The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Archive for the ‘general’ Category

Rizwan Jamil writes:

Dear Dr. Zahid!

I want to ask you a question regarding Jesus’s (PBUH) death. Can you please open a new thread with this topic?

Thanks!

A tool which the Western critics of Islam have recently been employing is to accuse Islam and its followers of anti-semitism. (They are, of course, helped in their argument by the foolish pronouncements of certain Muslim political and religious leaders.)

Yet when Hitler was conducting the oppression of the Jews in Germany, before the Second World War began, very few people in the U.K., U.S.A., France, and like countries, condemned his actions. In fact, a large number of people in these countries supported various policies of Hitler until they were compelled to fight Germany’s aggression towards its neighbours.

But who condemned Hitler’s anti-Jewish measures at an early stage?

It was Muslims.

Please see at this link a page from The Light of Lahore, an English language Muslim journal, dated 8 April 1933, just two months after Hitler came to power. On this page there is a comment in the right-hand column near the foot of the page, which is headed Hitlerism.

“The West may rightly be described as a continent of “isms”. Capitalism, Socialism, Bolshevism, Facism, Communism — these are the so many manifestations of a restless soul seeking after some true solution of a social system. On top of them all now comes in Germany what may be called Hitlerism. Whether this new tide will take the German people back to the promised land flowing with milk and honey is yet to be seen. In the meantime it has launched a bitter campaign of hatred against the Jews who, as reports show, are subjected to severe persecutions all over Germany. This is deplorable, to say the least and no movement based on hatred can be expected to blow any good to humanity. Europe in quest of a social order has tried so many isms, each having landed it in deeper social bogs. Will it not give a trial to the one “ism” that sprang from the soil of Arabia and which combines all that is best and is free from all that is evil in all the “isms” it has so far tried, viz., Islamism?”
(The bolding is mine.)

It is nothing short of astonishing, if not a Divine miracle, that a Muslim organ based so far from Europe, writes that Hitler’s policies will lead to no good because they are based on hatred and on persecuting the Jews. Please remember that during the 1930s eminent persons in the West outside Nazi Germany (particularly the U.K.) believed that many of Hitler’s policies were admirable.

Challenge number 1 to critics of Islam: How many persons can you point out in the civilised West who, at the very time Hitler came to power, condemned Hitler’s persecution of Jews and predicted that it would lead to no good for humanity?

If this was not enough, I refer you to statements of the Imam of the Woking Mosque in 1939. The Woking Mosque was, at that time, the main Muslim centre in the U.K., frequented by leaders of various nations when visiting Britain, and its Imam was the spokesman of the Muslim community.

1. In 1939 he was asked if Nazism was compatible with Islamic teachings. He replied that:

“The present-day legislation in Germany is inspired by racial discrimination and religious distinctions. It, to begin with, believes in racial superiority, it believes in exiling people for their religious opinions. It has actually pulled down synagogues.
… there can be no two opinions on the matter. Islam has come to establish in reality the Brotherhood of Man which is the imperative need of the present-day world. Enough of dissensions. Let us talk of ways enabling us to treat each other as brothers and members of one family.”

He went on to denounce the persecution of Jews in Germany. See: www.wokingmuslim.org/work/imams-reply-mar40.htm

2. In the Eid-ul-Fitr khutba, 13 November 1939, he declared:

“A Muslim is bound to wage war against any person, whether of his own kith and kin and religion or not, who interferes with the beliefs of a non-Muslim. … Muslims are ordered to sacrifice their lives not only to save their own mosques but the religious houses of other peoples as well. …

The Zionist policy in Palestine has done us great harm. Untold miseries has it brought upon our brethren in the faith in that country. But the very fact that synagogues have been pulled down in Germany upon the slightest pretext makes it obligatory upon us Muslims to throw our weight into the cause of the Allies. ”

See: www.wokingmuslim.org/work/id-ul-fitr-1939.htm

Challenge number 2 to critics of Islam: How many Christian religious leaders at the time preached from the pulpit that it was the religious duty of Christians to take up arms against those who destroy synagogues?

I will be sending out my challenge by post to certain newspapers columnists in Britain. (Zahid Aziz)

I have created a new website dedicated to the life and work of Maulana
Abdul Haq Vidyarthi. It is as yet at an early stage of development.
Please see:

www.abdulhaq.info

If you read the reports of his missionary activities from 1923 that I have uploaded, you will see how much work he and other Lahore Ahmadi missionaries (such as one Maulana Ismatullah) did in rural areas (for example, around Agra) to prevent Muslims falling into the clutches of the Arya Samaj. Large numbers of Muslims had in fact deserted Islam and become Aryas, who accepted Islam again through the work of the Maulana.

He mentions in these reports that one factor which helped the Arya Samaj was the disrepute of the Maulvis themselves. The Maulana even says that some wicked Maulvis took money from the Aryas to confirm the allegations against Islam which the Aryas were exploiting (meaning that if, for example, the Aryas said that Islam was a religion of violence, the Maulvis would confirm the same).

Zahid Aziz.

A valued contributor has sent us the following news:

US Bible translator agrees to review after criticism over substitutions for ‘Son’ and ‘Father’

The link is here.

The head of the translation publication company says:

“in some cases, what are known to scholars as the “divine familial terms” — God the Father and the Son of God — don’t make sense in translation in some cultures. Islamic teaching, for example, rejects the notion that God could be involved in a relationship similar to a human family, and … people in such cultures might be immediately put off by those terms.”

A critic of the translation says:

“using words like “Messiah” instead of “Son” and “Lord” instead of “Father” badly distorts the essential Christian doctrine of the Trinity, in which God is said to be one being in three persons…

If you remove ‘son,’ you have to remove ‘father,’ and if you remove those, the whole thread of the scriptures from Genesis to Revelation is unraveled”.

When I first read the news item referred to below in a British newspaper, I thought the newspaper must have made a mistake or misunderstood something (i.e. the “dead wife” part). But the same news appears in a newspaper of the Arab world. Please see:

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/04/25/210198.html

To quote the opening lines:

“Egypt’s National Council for Women (NCW) has appealed to the Islamist-dominated parliament not to approve two controversial laws on the minimum age of marriage and allowing a husband to have sex with his dead wife within six hours of her death according to a report in an Egyptian newspaper.” (bolding is mine)

Submitted by Ikram.

Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran (Vatican) – President, Council For Inter-religious Dialogue

The above link was posted by Rashid in a different thread.

The Cardinal sidestepped certain questions pertaining to Vatican view about whether Islam in an intolerant religion, potential attack on Iran by United States, message to Israeli authorities and how they deal with Christian communities, the concerns of Muslim about invasions into their countries etc.

The interview brought out certain pertinent points, though not in the interview but nevertheless relevant to the topic and are addressed below:

Failure of West to recognize that even though they might have separated Church and State from their own perspective, but the world has not. Any attack on Muslim country is perceived as an attack on Islam by Christianity. Then as a reaction, the Christians become target of reprisal attacks in communities which is obvious from Al Jazeera report:

According to the Vatican, more than half of Iraq’s Christians have left the country since the US-led invasion in 2003. On New Year’s, a bomb went off in a church in Egypt, killing at least 20 people. And in Nigeria a bomb destroyed a church on Christmas 2011, leaving 35 people dead.

Next time, when any Muslim country is attacked by a Western power, they must take the above facts into equation as for the Muslims the current wars might be a continuation of the crusades. If nothing else, the Vatican must disassociate itself from any Western Power that initiates war or imposes sanctions on others, excommunicate it when it breaks the Christian message of “love, peace and forgiveness” and Vatican itself must make unequivocal declaration that crusades have ended, rather than the sporadic vague apologies:

Saving one of his most audacious initiatives for the twilight of his papacy, John Paul II yesterday attempted to purify the soul of the Roman Catholic church by making a sweeping apology for 2,000 years of violence, persecution and blunders…The Pope did not identify guilty individuals or name the crusades, the Inquisition or the Holocaust, but the references were clear…Pope Urban II, anxious to assert Rome’s authority in the east, sent a military expedition in 1095 to reconquer the holy land. The crusaders ravaged the countries they passed through and massacred the Muslim, Jewish and even Christian population of Jerusalem after capturing it in 1099. After 200 years of conflict Muslim armies drove them out for good, but the crusaders’ symbol of the red cross remains provocative. [Pope says sorry for sins of church – Sweeping apology for attacks on Jews, women and minorities defies theologians’ warnings – Rory Carroll in Rome, The Guardian, Monday 13 March 2000 06.37 EST]

Vatican has to end its dichotomy and wishy-washy stance on Palestine. Read, the following text of Al Jazeera with regards to Vatican view about state of Christians in Middle East:

“For me the great temptation for the Christians in the Middle East is to emigrate. I think if Christians would leave the Middle East, it would be a tragedy, because first of all they are leaving the earth where they were born because Christians have always been in the Middle East. And all the holy places would become museums and that would be a catastrophe… You cannot deny that they are the target of a kind of opposition. I have been in the Middle East for many years and what I felt was that Christians feel they are second-class citizens in countries where Muslims are the majority.”

Now for a brief moment, replace the word Christian with Palestinian (i.e. both Muslims and Christians) and replace Muslim with Jews, then on the same moral principles, Vatican must address the Israeli government:

“For me the great temptation for the Palestinians in the Middle East is to emigrate. I think if Palestinians would leave the Middle East, it would be a tragedy, because first of all they are leaving the earth where they were born because Palestinians have always been in the Middle East. And all the holy places would become museums and that would be a catastrophe… You cannot deny that they are the target of a kind of opposition. I have been in the Middle East for many years and what I felt was that Palestinians feel they are second-class citizens in countries where Jews are the majority.”

Vatican is making efforts for inter-faith harmony. Pope John Paul II did reach out to other religions including Muslims when he stated:

3. The Holy Spirit is not only present in other religions through authentic expressions of prayer. “The Spirit’s presence and activity”, as I wrote in the Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, “affect not only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures and religions” (n. 28).

Normally, “it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour (cf. Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 19 May 1991, n. 29; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 1 July 1991, p. III).

Similarly, the current Pope Benedict XVI stated:

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 30, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith, says Benedict XVI.

These statement by Vatican are not too far from Quran:

2:62. Surely, those who (profess to) believe (in Islam), and those who follow the Jewish faith, the Christians and the Sabians, whosoever (of these truly) believes in Allâh and the Last Day and acts righteously shall have their reward with their Lord, and shall have nothing to fear, nor shall they grieve.

Al Jazeera quoted Pope Benedict, based upon Vatican transcripts that Pope either supports or re-quotes other experts for the verse “2:256 – There is no compulsion in religion” and that this verse (erroneously) belongs to Makkan period when Muhammad was powerless. Essentially, Vatican supports the abrogation dogma.

This is fundamentally where Vatican must be taking the opposite stand. The moment it does so, the Muslims themselves come into spot light. Imagine a debate where Robert Spencer is emphasizing that the verse 2:256 was never abrogated and that he cannot understand as to why an ignorant Mullah is targeting minorities in his country. What a spectacle would it be! A deer caught in the headlights. With this simple change of perspective, there will be beginnings of peace in Muslim lands, as it will pull the rug from beneath the Mullahs. Amen!

Since the dogma of abrogation is a favorite topic with Islam haters and Islam distorterers (from within Islam), it is part of discussion in Project Rebuttal – Issues 5, 9c and 21. The verse 2:256 has been addressed from different angles in Issues 4, 23, 25, 37a, 40a, 40b and 44b.

Q.E.D. How disastrous it becomes when man tampers with Word of Quran, in this instance the concept of abrogation of Quranic verses of peace and tolerance, thus creating a man made religion. Out of such tampering then naturally polytheistic tendencies take hold. The deities of hate, intolerance and vengeance gain footing into ones mind and belief systems. With passage of time man starts sacrificing everything to such false internal gods. Kalima Shahada – “There is no God, but Allah…” is the next victim as such internal gods now have to be bowed to, no matter what the cost to self or humanity. By then the priestly class has become the foremost advocates of such deities. Soon soulless homilies and rituals become more important than the soul of the religion. That’s when Islam of Moses changes to Judaism, of Jesus – Christianity, of Zoroaster – Zoroastrianism, of Rama/Krishna – Hinduism. Now its the turn of Islam of Muhammad. Is it not anything but Islam? Such is a natural decay of a religion which is essentially the job assignment of the Devil:

4:119. `And certainly, I will lead them astray and assuredly I will arouse vain desires in them, and I will incite them (to polytheistic practices)…

Allah can only stand behind and guarantee His own Laws and their outcome, not of that of man. No wonder every sin can be potentially forgiven in Quran but the sin of polytheism:

4:116. Allâh does not forgive (without repentance on the part of the sinner) that a partner be associated with Him though He forgives everything short of that to whomsoever He will. And he who associates a partner with Allâh has strayed, indeed, a far off straying.

Some might argue or complain against the unforgiving nature of Allah in the above verse, but that’s how His Laws stand. We see all the chaos in the world as a consequence of this very Law of His being broken with polytheism at the heart of it. It is a natural cause and effect. In physical world, one of His Law is that of Gravity. Next time, if one jumps off from a second storey of a building, that person will be lucky to walk off with just a sprained ankle. Similarly, the moral and spiritual laws have their own injuries when violated. Unlike human laws which have mostly negative consequences if broken, His Laws have rewards when followed:

2: 261. The attribute of those who spend their wealth in the cause of Allâh is like the attribute of a grain (of corn) which sprouts seven ears, each ear bearing a hundred grains. And Allâh multiplies further for whomsoever He pleases, for Allâh is Bountiful, All-Knowing.

verses quoted above are from the translation of Holy Quran – Nooruddin.

Pakistani Islamic scholar Nilofar Ahmed sahiba has written an article under above title, in Dawn.

She wrote:

“The Prophet said that after him nothing would be left of prophecy, except for a true dream. He also said that dreams are one in 46 parts of prophethood (Bukhari)”

Javed Ahmad Ghamdi sahib is also of the opinion that after Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS, people and saints can only receive prophecies in form of true dream.

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib made claims of receiving divine communications in forms beside dreams.

Sigmund Freud and other psychoanalytics have never attracted me towards their theories, may be because I had read HMGA book ‘Islmaee Usool Kee Philosphy’.

I will appreciate if anyone who has read HMGA writings on the subject of Dreams and Spirituality, can give us gist of what he wrote. I will forward that reply to Nilofar Ahmed sahiba. Thanks.

Dawn article:
http://www.dawn.com/2012/03/16/dreams-and-spirituality.html

Submitted by Ikram.

Hamza Tzortzis and Pervez Hoodbhoy on Religion & Rationality- A Discussion @ LUMS.

The above youtube link was earlier posted by Rashid in a different thread.

It was an interesting debate to a certain extent where both participants came from different ends of the spectrum, Tzortiz (T) from the assumption that there is God whereas Hoodbhoy (P) from the given that there is Science. The logic of T encompassed pre-Big Bang but without any proofs. Whereas, P was limited by time and space of the physical world only after the Big Bang and he was not in the room to deny the non-physical i.e. moral/spiritual space that T dwell upon. T tried to move in his argument spectrum towards P but could not encapsulate P for the mere fact that P was there for only cold logic of his science which was a flat rebuttal in itself.

Please note that both T & P are not from different and opposite ends of spectrum, rather from different corners of the room and not necessarily with antagonist points of view. What the debate lacked was a knowledgeable moderator, who should had initially set the tone of what this debate was about and then structured the debate with shorter but multiple opportunities for both to make the point rather than one time long speeches and then one time rebuttals. In between transitions, the moderator then could had shaped the arguments of one participant for the other. Due to lack of this structure, it is not that which of the debaters won, but it is the audience who lost an opportunity to learn rather than just hear. And both participants spoke past each other. T seems to be a skilled orator with common colloquial punch lines, whereas, P was more concrete in his space, but that is who they are. T probably with theological influence & Western literature background and P from Trieste physics. At least to me the arguments of P were clear to be thought about. Whereas, T was more philosophical and vague, though he had clever interjections and quotes which somewhat had a wow factor, but little sustainable substance.

The debate brought out certain points, paraphrased below by each that are briefly touched upon and are identified by their name letters. Comments with indented paragraphs are added by me.

T – Concept of God transcends time and space.

Comment:

57:3. He is (from) the very First (there was nothing before Him), and (He will exist to) the Last (there will be nothing after Him), and when nothing remains He will remain (He being an eternal Being). He is the Supreme Being (subordinate to no one). And (whereas He comprehends everything) He is Incomprehensible. He has full knowledge of everything.

T – Universe out of nothing.

Comment:

The natural question arises as to how it all came to be over past, present and future:

2:117. (God is) the Wonderful Originator without depending upon any matter or pattern of the heavens and the earth; and when He issues a decree He does but say to it, `Be’ and it comes to be.

The time frame in the verse above and it comes to be is bound by the nature of that particular creation:

36:82. Verily, His command, when He intends (to evolve) a thing, is (only) that He says to it, `Be’ and it comes into being (at the proper time).

On a celestial scale, the law of conservation of matter has given way to the law of conservation of energy and e=mc^2. Nowadays it is not surprising for matter to emerge from non-matter.

On the spiritual plane:

…to create something out of nothing is also His work. Just as you see it in a scene in a dream He creates a whole world without any matter, and shows nonexistent things to be existent. Thus such are all the wonders of His power… [Mirza Ghulam Ahmad – The Light – U.K. Edition, May 2008 Special Century Edition, page 19]

Whereas, in evolutionary transformation of matter:

6:95. Verily, it is Allâh Who splits the (seed) grains and (fruit) stones. He bring [sic] forth the living out of the lifeless and He brings forth the lifeless out of the living. Such is Allâh, wherefore then are you turned back.

In summary:

“Everything in the world appears to have been enchained by the Law. It follows it implicitly Is it then other than Allah’s religion that they seek (to follow), and to Him submits whoever is in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly, and to Him shall they be returned? (3:82). Nature discloses regularity, precision, punctuality, knowledge, power, command, intellect, preordination, prearrangement, precaution, and several other features that are the possessions of the mind exclusively. In their presence the universe cannot be taken as the outcome of accident; It needs an intelligent Design to precede the process of its creation. The word design is sometimes used to bore minds with skeptical tendencies, but it now carries wider connotation. It brings within it so many facts and figures recently discovered by Science that disbelief in God would amount to ignorance.” [Introduction to Study of The Holy Quran, by Khwaja Kamaluudin, p. 21. Note: “intelligent Design” referred to here has no relation to contemporary evolution debate]

T- Self Creation of ?God

Comment:

59:22. He is Allâh, He is the One beside whom there is no other, cannot be and will never be One worthy of worship but He. (He is) the Knower of the unseen and the seen. He is the Most Gracious, the Ever Merciful.

59:23. He is Allâh, beside whom there is no other, cannot be and will never be One worthy of worship but He, (He is) the Supreme Sovereign, the Holy One, the Most Perfect, Bestower of peaceful Security, the Guardian, the All-Mighty, the Compensator of losses, the Possessor of all greatness. Holy is Allâh, far beyond and above the things they associate with Him.

59:24. He is Allâh, the Creator of (the matter and the spirit), the Maker, the Bestower of forms (and fashioner of everything suiting to its requirement). All fair attributes belong to Him. All that lies in the heavens and the earth declares His glory; He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.

85:13. It is He Who originates and continues reproducing.

85:14. And He is the Protector, the Most Loving;

85:15. Lord of the Throne (of Power), the Lord of all Glory,

85:16. Absolute Performer of what He intends (to carry out). [Here “He intends” can be extrapolated to include according to His Laws]

112:1. Say,`(The fact is) He is Allâh, the One and Alone in His Being’.

112:2. `Allâh is that Supreme Being Who is the Independent and Besought of all and Unique in all His attributes’.

112:3. `He begets none and is begotten by no one’.

112:4. `And there is none His equal’.

114:2. `The Sovereign, the Controller of all affairs of mankind,

114:3. `The God of mankind,

P – Clarifies the topic of the debate – “Religion as a rational enterprise, is it or is it not?”

Defines Rationality as – Interlinks (of ideas) that link cause to effect based upon set of universal rules e.g. deaths in epidemics results from scientific reasons e.g. germs, hygiene, genetics, malnutrition etc. Religious rationalism emanates from “somebody displeased” i.e. God, for earthquakes, tsunamis etc. to happen. Then why on earth the poor and believing people were hurt first in 2005 Kashmir earthquake?

Comment:

More often than not our own lack of knowledge forces us to blame preordination or destiny for an affliction or disaster. The black plagues were widely believed to be a curse by God instead of what they were: infections whose cure was then unknown. However, it was probably easier for people to blame the cause on God rather than accept responsibility for human ignorance. In modern times, under-developed societies suffer disproportionately from natural disasters or epidemics. The question then becomes why does God’s wrath descend mostly on the under developed world? Is God disciplining the poor disproportionately or is this disproportionate human destruction a function of human ignorance?

64:11 (Nothing happens haphazardly in the Universe.) No calamity befalls but according to the laws of God. Whoever (understands this and) believes in God guides himself deep down in his heart. God is the Knower of all things (and events). [Nations that understand the laws in nature are better equipped to take preventive measures against natural disasters. Izn = Leave = Permission = Laws] – Shabbir Ahmed.

P – If religion was a rational exercise then there must be universal consensus on its principles similar to consensus in scientific rules, whereas it is not. For example Muslims and Jews believe in one god, Christians in three, Hindus in 5700+.

Comment:

What P missed was that all of the above i.e. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus etc. have one common thing. They all believe in God for the mere fact:

“The greatest height intellect can elevate us to, is that there ought to be a God. But whether He is actually there, is a question that surpasses the region of our stereotyped intellect. No amount of argumentation can bring home to the blind that light is there. What he can perceive is only this much, that there ought to be something called light, as there are so many reports to show its existence. But the law of nature, where there is a demand there is a supply, compels us to believe that there must be some solution or other of the problem. So far as man’s capacity for the acquisition of knowledge is concerned, he has two instruments, sense organs and intellect. But both of these are ineffective to take us beyond the quagmire of doubt and suspicion so far as the existence of God is concerned. The craving for first-hand sure knowledge is there. Law of nature requires the possibility of means to satisfy the craving. Sense perception and intellect, the two sources of knowledge, are not potent enough to help us out of the difficulty. Therefore, there must be some other channel of ascertaining truth, to accept which we must not be reluctant.” [God Speaks to Man (Revelation) by M. Muhammad Yaqub B.A., Islamic Review and Muslim India, Vol. VIII, No. 6-7, June-July 1920, p. 273]

P – People belong to a religion because they are born into one. Only 0.1% change their birth religion.

Comment:

Quran agrees to a certain extent of what P says:

5:104. …They say, `Sufficient for us is that (tradition) whereon we have found our forefathers.’ What! (would they follow them blindly) even though their forefathers had no knowledge whatsoever and had no guidance?

But, then there is an example of a non-physics i.e. moral force which made the change in history. The same virtuous force persists with the same principles prevailing for the present and the future:

110:1. The help of Allâh and the victory (over the Makkans) has indeed come (in fulfillment of the prophecies),

110:2. And you see people thronging in to the fold of the Faith of Allâh.

P – Quran is not a book of science. You cannot do any experiment to reject a theological doctrine.

Comment:

Yes, Quran is not a book of science but in step with science for all its secular arguments. It does not contravene science of whatever we know of it. While discussing the validity of science in Qur’ân, the main purpose of Qur’ân is much more and is summarized as follows:

“The aim of the Qur’ân is to spiritualize our souls. It makes numerous statements based on historical facts, but it is not a book of history. It draws attention to different stages of the creation of the universe (7:54; 14:33; 21:28-33; 71:15-18), the origin of life from water (21:30; 24:45), and concerning humans (71:14; 32:7; 39:7; 40:67), but it is not a treatise on the evolution of life. It makes several references to the laws governing the wonderful system that revives the dry earth through rain (7:57) and maintains the supply of sweet and salt water in rivers and oceans (25:54; 35:12), but it is not a manual of Meteorology, Hydraulics, or Ecology. It says: ‘We create a human being from an extract of clay; then We reduce him to a drop of sperm (and place him) in a safe depository; then We form the sperm into a clot; then We develop the clot into a lump of flesh; then We fashion bones out of this lump of flesh, then We clothe the bones with flesh, and thereafter We evolve him into another being’ (23:12-14); yet it is not a work on Obstetrics. Several of its verses contain references to the achievements in the material sciences and activities in the field of trade, space research, and weaponries. He has let the two bodies of water flow freely; they will (one day) join together. (At present) a barrier stands between them. They cannot encroach one upon the other. Pearls and corals come out of both (these seas). And to Him belong the ships raised aloft in the sea like mountain peaks (55:19-24 – a hint on the construction of the Suez and Panama Canals and the huge ships crossing them). It adds: O body of JINN (- fiery natured) and (ordinary) the people! If you have the power and capacity to go beyond the confines of the heavens and the earth, then do go. But you will not be able to go unless you have the necessary and unusual power. Flames of fire, smoke and molten copper will be let loose upon you and you will not be able to defend yourselves (55:33), and yet the Qur’ân is not a book about material sciences, rockets, missiles, or sputniks. It says that when Pharaoh Meneptah was drowning and as death overtook him, he was told: ‘So, on this day We will preserve you in your body (only) that you may be a sign (to learn a lesson from) for the coming generations’ (10:92). The Bible makes no mention of this, nor does any book of history, but still, the Qur’ân is not concerned with Egyptology or Archaeology. Its purpose is not to teach History, Nature, Philosophy, nor to teach any other Science or Art but, as previously stated, to spiritualize our souls. It states, discusses or cites a thing only to the extent relevant to its aim and object, leaving out details as it returns to its central theme and its invitation. When the Qur’ân is studied in this light, there is no doubt that the whole Scripture is a closely reasoned argument and there is continuity of subject throughout the Book.” [The Holy Quran – Introduction, Nooruddin, pg 48-a – 49-a]

P – Builds his case upon the absurdities of theological constructs e.g. he quotes that some claim that angels travel at speed of light, hence nothing can be faster than the angles and by implication nothing can be faster than light. Then he quotes recent CERN results where neutrinos were found traveling faster than light with a Q.E.D. of neutrinos being outside of God’s control.

Comment:

P is right on the money when he ridicules the proponents of psedo-Islamic science, the Mullah mentality (-the blind fellowship) in an otherwise outwardly secular professional.

6: 116. Should you obey the majority of those on earth, they would lead you astray from Allâh’s way. They follow nothing but mere surmise and they do nothing but make conjectures.

P – You do no service either to science or religion when you combine the two.

Comment:

Here I disagree. One does not exclude the other as long it is not a Mullah’s scientific view. The concept of God does not threaten science. George Johnson summarizes this in his review of Owen Gingerich’s God’s Universe:

“… there are two ways to think about science. You can be a theist, believing that behind that veil of randomness lurks an active, loving, manipulative God, or you can be a materialist, for whom everything is matter and energy interacting within space and time. Whichever metaphysical club you belong to, the science comes out the same.” [Scientists on Religion: Theist and materialists ponder the place of humanity in the universe, by George Johnson, Scientific American, Volume 295 Number 4, October 2006.]

P – Self critique – Muslims have not produced any science worth mentioning in last 1000 years. Not even one example can be quoted from any field.

Comment:

P is once again right on the money. The reason is simple because the Muslims misread the following verses in theological sense only and forgot that it is all about science. Qur’ân encourages and nurtures science. It asserts the vast extent of scientific knowledge:

18:109. Say, `If every ocean became ink for (recording) the words and creation of my Lord, surely, the oceans would be spent up before the words and creation of my Lord came to an end, even if we brought to add (therewith) as many more (oceans).

31:27. And if all the trees in the earth were pens, and the sea with seven more seas added to it (were ink), the words of Allah would not be exhausted. Surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.

Surely the above verses cannot refer to polemics or theology. They clearly signify that God intends man to discover the Laws of science that are also created by Him.

P – Quran tells you how to behave, what your moral values should be, social and ritual structuring.

Comment:

P points out the core purpose of Quran in a generic sense, even though he limits it, but that’s okay. P is generally short sighted in that his frame or arguments are confined to physical world only, but “man cannot live by bread alone”. Like any other human P must have his own value system which must be unique but congruent to universal values of love, hate, yearn, seek, accept, reject, wish, rejoice, repent, regret etc, the all natural human emotions and expectations. Either he can live the current life as an experiment to fully learn the trick of the trade of life and society then hope for a re-incarnation to live an optimized life second time around or live like us mortals this life once and try to make most of it in non-physical aspects. Some may call it even “opium of the masses.” But it is opium for the addict and not for the patient who needs it from the trauma suffered, or a vaccine to prevent an illness, or a nutrition to bring to fruition what life has to offer, or a purpose to otherwise purposeless life and death cycle. That we find in Quran because:

2:2. This is the only perfect Book, wanting in naught, containing nothing doubtful, harmful or destructive, there is no false charge in it…

2:185. The (lunar) month of Ramadzân is that in which the Qur’ân (started to be) revealed as a guidance for the whole of mankind with its clear evidences (providing comprehensive) guidance and the Discrimination (between right and wrong)…

3:4. … And He has revealed (the Qur’ân as) the Criterion of judgment (between truth and falsehood)…

10:57. O mankind! there has come to you an exhortation (to do away with your weaknesses) from your Lord and a cure for whatever (disease) is in your hearts, and (a Book full of) excellent guidance and a mercy, (and full of blessings) to the believers (in the ultimate form of the Qur’ân).

14:1. …(This is) a great Book which We have revealed to you that you may bring mankind, by the leave of their Lord, out of different kinds of darkness into light, to the path of the All-Mighty, the Praiseworthy,

14:2. (To the path of) Allâh, to Whom belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth…

17:105. We revealed it (– the Qur’ân) to suit all the requirement of truth and wisdom and it has come down (to you) with truth and wisdom…

43:2. This perfect Book that makes (the truth) perspicuously clear bears witness (to the above truth).

P – Quran is not about science.

Comment:

Yes, Quran is not a book of science in a classical sense, yet it does not abhor it either. There is a core common premise of a Muslim and a Scientist, that is both:

2:3. Those who believe in the existence of hidden reality, that which is beyond the reach of human perception and ordinary cognizance…

P – There is no point in digging out science from the Quran.

Comment:

That is too broad a brush stroke by P. Of course, one will never be able to find details of M-Theory in Quran, but Quran encourages the core aspect of mind that makes a “good” scientist:

12:108. Say, `This is my path. I call to Allâh. I am on sure knowledge verifiable by reason and (so are) those who follow me. (I believe that) Holy is Allâh. I am not of the polytheists.’

Qur’ân, thus, sets the standards for knowledge, verifiable by reason, which is commonly referred to as “science.” This verse by itself excludes a Mullah from both the science and the logic of Quran.

 
Some pertient points in Rebuttal session are as follows:

T – Quran does not go against reality of science. Quran uses science as a supporting argument.

T – People belong to faith and values because of prevailing consensus.

T – How and Why are two different things e.g. How pregnancy happens? Answer: union of sperm and egg. Why my wife became pregnant? Answer: Because I loved her.

T – An atheist can only verify facts but is far removed from the causality of life and universe.

P – With a Sir Syed-ian view, P rejects the relationship of physical world and the prayer e.g. If whole of Saudi Arabia prays for rain, will it become a tropical rain forest? Quran is correct and science is correct. You have to read Quran in a way that the possibility of miracles becomes allegorical.

P – Admonishes the opponent about his superficial understanding of scientific constructs and prevents him from using his understanding in theological arguments.
 

 
Q&A session – some of the highlights are below:

T – Allah from nothing?

P – Science will not tell you somethings. It will not tell you why you exist, what is the purpose of your life, what your morals ought to be. Science only deals with the physical universe after the big bang and not with the issue of a “Creator” who was there before it.

Audience: How can an atheist be sincerely an atheist when he does not even entertain that domain of thought of a Creator?

P’s reply – Science is separate from atheism, agnosticism and religion. These domains only deal with what brought all this about? If the Holy Book had science in it then in the last 1000 years we should had gained in knowledge of a testable experiment, some machine that must had been build, in the form of some device.

Comment:

Since P is a professor of physics in a leading university and was under tutelage of great Abdus Salam in Triest, he must ask his students to re-read the first verses of Muhammad’s revelations in a different light:

96:1. Read in the name of your Lord Who creates

96:2. creates man from a clot (of blood)

96:3. read and your Lord is most Generous,

96:4. Who taught by the pen,

96:5. taught man what he did not know.

96:6. No! Man is surely inordinate,

96:7. because he looks upon himself as self-sufficient.

96:8. Surely to your Lord is the return. [Muhammad Ali]

A keen reader will immediately notice the path to human progress when one is to Read in the name of your Lord Who creates the basis of all material and non-material opportunities in life; and the Divine guarantee of success if one is to read and your Lord is most Generous; and the knowledge that He taught man what he did not know which leads to progress; but the natural impediment to this progress is the human side of man i.e. Man is surely inordinate, he looks upon himself as self-sufficient and thus robs himself of the progress that the Almighty has in store for him. Embedded in these first commandments is the message that lays down the very foundation of what we call individual scholarship and, collectively, as the universities in modern day a.k.a. Harvards, Stanfords, Oxfords, Triestes…

 
The Bottom Line to this kind of debate was summarized by Khwaja Kamaluddin in earlier part of last century:

“True Science and true Theology are one and the same. One reveals the Laws of God working in the various manifestations of the Universe, on the physical plane; the other discloses the same Laws at work in the Moral and Spiritual sphere. All these laws emanate from the same First Intelligent Cause, and cannot, therefore, admit of any mutual discrepancy.”

“A person with an atheistic turn of mind cannot but admit the essential reasonableness of the Qur-ánic Theology. The ‘God’ of the Qur-án is the ‘God’ of Nature. If the working of Nature disclose a reign of law, which demands implicit obedience to it from all the component parts of the Universe, and if different forms of the law exhibit different characters and features of that Great Mind, Who is admittedly working behind the scene, it is not difficult to arrive at some of the conceivable attributes of the First Intelligent Cause; and a true theology must reveal them.” [Islam and Zoroastrianism by Khwaja Kamal ud din, p. 91, 93, pub: 1925]

 
Note: Unless otherwise indicated, all the above verses from Quran are taken from the Translation of the Holy Quran by Nooruddin.

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri

Recently in the Pakistani English daily Dawn an article is written by Nilofar Ahmaed on age of Hazrat Aisha RA at time of her Nikah (solemnization) and Rukhsati (consummation) with Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS. According to this article, Hazrat Aisha (RA) age at time of Nikah was 18 years and 21 years at time of consummation of marriage.

I am glad to read this article, as it gives me hope about bright future of Muslims, when I see scholars among Muslims other than members of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement write in public what Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib started and is continued by LAM. By this I mean clarifying misunderstandings about character and teachings of Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAWS). I sent the following email to the author. Her reply follows my email.

Dear Respected sister Nilofar Ahmad,
Asalam Alaikum,

Thank you for writing on such an important topic as ‘Age of Hazrat Aisha at time of Nikah and Consummation of her marriage with Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS’. Your effort to correct misunderstanding about this often ridiculed incident by opponents of Islam will not only help clear this for these opponents but also for ‘Aishiqan-e-Rasool’ i.e. Muslims.

I would highly recommend you to please read the following links, and see how members of ‘Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement’ starting from Maulana Muhammad Ali are sacrificing their energies, time, and finances to clear a great misunderstanding on the blessed character of our beloved Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS.

Please check following links:
Hazrat Aishah Siddiqah’s Age at Her Marriage:
[Proves that: The Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) Married Hazrat Aishah When She was 19 Years of Age and not When She Was 9.]
by Ghulam Nabi Muslim Sahib, M.A.
Translated by: Masud Akhtar, B.A., LL.B.
The Light (Sep 24, 1981, pp. 13-17).
http://aaiil.org/text/acus/islam/aishahage.shtml

Lady ‘A’ishah’s age at the time of the consummation of her marriage to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sas) http://aaiil.org/text/books/others/ghulamnabimuslim/aishahagetimemarriageholyprophetmuhammad/aishahagetimemarriageholyprophetmuhammad.pdf

The Marriages of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh): Accusations answered
http://aaiil.org/text/acus/islam/marriagesholyprophetmuhammad.shtml
http://aaiil.org/usa/magazines/islamicsunrise/2008/islamicsunrise_200808.pdf
http://aaiil.org/text/articles/islamicreview/1941/05may/islamicreview_194105.pdf
http://aaiil.org/text/articles/hope/2010/hope201009_burnquranday.pdf

In Urdu:
Rukhsati kay Waqt Ummul Mu’mineen Sayyeda Ayesha Siddiqa kee ‘Umar:
by Ghulam Nabi Muslim
Hazrat Ayesha’s (rta) age at the time of her marriage http://aaiil.org/urdu/books/others/ghulamnabimuslim/rukhsatiwaqtayeshaumar/rukhsatiwaqtayeshaumar.shtml
I will appreciate if you kindly acknowledge my email. Thanks.
Allah Hafiz.
Yours sincerely,
Rashid Jahangiri, M.D.
Manhattan, NY.
P.S. I will post this email on LAM blog:
https://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress

Ms. Nilofar Ahmed’s reply:
Assalamu alaikum.
Thanks. In case you would like to read more than 25 of my articles,
1) Go to: www.dawn.com
2) In the search box type: By Nilofar Ahmed
Regards,
NA

LINK TO MS. NILOFAR ARTICLE IN DAWN:

Of Aisha’s age at marriage
http://www.dawn.com/2012/02/17/of-aishas-age-at-marriage.html

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.

I came across a video on topic of ‘Science and Muslim Civilization’. Symposium was held in Iqbal Academy, Lahore. On November 04, 2007.

Dr. Basit Koshul, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Lahore University of Management Sciences delivered speech in which he criticized atheist scientist such as Richard Dawkins and Pakistani Physicist Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy. He criticizes sciences that they are based on presuppositions that that particular science cannot prove. Thus he justifies basic beliefs in a religion that cannot be proved. As he is talking in context of Islam, so instead of answering criticism by atheist scientists on religion, and virtually on Islam, he criticizes their sciences. In other words, he is answering questions by asking questions, and answer is nowhere. This is because Dr. Basit Koshul himself believes that Islam is based on presuppositions. Hollowness of Dr. Koshul arguments become evident in his reply to a question asked by audience member at exactly 43 minutes of video. Please must watch video at 43 minutes. I would like to read comments by readers, especially by Dr. Zahid Aziz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efZVAoeMbdg&feature=plcp&context=C34339c4UDOEgsToPDskKnnafvPDkAVaHer1MqDPyy