In the west, especially in the USA, there is a debate going on about Evolution or Intelligent Design. To summarise the nature of the arguments, scientists in favour of the theory of evolution claim that life came into existence by chance, while the scientists who disagree, say that there is a creator behind all the life on earth.
In this article, I do not want to go into the scientific arguments (the readers can study the books written for and against evolution and make up their own minds); I just want to discuss some basic common sense points concerning the validity of Darwinism.
I want to start with an incident which occurred approximately thirteen hundred years ago. An atheist came to Imam Abu Hanifa (a great scholar of Islam) and challenged him to a debate (to be held in front of the caliph of that time). The atheist said that he will prove that there is no God; Imam Abu Hanifa accepted his challenge.
A time was set, and they were to come and debate in the presence of the caliph. When the day came, the atheist reached at the rendezvous on time, while Imam Abu Hanifa was no where to be seen. After waiting for a long time, Abu Hanifa finally showed up. When enquired about his late appearance, he replied that a mysterious thing happened to him on the way. He elaborated that he was waiting for a boat to take him across the river and there was none in sight. Suddenly the branches of a tree (at the bank of the river) started to fall, and the wood from the branches formed into a boat; he sat into the boat and it automatically took him across the river without any outside help whatsoever.
The atheist had an incredulous expression on his face, and he said that are you out of your mind, how can such a thing happen? Abu Hanifa replied that well my friend the debate is over. The atheist enquired how? He answered that if you cannot believe that a boat can be formed and driven without any external help, how can you believe that the entire universe came into existence, and is functioning, on its own. By this argument, Abu Hanifa won the debate.
If we look around, all the millions of living species on this planet possess miraculous features, unique behavioural patterns and flawless physical structures. If one just looks at the human body alone, one can only admire the complex mechanisms, structures and processes which take place inside ones body. Some of the scientists are astonished as they discover the miraculous aspects of these structures they study and the intelligence behind that coming into existence, and they witness infinite knowledge and wisdom involved. Others, however, surprisingly claim that all these miraculous features are the product of chance.
According to these scientists, a number of simple chemical processes came together and formed a protein, which is no more possible than a randomly scattered collection of letters coming together to form a poem. In addition, the other coincidences led to the emergence of other proteins. These then also combined by chance in an organised manner, not just proteins, but DNA, RNA, enzymes etc (all of which are very intricate structures within the cell). As a result of billions of coincidences the first cell was formed. The ability of blind chance did not stop there, as these cells just happened to multiply. Afterwards, because of these coincidences these cells organised in such a way as to produce the first living thing.
So basically it required billions of coincidences for one life form to come into existence. Then afterwards trillions of other coincidences took place and other life forms were formed in the water. Later they evolved into other creatures. Then from water, according to the evolutionists, they evolved onto the land and further evolved into other creatures such as reptiles, birds, mammals and some of them later evolved into human beings.
Let us say that we place a computer in a room. We let the program Microsoft Word run on it. Then we let twenty monkeys into the room. The monkeys run wildly and jump on the keyboard, and bang on the keypads for days. Afterwards, when we study the computer, we find that a book has been written without any grammatical errors in flawless English. Moreover, the book is organised into chapters, there are page numbers, headings and an index at the end as well. If you can believe this story then you will not have any problem in believing the theory of evolution. Of course, any reasonable person will never believe this fantastic tale. So how can one believe that trillions upon trillions of coincidences took place and produced life on this earth.
In short, evolutionists, regard chance as an intelligent, conscious and powerful enough force to create living things and all the sensitive balances on this earth. The fact that educated, intelligent and knowledgeable people can, as a group, believe in the most irrational and illogical claim in the recorded history is really a great miracle. If you put a carved stone or wooden idol in front of these people and tell them “look this idol created this room and everything in it,” they would reply that it is utterly stupid and refuse to believe it. Yet they declare that “the unconscious process known as chance gradually brought the world and the billion of living things into being with enormous planning” to be the greatest scientific explanation.
The more I study the theory of evolution, the harder it gets for me to swallow this philosophy. Darwinism certainly does not go down my throat, does it go down yours?
Please also go to http://www.harunyahya.com/html/m_book_index.htm and read ATLAS OF CREATION - Volume 1 and ATLAS OF CREATION - Volume 2; and see for yourselves the evidence of creation.
I would also recommend that you watch the following videos:
BIOMIMETICS: TECHNOLOGY IMITATES NATURE http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6869583920990256801
THE MIRACLE OF THE HONEYBEE http://harunyahya.com/presentation/miracle_of_the_honeybee/index.html
THE MIRACLE OF LEAFCUTTER ANT http://www.harunyahya.com/presentation/leafcutters/
THE CREATION OF CAMEL http://www.harunyahya.com/camel/index.html
CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE http://harunyahya.com/presentation/creation_of_universe/index.html
Also please read the article "The Disasters Darwanism brought to Humanity" on this website to understand what is the problem with Atheism.
Further, I would also urge you to read "What is the Origin of Man? by Dr. Maurice Bucaille.
Friday, December 01, 2006
The Problems with the Theory of Evolution
The material for this article has been taken from Harun Yahya’s book Evolution Deceit.
According to Darwin, different living species were not created by God, but they rather came from a common ancestor and became differentiated from each other as a result of natural conditions. Darwin called this process “Evolution by Natural Selection”.
Darwin was himself conscious of the fact that his theory faced a lot of problems. He confessed this in his book (The Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection) in the chapter “Difficulties of the Theory”.
The theory of evolution fails at its very first step: i.e. how life first appeared on earth? According to the claims of the theory, life started with a cell that formed by coincidence.
The scenario put forth is that four billion years ago various lifeless chemical compounds underwent a reaction in the primordial atmosphere on the earth in which the effects of thunderbolts and atmospheric pressure led to the formation of the first living cell.
First of all, lifeless materials can come together to form life is an unscientific assertion, and it has never been verified by any experiment or observation. Life is only generated from life. No scientist in the world has ever succeeded in forming a living cell by bringing inanimate materials together, not even in the most advanced laboratories.
The claim of the evolutionists that living cells – which cannot be produced even when all the power of the human intellect, knowledge and technology are brought together – nevertheless managed to form by chance under primordial conditions on earth does not carry any weight. The million dollar point to be taken into consideration is that if any one step in the evolutionary process is proven to be impossible, this is sufficient to prove that the whole theory is totally false and invalid. Keeping this in mind, the theory of evolution collapses at its very beginning, so it becomes meaningless to take some human and ape skull and engage in speculation about them.
Furthermore, evolutionists claim that species living in water somehow stepped onto land and were transformed into land-dwelling species. There are a number of facts which make such transition impossible:
For example, fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. They cannot live more than a few minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would have to acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden.
In addition, sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment. On land, water has to be used economically. This is why these living beings have a kidney system. Thanks to the kidneys, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea and the minimum amount of water is used during its excretion. In addition, new systems are needed to provide the kidney's functioning. In short, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once.
There are numerous other points, but for the sake of brevity I will have stop here. Thus, it is impossible that all these dramatic physiological changes could have happened in the same organisms at some time, and all by chance.
The scenario that amphibians evolved into reptiles is implausible as well. For example, the amphibian egg is designed for developing in water whereas the amniotic egg is designed for developing on land. A "step by step" evolution of an amphibian is out of the question, because without a perfect and fully-designed egg, it is not possible for a species to survive. Evolutionist paleontologist and an authority on vertebrate paleontology, Robert L. Carroll has to accept that "the early reptiles were very different from amphibians and that their ancestors could not be found yet.”
Evolutionists’ tales are not over yet. There still remains the problem of making these creatures fly! Since evolutionists believe that birds must somehow have been evolved, they assert that they were transformed from reptiles. The gradual evolution cannot explain this scenario. Firstly, the wings, which are the exceptional traits of birds, are a great impasse for the evolutionists. One of the Turkish evolutionists, Engin Korur, confesses the impossibility of the evolution of wings:
The common trait of the eyes and the wings is that they can only function if they are fully developed. In other words, a halfway-developed eye cannot see; a bird with half-formed wings cannot fly. How these organs came into being has remained one of the mysteries of nature that needs to be enlightened.
The question of how the perfect structure of wings came into being as a result of consecutive haphazard mutations remains completely unanswered. There is no way to explain how the front arms of a reptile could have changed into perfectly functioning wings as a result of a distortion in its genes (mutation).
Moreover, just having wings is not sufficient for a land organism to fly. Land-dwelling organisms are devoid of many other structural mechanisms that birds use for flying. For example, the bones of birds are much lighter than those of land-dwelling organisms. Their lungs function in a very different way. They have a different muscular and skeletal system and a very specialised heart-circulatory system. All these mechanisms had to exist at the same time and altogether; they could not have formed gradually by being "accumulated". This is why the theory asserting that land organisms evolved into aerial organisms is completely fallacious.
As we have stated before, the theory of evolution proposes that some imaginary creatures that came out of the sea turned into reptiles, and that birds evolved from reptiles, according to the same scenario, reptiles are the ancestors not only of birds but also of mammals. However, there are great differences between these two classes. Mammals are warm-blooded animals (this means they can generate their own heat and maintain it at a steady level), they give live birth, they suckle their young, and their bodies are covered in fur or hair. Reptiles, on the other hand, are cold-blooded (i.e., they cannot generate heat, and their body temperature changes according to the external temperature), they lay eggs, they do not suckle their young, and their bodies are covered in scales.
One example of the structural barriers between reptiles and mammals is their jaw structure. Mammal jaws consist of only one mandibular bone containing the teeth. In reptiles, there are three little bones on both sides of the mandible. Another basic difference is that all mammals have three bones in their middle ear (hammer, anvil, and stirrup). Reptiles have but a single bone in the middle ear. Evolutionists claim that the reptile jaw and middle ear gradually evolved into the mammal jaw and ear. The question of how an ear with a single bone evolved into one with three bones, and how the sense of hearing kept on functioning in the meantime can never be explained. Not surprisingly, not one single fossil linking reptiles and mammals has been found. This is why evolutionist science writer Roger Lewin was forced to say, "The transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma.”
George Gaylord Simpson, one of the most popular evolutionary authorities and a founder of the neo-Darwinist theory, makes the following comment regarding this perplexing difficulty for evolutionists:
The most puzzling event in the history of life on earth is the change from the Mesozoic, the Age of Reptiles, to the Age of Mammals. It is as if the curtain were rung down suddenly on the stage where all the leading roles were taken by reptiles, especially dinosaurs, in great numbers and bewildering variety, and rose again immediately to reveal the same setting but an entirely new cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs do not appear at all, other reptiles are supernumeraries, and all the leading parts are played by mammals of sorts barely hinted at in the preceding acts.
Furthermore, when mammals suddenly made their appearance, they were already very different from each other. Such dissimilar animals as bats, horses, mice, and whales are all mammals, and they all emerged during the same geological period. Establishing an evolutionary relationship among them is impossible even by the broadest stretch of the imagination. The evolutionist zoologist R. Eric Lombard makes this point in an article that appeared in the leading journal Evolution:
Those searching for specific information useful in constructing phylogenies of mammalian taxa will be disappointed.
All of these demonstrate that all living beings appeared on earth suddenly and fully formed, without any evolutionary process. This is concrete evidence of the fact that they were created. Evolutionists, however, try to interpret the fact that living species came into existence in a particular order as an indication of evolution. Yet the sequence by which living things emerged is the "order of creation", since it is not possible to speak of an evolutionary process. With a superior and flawless creation, oceans and then lands were filled with living things and finally man was created.
Contrary to the "ape man" story that is imposed on the masses with intense media propaganda, man also emerged on earth suddenly and fully formed.
Another subject that remains unanswered by evolutionary theory is the excellent quality of perception in the eye.
Before passing on to the subject of the eye, let us briefly answer the question of "how we see". Light rays coming from an object fall oppositely on the retina of the eye. Here, these light rays are transmitted into electric signals by cells and they reach a tiny spot at the back of the brain called the centre of vision. These electric signals are perceived in this centre of the brain as an image after a series of processes. With this technical background, let us do some thinking.
The brain is insulated from light. That means that the inside of the brain is solid dark, and light does not reach the location where the brain is situated. The place called the centre of vision is a solid dark place where no light ever reaches; it may even be the darkest place you have ever known. However, you observe a luminous, bright world in this pitch darkness. The image formed in the eye is so sharp and distinct that even the technology of the 20th century has not been able to attain it.
For many years, thousands of engineers have tried to make a three-dimensional TV, and reach the vision quality of the eye. Yes, they have made a three-dimensional television system but it is not possible to watch it without putting on glasses; moreover, it is only an artificial three dimension. The background is more blurred, the foreground appears like a paper setting. Never has it been possible to produce a sharp and distinct vision like that of the eye. In both the camera and the television, there is a loss of image quality.
Evolutionists claim that the mechanism producing this sharp and distinct image has been formed by chance. Now, if somebody told you that the television in your room was formed as a result of chance, that all its atoms just happened to come together and make up this device that produces an image, what would you think? How can atoms do what thousands of people cannot? For nearly a century, tens of thousands of engineers have been researching and striving in high-tech laboratories and great industrial complexes using the most advanced technological devices, and they have been able to do no more than this. If a device producing a more primitive image than the eye could not have been formed by chance, then it is very evident that the eye and the image seen by the eye could not have been formed by chance. It requires a much more detailed and wise planning and design than the one in the TV. The plan and design of the image as distinct and sharp as this one belongs to God, who has power over all things.
Briefly, the technology in our body is far superior to the technology mankind has produced using its accumulated information, experience, and opportunities. No one would say that a HI-FI or a camera came into being as a result of chance. So how can it be claimed that the technologies that exist in the human body, which are superior even to these, could have come into being as a result of a chain of coincidences called evolution?
Even Darwin, in his letter to Asa Gray on April 3rd 1860, wrote that "the thought of the eye made him cold all over" and he confessed the desperation of the evolutionists in the face of the excellent design of living things.
There are a lot more arguments one can put forth, and if anyone is interested I would recommend him to read Harun Yahya’s books (especially “The Evolution Deceit” and “Darwinism Refuted”) or visit http://www.harunyahya.com/.
All in all the theory of evolution is a dogmatic belief and not a scientific one. The evolutionists somehow want to deny the existence of God, because belief in a Creator would open the door to religion and that does not go down the throats of the atheists.
The fact that church committed a lot of atrocities in the name of religion in the past and even murdered anyone who contradicted the church, caused many educated people of that time in the west to believe that religion is bad (it is illogical and unscientific). This type of thinking has spread to the majority who live in the west and that is why they do not believe in religion at all.
I would like to invite all these atheists to study Islam. We never murdered any scientists, but rather encouraged development of science and technology (history is a witness to this fact). The reason being that the last and the final testament, The Holy Quran, has remained uncorrupted from any changes, and there are no scientific errors in the Quran as opposed to other religious scriptures of our time (even the scholars of other religions confess that the scriptures are not the same now as at the time of revelation). I would recommend the atheists to go to http://www.scienceislam.com/scientists_quran.php and watch the videos where scientists have themselves confessed that Quran could not have been the work of a human. In addition, please listen to the lecture "Amazing Quran" by Dr. Gary Miller http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTMPBDcDov0 Further, I humbly request that you read the short book "QUR'AN AND MODERN SCIENCE - Compatible Or Incompatible" which can be downloaded from http://www.esnips.com/doc/218f1013-8fac-4fd3-9a89-27f42fe6e493/QURAN-AND-MODERN-SCIENCE---Compatible-Or-Incompatible---Dr-Zakir-Naik May Allah show us the right path and save our minds from being corrupted by false ideologies. Ameen.
Please also read the article "The Disasters Darwinism Brought to Humanity" on this website to understand why Atheism is such a dangerous philosphy. I would also recommend the article "New Fossil Discovery Sinks Evolutionary Theories" on http://www.albalagh.net/general/evolution_theory_sinks.shtml
Please also go to http://www.harunyahya.com/html/m_book_index.htm and read ATLAS OF CREATION - Volume 1 and ATLAS OF CREATION - Volume 2; and see for yourselves the evidence of creation.
Furthermore, please go to http://www.evolutionisdead.com/downloads.php and watch the video "From a Frog to a Prince." This video is the best reply to the evolutionist propaganda I have ever seen (contains exclusive interview with Dr. Richard Dawkins).
In addition, please watch the following videos:
Major Problems with Theory of Evolution (This video is a must watch) http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-4510168987472200892&hl=en
Hidden History of the Human Race Authors Tour 1994 http://krishnatube.com/video/295/Hidden-History-of-the-Human-Race-Authors-Tour-1994
Mysterious Origins of Man http://krishnatube.com/video/269/The-Mysterious-Origins-of-Man
Living Fossils http://www.harunyahya.com/presentation/living_fossils/index.html
The Collapse of Evolution http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6836937496535487075
Questioning evolution theory THIS IS INCREDIBLE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1iCjKWzeEE&mode=related&search=
Questioning Darwinian Evolution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R5lfTPwct4
Questioning Evolutionary Origins: Abiogenesis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t45wxUddOaM
Yusuf Estes talks about Evolution http://video.google.com.au/videosearch?q=yusuf+estes+and+evolution
Further, I would also urge you to read "What is the Origin of Man? by Dr. Maurice Bucaille.
According to Darwin, different living species were not created by God, but they rather came from a common ancestor and became differentiated from each other as a result of natural conditions. Darwin called this process “Evolution by Natural Selection”.
Darwin was himself conscious of the fact that his theory faced a lot of problems. He confessed this in his book (The Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection) in the chapter “Difficulties of the Theory”.
The theory of evolution fails at its very first step: i.e. how life first appeared on earth? According to the claims of the theory, life started with a cell that formed by coincidence.
The scenario put forth is that four billion years ago various lifeless chemical compounds underwent a reaction in the primordial atmosphere on the earth in which the effects of thunderbolts and atmospheric pressure led to the formation of the first living cell.
First of all, lifeless materials can come together to form life is an unscientific assertion, and it has never been verified by any experiment or observation. Life is only generated from life. No scientist in the world has ever succeeded in forming a living cell by bringing inanimate materials together, not even in the most advanced laboratories.
The claim of the evolutionists that living cells – which cannot be produced even when all the power of the human intellect, knowledge and technology are brought together – nevertheless managed to form by chance under primordial conditions on earth does not carry any weight. The million dollar point to be taken into consideration is that if any one step in the evolutionary process is proven to be impossible, this is sufficient to prove that the whole theory is totally false and invalid. Keeping this in mind, the theory of evolution collapses at its very beginning, so it becomes meaningless to take some human and ape skull and engage in speculation about them.
Furthermore, evolutionists claim that species living in water somehow stepped onto land and were transformed into land-dwelling species. There are a number of facts which make such transition impossible:
For example, fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. They cannot live more than a few minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would have to acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden.
In addition, sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment. On land, water has to be used economically. This is why these living beings have a kidney system. Thanks to the kidneys, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea and the minimum amount of water is used during its excretion. In addition, new systems are needed to provide the kidney's functioning. In short, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once.
There are numerous other points, but for the sake of brevity I will have stop here. Thus, it is impossible that all these dramatic physiological changes could have happened in the same organisms at some time, and all by chance.
The scenario that amphibians evolved into reptiles is implausible as well. For example, the amphibian egg is designed for developing in water whereas the amniotic egg is designed for developing on land. A "step by step" evolution of an amphibian is out of the question, because without a perfect and fully-designed egg, it is not possible for a species to survive. Evolutionist paleontologist and an authority on vertebrate paleontology, Robert L. Carroll has to accept that "the early reptiles were very different from amphibians and that their ancestors could not be found yet.”
Evolutionists’ tales are not over yet. There still remains the problem of making these creatures fly! Since evolutionists believe that birds must somehow have been evolved, they assert that they were transformed from reptiles. The gradual evolution cannot explain this scenario. Firstly, the wings, which are the exceptional traits of birds, are a great impasse for the evolutionists. One of the Turkish evolutionists, Engin Korur, confesses the impossibility of the evolution of wings:
The common trait of the eyes and the wings is that they can only function if they are fully developed. In other words, a halfway-developed eye cannot see; a bird with half-formed wings cannot fly. How these organs came into being has remained one of the mysteries of nature that needs to be enlightened.
The question of how the perfect structure of wings came into being as a result of consecutive haphazard mutations remains completely unanswered. There is no way to explain how the front arms of a reptile could have changed into perfectly functioning wings as a result of a distortion in its genes (mutation).
Moreover, just having wings is not sufficient for a land organism to fly. Land-dwelling organisms are devoid of many other structural mechanisms that birds use for flying. For example, the bones of birds are much lighter than those of land-dwelling organisms. Their lungs function in a very different way. They have a different muscular and skeletal system and a very specialised heart-circulatory system. All these mechanisms had to exist at the same time and altogether; they could not have formed gradually by being "accumulated". This is why the theory asserting that land organisms evolved into aerial organisms is completely fallacious.
As we have stated before, the theory of evolution proposes that some imaginary creatures that came out of the sea turned into reptiles, and that birds evolved from reptiles, according to the same scenario, reptiles are the ancestors not only of birds but also of mammals. However, there are great differences between these two classes. Mammals are warm-blooded animals (this means they can generate their own heat and maintain it at a steady level), they give live birth, they suckle their young, and their bodies are covered in fur or hair. Reptiles, on the other hand, are cold-blooded (i.e., they cannot generate heat, and their body temperature changes according to the external temperature), they lay eggs, they do not suckle their young, and their bodies are covered in scales.
One example of the structural barriers between reptiles and mammals is their jaw structure. Mammal jaws consist of only one mandibular bone containing the teeth. In reptiles, there are three little bones on both sides of the mandible. Another basic difference is that all mammals have three bones in their middle ear (hammer, anvil, and stirrup). Reptiles have but a single bone in the middle ear. Evolutionists claim that the reptile jaw and middle ear gradually evolved into the mammal jaw and ear. The question of how an ear with a single bone evolved into one with three bones, and how the sense of hearing kept on functioning in the meantime can never be explained. Not surprisingly, not one single fossil linking reptiles and mammals has been found. This is why evolutionist science writer Roger Lewin was forced to say, "The transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma.”
George Gaylord Simpson, one of the most popular evolutionary authorities and a founder of the neo-Darwinist theory, makes the following comment regarding this perplexing difficulty for evolutionists:
The most puzzling event in the history of life on earth is the change from the Mesozoic, the Age of Reptiles, to the Age of Mammals. It is as if the curtain were rung down suddenly on the stage where all the leading roles were taken by reptiles, especially dinosaurs, in great numbers and bewildering variety, and rose again immediately to reveal the same setting but an entirely new cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs do not appear at all, other reptiles are supernumeraries, and all the leading parts are played by mammals of sorts barely hinted at in the preceding acts.
Furthermore, when mammals suddenly made their appearance, they were already very different from each other. Such dissimilar animals as bats, horses, mice, and whales are all mammals, and they all emerged during the same geological period. Establishing an evolutionary relationship among them is impossible even by the broadest stretch of the imagination. The evolutionist zoologist R. Eric Lombard makes this point in an article that appeared in the leading journal Evolution:
Those searching for specific information useful in constructing phylogenies of mammalian taxa will be disappointed.
All of these demonstrate that all living beings appeared on earth suddenly and fully formed, without any evolutionary process. This is concrete evidence of the fact that they were created. Evolutionists, however, try to interpret the fact that living species came into existence in a particular order as an indication of evolution. Yet the sequence by which living things emerged is the "order of creation", since it is not possible to speak of an evolutionary process. With a superior and flawless creation, oceans and then lands were filled with living things and finally man was created.
Contrary to the "ape man" story that is imposed on the masses with intense media propaganda, man also emerged on earth suddenly and fully formed.
Another subject that remains unanswered by evolutionary theory is the excellent quality of perception in the eye.
Before passing on to the subject of the eye, let us briefly answer the question of "how we see". Light rays coming from an object fall oppositely on the retina of the eye. Here, these light rays are transmitted into electric signals by cells and they reach a tiny spot at the back of the brain called the centre of vision. These electric signals are perceived in this centre of the brain as an image after a series of processes. With this technical background, let us do some thinking.
The brain is insulated from light. That means that the inside of the brain is solid dark, and light does not reach the location where the brain is situated. The place called the centre of vision is a solid dark place where no light ever reaches; it may even be the darkest place you have ever known. However, you observe a luminous, bright world in this pitch darkness. The image formed in the eye is so sharp and distinct that even the technology of the 20th century has not been able to attain it.
For many years, thousands of engineers have tried to make a three-dimensional TV, and reach the vision quality of the eye. Yes, they have made a three-dimensional television system but it is not possible to watch it without putting on glasses; moreover, it is only an artificial three dimension. The background is more blurred, the foreground appears like a paper setting. Never has it been possible to produce a sharp and distinct vision like that of the eye. In both the camera and the television, there is a loss of image quality.
Evolutionists claim that the mechanism producing this sharp and distinct image has been formed by chance. Now, if somebody told you that the television in your room was formed as a result of chance, that all its atoms just happened to come together and make up this device that produces an image, what would you think? How can atoms do what thousands of people cannot? For nearly a century, tens of thousands of engineers have been researching and striving in high-tech laboratories and great industrial complexes using the most advanced technological devices, and they have been able to do no more than this. If a device producing a more primitive image than the eye could not have been formed by chance, then it is very evident that the eye and the image seen by the eye could not have been formed by chance. It requires a much more detailed and wise planning and design than the one in the TV. The plan and design of the image as distinct and sharp as this one belongs to God, who has power over all things.
Briefly, the technology in our body is far superior to the technology mankind has produced using its accumulated information, experience, and opportunities. No one would say that a HI-FI or a camera came into being as a result of chance. So how can it be claimed that the technologies that exist in the human body, which are superior even to these, could have come into being as a result of a chain of coincidences called evolution?
Even Darwin, in his letter to Asa Gray on April 3rd 1860, wrote that "the thought of the eye made him cold all over" and he confessed the desperation of the evolutionists in the face of the excellent design of living things.
There are a lot more arguments one can put forth, and if anyone is interested I would recommend him to read Harun Yahya’s books (especially “The Evolution Deceit” and “Darwinism Refuted”) or visit http://www.harunyahya.com/.
All in all the theory of evolution is a dogmatic belief and not a scientific one. The evolutionists somehow want to deny the existence of God, because belief in a Creator would open the door to religion and that does not go down the throats of the atheists.
The fact that church committed a lot of atrocities in the name of religion in the past and even murdered anyone who contradicted the church, caused many educated people of that time in the west to believe that religion is bad (it is illogical and unscientific). This type of thinking has spread to the majority who live in the west and that is why they do not believe in religion at all.
I would like to invite all these atheists to study Islam. We never murdered any scientists, but rather encouraged development of science and technology (history is a witness to this fact). The reason being that the last and the final testament, The Holy Quran, has remained uncorrupted from any changes, and there are no scientific errors in the Quran as opposed to other religious scriptures of our time (even the scholars of other religions confess that the scriptures are not the same now as at the time of revelation). I would recommend the atheists to go to http://www.scienceislam.com/scientists_quran.php and watch the videos where scientists have themselves confessed that Quran could not have been the work of a human. In addition, please listen to the lecture "Amazing Quran" by Dr. Gary Miller http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTMPBDcDov0 Further, I humbly request that you read the short book "QUR'AN AND MODERN SCIENCE - Compatible Or Incompatible" which can be downloaded from http://www.esnips.com/doc/218f1013-8fac-4fd3-9a89-27f42fe6e493/QURAN-AND-MODERN-SCIENCE---Compatible-Or-Incompatible---Dr-Zakir-Naik May Allah show us the right path and save our minds from being corrupted by false ideologies. Ameen.
Please also read the article "The Disasters Darwinism Brought to Humanity" on this website to understand why Atheism is such a dangerous philosphy. I would also recommend the article "New Fossil Discovery Sinks Evolutionary Theories" on http://www.albalagh.net/general/evolution_theory_sinks.shtml
Please also go to http://www.harunyahya.com/html/m_book_index.htm and read ATLAS OF CREATION - Volume 1 and ATLAS OF CREATION - Volume 2; and see for yourselves the evidence of creation.
Furthermore, please go to http://www.evolutionisdead.com/downloads.php and watch the video "From a Frog to a Prince." This video is the best reply to the evolutionist propaganda I have ever seen (contains exclusive interview with Dr. Richard Dawkins).
In addition, please watch the following videos:
Major Problems with Theory of Evolution (This video is a must watch) http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-4510168987472200892&hl=en
Hidden History of the Human Race Authors Tour 1994 http://krishnatube.com/video/295/Hidden-History-of-the-Human-Race-Authors-Tour-1994
Mysterious Origins of Man http://krishnatube.com/video/269/The-Mysterious-Origins-of-Man
Living Fossils http://www.harunyahya.com/presentation/living_fossils/index.html
The Collapse of Evolution http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6836937496535487075
Questioning evolution theory THIS IS INCREDIBLE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1iCjKWzeEE&mode=related&search=
Questioning Darwinian Evolution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R5lfTPwct4
Questioning Evolutionary Origins: Abiogenesis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t45wxUddOaM
Yusuf Estes talks about Evolution http://video.google.com.au/videosearch?q=yusuf+estes+and+evolution
Further, I would also urge you to read "What is the Origin of Man? by Dr. Maurice Bucaille.
The Disasters Darwinism Brought to the Humanity
The material for this article has been taken from Harun Yahya’s book “The Evolution Deceit”.
One of the basic principles of Darwin behind the theory of evolution was a great deception: “The development of living things depends on the fight for survival. The strong win the struggle. The weak are condemned to defeat and oblivion.”
According to Darwin, there is a cruel tussle for continued existence and an ongoing conflict in nature. The strong always overcome the weak, and this enables development to take place. Darwin did not stop there: he further proposed that the fight for survival also applied between human racial groups. What this means is that favoured races were victorious in the struggle.
In his book the “The Descent of Man” (which he published after the “The Origin of Species”) he boldly claims that blacks and Australian Aborigines are equal to gorillas and then concludes that they would be done away with by civilised races. He said in his book: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes… will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
These ludicrous ideas were not only theorised, but also brought into a position where they provided the scientific grounds for racism. Supposing that the living beings evolved in the struggle for life, Darwinism was even adapted to the social sciences, and turned into a conception that came to be called “Social Darwinism”.
Social Darwinism argues that existing human races are located at different rungs of the evolutionary ladder, that the European races were the most advanced of all, and that many other races still bear simian features.
The Indian anthropologist Lalita Vidyarthi explains how Darwin's theory of evolution imposed racism on the social sciences:
His (Darwin's) theory of the survival of the fittest was warmly welcomed by the social scientists of the day, and they believed mankind had achieved various levels of evolution culminating in the white man's civilization. By the second half of the nineteenth century racism was accepted as fact by the vast majority of Western scientists.
As Darwinism fed racism in the 19th century, it formed the basis of an ideology that would develop and drown the world in blood in the 20th century: Nazism.
A strong Darwinist influence can be seen in Nazi ideologues. When one examines this theory, which was given shape by Adolf Hitler and Alfred Rosenberg, one comes across such concepts as "natural selection", "selective mating", and "the struggle for survival between the races", which are repeated dozens of time in the works of Darwin. When calling his book Mein Kampf (My Struggle), Hitler was inspired by the Darwinist struggle for survival and the principle that victory went to the fittest. He particularly talks about the struggle between the races:
“History would culminate in a new millennial empire of unparalleled splendour, based on a new racial hierarchy ordained by nature herself.”
In the 1933 Nuremberg party rally, Hitler proclaimed that "a higher race subjects to itself a lower race… a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right".
That the Nazis were influenced by Darwinism is a fact that almost all historians who are expert in the matter accept. The historian Hickman describes Darwinism's influence on Hitler as follows:
(Hitler) was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because]… his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasising struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.
Hitler, who emerged with these views, dragged the world to violence that had never been seen before. Many ethnic and political groups, and especially the Jews, were exposed to terrible cruelty and slaughter in the Nazi concentration camps. World War II, which began with the Nazi invasion, cost 55 million lives. What lay behind the greatest tragedy in world history was Darwinism's concept of the "struggle for survival."
While fascists are found on the right wing of Social Darwinism, the left wing is occupied by communists. Communists have always been among the fiercest defenders of Darwin's theory.
This relationship between Darwinism and communism goes right back to the founders of both these "isms". Marx and Engels, the founders of communism, read Darwin's book The Origin of Species as soon as it came out, and were amazed at its 'dialectical materialist' attitude. The correspondence between Marx and Engels showed that they saw Darwin's theory as "containing the basis in natural history for communism". In his book The Dialectics of Nature, which he wrote under the influence of Darwin, Engels was full of praise for Darwin, and tried to make his own contribution to the theory in the chapter "The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man".
Russian communists who followed in the footsteps of Marx and Engels, such as Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, all agreed with Darwin's theory of evolution. Plekhanov, who is seen as the founder of Russian communism, regarded Marxism as "Darwinism in its application to social science.”
Trotsky said, "Darwin's discovery is the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter."
'Darwinist education' had a major role in the formation of communist cadres. For instance, historians note the fact that Stalin was religious in his youth, but became an atheist primarily because of Darwin's books.
Mao, who established communist rule in China and killed millions of people, openly stated that "Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution."
In short, there is a clear link between the theory of evolution and communism. The theory claims that living things are the product of chance, and provides a so-called scientific support for atheism. Communism, an atheist ideology, is for that reason firmly tied to Darwinism. Moreover, the theory of evolution proposes that development in nature is possible thanks to conflict (in other words "the struggle for survival") and supports the concept of "dialectics" which is fundamental to communism.
If we think of the communist concept of "dialectical conflict", which killed some 120 million people during the 20th century, as a "killing machine" then we can better understand the dimensions of the disaster that Darwinism visited on the planet.
It is clear that Darwinism clearly inculcated in the minds of many that man is a fighting animal, and in this world only the strong will survive and the weak will perish. In other words, this atheistic philosophy subconsciously teaches humans that they can use oppression to achieve their goals. The concept that there is no life after death is an extremely dangerous one, as anyone with power will commit limitless oppression onto the others for his survival. Also, this philosophy gives impetus to selfishness and gives ordinary humans the green light to break the law (lie, cheat, deceive etc.) if they think that they can get away with it.
Please watch the video "THE DISASTERS DARWINISM BROUGHT TO HUMANITY" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-5938600797075743578
In addition, watch the video "Trouble with Atheism" where award winning journalist Rod Liddle argues against those who turn to atheism for a rational and moderate approach to today's problems. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7760032578363901913#
One of the basic principles of Darwin behind the theory of evolution was a great deception: “The development of living things depends on the fight for survival. The strong win the struggle. The weak are condemned to defeat and oblivion.”
According to Darwin, there is a cruel tussle for continued existence and an ongoing conflict in nature. The strong always overcome the weak, and this enables development to take place. Darwin did not stop there: he further proposed that the fight for survival also applied between human racial groups. What this means is that favoured races were victorious in the struggle.
In his book the “The Descent of Man” (which he published after the “The Origin of Species”) he boldly claims that blacks and Australian Aborigines are equal to gorillas and then concludes that they would be done away with by civilised races. He said in his book: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes… will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
These ludicrous ideas were not only theorised, but also brought into a position where they provided the scientific grounds for racism. Supposing that the living beings evolved in the struggle for life, Darwinism was even adapted to the social sciences, and turned into a conception that came to be called “Social Darwinism”.
Social Darwinism argues that existing human races are located at different rungs of the evolutionary ladder, that the European races were the most advanced of all, and that many other races still bear simian features.
The Indian anthropologist Lalita Vidyarthi explains how Darwin's theory of evolution imposed racism on the social sciences:
His (Darwin's) theory of the survival of the fittest was warmly welcomed by the social scientists of the day, and they believed mankind had achieved various levels of evolution culminating in the white man's civilization. By the second half of the nineteenth century racism was accepted as fact by the vast majority of Western scientists.
As Darwinism fed racism in the 19th century, it formed the basis of an ideology that would develop and drown the world in blood in the 20th century: Nazism.
A strong Darwinist influence can be seen in Nazi ideologues. When one examines this theory, which was given shape by Adolf Hitler and Alfred Rosenberg, one comes across such concepts as "natural selection", "selective mating", and "the struggle for survival between the races", which are repeated dozens of time in the works of Darwin. When calling his book Mein Kampf (My Struggle), Hitler was inspired by the Darwinist struggle for survival and the principle that victory went to the fittest. He particularly talks about the struggle between the races:
“History would culminate in a new millennial empire of unparalleled splendour, based on a new racial hierarchy ordained by nature herself.”
In the 1933 Nuremberg party rally, Hitler proclaimed that "a higher race subjects to itself a lower race… a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right".
That the Nazis were influenced by Darwinism is a fact that almost all historians who are expert in the matter accept. The historian Hickman describes Darwinism's influence on Hitler as follows:
(Hitler) was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because]… his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasising struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.
Hitler, who emerged with these views, dragged the world to violence that had never been seen before. Many ethnic and political groups, and especially the Jews, were exposed to terrible cruelty and slaughter in the Nazi concentration camps. World War II, which began with the Nazi invasion, cost 55 million lives. What lay behind the greatest tragedy in world history was Darwinism's concept of the "struggle for survival."
While fascists are found on the right wing of Social Darwinism, the left wing is occupied by communists. Communists have always been among the fiercest defenders of Darwin's theory.
This relationship between Darwinism and communism goes right back to the founders of both these "isms". Marx and Engels, the founders of communism, read Darwin's book The Origin of Species as soon as it came out, and were amazed at its 'dialectical materialist' attitude. The correspondence between Marx and Engels showed that they saw Darwin's theory as "containing the basis in natural history for communism". In his book The Dialectics of Nature, which he wrote under the influence of Darwin, Engels was full of praise for Darwin, and tried to make his own contribution to the theory in the chapter "The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man".
Russian communists who followed in the footsteps of Marx and Engels, such as Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, all agreed with Darwin's theory of evolution. Plekhanov, who is seen as the founder of Russian communism, regarded Marxism as "Darwinism in its application to social science.”
Trotsky said, "Darwin's discovery is the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter."
'Darwinist education' had a major role in the formation of communist cadres. For instance, historians note the fact that Stalin was religious in his youth, but became an atheist primarily because of Darwin's books.
Mao, who established communist rule in China and killed millions of people, openly stated that "Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution."
In short, there is a clear link between the theory of evolution and communism. The theory claims that living things are the product of chance, and provides a so-called scientific support for atheism. Communism, an atheist ideology, is for that reason firmly tied to Darwinism. Moreover, the theory of evolution proposes that development in nature is possible thanks to conflict (in other words "the struggle for survival") and supports the concept of "dialectics" which is fundamental to communism.
If we think of the communist concept of "dialectical conflict", which killed some 120 million people during the 20th century, as a "killing machine" then we can better understand the dimensions of the disaster that Darwinism visited on the planet.
It is clear that Darwinism clearly inculcated in the minds of many that man is a fighting animal, and in this world only the strong will survive and the weak will perish. In other words, this atheistic philosophy subconsciously teaches humans that they can use oppression to achieve their goals. The concept that there is no life after death is an extremely dangerous one, as anyone with power will commit limitless oppression onto the others for his survival. Also, this philosophy gives impetus to selfishness and gives ordinary humans the green light to break the law (lie, cheat, deceive etc.) if they think that they can get away with it.
Please watch the video "THE DISASTERS DARWINISM BROUGHT TO HUMANITY" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-5938600797075743578
In addition, watch the video "Trouble with Atheism" where award winning journalist Rod Liddle argues against those who turn to atheism for a rational and moderate approach to today's problems. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7760032578363901913#
The Proof for God
I got this article from a friend, and I am grateful for his email.
Many of us at some point or another in our lives start to question: Where did we come from? Why are we here? What happens to us after we die? Is death the grim end, or is it but a gate that leads into a different kind of existence? We often wonder how did it all come to be? Is there some kind of power responsible for the creation of the vast universe and all that’s in it, or did everything around us just happen to be?
Is there a God? To some people, the affirmative answer is the only one there can be, while to others belief in it is no more than a calculated bet. The French Philosopher Pascal concluded that belief was the wisest bet because the believer will either have bliss if he is right or oblivion if he is wrong, whereas the atheist has the less attractive alternatives of oblivion or damnation. (The case against God, Gerald Priestland, Page: 14)
To some people the word “Nature” is some kind of force responsible for shaping life, but can there be justification in saying that “Nature” is a concrete intelligent force responsible for creating as well as shaping life? Or, is ‘Nature’ merely an abstract man-made label that acts as a convenient coat hanger to the more urgent questions in our attempt to explain the cause of things?
If we were to trace the age of the earth we would have to go back in time 4.5 billion years. The age of our Galaxy, the Milky Way, would take us even further back 12 billion years, while as the estimated age of the entire universe is somewhere between 12 to 20 billion years.
If the ‘terrestrial nature’ represents the earth and everything on it, there would still remain a very long period of time prior to the formation of the earth when there would have been no meaning to the word ‘Nature’. Still, some force had to account for what occurred before.
Clearly, then the school of thought that claims that God is not an external being but is to be found inside each of us is both naïve and pretentious. It is naïve because if we were to claim that God exists only inside us then we would have to believe that before human walked on earth there was no God. Even if one employs Darwin’s theory of evolution to suggest some kind of link between man and ape, and as a result associate an older age for mankind, one would still have to say that God did not exist before 30 million years ago, that is when the first apes walked on earth. It is also pretentious because no matter how clever we think we are, we are only one species of creatures on one planet that revolves around one star. The star, being the sun, is merely one star among 100 million other similar stars that belong to our galaxy the ‘Milky Way’. In the universe there are billions of other galaxies!
The failure of science to provide adequate answers to these questions, and in the quest for the truth, many people seek the answers in religion.
Through their adopted faith, whether it is researched or most commonly inherited, they seek to find God. However, it may make better sense to reverse the procedure. It may be wiser to seek God first and then search for His true word. After all God has always existed while as the establishment of any faith or religion is a time related event.
Compare this logic to the case of the patient and the doctor, how can one believe in a medical treatment and as a result have faith in the doctor? It would naturally make better sense to have faith in a doctor and because of that faith to follow his medication. Finding God and accepting His existence is not necessarily a matter related to any particular religious belief. The subject of article is to argue the case why God exists in a purely intellectual and rational manner without referring to any religious beliefs.
In order to be able to present the argument it is essential to refer to various fields of scientific knowledge. A fact must be stressed here, whilst reference is made to some established scientific theories in as far as they serve the argument, it is not the intention of this article to question validity of these theories.
Generally speaking there are two types of scientific knowledge:
1) Scientific knowledge that is unlikely to change and is thus taken for granted (e.g. Water is composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen, or that gravity exists between any two bodies…. etc.).
2) Scientific knowledge that is not yet confirmed and is open to change (e.g. what triggered off the ‘Big Bang’? What is gravity made of? How many universes are there? Or how did such gigantic energy come to be trapped within the minute space inside the atom?)
Throughout this article, all reference made will be made to the first type only.
There are those who will completely do without an intellectual approach to belief insisting that for them belief is in the heart and not the mind. Whilst one must understand and respect this point of view so far as the first part of the search goes, and that is the initial belief in God, it is of prime importance that the process of selecting a faith to believe in should not be left to the heart alone, but is a matter that should be researched thoroughly by taking time to consider and debate all points of view. This is necessary because of the unfortunate yet intentional misguidance and misrepresentation conducted by various religious organisations. Sadly, all major religions in the world today can be accused of corruption in one way or another.
Furthermore, one tends to be more inclined to the view that even though a spiritual or emotional belief may appear to be of great strength, yet if it is not supported intellectually; it may often be vulnerable to crack. One has often come across people who have suddenly acquired a very intense faith only to completely lose it after a period of time. For as the saying goes ‘easy come easy go’. On the other hand, a slow contemplated intellectual approach has a better chance of endurance because it is built on reason.
Today we live in an age of reason and not of blind faith. It is thus necessary for any intelligent person to debate all matters and not succumb to the influence of their native environment alone. One should not rely on the religious background passed on through parents or the society alone. One often hears the saying ‘this is the religion of my father and my fore-fathers, they cannot all be wrong!’
We have no choice as to which faith we were born into but we all have the free will to seek the Truth. One should adopt a faith only when one is totally convinced that it is the Truth. There are other people who follow a certain faith because they say it suits them! It is very ironic that they could adopt a faith that affects their entire life in the same way they would go shopping in a super-market! Look and see what is on display and then opt for the faith that would not place too many sacrifices on their normal way of life!
Instead, if one is convinced beyond any doubt that a certain faith is the true word of God, one should accept it in its entire form. One should follow its teachings even if it means altering one’s way of life, and not as is sadly happening today within some well-established religions, regarding the constant bending and reshaping of the faith in an attempt to conform to modern values.
There may be those who will complain that a certain faith or another is too rigid and does not conform to modern standards, but they must, if they are honest with themselves, stop and question how well do modern standards conform to virtue and morality.
WHY THERE IS ONE GOD
The purpose of this section is to argue how modern science testifies to the existence of a sole creator, a supreme force far superior to anything we know, a power responsible for the creation of the universe and of sustaining it.
Moreover, at that moment of creation, it can be demonstrated how all the various laws that govern the behaviour of everything in the universe were initiated. In order to arrive at these conclusions three sets of possibilities are debated:
First debate:
Did the universe has a beginning or was it always there?
Here we refer to the laws of ‘thermal dynamics’, which govern the movement of heat between different bodies.
The second law of ‘thermal dynamics’ states that heat travels from hot bodies to cooler bodies and not the opposite.
If for example a hot oven is placed in a cold room the oven will warm the room, this is because heat will be transferred from the hot oven to the cold room. Never will the amount of heat originally in the room cause the oven to get hotter. This transfer of heat between the oven and the room will continue until the oven has used up all its fuel source (e.g. a gas cylinder). When that point is reached the oven will start to cool until such a point when the temperatures of both the oven and the room become equal.
To calculate the amount of time during which the oven will continue to warm the room we need to know two things:
1- The amount of gas left in the cylinder.
2- The rate at which gas is consumed.
If for example there is 500 c.c. (cubic centimeters) of gas is left in the cylinder and the oven uses up 10 c.c. every hour, with a simple division we find that the oven will continue to warm the room for 50 hours (call this stage A).
After 50 hours the oven will start to cool till the point is reached where the temperatures of the oven and the room equal (call this stage B).
Now let us apply this to the universe as a whole. We know that the total amount of energy in the universe is equal to the sum of energy in all the stars, galaxies, etc… This is a finite amount no matter how large it is. These stars will continue to radiate heat, light and other types of radiation into the vast space of the universe, in the same way in which the oven would warm the space inside the room. So if we think of all the stars and all other active bodies in the universe as the ovens and the vast empty space as the empty room we can deduce the following:
From what is known about the life and death of stars in modern theories of cosmology, it is known that they would continue to radiate energy until they consume all their resources. To be precise, when all the hydrogen, that constitutes the vast majority of the mass of stars, has been converted into helium and other heavier elements in a process of continuous nuclear reactions. After that stage the stars start to collapse and end up as cold dead bodies.
Since the amount of matter in the universe (in the form of stars, nebula, quasars…etc.) is finite, then these energy sources will radiate energy into the universe for a finite length of time. In our example of the oven and the room we calculated that time to be 50 hours. Theoretically, and if we can calculate the total amount of energy in the universe, and also the rate of consumption of energy, we can also calculate the length of time (although obviously not as accurately as in the case of the oven) in which the stars will continue to radiate energy. For argument’s sake, let us assume that the universe will continue to radiate energy for another 50 billion years. Since there is still plenty of energy available in the universe we are still in stage A.
Now if we go back to our original debate, and try to decide whether the universe had a beginning or has it always been there, we can quickly reach the conclusion that if it had always been there, or in mathematical terms if the age of the universe goes back to infinity, it should have been a cold and dead place by now simply because infinity, is older than 50 billion years. If the age of the universe is infinity, we should have been at stage B a long time ago.
The accuracy of the figure 50 billion is of no importance to the result, for whatever figure we chose to make it, it will always be less than infinity.
What that means is that the universe had a definite beginning (that beginning, for arguments sake, being less than 50 billion years ago). The birth of new stars in the universe does not affect our analysis, they are not born out of the void, they are merely a conversion of hot gases into hot new stars. Their birth is not an addition to the total amount of matter that already exists in the universe. The total amount of matter remains constant. After a time all the hot gases in the universe will be used up and no new stars will be born. As for the newly born stars, they too will eventually consume all their energy and die.
But ‘thermal dynamics’ is not the only branch of science to provide evidence in support of a beginning to the universe, for recent discoveries in space and cosmology also confirm that the universe had a definite beginning called the Big Bang, first by the discovery of the background radiation in 1965 by two American astronomers and then later by COBE (Cosmic background explorer satellite) that proved beyond any doubt the theory of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang theory states that sometimes between 15 to 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe originated from an extremely dense concentration of matter and space that exploded outwards giving birth to all the galaxies and other heavenly bodies that comprise the universe as we know it today.
Another very important discovery that supported the theory of the Big Bang was the discovery that the universe is expanding, every day the universe gets bigger. This necessarily means that if we were to go back in time the universe would be contracting until it would reach a point from which it started, and that takes us back to the Big Bang.
Now if we accept that the universe had a definite beginning, the next step would be to debate whether that beginning was caused by an intelligent power or by mere chance.
Second debate:
A Creator or mere chance?
If bigbang is indeed the case then where did intelligence come from, how did life come out of inanimate substances (or in other words, out of death)? How does a rock suddenly sprout tree leaves?
What is the origin of the genetic code and the accumulation of the information it contains (a phenomenon that has been constant over the course of time)?
If you are happening to walk on the beach and you see some foot prints, you do not say that the ocean did that or they just happened to be there.
We have also shown that all matter had a definite beginning or a moment in time when it came to exist, the moment when the universe was created.
Since the universe had a definite beginning, we can say that it was created.
Therefore, it is only rational to say that the universe was created by a power that is above and independent of the laws of physics, as we know them. That power is clearly not restricted or confined to the basic laws of physics but far superior. Neither can this power be of a physical essence. It is also justifiable to expect this power not to have had a beginning because the concept of a beginning and for that matter time in general, has been shown to be a dimension of the physical universe only. In his ‘Theory of relativity’, Einstein stated that time, space and matter were all created when the universe was born, and that before that moment time did not exist. It is not easy for the human mind to envisage the concept of no time, but if one accepts that time is only a dimension of the physical world the idea becomes more acceptable. Further still, and since the universe had a definite beginning before which nothing existed, then such an awesome event (the creation of the universe) cannot be attributed to chance, since before that initial moment of creation nothing existed, not even chance!
A superior non-physical power and creator is the only possible explanation to this argument.
People say that if we do not see, hear, smell or feel something we do not believe in it. In other words, there is no perception of God so why should I believe in a God. If someone sees a map in an atlas will he say that I do not believe in these maps, as I have not seen the artist do this work (e.g. drawing of the map).
The laws of probabilities
The laws of probability offer another interesting argument:
If we throw the dice, the chance of obtaining double 6 is (1 in 36). What this means is that on average if we throw the dice 1000 times, the chances are that we should get double 6 around 27 times. Now if we throw the dice 1000 times and we obtain double 6 every single throw then there is a design, a system or a controlling force behind the throws. We can hardly call it chance.
The science of Genetics offers vivid evidence that chance could not be a factor in the process of creation due to the very precise combinations necessary in the building of cells. These requisite combinations defy all laws of probabilities.
On a large scale, we only need to look at the universe to be able to marvel at the endless examples of precision and beautiful design. Every field of scientific knowledge seems to testify to the existence of a master creator. It does not seem difficult to dismiss the possibility of chance.
The mechanical argument
The mechanical argument is also in support of the concept of a creator.
‘For every action there is a reaction, equal to it and opposite in direction.’
Everything that has moved was moved by something else. If we go back in time, tracing everything to its original mover, we would ultimately arrive at that which was not moved by anything else. That analysis will also lead us to the unavoidable conclusion of an initial Creator.
The Development vs. Destruction argument
Everything left unattended gradually disintegrates. If one builds a house and leaves it unattended, in a few weeks it will become full of dust. In thirty years or so the paint will start falling off. After two hundred years or so some of the walls will start to weaken and fall, and maybe in a thousand years or so the whole house will be flat to the ground. In other words, and if left unattended, any organized structure or system will eventually become one of chaos.
Never will chaos suddenly spring into a system. A house will never spring into being of its own doing.
If we try to analyse what has actually happened on earth we realize that it was quite remarkable. When the earth was first formed it was very hostile hot planet with no form of life whatsoever. The trend has been reversed, instead of things crumbling they have in fact developed all the time to higher forms of being. Chaos has developed into a system.
It is amusing, to put it mildly, to observe man so full of vanity thinking he is the master of everything merely because he is given some intelligence to discover some of the laws of the universe. In reality, man has no authority in setting or altering such laws. With the aid of the physical senses, man is given a view over a divine masterpiece, but considering the human being is a mere spectator within the huge universe, he can indeed be very pompous!
There is so much symmetry in the universe to be able to go through all of it, but one particular design has special appeal. And that is Macro/Micro pattern.
The Macro/Micro pattern
If we look at the universe at large we find that it is composed of vast areas of empty space and also other areas containing shapeless matter in the form of hot gasses, dark matter and formed stars. These stars group together to form galaxies. Our galaxy, ‘The Milky Way’ has within it no less than 100 billion individual stars. Our star, the sun, has nine planets in orbit around it. Most of these planets have a number of moons again in orbit. The basic force that governs the movement of all these bodies is gravity. The moons rotate around their planets, which all rotate around the mother star, which in our case is the sun. Similarly, all these stars revolve round the center of gravity of the galaxy.
Galaxies group together to form clusters of galaxies and once again individual galaxies revolve round the center of gravity of the cluster. Clusters group together to form super-clusters, and these obey the same laws. These are the largest units in the universe, as we know it today.
However, and if we proceed in the opposite direction, we notice that the similarity is truly remarkable. If we look at the other end of the scale and examine the atom which is the smallest form of substance able to exist in a chemical reaction, we find that it is compose of electrons revolving round a nucleus, in the same way as stars revolve round the center of gravity of their galaxies. Are we but seeing the fingerprints of the creator?
If one searches one can surely find God. God’s marvels are all around us. It was very naïve when the first man in space, the Soviet astronaut Yuri Gagarin, said when he was high in orbit around the earth:
“Where is God? I do not see him!”
It seems ironic though that he met his death in a helicopter accident, still in the air, where he could not find his maker! No doubt he found Him now!!!!!!
If we accept that the creation of the universe must have been the work of a supreme intelligent power, we are faced with another puzzle and that is: How many gods are there? Is God one, or could there be more than one god?
Third debate:
If God exists, how many gods are there?
Here the reference is made to some basic word definitions. The words absolute and relative are quite straightforward in what they mean. Anything relative is that which can be compared to or related to other things. Whenever we describe that object we are always describing it in relation to other things. On the other hand an absolute is that which is self-existent and conceivable without relation to other things.
If we return to our example of the room and the oven we can say that the oven is hotter than the room but that does not mean that the oven is hot in an absolute sense, for if we were to place this oven inside an active volcano it would seem very cool in comparison. An athlete is a very fast runner compared to road pedestrians but is indeed very slow compared to a motor car, and so on until it becomes clear that anything we see in life is relative because there will always be something that is cooler, bigger, older ….etc.
If we go back to our Big Bang theory we realize that what brought it about must have been a power that is above all the laws of physics that govern the universe. When scientists study the evolution of the universe they trace it back to the moment of creation or the Big Bang, but when they reach that point they find that all the laws of physics cease to be. Had they considered the same situation in a forward direction they would have realized that the Big Bang was the moment when all the laws of physics have actually began to be!
We have also noted that the force that brought about the Big Bang, and in effect the creation of the universe, could not have been related to this universe in any physical sense, for it is clearly the cause and not the effect of the universe. Since this supreme power is the cause then it must have been existent prior to and independent of the universe. Thus we can say that nothing in this universe can be related to that and if nothing can be compared or related to that power, then by definition that power is absolute.
The absolute God then means that nothing is like or akin to Him, but if we were to consider the possibility of the existence of more than one god, immediately the question will arise as to: which god came first, which god is more powerful and so on, and that would ultimately reduce these gods to being relative because comparisons will arise.
If God is absolute, by definition, He must be One.
Please also watch the videos "No Brainer!" and "Truth Seekers" at http://www.watchislam.com/videos/index.php?catid=-1
Many of us at some point or another in our lives start to question: Where did we come from? Why are we here? What happens to us after we die? Is death the grim end, or is it but a gate that leads into a different kind of existence? We often wonder how did it all come to be? Is there some kind of power responsible for the creation of the vast universe and all that’s in it, or did everything around us just happen to be?
Is there a God? To some people, the affirmative answer is the only one there can be, while to others belief in it is no more than a calculated bet. The French Philosopher Pascal concluded that belief was the wisest bet because the believer will either have bliss if he is right or oblivion if he is wrong, whereas the atheist has the less attractive alternatives of oblivion or damnation. (The case against God, Gerald Priestland, Page: 14)
To some people the word “Nature” is some kind of force responsible for shaping life, but can there be justification in saying that “Nature” is a concrete intelligent force responsible for creating as well as shaping life? Or, is ‘Nature’ merely an abstract man-made label that acts as a convenient coat hanger to the more urgent questions in our attempt to explain the cause of things?
If we were to trace the age of the earth we would have to go back in time 4.5 billion years. The age of our Galaxy, the Milky Way, would take us even further back 12 billion years, while as the estimated age of the entire universe is somewhere between 12 to 20 billion years.
If the ‘terrestrial nature’ represents the earth and everything on it, there would still remain a very long period of time prior to the formation of the earth when there would have been no meaning to the word ‘Nature’. Still, some force had to account for what occurred before.
Clearly, then the school of thought that claims that God is not an external being but is to be found inside each of us is both naïve and pretentious. It is naïve because if we were to claim that God exists only inside us then we would have to believe that before human walked on earth there was no God. Even if one employs Darwin’s theory of evolution to suggest some kind of link between man and ape, and as a result associate an older age for mankind, one would still have to say that God did not exist before 30 million years ago, that is when the first apes walked on earth. It is also pretentious because no matter how clever we think we are, we are only one species of creatures on one planet that revolves around one star. The star, being the sun, is merely one star among 100 million other similar stars that belong to our galaxy the ‘Milky Way’. In the universe there are billions of other galaxies!
The failure of science to provide adequate answers to these questions, and in the quest for the truth, many people seek the answers in religion.
Through their adopted faith, whether it is researched or most commonly inherited, they seek to find God. However, it may make better sense to reverse the procedure. It may be wiser to seek God first and then search for His true word. After all God has always existed while as the establishment of any faith or religion is a time related event.
Compare this logic to the case of the patient and the doctor, how can one believe in a medical treatment and as a result have faith in the doctor? It would naturally make better sense to have faith in a doctor and because of that faith to follow his medication. Finding God and accepting His existence is not necessarily a matter related to any particular religious belief. The subject of article is to argue the case why God exists in a purely intellectual and rational manner without referring to any religious beliefs.
In order to be able to present the argument it is essential to refer to various fields of scientific knowledge. A fact must be stressed here, whilst reference is made to some established scientific theories in as far as they serve the argument, it is not the intention of this article to question validity of these theories.
Generally speaking there are two types of scientific knowledge:
1) Scientific knowledge that is unlikely to change and is thus taken for granted (e.g. Water is composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen, or that gravity exists between any two bodies…. etc.).
2) Scientific knowledge that is not yet confirmed and is open to change (e.g. what triggered off the ‘Big Bang’? What is gravity made of? How many universes are there? Or how did such gigantic energy come to be trapped within the minute space inside the atom?)
Throughout this article, all reference made will be made to the first type only.
There are those who will completely do without an intellectual approach to belief insisting that for them belief is in the heart and not the mind. Whilst one must understand and respect this point of view so far as the first part of the search goes, and that is the initial belief in God, it is of prime importance that the process of selecting a faith to believe in should not be left to the heart alone, but is a matter that should be researched thoroughly by taking time to consider and debate all points of view. This is necessary because of the unfortunate yet intentional misguidance and misrepresentation conducted by various religious organisations. Sadly, all major religions in the world today can be accused of corruption in one way or another.
Furthermore, one tends to be more inclined to the view that even though a spiritual or emotional belief may appear to be of great strength, yet if it is not supported intellectually; it may often be vulnerable to crack. One has often come across people who have suddenly acquired a very intense faith only to completely lose it after a period of time. For as the saying goes ‘easy come easy go’. On the other hand, a slow contemplated intellectual approach has a better chance of endurance because it is built on reason.
Today we live in an age of reason and not of blind faith. It is thus necessary for any intelligent person to debate all matters and not succumb to the influence of their native environment alone. One should not rely on the religious background passed on through parents or the society alone. One often hears the saying ‘this is the religion of my father and my fore-fathers, they cannot all be wrong!’
We have no choice as to which faith we were born into but we all have the free will to seek the Truth. One should adopt a faith only when one is totally convinced that it is the Truth. There are other people who follow a certain faith because they say it suits them! It is very ironic that they could adopt a faith that affects their entire life in the same way they would go shopping in a super-market! Look and see what is on display and then opt for the faith that would not place too many sacrifices on their normal way of life!
Instead, if one is convinced beyond any doubt that a certain faith is the true word of God, one should accept it in its entire form. One should follow its teachings even if it means altering one’s way of life, and not as is sadly happening today within some well-established religions, regarding the constant bending and reshaping of the faith in an attempt to conform to modern values.
There may be those who will complain that a certain faith or another is too rigid and does not conform to modern standards, but they must, if they are honest with themselves, stop and question how well do modern standards conform to virtue and morality.
WHY THERE IS ONE GOD
The purpose of this section is to argue how modern science testifies to the existence of a sole creator, a supreme force far superior to anything we know, a power responsible for the creation of the universe and of sustaining it.
Moreover, at that moment of creation, it can be demonstrated how all the various laws that govern the behaviour of everything in the universe were initiated. In order to arrive at these conclusions three sets of possibilities are debated:
First debate:
Did the universe has a beginning or was it always there?
Here we refer to the laws of ‘thermal dynamics’, which govern the movement of heat between different bodies.
The second law of ‘thermal dynamics’ states that heat travels from hot bodies to cooler bodies and not the opposite.
If for example a hot oven is placed in a cold room the oven will warm the room, this is because heat will be transferred from the hot oven to the cold room. Never will the amount of heat originally in the room cause the oven to get hotter. This transfer of heat between the oven and the room will continue until the oven has used up all its fuel source (e.g. a gas cylinder). When that point is reached the oven will start to cool until such a point when the temperatures of both the oven and the room become equal.
To calculate the amount of time during which the oven will continue to warm the room we need to know two things:
1- The amount of gas left in the cylinder.
2- The rate at which gas is consumed.
If for example there is 500 c.c. (cubic centimeters) of gas is left in the cylinder and the oven uses up 10 c.c. every hour, with a simple division we find that the oven will continue to warm the room for 50 hours (call this stage A).
After 50 hours the oven will start to cool till the point is reached where the temperatures of the oven and the room equal (call this stage B).
Now let us apply this to the universe as a whole. We know that the total amount of energy in the universe is equal to the sum of energy in all the stars, galaxies, etc… This is a finite amount no matter how large it is. These stars will continue to radiate heat, light and other types of radiation into the vast space of the universe, in the same way in which the oven would warm the space inside the room. So if we think of all the stars and all other active bodies in the universe as the ovens and the vast empty space as the empty room we can deduce the following:
From what is known about the life and death of stars in modern theories of cosmology, it is known that they would continue to radiate energy until they consume all their resources. To be precise, when all the hydrogen, that constitutes the vast majority of the mass of stars, has been converted into helium and other heavier elements in a process of continuous nuclear reactions. After that stage the stars start to collapse and end up as cold dead bodies.
Since the amount of matter in the universe (in the form of stars, nebula, quasars…etc.) is finite, then these energy sources will radiate energy into the universe for a finite length of time. In our example of the oven and the room we calculated that time to be 50 hours. Theoretically, and if we can calculate the total amount of energy in the universe, and also the rate of consumption of energy, we can also calculate the length of time (although obviously not as accurately as in the case of the oven) in which the stars will continue to radiate energy. For argument’s sake, let us assume that the universe will continue to radiate energy for another 50 billion years. Since there is still plenty of energy available in the universe we are still in stage A.
Now if we go back to our original debate, and try to decide whether the universe had a beginning or has it always been there, we can quickly reach the conclusion that if it had always been there, or in mathematical terms if the age of the universe goes back to infinity, it should have been a cold and dead place by now simply because infinity, is older than 50 billion years. If the age of the universe is infinity, we should have been at stage B a long time ago.
The accuracy of the figure 50 billion is of no importance to the result, for whatever figure we chose to make it, it will always be less than infinity.
What that means is that the universe had a definite beginning (that beginning, for arguments sake, being less than 50 billion years ago). The birth of new stars in the universe does not affect our analysis, they are not born out of the void, they are merely a conversion of hot gases into hot new stars. Their birth is not an addition to the total amount of matter that already exists in the universe. The total amount of matter remains constant. After a time all the hot gases in the universe will be used up and no new stars will be born. As for the newly born stars, they too will eventually consume all their energy and die.
But ‘thermal dynamics’ is not the only branch of science to provide evidence in support of a beginning to the universe, for recent discoveries in space and cosmology also confirm that the universe had a definite beginning called the Big Bang, first by the discovery of the background radiation in 1965 by two American astronomers and then later by COBE (Cosmic background explorer satellite) that proved beyond any doubt the theory of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang theory states that sometimes between 15 to 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe originated from an extremely dense concentration of matter and space that exploded outwards giving birth to all the galaxies and other heavenly bodies that comprise the universe as we know it today.
Another very important discovery that supported the theory of the Big Bang was the discovery that the universe is expanding, every day the universe gets bigger. This necessarily means that if we were to go back in time the universe would be contracting until it would reach a point from which it started, and that takes us back to the Big Bang.
Now if we accept that the universe had a definite beginning, the next step would be to debate whether that beginning was caused by an intelligent power or by mere chance.
Second debate:
A Creator or mere chance?
If bigbang is indeed the case then where did intelligence come from, how did life come out of inanimate substances (or in other words, out of death)? How does a rock suddenly sprout tree leaves?
What is the origin of the genetic code and the accumulation of the information it contains (a phenomenon that has been constant over the course of time)?
If you are happening to walk on the beach and you see some foot prints, you do not say that the ocean did that or they just happened to be there.
We have also shown that all matter had a definite beginning or a moment in time when it came to exist, the moment when the universe was created.
Since the universe had a definite beginning, we can say that it was created.
Therefore, it is only rational to say that the universe was created by a power that is above and independent of the laws of physics, as we know them. That power is clearly not restricted or confined to the basic laws of physics but far superior. Neither can this power be of a physical essence. It is also justifiable to expect this power not to have had a beginning because the concept of a beginning and for that matter time in general, has been shown to be a dimension of the physical universe only. In his ‘Theory of relativity’, Einstein stated that time, space and matter were all created when the universe was born, and that before that moment time did not exist. It is not easy for the human mind to envisage the concept of no time, but if one accepts that time is only a dimension of the physical world the idea becomes more acceptable. Further still, and since the universe had a definite beginning before which nothing existed, then such an awesome event (the creation of the universe) cannot be attributed to chance, since before that initial moment of creation nothing existed, not even chance!
A superior non-physical power and creator is the only possible explanation to this argument.
People say that if we do not see, hear, smell or feel something we do not believe in it. In other words, there is no perception of God so why should I believe in a God. If someone sees a map in an atlas will he say that I do not believe in these maps, as I have not seen the artist do this work (e.g. drawing of the map).
The laws of probabilities
The laws of probability offer another interesting argument:
If we throw the dice, the chance of obtaining double 6 is (1 in 36). What this means is that on average if we throw the dice 1000 times, the chances are that we should get double 6 around 27 times. Now if we throw the dice 1000 times and we obtain double 6 every single throw then there is a design, a system or a controlling force behind the throws. We can hardly call it chance.
The science of Genetics offers vivid evidence that chance could not be a factor in the process of creation due to the very precise combinations necessary in the building of cells. These requisite combinations defy all laws of probabilities.
On a large scale, we only need to look at the universe to be able to marvel at the endless examples of precision and beautiful design. Every field of scientific knowledge seems to testify to the existence of a master creator. It does not seem difficult to dismiss the possibility of chance.
The mechanical argument
The mechanical argument is also in support of the concept of a creator.
‘For every action there is a reaction, equal to it and opposite in direction.’
Everything that has moved was moved by something else. If we go back in time, tracing everything to its original mover, we would ultimately arrive at that which was not moved by anything else. That analysis will also lead us to the unavoidable conclusion of an initial Creator.
The Development vs. Destruction argument
Everything left unattended gradually disintegrates. If one builds a house and leaves it unattended, in a few weeks it will become full of dust. In thirty years or so the paint will start falling off. After two hundred years or so some of the walls will start to weaken and fall, and maybe in a thousand years or so the whole house will be flat to the ground. In other words, and if left unattended, any organized structure or system will eventually become one of chaos.
Never will chaos suddenly spring into a system. A house will never spring into being of its own doing.
If we try to analyse what has actually happened on earth we realize that it was quite remarkable. When the earth was first formed it was very hostile hot planet with no form of life whatsoever. The trend has been reversed, instead of things crumbling they have in fact developed all the time to higher forms of being. Chaos has developed into a system.
It is amusing, to put it mildly, to observe man so full of vanity thinking he is the master of everything merely because he is given some intelligence to discover some of the laws of the universe. In reality, man has no authority in setting or altering such laws. With the aid of the physical senses, man is given a view over a divine masterpiece, but considering the human being is a mere spectator within the huge universe, he can indeed be very pompous!
There is so much symmetry in the universe to be able to go through all of it, but one particular design has special appeal. And that is Macro/Micro pattern.
The Macro/Micro pattern
If we look at the universe at large we find that it is composed of vast areas of empty space and also other areas containing shapeless matter in the form of hot gasses, dark matter and formed stars. These stars group together to form galaxies. Our galaxy, ‘The Milky Way’ has within it no less than 100 billion individual stars. Our star, the sun, has nine planets in orbit around it. Most of these planets have a number of moons again in orbit. The basic force that governs the movement of all these bodies is gravity. The moons rotate around their planets, which all rotate around the mother star, which in our case is the sun. Similarly, all these stars revolve round the center of gravity of the galaxy.
Galaxies group together to form clusters of galaxies and once again individual galaxies revolve round the center of gravity of the cluster. Clusters group together to form super-clusters, and these obey the same laws. These are the largest units in the universe, as we know it today.
However, and if we proceed in the opposite direction, we notice that the similarity is truly remarkable. If we look at the other end of the scale and examine the atom which is the smallest form of substance able to exist in a chemical reaction, we find that it is compose of electrons revolving round a nucleus, in the same way as stars revolve round the center of gravity of their galaxies. Are we but seeing the fingerprints of the creator?
If one searches one can surely find God. God’s marvels are all around us. It was very naïve when the first man in space, the Soviet astronaut Yuri Gagarin, said when he was high in orbit around the earth:
“Where is God? I do not see him!”
It seems ironic though that he met his death in a helicopter accident, still in the air, where he could not find his maker! No doubt he found Him now!!!!!!
If we accept that the creation of the universe must have been the work of a supreme intelligent power, we are faced with another puzzle and that is: How many gods are there? Is God one, or could there be more than one god?
Third debate:
If God exists, how many gods are there?
Here the reference is made to some basic word definitions. The words absolute and relative are quite straightforward in what they mean. Anything relative is that which can be compared to or related to other things. Whenever we describe that object we are always describing it in relation to other things. On the other hand an absolute is that which is self-existent and conceivable without relation to other things.
If we return to our example of the room and the oven we can say that the oven is hotter than the room but that does not mean that the oven is hot in an absolute sense, for if we were to place this oven inside an active volcano it would seem very cool in comparison. An athlete is a very fast runner compared to road pedestrians but is indeed very slow compared to a motor car, and so on until it becomes clear that anything we see in life is relative because there will always be something that is cooler, bigger, older ….etc.
If we go back to our Big Bang theory we realize that what brought it about must have been a power that is above all the laws of physics that govern the universe. When scientists study the evolution of the universe they trace it back to the moment of creation or the Big Bang, but when they reach that point they find that all the laws of physics cease to be. Had they considered the same situation in a forward direction they would have realized that the Big Bang was the moment when all the laws of physics have actually began to be!
We have also noted that the force that brought about the Big Bang, and in effect the creation of the universe, could not have been related to this universe in any physical sense, for it is clearly the cause and not the effect of the universe. Since this supreme power is the cause then it must have been existent prior to and independent of the universe. Thus we can say that nothing in this universe can be related to that and if nothing can be compared or related to that power, then by definition that power is absolute.
The absolute God then means that nothing is like or akin to Him, but if we were to consider the possibility of the existence of more than one god, immediately the question will arise as to: which god came first, which god is more powerful and so on, and that would ultimately reduce these gods to being relative because comparisons will arise.
If God is absolute, by definition, He must be One.
Please also watch the videos "No Brainer!" and "Truth Seekers" at http://www.watchislam.com/videos/index.php?catid=-1
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Interest and the Modern Banking System
Most of the material in this article has been taken from the lecture on Riba (Interest) delivered by Mufti Taqi Usmani in England.
After the world has experienced the two conflicting economic ideologies (i.e. Capitalism and Socialism) without any success (as they have failed to provide a just and equitable economic system for the whole humankind), it is time to come back to the economic system provided by Allah Almighty in his last and final revelation, the Holy Quran.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) has told us that earning halal is obligatory upon us after five time prayers. So, a lot of importance has been attached to the economic activity by the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). But at the same time, Allah has told us in the Holy Quran that economic pursuit should not be the ultimate goal of a Muslim. Economic activities are the means and not the end in itself. The main aim of a person is to be successful in the life hereafter. Nevertheless economic activities are a means to achieve this objective. Therefore, Islam has laid down some rules regarding our economics and Muslims are required to abide by them.
One of those principles is related to Interest (or Riba) and Allah Says “But Allah has permitted trade and has forbidden interest” [Al Quran, 2:275]. Trading and interest are different and not the same as some try their level best to prove.
This prohibition has become so evident in this day and age that it has never been the case in the recorded history. The horrors brought by interest based economy were unimaginable some centuries ago.
The banks make most of their money through interest. All the people deposit their money into the banks, and thus the banks have the wealth of the entire nation (plus they create money by fractional reserve banking). Now who benefits from this wealth in the banks? If you analyse, you will find that if a poor person goes to a bank to borrow money (for a business venture even if his idea is feasible) he will be kicked out of the bank. The reason being, unless he has collateral he cannot be given any money. The loan is only offered to the rich people (basically meaning that banks give business loans to those who can show that they do not need it). These rich people who obtain loans from the banks are of very small percentage of the total population. According to the statistics of 1997 from the State Bank of Pakistan, it was only 0.06% of all the depositors who borrowed this money from the banks. This means that the wealth of the whole nation is being utilised by a handful of people.
These entrepreneurs invest this wealth into profitable projects. Sometimes they earn huge profits out of their investments, and this occasionally reaches 100%. Taking an extreme example, if an industrialist has earned 100% profit, he will pass only a small amount of interest to the bank, and the bank after deducting its own share will pass the rest to the depositors. The layman is very happy that he deposited e.g. Rs.1000 and got back Rs.1050 in one year. But the poor person does not know that his wealth was utilised by the capitalist and he has earned enormous profits out of it (i.e. Rs.1000 in the above example). The Rs.50 which the depositor has earned is again taken back by the industrialist community, because whenever a borrower takes a loan from the bank, whatever interest he pays is included in the cost of his product. Thus, the prices of commodities that are sold in the market include the rate of interest that has to be paid to the banks. So when this poor person (who has earned Rs.50 on his Rs.1000) goes to the market and buys stuff, he pays this Rs.50 back to the industrialist community who used his money to earn Rs.1000 of profit. In reality, the depositors earn nothing. The whole profit has gone into the pocket of the entrepreneur.
On the other hand, if there is a loss, and if you take an extreme example, banks sometimes go bankrupt. So, then the money invested by the businessman was only 10% or 20%. It will be the depositors who will lose their entire wealth. In other words, if there is a profit, the whole earnings go to the capitalist, but if there is a loss, the depositors will have to bear the brunt of it.
There are other destructive aspects of Interest, and if anyone is interested, he or she can read the book “The Problem with Interest” by Tarek El Diwany (this book can be purchased from http://www.theproblemwithinterest.com/).
In addition, please read "The Web of Debt" By Ellen Hodgson Brown" (http://www.webofdebt.com/)
The interest based economic system was not so damaging in the past, but now its effects have engulfed the entire world. Some of the effects of the modern interest based economy are shown by the following statistics:
225 people own more wealth than the poorest 2.5 billion people (UNDP Human Development Report 1998).
24000 people die every single day because they are unable to obtain life sustaining food (UN World Food Programme, 2003).
Relieved of their annual debt repayments, the severely indebted countries could use the funds for investments that in Africa alone would save the lives of about 21 million children by 2000 and provide 90 million girls and women with access to basic education (UNDP Human Development Report 1997, p. 93).
According to the United Kingdom's Department for International Development in 2000, 1.2 billion people live in "abject poverty", meaning that they have no basic medical care, nutrition or housing. In the sub-Sahara, 48% of people go without health services, 48% of people are without safe water and 42% are illiterate, whilst in south-Asia the corresponding figures are 22%, 18% and 49.5%. Measured in 1987 US Dollars, GDP per capita in sub Sahara was $520 and in South Asia $521, whilst in the Industrialised Countries it was $12,764 (1995 figures compiled in (UNDP Human Development Report, 1998 ).
The income ratio of the one-fifth of the world's population in the wealthiest countries to the one-fifth in the poorest went from 30 to 1 in 1960 to 74 to 1 in 1995 (UN Human Development Report, 1999).
Now the meaning of the verse in the Quran has become crystal clear: Allah says “O you who have believed, fear Allah and give up what remains [due to you] of interest, if you should be believers. And if you do not, then be informed of a war [against you] from Allah and His Messenger. But if you repent, you may have your principal – [thus] you do no wrong, nor are you wronged” [Al Quran, 2: 278-279].
After the world has experienced the two conflicting economic ideologies (i.e. Capitalism and Socialism) without any success (as they have failed to provide a just and equitable economic system for the whole humankind), it is time to come back to the economic system provided by Allah Almighty in his last and final revelation, the Holy Quran.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) has told us that earning halal is obligatory upon us after five time prayers. So, a lot of importance has been attached to the economic activity by the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). But at the same time, Allah has told us in the Holy Quran that economic pursuit should not be the ultimate goal of a Muslim. Economic activities are the means and not the end in itself. The main aim of a person is to be successful in the life hereafter. Nevertheless economic activities are a means to achieve this objective. Therefore, Islam has laid down some rules regarding our economics and Muslims are required to abide by them.
One of those principles is related to Interest (or Riba) and Allah Says “But Allah has permitted trade and has forbidden interest” [Al Quran, 2:275]. Trading and interest are different and not the same as some try their level best to prove.
This prohibition has become so evident in this day and age that it has never been the case in the recorded history. The horrors brought by interest based economy were unimaginable some centuries ago.
The banks make most of their money through interest. All the people deposit their money into the banks, and thus the banks have the wealth of the entire nation (plus they create money by fractional reserve banking). Now who benefits from this wealth in the banks? If you analyse, you will find that if a poor person goes to a bank to borrow money (for a business venture even if his idea is feasible) he will be kicked out of the bank. The reason being, unless he has collateral he cannot be given any money. The loan is only offered to the rich people (basically meaning that banks give business loans to those who can show that they do not need it). These rich people who obtain loans from the banks are of very small percentage of the total population. According to the statistics of 1997 from the State Bank of Pakistan, it was only 0.06% of all the depositors who borrowed this money from the banks. This means that the wealth of the whole nation is being utilised by a handful of people.
These entrepreneurs invest this wealth into profitable projects. Sometimes they earn huge profits out of their investments, and this occasionally reaches 100%. Taking an extreme example, if an industrialist has earned 100% profit, he will pass only a small amount of interest to the bank, and the bank after deducting its own share will pass the rest to the depositors. The layman is very happy that he deposited e.g. Rs.1000 and got back Rs.1050 in one year. But the poor person does not know that his wealth was utilised by the capitalist and he has earned enormous profits out of it (i.e. Rs.1000 in the above example). The Rs.50 which the depositor has earned is again taken back by the industrialist community, because whenever a borrower takes a loan from the bank, whatever interest he pays is included in the cost of his product. Thus, the prices of commodities that are sold in the market include the rate of interest that has to be paid to the banks. So when this poor person (who has earned Rs.50 on his Rs.1000) goes to the market and buys stuff, he pays this Rs.50 back to the industrialist community who used his money to earn Rs.1000 of profit. In reality, the depositors earn nothing. The whole profit has gone into the pocket of the entrepreneur.
On the other hand, if there is a loss, and if you take an extreme example, banks sometimes go bankrupt. So, then the money invested by the businessman was only 10% or 20%. It will be the depositors who will lose their entire wealth. In other words, if there is a profit, the whole earnings go to the capitalist, but if there is a loss, the depositors will have to bear the brunt of it.
There are other destructive aspects of Interest, and if anyone is interested, he or she can read the book “The Problem with Interest” by Tarek El Diwany (this book can be purchased from http://www.theproblemwithinterest.com/).
In addition, please read "The Web of Debt" By Ellen Hodgson Brown" (http://www.webofdebt.com/)
The interest based economic system was not so damaging in the past, but now its effects have engulfed the entire world. Some of the effects of the modern interest based economy are shown by the following statistics:
225 people own more wealth than the poorest 2.5 billion people (UNDP Human Development Report 1998).
24000 people die every single day because they are unable to obtain life sustaining food (UN World Food Programme, 2003).
Relieved of their annual debt repayments, the severely indebted countries could use the funds for investments that in Africa alone would save the lives of about 21 million children by 2000 and provide 90 million girls and women with access to basic education (UNDP Human Development Report 1997, p. 93).
According to the United Kingdom's Department for International Development in 2000, 1.2 billion people live in "abject poverty", meaning that they have no basic medical care, nutrition or housing. In the sub-Sahara, 48% of people go without health services, 48% of people are without safe water and 42% are illiterate, whilst in south-Asia the corresponding figures are 22%, 18% and 49.5%. Measured in 1987 US Dollars, GDP per capita in sub Sahara was $520 and in South Asia $521, whilst in the Industrialised Countries it was $12,764 (1995 figures compiled in (UNDP Human Development Report, 1998 ).
The income ratio of the one-fifth of the world's population in the wealthiest countries to the one-fifth in the poorest went from 30 to 1 in 1960 to 74 to 1 in 1995 (UN Human Development Report, 1999).
Now the meaning of the verse in the Quran has become crystal clear: Allah says “O you who have believed, fear Allah and give up what remains [due to you] of interest, if you should be believers. And if you do not, then be informed of a war [against you] from Allah and His Messenger. But if you repent, you may have your principal – [thus] you do no wrong, nor are you wronged” [Al Quran, 2: 278-279].
Logic of Hudood In Islam
Most of the material in this article has been taken from the lectures of Mufti Muhammad Saeed Khan. The lectures were delivered in Urdu and I have translated them into English. If there is a point, in your opinion, that does not carry weight, it is due to the shortcomings of my translation skills, and not because of the material in the Lectures of Mufti Saeed.
I have also taken some material from Dr. Zakir Naik’s book “Answers to the Non-Muslims’ Common Questions about Islam” (the entire book which is 49 pages long can be downloaded from www.irf.net).
The System of Punishments in Islam
All crimes bring about inconvenience to humans in one way or the other; so Shariah (Islamic Law) prescribes punishments for the pain and hassle caused. In addition, Allah’s (God’s) disobedience takes place; hence, an offense has two aspects: it either violates both the rights of human beings and Allah or just Allah’s rights.
Before we go into the logic of punishments in Islam, it is important to understand the categories of law under which these sentences are carried out. There are three main categories under which a Qadhi (Judge) can convict a person for a crime and then the penalty for that felony takes place: Tazeer, Hudood and Qisaas.
Tazeer
Where there is no prescribed punishment in the Shariah, it is left upon the government and the Qadhi (Judge) to impose appropriate penalty (Tazeer) for that crime. Tazeer can change with time, place and circumstances. For example, in 19th century it may not be a big deal to jaywalk, but in this day and age where circumstances have changed, a government can impose a certain penalty for jaywalking (e.g. community service).
The chapter of Tazeer is vast, and hence Shariah has given a lot of power to the Qadhi. Though, the government can put restrictions on the Qadhi’s authority: for example, state can say that for a certain crime a Judge cannot imprison a person for more than a certain period. So it is left upon the Judge whether to implement the maximum punishment or not. Also, a government can prescribe a lenient or stern Tazeer (even death according to some Jurists) to deter people from carrying out that crime (if a certain offense at that particular time is on the rise).
Hudood
In certain crimes where violation of Allah’s rights is more than the human beings, a Hadd (the plural for Hadd is Hudood) is carried out. On the other hand, where individual rights take precedence, the crime comes under Qisaas (which will be discussed later).
In case of Tazeer, a government or Judge can pardon the criminal or accept a recommendation on a person’s behalf (and reduce sentence), but this is not the situation in Hudood.
There are five types of crimes for which Hudood are carried out: Robbery, Theft, Zina (fornication or adultery), Slandering of a chaste person and Drinking of intoxicants.
Four reliable witnesses will be required to carry out the punishment for Zina. If a person slanders a chaste women (e.g. saying her character is doubtful) he must provide 4 witnesses otherwise, he will himself be punished.
It is also important to note that a Hadd will not take place if there is any doubt whatsoever whether that person committed a particular crime or not (in that instance a tazeer will take effect). Hence, Hadd is no small matter and the advantage of doubt goes to the party or person accused.
Another point to be noted is that the second Caliph of Islam Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) temporarily cancelled Hadd for theft because of the drought. This proves that if the government cannot provide for the basic necessities of public (or certain pre-requisites are not fulfilled), Hudood will not be implemented for those crimes.
The sentence for robbery in Quran is in the verse of Surah Maidah: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” [Al Quran 5:33-34] Some Fuqaha (Jurists) are of the opinion that any one of these punishments can be given, others believe that the judgement will depend upon the circumstances (details can be found in the books of Jurisprudence).
The penalty for a thief is prescribed in the Quran. The Glorious Quran says in Surah Maidah: “As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power, full of wisdom.” [Al-Quran 5:38]
There are certain conditions for which this Hadd is to be carried out: if someone takes away something (a minimum of around 33 grams of silver’s worth) from a safe place without permission, secretly, then Hadd will be applied. Also, the stolen possessions should be someone’s private goods. In addition, there should be no share of the thief in the stolen goods whatsoever: for example, if a son steals from his father (there is some right of the son in that wealth and after the death of his father when inheritance will be divided son will get some part of that wealth) or a person steals from public property, say a chair from a public park (the person has some right on that chair even though it may be minute e.g. 0.0001%), in these cases, Hadd will not apply. In the above mentioned instances Tazeer will take place.
In the instance of Zina (fornication or Adultery) if a person is not married Allah has prescribed the punishment in Surah Noor: Allah says “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, - flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment” [Al-Quran 24:2] and if that person is married he or she will be stoned to death provided there are four witnesses for that crime.
If someone Slanders a chaste person and cannot provide witnesses he or she will get the punishment as mentioned in Quran in Surah Noor: Allah says “And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors Unless they repent thereafter and mend (their conduct); for Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful" [Al-Quran 24:4-5]
Lastly, if somebody is found guilty of being intoxicated he or she will be flogged with 80 lashes.
How to implement a Hadd
Firstly, it should be carried out in public. The hand will be chopped from the wrist and the foot from the ankle.
There are certain conditions for flogging with a whip. The clothes of that person will not be removed (if they are very thick there is some leeway). The notion which exists about whipping among the masses (that a well built barbaric person lashes as hard as he can) is false. The prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) used to implement Hudood through very knowledgeable Fuqahah (Jurists) Sahaba (companions of the prophet): Umar, Ali and Abdullah ibn Masood (may Allah be pleased with them).
According to the narrations of Abdullah ibn Masood (may Allah be pleased with him), a person cannot be whipped at the same spot all the time. The person who is carrying out the flogging should keep his upper part of the arm (shoulder to elbow) in contact with his body. After applying the stroke he must not pull the whip but raise it. The whip should not be too hard or too soft.
When these conditions are fulfilled the criminal feels the pain, but there are no wounds on his body, and he also feels embarrassed as the beating is carried out in the public.
Qisaas
The principle of Qisaas is explained by Allah in the verse of Surah Maidah: And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the wrongdoers [Al-Quran 5:45]. In Qisaas, the principle of life for life and injury for injury (same injury will be inflicted on the offender) will apply. If the victim or victim’s family (in case of murder) forgives the defendant, a compensation will be paid by the criminal (details can be found in books of Jurisprudence). The convict will not go free (otherwise he may commit the same crime again) and a Tazeer will be applied.
Logic of Hudood
One of the biggest objection on Islam is that the system of punishments in Islamic law is barbaric. According to the protesters, there is no need for stoning, chopping of hands or whipping, and that these penalties are old fashioned and out of date, hence, Muslims should leave them in these modern times.
Some Muslims, who are influenced by western thinking, also agree with the west’s objections and they suggest that we should keep Islam limited only to beliefs and worship, and when it comes to the matter of courts, secular law should take effect.
There are other Muslims who listen to these objections and keep quiet because they do not have any answer for the points raised, and therefore a doubt remains in their minds, although they do not doubt in the authenticity of Islam. But still they want answers to these questions in order to remove their doubt.
We start by saying that why is there existence of sins in the world, and why a person commits a sin? And what is a sin? Sin in Islam is breaking of a commandment of God: the bigger the breach of a directive the bigger the offense. So why does one violates an order from God? Is it because the person has no money or means to earn a living? Is it because of hunger that a person robs or steals or a woman is forced into prostitution?
In a society where there is unjust distribution of wealth and because of that there is hunger and poverty, this can cause someone to commit a sin. The Shariah (as mentioned earlier) will not implement Hudood (for robbery, theft and fornication and adultery) under these circumstances.
Wherever in the world (Islamic country or a western country) basic needs of people are not fulfilled crimes will take place. So what are the basic needs of a person? In Islam (from the narrations of Muaaz may Allah be pleased with him) the Prophet (peace be upon him) told us that the basic needs consist of a place to stay, clothes, a bed to sleep in, utensils for eating and drinking, transport (if not private then public transport provided by the government), instruments from which one earns their living (in the instance where a person is self employed, if not self employed then a job to earn a living) and a slave (this won’t be applicable in this day and age).
When administration of a country fulfills these necessities, what right a person has to commit a crime and disturb the peace of the society.
On the other hand, if wealth is more than the basic needs, is it a cause of crime? Sometimes it does, for example, a person did not drink alcohol because after expenses he did not have any savings left, but as soon as he starts to earn more he goes to a bottle shop and purchases a bottle of wine for himself. Hence, sometimes increase in wealth can take a person towards sin. That is why wealth either too little or too much can cause one to disobey God.
What else can be a cause of sin? At times, occupation (the power and authority which comes with it) becomes a cause of sin. Occupation is similar to wealth in the sense if there are no jobs in the society then crimes will increase. You can put this in the category of occupation or wealth it is up to you. The other side of occupation or authority is that it brings oppression (either on a smaller level or a larger scale) with itself. Only those who are proper human beings (who are God fearing and morally not corrupted) can stay away from tyranny, otherwise the rule of thumb is that the more power a person has the bigger his oppression will become. For example, when someone was the governor of the state he did not commit much oppression, but as soon as he becomes the president of the country, his cruelty increases many folds. The amount of oppression is also dependant upon the haughtiness of a person and that is why Quran, in many places, has combined tyranny with arrogance (kibr). The purpose of Islamic teachings is to create people who will stay on the right path and do not get affected by wealth and power (many examples of these people can be found in the history, especially among the companions of the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him).
So wealth and occupation are causes of sin.
When a government wants to stop crimes in a state, what are the things the people of that country should be protected from or should protect? Will certain things get more protection than others? If a woman drops a ring worth $3 at her friend’s place, she may not worry about it, but if it is valued at $1000 then, without any doubt, she will do her best to get the ring back. This means that certain things require more protection than others, and certain articles require little or no safeguarding at all.
Which things need to be protected in a society is the million dollar question where Islam and west clash and disagree.
When it comes to the protection of wealth, Islam is slightly lenient than the west. If a son steals from his father in a western country the consequences can be dire, but in an Islamic state it will not be that big a deal, since the son has some right to that wealth and later after the death of the father some of that money is going to come the son’s way. Therefore, west, in certain instances, is stricter than Islam when it comes to the protection of wealth.
But when it comes to punishments, Islam is stricter. Islam asks the question that what right a person has to steal someone’s wealth (whether someone commits a fraud because he abuses his power and authority, or an ordinary person wants to increase his possessions, or it is just pure arrogance that why a certain person has more wealth than I have; because I am the head of a tribe or I have more power or prestigious occupation so I should have more wealth) after his basic necessities are being fulfilled? Islam says that first the money should be returned to its owner, and then we should stick such a humiliation with that person for the rest of his life (i.e. chopping off his hand) that not only that person but his generations to come will remember that their father, grandfather or great grandfather was a crook and they will think seriously before deciding to steal from someone else. They will never be proud of their criminal ancestor no matter how prestigious an occupation that person had or how arrogant or powerful that person was, and they will think twice before stealing just because of their power, authority and arrogance (and they will not think of themselves as superiors to others and on those basis take away others’ money). The society will remember for generations to come that certain family had an ancestor whose hand was chopped off, and it will act as a great deterrent no matter how much power, authority or prestige that family achieves later in their lives; and they will think again and again before stealing purely based on the occupation. If we only give the offender a minor punishment or just take away the stolen money from him, he or someone in the generations to come might again commit the same offense. I am asking you the question when a public execution will be carried out and whenever that criminal walks in that society without a hand (which will act as reminder to others) will theft and robbery increase, stay the same or decrease in that society?
The second thing that needs protection is self-esteem. Islam stresses it a great deal more than the west. Even the self-esteem of child is significant in Islam. For example, if a father embarrasses his daughter in front of her friends, then Islam says that the parent will be answerable to God on the day of judgement. Children are not possessions of the parents but rather they are like a trust. Islam teaches that self-esteem is of such importance that no one has the right even to verbally swear, abuse or insult a person (no matter how tiny the abuse). On the contrary, in the west it may be considered insignificant (for example, if someone calls a woman a “slut”).
So no one is permitted to play with someone’s self-esteem on the basis of wealth, authority, power or haughtiness. Therefore, no one can utter a sentence which will make others feel insulted. At the time of the rightly guided caliphs, people could take those to court who in some way have made them feel inferior or bad because of misuse of their tongue. For this reason, any slander especially a remark made to degrade a chaste women (e.g. saying her character is doubtful or she is a slut) or a chaste man is prohibited, because such a remark from an authoritative figure can ruin life of someone in the society or at least cause psychological stress (e.g. depression), and thus the life of that person is affected.
Hurting someone’s feelings is a big sin in Islam, and anyone who slanders a chaste person and does not provide evidence for their remarks will be punished severely under Islamic law. Ideally everyone will be safe from the tongue of others in a true Islamic society.
Islam is extremely sensitive on this issue and preaches that there is no reason why one utters a remark which can cause sleepless nights for others, and it affects their performance at the work place. Even today in certain tribes, the leader of the tribe can print in the newspaper that certain woman’s character is not good, and then that woman’s life is ruined. West in this regard recognises that no one should be verbally abused, but it does not go all the way as Islam does in uprooting this vice from the society.
The third thing which needs protection in Islam is religion. West is of the opinion that it does not matter whatever your beliefs are, and you can change them if you wish. Islam stresses that if you do not protect the religion of a person, on what grounds are you going to ensure the protection of good conduct, morals and ethics of a society. If religion is gone from someone’s life, then what force is there to tie up a person so that his morals and ethics remain intact, and that he will not lie, cheat or be dishonest or will not abuse his authority? What influence is there to prevent a person from doing all of the above mentioned things if he thinks that he can get away with it?
If you think that a law of a country will make sure of that, well what happens if the grip of the law becomes weak (it is the case in the third world countries in these times) who will prevent a person from breaking the law (whether it is breaking a traffic signal or swindling millions from a company) if he thinks he can get away with it. Religion is the only force which will prevent someone from committing a sin or a crime whether he is alone or in public or he thinks he won’t be caught by the authorities.
Nehru, a former Prime Minister of India, used to say that I am a communist (and do not believe in religion) and I also want people of India to have the highest moral standards. But there is no way other than religion to guarantee the highest moral character in a nation.
Fear of God in someone’s mind is a great deterrent against sins and a person who is a practicing Muslim will not indulge himself in immoral acts even if he thinks no one is watching and that he will never get caught. If you do not guard religion of a person you will create a society in which sooner or later people will engage in acts which will be harmful to themselves and to the society as a whole. For this reason, Islam lays great significance on the protection of religion and anyone who renegades from Islam will be severely punished (in Islam there is no compulsion to become a Muslim but if someone wants to become a Muslim then that person enters into a contract with the Islamic state that he will not leave Islam).
Someone might say well why Islam and why not the protection of any other religion? Well then I have to start a whole new topic of discussion. To keep things concise, we must recognize that all the major religions of the world have their basis on revelation from God (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc). The Muslims ask the question well whose revelation is protected in its original language? No other religion can claim that their manuscripts are the same as the day they were revealed. Even the languages in which they were revealed have been lost in majority of the cases. If the revelation is protected in its original form then the religion is protected in its original form, otherwise the true teachings of that religion are lost. It is only Quran which is still in its original state and no one can prove that a single word has been changed since it was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Not only the original text is the same, but Arabic is a living language as well. So the final edition of revelation from God, according to the Muslims, is Quran, and that is why God will protect it from corruption until the day of Judgement.
The fourth thing which needs to be protected in Islam is Lineage. If the family-line is not safeguarded and people do not know who is the father of whom and who is the son of whom, then in that society the number illegitimate children (children born out of wedlock) will rise to a great extent. Who will then be responsible for the proper upbringing (raising children with good moral values) and who will be responsible for the children financially? If you say the mother, well then she will have to work and will never be able to devote her time needed for appropriate upbringing. If you say that the state will look after those children financially, well what happens if the government goes bankrupt or financially weak?
Moreover, Psychologists tell us that children who do not know their parents, especially their father undergo severe mental trauma and disturbances. Often they have an unhappy childhood. It is for this reason that the children of prostitutes do not have a healthy childhood.
Another evil which rises in some countries because of this is fighting (especially among teenagers and even adults) for girlfriends. In some instances, even murder takes place. Along with that, adultery is one of the reasons for divorce rates being on the rise.
In the west you can see teenage girls carrying their children born out of wedlock, and these young girls are solely responsible for them. This also gives rise to abortion and many lives are lost just because west does not care whether a child is born out of wedlock or not.
I do not want to go into the details of the evils of sexually transmitted diseases (such as AIDS, Herpes, Genital Warts etc…) which until 100 years ago were unheard of. Just because of sex out of marriage is on the rise, so are the sexually transmitted infections. If I start writing just on the evils of STD’s, then a whole new article will need to be written (please read the article "Sexually Transmitted Diseases" on this website to get the complete picture).
Those of us who come through a proper family system can imagine what it would be like if we were raised without a father. People who have done some good in the society on a large scale, 99% of them come through a proper family system. And those who were born out of wedlock, not many of them are recognised by the nation for their achievements.
So how can west deny that protection of lineage is not necessary, and those of us who live in the west know that the western governments encourage people to marry and raise a family. Anyway, Islam in this regard lays great stress, and thus discourages any sexual relations out of matrimony.
The fifth thing which Islam stresses on being protected is intelligence. Islam does not permit that any drugs or intoxicants be used in the society which influences the intelligence either temporarily or permanently. West also believes in the protection of intelligence, but it is partial. That is why drink driving is prohibited, there are age limits and certain places are dry (alcohol-free). However, west says that you can lose your intelligence temporarily at a pub or at your own home, while Islam preaches that a person should be in control of their intelligence for the whole time. The reason being that attaining of heaven and hell is based on intelligence; as Allah says in Surah Mulk “They will further say: "Had we but listened or used our intelligence, we should not (now) be among the Companions of the Blazing Fire [Al-Quran 67:10]
Alcohol has been the scourge of human society since time immemorial. It continues to cost countless human lives, and causes terrible misery to millions throughout the world. Alcohol is the root cause of several problems facing society. The statistics of soaring crime rates, increasing instances of mental illnesses and millions of broken homes throughout the world bear mute testimony to the destructive power of alcohol.
The human beings possess an inhibitory centre in their brains. This inhibitory centre prevents the person from doing things that he considers wrong. For instance a person does not normally use abusive language while addressing his parents or elders. If he has to answer the call of nature, his inhibitory centre will prevent him from doing so in public. Therefore he uses the toilet. When a person consumes alcohol, the inhibitory centre itself is inhibited. That is precisely the reason that an inebriated person is often found to be indulging in behaviour that is completely uncharacteristic of him. For instance, the intoxicated person is found to use abusive and foul language and does not realise his mistake even if he is addressing his parents. Many even urinate in their clothes. Neither do they talk nor walk properly. They even misbehave.
According to National Crime Victimisation Survey Bureau of Justice (U.S. Department of Justice) in the year 1996 alone everyday on an average 2,713 rapes took place. The statistics tell us that the majority of the rapists were intoxicated while committing the crime. The same is true in cases of molestation.
According to statistics, 8% of Americans commit incest i.e. one in every twelve to thirteen persons in America is involved in incest. Almost all the cases of incest are due to intoxication of one or both the persons involved. One of the major factors associated with the spread of AIDS, the most dreaded disease, is alcoholism.
Due to these vices, Islam prohibits consumption of intoxicants and anyone found guilty of drinking alcohol is penalised severely.
So after wealth, self-esteem, religion, lineage and intelligence are protected, and still there is crime in the society, it could be related to the unjust distribution of wealth. Islam has provided a complete economic system which ensures just and fair distribution of wealth, and thus it eradicates poverty from the society. If crime is because of authority, Islam provides a person with morals and ethics and makes the person a proper human being.
Well you might say why is that Muslim countries are among the poorest and morally corrupt in world? This is a fair question and those of us who have some knowledge of Islam know that majority of Muslims have left the teachings of Islam. They are Muslims because their parents were Muslims, otherwise their lives are totally devoid of Islam. That is why Muslim countries are suffering the disastrous consequences in this era. History bears testimony that when Muslim majority was following the teachings of Islam, they were not only financially sound but also peace and harmony existed in their societies. If Muslims are again to rise as a nation, the only solution for them is Islam, otherwise majority of them will have to keep on living the life of misery.
I have also taken some material from Dr. Zakir Naik’s book “Answers to the Non-Muslims’ Common Questions about Islam” (the entire book which is 49 pages long can be downloaded from www.irf.net).
The System of Punishments in Islam
All crimes bring about inconvenience to humans in one way or the other; so Shariah (Islamic Law) prescribes punishments for the pain and hassle caused. In addition, Allah’s (God’s) disobedience takes place; hence, an offense has two aspects: it either violates both the rights of human beings and Allah or just Allah’s rights.
Before we go into the logic of punishments in Islam, it is important to understand the categories of law under which these sentences are carried out. There are three main categories under which a Qadhi (Judge) can convict a person for a crime and then the penalty for that felony takes place: Tazeer, Hudood and Qisaas.
Tazeer
Where there is no prescribed punishment in the Shariah, it is left upon the government and the Qadhi (Judge) to impose appropriate penalty (Tazeer) for that crime. Tazeer can change with time, place and circumstances. For example, in 19th century it may not be a big deal to jaywalk, but in this day and age where circumstances have changed, a government can impose a certain penalty for jaywalking (e.g. community service).
The chapter of Tazeer is vast, and hence Shariah has given a lot of power to the Qadhi. Though, the government can put restrictions on the Qadhi’s authority: for example, state can say that for a certain crime a Judge cannot imprison a person for more than a certain period. So it is left upon the Judge whether to implement the maximum punishment or not. Also, a government can prescribe a lenient or stern Tazeer (even death according to some Jurists) to deter people from carrying out that crime (if a certain offense at that particular time is on the rise).
Hudood
In certain crimes where violation of Allah’s rights is more than the human beings, a Hadd (the plural for Hadd is Hudood) is carried out. On the other hand, where individual rights take precedence, the crime comes under Qisaas (which will be discussed later).
In case of Tazeer, a government or Judge can pardon the criminal or accept a recommendation on a person’s behalf (and reduce sentence), but this is not the situation in Hudood.
There are five types of crimes for which Hudood are carried out: Robbery, Theft, Zina (fornication or adultery), Slandering of a chaste person and Drinking of intoxicants.
Four reliable witnesses will be required to carry out the punishment for Zina. If a person slanders a chaste women (e.g. saying her character is doubtful) he must provide 4 witnesses otherwise, he will himself be punished.
It is also important to note that a Hadd will not take place if there is any doubt whatsoever whether that person committed a particular crime or not (in that instance a tazeer will take effect). Hence, Hadd is no small matter and the advantage of doubt goes to the party or person accused.
Another point to be noted is that the second Caliph of Islam Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) temporarily cancelled Hadd for theft because of the drought. This proves that if the government cannot provide for the basic necessities of public (or certain pre-requisites are not fulfilled), Hudood will not be implemented for those crimes.
The sentence for robbery in Quran is in the verse of Surah Maidah: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” [Al Quran 5:33-34] Some Fuqaha (Jurists) are of the opinion that any one of these punishments can be given, others believe that the judgement will depend upon the circumstances (details can be found in the books of Jurisprudence).
The penalty for a thief is prescribed in the Quran. The Glorious Quran says in Surah Maidah: “As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power, full of wisdom.” [Al-Quran 5:38]
There are certain conditions for which this Hadd is to be carried out: if someone takes away something (a minimum of around 33 grams of silver’s worth) from a safe place without permission, secretly, then Hadd will be applied. Also, the stolen possessions should be someone’s private goods. In addition, there should be no share of the thief in the stolen goods whatsoever: for example, if a son steals from his father (there is some right of the son in that wealth and after the death of his father when inheritance will be divided son will get some part of that wealth) or a person steals from public property, say a chair from a public park (the person has some right on that chair even though it may be minute e.g. 0.0001%), in these cases, Hadd will not apply. In the above mentioned instances Tazeer will take place.
In the instance of Zina (fornication or Adultery) if a person is not married Allah has prescribed the punishment in Surah Noor: Allah says “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, - flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment” [Al-Quran 24:2] and if that person is married he or she will be stoned to death provided there are four witnesses for that crime.
If someone Slanders a chaste person and cannot provide witnesses he or she will get the punishment as mentioned in Quran in Surah Noor: Allah says “And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors Unless they repent thereafter and mend (their conduct); for Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful" [Al-Quran 24:4-5]
Lastly, if somebody is found guilty of being intoxicated he or she will be flogged with 80 lashes.
How to implement a Hadd
Firstly, it should be carried out in public. The hand will be chopped from the wrist and the foot from the ankle.
There are certain conditions for flogging with a whip. The clothes of that person will not be removed (if they are very thick there is some leeway). The notion which exists about whipping among the masses (that a well built barbaric person lashes as hard as he can) is false. The prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) used to implement Hudood through very knowledgeable Fuqahah (Jurists) Sahaba (companions of the prophet): Umar, Ali and Abdullah ibn Masood (may Allah be pleased with them).
According to the narrations of Abdullah ibn Masood (may Allah be pleased with him), a person cannot be whipped at the same spot all the time. The person who is carrying out the flogging should keep his upper part of the arm (shoulder to elbow) in contact with his body. After applying the stroke he must not pull the whip but raise it. The whip should not be too hard or too soft.
When these conditions are fulfilled the criminal feels the pain, but there are no wounds on his body, and he also feels embarrassed as the beating is carried out in the public.
Qisaas
The principle of Qisaas is explained by Allah in the verse of Surah Maidah: And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the wrongdoers [Al-Quran 5:45]. In Qisaas, the principle of life for life and injury for injury (same injury will be inflicted on the offender) will apply. If the victim or victim’s family (in case of murder) forgives the defendant, a compensation will be paid by the criminal (details can be found in books of Jurisprudence). The convict will not go free (otherwise he may commit the same crime again) and a Tazeer will be applied.
Logic of Hudood
One of the biggest objection on Islam is that the system of punishments in Islamic law is barbaric. According to the protesters, there is no need for stoning, chopping of hands or whipping, and that these penalties are old fashioned and out of date, hence, Muslims should leave them in these modern times.
Some Muslims, who are influenced by western thinking, also agree with the west’s objections and they suggest that we should keep Islam limited only to beliefs and worship, and when it comes to the matter of courts, secular law should take effect.
There are other Muslims who listen to these objections and keep quiet because they do not have any answer for the points raised, and therefore a doubt remains in their minds, although they do not doubt in the authenticity of Islam. But still they want answers to these questions in order to remove their doubt.
We start by saying that why is there existence of sins in the world, and why a person commits a sin? And what is a sin? Sin in Islam is breaking of a commandment of God: the bigger the breach of a directive the bigger the offense. So why does one violates an order from God? Is it because the person has no money or means to earn a living? Is it because of hunger that a person robs or steals or a woman is forced into prostitution?
In a society where there is unjust distribution of wealth and because of that there is hunger and poverty, this can cause someone to commit a sin. The Shariah (as mentioned earlier) will not implement Hudood (for robbery, theft and fornication and adultery) under these circumstances.
Wherever in the world (Islamic country or a western country) basic needs of people are not fulfilled crimes will take place. So what are the basic needs of a person? In Islam (from the narrations of Muaaz may Allah be pleased with him) the Prophet (peace be upon him) told us that the basic needs consist of a place to stay, clothes, a bed to sleep in, utensils for eating and drinking, transport (if not private then public transport provided by the government), instruments from which one earns their living (in the instance where a person is self employed, if not self employed then a job to earn a living) and a slave (this won’t be applicable in this day and age).
When administration of a country fulfills these necessities, what right a person has to commit a crime and disturb the peace of the society.
On the other hand, if wealth is more than the basic needs, is it a cause of crime? Sometimes it does, for example, a person did not drink alcohol because after expenses he did not have any savings left, but as soon as he starts to earn more he goes to a bottle shop and purchases a bottle of wine for himself. Hence, sometimes increase in wealth can take a person towards sin. That is why wealth either too little or too much can cause one to disobey God.
What else can be a cause of sin? At times, occupation (the power and authority which comes with it) becomes a cause of sin. Occupation is similar to wealth in the sense if there are no jobs in the society then crimes will increase. You can put this in the category of occupation or wealth it is up to you. The other side of occupation or authority is that it brings oppression (either on a smaller level or a larger scale) with itself. Only those who are proper human beings (who are God fearing and morally not corrupted) can stay away from tyranny, otherwise the rule of thumb is that the more power a person has the bigger his oppression will become. For example, when someone was the governor of the state he did not commit much oppression, but as soon as he becomes the president of the country, his cruelty increases many folds. The amount of oppression is also dependant upon the haughtiness of a person and that is why Quran, in many places, has combined tyranny with arrogance (kibr). The purpose of Islamic teachings is to create people who will stay on the right path and do not get affected by wealth and power (many examples of these people can be found in the history, especially among the companions of the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him).
So wealth and occupation are causes of sin.
When a government wants to stop crimes in a state, what are the things the people of that country should be protected from or should protect? Will certain things get more protection than others? If a woman drops a ring worth $3 at her friend’s place, she may not worry about it, but if it is valued at $1000 then, without any doubt, she will do her best to get the ring back. This means that certain things require more protection than others, and certain articles require little or no safeguarding at all.
Which things need to be protected in a society is the million dollar question where Islam and west clash and disagree.
When it comes to the protection of wealth, Islam is slightly lenient than the west. If a son steals from his father in a western country the consequences can be dire, but in an Islamic state it will not be that big a deal, since the son has some right to that wealth and later after the death of the father some of that money is going to come the son’s way. Therefore, west, in certain instances, is stricter than Islam when it comes to the protection of wealth.
But when it comes to punishments, Islam is stricter. Islam asks the question that what right a person has to steal someone’s wealth (whether someone commits a fraud because he abuses his power and authority, or an ordinary person wants to increase his possessions, or it is just pure arrogance that why a certain person has more wealth than I have; because I am the head of a tribe or I have more power or prestigious occupation so I should have more wealth) after his basic necessities are being fulfilled? Islam says that first the money should be returned to its owner, and then we should stick such a humiliation with that person for the rest of his life (i.e. chopping off his hand) that not only that person but his generations to come will remember that their father, grandfather or great grandfather was a crook and they will think seriously before deciding to steal from someone else. They will never be proud of their criminal ancestor no matter how prestigious an occupation that person had or how arrogant or powerful that person was, and they will think twice before stealing just because of their power, authority and arrogance (and they will not think of themselves as superiors to others and on those basis take away others’ money). The society will remember for generations to come that certain family had an ancestor whose hand was chopped off, and it will act as a great deterrent no matter how much power, authority or prestige that family achieves later in their lives; and they will think again and again before stealing purely based on the occupation. If we only give the offender a minor punishment or just take away the stolen money from him, he or someone in the generations to come might again commit the same offense. I am asking you the question when a public execution will be carried out and whenever that criminal walks in that society without a hand (which will act as reminder to others) will theft and robbery increase, stay the same or decrease in that society?
The second thing that needs protection is self-esteem. Islam stresses it a great deal more than the west. Even the self-esteem of child is significant in Islam. For example, if a father embarrasses his daughter in front of her friends, then Islam says that the parent will be answerable to God on the day of judgement. Children are not possessions of the parents but rather they are like a trust. Islam teaches that self-esteem is of such importance that no one has the right even to verbally swear, abuse or insult a person (no matter how tiny the abuse). On the contrary, in the west it may be considered insignificant (for example, if someone calls a woman a “slut”).
So no one is permitted to play with someone’s self-esteem on the basis of wealth, authority, power or haughtiness. Therefore, no one can utter a sentence which will make others feel insulted. At the time of the rightly guided caliphs, people could take those to court who in some way have made them feel inferior or bad because of misuse of their tongue. For this reason, any slander especially a remark made to degrade a chaste women (e.g. saying her character is doubtful or she is a slut) or a chaste man is prohibited, because such a remark from an authoritative figure can ruin life of someone in the society or at least cause psychological stress (e.g. depression), and thus the life of that person is affected.
Hurting someone’s feelings is a big sin in Islam, and anyone who slanders a chaste person and does not provide evidence for their remarks will be punished severely under Islamic law. Ideally everyone will be safe from the tongue of others in a true Islamic society.
Islam is extremely sensitive on this issue and preaches that there is no reason why one utters a remark which can cause sleepless nights for others, and it affects their performance at the work place. Even today in certain tribes, the leader of the tribe can print in the newspaper that certain woman’s character is not good, and then that woman’s life is ruined. West in this regard recognises that no one should be verbally abused, but it does not go all the way as Islam does in uprooting this vice from the society.
The third thing which needs protection in Islam is religion. West is of the opinion that it does not matter whatever your beliefs are, and you can change them if you wish. Islam stresses that if you do not protect the religion of a person, on what grounds are you going to ensure the protection of good conduct, morals and ethics of a society. If religion is gone from someone’s life, then what force is there to tie up a person so that his morals and ethics remain intact, and that he will not lie, cheat or be dishonest or will not abuse his authority? What influence is there to prevent a person from doing all of the above mentioned things if he thinks that he can get away with it?
If you think that a law of a country will make sure of that, well what happens if the grip of the law becomes weak (it is the case in the third world countries in these times) who will prevent a person from breaking the law (whether it is breaking a traffic signal or swindling millions from a company) if he thinks he can get away with it. Religion is the only force which will prevent someone from committing a sin or a crime whether he is alone or in public or he thinks he won’t be caught by the authorities.
Nehru, a former Prime Minister of India, used to say that I am a communist (and do not believe in religion) and I also want people of India to have the highest moral standards. But there is no way other than religion to guarantee the highest moral character in a nation.
Fear of God in someone’s mind is a great deterrent against sins and a person who is a practicing Muslim will not indulge himself in immoral acts even if he thinks no one is watching and that he will never get caught. If you do not guard religion of a person you will create a society in which sooner or later people will engage in acts which will be harmful to themselves and to the society as a whole. For this reason, Islam lays great significance on the protection of religion and anyone who renegades from Islam will be severely punished (in Islam there is no compulsion to become a Muslim but if someone wants to become a Muslim then that person enters into a contract with the Islamic state that he will not leave Islam).
Someone might say well why Islam and why not the protection of any other religion? Well then I have to start a whole new topic of discussion. To keep things concise, we must recognize that all the major religions of the world have their basis on revelation from God (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc). The Muslims ask the question well whose revelation is protected in its original language? No other religion can claim that their manuscripts are the same as the day they were revealed. Even the languages in which they were revealed have been lost in majority of the cases. If the revelation is protected in its original form then the religion is protected in its original form, otherwise the true teachings of that religion are lost. It is only Quran which is still in its original state and no one can prove that a single word has been changed since it was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Not only the original text is the same, but Arabic is a living language as well. So the final edition of revelation from God, according to the Muslims, is Quran, and that is why God will protect it from corruption until the day of Judgement.
For a detailed answer to the question "Do you really kill people if they leave Islam?" please visit http://www.islamnewsroom.com/content/view/92/26/
The fourth thing which needs to be protected in Islam is Lineage. If the family-line is not safeguarded and people do not know who is the father of whom and who is the son of whom, then in that society the number illegitimate children (children born out of wedlock) will rise to a great extent. Who will then be responsible for the proper upbringing (raising children with good moral values) and who will be responsible for the children financially? If you say the mother, well then she will have to work and will never be able to devote her time needed for appropriate upbringing. If you say that the state will look after those children financially, well what happens if the government goes bankrupt or financially weak?
Moreover, Psychologists tell us that children who do not know their parents, especially their father undergo severe mental trauma and disturbances. Often they have an unhappy childhood. It is for this reason that the children of prostitutes do not have a healthy childhood.
Another evil which rises in some countries because of this is fighting (especially among teenagers and even adults) for girlfriends. In some instances, even murder takes place. Along with that, adultery is one of the reasons for divorce rates being on the rise.
In the west you can see teenage girls carrying their children born out of wedlock, and these young girls are solely responsible for them. This also gives rise to abortion and many lives are lost just because west does not care whether a child is born out of wedlock or not.
I do not want to go into the details of the evils of sexually transmitted diseases (such as AIDS, Herpes, Genital Warts etc…) which until 100 years ago were unheard of. Just because of sex out of marriage is on the rise, so are the sexually transmitted infections. If I start writing just on the evils of STD’s, then a whole new article will need to be written (please read the article "Sexually Transmitted Diseases" on this website to get the complete picture).
Those of us who come through a proper family system can imagine what it would be like if we were raised without a father. People who have done some good in the society on a large scale, 99% of them come through a proper family system. And those who were born out of wedlock, not many of them are recognised by the nation for their achievements.
So how can west deny that protection of lineage is not necessary, and those of us who live in the west know that the western governments encourage people to marry and raise a family. Anyway, Islam in this regard lays great stress, and thus discourages any sexual relations out of matrimony.
The fifth thing which Islam stresses on being protected is intelligence. Islam does not permit that any drugs or intoxicants be used in the society which influences the intelligence either temporarily or permanently. West also believes in the protection of intelligence, but it is partial. That is why drink driving is prohibited, there are age limits and certain places are dry (alcohol-free). However, west says that you can lose your intelligence temporarily at a pub or at your own home, while Islam preaches that a person should be in control of their intelligence for the whole time. The reason being that attaining of heaven and hell is based on intelligence; as Allah says in Surah Mulk “They will further say: "Had we but listened or used our intelligence, we should not (now) be among the Companions of the Blazing Fire [Al-Quran 67:10]
Alcohol has been the scourge of human society since time immemorial. It continues to cost countless human lives, and causes terrible misery to millions throughout the world. Alcohol is the root cause of several problems facing society. The statistics of soaring crime rates, increasing instances of mental illnesses and millions of broken homes throughout the world bear mute testimony to the destructive power of alcohol.
The human beings possess an inhibitory centre in their brains. This inhibitory centre prevents the person from doing things that he considers wrong. For instance a person does not normally use abusive language while addressing his parents or elders. If he has to answer the call of nature, his inhibitory centre will prevent him from doing so in public. Therefore he uses the toilet. When a person consumes alcohol, the inhibitory centre itself is inhibited. That is precisely the reason that an inebriated person is often found to be indulging in behaviour that is completely uncharacteristic of him. For instance, the intoxicated person is found to use abusive and foul language and does not realise his mistake even if he is addressing his parents. Many even urinate in their clothes. Neither do they talk nor walk properly. They even misbehave.
According to National Crime Victimisation Survey Bureau of Justice (U.S. Department of Justice) in the year 1996 alone everyday on an average 2,713 rapes took place. The statistics tell us that the majority of the rapists were intoxicated while committing the crime. The same is true in cases of molestation.
According to statistics, 8% of Americans commit incest i.e. one in every twelve to thirteen persons in America is involved in incest. Almost all the cases of incest are due to intoxication of one or both the persons involved. One of the major factors associated with the spread of AIDS, the most dreaded disease, is alcoholism.
Due to these vices, Islam prohibits consumption of intoxicants and anyone found guilty of drinking alcohol is penalised severely.
So after wealth, self-esteem, religion, lineage and intelligence are protected, and still there is crime in the society, it could be related to the unjust distribution of wealth. Islam has provided a complete economic system which ensures just and fair distribution of wealth, and thus it eradicates poverty from the society. If crime is because of authority, Islam provides a person with morals and ethics and makes the person a proper human being.
Well you might say why is that Muslim countries are among the poorest and morally corrupt in world? This is a fair question and those of us who have some knowledge of Islam know that majority of Muslims have left the teachings of Islam. They are Muslims because their parents were Muslims, otherwise their lives are totally devoid of Islam. That is why Muslim countries are suffering the disastrous consequences in this era. History bears testimony that when Muslim majority was following the teachings of Islam, they were not only financially sound but also peace and harmony existed in their societies. If Muslims are again to rise as a nation, the only solution for them is Islam, otherwise majority of them will have to keep on living the life of misery.
I would also like you to read the article "Making Pakistan Safe for Rapists" by visiting the following website: http://www.albalagh.net/women/0096.shtml
May Allah guide us to all to the straight path.
Intelligence versus Revelation
Most of the material in this article has been taken from Mufti Taqi Usmani’s lecture.
There is a small percentage of Muslims who say that we should Islamise all facets of the law, but majority of the world does not support this view.
Almost all the countries of the world are secular states. The main argument behind this form of government is that human beings have got intelligence, and combined with their observation and experience, humankind can make decisions to run all aspects of life: issues such as economic, political, social etc.
The question is that how strong an argument is this? Is intelligence unlimited? Of course not, we know that there is limit to our intelligence, and beyond that it will start to err. A similar analogy is that of a computer program; e.g. a software is designed for a certain purpose, and if you feed certain information into the computer it will give you the desired results. On the other hand, if you input data for which it is not programmed to answer, then it will give you an error.
History is full of examples where human intelligence has lead many astray, and now after hundred of years later, we realise that how intelligence has deceived humanity.
Over eight hundred years ago there was a sect called Batni Sect; their leader Ubaidullah bin Hasan Kiranwi, had an interesting ideology. He wrote to his followers that when someone has a beautiful, intelligent girl at home (i.e. your sister) and she understands the psychology of her brother (as she has lived with his brother for years) then why that man should marry someone from outside who may not comprehend fully his needs and wants (as compared to his sister). If your sister can cook, clean and do other chores for you, then why cannot she go a step further and fulfill your sexual desires as well.
If one looks at this argument through pure rationalism, then one has to admit that it is very logical. That is the reason why some of Ubaidullah’s followers married their sisters.
Because of this rational thinking, these days we see that many western countries are passing legislations for gay marriages. The logic behind this is that the government should not interfere with a person’s private life; what someone does with their own time is that person’s private matter. To understand what is wrong with homosexuality, please the read the article "Homosexuality and the Logic Behind its Prohibition" on this website.
Furthermore, in this day and age, people curse Fascism, and therefore, Hitler and Mussolini have extremely bad reputation among the masses. But if an average person reads their literature, he will have to agree that their philosophy sounds very logical.
There are numerous examples where intelligence has led civilisations astray, but for the sake of brevity, I will have to stop here. Please the read the article "The Disasters Darwinism Brought to the Humanity" on this website to understand how our intelligence deceived us once again. I would also recommend the articles "Interest and the Modern Banking System" and "Modern Economy: Progress or Destruction" as further reading where human intelligence has again caused horrors for the masses.
It is evident that intelligence or rationalism can take people off track, and this can be proven even for the current times through statistics. The damage which has been caused by these secular philosophies is there to see for those who have got brains and are well read.
If intelligence is not unlimited then who will decide what is right and what is wrong. If we leave everything to our intellect, then different people, nations and cultures will have different ideas about right and wrong. Islam says that there is something beyond intelligence and that is revelation. It is the creator who should decide what is the correct track to follow, and where we should draw the line. The reason being that our creator (and not our intellect) best understands what is good for the humanity as a whole.
Revelation does not tell us how to build a house or a nuclear plant. It is left upon humans, because these are things within the realms of our brain. Where the jurisdiction of intelligence fails for the human kind as a whole, there revelation guides us and tells us that if we take a certain path the whole human race will benefit, but if we do not, then majority of human beings will be at a disadvantage.
Unfortunately, most of us have left the teachings of our creator and have chosen rationality over His teachings; because of this, most of the world is suffering from the terrible consequences: extreme poverty, hunger, lack of education, lack of health care etc. Below are some statistics to further convey my point:
225 people own more wealth than the poorest 2.5 billion people (UNDP Human Development Report 1998).
24000 people die every single day because they are unable to obtain life sustaining food (UN World Food Programme, 2003).
Relieved of their annual debt repayments, the severely indebted countries could use the funds for investments that in Africa alone would save the lives of about 21 million children by 2000 and provide 90 million girls and women with access to basic education (UNDP Human Development Report 1997, p. 93).
Now that our intelligence has failed in providing for even the basic rights for the entire humanity, it is time that we turn back to the system which our Sustainer has chosen for us. As history has shown, when Muslims used to follow the teachings of Quran and the way of the Prophet (peace be upon him), the society as a whole was just, peaceful and thriving. If we do not mend our ways and keep guiding ourselves through our intelligence, then we should brace ourselves for worse things to come.
There is a small percentage of Muslims who say that we should Islamise all facets of the law, but majority of the world does not support this view.
Almost all the countries of the world are secular states. The main argument behind this form of government is that human beings have got intelligence, and combined with their observation and experience, humankind can make decisions to run all aspects of life: issues such as economic, political, social etc.
The question is that how strong an argument is this? Is intelligence unlimited? Of course not, we know that there is limit to our intelligence, and beyond that it will start to err. A similar analogy is that of a computer program; e.g. a software is designed for a certain purpose, and if you feed certain information into the computer it will give you the desired results. On the other hand, if you input data for which it is not programmed to answer, then it will give you an error.
History is full of examples where human intelligence has lead many astray, and now after hundred of years later, we realise that how intelligence has deceived humanity.
Over eight hundred years ago there was a sect called Batni Sect; their leader Ubaidullah bin Hasan Kiranwi, had an interesting ideology. He wrote to his followers that when someone has a beautiful, intelligent girl at home (i.e. your sister) and she understands the psychology of her brother (as she has lived with his brother for years) then why that man should marry someone from outside who may not comprehend fully his needs and wants (as compared to his sister). If your sister can cook, clean and do other chores for you, then why cannot she go a step further and fulfill your sexual desires as well.
If one looks at this argument through pure rationalism, then one has to admit that it is very logical. That is the reason why some of Ubaidullah’s followers married their sisters.
Because of this rational thinking, these days we see that many western countries are passing legislations for gay marriages. The logic behind this is that the government should not interfere with a person’s private life; what someone does with their own time is that person’s private matter. To understand what is wrong with homosexuality, please the read the article "Homosexuality and the Logic Behind its Prohibition" on this website.
Furthermore, in this day and age, people curse Fascism, and therefore, Hitler and Mussolini have extremely bad reputation among the masses. But if an average person reads their literature, he will have to agree that their philosophy sounds very logical.
There are numerous examples where intelligence has led civilisations astray, but for the sake of brevity, I will have to stop here. Please the read the article "The Disasters Darwinism Brought to the Humanity" on this website to understand how our intelligence deceived us once again. I would also recommend the articles "Interest and the Modern Banking System" and "Modern Economy: Progress or Destruction" as further reading where human intelligence has again caused horrors for the masses.
It is evident that intelligence or rationalism can take people off track, and this can be proven even for the current times through statistics. The damage which has been caused by these secular philosophies is there to see for those who have got brains and are well read.
If intelligence is not unlimited then who will decide what is right and what is wrong. If we leave everything to our intellect, then different people, nations and cultures will have different ideas about right and wrong. Islam says that there is something beyond intelligence and that is revelation. It is the creator who should decide what is the correct track to follow, and where we should draw the line. The reason being that our creator (and not our intellect) best understands what is good for the humanity as a whole.
Revelation does not tell us how to build a house or a nuclear plant. It is left upon humans, because these are things within the realms of our brain. Where the jurisdiction of intelligence fails for the human kind as a whole, there revelation guides us and tells us that if we take a certain path the whole human race will benefit, but if we do not, then majority of human beings will be at a disadvantage.
Unfortunately, most of us have left the teachings of our creator and have chosen rationality over His teachings; because of this, most of the world is suffering from the terrible consequences: extreme poverty, hunger, lack of education, lack of health care etc. Below are some statistics to further convey my point:
225 people own more wealth than the poorest 2.5 billion people (UNDP Human Development Report 1998).
24000 people die every single day because they are unable to obtain life sustaining food (UN World Food Programme, 2003).
Relieved of their annual debt repayments, the severely indebted countries could use the funds for investments that in Africa alone would save the lives of about 21 million children by 2000 and provide 90 million girls and women with access to basic education (UNDP Human Development Report 1997, p. 93).
Now that our intelligence has failed in providing for even the basic rights for the entire humanity, it is time that we turn back to the system which our Sustainer has chosen for us. As history has shown, when Muslims used to follow the teachings of Quran and the way of the Prophet (peace be upon him), the society as a whole was just, peaceful and thriving. If we do not mend our ways and keep guiding ourselves through our intelligence, then we should brace ourselves for worse things to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)