This was written last year and bulked together from a series of posts on facebook. Please overlook the rough edges of the article!
—————————————–
It has come to many people’s attention that many claims have been attributed to Islam in this course from the course kits, textbook and the professors, 2 of them being non-Muslim, that are baseless and facts have been twisted to try explain Islam and its origins and practices. As Muslims have begun emigrating to the West, departments previously specializing in Orientalist studies, needed to revamp their approach into teaching about religion and Islam since Muslims started attending their institutions. The West has historically been hostile to Islam and Muslims since the 12th century. Many European scholars had acquired sufficient knowledge of Islam to understand its principal features (Macfie 42). However, due to the assumption that Christianity was the one and only true faith, “…prejudice and distortion displayed by Christian scholars and polemicists created an accepted cannon, a constituted body of belief about Islam, which identified a ‘real truth’, which portrayed Muhammad as an imposter, who only sought to justify his claim to Prophet-hood for the pursuit of power, wealth, and sexual satisfaction. It was also believed that Muslims promoted homosexuality, adultery and prostitution (Macfie 42). A’uzubillah min Zalik (I seek refuge in Allah from that!).

Many so-called “Islamic Courses” in present day universities such as York (Islam and Women, Islamic civilization, Islamic Traditions, Islamic Mysticism) are a loose extension of this bias approach where the secular, and liberal values are imposed upon their study of Islam. No longer will today’s more people savvy professors of religion outwardly make blatant statement about what Muslims believe according to their secular and liberal paradigm, rather the approach is much more subtle. This approach is placing seeds of doubt into the minds of Muslims and allowing it to slowly spread like a cancer.

One such example in HUMA 2815: Islamic Traditions which has the underlying baseless and unproven assumption that Islam as a religion that we have and hold on to today is a culmination of legends, fable, fabrications and practices that Islam adopted from their surroundings as time passed. Some statements made by Selma Zecevic and Marta Simidchieva when I was taking the course are the following which by the way they justify by referring to “Scholars”, whose names and references they never attempt to mention:

•The circumambulation (circling) during Hajj was adopted from pagan sun cults thus the black stone further confirms the connection between people who worshipped the sun. Islam came and inherited this practice
•The 7 heavens mentioned in the Quran came from the ancient Babylonian belief in 7 heavens
•The Prophet (sualAllahu alayhi wasalam) borrowed fasting and Friday prayers from the Jews
•Circumcision and hijab came from foreign practices.

Other baseless accusations they have made is :
•Hadith is wholly unreliable
•The authenticity of the Quranic Text is doubtful
•The Satanic verses : Muhammad (sualAllahu alayhi wasalam) recited a verse that told the Quraysh to worship the daughters of Allah to gain converts to Islam and then changed his mind (Salman Rushdie has written a book with this title)
•Putting doubt into the character and integrity of the Prophet when he had the capital punishment applied to the tribe of Bani Qurayza for treason.

However, we ourselves should know the answers to these questions and not sit idly by if we claim to believe in Allah and the Last Day. If we are not able to answer these questions then what are we doing to find out the knowledge for ourselves? Better question is why are we Muslim to begin with?
Here are some of the claims that were made in the class when I was enrolled in it last year:

Claim: Islam can be approached normatively or non-normatively. The non-normative approach to studying Islam is more objective.
——————————————————————————————-
In the very first lectures and tutorials, the course instructors emphasized the importance of approaching the study of religion using the normative and non-normative approaches. Some exercises for identifying whether a statement was normative or non-normative were done repeatedly in order to internalize and accept these definitions when discussing Islam in this class. A statement such as “Prophet Muhammad is the Messenger of God” is a normative statement whereas “Muslim believe that the Prophet Muhammad is a Messenger from God” is non-normative statement. These concepts have deep philosophical roots that can be traced back to the likes of sociologist Max Weber. These concepts have to be examined before one can use these perspectives or adopt them as a valid way of looking at things.

Normative theory is a sociological term that describes, “a norm or standard of behavior that ‘ought to be followed’ as opposed to one that actually is followed.” When applied to Islam, it is a religious structure which “acts to encourage or enforce rules that ought to be followed according to the norms of that Muslim society, while it discourages or prevents social activity that ought not to be followed.” The reason why the normative approach judges Islam in terms of what ought to occur and ought not to occur is because of the belief that any statement about what is right and wrong, desirable or undesirable, just or unjust in society cannot be objectively shown to be true or false. Thus the sociologist views religion and religious rules as social norms that society enforces and these norms are required for the society to function harmoniously.

The other way of approaching Islam is non-normatively or what is called the value-free approach. The researcher’s aim is to exclude their own values and opinions when conducting research on Islam. So the sociologist will claim that the aim of a value-free approach allows the researcher to make observations and interpretations about Islam and Muslim society in a way that is as unbiased as possible. The non-normative approach “aims to establish facts and is not concerned with settling questions of values.” (http://www.answers.com/topic/value-free-approach). “Value-neutrality enables social scientists to fulfill the basic value of scientific inquiry that is search for true knowledge. Thus sociology being a science cherishes the goal of value neutrality.” Muslims have to examine the validity of the non-normative approach which concludes that conflicts over values cannot be settled factually.

The professor’s first claim is that there are only two valid ways of approaching Islam. A “believer” (as she puts it) or Islamic scholar approaches it normatively whereas the professor of humanities or sociologist approaches religion non-normatively. The reason why approaching the study of Islam is limited to these two perspectives is because of the assumption that Islam’s moral judgments cannot be objectively shown to be true or false, since value-judgments are subjective preferences. For example, A Muslim makes a moral judgment that drinking Alcohol is bad because Allah’tala says:

“O you who believe! Intoxicants (all kinds of alcoholic drinks), and gambling, and Al-Ansaab, and Al-Azlaam (arrows for seeking luck or decision) are an abomination of Shaytaan’s (Satan’s) handiwork. So avoid (strictly all) that (abomination) in order that you may be successful” [al-Maa’idah 5:90]

However, the normative approach views the Muslim who says that Alcoholic drinks are bad is simply making subjective value judgments on what “ought to be” discouraged or considered ‘evil’ according to the norms of the people in that society. This claim is totally false. Allah’tala says:

002.147 The Truth is from thy Lord; so be not at all in doubt

This verse points out an important concept that all human beings can realize, which is that, the existence of truth and falsehood is absolute and is not relative contrary to which the sociologists claim. Inshallah will examine whether any of the 2 approaches are valid at all.

Whenever an idea or theory is presented to the Muslim, his/her obligation is to refer the matter back to the Creator for judgment. For any thought to be a valid thought, the reality also must be able to confirm the validity of that idea or thought. The use of the normative/ non-normative paradigm is a thought/theory that seeks to explain or evaluate a certain reality as well. In our case, the question should be raised is, “What is the valid approach for studying the Islamic culture, thoughts, practices and rituals?” To accurately assess the approach used in HUMA 2815, it is important always to trace back the thought to its founder. The normative/ non-normative approaches were mostly formulated and influenced by Max Weber, a German social theorist, who lived around the early 19th century. Max Weber contends in Science as a Vocation, that,

…theologians regularly proceed from the further presupposition that certain ‘revelations’ are facts relevant for salvation and as such make possible a meaningful conduct of life. Hence, these revelations must be believed in. Moreover, theologies presuppose that certain subjective states and acts possess the quality of holiness, that is, they constitute a way of life, or at least elements of one, that is religiously meaningful.

Thus, the assumption is that revelations are “presuppositions” with no proof to validate its truthfulness and that rituals and religious acts are subjective that just “must be believed in…” The implicit suggestion is the claim that no religion or ‘way of life’ can take the absolute position of making the pronouncement that it IS the truth.

The reality is that human can make a judgment on what is true and what is false. Through repeatedly sensing their surroundings or reality, they can come to recognize that the existence of realities such as the moon or mountains are conclusive and definite and that they are not illusions. Any objective and serious study or thought must acknowledge the undeniable fact that absolute realities DO exist. If these realities were merely illusions that emanated from his imagination, then the human being, who has full control over his imagination, can alter the shape and nature of such illusions as he pleases. However, these realities exist regardless of his or anyone else’s imagination.

This means that the existence of any reality does not depend upon the person’s imagination and is not a relative issue like the subject of one’s imagination. With that in mind, reaching the truth must be the sole motive behind any study or research whether in university or the masajid. However the normative/ non-normative approaches is not interested in establishing what is true or false, because it’s method stipulates that value judgments are always subjective regardless of where it comes from. They view moral judgments in the Qur’an (which says drinking, zina, free-mixing is bad/evil) as things that cannot be objectively shown to be true or false. This is because they are not concerned with studying and validating the claims which the Qur’an makes in order to establish its truthfulness.

The Qur’an itself produces many challenges to the people as a litmus test for evaluating whether the Qur’an is word of the Creator or not. It also expresses to us the Islamic method of thinking by teaching the Muslims to view reality in absolute terms and not relative terms. Allah says about the Qur’an:

“If you are in doubt of what We have revealed to Our messenger, then produce one chapter like it. Call upon all your helpers, besides Allah, if you are truthful” (2:23)

Do they not then consider the Qur’ân carefully? Had it been from other than Allâh, they would surely have found therein much contradictions (4:82)

These are absolute positions of Either it is OR it is not.
Either the belief in Allah, His messengers, His angels, the Day of Judgment, His books, and Qadr is true OR it is false and there is no God, no such thing as messengers that were sent and there is no Day of Judgment. Therefore, the truth is what matches with the reality, and because the reality is the same for everyone, then this connection is absolute and not relative. The issue of whether Allah exists or whether the Qur’an is from Allah is not relative because either Allah exists or He does not and either Qur’an is from Allah or it is not. No one can claim that Allah exists and does not exist at the same time on the basis that some people deny His existence and others acknowledge it. Similarly it is irrational to study Islam and refrain from making judgment whether the Qur’an is the word of Allah or not. Saying that there exists a force called gravity, which pushes matter to the center of the earth, is correct and absolute because the reality proved its existence millions of times, and everyone observes the same phenomenon continuously and without exception. Thus, the existence of truth is a conclusive issue that every human being realizes.

Such sociological approaches to studying religion do not seek to establish whether something is true or not since the concept of truth and falsehood are absolute positions that the sociological method is not interested in establishing thus it is a flawed method for studying Islam and diverts itself into discussion that results in faulty conclusions.

Claim: Islamic jurisprudence was influenced by Roman law when the Muslims expanded their territory in the Byzantine Empire. She claimed governmental functions such as the jizya system was adopted from the Romans.
—————————————————————————————–
This claim is erroneous and without any foundation. In class, the prof claimed that when the Muslims established as part of the Islamic state in Roman Territory in Sham (Palestine, Jordan. Syria, Lebanon), the system of governors the jizya tax system and other aspects of Roman jurisprudence was one of the main sources of Islamic Shariah, and that some of the Islamic ahkam were taken from Romanic legislation. They claimed as evidence for their view of the claim that in the days of the Islamic conquests, schools of Roman law existed in the Wilayat of Sham in Qaysariyyah on the coasts of Palestine, and Beirut. In that area, there were also courts that proceeded, in their system and rules according to Roman law. These courts continued to run for sometime after the Islamic conquests, indicating that Muslims had approved and adopted them and proceeded according to Roman law and the Roman system. They supported this viewpoint with various assumptions. For example, they claimed it was natural for a nomadic people like the Muslims to consider what should they do when they conquered an urbanized country such as the Sham region which had been under Roman rule, and what they should rule with. Consequently they borrowed Roman law. Then they drew up a comparison between certain aspects of Islamic law and certain aspects of Roman law, to demonstrate the similarity between the two.

It is maintained that the Islamic law took rules from the Talmud, and these rules had been adopted by the Talmud from Roman jurisprudence. They claimed Islamic jurisprudence took Roman jurisprudence directly from the schools and courts in Sham, and indirectly via the Talmud which took it from the Romans. The claims made by the Orientalists are wrong for a number of reasons:

First: No one reported about the Muslims, neither the “academics” or the others,, that any Muslim, whether a jurist (faqeeh) or not, has ever pointed to the Roman jurisprudence or law, neither by way of criticism or support or quotation; and no body mentioned it, whether little or much. This indicated that Roman law was not a subject of discussion or study. Some Muslims translated works of Greek philosophy, but no Roman book or body of jurisprudence was ever translated. This strengthens the case that these books and laws were abolished from the country when conquered by the Muslim armies.

Second: At the time when they claimed there were schools of Roman jurisprudence
and courts which made decisions according to Roman law in the Wilayat of Sham, this province was full of mujtahidin from the ‘Ulema, judges and rulers. It is natural that any claimed Roman influence would have been noticed in those fuqahaa (jurists). The reality is that there is no sign of any Roman influence in the fiqh of these fuqahaa, nor any mention of it. Their jurisprudence and ahkam were based on the Kitab, Sunnah and the Ijma’a of the Sahabah.

One of the most famous of those mujtahidin was al-Awza’i. He lived in Beirut, the site of the largest Roman schools in the Sham as alleged by the Orientalists. He lived his entire life in Beriut. His opinions have been recorded in many recognized books of fiqh. For example, in volume VII of ash-Shafi’i's ‘al-Umm’, there are numerous ahkam of al-Awza’i. It can be seen , from reading the texts of al-Awza’i, they were far from the Roman law. The mazhab of al-Awza’i, as noticed from his fiqh and his reports, is the mazhab of the Ahl ul-Hadith. He relied upon hadith more than he relied upon ra’i. The example of al-Awza’i can be applied to other fuqahaa (jurists). If there were any influence, it would have been noticed in those fuqahaa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_al-Rahman_al-Awza%27i

Claim:
Differences of interpretation exist with regard to the wearing of the Khimaar** for the Muslim woman, so it is not obligatory to cover. The video entitled “Great religions: Islam” mentioned that wearing of the Hijab evolved from Arab customs and practices and was incorporated into Islam.
——————————————————————————————
The most important aspect of this subject is to discuss the topic upon the correct basis. The discussion is not based on the whether or whether not the Khimaar is a matter of “personal choice.” It should also not be based on whether or whether not the wearing of the it brings benefits such as modesty and acts as a deterrent from the opposite sex or to protect ones chastity. The correct basis for discussion is based on whether or not it is a command of Allah’tala and whether it is stipulated in Shari’ah texts or not.

For any opinion to be a valid Islamic opinion it must be based on a daleel (evidence) or a semblance of a daleel (Shubhat Daleel) that is derived by the Mujtahid (a Muslim jurist who is qualified to derive ruling from the Islamic sources) With this in mind, this is the only valid discussion that can be considered and taken seriously and only the strongest daleel is adopted. So when the professor of religious studies or anybody else wants to dispute an understanding of a text in the Qur’an or the ahadith such as the khimaar, Muslims cannot acknowledge that understanding unless evidence is provide based on a daleel and not upon one’s own mind. Allah’tala says :

59. O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those of you who are in authority. If you differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination.)

Notice that it says “…if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day.” Clearly, the HUMA 2815 course does not take any of these factors into consideration.

The claim made in the video Great Religions: Islam is that wearing of the khimaar is a practice came from pre-islalmic Arab custom or that Muslim women adopted it as the expansion of Islam State ensued. During Islam’s interaction with other peoples and nations, the video hints that Muslims continued to adopt and integrate their code of dress from the non-Islamic cultures, the hijab and jilbab being one of them. This claim is totally erroneous and should be rejected in the firmest terms. The women of pre-Islamic times (jahaliyya) used to wear a style of fashin where “ …the upper part of the woman’s tunic had a wide opening in the front, and her breasts were left bare.” Archeologists have discovered visual evidence which survived
in the form of stone carvings which shows, “The earliest evidence of Arab clothing from the first and second millennia B.C.E. shows that scant clothing was worn with a variety of headdresses. Men and women wore almost identical clothing in the early Islamic era of the seventh century and the time of jahiliyya (pre-Islamic era)” (http://www.answers.com/topic/clothing)

Imam Abu Abdullah Qurtubi says “Women in those days used to cover their heads with the khimar, throwing its ends upon their backs. This left the neck and the upper part of the chest bare, along with the ears, in the manner of the Christians. Then Allah commanded them to cover those parts with the khimar.”
Imam Abu’l-Fida ibn Kathir says, “‘Draw their khumur to cover their bosoms’ means that they should wear the khimar in such a way that they cover their chests so that they will be different from the women of the jahiliyyah who did not do that but would pass in front of men with their chests uncovered and with their necks, forelocks, hair and earrings uncovered.”

So how can the claim that Muslim women adopted their clothing from Arab customs when they went from scant, flimsy clothing to wearing loose fitting garments covering the head and the body?

Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala) has legislated what is Halal and what is Haram, and He (subhanahu wa ta’aala) has legislated that the covering of the Muslim woman is Fard (obligatory).

”And let them draw their khimar (head scarves) over their juyub (necks and bosoms)” [TMQ An-Nur: 31].

And He (subhanahu wa ta’aala) said:

”O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloak (jilbaabs) all over their bodies.” [ Al-Ahzab: 59].

There are also many references in the Ahadith:
Abu Dawood narrates on the authority of ‘Aishah (ra), that Asmaa bint Abi Bakr entered the quarters of Allah’s Messenger wearing thin clothes. The Messenger _ turned his face away and said: “O Asmaa, if the woman reaches puberty, it is not allowed to be seen from her except this and this, and he pointed to his face and hands”.

Abu Dawood narrates on the authority of Qatada that the Prophet _ said: “When a young lady begins to menstruate, it is not correct that anything should be seen of her except her face and hands excluding the wrist.”

Al-Bayhaqi narrates on the authority of Asma’ bint ‘Umays that she said: “The Messenger of Allah entered the house of ‘Aisha bint Abu Bakr while her sister, Asmaa bint Abu Bakr, was with her. She was wearing a Shammi (Syrian) dress with wide sleeves. When the Messenger of Allah _ saw her he got up and went out.” ‘Aisha said: “leave the room for the Messenger of Allah has seen something he does not like.” So she withdrew. Then the Messenger of Allah _ entered and ‘Aisha (ra) inquired as to why he stood to leave? He _ said: “Did you not see what she was wearing? It is not permitted for anything to be seen of a Muslim woman except this and this.” He took his sleeves and covered the upper part of his hands until nothing could be seen of his hands except his fingers. Then he lifted his hands to his temples until only the face could be seen.”

It is clear from these texts that the Islamic dress is based upon the message that Muhammad (sualAllahu alayhi wasalam) brought from Allah (subhana wata’ala). So the only reason for covering is the fact that Allah (subhana wata’ala) commanded it of the Muslim woman and in fulfilling the obligation she obeys Him (subhana wata’ala) and gains His pleasure and reward in the hereafter. Adopting any other, Western inspired, reasoning for wearing the Khimar is unacceptable and lends support to the ‘Attack on the Veil’, by so called experts on Islam.
——————————————————————————————–
**Imam Abu’l-Fida ibn Kathir: “Khumur is the plural of khimar which means something that covers, and is what is used to cover the head. This is what is known among the people as a khimar.”

The dictionary of classical Arabic, Aqrab al-Mawarid: “[The word khimar refers to] all such pieces of cloth which are used to cover the head. It is a piece of cloth which is used by a woman to cover her head.”

Shaykh Muhammad Nasiruddin Albani: “The word khimaar linguistically means only a head covering. Whenever it is mentioned in general terms, this is what is intended

This is a few of the many errant ideas and claims that I have heard. As we know, Islam is the deen of Haqq and the haqq is clear from baatil. Any Muslims who is taking this course or has taken this course must know that Islam cannot be intellectually defeated, and is encouraged to post anything strange they have heard from this class in order to clarify our understanding and not fall into the traps of the orientalists. I am hoping inshallah this will be a discussion and we can learn from each other inshallah. Please point out any mistakes. Suggestion and comments are also welcome.

Author: Imran Hasan

Intro Series

A combination of the remaining parts of his series on atheism

Islamic Awareness Week is always a wonderful opportunity for Muslims to engage with different points of view and belief systems. Sometimes it can be challenging when we meet people that only know about Muslims and Islam through CNN, Fox News, or the ticking time bomb terrorist in “24.” On the bright side, there are some genuine seekers of truth; sincere people who are not affected by the propaganda war unleashed by the media. I have met many types of people during IAW; all the way from fervent Bible-loving Christians, Mystical Hindus, Relativist “maybe this is all an imagination, maybe you don’t really exist” Philosophers, to my favorite, the secular, humanist atheist/agnostics. They are my favorite because many (not all) believe that this is most scientific, rational, reasonable belief. Little do they know the many “leaps of faith” involved in the dogma of Atheism.

Often Atheists will accuse theists of worshiping the “God of the Gaps.” This refers to the idea of when “creationist(s) eagerly seek a gap in present-day knowledge or understanding… (and) if an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that God, by default must fill it in.” For example, Dawkins, a famous Atheist biologist here is saying that when theists view something complex in the universe that is unexplained by science, they immediately explain it away by using God as the reason. I would argue that this is not very dissimilar to what I would find out later; which is that Atheists worship “the Holy Cow of science.” If they don’t know the answer somehow science, by default “must fill it in.”

While eagerly waiting and hoping to engage and discuss Islam, I was fortunate to talk to a seemingly rational, intelligent student. After exchanging a few pleasantries I proceeded to ask whether he believes in a God. Proudly, he responded in the negative and affirmed that he is indeed an Atheist which meant the belief that a Creator does NOT exist. This was an ample opportunity see upon which basis does Mr. Atheist(from here on is what he will be referred to as) believe what he believes and why.

The most obvious question was to talk to Mr. Atheist about how the universe came into existence. Thus I presented him 3 possible choices:

1) The universe always existed thus there no need for a Creator
2) The universe started to exist out of pure chance
3) The universe began to exist due the necessity of the existence of the Creator

The universe always existed thus there no need for a Creator
The belief in the steady state theory has been disproved scientifically (see Big bang theory –no not the TV series) and more importantly can be disproved rationally. Believing that the universe ALWAYS existed is believing that the universe has an infinite set of past events. What does that mean? It means that if we go back in time, it is infinitely long and that there was no beginning in time and space thus there is no need for a Creator to set creation in motion. As Burtrand Russell, a British philosopher once said: “I should say that the universe is just there, and that is all.” However, I feel that is a cop out and if I may dare say so: blind faith.
Can the concept of an infinite set of past events exist in the real world?
Think of the example of getting in line to borrow a book from Scott Library, say the Qur’an.

The dialogue went as follows (true story):

Me: If there were 4 people in front of you in line, would you ever check out the book?

Mr. Atheist: Well of course

Me: If there were 400 people in front of you in line, would you ever check out the book?

Mr. Atheist: (after some thought) Yea..

Me: How about 4 million?

Mr. Atheist: Eventually……

Me: If there was an infinite number of people in front you, would you ever check out the book?!!

Other examples could be having an infinite chain of dominoes, would anything ever move if there wasn’t a first cause? Thus we know that the universe is limited, it had a beginning at some point and that a chain of events did occur where time, matter and space had an origin thus it began to exist, not always there. To exemplify the absurdity of this idea, it is akin to a person, for example entering Scott Religious Center, seeing the mats in place, Popeye’s boxes in the corner of the sister section behind the dividers which are in the middle and conclude: “It’s just there!” Wa la haula wa la Quwatu illa billah.

Mr. Atheist got the point but needed more convincing. Indeed, this puts the Atheist in an uneasy position since the ‘blind faith’ of an infinity existing universe is no longer applicable and even irrational. As Eminent British Physicist David Hilbert, one of this century’s greatest mathematicians has written, “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite…is solely that of an idea…”

The universe started to exist out of pure chance
How about Chance? What are the possibilities that the universe that we live in just happened to exist and function in a harmonious interdependent system due to pure chance? I don’t think Mr. Atheist was too excited about using this argument but I took the initiative and brought it up for him. Let’s take a quick look at some of the numbers:

According to the big scientists that Atheist puts their tawakul (reliance) on, Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang’s low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 1010. Physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life permitting universe.

To put it in tangible perspective, Penrose says: “In order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the Creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes.” And what is the volume of this phrase space? The volume of the phase space would be 1/10 to the power of X? What is X? X is 10 to the power of 123. This is smaller than the ratio of a Proton! In other words, it is the precision that would be required to hit an individual proton if the entire universe were a dartboard!

The atheist may say, “Well, there is still a chance!” Would he say the same thing if I said that last week I saw a pink Elephant wearing a Yorku T-shirt, giving out Islamic Awareness week pamphlets? “Well, there still is a chance!” Rubbish, more specifically, ‘blind faith’ in the unseen and unreasonable.

The universe began to exist due the necessity of the existence of the Creator
So, we are nearing the end of our journey. The universe could not have forever existed nor could it have come out of pure chance. What options are left? The only one I can think of is that it was caused by a Creator. As defined in the beginning, by Creator what is meant is the existence of an unlimited, independent, immaterial entity from which time, space and matter was caused to exist. Since we have already established that universe began to exist which was not out of pure chance, it must have had a cause. The principal of cause and effect is one of the foundational truths of our reality. Science, math’s, technology, industry, development, cosmology, and the mind all depend on the idea that things within our sensed reality must have a cause. The options we have here are either: there is an interdependent set of causes that infinitely depend on each other or there exists an uncaused cause that caused time and space to exist. The first cannot be true since causes require a cause outside of itself and it must depend on something other than itself to exist. For example, a tree requires other than itself to exist such as the sun, water and soil.
So we are left with one last option which is that of an uncaused cause that brought things into existence. Since it caused the existence of time and space which are all limited, dependent and weak therefore these very attributes cannot apply to the source that cause it in the first place. To say so would fall into many contradictions and we would go back to where we began with the whole issue of the infinity and how it does not exist in our sensed reality. Thus this cause, by necessity, must be unlimited since it is the causer of limitations; independent since it is causer of dependency; and eternal since it is causer of the finite.

Other emotional arguments from the Atheist

Well, who caused God?
This in itself is an irrational question. It is flawed in many ways since it is asking in other word’s what caused the uncaused cause which has been proven to definitely exist. A mouth-full, but think about it. That is like asking “What the gender of the twins that John gave birth to?” It is a non-sensical question since it asking for a cause of something that is uncaused. Why is it uncaused? As stated earlier, an inifinite chain of causes does not exist! Other Mr. Atheists may ask, “Well that’s double-standards! You said everything has to have a cause!”
I would respond by saying, “If you heard me carefully, I never said everything has to have a cause, rather I said whatever begins to exist has to have a cause. The Creator never began to exist, and it is incomprehensible to the limited mind to understand the essence of how this Creator can exist without a cause, all we can know is that it exists and we are unable to go beyond that conclusion. An example is if you hear a loud knock on the door. We can only know that something that exists caused the sound and we are unable to go beyond that conclusion. Cause and effect is only understandable in the material world and incomprehensible when applied to the immaterial, unlimited and independent. Thus if what they are referring to is a Creator who was created, then it is no longer a Creator!

Religion causes war, therefore God doesn’t exist!
Wars are caused in any natural interaction between human beings due to conflict over resources, aggression, tribalism/ nationalism etc. The former Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford, he writes, “It is very difficult to think of any organized human activity that could not be corrupted…The lesson is that anti-religious corruptions and religious corruptions are both possible. There is no magic system or belief, not even belief in liberal democracy, which can be guaranteed to prevent it.”

Can anyone doubt the unprecedented scale of loss of life under the relatively short history of non-religious, secular ideologies like Communism, Secular Democracy/Capitalism? This is only a part of the list. (Contact me if you want the rest!)

60,000,000–72,000,000 – World War II (1939–1945), (see World War II casualties)[35][36]
* 20,000,000–70,000,000 – World War I (1914–1918) (see World War I casualties) note that the larger number includes Spanish flu deaths
* 20,000,000 – Taiping Rebellion (China, 1851–1864) (see Dungan revolt)[42]
* 20,000,000 – Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945)[43]
* 10,000,000 – Warring States Era (China, 475 BC–221 BC)
* 5,000,000–9,000,000 – Russian Civil War and Foreign Intervention (1917–1921)
* 3,800,000 – 5,400,000 – Second Congo War (1998–2007)
* 3,500,000–6,000,000 – Napoleonic Wars (1804–1815)
* 3,000,000–11,500,000 – Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648)[52]
* 3,000,000–7,000,000 – Yellow Turban Rebellion (China, 184–205)
* 2,500,000–3,500,000 – Korean War (1950–1953)
* 2,300,000–3,800,000 – Vietnam War (entire war 1945–1975)
o 300,000–1,300,000 – First Indochina War (1945–1954)
o 100,000–300,000 – Vietnamese Civil War (1954–1960)
o 1,750,000–2,100,000 – American phase (1960–1973)
o 170,000 – Final phase (1973–1975)
* 300,000–3,000,000[57] – Bangladesh Liberation War
* 1,500,000–2,000,000 – Afghan Civil War (1979 -)
o 1,000,000–1,500,000 Soviet intervention (1979–1989)
* 1,300,000–6,100,000 – Chinese Civil War (1928–1949) note that this figure excludes World War II casualties
o 1,000,000–3,000,000 after World War II
* 1,000,000–2,000,000 – Mexican Revolution (1910–1920)[58]
* 1,000,000 – Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988)[59]
* 1,000,000 – Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)[60]
* 1,000,000 – Second Sudanese Civil War (1983–2005)
* 1,000,000 – Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970)
* 618,000[61] – 970,000 – American Civil War (including 350,000 from disease) (1861–1865)
* 900,000–1,000,000 – Mozambique Civil War (1976–1993)
* 868,000[62] – 1,400,000[63] – Seven Years’ War (1756-1763)
* 800,000 – 1,000,000 – Rwandan Civil War (1990-1994)
* 800,000 – Congo Civil War (1991–1997)
* 600,000 to 1,300,000 – First Jewish-Roman War (see List of Roman wars)
* 580,000 – Bar Kokhba’s revolt (132–135CE)
* 570,000 – Eritrean War of Independence (1961-1991)
* 550,000 – Somali Civil War (1988 – )
* 500,000 – 1,000,000 – Spanish Civil War (1936–1939)
* 500,000 – Angolan Civil War (1975–2002)
* 500,000 – Ugandan Civil War (1979–1986)
* 400,000–1,000,000 – War of the Triple Alliance in Paraguay (1864–1870)
* 400,000 – War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714)

Even then, it still doesn’t prove God doesn’t exist!

God is irrelevant therefore God doesn’t exist!
So is Ultimate Frisbee (sorry MSA guys) it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist

There are so many religions therefore God doesn’t Exist!
Imagine you went back to small village back home to find your long lost grandfather. If there were 4 people claiming to be your grandfather, it doesn’t mean I don’t have one and he doesn’t exist! Multiplicity of choice does not prove non-existence.

There is Evil in the World therefore God cannot exist.
This is a classical anti-Christian argument since they have a conception of a ‘Good God’. The reasoning goes as follows:

1. A good God that is omnipotent exists
2. Evil exists
3. Therefore a good God that is omnipotent doesn’t exist

This requires an article in itself however I will touch on a few points inshaallah. It is actually an augment for the theist instead of the Atheist.
The first issue is the fallacy of arguing from ignorance. Just because you cannot see the ‘good’ that comes from what the Atheist terms ‘evil’ doesn’t mean that the good is not there.
Second, We cannot conclude without revelation from God, what type of characteristics that this God has. Thus the conception of a purely ‘Good God’ which loves you and does not punish is a Christo-centric conception of God. In the Qur’an, the book of the Muslims, which is a miraculous text (which requires another article in itself), we believe that God is All-Merciful and also severe in Punishment thus we don’t believe natural disasters and death to be ‘evil’ but rather a test from God.
Third, the Atheist has no foundation for universal moral objectivity. This is because universal objective morality can only be based on a conceptual anchor beyond human subjectivity which can only be God. The atheist believes that our morals evolve like our hands and toes if he is a believer in evolution. Consequently, since according to them we are all advanced animals with a common ancestor to creatures such as chimpanzees, then how we cannot say human can act ‘evil’, since we don’t accuse the animal kingdom of acting immorally. Rather we say it is part of the survival instinct. Thus the atheist cannot claim that this or that is objectively morally evil but rather killing or stealing is part of the evolutionary process. So to say “Why is there so much evil,” according to your very own principles there is no such thing as objective ‘evil’ in the first place!
Mr. Atheist was not as proud as he appeared in the beginning of our discussion. After proposing which one was the most reasonable to believe, I was disappointed to find out that his response was that science will figure it out one day. God of the Gaps I thought. His decision was that, ultimately, it had to be a reason other than the choices we talked about. Well, what were these “other” reasons, I inquired to Mr. Atheist. He said he didn’t know but it certainly isn’t ‘God.’ A little disappointed, I started to close the conversation, I had class soon. Mr. Atheist turned to me one last time and said, “Well, I never said I didn’t believe in a God, it just that I need more evidence.” Alhamdulilah, at least I could be satisfied that the Mr. Atheist that I approached that day, walked away a Mr. Agnostic and inshallah one day, a Mr. Muslim.

Intro Series

The reason why I will be writing a series of articles Insha’allah is to highlight a disturbing trend that I have noticed. A new “sect” from Atheism has emerged from the lurking shadows. More specifically it is called the “New Atheism.” The difference between the New Atheism and classical Atheism is their hallmark of some (not all) coming off as intolerant, dismissive and almost dogmatic in the way in which they dismiss the possibility of the existence of a Creator. An example of this is the famous biologist and author of The God Delusion Richard Dawkins who states “If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it” (My emphasis). This type of attitude is not very different from the very “fanatic religious” people that they claim they are battling in the first place.

Well what is Atheism? Atheism is the ontological claim that a transcendent unlimited, independent being i.e. God does NOT exist. This is opposed to a theist, who conversely makes the claim that a Creator DOES exist. It is important here to remember that both positions are making a knowledge claim, taking a positive intellectual position on the existence/non-existence of a thing. This is different from an Agnostic who “sits on the fence” so-to speak and believes that Creator may or may not exist and that the mind is unable to ever really know.

An example of this in more simplified terms are two people debating over who messed up the brother’s wudu room. Person A says “After looking at all the water spilled all over the floor, the unflushed toilet, no soap and empty paper towel box, I can rationally conclude that this was done by someone who exists even though I have never seen the person” (probably a Muslim these days unfortunately). Person B says, “No way! You’re deluded. You never saw this boogie man. Might as well say the tooth fairy did it. Show me some physical evidence that someone clogged this toilet and did not flush it or bother to tell anyone. Since you cannot show me tangible evidence, the person you are referring to does NOT exist.” The moral of this crappy story (no pun intended) is that both people are taking a position on the existence or non-existence of a thing. Therefore both need evidence. In the next article insha’allah., I will take a look at some the arguments put forward by Atheist and see how “rational” their beliefs really are.