and poor, as well as Muslims and non-Muslims. Tulun is also the earliest hospital to give care to the mentally ill. One hundred years after the founding of Tulun, a surgeon named Al-Zahrawi, often called the “father of surgery,” wrote an illustrated encyclopedia that would ultimately be used as a guide to European surgeons for the next five hundred years. Al-Zarawhi’s surgical instruments, such as scalpels, bone saws, and forceps are still used by modern surgeons. Al-Zahrawi is also reportedly the first surgeon to perform a caesarean operation. Another significant Muslim discovery came in the 13th century, when the Muslim medic Ibn Nafis described the pulmonary circulation almost three hundred years before William Harvey, the English physician who is believed by many Westerners to have “discovered” it.

    The technique of inoculation, or the introduction of an antigenic substance or vaccine into the body to induce immunity to a disease, is also said to have been designed by Muslims in Turkey and brought to Europe by the wife of England’s Turkish ambassador in 1724. Protecting and cleansing the body has always been a priority for Muslims. Perhaps then it is no surprised that Muslim scientists combined vegetable oils with sodium hydroxide and aromatics such as thyme oil to create a recipe for soap, which is still used today. Shampoo was also introduced to England on the Brighton seafront in 1759 at Mahomed’s Indian Vapour Baths.

    Contributions to science There is also little doubt that the development of astronomy owes a great deal to the work of Muslim astronomers. As far back as the early 9th century, the Caliph Al-Ma’mum founded an astronomical observatory in Shammasiya in Baghdad and Qasiyun in Damascus. Five hundred years later, in 1420, Prince Ulugh Bey built a massive observatory in Samarqand, which was then followed in 1577 by another observatory built by Sultan Murad III in Istanbul. The Ottomans had particularly well-organized astronomical institutions such as the post of chief-astronomer and time-keeping houses.

    Taqi al-Din, a 16th century Ottoman astronomer, created astronomical tables and observational instruments that helped measure the coordinates of stars and the distances between them. Muslims have also made contributions in the field of chemistry by inventing many of the basic processes and apparatuses used by modern-day chemists. Working in the 8th and 9th centuries in Andalucía, Jabir Ibn Hayyan, the founder of modern chemistry, transformed alchemy into chemistry through distillation, or separating liquids through differences in their boiling points.

     In addition to developing the processes of crystallization, evaporation, and filtration, he also discovered sulphuric and nitric acid. The historian Erick John Holmyard stated that Hayyan’s work is as important, if not more, than that of Robert Boyle and Antoine Lavoisier, two European chemists who are frequently attributed to creating modern chemistry. Indeed our very modern and globalized world today would not be able to move so quickly if it were not for the genius of Ibn Firnas, a Muslim engineer of Andalucía who in the 9th century constructed a flying machine, thus becoming the world’s first aviator. In 852 he jumped from the minaret of the Grand Mosque in Cordoba, Spain, using a loose cloak stiffened with wooden struts.

    Although he hoped to glide like an eagle, Ibn Firnas did not, though he is credited for creating the first parachute. Muslims have also influenced the study of physics, a closely linked field to flying and aviation. Mohammad Abdus Salam, a Pakistani theoretical physicist, shared a 1979 Nobel Prize for his contribution to the field of theoretical physics, specifically in unifying electromagnetic and weak forces. I have only scratched the surface of the contributions made by Muslims to the development of civilization. Children around the world should be taught about these contributions to dispel the misperception that Muslims are backward and stagnant.

    Muslims worldwide must also invest more in education, medicine, and other sciences in order to continue their tradition of being pioneers for knowledge’


    By Muhammad yunus - 6/2/2017 8:05:31 PM



  • Dear Ikram Ahmed,

     I agree wiith you 100%: "in the first place, why does Zakir Naik require scientific evidence to prove that Quran is a book of God or that it was never fabricated or altered for centuries?  Does faith require scientific validity?",

     However, reading through your article I came across this statement:

     "Many Muslim scientist and philosophers were heretics.” Can you substantiate this by giving at least five names of such people who have gone down the history as ‘heretic.’

     I fully agree with you that that ‘Muslim, Jews, Christian’ studied humanities, sciences, mathematics…. individually and collectively’, though I must add the Hindus,  Budhists and people of different faiths who gravitated to the world of Islam as it is so called historically -  both for the patronage they received and the financial rewards. However when you say, “Individual brilliance should not remain in the shadows of culture and religious identity” I must say, whoever claims that the Muslims made all the advances is fooling others because people of diverse religion contributed to the scientific advancement of the era. But whoever sets aside the non-Muslims who lived and worked in the Islamic world as alien to it culturally is no wiser, for that will  make an Indian Muslims an alien in his country. Islamic world was an amalgam of different cultures – it was not a monolithic all Muslim world.


    By muhammd yunus - 6/2/2017 7:50:34 PM



  • Hats Off's habit of misrepresenting what others have said is phenomenal. If I say that statues and temples have often been demolished by conquerors, he would take it to mean that I am providing a logic for such activity! Lies, I suppose, are part and parcel of all hate campaigns like the one that Hats Off has launched against moderate Muslims!


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 6/2/2017 3:14:57 PM



  • this justification of the Holy Qur'an should be left to the IIT graduates floundering in their own bloated egos. mr. zakir naik at least is honest. you cannot say that about the moderates on this forum.

    one would justify sex slavery another would support jizya. another will provide the logic for demolishing statues and temples. and so on and so forth.

    its a shame that western nations welcome these kinds of people who would sabotage the country that welcomed them. islam is indeed peace.

    By hats off! - 6/2/2017 10:02:32 AM