Factors in Losing Faith

[sharvy]

Re: Islam and Apostasy

You said that your friend had a religious degree from Al-Azhar. I know many people with religious degrees from Islamic institutes but that in no way would make them an Islamic scholars, in fact many orientalists have university degrees on Islamic studies.

Dear Ansar (sorry about the boo boo in the previous post)

Doesn't having ijazahs in hadith and usul al-fiqh from prominent Islamic scholars on the faculty of Al-Azhar and getting a Ph.D. in Islamic theology make one an Islamic scholar?! If not that, what does? I'm a bit confused on this point:

Salim aside, is it or is it not possible to be a genuine Muslim Islamic scholar with 2 such ijazahs and at the same time not possess true eeman? Are you (indirectly) suggesting that the existence of such a scholar would violate Islamic doctrine?

Respectfully,

Sharvy

 

[sharvy]

Re: Islam and Apostasy

Dear Ansar,

To follow up on your previous post:

And I don't recall you mentioning that your friend was an imam - do you mean that he was the imam of a mosque in egypt?

I never said Salim was an imam. But other converts from Islam apparently were – at least I found a list of such converts on the web with their testimonies.

As for possessing genuine eeman, I have tried to decipher your story but there are too many statements that don't fit together. You said he had no wavering doubts or any struggles with his religion upon arrival in the US

That's what he says

but then you mentioned that he suddenly abandoned it and apparently for no good reason.

I said no such thing: I explicitly said (more than once) that his change of heart was not sudden but took several years.

And then there is the statement that he 'personally could not continue to believe in the supernatural' and that he 'gradually became disillusioned by organized religion' in contrast to the idea that he specifically found flaws in islam

There is no "in contrast to" anything in Salim's story. I explained in some detail that his disillusionment with Islam and the supernatural was a logical extension of his acceptance of Darwinian theory. And since the accepted, mainstream position of science today is that humans and apes directly evolved from a common ancestor – a view Salim accepts – and you yourself agreed that "no doubt [Salim's] view would conflict with the Qur'an and Ahadith" it is clear that Salim does find flaw in fundamental Islamic doctrine on this and other matters – which is precisely what he told me. Moreover, unless you want to take the view that modern science has no credible reasons to hold that apes and humans share common ancestry, then you cannot reasonably hold the view that Salim finds this flaw "for no good reason." Salim and science may well be mistaken on this matter, but you can hardly accuse these prominent scientists and scholars of being flippant, arbitrary, or stupid in holding their position (which is usually the sense of accuse someone of "suddenly" changing their mind "for no good reason"). It is often the case that someone is wrong but nevertheless has strong, credible reasons for holding a view.


Peace

Sharvy

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: Islam and Apostasy

Hello Sharvy,

Doesn't having ijazahs in hadith and usul al-fiqh from prominent Islamic scholars on the faculty of Al-Azhar and getting a Ph.D. in Islamic theology make one an Islamic scholar?!

First of all, you NEVER mentioned that your friend had a PhD in Islamic theology, you only said a religious studies degree. In fact you specifically implied that your friend did NOT possess a PhD in any branch of Islamic studies:

But I guess one thing has become clear. When you speak of a "knowlegeable" Muslim, you mean someone that in effect has something like a PhD in Islamic studies - you DON'T mean an intelligent, devout mature Muslim (i.e. Salim) that has opened up his heart and spent years thinking about and studying the Qur'an, as well as listening to the words of Islamic sages. In other words, only a tiny percentage of Muslims are "knowlegeable" in your sense of the term. ​

What am I to believe when the information keeps changing?! I'm just getting random tidbits of information about Salim's islamic education and then you're asking me to make a judgement on his case. I never found out any clear information regarding at what age did he study Islam, which sciences and for how long. And it is impossible for me to verify or even test the extent of his knowledge since I cannot ask him any questions concerning why he abandoned his faith.

Let's get one thing confirmed - at what age did he finish memorizing the entire Qur'an in arabic and under which teacher? This is a requirement just to be considered a 'student of knowledge' in Islamic studies, so imagine the requirements to be considered a scholar.

Salim aside, is it or is it not possible to be a genuine Muslim Islamic scholar with 2 such ijazahs and at the same time not possess true eeman?

No it is not possible. A genuine Islamic scholar has eemaan, and this is why we do not regard the orientalists who have several degrees in religious studies to be Islamic scholars, though they may have numerous PhDs, their understanding of Islam has been proven to be erroneous and plagued with misconceptions. As for the ijaazahs, it is impossible to find out the details since I cannot contact him - they vary greatly, some are extremely difficult to get and others are the complete opposite (I know a fairly young brother with over twenty ijaazahs yet he would not even dream of calling himself a scholar). I hoped to find out more but that clearly is not possible.

I never said Salim was an imam.

You said:

It is my understanding that on your view, though rare, it is possible for a Muslim to have several ijazahs, and even be an imam, without possessing genuine eeman. My friend Salim is apparently a case in point.​

If your friend was not an Imam then why call him a case in point? Again, I am not getting any consistent or clear information from you.

But other converts from Islam apparently were – at least I found a list of such converts on the web with their testimonies.

I know of these (openly anti-islamic) sites and anyone can write whatever they wish on them. I personally have seen multiple case of non-muslims lying about being or having been Muslim. Even looking at what they write one can see that it is filled with the usual misconceptions and anti-islamic drivel. If you are already willing to accept such information then it places a serious doubt on the credibility of the information you are providing me with.

That's what he says

And impossible for me to verify.

I said no such thing: I explicitly said (more than once) that his change of heart was not sudden but took several years.

But you said it only took place after his arrival in the US. In other words, there was no gradual struggles before he came to the US. The initiation of these struggles was sudden.

And then there is the statement that he 'personally could not continue to believe in the supernatural' and that he 'gradually became disillusioned by organized religion' in contrast to the idea that he specifically found flaws in islam

There is no "in contrast to" anything in Salim's story.

The statement "personally could not continue to believe in the supernatural" STRONGLY implies that he did not hold such a belief to be mistaken but personally could not accept such a belief. If that is not what you meant then it justifies my statement that you are providing a very muddled and convoluted image of what really happened.

I explained in some detail that his disillusionment with Islam and the supernatural was a logical extension of his acceptance of Darwinian theory.

Which simply is not true. There is no relevance between biological evolution and the supernatural - in fact you haven't mentioned abiogenesis at all! There are numerous theists who believe in evolution.

And since the accepted, mainstream position of science today is that humans and apes directly evolved from a common ancestor – a view Salim accepts – and you yourself agreed that "no doubt [Salim's] view would conflict with the Qur'an and Ahadith" it is clear that Salim does find flaw in fundamental Islamic doctrine on this and other matters – which is precisely what he told me. Moreover, unless you want to take the view that modern science has no credible reasons to hold that apes and humans share common ancestry, then you cannot reasonably hold the view that Salim finds this flaw "for no good reason."

I have already answered this, I don't know why you chose to ignore my explanation. This has nothign to do with what 'science has concluded' it is the extrapolation of material observations; again what I wrote:

First, Evolution theory itself is an extrapolation based on the observations we have gathered. And contrary to the prevalent perception, scientific theories are not at all concerned or formulated in the search for truth; they are utilized on the basis of their ability to provide the most parsimonious explanation for observable phenomena. And when one analyzes the premise of the theory we find the same basic assumptions. For example, orientalists will say that based on the similarities between Islamic practices and what some of the pagan arabs did, they theorise that Muhammad pbuh simply borrowed pagan traditions. Muslims point out that one need only look at the facts the other way, in that these practices were revealed by God to Prophet Abraham and passed down through the arabs; Muhammad pbuh confirmed some of the arab practices and clarified their divine origin, while rejecting those that were innovations. So the same basic facts can be analysed in multiple ways, and that is true with any theory in science.

Secondly, the foundation of biological evolution is not in any way conflicting with Islam. To quote the Fatwa committee of Shaykh Abdul-Wahhab At-Turayri:

Therefore, with respect to other living things, the Qur’ân and Sunnah neither confirm nor deny the theory of biological evolution or the process referred to as natural selection. The question of evolution remains purely a matter of scientific enquiry. The theory of evolution must stand or fall on its own scientific merits – and that means the physical evidence that either confirms the theory or conflicts with it.

The role of science is only to observe and describe the patterns that Allah places in His creation. If scientific observation shows a pattern in the evolution of species over time that can be described as natural selection, this is not in itself unbelief. It is only unbelief for a person to think that this evolution took place on its own, and not as a creation of Allah. A Muslim who accepts evolution or natural selection as a valid scientific theory must know that the theory is merely an explanation of one of the many observed patterns in Allah’s creation.

As for the fossil remains of bipedal apes and the tools and artifacts associated with those remains, their existence poses no problem for Islamic teachings. There is nothing in the Qur’ân and Sunnah that either affirms or denies that upright, brainy, tool using apes ever existed or evolved from other apelike ancestors. Such animals may very well have existed on Earth before Adam’s arrival upon it. All we can draw from the Qur’ân and Sunnah is that even if those animals once existed, they were not the forefathers of Adam (peace be upon him). (SOURCE)​

But Salim became convinced that as the evidence piled in over the past 150 years, it is not reasonable to suppose that the human eye was deliberately designed by some supernatural deity.

Then Salim should be kindly reminded about some basic facts concerning the scientific method, and perhaps the example of the Newton's (d.1727) corpuscular theory of light which remained the dominant theory amongst the scientific community for over a century (chiefly because of his intelelctual status). However, due to discoveries in the early 19th century, Huygens' (d. 1695) wave theory was revived, and soon became widely accepted. Finally, quantum mechanics caused us to return to both theories and today we affirm a particle-wave duality of light.

Coming to the specific mention of the eye, I think it is worth noting the example of Dr. Laurence Brown MD, an american ophthalmologist, who converted from atheism to Islam. Did he willingly embrace illogical beliefs about a field he had spent his life studying?

Salim sees a clear pattern in the history of human knowledge: in the past, things and phenomena that humans couldn't explain by a natural means were assigned a supernatural explanation: lightening, disease, famine, even the rising and setting of the sun.

Salim seems to forget the distinction between cause and mechanism and again the goals and intent of scientific methodology. Saying that God causes the rotation of the earth explains the cause but not the mechanism. Analyzing the centripetal force on the earth, the angular momentum, and so on is an investigation into the mechanism. Religion has never explained the mechanism, at least not in Islam, but rather explains that God is behind the mechanisms which govern our universe.

When science deals with one "gap" in our knowledge, to support their belief in God, the theists move on to a gap that science has yet to adequately explain to their satisfaction.

In addition to what I've said above, I'd like to also point out that science is not a living entity which researchs and theorises on its own. It is the scientific community which does that, comprised of individuals like you and me; human beings subject to the same societal influences and pressures as anyone else. For example, homosexuality was always classified by the scientific community as a psychological disorder until recent times when it was replaced by homophobia!

Islam does not relegate God to the yet unexplained phenomena in our universe, or 'gaps' as you call them. On the contrary, Islam points out that God is the Creator behind these mechanisms and it is He who has ordered the universe as it is. You can provide reasonable scientific explanations for almost all phenomena based on the four fundamental forces we know of, but you still haven't answered what the source, cause or origin of these forces is, or what exactly they signify. You can postulate several laws about the transfer and conservation of energy in our universe, the unchangeable decrease in order and increase in entropy, without even arriving at the question of who infused our universe with this energy and order in the first place.

Salim and science may well be mistaken on this matter

'science' is not an entity theorizes about our universe. There are individuals involved in scientific research who may do that, but they are just as culurally affected as you and I, as demonstrated by the example of the corpuscular theory and homosexuality above. Biological evoltion has to be the most feeble excuse for rejecting the religion that one allegedly had 'full certainty' about.

but you can hardly accuse these prominent scientists and scholars of being flippant, arbitrary, or stupid in holding their position

And I never did that. What benefit is there in falsely attributing insults to someone? And I said "apparently for no good reason" because as of yet, you have not provided one. And given the current trend in the discussion, I doubt I will ever hear the reasons.

It is often the case that someone is wrong but nevertheless has strong, credible reasons for holding a view.

Which I will never come to know about.

I really see no point in debating over your friend 'Salim' anymore and who he is supposed to have been since this discussion is going nowhere. I have explained my position and the Islamic law relating to apostasy, and you have provided no evidence to counter it, so if you do not wish to believe it that is up to you.

 

[sharvy]

Re: Islam and Apostasy

Hello Sharvy,

First of all, you NEVER mentioned that your friend had a PhD in Islamic theology, you only said a religious studies degree. In fact you specifically implied that your friend did NOT possess a PhD in any branch of Islamic studies:

But I guess one thing has become clear. When you speak of a "knowledgeable" Muslim, you mean someone that in effect has something like a PhD in Islamic studies - you DON'T mean an intelligent, devout mature Muslim (i.e. Salim) that has opened up his heart and spent years thinking about and studying the Qur'an, as well as listening to the words of Islamic sages. In other words, only a tiny percentage of Muslims are "knowledgeable" in your sense of the term. ​

What am I to believe when the information keeps changing?!

Dear Ansar,

I apologize for being less than clear. When I first raised the case of Salim in this forum it had been years since I was in contact with him. I honestly wasn't sure what exact degree Salim had from Al-Alzar, or whether Islamic universities like that even had "Ph.D." programs in the oriental sense. And I certainly did not know what an ijazah was until you introduced the term. However, after recontacting him pursuant to our discussion in this forum, I did learn that he obtained a Ph.D. in Islamic theology from Al-Alzar, as well as the two ijazahs. Since you specifically asked me about the ijazahs, that is the information I provided, thinking them more relevant and important for you than the Ph.D. Again, I apologize for the confusion.

"Salim aside, is it or is it not possible to be a genuine Muslim Islamic scholar with 2 such ijazahs and at the same time not possess true eeman?" Sharvy

No it is not possible. A genuine Islamic scholar has eeman, and this is why we do not regard the orientalists who have several degrees in religious studies to be Islamic scholars, though they may have numerous PhDs, their understanding of Islam has been proven to be erroneous and plagued with misconceptions.

So you are saying that if Salim identifies himself and presents you with copies of all his degrees and certifications and submits himself to questioning, and proves that he was in fact a genuine Islamic scholar who left Islam, then you will then acknowledge that Islam is flawed, because according to accepted doctrine such a situation is impossible? Do I have this right?

Respectfully,

Sharvy

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: Islam and Apostasy

Hello Sharvy,

Again, I apologize for the confusion.

And that is the problem with this discussion - you are using a case that you are not even certain about and then asking me to pass judgement. At any rate, can you confirm what age he finished memorizing the Qur'an?

So you are saying that if Salim identifies himself and presents you with copies of all his degrees and certifications and submits himself to questioning, and proves that he was in fact a genuine Islamic scholar who left Islam, then you will then acknowledge that Islam is flawed, because according to accepted doctrine such a situation is impossible?

I've pointed out that it is not degrees that make one a genuine Islamic scholar. A genuine Islamic scholar has eemaan and piety as well. Having said that if I had the opportunity to contact Salim I would be able to question his religious understanding and find out the reasons for his leaving Islam and then we would see if he truly contradicts my claim or not. If he did, of course I would acknowledge it, but from what I have seen in this discussion he is very far from challenging my claim.

Peace.

 

[sharvy]

Re: Islam and Apostasy

Hello Sharvy,

And that is the problem with this discussion - you are using a case that you are not even certain about and then asking me to pass judgement. At any rate, can you confirm what age he finished memorizing the Qur'an? .

Dear Ansar,

I will ask Salim your question the next time we get in touch.

I've pointed out that it is not degrees that make one a genuine Islamic scholar. A genuine Islamic scholar has eemaan and piety as well. Having said that if I had the opportunity to contact Salim I would be able to question his religious understanding and find out the reasons for his leaving Islam and then we would see if he truly contradicts my claim or not. If he did, of course I would acknowledge it, but from what I have seen in this discussion he is very far from challenging my claim.

You did not really answer my question. I want to know more than simply if Salim's claim truly contradicts your claim about knowledgeable Muslims. I want to also know on your part (incredibly unlikely as it may be):

would acknowledging that Salim memorized the Qur'an at a very young age and establishing that he obtained highly respectable ijazahs from honored, acknowledged Islamic scholars, as well as the Ph.D, entail acknowledging that Islam has a flaw? –

Would it be acknowledging such a flaw? Or, would you conclude it is indeed possible to undergo a highly rigorous, very respectable Islamic education and obtain the highest certifications, yet not possess eeman. If the latter is not possible, then, in principle, it would seem that in order to accept and acknowledge Salim's evidence purporting to establish his credentials, you would have to find flaw in Islam. This point is crucial to the discussion.

Respectfully,

Sharvy

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: Islam and Apostasy

Would it be acknowledging such a flaw?

No it would not and I have explained why multiple times. I have pointed out why the degrees would not make one an automatic Islamic scholar. I have mentioned multiple times that we have to be able to assess their education directly. But the point of the matter is that someone with even a basic Islamic education, let alone erudition, would not have such misconceptions - the only time people apostate is either from ignorance or due to sociopolitical reasons. Salim's example is a dead one because there is no way for me to assess his reasons for leaving or his Islamic education. That is why the entire discussion on Salim is pointless. You aren't able to provide me the information necessary, I can't contact him, you've admitted to providing me with contradictory information [unintentionally of course], and so on. You are only repeating the same points and asking me about him - I don't know Salim or his reasons for leaving the religion and since I will never find out there is no point in asking me about him.

And then you are asking me, essentially, what if my claim is false - What if there are knowledgeable people who have left Islam and think Islam is flawed?
The problem is you haven't done anything to counter my claim much less to disprove it so it's like asking me, "what if Islam is false?" - what do you want me to say? I can challenge someone to support their claim that Islam is false or that my claim is false and they will fail, because neither are false. If you could disprove my claims, then we would worry about the implications. If you can't, then there is no point.

Peace.

 

[sharvy]

Re: Islam and Apostasy

No it would not and I have explained why multiple times. I have pointed out why the degrees would not make one an automatic Islamic scholar. I have mentioned multiple times that we have to be able to assess their education directly. But the point of the matter is that someone with even a basic Islamic education, let alone erudition, would not have such misconceptions - the only time people apostate is either from ignorance or due to sociopolitical reasons. Salim's example is a dead one because there is no way for me to assess his reasons for leaving or his Islamic education. That is why the entire discussion on Salim is pointless. You aren't able to provide me the information necessary, I can't contact him, you've admitted to providing me with contradictory information [unintentionally of course], and so on. You are only repeating the same points and asking me about him - I don't know Salim or his reasons for leaving the religion and since I will never find out there is no point in asking me about him.

And then you are asking me, essentially, what if my claim is false - What if there are knowledgeable people who have left Islam and think Islam is flawed?
The problem is you haven't done anything to counter my claim much less to disprove it so it's like asking me, "what if Islam is false?" - what do you want me to say? I can challenge someone to support their claim that Islam is false or that my claim is false and they will fail, because neither are false. If you could disprove my claims, then we would worry about the implications. If you can't, then there is no point.

Peace.

Hi Ansar,

Here's the way I'm beginning to see this issue. According to you it is virtually impossible to have a sound, rigorous, proper Muslim upbringing, and then go on to get advanced certifications and not obtain eeman. More over you agreed it was impossible for Salim to have had eeman and have left Isam becauses he found the doctrine flawed. To claim that was possible would itself be challenge to the truth Islam.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I want to make sure that I fully understand your point of view: On the Islamic view, as a means of establishing truth, evidence and science are fine as far as they go, but they are feeble and pale by comparison with the mind of a scholar guided by eeman and scripture in the search for knowledge. Belief formed on the basis of evidence or science is always a mere extrapolation and profoundly subject to error. For any evidence set, there are always a range of competing extrapolations that one can draw from the evidence - all subject to error with the sole exception of a mind guided by scripture and the Divine grace of eeman. Thus it would be foolish and incomprehensible for Muslim like Salim to forsake the true path and reject the Word of Allah based on some frail human extrapolation in the name of the rickety contraption that humans call "science". So if a few people in white coats want to extrapolate the claim that humans and apes both directly evolved from a common ancestor from the evidence - what of it? All such extrapolations are just that - and are inherently weak and error prone. If the Qur'an teaches us that all humans descended from Adam (pbuh) and Eve and that Adam and Eve were created directly by God, separate from any other animal, then it is absurd and unreasonable to place any trust in the "scientific" claim. At best, and in its proper place, science is an adjunct to knowledge as revealed by Allah through the Prophet (pbuh) and it is the height of irrational hubris to ever put the word of science above the Word of Allah.

Have I correctly characterized your position on the matter?

Peace,

Sharvy

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: Islam and Apostasy

Here's the way I'm beginning to see this issue. According to you it is virtually impossible to have a sound, rigorous, proper Muslim upbringing, and then go on to get advanced certifications and not obtain eeman.

No, I never said that. I said to be a genuine Islamic scholar one must have eeman in God.

More over you agreed it was impossible for Salim to have had eeman and have left Isam becauses he found the doctrine flawed.

No, my position is that apostasy has only ever occured from ignorance or due to sociopolitical reasons. I can't comment on Salim since I do not have information about him or even a remote understanding of his reasons for leaving.

To claim that was possible would itself be challenge to the truth Islam.

No, I never said that either.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I want to make sure that I fully understand your point of view: On the Islamic view, as a means of establishing truth, evidence and science are fine as far as they go, but they are feeble and pale by comparison with the mind of a scholar guided by eeman and scripture in the search for knowledge.

No, absolutely not. I never said we should accept the word of a scholar over a scientist because the former has eeman. I don't know where you are getting these absurd ideas from. I am saying that no matter what religion one belongs to, one must understand the scientific methodolgy properly - science is not a search for truth; science is a search for ways of explaining observable phenomena in our universe. Those points you mentioned earlier about the evolution theory actually betray a poor understanding of science. I am not calling for people to belittle or reject science, I am calling for people to gain a proper understanding of science!

The problem in your quote when you say evidence and science are fine as far as they go is that NEITHER evidence nor science are being questioned here! I am all for an evidence-based approach to all discussions but what I pointed out (twice) was that we are not talking about evidence, but an individual's extrapolation from that evidence. And I gave numerous examples of this, I'm not sure why they were ignored. You have the example with respect to the theories on light - Newton decided on the basis of the observations that light is a particle, Huygens thought it was a wave. So it has nothing to do with evidence it has to do with how we interpret that evidence.

As for your mention of science (evidence and science are fine as far as they go), again it has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting science. I explained earlier that science is not an entity that researches and concludes matters. When Newton's theory which dominated for over a century was proven wrong does that mean that science was proven wrong?

For any evidence set, there are always a range of competing extrapolations that one can draw from the evidence - all subject to error with the sole exception of a mind guided by scripture and the Divine grace of eeman.

No, I never said that either. In fact it is specifically against Islam to ascribe infallibility to human beings outside of the Prophets. You've fallen into the fallacy of assuming that the intents and purposes of religion and science are the same when they are manifestly not. Islam teaches us how to live our life and how to draw closer to our Creator through righteous deeds as we are accountable in this life for all that we do. Meanwhile, the goal in science is to provide complete and useful explanations for the observable phenomena around us.

Thus it would be foolish and incomprehensible for Muslim like Salim to forsake the true path and reject the Word of Allah based on some frail human extrapolation in the name of the rickety contraption that humans call "science".

No again. Those are your words not mine. Why would I call my major field of interest a 'rickety contraption'? Do you assume Muslims are ignorant and backward people who regard science with disdain? Nothing could be further from the truth.
My position is that Salim has failed to show any contradiction between science and Islam.

If the Qur'an teaches us that all humans descended from Adam (pbuh) and Eve and that Adam and Eve were created directly by God, separate from any other animal, then it is absurd and unreasonable to place any trust in the "scientific" claim.

No, I specifically quoted a fatwa for you that explained that biological evolution stands or falls on the basis of scientific evidence.

Therefore, with respect to other living things, the Qur’ân and Sunnah neither confirm nor deny the theory of biological evolution or the process referred to as natural selection. The question of evolution remains purely a matter of scientific enquiry. The theory of evolution must stand or fall on its own scientific merits – and that means the physical evidence that either confirms the theory or conflicts with it. ​

What could be more clear than that?

Have I correctly characterized your position on the matter?

I regret to inform that I have never seen such a blatant misrepresentation of another's position.

Regards

 

[sharvy]

Re: Islam and Apostasy

I regret to inform that I have never seen such a blatant misrepresentation of another's position.

Dear Ansar,

I am so sorry that I misrepresented your position – I did not intend to – and that is why I asked. But you have to understand that you and I come from different cultures and circumstances, and I can assure you that your responses to me are just as confusing as mine are apparently to you. I should add that while I do have expertise in philosophy of religion, my main area of expertise is philosophy of science and the theory of evolution in particular. While we most likely will not agree on many fundamental issues, I do think it is worth the effort to understand the other's viewpoint. At least we should both be clear on what we are disagreeing with. So if you are willing, I would like to start with each of us clarifying our view on the role and status of science – I really do not understand the role of science as explained by you and the fatwa.

one must understand the scientific methodology properly - science is not a search for truth; science is a search for ways of explaining observable phenomena in our universe.

The way I put it is that science is not searching for certainty or absolute truth, but the most probable truth given our current state of evidence and knowledge. It not just searching for "ways of explaining observable phenomena in our universe." For example it is an axiom of philosophy of science that for any given dataset, there are theoretically an infinite number of competing hypotheses (or extrapolations) that will account for, and in that sense explain, the data. Each competing hypothesis is theoretically a "way" of explaining the given observations. But it is up to science to choose the best or better of those possible explanations. There are indeed properties like parsimony, that you earlier alluded to, which scientists use to choose the best explanation. But ultimately one must ask why is a more parsimonious explanation or hypothesis preferable or better. Ultimately one must link parsimony to probable truth in order to both make sense of why that quality is important and to understand what explanatory parsimony or simplicity is, and how to identify it.

I am all for an evidence-based approach to all discussions but what I pointed out (twice) was that we are not talking about evidence, but an individual's extrapolation from that evidence. And I gave numerous examples of this, I'm not sure why they were ignored. You have the example with respect to the theories on light - Newton decided on the basis of the observations that light is a particle, Huygens thought it was a wave. So it has nothing to do with evidence it has to do with how we interpret that evidence.

Some scientific disputes are matters of fundamental differences in how the disputing parties interpret mutually agreed upon evidence. But in other cases disputes arise because the two sides cannot agree on what count as relevant evidence or observations.

I explained earlier that science is not an entity that researches and concludes matters. When Newton's theory which dominated for over a century was proven wrong does that mean that science was proven wrong?

No, but it's fair to say that contemporary science and physics overwhelming rejects classical Newtonian physics as flawed and inaccurate. Properly understood, it's fair to say that contemporary physics has "concluded" as much – as long as one does not read certainty into that claim and understands it as meaning that on the basis of current evidence and knowledge, professional scientists can reasonably conclude (with high probability) that Einsteinian physics is more accurate than Newtonian physics. In that sense, science has "researched and concluded the matter." Doesn't the same sort of thing happen in various schools of Islam? Some respected body of scholars issues a fatwa and reaches conclusions on various issues of concern to Muslims. The US's most elite body of scientists – the National Association of Science (membership only offered to the nation's most accomplished scientists) – has recently issued an institutional report endorsing the reality of global warming. That does represent an important consensus and speaks for the conclusions that "science" has established, as opposed to this or that scientist.

No, I specifically quoted a fatwa for you that explained that biological evolution stands or falls on the basis of scientific evidence.

Therefore, with respect to other living things, the Qur'ân and Sunnah neither confirm nor deny the theory of biological evolution or the process referred to as natural selection. The question of evolution remains purely a matter of scientific enquiry. The theory of evolution must stand or fall on its own scientific merits – and that means the physical evidence that either confirms the theory or conflicts with it. ​

What could be more clear than that?

A lot can be more clear. The fatwa seems to be saying: Islam takes no position on the theory of evolution in general, but it does take a position on the status of humans within that theory. You are willing to grant that theory of biological evolution stands or falls on the basis of the evidence gathered by practicing scientists. Please grant for the sake of argument that this evidence strongly supports the theory. Grant for example that the current evidence that chimpanzees and baboons directly evolved from a common ancestor is overwhelming. If so, than the current evidence also overwhelmingly establishes that humans and chimpanzees directly evolved from a common ancestor – as far as science is concerned, THE TWO CLAIMS ARE PRECISELY ON PAR. Both claims are equally supported by detailed genetic, fossil, geologic distribution, and morphological data – of exactly the same sort. And it is hardly appropriate to a priori insist that the two claims are not evidentially on par, without in detail addressing the evidence. So it doesn't make sense for you and the Fatwa committee of Shaykh Abdul-Wahhab At-Turayri to claim that it is fine for a Muslim to accept on the basis of science that chimps and baboons have a common ancestor, but they must not apply the same evidential standards to the claim that humans and chimps have a common ancestor. And then add – oh, by the way, good science and Islam can never lead to opposing, conflicting conclusions. But what is that supposed to mean when the fatwa is instructing Muslims to ignore scientific evidential standards if they support the conclusion that humans were not independently created by God. Yes Ansar, a lot can be made more clear.

Respectfully,

Sharvy

 

[Woodrow]

Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

Thus we find that, in the history of Islam, no knowledgeable Muslim has ever left Islam. The only cases we find of former Muslims are people who were never practicing Muslims in the first place, nor did they ever have a good understanding of Islam.

This is one of those unchallangable claims. Personaly, I agree with the intent of the claim. However, it is not a legitimate claim as written. As it is written, the answer is written within within the statement and the only validation of the fact is the statement itself. Although it is a good and I believe true statement, it is not written in a challangable or debatable form. The inference of the statement is that a knowledgable Muslim is one who never leaves the faith. Therefore by projection we come to the conclusion that if a person leaves the faith he is not a knowledgable Muslim.

In my round about way, I am saying that this is not a debatable statement.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: Islam and Apostasy

Hello Sharvy,

The way I put it is that science is not searching for certainty or absolute truth, but the most probable truth given our current state of evidence and knowledge. It not just searching for "ways of explaining observable phenomena in our universe." For example it is an axiom of philosophy of science that for any given dataset, there are theoretically an infinite number of competing hypotheses (or extrapolations) that will account for, and in that sense explain, the data. Each competing hypothesis is theoretically a "way" of explaining the given observations. But it is up to science to choose the best or better of those possible explanations.

It is up to scientists; science is not an entity that chooses, but I assume you meant scientists.

No, but it's fair to say that contemporary science and physics overwhelming rejects classical Newtonian physics as flawed and inaccurate. Properly understood, it's fair to say that contemporary physics has "concluded" as much – as long as one does not read certainty into that claim and understands it as meaning that on the basis of current evidence and knowledge, professional scientists can reasonably conclude (with high probability) that Einsteinian physics is more accurate than Newtonian physics. In that sense, science has "researched and concluded the matter."

The only thing we have concluded is that Newton was wrong, Huygens was wrong and everyone else was wrong. We still are searching for a better answer.

Doesn't the same sort of thing happen in various schools of Islam? Some respected body of scholars issues a fatwa and reaches conclusions on various issues of concern to Muslims.

In Islam there is no new evidence. In science new evidence comes up all the time.

The US's most elite body of scientists – the National Association of Science (membership only offered to the nation's most accomplished scientists) – has recently issued an institutional report endorsing the reality of global warming. That does represent an important consensus and speaks for the conclusions that "science" has established, as opposed to this or that scientist.

Global warming is a phenomenon, not a theory.

A lot can be more clear. The fatwa seems to be saying: Islam takes no position on the theory of evolution in general, but it does take a position on the status of humans within that theory.

What Islam says is something that science is incapable of either proving or disproving. Just like I cannot prove that I had a headache last week, it is impossible for us to make a definitive claim about a time from which we have no evidence. There is no scientific evidence that opposes the Islamic belief. There may be some scientists who do, but we need to be able to distinguish between what scientific evidence is, and what interpretations people draw from that.

You are willing to grant that theory of biological evolution stands or falls on the basis of the evidence gathered by practicing scientists. Please grant for the sake of argument that this evidence strongly supports the theory. Grant for example that the current evidence that chimpanzees and baboons directly evolved from a common ancestor is overwhelming. If so, than the current evidence also overwhelmingly establishes that humans and chimpanzees directly evolved from a common ancestor – as far as science is concerned, THE TWO CLAIMS ARE PRECISELY ON PAR.

But that is the problem. There is no way for scientists to determine whether Adam and Eve existed or not. They can note simmilarities between various species and construct phylogenetic trees to illustrate that, but it brings us no closer to determining whether Adam and Eve existed or not. The belief in Adam and Eve is not a scientific claim because it is neither verifiable nor falsifiable with scientific evidence.

Let's take an example from math. If I told you that part of a pattern was {...1,2,3...} you might assume that it is an arithmetic sequence and the next number is four. All evidence (current terms) we have support the notion that it is an arithmetic sequence. But they could just as likely be from the Fibonacci sequence. The first pattern is simpler so we might be inclined to accept it, but it can just as easily be wrong. So when you say that all the evidence supports the evolution of humans, what you mean is that so far there is no scientific evidence that contradicts it. I could say exactly the same thing with respect to the Islamic belief.

So it doesn't make sense for you and the Fatwa committee of Shaykh Abdul-Wahhab At-Turayri to claim that it is fine for a Muslim to accept on the basis of science that chimps and baboons have a common ancestor, but they must not apply the same evidential standards to the claim that humans and chimps have a common ancestor.

The evidence that we don't have for humans is speciation.

And then add – oh, by the way, good science and Islam can never lead to opposing, conflicting conclusions.

There is no good science or bad science. Science and scientific evidence does not contradict Islam. The opinion and ideas of some scientists may, but then again that is not immune to cultural influence either. Just consider the case of homosexuality.

But what is that supposed to mean when the fatwa is instructing Muslims to ignore scientific evidential standards if they support the conclusion that humans were not independently created by God.

No it does not say this at all.

Regards

 

[sharvy]

Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

Thus we find that, in the history of Islam, no knowledgeable Muslim has ever left Islam. The only cases we find of former Muslims are people who were never practicing Muslims in the first place, nor did they ever have a good understanding of Islam.

This is one of those unchallangable claims. Personaly, I agree with the intent of the claim. However, it is not a legitimate claim as written. As it is written, the answer is written within within the statement and the only validation of the fact is the statement itself. Although it is a good and I believe true statement, it is not written in a challangable or debatable form. The inference of the statement is that a knowledgable Muslim is one who never leaves the faith. Therefore by projection we come to the conclusion that if a person leaves the faith he is not a knowledgable Muslim.

In my round about way, I am saying that this is not a debatable statement.

Hi Woodrow,

Naturally I agree with you. Suppose my friend Salim were to present Ansar with solid credentials of holding respectable ijazahs and a reputable PhD in Islamic theology, and then submit himself to interrogation. I am virtually certain that Ansar would find his reasons for rejecting Islam to be weak and absurd – because Ansar has already said as much. At that point one of two things would happen:

1. Ansar would accept the evidence that Salim really did receive a solid Muslim education and training but conclude that he never possessed eeman and was therefore not a genuine Islamic scholar. Or,

2. He might simply refuse to accept that Salim could have had the education and upbringing he claims – finding it highly implausible that a Muslim with such an upbringing could reject Islamic because he became an atheist. Since the claim that Salim had such an education is an "extrapolation" from the evidence, Ansar might well find it more plausible to extrapolate that Salim's credentials are an elaborate hoax. After all, it is possible that, for example, the CIA would try to poison Islam with such imposters and sow dissension, isn't it? (Just an example Ansar - I not claiming you would use it.)

I say "might", but I just don't know. But I am reasonably sure that Ansar will not accept any extrapolation from the evidence that would contradict his claim that a "knowledgeable" Muslim could reject Islam. I know that Ansar will be very cross with me for voicing these suspicions because he hasn't actually made such claims. He will protest that's he has no coherent idea why Salim left Islam. Be that as it may, from the extensive dialogue we've had on this topic, that's the way I see it.

Peace,

Sharvy

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Sharvy,

Ansar would accept the evidence that Salim really did receive a solid Muslim education and training but conclude that he never possessed eeman and was therefore not a genuine Islamic scholar.

But that wouldnn't have anything to do with my claim. My claim is that apostasy has occured from either ignorance or sociopolitical reasons and 1400 years of history testify to this. As for Salim, I would sincerely like to discuss with him to find out, first of all whether he exists, and secondly his reasons to know why he abandoned the religion to see whether it was from ignorance or sociopolitical reasons. So far the discussion has been

Ansar - Apostasy has only ever occured from ignorance or due to socipolitical reasons. The notion of an educated Muslim leaving Islam because they found it deficient is absolutely unheard of.
Sharvy - I know an ex-Muslim who was a very well educated Muslim with several degrees and qualifications and he left Islam becuase he thought it was flawed, so you're claim is wrong.
Ansar - Alright, what was his academic background and what were his reasons for leaving?
Sharvy - Well he knows his reasons best and as for his background, all I know is he has a lot of degrees, therefore he's a superduper Islamic scholar.
Ansar - That doesn't really contribute very much to the discussion, does it? I guess he's a null example then if we don't have the details.​

That's how I see the discussion - we don't know if Salim contradicts my claim or not, you've just been asking 'What if he does...?' which is of no concern to me since it has not even been shown if he contradicts my claim or not. So this is why this debate hasn't gone anywhere and my original assertion has remained untouched.

He might simply refuse to accept that Salim could have had the education and upbringing he claims

His education would be evident from simple questions. I could only reject his claims if he was incapable of answering the questions and displayed obvious misconceptions about Islam.

Regards


br. Woodrow,

In my round about way, I am saying that this is not a debatable statement.

It would be debatable if someone could bring forward logical arguments or evidence to counter it. In this case, neither of the two have been done so yes, the discussion in this regard is futile.

 

[Woodrow]

br. Woodrow,

It would be debatable if someone could bring forward logical arguments or evidence to counter it. In this case, neither of the two have been done so yes, the discussion in this regard is futile.

The only problem I really have with the discussion is the mechanics. But, in reality I have no suggestions as to what could be done to have brought abought genuine 2 way dialogue. My apologies, I violated one of my own rules, which is to never critique, unless I know I can provide a valid alternative.

However, I see the thread as being valuable and knowledge is being exchanged. Perhaps, that is the purpose of this thread, Inshallah

 

[sharvy]

Hi Sharvy,

But that wouldn't have anything to do with my claim. My claim is that apostasy has occurred from either ignorance or sociopolitical reasons and 1400 years of history testify to this. As for Salim, I would sincerely like to discuss with him to find out, first of all whether he exists, and secondly his reasons to know why he abandoned the religion to see whether it was from ignorance or sociopolitical reasons. So far the discussion has been

Ansar - Apostasy has only ever occurred from ignorance or due to socio-political reasons. The notion of an educated Muslim leaving Islam because they found it deficient is absolutely unheard of.
Sharvy - I know an ex-Muslim who was a very well educated Muslim with several degrees and qualifications and he left Islam because he thought it was flawed, so you're claim is wrong.
Ansar - Alright, what was his academic background and what were his reasons for leaving?
Sharvy - Well he knows his reasons best and as for his background, all I know is he has a lot of degrees, therefore he's a superduper Islamic scholar.​

Dear Ansar,

This is a shallow mischaracterization of what I’ve told you. I’ve told you specifically which degrees Salim holds: He has ijazah in hadith from Muhammad At-Thayib An-Naggar, and ijazah in usul al-fiqh from Badawi Abdul Latif 'Awadh – two prominent Islamic scholars on the faculty of al-Azar at the time. He also holds a PhD in Islamic theology from that same institution. Moreover, I’ve told you his reasons for leaving: they were intellectual and not socio-political. He left because due to his contemplation of science, philosophy, and the evidence, he gave up the Islamic conception of science, became an atheist and an evolutionist and found flaw in Islamic doctrine, such as the claim that Adam and Eve, if they existed, did not share a common ancestor with apes and chimpanzees. (It doesn’t matter if science can or cannot verify the specific existence of Adam and Eve. Contemporary evolutionary science is claiming that all humans alive today shared a common ancestor with chimps. On the Islamic doctrine, as described in the fatwa, that can’t possibly be true – there is a conflict. Salim and I are both convinced that the evidence for human speciation is just as strong as the evidence for chimp speciation – which is considerable indeed.) Now Ansar, I grant that you find these reasons flimsy and incomprehensible for someone who claims to have had a sound Islamic education – but nevertheless, that is what happened.

What do you think Woodrow? Have I given Ansar no detailed characterization as to what qualifications Salim had and why he left Islam? You seem like a fair-minded person.

There is another issue that I am interested in: if Salim comes forth and identifies himself publicly or privately to you Ansar, would you then have a religious obligation to notify his family in Egypt of his apostasy, if you are so able? Would his family then have an obligation to shun him?

Respectfully,

Sharvy
​

 

[sharvy]

Re: Islam and Apostasy

Hello Sharvy,

It is up to scientists; science is not an entity that chooses, but I assume you meant scientists.

The only thing we have concluded is that Newton was wrong, Huygens was wrong and everyone else was wrong. We still are searching for a better answer.

Dear Ansar,

Who is the "we" here: some scientists, most scientists, a consensus? Isn't it a fact that scientists do reach consensus on some issues (though there may be still be stray defectors), thereby justifying a general claim to "know" something to be true? Also, if the scientific "we" can conclude that Newton was wrong, that same "we" has concluded that Aristotle and Ptolemy were wrong, but has also concluded that Galileo was right about the motion of the earth. We are not still searching "for a better answer" than this.

For example, we have known for at least the last two hundred years that the earth spins in orbit around the sun – moving in two distinct ways, spinning and following an orbital path. That fact was not generally "known" or accepted in 1400 or at the time of Mohammed pbuh. So even before we launched satellites into space and were able to visually see and confirm this movement, science, by consensus, confirmed and established that the movement of the earth is highly probable and therefore, a justified belief. So if 100 years ago, I asked an educated person why they are sure the earth spins, on your view what should their answer have been? Merely that some scientists have said so and have done experiments to support that hypothesis? Or, should this educated person point out that a tremendous amount of scientific data and research over the course of two hundred years has established that the earth does spin – forming a stable consensus in the scientific community of experts. Since this stable scientific consensus has concluded with a high degree of probability (what I call "practical certainty") that the earth spins, an educated person can reasonably accept the matter as settled for all practical purposes – settled enough to devote tremendous amount of time and resources and bet on it if necessary. Without a real scientific consensus of this sort, no educated person back then could have reasonably claimed to "know" that the earth spins and moves around the sun.

So just as there is currently a scientific consensus that Galileo was right about the earth's movement, there is also such a consensus that Darwin was largely right about speciation and natural selection, and that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Hence a well-educated person can reasonably claim to know this truth.

Global warming is a phenomenon, not a theory.

Ansar, global warming is both a phenomenon AND a theory. Just as the fact that matter is composed of atoms is both a phenomenon and theory. There is much confusion over the word "theory" which is used different ways by different people. Generally, as used in science, evolution is just a theory, in the same way that the atomic theory of matter is just a theory, the Copernican theory of the solar system is just a theory, or the germ theory of disease is just a theory. But theories, are not simply hypotheses or hunches, and they're not unproven speculation. Theories are systems of explanations which are strongly supported by factual observations and which explain whole sets of facts and experimental results. If a theory becomes well-established and highly confirmed – educated people may then conclude that the substance of theory is probable truth and thereby accept the existence of the corresponding phenomena, believing, betting, and acting accordingly.

What Islam says is something that science is incapable of either proving or disproving. Just like I cannot prove that I had a headache last week, it is impossible for us to make a definitive claim about a time from which we have no evidence.

While many working scientists do in fact use the word "prove" and "proof", most contemporary philosophers of science avoid this language. We prefer to use the terms "confirm" and "disconfirm", where "confirm" means to gather or obtain evidence which raises the probability of a hypothesis (never absolute certainty), and "disconfirm" means to gather evidence that lowers its probability (without rendering it impossible). The concept of "proof" is essentially mathematical, relating to deductive logic, and dates back to Aristotle, when the paradigm of justified belief was a valid deductive argument or a mathematical "proof" in which the truth of the conclusion followed by necessity from the truth of the premises and axioms. Science essentially uses inductive, not deductive, logic – the truth of a scientific claim is never "proved" or disproved with deductive certainty but only with a degree of probability in relation to the strength of the premises, observation, or evidence. So, science cannot "prove" with anything like deductive or mathematical certainty that the earth is not a flat disk. After all photos can be faked, minds can be tampered with and influenced. No matter what evidence that a scientist puts forth to claim that the earth is not flat, there is a member of the flat earth society that would find a compatible hypothesis to explain away the contrary evidence. And the flat-earthers are right! Science can't "prove" the earth is flat, but it's a mistake to play the "proof" game to begin with. What science can do is to systematically bring overwhelming evidence to bear on the claim that the earth is flat, and render the claim highly improbable with no good reason to believe or bet on its truth.

So while you or science cannot "prove" you had a headache last week. You and other sources (e.g. a hidden video camera) can certainly provide people with evidence that would make it, all things considered, reasonable to believe that you in fact really did have a headache last week. In that sense, science can gather evidence to confirm and establish the likelihood of your claim.

Similarly, the evidence is considerable that the Grand Canyon existed a million years ago, even if no one was around to see it – you can bet on it. For example, tomorrow, if someone discovered an alien satellite with a detailed geological record of the planet earth for the past few million years, before the data was fully revealed I would be willing to bet all of my savings that the data would show that the canyon was there 750,000 years ago – that would be a very good bet indeed. So while science can't make a "definitive" claim in your sense; it doesn't have to. If only has to make reliable, well-supported claims to be useful and get its job done.

But that is the problem. There is no way for scientists to determine whether Adam and Eve existed or not. They can note similarities between various species and construct phylogenetic trees to illustrate that, but it brings us no closer to determining whether Adam and Eve existed or not. The belief in Adam and Eve is not a scientific claim because it is neither verifiable nor falsifiable with scientific evidence.

As I mentioned in a previous post, it doesn't matter if science can or cannot verify the specific existence of Adam and Eve. Contemporary evolutionary science is claiming that all humans alive today shared a common ancestor with today's chimps. On the Islamic doctrine, as described in the fatwa, that can't possibly be true – there is a conflict. Salim and I are both convinced that the evidence for human speciation is just as strong as the evidence for chimp speciation – which is considerable indeed. Is it or is it not Islamic doctrine that today's humans and today's chimps did not evolve from a common ancestor? If Islamic doctrine is claiming there is no such common ancestry, then whether or not science can identify Adam and Eve is irrelevant. That issue aside, evolutionary science can bring plenty of evidence to bear that that doctrine is probably mistaken.

Let's take an example from math. If I told you that part of a pattern was {...1,2,3...} you might assume that it is an arithmetic sequence and the next number is four. All evidence (current terms) we have support the notion that it is an arithmetic sequence. But they could just as likely be from the Fibonacci sequence. The first pattern is simpler so we might be inclined to accept it, but it can just as easily be wrong. So when you say that all the evidence supports the evolution of humans, what you mean is that so far there is no scientific evidence that contradicts it. I could say exactly the same thing with respect to the Islamic belief.

No I mean much more than "so far there is no scientific evidence that contradicts" the evolution of humans. Your Fibonacci analogy is flawed. Suppose I have a barrel that I know contains a million marbles that are either red or black – but cannot know the color before I choose a marble. Suppose I turn the barrel multiple times before and after each pick completely randomizing the pick of each marble. Mathematically if the first 100 marbles I pick are black, the odds go up the next marble I pick will be black. If I pick 1000 straight black marbles, the odds are much stronger that the next marble I pick will be black – and it becomes more probable (not certain) that all the marbles in the barrel are black. And supposed I picked 990,000 straight black marbles. According to your line of reasoning all I have established is that "so far, there is no evidence to contradict the claim that the all the marbles left in the barrel are black," suggesting that I cannot have confidence in anything more. Yet mathematically I would be willing to bet my life savings that all the other marbles are black. That would be a very good bet: statistically I would have more chance dying in traffic accident driving to the market this afternoon – something I intend to do. The next marble MIGHT be red, and I have no evidence to contradict that POSSIBILITY, but it would still be a very wise to bet against that. However betting my life's savings would have been a very bad bet after only 3 picks. There are good, strong inductive samples to support a conclusion and weak ones. The slim extract of the Fibonacci sequence you gave me was an extremely weak inductive sample and any extrapolation of the sequence would be highly risky. My point is that not all inductive extrapolations are so risky as you seem to be suggesting – and the amount of evidence one has in support of a hypothesis matters a great deal.

In the case of evolution, the evidence goes well beyond merely claiming, "there is no evidence to contradict" human evolution. If one compares the genetic profile of humans and other primates – especially the random genetic flaws passed down from the ancestors of our respective species - one develops a very clear picture of human evolution that INDEPENDENTLY corroborates the rather considerable fossil data. The evidence renders the case for human evolution highly probable.

There is no good science or bad science.

Of course there is good and bad science. The flat-earthers and psychics practice bad science all the time, making fundamental errors in experimental design and statistical inference.

Science and scientific evidence does not contradict Islam.

I sincerely believe you are mistaken, and I think the discussion above shows that unfortunately you have flawed understanding of science and scientific evidence.

Respectfully,

Sharvy

 

[i_m_tipu]

There is no such thing in science which can say any absolute thing
Remember one thing clearly there are no absolute scientific proof in science
It just a data today and tomorrow can be garbage.

The truest thing is we human (all kind of man) can never create a tinny instance of nature we just assemble the parts of nature and create something artificial.


Why don’t people understand we and the whole universe were created and science is still researching something which is compare to nothing (not a tiny single thing) in front of nature. Which created by Allaah (SWT)

How can we compare ourselves beside the God?

Many of science’s basic discover or idea taken from religion even thou how can they deny the existence of god.

Can’t they look the sky, the star, the moon……………..
How can they deny the universe is not controlled………

Can any doctor or any scientist absolutely says or recommended any medicine for any disease for 100% heal. Answer is nooooooo

There is no absolute thing in science. Science has to depend on nature.

Can they explain what is nature???????????

 

[sharvy]

Hi i_m_tipu,

There is no such thing in science which can say any absolute thing.
Remember one thing clearly there are no absolute scientific proof in science

I agree with you completely. No competent scientist would disagree.

Regards,

Sharvy

 

[sharvy]

Emaan is, from the athiestic perspective, whether we like it or not, termed as "blind faith". Blind because they have quote-unqoute scientific proofs which undermine the basic tenets of all religions; thus demoting such beliefs to the depths of fallacy.

From the Islamic perspective, emaan is something that is given by Allah, once it enters the heart it will never leave. This emaan empowers a muslim with something called optimism, optimism in the face of everything.

To suggest then, that our friend Salim had emaan to begin with is pointless because he would have retained this optimism in the face of whatever he learnt from his stay in the States.

Hi Alpha,

I agree with you that by definition Salim never had emaan (what is the accepted spelling of that anyway? Ansar spells it eeman), since otherwise he would and could not turn apostate. The question is, is it even possible that, as he claims, he has had a rigorous Islamic education and upbringing, have those advanced certifications and not have emaan? I am not asking if it is unlikely - I grant that statistically it is very unlikely - I just want to know if it is possible.

Peace,

Sharvy