End Of The World – Book (Prophecies) – Muhammad al Arifi

End Of The World

In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful

In recent times things have become very confusing and we have begun to see in book stores and on websites speculations about future events, based on ayah and hadeeths which refer to these future events concerning the signs of the Hour. Sometimes you hear about the appearance of the Mahdi, sometimes you hear that the final battle between the Good and the Evil is close at hand, other time you hear some thing happening in the East or in the West. So, learn about the Final hour and it signs by reading this book which is backed by proofs from Quran and Hadith.

• Download

 

 

Mount Rushmore (did non living beings erode this mountain to make these images?)

Click this bar to view the full image.

Mount Rushmore – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That’s mountain rushmore, carved by Intelligence (of humans).

Now compare that mountain to any other mountain which has eroded over time, do you come to the conclusion that the erosion was able to produce universally recognisable human face images like mount rushmore?

I don’t think so.

Similarly, non living things cannot produce human-like beings in such detail, even if millions of years are given to nature.

Intelligence in Design – the Design Interface – 3 steps.

There’s a book by William Dembski which is called – the Design Interface. He studies human logic to try to find conclusions as to why people believe in intelligent design, ranging from belief of designs of humans, to designs of God. Why do we believe something is designed by someone and not by chance or nature?

He explains this sequence of Logic thought, and then compares this to natural objects to see whether living beings can really be a work of nature or Intelligent Design.

The Logical Sequences go as follows;

1] Improbable Object + Recognizable Pattern = Intelligent Design.

So an improbable object, with the addition of a recognized pattern = the design of someone with an intelligence.

He gives the example of the hieroglyphics in Egyptian writing.

We did not see the egyptians write them on the walls, however – due to the writing on the walls – with recognized patterns, such as the repetition of certain letters in different words – we can conclude that someone did actually write this – based on intelligence – because it makes sense and its improbable that all these letters came together to make up meaningful words.

So his other logical sequence is;

 

2] Small Probability + Specification = Design.

Since the possibility of these letters and words being written in the correct sequences, and their specificness in the way they are written [to be meaningful] – we come to the conclusion that is based on someone with intelligence, who designed it this specific way for a purpose.

Then he gives examples of the Carved faces of the American presidents on a Mountain (Mountain Rushmore) in the USA.

Click this bar to view the full image.

These faces are specific, recognizable by everyone who sees them [not just specific people who may imagine them as faces], and its highly improbable that it can happen by chance [since there are no other mountains similar to this design in its detail and specific carvings etc.] Therefore we come to the conclusion that it is carved by someone with an Intelligence.

Then he gives more examples such as writing written by people on a beach which means something meaningful to a passer by reader, who would recognise that it was written by another person before etc.

The 3rd logical sequencing he gives is;

3] See Objective Pattern = Recognise some Intelligence.

This is a summary of the logical sequences we discussed above.

We recognise that there is intelligence which caused this final product to be made due to our objectivity [i.e. we can compare this mountain (Mountain Rushmore) of the USA presidents in comparison to other mountains which have no faces on and just eroded through natural means].

Another example given is how forensic experts can study different scenarios and come to conclusions as to whether an incident was caused by a criminal with intelligence, or if it was an accident – even though they didn’t see the crime take place when it occurred, they recognised whether it was due to intelligent criminal activity, or natural means alone.

 

Let’s put DNA through the Intelligence Logical Sequences test:

Now by using the 3 Logical sequences above, let’s look at DNAand see how it fulfills the above conditions to fit into the category of Intelligent Design.

 

Logic #1]Improbable Object + Recognizable Pattern = Intelligent Design.

So an;

Improbable object (DNA), + Recognized Pattern [the makeup of DNA*] = the Design of someone with an Intelligence.

There is a recognizable patternin the formation of DNA, and its structure: *

*Nucleotides (i.e. billions of A,T,C,G, match with their suited nucleoclide partner to become: Base Pairs [A-T, G–C] (millions of these matching pairs in sequenced order*)] —> Genes (thousands of these in a sequenced order*) –> DNA.


–> = come together to make up… [i.e. Base Pairs –> (combine to make Genes etc.)]

• 2 Nucleotides form a Base Pair
• A specific number of Base pairs form a Gene
• A whole strand of base pairs with different genes on it form DNA
• DNA is folded, wrapped up with histones to form Chromosomes
• Chromosomes are stored inside the Nucleus.

*(The haploid-human genome [genes] (23 chromosomes) is estimated to be about 3 billion base pairs long and to contain 20,000-25,000 distinct genes.)

[SOURCE: International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium (2004). “Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome”. Nature 431 (7011): 931–45. doi:10.1038/nature03001. PMID 15496913.

 

The above flow diagram shows what DNA is made up of, and how specific, ordered sequencing is required for information and life to form.

And it is logical to agree that Order does not come from chaos & disorder.

 

The Basic foundation of DNA are Base Pairs;

Let’s look at the basic foundations of DNA, and that is base pairs. (I.e. A-T, G-C nucleotides connecting are base pairs.)

In regard to genetic material (i.e. base pairs) being formed out of natural processes; some might claim that genetic material was formed connected, and then connected chains naturally.

However there is a whole bunch of objections to this idea:

– First of all the basic building blocks, neucleotides/base pairs don’t form spontaneously from the earth.

– Secondly they don’t pair up to form base pairs correctly so easily either.

– And finally even if you could explain the previous two steps, it still wouldn’t be a linear (straight line) strand, but more probably a squashed and branched strand, or lots of base pairs clogged up together

[whereas a linear strand is required for it to be useful RNA/DNA for life so that two RNA strands can bind together and coil together to form into useful DNA].

– Finally, another problem is that they wouldn’t form much long strands, and a short chain can only hold a very limited amount of information (even the most basic of bacteria require thousands of base pairs/nucleotides in a linear strand for their RNA/DNA makeup to be useful for living beings).

 

Since the above is a repetition of a specific pattern which is recognizable (like programming i.e. like binary coding for a software) Our logic tells us that it was organized by someone with an Intelligence who controlled it to fulfill its role.

So we continue to his other logical sequence;

Logic #2] Small Probability + Specification = Design.

 

Small Probability; We know that scientists have been unable to produce DNA through experiments, and scientists are aware of how improbable it would be for it to come into existence through natural means (no experiments to prove DNA can come into existence by natural means = no evidence to prove its reality).

For example; the probability of billions of base pairs connecting with each other in the correct sequencing, and them forming on to become DNA, Theprobability of this is actually 4^1million (four to the power of one million [million zeros after it]).

Whereas in mathematics, probabilities smaller than 1 over 10 to the power of 50 [50 zeros after it] are thought of as “zero probability” Even if they were to argue that the chains were much smaller in the earlier days, the probability of this happening are still high (reaching to the statistical probability of impossibility of such a thing happening.)

Specification; We know that if these base pairs do not match up together correctly, then there will not be any useful genes for life. So millions of base pairs have to connect properly in the right sequencing to become useful genes. These genes will have to be many in number (hundreds or thousands) [so the nucleotide sequences will have to be in the billions connecting with each other properly], and these genes will have to form onto become strands of RNA.

Two strands of RNA will have to be equal lengths (with equal amounts of base pairs) so they can connect with each other (in a helix/coiled up way) to become DNA. The probability of this (like mentioned) above is 4^1million, because all the base pairs will have to connect with each other in the correct sequencing [i.e. A (from one RNA strand) will have to connect with T (from the other strand of RNA), G will have to with C etc.] This will have to be done billions of times – so that all the base pairs can connect with each other, and the probability of this happening without someone purposelly controlling it is impossible.

Its like tossing a coin one billion times and it always landing on heads, people won’t say its chance – but they will say that it was controlled by someone with Intelligence.

Since that – happening by natural causes – is impossible (according to the rules of statistics probability) – there is a plausible explanation, and that is Intelligent Design.

The 3rd logical sequencing he gives is;

 

Logic #3] See Objective Pattern = Recognise some Intelligence.

Definition of Objective: undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; “an objective appraisal”; “objective evidence”

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=objective

Today, scientists are aware of how complex DNA really is.

Here’s a few statements from objective scientists, some who were atheists before but left atheism and started to believe in Intelligent Design – [because that was the only plausible explanation to understand how amazing DNA really is];

“Biologists’ investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved.”[1]

Richard N. Ostling, “Lifelong atheist changes mind about divine creator,” The Washington Times 10 December 2004;
Lifelong atheist changes mind about divine creator – Washington Times

Francis Crick, for instance, one of the scientists who revealed the helix shape of DNA admitted in the face of the findings regarding DNA that the origin of life indicated a miracle:

 

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.[4]

Based on his calculations, Led Adleman of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles has stated that one gram of DNA can store as much information as a trillion compact discs [of genetic information].[5]

Gene Myers, a scientist employed on the Human Genome Project, has said the following in the face of the miraculous arrangements he witnessed:

“What really astounds me is the architecture of life… The system is extremely complex. It’s like it was designed… There’s a huge intelligence there.”[6]

The most striking fact about DNA is that the origin of the coded genetic information can definitely not be explained in terms of matter and energy or natural laws. Dr. Werner Gitt, a professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, has said this on the subject

A code system is always the result of a mental process… It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required…

There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.[7]

So this final statement by Dr. Werner Gitt is saying that there’s no known process in science which indicates or explains that something without a mind can form itself in a way to actually produce information in such detail [like the DNA].

[4] Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88
[5] John Whitfield, “Physicists plunder life’s tool chest”, 24 April 2003; (http://www.nature.com/nsu/030421/030421-6.html)
[6] San Francisco Chronicle, 19 February, 2001
[7] Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, CLV, Bielenfeld, Germany, pp. 64-7, 79

And the owner of Microsoft said; “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.“* – Bill Gates.

[*Bill Gates. The Road Ahead. Penguin Books Publishers. London. Revised Edition, November 1996. pp.228. ISBN-13; 978-0140260403]

So we see that many intelligent scientists who are objective, who were infact atheists before realise how complex DNA really is and explain that Intelligent design can be the only plausible explanation as to how it came into existence. They even compare DNA to software and hardware which humans [who have intelligence] themselves make. So what then, about DNA which is even more detailed, and contains more genetic information (i.e. it contains all your bodies attributes like hair colour, eye colour, your testosterone/oestrogen levels, thousands of pages of information of who you are and how your body works etc.) than them softwares and hardwares which they program?

A Final Word

Finally, Even if scientists were able to produce the likes of the DNA (although this seems extremely far off), this would again be Intelligently Designed and would not prove that it can come into existence by natural means alone. Since the production of DNA by scientists would be through controlled experiments by them, whereas nature in of itself is not controlled by Intelligence [according to atheists.]

If someone said that you are relying on ‘the god of the gaps’, i would say that this isn’t ‘god of the gaps’ – since nothing is preventing us from studying this further. However, due to the detailed specifications and co-ordination of such works and processes, I believe there is no other alternative except Intelligent Design.

It all started because Darwin (died in 1882CE) thought a cell was just a small circle membrane shape which could come into existence by nature, he never knew how complicated cells really were until we were able to use the Electronic Microscope (for the first time in the 1950s) to see the details within the cell. This breakthrough is what amazed many atheist scientists, and made them realise that there was no other logical explanation except Intelligent Design.

What atheists call “Nature” are really Attributes of Allah’s will.

We simply know that the the attributes atheists give to nature are usually some form of attribute of Allah. I.e. Allah is al Faatir [the Originator], Al Khaaliq [the Creator], He is Al Mussawir [the Shaper], Al Muhaymin [the giver of life], Al Razzaaq [the Provider] and Al Mumeet [the causer of death] etc.

The only exception is that they have to say that all this occured out of Randomness until intelligence arose, whereas we rest our faith based on logic and understanding – which is plausible in understanding the amazing universe around us. We might not have been present when the creation took place, but we understand that all this is based on attributes of control, design of One with Intelligence (like forensic experts understand), this Intelligence is the Knowledge, Wisdom and Power of Allah.

Further comments by Muslims on this article HERE.

Epistemology.

[Epistemologyⁱ/ɨˌpɪstɨˈmɒlədʒi/ (from Greekἐπιστήμη (epistēmē), meaning “knowledge, understanding”, and λόγος (logos), meaning “study of”) is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge.^[1][2]

It addresses mainly the following questions:

• What is knowledge?
• How is knowledge acquired?
• To what extent is it possible for a given subject or entity to be known?

Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification.]

[Thanks to wikipedia for the above. The following article is an excerpt from a longer essay I’m currently working on.]

I don’t think the importance of epistemology can be stressed when we’re talking about issues like the truth of a worldview. As I see it, human beings tend to be very rational when it comes to mundane everyday things. For example, people tend to look both ways before they cross the busy street, without having to deliberate upon why is it that such an action is deemed rational. In these cases, people are intuitively expert epistemologists- additional discussions on epistemology have little use here. However, when we start talking about things like the truth of a worldview, it’s a different story. People often employ a different epistemological judgment when it comes to worldviews. A common notion, for example, is expecting absolute proof. Now people rarely do this in their everyday life. I don’t ask for absolute proof for the claim that my mother loves me, or that my breakfast is not poisoned, or that I will survive tomorrow. Instead of asking for proof, we remain perfectly content with a claim being more plausibly true than its alternative e.g., while I don’t have any absolute proof that my mother loves me, I do think this is more plausible than the alternative i.e. my mother doesn’t love me, but has been acting that way for the past twenty-one years for some sinister hidden agenda. Sometimes, we take certain things to be true at face value, based on a strong intuitive impulse. Instead of asking for proof, I intuitively trust my sensory experiences- I just go with my intuition in that regard. I don’t think there’s any good reason not to treat worldviews this way as well. People might disagree with me by saying that the claims that worldviews, especially religious worldviews  generally make are different from our everyday experiences. This is something few people would disagree with: a Prophet of God splitting the red sea with a strike of his staff is a claim of a different proportion altogether, compared to the claim that there’s an apple on my table. I don’t see how that changes how we should judge the truth value of a proposition. If evidence does accumulate which leads us to believe that the plausibility of the Prophet splitting the sea is higher than such an event not occurring, then there shouldn’t be any good reason not to accept it (although admittedly, stronger evidence might be needed to justify such a proposition). It should be noted, that these fallacies in judging (especially religion-oriented) worldviews are not only committed by the skeptics, but also by its believers. Sincere believers are sometimes anxious about whether they are indeed on the truth or not, and in trying to give the skeptics too much benefit of doubt, they may inadvertently succumb to these fallacies i.e. underestimating the truth value of the worldview. Generally speaking, these fallacies result from psychological biases, though the nature of the biases are different in the case of the believer from the skeptic.

With all of this said, an important question arises: what is the appropriate truth value for a given worldview? It is understood that such a worldview needs to be more plausible than not, but what is that specific level of plausibility, upon reaching which we can comfortably say worldview X is true? In this regard, I’m a particularist. I don’t think it is productive to hypothesize about a general plausibility level that would hold true for all worldviews. Rather, if a true worldview does present itself, we’ll know what that plausibility level is. Or more generally, we can productively talk about whether a particular worldview is true or not even without establishing a general truth-meter. The truth-meter (almost spontaneously) arises when we are dealing with particular worldviews, and it is not necessary to hypothesize about a general truth-meter beforehand. If you have difficulty agreeing with my view, consider this: to this day, epistemologists do not have a unanimous consensus about the definition of knowledge. Does that mean we don’t recognize knowledge when we come across it? Of course not. An epistemologist can, on one hand, admit that there is no consensus on the definition of knowledge, while on the other hand, be perfectly happy to accept E=mc², or that the earth goes around the sun, or any other such proposition as examples of knowledge. This is essentially similar to my stance regarding worldviews, just because we might not have a general definition of what the “plausibility level” of the true worldview would be, we would nevertheless know it to be true once- or if- we come across it. It would be helpful, however, to have a vague, descriptive (as opposed to quantitative) idea as regards how the true worldview might be. For example, I have already argued that the true worldview would need to be more plausibly true than not, and I hold that this assertion is valid because this is how we normally judge the truth value of propositions.

But I’m destined to Hell anyway?

Asalaaamu alaykum (peace be upon you)!

Alot of atheists say that if God knows the majority of people are going to hell anyway, then why should we believe in Him? They then start making accusations of God being evil etc. yet they never consider doubting their ownselves.

The answer is simple: A person will go to the place they want to go to. If the atheist is hypothetically willing to accept that God can send them to Hell, then why can’t they hypothetically think good of God and accept that God will send them to heaven?

This is why the Messenger of God, Muhammad (peace be upon him) used the exact psyche these atheists use, except in a positive sense.

He said (meaning):  “ALL my nation WILL enter the Paradise except those who refuse.” The companions asked, “O Messenger of God! Who would refuse?” He (peace be upon him) then said, “Whoever obeys me will enter Paradise and whoever disobeys me has indeed refused (to go to Paradise).”

[Sahih Al-Bukhari]

So when atheists act sarcastic and say that they’re destined to Hell anyway, so why should they bother. Well the answer is clear – they refuse Paradise, so yes – their end will be that they won’t enter it (as a consequence the only alternative is Hell.)

Remember this isn’t referring to atheists who aren’t sure, its about atheists who are lazy, who have been shown the clear signs and Prophecies  – yet they prefer not to follow the guidance (out of laziness or arrogance).

So next time, if the atheist says he will go to Hell, tell him no – you don’t have to. Just think good of God, and follow the guidance, and you’ll be the people of Paradise.

The Degeneration Model of Religion (Part 2) – Bilal Philips

The Degeneration Model of Religion  (Part 2) – Bilal Philips

A Refutation to the Evolutionary Model of Religion

The Islamic concept of religion and its development is the opposite of the previous view. It is one of a process of degeneration and regeneration and not one of evolution.

Man began as a monotheist, but in time strayed into various forms of polytheism. Sometimes it was ditheism, sometimes it was tritheism and sometimes it was pantheism.

Prophets were sent by God to all the nations and tribes of the earth to guide them back to the straight path of monotheism. But, with the passage of time, they went astray and the teachings of the prophets were either changed or lost. The proof of this reality lies in the fact that all the so called primitive tribes which have been found have the belief in a Supreme Being. No matter what their stage of religious development may have been according to the evolutionary theory, most believe in a Supreme God over all other gods or spirits. From Itzamma, the creator-god of the Central-American Mayans to Ngewo, creator of the universe and spirits of the Sierra Leone Mende, and from Hinduism’s Brahman, the impersonal Absolute to Marduk, the ancient city deity of Babylon and Supreme God of the pantheon, the Supreme Being can be clearly seen. Even in ditheism of the Zoroastrians, Ahura Mazda, the God of good is greater than Angra Manyu. And the day of judgement, according to the Zoroastrian beliefs, is the day when Ahura Mazda defeats Angra Manyu! So Angra Manyu is really their supreme God. According to the evolutionary model, this should not be the case, as the belief in One Supreme God supposedly grew out of limited polytheism and thus could not co-exist with animism. However, the concept of a single Supreme Being remains in most of the religions evidence that masses strayed away from the monotheistic religions of the messengers’ of Allah.

Teachings of the Prophets [were distorted by the people] by giving some of God’s attributes to other aspects of creation, which came to be regarded as lesser gods in some cases and as intercessors in others.

Another proof of correctness of the degeneration model can be found in the historical transition of monotheistic Judaism into polytheistic Christianity. Monotheism taught by Prophet Jesus first degenerated into ditheism according to those who held that Jesus was not God the father, but a created divine soul. This was also the case among Greeks who identified Jesus as the Logos found in the philosophies of the Anaxagoras through to Aristotle. Later it further degenerated into tritheism among the Romans who officially sanctioned the Trinitarian concept. Finally degenerated into full-fledged polytheism in the Roman Catholic Church, wherein Mary and a series of so-called saints were given the powers of intercession and protection.

Similarly, look at the pure and final message of Islam, as brought by the last Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and compare it with the present day beliefs among many Muslims, we find that degeneration model of beliefs and practises has also occurred. The monotheism of early Islam has degenerated over the time among the various sects which have arisen, Allah’s attributes have been given to the Prophet (peace be upon him), his descendants, and to pious and impious individuals designated as saints in later generations by certain sects [i.e. some Shi’a, Sufis’ etc.].

The Evolutionary Model of Religion (Part 1) – Bilal Philips

The Evolutionary Model of Religion (Part 1) – Bilal Philips

Under the influence of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, most social scientists and anthropologists have concluded that religion began with early man’s pantheistic deification of the forces of nature. According to them, early man was amazed by the more cataclysmic and devastating forces of nature, like lightning, thunder, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc. which they supposedly conceived of as supernatural beings. Consequently, they sought ways and means of appeasing them, much in the same way they sought the aid of their leaders or more powerful tribes. In this way, early rites of worship, like prayer and sacrifice, were supposed to have developed. The North American Indians, who believe in spirits of the river, forests etc. are used as examples of this early stage in the evolution of religion known as animism. At this stage, they claim, every individual had a personal set of gods. The polytheistic situation among the Hindus of India, where every family has its own personal god, is cited as an example of this stage. Economic necessity and the struggle for survival eventually caused family links to expand, and thus tribes evolved. Tribal gods, in turn, gradually replaced the old family gods and with each successive generation, tribes The Evolutionary Model of Religion

Under the influence of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, most social scientists and anthropologists have concluded that religion began with early man’s pantheistic deification of the forces of nature. According to them, early man was amazed by the more cataclysmic and devastating forces of nature, like lightning, thunder, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc. which they supposedly conceived of as supernatural beings. Consequently, they sought ways and means of appeasing them, much in the same way they sought the aid of their leaders or more powerful tribes. In this way, early rites of worship, like prayer and sacrifice, were supposed to have developed. The North American Indians, who believe in spirits of the river, forests etc. are used as examples of this early stage in the evolution of religion known as animism. At this stage, they claim, every individual had a personal set of gods. The polytheistic situation among the Hindus of India, where every family has its own personal god, is cited as an example of this stage. Economic necessity and the struggle for survival eventually caused family links to expand, and thus tribes evolved. Tribal gods, in turn, gradually replaced the old family gods and with each successive generation, tribes became larger and larger and the number of idols got fewer and fewer. Eventually ditheism emerged in which all of the super-natural powers were confined to two main gods, a god of good and a god of evil. According to evolutionists, an example of this stage can be seen in the religion of Zoroastrians of Persia.

Prior to the appearance of the Persian ‘reformer’, Zarathustra (Greek: Zoroaster), Persians were thought to have believed in natural spirits, clan gods and family gods. According to the evidence gathered and interpreted by anthropologists, during Zoroaster’s time tribal gods were reduced to two, Ahura Mazda who, according to them, created all good in the world, and Angra Manyu who created all evil. 1

When tribes gave way to nations, tribal gods in turn gave way to the national God and monotheism was supposedly born. The God of Israel, a portrayed in the Old Testament is a national entity, fighting on their behalf against their foes. The Israelites in turn are referred to as His chosen children. The Egyptian ruler, Akhenaten of the fourteenth century B.C., also known as Amenhotep IV [4th], is also cited as proof of the evolutionist concept of religion. At a time when the prevailing belief in Egypt was polytheism, he introduced the monotheistic worship of one God called Ra, which symbolized the disc of the sun. 2

Thus, according to social scientists and anthropologists, religion has no divine origin. It is merely a by product of the evolution of early man’s superstitions’ based on his lack of scientific knowledge. They believe that science will eventually be able to unlock all of the secrets of nature, at which time, it assumes religion will disappear.

——–

1] David Hume (1711-76) followed Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) in proposing this theory in the Natural History of Religion (1757) (Dictionary of Religions, p.258).

2] Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion, pp. 16. 193.

How to handle the objection that the supernatural ideas in the Qur’an and Sunnah are nonsensical or necessarily false

A very popular line of attack against religion in general, and Islaam in specific, has to do with the supernatural. Descriptions about the supernatural realm are quite common in Islaamic scriptures, like angels, details about paradise and hellfire, jinns (unseen creation from smokeless fire), devils, miraculous feats done by God through the hands of Prophets, and so on. People often say these ideas and information in the Qur’an and Sunnah are absurd, nonsensical, or patently false.

The argument has its variations, depending on the critic’s level of discomfort about the supernatural. Here are two examples.

1. Any supernatural proposition is necessarily false.
2. Any supernatural proposition is necessarily unscientific, and therefore necessarily false.

Just as a “by the way” comment here. In my humble experience, I’ve noticed critics use terms like “absurd” “silly” “nonsensical” “ridiculous” in reference to these ideas. These terms don’t sound like they can be quantified objectively, in fact different people understand them differently i.e. what is absurd to you might not be absurd to me. These judgments are, of course, nowhere near purely intellectual, rather they tend to be emotive for a large part. This tells me that for many people, the argument is not formed out of intellect, but intuition. Personal judgment. Emotions. Maybe this piece of information might benefit you the next time you come across such an argument.

Also, some people, including some Muslims unfortunately, tend to ascribe relatively higher or lower plausibility to some beliefs about the supernatural, as compared to other such beliefs. They would find the existence of angels, for example, to be kinda-sorta plausible, while the night journey of the Prophet to be overly far-fetched and less plausible, while both of them are mentioned in the same source. A critic would sometimes count the idea of talking animals to be absurd and an argument against Islaam, but he would not do the same in the case of the existence of the Day of Judgment, because he views the former to be less plausible than the latter. So much so that to him, the idea of talking animals disproves Islaam, but the existence of the Day of Judgment doesn’t. I think this discrimination between different supernatural ideas is unfounded. I understand where people are coming from when they say these though, depending on one’s personal beliefs and circumstances, certain ideas might appear to be more plausible to him than others. But this distinction is purely emotional, and it would easily crumble when subjected to intellectual scrutiny. At the end of the day, all such beliefs are supernatural, and the supernatural is by definition beyond the natural laws we are used to. There is no way we can make educated guesses or informed judgments about the supernatural by ourselves. Given this premise, statements such as “supernatural belief X is more/less plausible than supernatural belief Y” is insensible, because these plausibility considerations are done according to the standards of the natural world, and are therefore meaningless in the context of the supernatural. So I don’t understand why one supernatural belief should be considered to be any more or any less plausible than the next, given that all of them are equally “supernatural” in nature, and one view doesn’t have any intellectual previlege above the other. An intellectually sound case against the supernatural, therefore, should be against the reference of any supernatural information in the Qur’an in general, and not selectively against certain pieces of supernatural information and not against others.

So, to get back to where we left off. Let’s observe the argument(s) again:

1. Any supernatural proposition is necessarily false.
2. Any supernatural proposition is necessarily unscientific, and therefore necessarily false.

What’s common with both of these arguments is both of them claim that there is no such thing as a “true” supernatural proposition. If any idea is beyond the natural realm, it is patently false. Put differently, for a proposition to qualify as a candidate for truth, it must necessarily be explainable by natural phenomena, and any other proposition fails to qualify. This idea is common in both arguments.

What’s different is the method employed to reach this common conclusion. Argument 1 is quite straightforward and it doesn’t utilize any transitional “step” or premise to reach the conclusion. For this critic, just the fact that a proposition is beyond natural seems to evidently imply that it is impossible. As for argument 2 however, the critic introduces the intermediate premise of science. After this premise is in place, he goes on to argue that what is not science, is not true. Let’s break the argument up into its constituent premises:

Premise 1: Any supernatural proposition is necessarily unscientific.
Premise 2: Any proposition that is necessarily unscientific is necessarily false.
Conclusion: Any supernatural proposition is necessarily false.

“Unscientific” here refers not to something that contradicts science, but rather something that isn’t confirmed by science e.g. claims in epistemology, ethics, aesthetics etc. that are not confirmed (or rather, cannot be confirmed) by science.

So let’s talk about argument 2 first. The first premise of this argument states that the anything beyond the natural world is unscientific. In other words, the answers to scientific questions can and should only be sought within the natural world. A scientfic question will never yield an answer which invokes any supernatural causation. This view is what is known in the philosophy of science as Methodological Naturalism, and our critic believes science needs to presuppose methodological naturalism in order to work.

Note that methodological naturalism (premise 1) doesn’t render a supernatural proposition false, only unscientific. Then in the second premise, the argument defines truth to be limited to scientific knowledge only, which gives us the conclusion. This view of equating truth to scientific knowledge alone is referred to as scientism. The following definition of scientism is taken from the book “Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview” authored by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, chapter 17, page 346-7:

Scientism…is the view that science is the very paradigm of truth and rationality. If something does not square with currently well-established scientific beliefs, if it is not within the domain of entities appropriate for scientific investigation, or if it is not amenable to scientific methodology, then it is not true or rational. Everything outside of science is a matter of mere belief and subjective opinion, of which rational assessment is impossible.

So argument 2 boils down to two premises, methodological naturalism and scientism. Now I believe argument 2 is a very weak argument, the reasons will be discussed shortly. But as per my experience, with the popularity of the new atheism movement and its apparent veneration of scientism, this argument seems to be more popular of the two, and hence deserving of attention.

Let’s look at premise 1 first, methodological naturalism. I think this premise is of lesser importance to the contention we are presently dealing with (although it is very relevant and of much significance to the Intelligent Design movement we hear so much about), because let’s be honest, the important question to answer is whether supernatural propositions are necessarily false or not, not whether they qualify as scientific or not. Princeton philosopher of science Bradley Monton talks about this issue in context of Intelligent Design in his book “Seeking God in Science”, chapter 3, page 75:

After much seeking, you finally reach the Oracle. You’ve come equipped with a long list of questions, but when the Oracle sees you, she says: “Look, I’m busy, I only have time to answer one question…I’ll give you two options. Do you want to know whether intelligent design is science, or do you want to know whether intelligent design is true?”…Even though much of the philosophical discussion of intelligent design relates to that question, by my lights the imoprtant question is whether intelligent design is true.

So even if methodological naturalism is decisively proven to be a legitimate criterion for science, it doesn’t have much significance as far as our current problem is concerned. That said, I don’t believe that it is necessary to presuppose methodological naturalism for science to work. For starters, methodological naturalism- the claim that scientific answers should only be sought within nature- is a claim to knowledge, and needs to be backed up with evidences. Some evidences have been advanced, but they are nowhere near definitive. A somewhat detailed response to these evidences and arguments can be found in Bradley Monton’s aforementioned book. The book is written largely in the context of intelligent design, but contains valuable material on the legitimacy of methodological naturalism as a demarcation criteria between science and non-science.

Also, methodological naturalism is damaging to science in the sense that it limits science’s efficiency as a tool for pursuit of the truth. Bradley Monton comments on this issue in the same book (page 58):

If science really is permanently committed to methodological naturalism, it follows that the aim of science is not generating true theories. Instead, the aim of science would be something like: generating the best theories that can be formulated subject to the restriction that the theories are naturalistic. More and more evidence could come in suggesting that a supernatural being exists, but scientific theories wouldn’t be allowed to acknowledge that possibility…Science would rightfully be marginalized- what is the point of spending all these resources investigating naturalistic causes, long after it is evident that the causes are supernatural?

Anyways, I don’t want to go into that much detail concerning methodological naturalism, mainly because it isn’t directly related to our discussion. For more details though, the curious reader can consult chapter 17 of Moreland and Craig’s work quoted above, which has a basic treatment of the topic.

What is more relevant to our discussion is the second premise of argument 2: scientism. Like most other ideas in philosophy, scientism has its strong and weak forms, I think the second premise advocates a strong form of scientism. Now even at face value, scientism seems like an extremely weak position to take. It’s kind of obvious that there are truths outside the scientific methodology, for example, philosophical or moral truths. Heck, science as an enterprise itself requires some presuppositions in order for it to work (e.g. the laws and phenomena in nature are uniform, our sensory and rational faculties present an accurate depiction of nature, and so on). The truth of these presuppositions are confirmed by philosophy, not science. If someone embraced strong scientism, the very foundations of science, and subsequently science itself, become meaningless. Even a more basic problem with scientism is that it is self-refuting: the claim “science is the only way of knowing and all other sources of knowledge are unfounded” itself isn’t confirmed by science! The Skeptic’s Dictionary has this to say as regards strong scientism:

Scientism, in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful. Thus, scientism is either false or meaningless.

With this, I rest my case, my case being that the second argument which uses science as a stepping-stone to reach the conclusion that supernatural propositions are necessarily false, is utterly baseless. Let’s look at the first argument now. The first argument doesn’t resort to scientism or any other intermediate premise. Rather, it assumes a position referred to as philosophical naturalism, the idea that all human intellectual exercise is necessarily limited to the natural world, and beyond the natural world there is no reality. This is a safer position than scientism, in that it doesn’t limit truth to science. It does acknowledge disciplines other than science (e.g. philosophy) as valid sources of knowledge, but then adds the condition that all of our intellectual efforts combined would only go as far as this natural world.

I would be the first to admit that philosophical naturalism is a contentious topic in philosophy, and I am not very knowledgable about it. At a basic level, burden of proof considerations come to mind i.e. philosophical naturalism seems like a claim to knowledge and the one who makes the claim should carry the burden of proof, instead of just presupposing it. But this raises an obvious but very significant question, which I think is the crux of the topic.

Let’s look away from naturalism for a moment, and refocus on what this article is about. We are addressing claims that are leveled against the possibility of supernatural propositions. Here, the positive claims of knowledge are being made the critic, and burden of proof rests on him. Meaning, we are not making a case for the truth of supernatural propositions, but merely defending the possibility of their reality. Of course, the possibility of the existence of anything isn’t a claim of knowledge. The impossibility of something’s existence, however, is. Up to this point, we have been dealing with the claims of supernatural propositions being impossible (not even “very unlikely”, but “impossible”). I think we have established that the arguments aren’t very strong, and supernatural propositions are at least possible. But the mere possibility of something existing doesn’t really amount to much. For example, the existence of unicorns are at least possible (as for the absence of evidence, what if they live on another planet?) but that doesn’t mean we should start taking the existence of unicorns seriously. Well, can’t the same be said about the supernatural propositions found in the Islaamic scriptures? Even if we acknowledge that these propositions are possible, in that they don’t contradict with any principles of logic, why should we differentiate between them and the existence of a unicorn? This is a valid question, and this is where philosophical naturalism enters the picture. Philosophical naturalism is adopted because in some sense it is useful. Imagine what would happen if we begin to take the existence of anything seriously merely on the ground that it is possible (for one, psychics would find a place in the academia). To discount these possibilities, it is better to assume that whatever is beyond the natural world, logically possible as they may be, doesn’t amount to any intellectual merit: they are as good as impossible.

This is where Islaam’s position on these supernatural propositions become relevant. See the Muslim (at least the one who holds that his faith is intellectually justified) wouldn’t claim that the supernatural propositions mentioned in the Qur’an are true or plausible or worth taking seriously merely on the basis of their logical possibility. Rather, she would claim that we are justified in believing these propositions because there is evidence for them. For example, we believe in the miraculous birth of Jesus (peace be upon him) based on the premise that the Islaam is true, or that the Qur’an is the divinely revealed word of God, and that premise would depend on other premises which present the case for the truth of Islaam. So the Muslim’s belief in these supernatural proposition stems from his belief that there is evidence to support these claims. And this is precisely what sets these propositions apart from, say, belief in unicorns. In fact, I think to take something seriously on the sole basis of it being logically possible is a position no one would adopt, and philosophical naturalism does get this point right. However, I would oppose it when there is evidence to believe in a proposition, but philosophical naturalism is gratuitously invoked to wave the evidences away. Consider this example by Bradley Monton gives:

Imagine that some astronomers discover a pulsar that is pulsing out Morse code. The message says that it’s from God, and that God is causing the pulsar to pulse in this unusual way. The astronomers are initially skeptical, but they find that when they formulate questions in their head, the questions are correctly anwered by the message. The astronomers bring in other people to examine this, and the questions are consistently answered. The message goes on to suggest certain experiments that scientists should perform in particle accelerators- the message says that if the experiments are set up in a specified precise way, then God will cause a miracle to occur. The experiments are done, and the resulting cloud chamber tracks spell out Biblical verses. Then the message explains to the scientists how to form a proper quantum theory of gravity….I could go on, but you get the picture…It would be silly for the scientists to refuse to countenance the hypothesis that God exists, due to some prior commitment to methodological naturalism.

Substitute “methodological naturalism” in the last line with “philosophical naturalism”, and I think the same point is made. What if there is evidence for the God hypothesis, or for the truth of Islaam? Would it be reasonable to ignore the evidence because some form of naturalism is presupposed? I would submit no. I understand an initial skepticism towards claims about paranormal etc, but in the face of evidence such naturalistic commitment would seem unfounded. In fact, it would suffer from the same problem as methodological naturalism, in that the scope of our intellectual endeavors in the pursuit of truth will be limited by a presupposed “pledge”.

Of course, the next question that arises at this point is, what evidences- if any- are there for Islaam? But that’s a whole other topic which requires a whole other set of articles. The point here being given that Islaam has evidences, it wouldn’t make sense to ignore them on grounds of naturalistic commitment.

So to conclude, it is definitely logically possible that supernatural propositions are true. If evidence accumulates in order for us to give this a proper benefit of doubt, we by all means should. Simple disregarding the Islaamic scriptures on grounds of them containing these “nonsensical” propositions is a vacuous claim.

Do note that this is a very basic treatment of the issue, a lot more could be said on the different forms of naturalism. Also, apart from the two argument dealt with in this paper, there is another form of reasoning that combines the two. Barbara Forrest, for example, has argued that methodological naturalism is an indirect logical precedent to philosophical naturalism. This view improves argument 2 by getting rid of scientism. But this position seems to hinge on (at least) the lack of evidence for the supernatural world, which has been addressed in this paper.

How to handle the objection that religious people are biased, and hence their arguments are not worth looking into?

My exams start the day after tomorrow, so I doubt if I will get much writing done in the next month. Today though, I came across something and I just had to post it.

A while back I was reading Moreland and Craig’s “Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview”, and I stumbled upon an interesting topic very relevant to popular discussions about religion. I’m sure many of us heard people say stuff along the lines of “Look mate, this religion (or lack thereof) deal, it’s no more than the personal choices and beliefs of people. There are no proofs or evidences or anything for these things. They are constructs of the personal biases, and men will always have differing views because it all boils down to prejudice, personal predisposition toward this view or the other. So this quest for the “one true religion” or whatever is essentially misguided.”

Most of the time, I think this tendency is a result of the intellectual laziness of the individual and not any well thought-out rationale. We’re not supposed to judge the hearts and minds of people though, but if it is indeed the case, then their view itself is based on some sort of bias, and hence kind of self-refuting. This aside, apparently this view is an essential component of postmodernist philosophy. Here’s how the authors explain the postmodernist stance [page 146]:

“Postmodernists also reject the notion that rationality is objective on the grounds that no one approaches life in a totally objective way without bias. Thus objectivity is impossible, and observations, beliefs and entire narratives are theory laden. There is no neutral standpoint from which to approach the world, and thus observations, beliefs and so forth are perspectival constructions that reflect the viewpoint implicit in one’s own web of beliefs…” 

Here’s how the book responds to this objection (note: the authors are Christian, hence the Christian references) [page 150]:

“As a first step towards a response to this claim, we need to draw a distinction between psychological and rational objectivity. Psychological objectivity is the absence of bias, a lack of commitment either way on a topic.

Do people have psychological objectivity? Yes, they do, typically in areas in which they have no interest or about which they have not thought deeply. Note carefully two things about psychological objectivity. For one thing, it is not necessarily a virtue. It is if one has not thought deeply about an issue and has no convictions regarding it. But as one develops thoughtful, intelligent convictions about a topic, it would be wrong to remain unbiased, that is, uncommitted regaring it. Otherwise, what role would study and evidence play in the development of a one’s approach to life? Should one remain unbiased that cancer is a disease, that rape is wrong, that the New Testament was written in the first century, that there is design in the universe, if one has discovered good reasons for each belief? No, one should not.

For another thing, while it is possible to be psychologically objective in some cases, most people are not psychologically objective regarding the vast majority of the things they believe. In these cases, it is crucial to observe that a lack of psychological objectivity does not matter, nor does it cur one off from presenting and arguing for one’s convictions. Why? Because a lack of psychological objectivity does not imply a lack of rational objectivity, and it is the latter that matters most, not the former.

To understand this, we need to get clear on the notion of rational objectivity. One has rational objectivity just in case [My interjection: “just in case” here means “if and only if] one can discern the difference between genuinely good and bad reasons for a belief and one holds to the belief for genuinely good reasons. The important thing here is that bias does not eliminate a person’s ability to assess the reasons for something. Bias may make it more difficult, but not impossible. If bias made rational objectivity impossible, then no teacher- atheist, Christian or whatever- could responsibly teach any view the teacher believed on any subject! Nor could the teacher teach opposing viewpoints, because he or she would be biased against them!

By way of application, a Christian can lack psychological objectivity regarding the existence of God, the resurrection of Jesus and so forth, and still have and present good reasons for the empty tomb, the reality of God and the like. Rational objectivity is possible even if psychological objectivity is not present, and this is what makes civil debate, rational dialogue and the development of thoughtful convictions possible. When a Christian, Sharon, for instance, tries to present objectively good reasons for a position and is greeted with a claim of disqualification on the ground of bias, the proper response is this: Tell the other person that she has changed the subject from the issue to the messenger, that while the Christian appreciates the attention and focus on her inner drives and motives, she thinks that the dialogue should get refocused on the strength of the case just presented. Perhaps at another time they could talk about each other’s personal motivations and drives, but for now, a case, a set of arguments has been presented and a response to those arguments is required.” 

What I find particularly awesome about this is the distinction made between the two kinds of objectivity, and hence the two kinds of bias. The postmodernist (or the random internet junkie who doesn’t have a clue what postmodernism is but advances a similar argument) is confusing psychological bias with rational bias, and he seems to suggest that since the religionists are psychologically biased (which is true), it must be so that they have no rational objectivity in believing what they believe either. This is patently false as the author points out, psychological bias doesn’t render rational objectivity impossible, just difficult. So denouncing the rational case for something merely on the basis of the possibility of psychological bias is unfounded.

A lot more could be said about this of course, but I think for a basic level, this passage alone suffices.

Are you living a dream? Isn’t it time you woke up? TheDeenShow (Speaker: Nouman Ali Khan)

Transcript:

This episode is about those who after years of enjoying the life of partying are now contemplating the purpose of life. There are so many different paths to choose from so how does one know what the correct path to take is?

The original language the Quran was revealed in was Arabic.

When an individual notices a void in their life, and acknowledges that there is a Creator, how do they separate themselves from the confusion and decide on the correct path?

Nouman Ali Khan:

The thought process of an individual who has come to the conclusion that there is a Creator:

• The individual recognises that this world was not created without a purpose. The intricate creation of human beings right down to their fingertips is quite profound and amazing. It is not possible that this has been designed without an agenda or cause. The individual acknowledges that the Creator has designed the human body to perfection.
• One characteristic of any decent human being is gratitude. When someone completes a favour for you, it is human decency for you to thank them. It would be extremely indecent of you for you to turn away (or drive off) from an individual after they have helped you replace your flat tyre.  Human beings have a common decency across religions and cultures.
• When you realise that there is a Creator, you realise that He has created you in such a powerful way. He has given you abilities that He has not given any other creature. He has given you all of these faculties, not just your physical faculties which are amazing enough – none of us paid for our eyes or bought our hands. They were given to us and there are so many others who do not have these. One is also provided with sustenance, water, the air you breathe – all of these favours are being poured to us from every direction. The least thing that any person would do would be to show gratitude.
• In addition to gratitude there is also praise and appreciation. The Creator has helped us in such a profound way and His creations and creative power is so incredible. Ponder over the vastness of the universe and the flawless sky. That in itself would leave you in awe of the creative powers of this one Creator.
• Who is the best entity that can tell you what your purpose is?

A manufacturer creates a product for a reason. For example, a car is created to allow one to drive from one place to another. When you acknowledge that there is a creator who created you perfectly with this profound intellect that He gave you and all the faculties and abilities you have, then in order to understand your purpose you must return to the one who manufactured you. The Lord that has been providing for you, sustaining you and taking care of you – just as He is the Lord of everyone else – He is the only one who can dictate your purpose.

• One will also come to another extremely powerful conclusion. Up to this point in your life you have been in violation of your purpose because at that stage you had no knowledge of what your purpose was. Did your creator punish you for being in violation of your purpose? For example, one of the things one must not do is lie. Yet your tongue did not fall out as a result of being struck by lightning every time you told a lie. You were not punished immediately after committing an evil action. Human beings are not as merciful. We do not allow things to continually slide. This Creator is more merciful than any person you have ever come into contact with. His mercy is unimaginable.
• However, as unimaginable as His Mercy is, if an individual has come to the conclusion that there is a purpose to life and does not continue in their pursuit to find the answers to their purpose, then there will be consequences. One must assume that if they have reached this point in their thought process, then their Creator is aware of this. 
• The next step in this process is to acknowledge that He is the Creator and to seek guidance. You need to ask Him for the clear and straight path to live your life.
• You will then come to another conclusion – If in fact He is the Creator and this is the truth then you are not the only one to have asked for guidance. This must have occurred previously and there must be others who have been given this guidance. You ask Him to show you a path that other people have already walked – people that He favoured upon.
• There must be others who have sought His help in seeking out this path and were shown the path but chose not to follow the path. For example, this can be compared to an individual who asks for directions, is given the directions they requested but does not follow them. The person who disregards the favour after having requested it and been given it, is worthy of the Lord’s wrath.
• There are also individuals who ask for guidance, receive guidance but incorporate their desires and thoughts into the favour that was given to them.
• The thought process mentioned above is the thought process of the first Surah in the Quran – Surah Al-Fatiha. This is the thought process of an individual who is seeking the truth.
  • The first thing one says is : ٱلۡحَمۡدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ ٱلۡعَـٰلَمِينَ

Praise and gratitude belong to Allah, the Lord of all the peoples of the worlds. This is what was mentioned earlier in regards to praise and gratitude.

• The Unimaginably, Exceedingly Merciful: ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ  
• The Master of the Day of Judgement: مَـٰلِكِ يَوۡمِ ٱلدِّينِ

This demonstrates that there will be consequences if I attempt to take advantages of His Mercy.

• We then reached the conclusion that you want to worship Him – this is connected to the next ayah: إِيَّاكَ نَعۡبُدُ – We worship only you. However we cannot worship Him on our own so we ask for help: وَإِيَّاكَ نَسۡتَعِينُ – We seek Your Help.
• The help that we specifically sought was guidance: ٱهۡدِنَا ٱلصِّرَٲطَ ٱلۡمُسۡتَقِيمَ – Guide us to and along the straight path.
• Then we said that we must not be the only one to have searched for this path. We asked to find the ones who have succeeded before us – the one’s whom You favoured not those who earned Your wrath nor those who went astray: صِرَٲطَ ٱلَّذِينَ أَنۡعَمۡتَ عَلَيۡهِمۡ غَيۡرِ ٱلۡمَغۡضُوبِ عَلَيۡهِمۡ وَلَا ٱلضَّآلِّينَ
• The logic of the path that one would take in order to seek the truth was shown first – not the Quran. It is only in Islam that this path is found.
  • Be sincere to the Creator
  • Be grateful to Him
  • Accept Him as your Lord
  • Ask Him to show you the path sincerely
  • Ask Him to show you those who walked down this path and succeeded. And to keep you away from those who walked down this path and then went astray or earned God’s wrath.
  • What is the measuring stick for people who are seeking the truth:
    • One’s own conscious
    • If in fact it is from God, then it has to meet one primary standard – there can be no-one between me and the worshipping of that one true God. There can be those who show others the path, but they only follow their teachings in order to get to the path. These are role-models, not ones to be worshipped but rather to be looked at as guides.
    • If one is sincere in their quest to find the truth and they study the religion of Islam and the Quran, they will find that it is essentially saying one thing: that we were created with one purpose:

وَمَا خَلَقۡتُ ٱلۡجِنَّ وَٱلۡإِنسَ إِلَّا لِيَعۡبُدُونِ

I did not create Jinn or human beings except that they should worship Me.

• The use of ‘We’ in the Quran does not denote the existence of a trinity. When God is exceptionally merciful or angry He makes use of the word ‘I’. Even though there is no parallel to Allah (swt) let us take the following example as analogy to the language that is used. When a King speaks of himself, he usually does so in royal terms. For example, ‘We have declared…’ ‘This is our land.’ ‘Kneel before us.’ When the King is exceptionally angry he switches from ‘we’ to ‘me’. For example, ‘You dare speak to me like that!’

The singular ‘I’ is used in the Quran in cases of anger and also in cases of mercy. You will always find the word ‘We’ being used whenever Allah (swt) is talking about grand things such as His Majesty, His Royalty, His Kingship, His Dominion or His Provision.

Proof that this is not used in the literal sense includes the fact that the Quran uses the word ‘He’ for God but there is no mention of ‘they’. ‘I’ and ‘We’ is first person and ‘He’ is third person. If this was truly literal then we would find ‘He’ being used in third person.

• How do we get people to see the urgency in finding guidance?

From the Islamic point of view, all human beings are rich in one asset – time. The sick, the healthy, the man, the woman, the wealthy, the poor, the educated, the uneducated – everyone has one thing that they have some authority over – time.

Time is constantly being taken away from us. Our bodies are withering and we cannot prevent the process of aging. No-one can turn back time.

Allah (swt) swears by that time that we are running out of. He says: “No doubt, every single human being is drowning in loss.” The Quranic view for all human beings, whether you are rich or poor, famous or healthy it does not matter – all human beings no matter what their worldly life is like and the pleasure they are gaining out of this life – the Quran says they are drowning in loss.

The following is an example to help you understand this imagery:

• Imagine that you are drowning and you are unconscious – time is a big asset here – you don’t have a lot of time. To have any hope of saving yourself the first step is to wake up. Imagine that life is good and that you are living the life – you are partying and you have all the time in the world – this is only a dream. The reality is that you are actually drowning. When you are drowning and you wake up to the reality that you are drowning, they will do anything possible to save themselves. This attempt to get out of your drowning state can only occur if you do one thing first – you must wake up to the reality that time is running out.

Allah (swt) speaks of this issue in the Quran. There are those who believe that money will grant them eternal life. There is a false hope that this world brings with it and people become completely captured by the sweetness of the dream that they forget the reality of the situation. If for a moment your eyes have opened, do not let them shut again.

There is a poet who gives an analogy in regards to this reality. All humans are running out of time and need to get their act together otherwise they are in serious trouble. However, this trouble will only become visible to us once we close our eyes forever i.e. death. The poet complains and says: “I am in the middle of the ocean, I am hanging onto a raft and it is raining. I am expected not to get wet.” The poet is describing the world in which we live in. When one walks out of their house they are bombarded by so many desires via the internet, the television or advertising billboards – cars, houses, girls, men etc. People are convincing the world that this is the definition of success.

If you are in a room that is on fire or you are drowning and somebody comes to talk to you about what car you want to buy or the type of house you want to live in or when you will receive your next promotion, does this not sound crazy? Before one talks about success you must talk about survival.

The imagery that was shared above is from Surah Al-Asr in which Allah (swt) swear by time that all human beings are at loss except those who believe and do righteous deed [those who believe = those who wake up].

• A formula for those who are sincere in seeking guidance and the truth:
  • Firstly, this search and this effort takes time
  • One must sincerely put time into doing this
  • One must remove themselves from the distractions and delusions that take you away from this quest.
  • It must be a religion that appeals to your human decency – Nowadays in Islam there are certain misconceptions that are highlighted and propagated. Every one of those allegations that are made in regards to Islam being inhumane or intolerant, etc. if you study them with sincerity and if they are presented properly to you without any watering down – in their true honesty – then no decent human being would argue that this does not make sense. What God reveals is better for us and it appeals to our human decency.
  • If you sincerely ask for guidance be ready for what you get because you may have to give up your desires for it. You are not in any position to make demands. He is the One who places demands and you must accept them. Be sincere and submissive in your search. When you find the truth you submit to it and put your ego before it and you give in to the Lord of the Worlds.