Our Announcements
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.
Posted by Nayyer Naqvi in Islam: The Universal Message of Peace, PAKISTAN AIR FORCE'S BIGGEST ENEMY NAWAZ SHARIF, Pakistan Army's Biggest Enemy Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan Security and Defence: Enemy & Threats (Internal & External), Pakistan Strategic Nuclear & Missile Forces, Pakistan's Hope, Pakistan's Immortal Sons & Daughters: Shaheed, Pakistan's Strategic & Security Focus on August 11th, 2013
The international media then local media, a few politicians and now unfortunately government officials have joined the chorus. Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan while talking to a private channel said, Gen. Ashfaque Pervez Kayani has kept himself away from politics but people like Gen. Pasha still exist in the army which need to be purged.
Army knows that it draws moral sustenance from civil society and other pillars. Despite all this army keeps receiving a wave of criticism even from local players which remains far from truth but it dares to remain silent.
According to Dr Farrukh, more than fifty countries are spending greater Coalition Support Fund, while the fact is that Army has received less than two billion Dollars out of ten billion Dollars released by US Government.
Few know that Army’s indulgence in commercial activities is motivated by the urge of providing welfare to retired-personnel who retire at an early age of 40-45 years. It does not affect preparedness for war. Officers and men on active duty are not posted to these concerns.Our media must realize that independence of media does not mean a license to tell lies or become a tool in the hands of our enemies… mhFauj sub Khaa Gayee – The Fact is that We collect only 10% of the actual revenue that Pakistan can generate. This forms the backbone of our budget of which in 2012, 16 % went to Defence. If we collected 20% of Revenue, Defence would consume 8% and if we collected 40% this figure would reduce to 4%, and if we collected 80% like Western countries we would be spendind only 2% on Defence. So where is the problem? Defence spending or Tax collection? With Non Tax Payers flooding Parliament do we expect them to focus on Tax Collection while they have a “whipping boy” who does not even whimper…Waheed HameedWaheed has pointed out the current state of Army Bashing so popular and in vogue with our politicians and the Parliament these days but has not included the effects of this bashing on the morale and psychological state of mind of all soldiers. Include in this the current glee our Anchors and politicians are having at Musharraf,s trial. It is not just for the hatred of Musharraf but it is also for humiliation of an Army Chief. What then is the remedy.? The Army leadership has to think hard and ensure that this great institution of which we are all rightly so proud and which has come to the rescue of the Nation in all calamities and against all dangers is not destroyed. Not by our known enemies but at the hands of those it has helped in coming to power through providing a favorable environment for democracy. Is this the revenge of democracy which the politicians talked about. Despair in the face of continuous attacks and unjustified blame game is a dangerous state.
Posted by Muhammad Imran Qadir in Global Islam, Islam: The Universal Message of Peace on July 8th, 2013
LETTER TO EDITOR
July 7th, 2013
Desecration of Qura’nic Ayah
Minister for Religious Affairs was heard saying in a TV news bulletin this evening that a law would be made against the desecration of the newspapers pages containing Qura’nic Ayah. Since it could be difficult to apportion the exact blame on some specific desecrator and/or it could alternately provide the fundamentalists with a handle to implicate even the innocent ones for committing this act of blasphemy, it is strongly suggested that the newspapers and other publication be asked to stop this practice of publishing the Arabic script of the Qura’nic ayah in their papers in all forms, whether be it a daily feature on the top of front page or in the text of an article on other pages regarding some Islamic teachings etc. and only the Urdu or English translation of the Ayah be printed instead. May be the Urdu or English translation would not evoke the same degree of anguish in the mind of our clergy and clerics as does the Arabic text.
Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)
Rawalpindi
Pakistan
E.mail: [email protected]
Posted by Dr. Salman in CHRISTIAN MUSLIM UNITY, Hypocrites in Islam, PAKISTANI CHRISTIANS OUR BROTHERS on July 6th, 2013
Before partition, a large eye hospital functioned at Gojra. India, in those days, had three ophthalmologists. The other two practiced in relatively large cities but Dr Harbhajan Singh stayed at Gojra and treated his patients, some of whom traversed almost entire India to visit him. In 1947, the doctor decided to leave. The locals tried to convince him but the new found land was far more promising than the one which had nurtured him for decades. Many eyes were lost due to tears while others went dark due to absence of treatment, but the city had an answer to blind eyes.When Amir Ali, a 2nd year student from Gojra lost his eyesight, he did not lose his hope. Graduating from Lincoln’s Inn, he went on to become the first blind person to secure a Doctorate in Legal studies from Canada. The spirit which illuminated Dr Amir Ali Amjad’s ambition now furnishes his dream to build a large eye complex in Gojra for low income patients.Field hockey is another feature of the city. Gojra rose to prominence as a nursery town of Hockey players, when Pakistan championed the game. As the public and private interest faded, the game also divorced itself from the city. Few kids, however, can still be spotted chasing the torn ball with improvised hockey sticks. The last reference to the city is from the first of August, 2009. The day was painted black due to carnage that resulted in eight deaths including three women and a child. Along with the sun, the hopes and the sense of security also went down. The Christians of Gojra realised that though the city had an answer to the blind eye, it could not do anything for the blind heart.Few miles away from Gojra is the village of Korian, home to many Christians. It all started from a Christian wedding on July 29, 2009, when a Muslim guest was shown out due to his bad behaviour. After few hours, a mob started building up in front of the wedding house. The rejected guest was leading the crowd with an allegation of blasphemy. The mob insisted that Talib Maseeh and his fellows had desecrated Quran. Before Korian residents could come out bare-footed with the Bible raised above their head to plead not guilty, a church and few houses were set on fire.—Courtesy Samson Simon SharafTwo days later, the Imams of Gojra mosques demanded the federal government to force Christians out of the city. Rallies were called and Muslims worldwide were appealed to save the religion. The appeal was instantly answered by students of seminaries in Jhang. When the crowd swelled, a political leader further instigated the crowd and directed them towards the Christian colony. The leader, who was interested in a housing scheme next to Christian colony, was recently sworn in the parliament. Militants from Jhang drove their twin cabin vehicles to Gojra, brandishing their weapons. While all this happened, police chose to look the other way. More so, when the violence picked up, they fled the scene telling the Christians to run for their lives. By then, all the escape routes had been blocked.The mob initially chanted the slogans and then pelted stones at Christian houses. With every passing minute, the slogans picked up in tone and rage. A little later, someone shouted Allah o Akbar and torched a house. When the neighboring residences caught fire, people started running for their lives, devastated by the dilemma of what to take and what to leave. The flickering flames burnt houses, securities, pledges and safeguards leaving debris that told miserable stories. In one of the vandalised quarter, a portrait of Jesus Christ had crashed on floor. The Biblical injunction could be read through scratched frame.“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.”(Romans 12:14)Minhas Hameed, the sole survivor of his family which lost seven lives, clearly recalls that his father was shot in the forehead. He rushed to the hospital without any idea that this was the last he would see of his house and family. After he left, the violence picked up and his scared family gathered in one room to save their lives. When the house caught fire, they could not leave the room. Around 60 houses were burnt that day. These men took instructions from mobile phones and torched houses, which were built by the meager earnings of one generation or even two.Though the miscreants had masked their faces but the victims also deflected identities. When I looked through caskets, the faces appeared strangely familiar. The burnt corpse of 50-year-old Hameed Maseeh bore striking resemblance with Lal Din Sharaf Sargodhavi, a Christian freedom fighter who had penned an anthem and blocked Jinnah’s entourage at Mission Hospital Quetta to secure guarantees for Pakistani minorities. Forty-year-old Ikhlas Maseeh looked a lot like Sepoy Murad Maseeh, who was martyred on May 17, 2013, while fighting miscreants in Mitni, Peshawar. The 20-year-old charred body was not Asia bibi but probably Sister Martha who never forgot to wish us on Eid and never expected our greetings on Christmas. The scorched remains of 22-year-old Imamia bibi reminded me of Safia, our Christian maid and a part of my childhood memories. While I always ridiculed her dark complexion and called her names, she wore a patient smile and did not leave until I had taken my meal.Every mourning woman of Gojra looked so familiar. I had seen them moving in our houses every morning, placing their religion and their crockery, besides the electric meter boxes (normally out of the houses) and taking care of our faith that commanded cleanliness. The displaced men looked so much like A R Cornelius and the wounded resembled Cecil Choudhary. Sitting with the coffins, these dark men had managed our schools, ran our offices, maintained our libraries and trimmed our lawns. They were partners to every refinement and accomplishment in our lives.When the world got the word after two days, police started with raids and arrests. An inquiry commission was ordered which awaits its report to-date. The initial investigations have ruled out any incident of defiling of Quran. The men who set ablaze the church and Christian houses are hinted from Sipah-e-Sahaba (the military of companions of Prophet (PBUH)). Little did they know that one of the companions appointed by the Prophet himself was Warqa Ibn Naufil, a Christian who had endorsed prophet-hood before many of the faithful.THE AUDIOURDU VERSIONاگست کی پہلی
سمندری سے آنے والی سڑک اور سر شمیر سے آنے والی ریل گوجرہ میں گلے ملتی ہے۔ یوں تو شہر کے کئی حوالے ہیں مگر ہر حوالہ تاسف سے ہو کر گزرتا ہے۔تقسیم سے پہلے گوجرہ میں آنکھوں کا ایک بڑا ہسپتال ہوا کرتا تھا۔ یہ وہ دور تھا جب پورے ہندوستان میں آنکھوں کے بس تین ہی ڈاکٹر مشہور تھے۔ باقی دو تو بڑے شہروں میں آباد تھے مگر ڈاکٹر ہربھجن سنگھ گوجرہ میں رہتے اور دور پار سے آنے والوں کی بینائی کا سبب کیا کرتے تھے۔تقسیم ہوئی تو ڈاکٹر صاحب نے بھی سامان باندھ لیا۔ لوگوں نے انہیں بہت روکا مگر اس وطن کی کشش جو لکیر کھینچنے سے بنا تھا، اس وطن سے زیادہ نکلی جس نے پال پوس کر بڑا کیا تھا۔کچھ آنکھیں تو جانے والوں کی آزردگی میں رو رو کر اندھی ہو گئیں اور کچھ علاج نہ ملنے کے سبب۔ مگر شائد شہر کے مقدر میں روشنیاں باقی تھیں۔ اسی شہر کا ایک طالب علم نابینا ہونے کے باوجود انگلستان سے بیرسٹری اور کینیڈا سے ڈاکٹریٹ کی ڈگری لے کر تاریکیوں سے لڑ رہا ہے۔ڈاکٹر عامر علی امجد نے بصارت چلے جانے کے بعد جس بصیرت سے اپنے خواب پورے کئے، اب اسی حوصلے سے اندھیری زندگیوں میں روشنیاں بانٹنے کے لئے گوجرہ میں آنکھوں کا بہت بڑا ہسپتال بنا رہے ہیں۔شہر کی ایک اور شناخت ہاکی کا کھیل ہے۔ کوئی وقت تھا کہ ان گلیوں میں ہاکی کھیلنے والوں کو دنیا رشک کی نگاہ سے دیکھتی، مگر پھر لوگوں کو دلچسپی کے نئے سامان مل گئے اور یہ کھیل پس منظر میں چلا گیا۔ شہر کے کونوں کھدروں میں اب بھی خال خال بچے ٹوٹی کھپچیوں سے پھٹی گیند کا تعاقب کرتے نظر آ تے ہیں۔
فوٹو — سیمسن سائمن شرف –.شہر کی آخری یاد اگست 2009 کی پہلی تاریخ ہے۔ یہ سیاہ دن جاتے جاتے اپنے ساتھ تین عورتوں اور ایک بچے سمیت نو لوگوں کی جان لے کر گیا۔ جب اگست کا پہلا سورج غروب ہوا تو اس کے ساتھ ہی امید کے ہزاروں چراغ اور تحفظ کے لاکھوں دئیے بھی بجھ گئے۔ گوجرہ کے مسیحیوں کو پہلی بار لگا کہ شہر کے مقدر میں روشنیاں تو ہیں مگر بینائی نہیں۔بات کوریاں سے شروع ہوئی جو گوجرہ سے کچھ میل کے فاصلے پہ واقع ہے۔ گاؤں میں آباد عیسائیوں کے ہاں ایک شادی کا اہتمام تھا۔ تقریب کے دوران جب مسلمان مہمان نے تہذیب کی حد پار کی تو اسے محفل سے بھیج دیا گیا۔تھوڑی دیر بعد گاؤں کے مختلف حصوں سے ایک ہجوم اکٹھا ہونے لگا۔ نکالا گیا مہمان، قران کی بے حرمتی کے الزام اور مشتعل افراد کے ساتھ اس ہجوم کی قیادت کر رہا تھا۔ مظاہرین بضد تھے کہ طالب مسیح نے اپنے ساتھیوں کے ساتھ مل کر مقدس اوراق کی بے حرمتی کی تھی۔اس سے پہلے کہ کوریاں کے عیسائی انجیل سروں پہ بلند کئے، اپنی بے گناہی کا ثبوت دینے ننگے پاؤں گھروں سے باہر آتے، مشتعل افراد نے گھروں اور گرجا کو آگ لگانا شروع کر دی۔
فوٹو — سیمسن سائمن شرف –.دو دن بعد مقامی مساجد میں امام صاحب نے جمعے کے خطبے کے ذریعے حکومت وقت سے مطالبہ کیا کہ گوجرہ سے مسیحی آبادی کو بے دخل کر دیا جائے۔ ریلیاں نکالنے کے اعلان کے ساتھ ساتھ، عالم اسلام سے بھی مدد کی اپیل کی گئی، جس پہ جھنگ کے مدرسے کے طلبا نے فوراً لبّیک کہا۔جب مجمع کافی تعداد میں اکٹھا ہو گیا تو ایک سیاسی رہنما نے ہجوم کو مزید اشتعال دلایا اور اس کا رخ عیسائی آبادی کی طرف موڑ دیا۔ یہ سیاسی رہنما جو کرسچن کالونی سے ملحقہ زمین پہ ایک نئی ہاؤسنگ سکیم بنانا چاہتے تھے، اب پارلیمان کا حصہ ہیں۔موقع پہ موجود پولیس دیر تک تماشا دیکھتی رہی اور آخر میں لوگوں کو جان بچا کر بھاگنے کا مشورہ دیتے ہوئے غائب ہو گئی۔ تب تک بھاگنے کے تمام راستے بھی مسدود ہو چکے تھے۔پہلے کرسچن کالونی کے گھروں کے سامنے نعرے برسنا شروع ہوئے اور پھر پتھر۔ آہستہ آہستہ نعروں میں شدت اور ہجوم میں جوش بڑھنے لگا۔ پھر کسی نے تکبیر کا نعرہ لگایا اور آگے بڑھ کر ایک گھر کو آگ لگا دی۔ جب آگ پھیلنے لگی تو لوگ گھر چھوڑ کر جان بچانے کو بھاگ پڑے۔مکان سے اٹھتے ہوئے شعلوں میں یوں تو بہت کچھ جلا مگر ایک ملبے سے حضرت عیسیٰ کی تصویر سیاہ حاشیوں سے چٹخ کر نیچے گر پڑی۔ دراڑ پڑے شیشوں کے نیچے سے تصویر پہ انجیل کی آئت صاف پڑھی جاتی تھی؛“ان کی خیر مانگ جو تجھے اذیت دیں، خیر مانگ اور برا بھلا مت کہہ”۔جس گھر سے سات جنازے اٹھے وہاں بچنے والے منہاس حمید کو بس اتنا یاد ہے کہ پہلی گولی اس کے والد کو ماتھے پہ لگی۔ وہ باپ کو لے کر اسپتال کی طرف بھاگا تو اس کے وہم و گمان میں بھی نہ تھا کہ اس کی واپسی کسی جلے ہوئے کھنڈر میں ہو گی۔
فوٹو — سیمسن سائمن شرف –.منہاس کے جاتے ہی حملوں میں تیزی آ گئی ۔ گھر والوں کو کچھ سمجھ نہ آئ تو وہ ایک کمرے میں اکٹھے ہو گئے۔ آگ لگی تو جس کمرے میں ان لوگوں نے پناہ لے رکھی تھی وہی ان کا مرقد بن گیا۔اس دن تقریبا ساٹھ گھر راکھ ہوئے۔ نقاب پوش افراد موبائل فون پہ ہدایات لیتے اور پٹرول سے ان گھروں کو آگ لگاتے جاتے تھے جنہیں بناتے بناتے ان مظلوموں کی ایک سے زیادہ نسلوں نے محنت کی تھی۔جلانے والے تو خیر نامعلوم افراد تھے ہی، عجیب بات یہ ہے کہ بند گھروں کے جھلسے ہوئے چہروں پہ بھی کسی اور کا گمان ہوتا تھا۔ میں نے قریب سے دیکھا تو ان فریادی شکلوں میں عجیب عکس نظر آئے۔مجھے لگا کہ یہ کملائی ہوئی لاش پچاس سالہ حمید مسیح کی نہیں بلکہ لال دین شرف سرگودھوی کی ہے جنہوں نے مشن اسپتال کوئٹہ کے سامنے قائد اعظم کی سواری روک کر اقلیتوں کے حقوق منوائے تھے۔40 سالہ اخلاص مسیح کے مڑے تڑے وجود میں مجھے خانیوال کا سپاہی مراد مسیح نظر آیا جو 18 مئی 2013 کو متنیٰ میں شدت پسندوں سے لڑتا ہوا شہید ہوا تھا۔ بیس سالہ وہ لاش مجھے آسیہ بی بی کی نہیں بلکہ سسٹر مارتھا کی لگی جو ہمیں تو عیدی دیا کرتی مگر ہم سے کرسمس کی مبارکباد کی توقع نہ رکھتی تھی۔22 سالہ امامیہ بی بی کی بجائے تابوت میں اس صفیہ کا جسم پڑا تھا، جو میرے بچپن کا حصہ تھی۔ میں ہمیشہ صفیہ کو اس کی سیاہ رنگت کا طعنہ دیتا مگر وہ خندہ پیشانی سے مسکراتی رہتی اور مجھے کھانا کھلا کر گھر جاتی۔گوجرہ کی ماتم کرتی خواتین کا ہر چہرہ جانا پہچانا تھا، یہ وہ عورتیں تھیں، جو ہر روز اپنا مذہب، باہر بجلی کے میٹر والے خانے میں تام چینی کے برتنوں کے ساتھ رکھ کر ہمارے گھروں میں داخل ہوتیں اور ہمارے نصف ایمان کا بندوبست کرتیں۔
فوٹو — صدف اشرف –.بے گھر ہونے والے افراد میں کوئی جسٹس اے آر کارنیلییس تھا تو ملبے میں سے صاف اینٹیں اکٹھی کرنے والا کوئی سیسل چوہدری۔ تابوتوں کے دامن میں ہاتھوں کی زنجیر باندھے یہ سب لوگ وہ تھے جنہوں نے اپنی محنت سے ہمارے سکولوں کی لائبریریاں بھی سنبھالی تھیں اور ہمارے گھر وں کے باغیچے بھی سنوارے تھے۔دو دن بعد جب آگ کی تپش باہر کی دنیا سے گھوم کر اسلام آباد پہنچی تو پولیس نے چھاپے بھی مارے اور گرفتاریاں بھی کیں۔ ایک انکوائری تشکیل دی گئی جس کی رپورٹ ابھی تک نہیں آئی۔ابتدائی تحقیقات کے مطابق مقدس اوراق کی بے حرمتی کا کوئی واقعہ سرے سے پیش ہی نہ آیا تھا۔ ان گھروں اور عبادت گاہوں کو آگ لگانے والے ان صحابہ کے سپاہی تھے جن میں حضرت محمد کی نبوّت کی تصدیق کرنے والے واحد عیسائی ورقہ بن نوفل کا نام بھی آتا ہے۔Muhammad Hassan Miraj
Posted by Brave_Heart in Global Islam, Hypocrites in Islam, Islam: The Universal Message of Peace on June 18th, 2013
Islam orders the Muslim to be honest to himself and others. This order repeatedly comes in the Noble Qur’an and the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (SAWS). Islam orders the Muslim to tell the truth even if it is against the teller’s interest. Orders him not to cheat or deceive other people. A Muslim is ordered by Allah to be honest in his words and deeds, privately and publicly alike.
Implication of Honesty
Honesty in words implies telling the truth in all cases and under all conditions. Honesty also implies fulfilling the promise, whether written or given orally, in text and spirit. Honesty also implies giving the right advice to the one who asks for it.
Honesty also implies doing one’s work as sincerely and as perfectly as possible. Honesty also implies carrying out duties as fully as possible whether the person is supervised or not. Honesty means giving every person his due rights without his asking for these rights.
Honesty means doing the right thing in the right way at the right time. Honesty means objectivity in judgment, objectivity in evaluation, and objectivity in decisions of all types. Honesty implies the right selection of personnel and the right promotion of personnel, i.e., selection by merit and promotion by merit, not by temper or favouritism or personal relations.
Honesty is a blanket term that covers a wide range of traits. It covers telling the truth, sincerity in work, carrying out duties, fulfilling one’s word, objective judgments, and objective decisions. Honesty is the opposite of lying, the opposite of bluffing, the opposite of hypocrisy, the opposite of favouritism, and the opposite of deceit.
External and Internal Honesty
By external honesty, I mean honesty, which is judged by other people. By internal honesty, I mean honesty which is judged by the person himself alone.
The reward of external honesty comes from Allah, from people, and from the psychological satisfaction the honest person feels. When you are honest, you are liked by God and people whom you deal with. Your honesty gives you the social approval you need and here comes the social value of honesty.
Further, when everybody is honest, a great deal of human problems disappear including lying, cheating, bluffing, stealing, forgery, and many other social diseases. In other words, honesty is something you give and something you take: others enjoy your honesty and you enjoy their honesty.
In the absence of honesty, many social diseases appear. If a person is dishonest, he is ready to tell lies, to bribe, to be bribed, to distort the truth, to cheat, to forge, to deceive others, and to break his promises. A dishonest person is a totality of diseases. He is ready to misbehave at any time. Each time he misbehaves, he causes a great disturbance or harm to one person or to a group of persons or to the whole nation, in some cases.
Internal Honesty: Thus honesty is a factor in the psychological health of the honest person himself and the health of other persons whom he deals with. However, Islam emphasises internal honesty, i.e., honesty which is judged by the person himself and cannot be seen by other people.
It often happens that a person acts privately. Sometimes we act with nobody seeing us. A believer in Allah feels that although no person is watching him, Allah is watching. This continuous watch of Allah develops the concept of internal honesty or conscience in the believer. This means that internal honesty becomes an overall strategy of the believer.
The Muslim is to be honest, internally and externally, privately and publicly, whether observed by other people or not, whether he acts or speaks. This overall honesty makes the Muslim confident of himself, of his behaviour, and of his words and deeds. Honesty makes the person feel that he trusts others and is trusted by others.
This mutual confidence makes the believer feel self-satisfied and socially secure.
Honesty implies unity of behaviour, unity of standards, and integrity of personality. Honesty implies being away from internal conflicts, social conflicts and self-contradiction.
Building Honesty
The important question, however, is this: how does Islam build honesty in the Muslim? Islam builds ethical qualities in general and honesty in particular in several ways:
1. Instructions. Allah orders the Muslim to be honest in all cases, in all deeds and words, to himself and others.
2. Reason. Allah shows the Muslim rationally that honesty is the best policy, even on utilitarian bases.
3. Reward. Allah promises the honest person generous rewards in the first life and in the second life.
4. Punishment. Allah threatens the dishonest person with severe punishment for his dishonest behaviour.
5. Practice. Allah develops the habit of honesty in the Muslim through actual practice, i.e., through fasting and prayer.
Thus Islam builds the habit of honesty in the Muslim through direct instructions, through rational arguments, through the reward and punishment principles, and through practice.
The Practice of Honesty
Taking fasting as an example, when a Muslim fasts, he should abstain from any kind of food or drink from dawn until sunset. This means that a fasting Muslim should not eat or drink for several continuous hours, including not engaging in sexual intercourse with his wife or her husband.
The important thing here is that a fasting Muslim does not allow a drop of water to go into his mouth from dawn until sunset in spite of his thirst, because he has learned to be honest, i.e., internally honest. The only observer of a fasting person is Allah and the person himself. Here is an actual and real practice of honesty exercised during the whole month of Ramadan.
Of course, one of the components of honesty is refusing to submit to temptations and impulses. In Ramadan, the Muslim is thirsty, but he does not drink; he is hungry, but he does not eat. In Ramadan, water is spatially near but psychologically far from the Muslim; water is near to the Muslim but far from his desire. This is a practical exercise of self-control and internal honesty.
So, Islam instructs the Muslim to be honest and trains him to be so. The outcome is a healthy self and a healthy social atmosphere that leads to the happiness of both the individual and the group.
Honesty in Monetary Dealings
Uprightness and honesty in monetary dealings forms a vital part of the fundamental teachings of Islam, says Moulana Manzoor Naomani.
The Qur’an as well as the Traditions of the Prophet are emphatic that a true Muslim is he who is honest and upright in his business and monetary transactions, keeps his word and fulfil his promises, shuns fraud and avoids deceit and perfidy, encroaches not upon the rights of others, nor takes part in wrongful litigation, does not give false evidence, and abstains from making dishonest money as from usury and graft. Whoever is not free from these vices is, according to the Qur’an and the Traditions, not a true believer but a renegade and a worthless transgressor.
We now proceed to examine some of the relevant Quranic verses and traditions. A short verse of the Quran says:
“Oh ye who believe! Eat not up each other’s property by unfair and dishonest means.” (4:29)
The verse forbids Muslims against all unclean and corrupt means of making money, such as, dishonest trading, embezzlement, gambling, speculation and bribery. Then there are verses in which these hateful practices are dealt with one by one. For instance, a severe warning is given in the following verse to traders who cheat in weighing:
“Woe to those that deal in fraud, – those who, when they have to receive by measure from men, exact full measure, but when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due. Do they not think that they will be called to account- on a Mighty Day when (all) mankind will stand before the Lord of the Worlds.” (133: 1-6)
In the same way, the under mentioned verse exhorts Muslims to be very particular about their trusts and about other people’s rights.
“Allah doth command you to render back your trust, to those to whom they are due.”(4:58)
At two places in the Quran a chief distinguishing feature of Muslims is said to be that they are:
“Those who faithfully observe their trusts and their covenants.”(24:8)
The Prophet often used to say in his sermons:
“Remember, there is no faith in him who is not trustworthy; there is no place for him in religion who cares not for his pledged word or promise.”
Another tradition says:” The signs of a hypocrite are three: when he speaks, he is false, when he promises, he fails; and when he is trusted, he plays false.”
Condemning those who cheat in business the sacred Prophet has said:
“He who cheats is not of us. Deceitfulness and fraud are things that lead one to Hell.”
The Prophet of Allah once came upon a heap of corn in the market of Medina and thrust his hand onto it. His fingers felt damp. On being asked, the trader replied that rain had fallen upon it. The Prophet observed,
“Why did you not then keep (the wet portion of) it above the dry corn, so that men may see it? He who deceives, is not one of us.”
Thus traders who deceive by showing to customers a false sample or by concealing from them the defects of the article they offer for sale are not true Muslims in the judgment of the Holy Prophet and, God-forbidding, they are going to end up in hell. Another tradition says:
“The seller must explain to the buyer the defects, if any, in the quality of the article offered for sale. Should this not be done, the seller will permanently be caught in the Wrath of Allah (according to another narrator the exact words, ‘he will always be cursed by the angels’).”
In short, all manner of deceit and dishonesty in business is prohibited in Islam. It has been proclaimed to be an act worthy of unqualified condemnation. The Holy Prophet has expressed his strong dislike for those who do so. He has said he will have nothing to do with them; they do not belong to him.
Likewise, bribery and usury, although might be practiced by mutual consent and agreement, are totally disallowed to Muslims and those who are guilty of them have been condemned squarely in the traditions. A well-known tradition on usury reads:
“The curse of Allah rests on him who offers loan on usurious terms, and on him who receives, and on those who are witnesses to the transaction, and on the writer who writes the deed thereof.”
As for bribery, the Prophet ) according to a tradition, “condemned alike the giver of bribes, and the taker of bribes in deciding cases.”
A tradition goes even to the extent of saying that,
“If a person made a recommendation for anyone in a just manner and gratified party gave him something as a gift (in return for it) and he accepted it, then he committed a grave error (meaning that it, too, is a form of bribery).”
Worse still is the usurpation of another’s property by force or fraud or dishonest litigation. We have it on the authority of the Prophet that:
“Whoever occupies land belonging to another unjustly will be sunk into the ground along with the plot of land on the Doomsday till he reaches the lowest layer of the earth.”
“He who acquires the property of a Muslim unjustly by taking a false oath (before an Officer) is debarred by Allah from entering Paradise and the Fire of Hell is made inevitable for him.” On hearing it a Companion is reported to have replied, “Yes, even if it be a twig of Pilo (a plant which grows wild. Its twigs are used for cleaning the teeth).
The Prophet again, is reported to have warned a person who was very fond of entering into litigation with others in these strong words, “Remember, he who will obtain the property of another by swearing a false oath will appear as a leper before Allah (on the Day of Judgement).
And, again:
“Whoever laid a claim on a thing that was not his is not of us. He will do well to reserve a place for himself in the Hell.”
It is narrated that one day, after the morning prayers the Holy Prophet stood up and said thrice with great feeling that, “Perjury has been made the equivalent of Polytheism.”
Honesty in financial dealings
Islam has stressed and asserted the importance of honesty in monetary dealings and highlighted its vital role in social stability and peacefulness.
The Holy Qur’an and Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) have made it clear to us that the true Muslim is he who is honest and upright in his business and monetary dealing with others, even if they weren’t Muslims. Also the true Muslim should keep his word and fulfil his promises, shun fraud and avoid deceit and perfidy, encroach not upon the rights of others, nor take part in wrongful litigation. Also a good Muslim does not give false testimony, and abstains from making unlawful money as from usury and graft. According to Islam whoever is not free from these vices are not a true believer but a renegade and a worthless transgressor.
And the Qur’an is rich with verses that confirm all this. Allah says in the Qur’an:
“Oh ye who believe! Eat not up each other’s property by unfair and dishonest means.” Qur’an (4:29)
Allah forbids all unclean and corrupt means of making money, such as, dishonest trading, gambling, and bribery. And the Holy Qur’an has explained and described such practices in many of its verses. In this verse, for instance, Allah warns those traders who cheat in weighing, he says:
“Woe to those that deal in fraud, – those who, when they have to receive by measure from men, exact full measure, but when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due. Do they not think that they will be called to account- on a Mighty Day when (all) mankind will stand before the Lord of the Worlds.” Qur’an (133: 1-6)
Another example is given in the coming verse, where Allah urges Muslims to be very particular about their trusts and about other people’s rights.
“Allah does command you to render back your trust, to those to whom they are due.” Qur’an(4:58)
At two places in the Qur’an a chief distinguishing feature of Muslims is said to be that they are:
“Those who faithfully observe their trusts and their covenants.” Qur’an (24:8)
Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) has stressed the importance of honesty in most of his sermons, saying:
“Remember, there is no faith in him who is not trustworthy; there is no place for him in religion who cares not for his pledged word or promise.”
He (PBUH) also said:
“The signs of a hypocrite are three: when he speaks, he is false, when he promises, he fails; and when he is trusted, he plays false.”
Condemning those who cheat in business Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) has said:
“He who cheats is not of us. Deceitfulness and fraud are things that lead one to Hell.”
Once Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) came upon a heap of corn in the market of Madinah and thrust his hand onto it. His fingers felt damp. On being asked, the trader replied that rain had fallen upon it. The Prophet (PBUH) observed,
“Why did you not then keep (the wet portion of) it above the dry corn, so that men may see it? He who deceives, is not one of us.”
Thus traders who deceive by showing to customers a false sample or by concealing from them the defects of the product they’re selling are not true Muslims in the judgment of Allah Prophet (PBUH) and, they are going to end up in hell.
Another example: Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) said:
“The seller must explain to the buyer the defects, if any, in the quality of the article offered for sale. Should this not be done, the seller will permanently be caught in the Wrath of Allah (according to another narrator the exact words, ‘he will always be cursed by the angels’).”
In short, all manner of deceit and dishonesty in business is prohibited in Islam. It has been proclaimed to be an act worthy of unqualified condemnation. The Holy Prophet has expressed his strong dislike for those who do so. He has said he will have nothing to do with them; they do not belong to him.
Likewise, bribery and usury, although might be practiced by mutual consent and agreement, are totally prohibited and forbidden and those who are guilty of them have been condemned by Allah and His Prophet (PBUH). Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) said:
“The curse of Allah rests on him who offers loan on usurious terms, and on him who receives, and on those who are witnesses to the transaction, and on the writer who writes the deed thereof.”
As for bribery, Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) according has “condemned alike the giver of bribes, and the taker of bribes in deciding cases.”
Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) said:
“If a person made a recommendation for anyone in a just manner and gratified party gave him something as a gift (in return for it) and he accepted it, then he committed a grave error (meaning that it, too, is a form of bribery).”
Usurpation of another’s property by force or fraud or dishonest litigation is even worse. Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) made this clear, as he says:
“Whoever occupies land belonging to another unjustly will be sunk into the ground along with the plot of land on the Doomsday till he reaches the lowest layer of the earth.”
“He who acquires the property of a Muslim unjustly by taking a false oath (before an Officer) is debarred by Allah from entering Paradise and the Fire of Hell is made inevitable for him.”
Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) again, is reported to have warned a person who was very fond of entering into litigation with others in these strong words:
“Remember, he who will obtain the property of another by swearing a false oath will appear as a leper before Allah (on the Day of Judgement).”
And, again he (PBUH) said:
“Whoever laid a claim on a thing that was not his is not of us.”
Adab of Islam
(13) The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “When two vituperate each other, [the sin of] what they say is borne by the one who first began, as long as the one wronged does not transgress [the bounds of merely defending himself, by answering back with worse]” (Muslim, 4.2000: 2587. S). And when a group of Jews covertly cursed the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) by using a play on the words “as-Salamu ‘alaykum,” ‘A’isha noticed it and gave them a rounding, and he said, “Enough, ‘A’isha; for Allah does not like vulgarity or making a display of it” (ibid., 1707: 2165(4). S). And in another version, “O ‘A’isha, always have gentleness, and always shun harsh words and vulgarity” (Bukhari, 8.15: 6030. S). This is the adab of Islam with hardened enemies, so how should it not apply to our fellow Muslims, let alone family and loved ones?
(14) It is of the adab of the high path of Islam to be honest when one speaks. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “Honesty certainly leads to goodness, and goodness leads to paradise. Truly, a man keeps speaking the truth until he is inscribed as being true through and through. And lying leads to going wrong, and going wrong leads to hell. Truly, a man lies and lies until he is inscribed as being a liar through and through” (Muslim, 4.2012–13: 2607. S).
(15) It is of the adab of the high path of Islam to completely abandon and shun guile, deceit, scornfulness, or sarcasm because these are unlawful. Allah Most High says, “O you who believe, let no men scorn other men, for they might well be better than they are. And let no women scorn other women, for they might well be better than they. And do not find fault with one another, or give each other insulting nicknames” (Qur’an 49:11). And Allah Most High says, “Woe to whoever demeans others behind their back or to their face” (Qur’an 104:1). And the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “Let there be no harming another, or harming him back. Whoever harms another Allah shall harm, and whoever gives trouble to another Allah shall give trouble to” (Hakim, 2.58. Hg).
(16) It is of the adab of the high path of Islam to abandon lying, for it is unlawful. Allah Most High curses liars by saying, “May liars be slain” (Qur’an 51:10), in which slain means “cursed” according to the Arabic idiom likening the accursed, who loses every good and happiness, to the slain, who loses life and every blessing. The Qur’anic exegete al-Khazin notes that “May liars be cursed” originally referred to those who sat on the various roads outside Mecca warning people against the words of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) to keep them from becoming Muslim. The verse, however, like other Qur’anic verses, is not limited to the original circumstances in which it was revealed, but applies universally, to the end of time. Those who lie, except in circumstances in which Sacred Law permits it, are cursed by Allah.
(17) It is unlawful to lie, except when making up between two people, or lying to an enemy in war, or to one’s wife. It is also unlawful to praise or blame another with an untruth. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “Lying is wrong, except in three things: the lie of a man to his wife to make her content with him; a lie in war, for war is deception; or a lie to settle trouble between people” (Ahmad, 6.459. H). Ibn Jawzi has said, “The criterion for it is that every praiseworthy objective in Sacred Law that cannot be brought about without lying is permissible to lie for if the objective is permissible, and obligatory to lie for if the objective is obligatory.” When lying is the only way to attain one’s right, one may lie about oneself or another, provided it does not harm the other. And it is obligatory to lie to if necessary to protect a Muslim from being murdered. But whenever one can accomplish the objective by words that merely give a misleading impression with actually being false, it is unlawful to tell an outright lie, because it is unnecessary.
(18) If one needs to swear a false oath in order to save a person whose life is unlawful to take from being killed, then one must swear it, for saving such a person’s life is obligatory, and if doing so depends on an oath, it is obligatory. Suwayd ibn Handhala (Allah be well pleased with him) said: “We set out to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) and Wa’il ibn Hajar was with us, and he was captured by an enemy. The group was forced to swear an oath [that all were of the same clan, which was under a protection agreement], so I swore that he was my brother, and they released him. We reached the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) and I told him that the group had been forced to swear, and that I had sworn he was my brother, and he said, “You told the truth: the Muslim is the bother of the Muslim” (Abu Dawud, 3.224:3256. S).
(19) The “Farewell Sermon” of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) at hajj:
All praise is Allah’s. We praise Him, seek His help, ask His forgiveness, and we repent unto Him. We seek refuge in Allah from the evils of ourselves and our bad actions. Whomever Allah guides none can lead astray, and whomever He leads astray has no one to guide him. I testify that there is no god but Allah alone, without any partner, and I testify that Muhammad is his slave and messenger. I enjoin you, O servants of Allah, to be god fearing towards Allah, I urge you to obey Him, and I begin with that which is best.
To commence:
O people, hear me well: I explain to you. For I do not know; I may well not meet you again in this place where I now stand, after this year of mine.
O people: your lives and your property, until the very day you meet your Lord, are as inviolable to each other as the inviolability of this day you are now in, and the month you are now in. Have I given the message?—O Allah, be my witness. So let whoever has been given something for safekeeping give it back to him who gave him it.
Truly, the usury of the Era of Ignorance has been laid aside forever, and the first usury I begin with is that which is due to my father’s brother ‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib. And truly the blood-vengeance of the Era of Ignorance has been laid aside forever, and the first blood-vengeance we shall start with is that which is due for the blood of [my kinsman] ‘Amir ibn Rabi‘a ibn Harith ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib. Truly, the hereditary distinctions that were pretensions to respect in the Era of Ignorance have been laid aside forever, except for the custodianship of the Kaaba [by Bani ‘Abd al-Dar] and the giving of drink to pilgrims [by al-‘Abbas].
A deliberate murder is subject to retaliation in kind. An accidental death from a deliberate injury means a death resulting from [something not usually used or intended as a deadly weapon such as] a stick or a rock, for which the indemnity is one hundred camels: whoever asks for more is a person of the Era of Ignorance.
O people: the Devil has despaired of ever being worshipped in this land of yours, though he is content to be obeyed in other works of yours, that you deem to be of little importance.
O people: postponing the inviolability of a sacred month [claiming to postpone the prohibition of killing in it to a subsequent month, so as to continue warring despite the sacred month’s having arrived] is a surfeit of unbelief, by which those who disbelieve are led astray, making it lawful one year and unlawful in another, in order to match the number [of months] Allah has made inviolable. Time has verily come full turn, to how it was the day Allah created the heavens and the earth. Four months there are which are inviolable, three in a row and forth by itself: Dhul Qa‘da, Dhul Hijja, and Muharram; and Rajab, which lies between Jumada and Sha‘ban. Have I given the message?—O Allah, be my witness.
O people: verily you owe your women their rights, and they owe you yours. They may not lay with other men in your beds, let anyone into your houses you do not want without your permission, or commit indecency. If they do, Allah has given you leave to debar them, send them from your beds, or [finally] strike them in a way that does no harm. But if they desist, and obey you, then you must provide for them and clothe them fittingly. The women who live with you are like captives, unable to manage for themselves: you took them as a trust from Allah, and enjoyed their sex as lawful through a word [legal ruling] from Allah. So fear Allah in respect to women, and concern yourselves with their welfare. Have I given the message?—O Allah, be my witness.
O people, believers are but brothers. No one may take his brother’s property without his full consent. Have I given the message?—O Allah, be my witness. Never go back to being unbelievers, smiting each other’s necks, for verily, I have left among you that which if you take it, you will never stray after me: the Book of Allah. Have I given the message?—O Allah, be my witness.
O people, your Lord is One, and your father is one: all of you are from Adam, and Adam was from the ground. The noblest of you in Allah’s sight is the most God fearing: Arab has no merit over non-Arab other than godfearingness. Have I given the message?—O Allah, be my witness.
— At this, they said yes.
He said, Then let whomever is present tell whomever is absent.
O people:, Allah has apportioned to every deserving heir his share of the estate, and no deserving heir may accept a special bequest, and no special bequest may exceed a third of the estate. A child’s lineage is that of the [husband who owns the] bed, and adulterers shall be stoned. Whoever claims to be the son of someone besides his father or a bondsman who claims to belong to other than his masters shall bear the curse of Allah and the angels and all men: no deflecting of it or ransom for it shall be accepted from him.
And peace be upon all of you, and the mercy of Allah.
(20) ‘Ata’ ibn Abi Rabah, Mufti of Mecca (d. 114/732), of the generation that followed that of the prophetic Companions (Sahaba) said of them, “They used to dislike talking more than necessary, and considered “more than necessary” to mean more than your reciting the Qur’an, enjoining the right, forbidding the wrong, or speaking about making a living, in the amount strictly necessary.”
(21) The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should say something good or else be quiet” (Bukhari, 8.13: 6019. S). He also said (Allah bless him and give him peace) “Whoever is silent is saved” (Ahmad, 2.159. S). And the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “Verily the slave will say a word he thinks nothing of that Allah loves, for which Allah raises him whole degrees. And verily the slave will say a word he thinks nothing of that Allah detests, for which he plummets into hell” (Bukhari, 8.125: 6478. S).
(22) It is of the adab of Islam to know the value of one’s word, not to give unless one intends to keep it, and to keep it once it has been given. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “The signs of a hypocrite are three: when he speaks he lies, when he promises he breaks it, and when entrusted with something he betrays it” (Bukhari, 1.15: 33. S).
When Abu Bakr was dying, he sent for ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (Allah be well pleased with both of them), and told him, “O ‘Umar, if you are given authority over the people, fear Allah and hold fast to what is right. For the balance of those whose scale pans are heavy on Resurrection Day [with good deeds] shall only be heavy for their having followed what is right and its heaviness upon them; and it befits the balance scale when what is right is placed in it tomorrow to be heavy. And the balance of those whose scale pans are light on Resurrection Day [because of few good deeds] shall only be light for their having followed what is wrong and its ease upon them; and it befits the balance scale when what is wrong is placed in it tomorrow to be light. And know that there are works for Allah at night that He does not accept during the day, and that there are works during the day that He does not accept at night. And that He does not accept a supererogatory work of worship until the obligatory has been done.”
Source unknown
Posted by Fawad Mir in Global Islam, Islam: The Universal Message of Peace on June 15th, 2013
When I picked up “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins, I was expecting to encounter new reasons put forward to form a positive case for the Atheist worldview, but I have to say that I was disappointed. What I read were rehashed, incoherent and outdated arguments that made me realize that Richard Dawkins is not very well read in philosophy. In light of this I thought it would be useful to provide a compilation of arguments from existing material and respond to his main arguments in the following way:
1. Respond to what Dawkins considers his central argument;
2. Respond to what Philosophers consider his best argument.
Responding to what Dawkins considers his central argument
On pages 157-158 of “The God Delusion,” Dawkins summarises what he maintains as “the central argument of my book”:
1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinism evolution by natural selection and we don’t have an equivalent explanation for physics.
5. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.
God almost certainly does not exist.
Preliminary Note
Before I go into Dawkins’ main points, I would like to address his conclusion “God almost certainly does not exist.” My main issue is – how does he conclude that God doesn’t exist from the above statements? It seems to me that his conclusion just jumps out of thin air, to infer that God does not exist just shows how invalid his argument is. It seems to me that the only delusion is Dawkins’ conviction that his arguments undermine the existence of God.
If we could conclude anything from Dawkins’ argument it would be that we should not conclude that God exists based on the design of the universe. However, even if that is true, it doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist; we can believe in God’s existence from many other arguments, which include:
• The argument from morality;
• The miracle of the Qur’an;
• The cosmological argument;
• The argument from personal experience;
• The argument from consciousness.
If we were to accept all of Dawkins’ statements, it would not be enough to reject the idea that God exists, and it certainly does not provide a positive case for Atheism. However, many of his statements are false. Let us take his statements and respond accordingly.
Statement #1: One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
I believe that it is only a challenge if you wish to take God out of the picture. It is indeed a challenge if you presume atheism to be true. However for someone who is reflective and thinks deeply about things, I think the simplest and the best explanation – with the greatest explanatory power – is that there is a supernatural designer. The next point will address why God makes sense of the design in the universe.
Statement #2: The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
This is not only a natural temptation but a rational conclusion brought to light based upon the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe. Let me start off by presenting the premises of this argument:
1. The fine-tuning of the universe to permit life is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
Explaining Premise One
The existence of a universe that permits human life is due to conditions that must have been fined-tuned to a degree that is beyond comprehension. Take the following examples into consideration:
• The Strength of Gravity & the Atomic Weak Force: Physicist P. C. W. Davies concludes that a small change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force would have prevented a universe that permits our existence. P. C. W. Davies argues that this small change is as small as one part in 10100 .
• Volume of the phase space of possible universes: Roger Penrose of Oxford University explains that the creator would have to aim for a very tiny volume of the “phase space of possible universes” to create a universe that resembles our own. This is quite technical science, but we should ask the question: how tiny is this volume? According to Penrose the volume would be 1/10 to the power of X which is 10123. The precision required to produce a universe that resembles our own is much greater than the precision that would be required to hit one proton if the universe were a dartboard!
In light of the above, there are only three possible explanations for the presence of the above fine tuning of the universe:
1. Physical necessity;
2. Chance;
3. Design.
Why it cannot be Physical Necessity
This option is irrational. There is just no physical reason why these constants and quantities should have the values they do. As P. C. W. Davies explains:
“Even if the laws of physics were unique, it doesn’t follow that the physical universe itself is unique…the laws of physics must be augmented by cosmic initial conditions…there is nothing in present ideas about ‘laws of initial conditions’ remotely to suggest that their consistency with the laws of physics would imply uniqueness. Far from it…it seems, then, that the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise.”
Additionally if anyone was to take the view that the fine-tuning of the universe to permit human life is due to physical necessity, it would imply that it would be impossible to have a universe not fit for life! However physicists maintain that the universe in which we live didn’t have to be the way that it is, and there could have been many other universes that did not permit human life.
Why it cannot be Chance
Some people who do not understand the impossibility of the universe coming into being by chance exclaim, “It could have happened by chance!” However would they say chance explains how an elephant was sleeping in their garage overnight? Or how a 747 ended up parked in their garden? Even after their irrational perspective is highlighted, they still hold on to the theory that the universe can exist due to chance. In response to this I would argue that it is not just about chance but something the theorists such as William Dembski call “specified probability.”
Since premises one and two are true, it follows that supernatural design is the most reasonable explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe to permit human life.
Statement #3: The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
The above statement, which is a contention to the design argument is flawed for two main reasons. Firstly, anyone with a basic understanding of the philosophy of science will conclude that in the inference to the best explanation, the best explanation does not require an explanation! The following example illustrates this point. Imagine 500 years from now, a group of archaeologists start digging in London’s Hyde Park only to find parts of a car and a bus. They would be completely justified in inferring that these finds were not the result of any biological process but the products of an unknown civilization. However if some skeptics were to argue that we cannot make such inferences because we do not know anything about this civilization, how they lived and who created them, would that make the archaeologists conclusions untrue? Of course not!
Secondly, if we take this contention seriously it could undermine the very foundations of science and philosophy themselves. If we require an explanation for the basic assumptions of science, for example that the external world exists, where do you think our level of scientific progress would be? Additionally if we were to apply this type of question to every attempt at explaining the explanation, we would end up with an infinite regression of explanations. And an infinite regression of explanations would defeat the whole purpose of science in the first place – which is to provide an explanation!
A Note on Rejecting the Supernatural
Dawkins’ also rejects a supernatural designer because he thinks, as an explanation, it lack explanatory power; in other words, no progress is made with an explanation to the apparent fine-tuning. He raises this objection because he feels that a supernatural designer is just as complex as design. However Dawkins’ objection is problematic as he assumes that a supernatural designer is as complex as the universe. But a supernatural designer, in other words God, is one of the simplest concepts understood by all. This opinion is expressed by many Philosophers including the famous atheist turned theist Professor Anthony Flew.
Dawkins’ other assumption is that God is made of many parts; however, God is immaterial, transcendent and one. Just because God can do complex things does not make him complex, it seems to me that Dawkins confuses ability with nature. In other words, just because God can do complex things (such as creating the universe) it does not make His nature complex.So it stands to reason that God is the simplest, and therefore the best, explanation.
Statement #4: The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinism evolution by natural selection and and we don’t have an equivalent explanation for physics.This statement is irrelevant due to the following reasons:
1. Evolution does not have its foot in the door;
2. Evolution is based upon incalculable probabilities;
3. Evolution is impossible because we have not spent enough time on Earth yet.
Let me expand upon these points.
1. Evolution does not have its foot in the door
With regards to the existence of God, evolution does not even have its foot in the door; it’s billions years away. The fine-tuning argument mentioned above refers to the initial conditions of the universe and various constants that pre-date any evolutionary process. Simply put, evolution has no say.
2. Evolution is based upon incalculable probabilities
The odds against assembling the human genome spontaneously are incalculable. The probability of assembling the genome is between 4-180 to 4-110,000 and 4-360 to 4-110,000. These numbers give some feel for the unlikelihood of the species Homo sapiens. And if anyone were to accept evolution by chance, they would have to believe in a miracle as these numbers are so high! Therefore evolution itself would prove the existence of God!
3. Evolution is impossible because we have not had enough time on Earth yet
According to John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, the odds of assembling a single gene are between and 4-180 to 4-360. The implications of this are that there simply has not been enough time since the formation of the earth to try a number of nucleotide base combinations that can even remotely compare to these numbers!
Statement #5: We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.
Dawkins basically says that since there is a naturalistic explanation for the apparent design in species and we do not have a similar explanation for physics, we should just wait. Does this not sound like blind faith to you? The statement presumes scientism to be the only way of establishing facts or sound conclusions. Why else would he want to wait for a naturalistic explanation? Dawkins’ presumption that scientism is the only way to establish facts is not true because:
It can be seen from the above that Dawkins’ central argument fails and is an embarrassment to the scientific community, as atheist Philosopher Michael Ruse explains,
“unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it. Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means. Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them. Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, “What caused God?” as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery.”
Responding to what Philosophers consider his best argument
According to Philosopher and lecturer at Yale University, Gregory E. Granssle, Dawkins’ strongest argument can be found on page 55:
“A universe with a creative superintendent would be a very different kind of universe from one without.”
Dawkins’ argument can be summarised in the following way:
1. A universe created by God would be different than the one created by nature;
2. The universe we live in fits better to a universe created by nature;
3. Therefore the universe we live in is most likely to have been created by nature.
I would argue that Dawkins’ argument couldn’t be any further away from the truth; this is because the universe that we live in actually makes more sense being created by God for the following reasons.
1. The universe is ordered and open to rational anaylsis
If God did not exist, the universe would not display the order it does, and it would not be finely-tuned to permit human life. Professor Roger Penrose states, “There is a certain sense in which I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance…I don’t think that’s a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe.”
Additionally, the very fact that we can observe and perform rational analysis on the patterns we perceive in the universe makes more sense if God did exist, because in a naturalistic universe things would be expected to be more chaotic. This does not mean a universe without a God could not be ordered; however it is more likely that God would create an ordered universe, and since the universe we live in is ordered it makes sense that God’s existence fits well with our universe
2. The universe contains conscious and aware beings
A universe that contains consciousness and awareness makes sense with the existence of God. A universe without a God would be very different to the one we are living in.Explanation
Human beings experience things all the time. This article you are reading is an experience; even talking about your experience is an experience. However the ultimate reality that we know from any experience is the one who experiences it – in other words ourselves. When we realise that there is a first-person, an “I”, “me” or “mine,” we come to face a profound mystery. The Philosopher Roy Abraham Varghese puts it nicely when he wrote, “To reverse Descartes, ‘I am, therefore I think…’ Who is this ‘I’? ‘Where’ is it? How did it come to be? Your self is not just something physical.”
The self is not a physical thing; it is not contained in any cell or biological structure. The most unchallenged and intuitive reality is that we are all aware, but we cannot describe or explain what this awareness is. One thing that we can be sure of is that the self cannot be explained biologically or chemically. The main reason for this is that science does not discover the self; it is actually the other way round. For science to try and explain the truth of the self would be tantamount to arguing in a circle! Even scientists recognise this; the physicist Gerald Schroeder points out that there is no real difference between a heap of sand and the brain of an Einstein. The advocates of a physical explanation for the self end up in a muddle as they require answers to even bigger questions, such as “How can certain bits of matter suddenly create a new reality that has no resemblance to matter?”So if the self cannot be explained physically then the next question must be asked: “How did it come to be?” The history of the universe indicates that consciousness spontaneously arose, and language emerged without any evolutionary forerunner. So where did it come from? Even the neo-atheists have failed to come to terms with the nature of the self and its source, because no physical explanation is coherent enough to be convincing. Even Richard Dawkins almost admits defeat concerning the self and consciousness; he states, “We don’t know. We don’t understand it.”
The best explanation for the nature and source of the self is that it came from a source that is thinking, aware and conscious. How else can the self, which is an entity with a capacity to reflect and experience, manifest itself? It cannot have come from unconscious matter incapable to experience and ponder. Simply put, matter cannot produce concepts and perceptions, therefore we can conclude that the self cannot have a material basis but must have come from a living source that transcends the material world; and this is best explained by God. No other answer provides an adequate explanation for this phenomenon.
3. The universe contains objective morality
We all believe that killing 6 million Jews during World War II was morally wrong, however not only do we believe it was morally wrong we believe it was objectively morally wrong. What I mean by objective is that if the Nazis had successfully taken over Europe and brainwashed us to believe that it was ok to commit genocide, it would still be objectively morally wrong regardless of human experience. However since our universe contains objective morality then it can only make sense with God’s existence, because God is required as rational basis for objective morality. Without God morality is subjective, because God is the only conceptual anchor that transcends human subjectivity. So the universe with objective morality makes no sense without God. In this light the Muslim or theist may argue:
1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist;
2. The universe with objective moral values does exist;
3. Therefore, God exists.Explaining the key premise
The question about objective good or bad, in other words objective morality, has been discussed by various moral philosophers. Many have concluded that there is no objective morality without God, for instance the late J. L. Mackie in his book “Ethics” states that there are no objective moral values. Humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz aptly puts it as,
“The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?”
Paul Kurtz is right; God is the only conceptual anchor that transcends human subjectivity, so without God there is no rational basis for objective morality. To explain this further let us discuss alternative conceptual foundations for morality.In God’s absence, there are only two alternative foundations:
1. Social pressure
2. Evolution
Both social pressures and evolution provide no objective basis for morality as they both claim that our morality is contingent on changes: biological and social. Therefore morality cannot be binding and true regardless of who believes in them. Therefore without God, there is no objective basis for morality. God as a concept is not subjective, therefore having God as the basis for morality makes them binding and objective, because God transcends human subjectivity. The following statement by Richard Taylor, an eminent ethicist, correctly concludes,
“Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning.”
Since the universe contains objective morality, and Gods existence is necessary as a conceptual foundation for objective morals, then the universe we live in makes sense with the existence of God.
A Quick Note on Religious “Evils”
Before I conclude I would like to highlight that a response to Dawkins’ other contentions with the concept of God and religious life. Dawkins seems to attribute all the negative and evil things to religion. However there is a strong argument that these things are not unique to religion itself, but the common conceptual dominator is humanity. This is summarised well by Keith Ward, the former Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford, he writes,
“It is very difficult to think of any organised human activity that could not be corrupted…The lesson is that anti-religious corruptions and religious corruptions are both possible. There is no magic system or belief, not even belief in liberal democracy, which can be guaranteed to prevent it.”
To illustrate this let me use the outdated cliché of “religions are the cause war and conflict” and show how war and conflict are not unique to religions. In the relatively short history of secularism the following massacres have committed in the name of non-religious ideologies such a communism, nationalism and social-Darwinism:
• 70,000,000 under chairman Mao
• 20,000,000 under Stalin
• 2,000,000 no longer exist because of Pol Pot
• 700,000 innocent Iraqi’s in the current occupation
• 500,000 Iraqi children in the 10 year sanctions
So it can be clearly seen above that war and conflict are not religious monopolies, rather they are human phenomena and not unique to religion. As Professor Stephen L. Carter argues in “Civility”:
“[T]he statement that wars have been fought in the name of God is a non sequitur. As the theologian Walter Wink once pointed out, more people have died in the twentieth century’s secular wars than in the preceding fifty centuries of fighting combined…. No religious war in history, not all the religious wars of history added together, did as much damage as this century’s wars of nationalism and ideology.”
Conclusion
This article attempted to respond to Richard Dawkins’ best-seller “The God Delusion” by responding to his central argument and the argument that Philosophers consider to be his best. However, intellectual gymnastics – no matter how truthful – seldom convinces others, so I thought it would best to allow the expression of God – the Qur’an – to have the final say. In the wonderful eloquence and sublime style God says,
“In the creation of the heavens and Earth, and the alternation of the night and day, and the ships which sail the seas to people’s benefit, and the water which God sends down from the sky – by which He brings the Earth to life when it was dead and scatters about in it creatures of every kind – and the varying direction of the winds, and the clouds subservient between heaven and Earth, there are signs for people who use their intellect.” Qur’an, 2:164
Bibliography
The majority of this article has been compiled from:
Contending with Christianity’s Critics: Answering New Atheists and Other Objectors. Edited by Paul Copan and William Lane Craig.
There is a God: How The World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. By Professor Anthony Flew.
The anthropic cosmological principle. By John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler.
The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. By William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland.
God?: A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist. By William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong.
© 2024, All Rights Reserved by Pakistan Think Tank.
