sacrilegious thoughts

self-cultivated dilemma

2007-07-03T09:48:00.000-04:00

I anguish over the reality's demand that we have to choose EXCLUSIVELY. Tamak sgt & x sedar diri sgt ke aku ni ha. Ideals are such an individualistic aspiration. So chaotic is the world with so many independent feelings, independent minds...

A Legend Of Masamune and Murasama blades...

2007-02-15T20:57:00.000-05:00

from wikipedia.

A legend tells of a test where Muramasa challenged his master, Masamune, to see who could make a finer sword. They both worked tirelessly and eventually, when both swords were finished, they decided to test the results. The contest was for each to suspend the blades in a small creek with the cutting edge facing the current. Muramasa's sword cut everything that passed its way; fish, leaves floating down the river, the very air which blew on it.

Highly impressed with his pupil's work, Masamune lowered his sword into the current and waited patiently. Not a leaf was cut, the fish swam right up to it, and the air hissed as it gently blew by the blade. After a while, Muramasa began to scoff at his master for his apparent lack of skill in his making of his sword. Smiling to himself, Masamune pulled up his sword, dried it, and sheathed it. All the while, Muramasa was heckling him for his sword's inability to cut anything.

A monk, who had been watching the whole ordeal, walked over and bowed low to the two sword masters. He then began to explain what he had seen.

"The first of the swords was by all accounts a fine sword, however it is a blood thirsty, evil blade as it doesn't discriminate as to who or what it will cut. It may just as well be cutting down butterflies as severing heads. The second was by far the finer of the two, as it doesn't needlessly cut that which is innocent and undeserving."

Mengenai riba (an Utusan.com.my article)

2006-12-24T00:21:00.000-05:00

source: http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/content.asp?y=2006&dt=1224&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Bicara_Agama&pg=ba_01.htm

If there are nonmalaysian readers out there who wishes me to translate this article, buzz me up.

-----------

Mengenai riba
Oleh: DR. ASYRAF WAJDI DUSUKI

Masyarakat Islam Malaysia umumnya amat mengambil berat soal halal dan haram dalam isu pemakanan. Rata-rata umat Islam hari ini amat prihatin terhadap makanan yang dimakannya agar tidak terkandung elemen-elemen haram yang boleh menjejaskan keberkatan.

Persoalannya, apakah cukup sekadar memperakui barangan makanan bertanda halal tetapi wang yang digunakan untuk membelinya masih lagi bersumberkan perolehan yang haram? Sejauh manakah keprihatinan mengenai halal dan haram ini turut diterjemahkan dalam kegiatan muamalah yang lebih penting seperti urus niaga harian dan perolehan pendapatan?

Hakikat yang tidak dapat dinafikan, kesedaran umat mengenai halal dan haram dalam aspek perolehan pendapatan masih di takuk yang amat mendukacitakan. Umat lebih memperhitungkan soal barangan berlabel halal berbanding dengan sumber perolehan mahupun pendapatan.

Apa yang pasti, kesedaran mengenai sumber rezeki yang halal amat penting bagi menumbuhkan rasa keterikatan dengan hukum dan peraturan yang ditetapkan Allah. Rezeki yang diperoleh dengan cara halal tanpa merugikan orang lain pastinya akan membawa barakah atau keberkatan. Sedang yang haram termasuklah perolehan daripada sumber penyelewengan, penipuan, rasuah, pecah amanah dan riba hanya akan membawa padah dan kecelakaan.

Dalam konteks ini, penulis lebih cenderung memfokuskan isu riba dalam penulisan kali ini. Bagi penulis, tahap kefahaman umat mengenai riba masih terlalu rendah. Walaupun kerajaan telah berusaha menyediakan pelbagai insentif galakan dan membangunkan prasarana kewangan berpandukan syarak seperti institusi perbankan Islam, realitinya umat Malaysia masih ramai yang tidak mendukung sistem muamalah Islam yang diperkenalkan.

Laporan Bank Negara 2005 jelas membuktikan senario ini. Penguasaan pasaran sistem perbankan Islam yang bebas riba umpamanya hanya dalam lingkungan 11 ke 12 peratus berbanding jumlah umat Islam di Malaysia hari ini yang melebihi 65 peratus. Ini bermakna masih ramai umat Islam yang kekal mengamalkan urus niaga dengan perbankan konvensional yang berasaskan riba.

Bank Negara Malaysia sendiri secara sederhana meletakkan sasaran bagi tahun berakhir 2010 untuk sistem perbankan Islam meningkatkan penguasaan pasaran perbankan hingga ke tahap 20 peratus.

Ini juga memberi indikasi penting bagi 27 institusi-institusi perbankan dan kewangan Islam yang sedia ada untuk melakukan promosi secara besar-besaran bagi meyakinkan bukan sahaja umat Islam bahkan masyarakat bukan Islam untuk turut melabur dan menyimpan dalam institusi-institusi yang menawarkan produk-produk yang menepati syarak.

Dalam konteks ini, umat Islam sendiri terutamanya harus disuntik dan dipertingkatkan kesedaran mereka mengenai kepentingan berurus niaga secara halal tanpa melibatkan elemen riba. Umat harus difahamkan betapa besarnya dosa melibatkan diri dalam urus niaga yang mempunyai unsur-unsur riba tidak kira sama ada berbentuk pelaburan, simpanan mahupun pembiayaan.

Ini kerana Islam amat tegas memerangi unsur-unsur riba dalam sistem muamalah manusia. Pernyataan keras di dalam al-Quran bahawa Allah dan Rasul-Nya mengisytiharkan perang terhadap golongan yang mengamalkan riba jelas menggambarkan betapa beratnya dosa riba yang sememangnya boleh mendatangkan penganiayaan dan ketidakadilan dalam hubungan sesama manusia (al-Baqarah: 279).

Malah dalam sebuah hadis sahih riwayat al-Hakim dinyatakan bahawa: “Riba mempunyai 73 jenis. Yang paling ringan antaranya menyamai kesalahan berzina dengan ibu kandung sendiri”. Terdapat sekurang-kurangnya 12 ayat yang secara khusus membincangkan isu riba dalam al-Quran. Malah terlalu banyak hadis yang memperincikan urus niaga muamalah yang bebas daripada elemen-elemen riba dan penindasan. Pengharaman riba turut ditegaskan sekali lagi dalam khutbah terakhir Nabi dalam peristiwa Haji Wida' sebelum kewafatan baginda.

Berdasarkan dalil-dalil inilah, sesetengah ulama menyatakan bahawa tahap pengharaman riba adalah lebih serius dan berat berbanding bentuk pengharaman lain seperti minum arak, judi mahupun makanan haram seperti babi. Ini kerana, Allah tidaklah sampai menegaskan secara keras seperti pengisytiharan perang terhadap mereka yang minum arak, berjudi mahupun memakan barangan haram seperti babi berbanding pengharaman riba.

Justeru, sudah tiba masanya kerajaan melihat perkara ini secara lebih serius. Kurikulum pendidikan agama di sekolah-sekolah umpamanya harus mulai diperkemaskan bagi membincangkan aspek muamalah Islam dengan lebih luas dan bukan sekadar menitikberatkan aspek ibadah fardu ain semata-mata.

Ini amat menepati aspirasi syarak atau disebut Maqasid as-Syariah yang amat menitikberatkan bukan sahaja pemerkasaan dalam konteks ibadah semata-mata tetapi turut memastikan kehidupan muamalah sesama manusia sentiasa berteraskan prinsip keadilan, kesaksamaan sekali gus menghindari sebarang bentuk penindasan dan penganiayaan.

Hanya dengan meningkatkan kesedaran dan kefahaman umat secara tuntas mengenai prinsip-prinsip muamalah berpandukan syarak sahajalah mampu merealisasikan impian kerajaan untuk menjadikan Malaysia sebagai peneraju sistem kewangan Islam pada masa depan.

------------

My comments:

the mentioning of Al-Baqarah 279 brings an intriguing question to my mind: It is often claimed that Islam upholds peace above all, and won't attack unless violated (or at least during the Prophet's own times, when Islam was at its purest form... can't say much about the seemingly trigger-happy later times Ottoman Empire though...). So if Al-Baqara 279 says that the Prophet is ready to wage war against usury-practicing people, how do we consolidate that with the peace-loving concept? time to seek out the knowledgeable people...

my Nusantara 2006 article in RPI's Poly Newsletter

2006-12-02T20:33:00.000-05:00

I was requested by the Poly's journalist to write an article about our Nusantara 2006 event last April... (doh, our original intention of calling up the Poly is for THEM to write a coverage of our event...). Almost forgot about this article's existence, until I stumbled upon it again, in digital form. Here it is, reproduced for your reading pleasure...

--------------

Malaysian students unite with Nusantara <-- (Not my original title btw...)
Posted 04-12-2006 at 7:09PM
Nik Mohamed Nizal
Special to The Poly

Malaysians at RPI are quite an odd bunch. You may see some of them around campus; the girls with bright-colored headscarves scuttling around, always at least in twos or more; the guys who are generally more mild-mannered and sometimes easily mistaken for Mexicans in terms of looks. You might even be familiar with some of them through class or work. The consensus seems to be that yes, they are quite an amiable lot once you get to know them, and they do cook great food, but overall they are somewhat ... withdrawn.

Then came Nusantara 2005. All of a sudden, the West Hall audience was bedazzled with explosions of color and rhythms, of bewitching motions and of artistic postures, of exquisite culture and of mystical myths. For three hours, the people in the audience were transfixed in their seats as we bombarded them with all-out Malaysian-ness like they never experienced before—transfixed, that is, save for the times when we mercifully gave them some pauses to blink, breath, and get some quick refreshments from the food stalls at the back. The event was a tremendous success despite being the first of its kind, and the first of such a large scale—we employed close to a hundred people to run the event, audience turnout was well over 400, and we pulled in about $1200, all of which we donated toward the Tsunami Relief efforts.

That was last year, and with over 30 senior Malaysian students having graduated soon afterward, we were not sure whether we could pull off something of that scale again. Accordingly, we adjusted our approach, and when we held Nusantara II: Rojak! last Saturday, we focused more on the food (which has always received favorable reviews) as well as games, which relies on the cunning formula of letting you entertain yourself rather than us spoonfeeding it to you—more interactivity and active brain processing for you, and less burden for us. There were still onstage shows for those who desired the couch potato style of immersion, only this time, we held the reins a bit; we did not want the performers, who were probably going to both design and assemble the props, handle the stage lighting or some other logistics, and cook and sell food for the night as well.

We did go wild with the room decorations though. Seeing the sheer amount of decorations we had put on all around the McNeil Room, one can’t help but be absorbed in the atmosphere of rustic villages juxtaposed with cosmopolitan cityscapes; what with the handconstructed thatch hut in the games area bordered with picket fences and dotted with river rocks and rolling expanses of paddy fields in the background view; what with a model of the Kuala Lumpur Convention Center Twin tower, the world’s second tallest building, gracing one of the pillars and the Kuala Lumpur Tower on the other one; what with the realistic rural-style food stall design contrasted against the city-bound ones, all lined up on the side of roads complete with margin markers and traffic signs.

Nusantara II: Rojak! signifies medleys on many layers as the name indicates. Rojak is a Malaysian cuisine that involves mixed fruit cuts dipped in hot and sweet sauce. Likewise, our event that night featured mixed themes of shows as well as mixed themes of food. There were nine food stalls selling over 15 different dishes covering all aspects of a full-course meal, all authentically Malaysian in their exuberance of taste and freshness of texture, lovingly made with human hands and rich natural ingredients instead of cold industrial machines soaked with artificial chemical substitutes that typify the modern food of the West.

Nusantara II: Rojak! started off with the traditional Dikir Barat, where 10-15 people sat crosslegged (a feat which I heard many westerners find hard to do, if I may smugly remark) on the stage and sang out jovially while letting only their upper body dance. Then it was followed by a humorous wayang kulit (shadow puppet) show, voiced over by none other than the MCs themselves, Kwattz and Mitch. There was then a half an hour break to allow the audience to rush the foodstands. The show continued afterward with a selamat datang (Welcoming) Dance, a colourful performance embedded with many cultural welcoming gestures, if one was to observe carefully. As martial arts demonstrations are the staple of cultural shows, we also took the opportunity to perform ours, with a unique twist of female warriors dominating the show. Another break ensued, and then we had the bagaikan puteri (Like a Princess) Dance, based off from a contemporary Malaysian pop song.

Next was the highlighted How Hot Can You Go contest, a Fear Factor style competition of tongue endurance against increasing levels of hot and spicy Malaysian sauces. The ultimate challenge was called “the Chip’s Sauce” in recognition of the person concocting it, who was notorious for at least one occasion of making sauces so hot yet so good that people can’t stop eating it, even though it resulted in them having diarrhea for two weeks. Incidentally, there was also a hilarious mix-up before the contest when some hopeful youth turned up asking about the “Hot cheerleading competition,” probably due to the misleadingly alluring imagery portrayed in the contest’s posters.

After the contest was the Endang dance, symbolizing the motions of eight ladies washing clothes at a river bend. Yes, for us Malaysians, even the dreary affairs of laundry can be done in an exquisite style. Following that was a short session of auctioning of Malaysian Handicrafts, where half of the profit goes to charity. The last show of the night was a band performance of the song Eyelash, a suitably soothing lullaby to the event’s closure.

Overall, we had about 200 people in attendance. Since each food vendor kept all the profits for their sales, there is no total figure yet, but the charity auction and donation booth collected over $450, which shall be channelled toward United Nation’s World Food Programme, which seeks to address world hunger issues.

http://www.poly.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=4793&part=1

touchy-touchy game idea: handcuffed duel

2006-11-26T10:53:00.000-05:00

I had this inspiration after watching Michael Jackson's "Beat It" videoclip, where two guys tie one of their hands to the other person's, with the other hand holding a knife and try to score on each other. what i have in mind is something less violent, of course: instead of dueling with knives, use a marker pen and attempt to score a mark on the opponent's shirt.

e.g. lets have each player wearing a white shirt with a 3x3 box drawn in front of it. The first player to manage to complete to mark all 9 squares wins the duel. This tests one's dexterity in trying to home in one's attacks while at the same time nimbly avoiding the opponent's attempts. And since the players are tied to each other, they can't simply run away, thus the battle will always be constantly up-close & personal.

this should make a fun game to play & watch at parties, among yer close friends, among intimate spouses, *ehem*!

For better flexibility & range of movement, it's better to use handcuffs rather than tightly tying the hands together... allowing the player to whirl around the bondage without risking breaking each other's wrist in the process.

to discourage skill-less wild slashing attacks, each mark that hits outside of the 3x3 box is counted as penalty... e.g. in extended plays , winner's score for each round is 10 pts, minus 1 for each missed marks... thus a consolation prize of 1 pt in the worst case if you are a very sloppy winner.

hmm... to play this game would need lots of sacrificial white shirts in preparation, and lots of laundrying afterwards... hmm... further game-rules tightening is in order. of course the marker shouldn't be permanent... d'oh. use washable magic pen or something.

alternative marking methods to be considered:
- hairclips
- stickers
- velcro

to be further refined...

Why A Christian Scholar on Islam won't convert

2006-11-10T18:14:00.000-05:00

The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH): A mercy to mankind
by Martin Forward
Aurora University's Wackerlin Center for Faith and Action

I’m going to assume that most people here are Muslims, and that the rest of us have come to celebrate this event with you. My first, happiest and most important task is to wish you blessings and peace on this auspicious occasion. Ever since the seventh century of the Islamic calendar, which is the thirteenth century of the Christian, the Mawlid al-Nabi has been celebrated by most Muslims, and I’m delighted to share your celebrations with you today. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, has been a mercy to humankind, and deserves our respect and esteem, and even our love. Incidentally, please forgive me if in future I don’t say ‘Peace be upon him’ or its Arabic original Salla Allah ‘alayhi wa sallam after naming one of God’s messengers. I mean no disrespect by this, but am simply following academic convention. And an academic is what I am.

You’ve done me a great honor by asking me to speak to you today. For I’m a Christian, not a Muslim; and the history between our great religions has often been unhappy, even violent. One of the great sadnesses of my Muslim friends, often expressed to me, is that whereas Muslims honor the Prophet Jesus, Christians have mostly failed to say anything positive about the Prophet Muhammad at all. Indeed, during the European Middle Ages, scurrilous and slanderous charges were laid against him. I won’t specify any of them, though they’re easy to look up and ponder. They don’t show my Christian tradition in an admirable light, and would only cause offence and gloom at this happy event.

I allude to them only in order to illustrate my conviction that Christians need to come to a positive assessment of the achievements of the great Arabian Prophet. If they can do so, it’ll be a small way of repenting their past slanders about him, and of acknowledging the positive achievements of Islam in human history.

Let me tell you some stories about my own interest in Islam, so that you can see why, as a Christian, I feel strongly that my co-religionists should learn to appreciate your religion and its final Prophet.

When I was around ten years old, I lived in Aden, then a British colony at the heel of the Arabian peninsular. My father was a member of the Royal Air Force, and he’d been there before, during World War 2 and again just after that conflagration. When he brought his family there, from 1961-63, we met some of the Arab and Indian Muslim friends he’d made there on previous visits. One of them asked us all to dinner and, to me, it proved an unforgettable experience. After dinner, my father’s friend excused himself and said his evening prayers nearby, as though it was the most natural thing in the world to do. I’d been brought up as a Christian. My family went to church, occasionally. But this was the first time I was aware of prayer not just as a private preoccupation but as a public activity: as important, more important, than hospitality and other good things. That event made me ponder the religion of Islam that my father’s friend followed. Ever since then, I’ve felt unable to dismiss Islam as a false religion with no merit in it at all. That man was warm and gracious, made so by the faith that he followed and practiced. To deny this would be pointless, churlish and untruthful.

Years later, I went to India and worked in Hyderabad for the Henry Martyn Institute, a Christian center for the study of Islam. My teacher of quranic Arabic, Hayath Khan, was a lovely old man, imam of a mosque on the outskirts of the city. He became very fond of me, as I of him, and he was deeply troubled why I, who knew so much about Islam, nevertheless remained a Christian. He worried lest, on the Day of Judgment, I would be among the losers. I’ll come back to that point later. I myself was captivated by his devotion to God and His Prophet. Every time he recited from the Holy Qur’an verses about the mercies of God or told me stories about the life of the Prophet, tears would flow down his cheeks and into his white beard. He invited me to his family’s celebrations on the occasion of Bakr Eid, where a goat was slaughtered and shared with other members of the local community, and where I was made more than welcome. He took me to shrines at the tombs of local Muslim saints, explaining to me that some Muslims forbade this practice but that others drew comfort and inspiration from it. Another Muslim friend from Indian days was Sabiha Latifi. She was a frail woman, who worried about my health, not hers. She often fed me, gave me a wonderful recipe for Lentil curry and, if she had a fault at all, it was an overwhelming love for chocolate. In later years, whenever I visited India from England, I had to bring lots of chocolate for her and hope that it wouldn’t melt under the glare of the Indian sun and of customs’ officials. I called her ummi: mother. Sabiha was a saintly woman, whom I mourned greatly when she died. I remember talking with her about the Prophet Muhammad and, when she spoke of him, she seemed lit up from within by joy and hope and love.

I learned to speak Urdu whilst in India, badly. Some years later, I tried to improve it by going to a teacher, Mohammed Alam. He became one of my dearest friends. He’s a Pakistani Muslim who immigrated to England as a young man and settled in the city of Leicester, where I then lived and where he was leader of a Punjabi welfare group. His family and mine became fast friends. He once told me of a dream he had where, as he lay dying, I was there to whisper the name of God into his ear. We often talked about religion and about the follies and stupidities of many religious leaders in both our faiths. We would talk of the Prophets Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, and how their teaching has often been misrepresented, distorted and used for acts of violence instead of deeds of peace, as much by insiders as by outsiders. Religions, including our own religions of Islam and Christianity, can be poison or medicine, depending on how they’re used. Alam and I could be honest with each other about our beliefs and our religion, as friends should, not needing to justify our religion by pretending that it’s wholly good and perfect as humans have practiced it.

Of course, I’m not alone in being a Christian who has appreciated Islam. Over the last two centuries, there’ve been many Christians who’ve not been blind to Islam’s historical, political and religious achievements, nor to the Prophet Muhammad’s power over the hearts and minds of Muslims. There are lots of stories of friendships between Christians and Muslims. For example, Constance Padwick was a Christian missionary in Cairo, Palestine and Sudan from 1923 to 1957, who wrote a wonderful book called Muslim Devotions. Her deep Christian faith did not cause her to slander Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. Rather, she wrote appreciatively about Islam’s great spiritual heritage. She was one of a number of western scholars (including Louis Massignon, Kenneth Cragg and many others) who, although they remained Christians, had Muslim friends and tried to find a positive and approving and grateful way of understanding Islam and its great Prophet.

One such eminent Christian is William Montgomery Watt, still alive in his 97th year and Professor Emeritus at Edinburgh University, Scotland. His books have done much to emphasize the Prophet’s commitment to social justice; Watt has described him as being like an Old Testament prophet, who came to restore fair dealing and belief in one God to the Arabs, for whom these were or had become irrelevant concepts. This would not be a sufficiently high estimate of his worth for most Muslims, but it’s a start. Frankly, it’s hard for Christians to say affirmative things about a religion like Islam that postdates their own, which they are brought up to believe contains all things necessary for salvation. And it’s difficult for Muslims to face the fact that Christians aren’t persuaded by the view that Christianity is only a stop on the way to Islam, the final religion. But we should try to understand each other’s dilemma, and try to find some ways to affirm the hope and the goodness we find in each other’s faith. In truth, Muslims are never going to agree to central Christian teaching about Jesus, and Christians are never going to accept all that Muslims claim for Muhammad. But we can talk together in friendship, respect and affection, agreeing where we can, and disagreeing where we must in faith, and hope and love. In such a context, puzzlement and even anger can be expressed in healthy and respectful, not insolent and destructive ways.

Still, as Muslims you might ask why these remarkable Christian scholars of Islam remained Christians. Or why do I? If great intellectuals like them, or workaday ones like me, have read about Islam, studied the life of the Prophet Muhammad, talked with Muslim friends: why haven’t we had the good sense to convert to Islam? Or, since many Muslims believe that Islam is the original religion, why don’t I and others revert to the primordial faith of humankind?

Well, there are no doubt sociological and psychological reasons for this: the pressures of culture reinforced by the earliest stories we are told, no doubt make it difficult for most of us to convert. Relatively few individuals do, in reality, transfer from one religion to another because they are absolutely convinced that they are moving from darkness to light, from falsehood to the clear truth. There are usually other factors in play when individuals make that decision to convert. And often it’s not an individual choice at all, but a communal act of groups of people, pressured to do so or fleeing an oppressive faith. Most people stay in the religion of their birth. That doesn’t make it right, but it does make it usual.

It’s hard to transfer from one faith to another unless you are really convinced that you should. Some people go there, though most do not. But it’s not just sociology, psychology or other such factors that keep us moored to our original religious shores. Nor is it wickedness, or blindness, or apathy. Religions are cultural systems that reinforce value and values, that empower and challenge us. At their best, each one does that, a truth that can be proved by observing the life of others and in our own life-experiences. Our religion is a part of our identity. For most of us, changing our religion would be denying who we are and what we’ve become. So we stay put: as Christians, or Muslims, or whatever we are.

Moreover, many of us grow to love what we’ve learned and experienced. Like many Christians, I remain Christian because of Jesus the Christ. As I read the pages of the New Testament, I love the stories he tells and I’m enthralled by his message that God’s kingdom of love is open to all, not just to a social or a moral elite. I believe that his death showed the depth of God’s commitment to the world he made and the people in it, and the fact that God raised him from the dead illustrates God’s capacity to transform darkness into light, despair into hope, and death into life. Muslims and Christians don’t believe the same things about Jesus. For Muslims he’s a prophet, but for Christians he’s more than a prophet, embodying the heart, the mind and the purpose of God. That’s what Good Friday and Easter, which we have just celebrated, mean to Christians.

Because of my commitment to Jesus, I can readily appreciate the commitment of Muslims to the Prophet Muhammad, and so I too can be angered by attempts by outsiders to mock him; attempts such as the recent cartoon controversy in Denmark and elsewhere. Our religious leaders, especially the human founders under God of our religions, should challenge us by their wisdom and insight and revelatory power. We should not challenge their importance by demeaning them, and reducing them to our own level of sin and folly. If outsiders have a problem with the actions of some Muslims, then they should challenge those Muslims and their understanding of what God and His Prophet demand of them. You and I can be mocked, and we should learn to deal with it. We might have questions about the life and teachings of God’s messengers, and some things about them may puzzle us. But to mock them is to mock God. Actually, I’m sure that God can cope with our ridicule, but that’s not the point. It’s we who are wounded and debased by it, not God.

Earlier, I noted that many of my Muslim friends are saddened, even shocked and offended, by the unwillingness of Christians to honor the Prophet Muhammad in any significant way. I should tell you that a similar sadness touches Christians who listen to Muslim teaching about central Christian beliefs. Perhaps not enough Muslims are aware of the offence caused to Christians by some Muslim teaching about Jesus. Most educated Christians find many Islamic descriptions of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity to be a caricature. We do not believe in three gods but in one God, revealed in different ways. If Christians trouble Muslims by not having any assessment of the Prophet Muhammad at all, then Muslims trouble Christians by having views of Jesus that, from a Christian perspective, are inadequate to his meaning.

How can we deal with this difference between us? Well, we can adapt the attitude of my old friend Hayath Khan, who liked me but sincerely believed that there was no eternal hope for me because of my unwillingness to embrace Islam. Some of you here tonight may hold a similar view, and I must respect it as a deep-rooted and long tradition, but not the only one, in Islam. If you hold it, I hope you are as warm and loving as he was, despite this rather austere, exclusive and bleak view. I also need to tell you that there are a pile of Christians out there who feel much the same about Muslims who, in their opinion, have seriously erred in not accepting Jesus as their savior. But their’s is no more the only Christian view than Hayath Khan’s is the only Muslim one.

Friendship can break through distrust and antagonism to find points of agreement: that hospitality is good and mirrors the generosity of God; that God does speak to us his will and his love; and so on. We can meet in the cave of the heart. The mystical experience is common to both religions, though frowned upon by some Muslims and some Christians; foolishly, in my opinion, for these experiences teach us that the membrane between this world and the next is very thin, that people and places and things and religions can point beyond themselves to the truth of God, who is pure love, for you and for me and for all.

When, instead, we meet at the level of scripture, doctrine and religious law, differences can be emphasized to the exclusion of our shared faith in the God of Adam and Eve and of Abraham and Hagar.

We sometimes confuse the words ‘religion’ and ‘faith’, using them interchangeably. So: when we refer to the Christian faith, we mean Christianity; or by writing or speaking of the Muslim faith, we signify Islam. It’s convenient to do this. I do it myself. Nevertheless, religion and faith are not the same. Faith is a response to this world’s mystery. It’s a way of indicating our trust that there is more to life than meets the eye, that this world is the creation of a good God who seeks us out to follow him. Faith is an attitude of life, offering us hope. Religions provide the structure that we all need to help us channel our faith so as to understand and obey God. Religions are nouns: they are full of things (scripture, beliefs, codes of conduct, stories, and many other things) that help us express our faith. At its best, faith is an adjective: something that helps us to discern and describe and live by the power of what is really real.

When I read about the religion of Islam, I recognize that it’s not my home. Its stories have not shaped by life; nor can I share, even though I can admire, the beliefs about the Holy Qur’an that Muslims hold; and its theological and philosophical debates are not quite the same as those held within my own religion of Christianity. I can admire and even to some extent understand and appreciate another religion like Islam, but I don’t feel at home there.

But not only can I admire, understand and appreciate another’s faith; I can also inhabit it, or at least elements of it. When I read or hear of the Prophet Muhammad’s passion that God should be God, and that people should recognize him for who the merciful one who deals mercifully that he is; or of the Prophet’s emphasis upon social justice; or of his desire to reconcile conflicting groups, so that war and violence should only be a last resort: then my heart is filled with joy. I can share that faith in the goodness of God, and I can hope that Christians and Muslims and other people of goodwill will work together to mend the world. When I hear Muslim friends speak words of hope for a better world for all, where God’s name is invoked as a blessing, when they act (as most do) in ways that are good and holy and life-giving, and when they testify that all this is made clear for them through the life and witness of God’s Holy Prophet Muhammad, then I too can bear witness to the faith that Muhammad is a mercy to mankind.

Martin Forward

source: http://www.aurora.edu/cfa/published/muhammad.htm

Why Men seems to be superior than Women

2006-10-14T17:37:00.000-04:00

I lifted this straight from my book commentary writing assignment. Will prune it for easier reading when I have the time.

-------------------------------

On page 119, a drawn premise was that "culture is superior than nature". To leave this statement just as that without any qualifications would imply a holistic & absolute superiority, which is a questionable stance to adopt. Thus I believe a more reasonable statement would be that "in certain aspects, culture is superior than nature". Example of this case would be the desirable presence of a conscious free will and an active control on the cultural agent's part over himself and his environment, compared to the seemingly mindless automatic behavior of natural agents. Example to the contrary would be the self-sustaining and self-regulated ecosystem of natural agents as a whole as compared to the unbalancing actions of unethical elements of cultural agents.

Correspondingly, to say "men are superior than women" also requires having its situational qualifiers. I would agree to the passage's assertion that [in terms of capacity for self-control] *, a woman "spends more of her life engaged in natural processes than is true for men and male physiology", thus having less control over her physiological (alluding to hormonal, and then emotional) states. I am being cautious in my qualifier by stressing further that it is her capacity that is lacking, not her actual exerted self-control. Men, having less physiological issues to worry about, have more opportunities for higher level endeavors. Whether they actually make full use of this extra capacity is a different matter.

Why then it oftentimes seem (or societies lead us to believe) that men are overall superior to women? I would posit that men's superiority are often in areas of immediate concern or in simple low-cognitive-level matters, such as physical strength or courage. Women's advantages, on the other hand, are on subtler issues such as empathy and holistic thinking styles. This is further accentuated by our tendency to commit availability heuristic thinking, drawing upon our first few thoughts to make deductive judgments, rather than a lengthy, strained, and careful considerations of all possible ideas.

*My own qualifier added

Father & Son triathlon

2006-07-13T03:36:00.000-04:00

http://www.cnn.com/US/9911/29/hoyt.family/index.html

http://www.coolrunning.com/engine/3/3_1/dick-and-rick-hoyt-to-com.shtml

reminds me of the story of the son carrying his mother doing tawaf around the Kaabah:

Abdullah ibn Umar, a leading scholar among the Prophet’s (Pbuh) companions once saw a man from Yemen carrying his mother on his back and going around the Ka’abah in his tawaf. Rather than show any sign of complaint, the man was happy, repeating a line of poetry in which he likened himself to a camel his mother was mounting. The only difference is that a camel may be scared by something and go out of control. He would never go out of her control. He looked at Abdullah ibn Umar and asked him whether by so doing he discharged his debt to his mother. Ibn Umar said: “No. You have not even paid back one twinge of her labour pain when she gave birth to you.”
http://www.islamicvoice.com/july.98/hadith.htm

or from a different source,

It is related that a man was making tawaf around the Ka’ba whilst carrying his mother and as such he asked the Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, “Have I fulfilled her right [upon me].” He, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, replied, “Not even one cry of pain.” (Related by al-Bazzar)
http://www.leedsgrandmosque.com/khutbahs/khutba-20030711.asp

yeah, i'm puzzled myself abt who's saying the wise words, but nevertheless, the morale gist of story remains to be pondered...

Interfaith Comission Initiative in Malaysia

2006-07-11T07:24:00.000-04:00

I got this forwarded msg from a friend:

Peguam Kes Murtad Shazalina/Linda Choy (Ust Zulkefli Nordin), beliau telah memberi ceramah pada malam tadi di Surau As Sakinah, TTDI JAYA, Selangor tentang kumpulan kafir Artikel 11/IFC. Mereka ini (IFC) sedang bergiat untuk menghapuskan keistimewaan orang Islam di Malaysia, pihak Mahkamah Persekutuan hanya ada masa 6 minggu sahaja lagi untuk membuat keputusan sama ada meluluskan atau tidak. Kalau LULUS maka orang Islam dalam bahaya besar. Boleh hubungi Ustaz Zulkefli sendiri (0133998718) untuk penjelasan lebih lanjut, pihak peguam Muslim memberi penerangan tentang perkara ini. Sila sebarkan berita ini kepada semua orang Islam kerana isu ini amat serius.

Upon digging the internet for further info, I found this article from Aliran newsletter site:

We are committed to dialogue

A response to criticism of the Interfaith Commission Initiative

by Malik Imtiaz Sarwar
Aliran Monthly Vol 25 (2005): Issue 6

It is unfortunate that certain quarters have chosen to misrepresent the efforts of the Steering Committee and the Initiative itself. These misrepresentations are reckless and published with disregard for the truth. They have had, and still have, the unfortunate effect of undermining a necessary and valuable civil society effort. These accusations and misrepresentations have further had the regrettable effect of creating tensions where none existed before.

The purpose of this statement is to explain the Initiative and the draft Bill, which was the final product of the Conference held in Bangi in February.

What is the Interfaith Commission?

According to a statement issued by PAS Youth (Perlis), the Interfaith Commission is:

“…sebuah suruhanjaya yang dicadangkan penubuhannya seperti sebuah badan berkanun yang mempunyai kuasa undang-undang yang boleh mengubah ajaran sesetengah agama (baca: Islam) akibat desakan penganut agama lain.

“Badan ini berfungsi mirip sebuah Mahkamah dan segala keputusannya adalah muktamad ke atas agama yang bersabit.”

This is a flight of fancy. The proposed Commission is in no way an adjudicatory body. It is an advisory, consultative and conciliatory body, and this was stated repeatedly in media reports as well as at the Conference on the Initiative towards the Interfaith Commission of Malaysia. The fact that the proposed Commission is in no way an adjudicatory body is explicitly stated in the draft Bill in section 4(2), which reads:

“The Commission shall at all times independently perform its functions as an advisory, consultative and conciliatory body.”

This is reinforced by the powers of the proposed Commission as set out under the draft bill. Amongst its principal powers as drafted are the powers:

“to promote awareness of the tenets and beliefs of the diverse religions and faiths of the world….” (section 5(1)(a))

“to advise the Government and/or the relevant authorities of complaints against such authorities and recommend to the Government and/or such authorities appropriate measures to be taken” (section 5(1)(b))

“to resolve any dispute or rectify any act or omission, emanating from or constituting an infringement of religious harmony by means of mediation, negotiation or conciliation” (section 5(1)(i))

This is crystallized by the actuating provisions i.e. those sections which translate the broader power or competency into action. In this regard, Part III sets out the actuating provisions. These are limited to conducting inquiries or holding conciliations, mediation or negotiation sessions and making recommendations as the case may be, similar to the ambit of SUHAKAM, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia. There is no wider power. In particular, there is no power to change the tenets of religion. There is no power to stay the hand of the Sharia courts.

Why the need for an Interfaith Commission?

Simply put, there is no formal process for interfaith dialogue in existence at the moment. Neither is there a mechanism for the shaping of coherent interfaith policy in the country. In addition, the only method of dispute resolution is by legal action in the courts, which, in the interests of peaceful co-existence, should be the last resort in disputes.

The fact remains that being multi-racial and multi-religious, there is bound to be friction as beliefs and cultures come into conflict. Such friction does not revolve around the issue of apostasy but involves other issues such as the building and maintenance of places of worship and issues of propagation amongst faiths other than Islam.

Participants at the National Conference recognised this and, further, the fact that a constructive and concrete method had to be put in place to deal with friction in a non-confrontational and apolitical way. The Conference therefore endorsed the proposed Commission as being one such recourse for problems to be accepted and then channeled to appropriate authorities for resolution, in a dynamic similar to SUHAKAM, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia. The creation of the proposed Commission would validate the concerns of all stakeholders. Further, its independent status would engender confidence. This in turn could encourage true national unity.

While interfaith dialogue has been proposed as an alternative to the proposed Commission, and is indeed one of the objectives of the proposed Commission, dialogue has limitations. Interfaith dialogue is a vital first step with continuing relevance in fostering understanding and interaction despite differences between religions.

The proposed Commission, however, is envisaged as complementing such efforts in areas in which just ‘dialogue’ will not resolve real problems as these arise. In this sense, as noted above, the proposed Commission would be a conduit for channelling problems to the appropriate authorities for attention and resolution

Is there a hidden agenda?

The Allied Coordinating Committee of Islamic NGOs (ACCIN) suggests that there is a hidden agenda on the part of the organisers of the Initiative. ACCIN states:

“THE HIDDEN AGENDA

The IFC attempts to bypass and usurp the powers of State Islamic Religious Bodies

The IFC will bypass the Shariah Courts

The IFC wants to use Civil Courts to decide on Islamic Religious Matters

The formation of IFC is an interference in Intra-Muslims Affairs (NOT the Inter-Religious Affairs)(sic)

The IFC will eventually infringe the Muslims’ rights to practise Islam in accordance with the Teachings of the Holy Qur’an and the Hadith”

Significantly, ACCIN and others who have parroted the same concerns have not explained why they believe this. The truth is that there is no basis at all to any of the accusations. This can be seen from the following.

Firstly, the draft Bill does not have any provisions allowing for the proposed Commission to bypass the State Islamic Religious Bodies or the Sharia Courts. There is no provision aimed at allowing the proposed Commission to use the Civil Courts to decide on Islamic Religious Matters. There is no provision singling out Islam.

Secondly, no explanation has been given as to how the proposed Commission would interfere with Intra-Islamic affairs or how the Commission will infringe on Muslims’ rights to practise Islam. These accusations are sensationalist and manipulative of public opinion against the Initiative.

Thirdly, there are many organisations and individuals who support the Initiative, including Muslims. Having said that, no consensus was arrived at on various matters. Those matters on which there has been no consensus have been omitted from the draft Bill. 173 participants attended the Conference and endorsed the draft Bill as ultimately agreed to. The draft Bill was the final product of the consensus of the participants. These included Muslims. The accusations suggest that all these participants had anti-Islamic agendas. This suggestion is ludicrous. The participants respected all religions and believed in the rights of others to profess their own faith. The participants would not have associated themselves with the draft Bill if it was as characterised by ACCIN and other critics.

Fourthly, the draft Bill is just that, a draft. It is not law until Parliament makes it law. This is something for those in Parliament and the Government. The critics have given the impression that the proposed Commission has been brought into existence and this by means of a fait accompli. This is preposterous.

Much has been said of a memorandum issued by the Malaysian Consultative Council on Buddhism, Chistianity, Hinduism and Sikhism (MCCBCHS) and the pivotal role the MCCBHCS played in the initiative. The MCCBCHS was merely one of numerous supporting organizations. Whilst representatives from the MCCBHCS had the right to voice their views, the same opportunity was given to all others who were present at meetings of the Steering Committee. It was at all times made clear to Islamic NGOs that they were free to attend such meetings and voice their views. Sadly they chose not to, condemning the Initiative even before giving themselves an opportunity to fully appreciate the Initiative for what it was.

The memorandum referred to was received by the predecessor to the Steering Committee, the Pro-Tem Committee, whose aim was to organise a workshop to gauge civil society reaction to such an initiative. Other memoranda were received including one from a group of Muslims. These merely went to raising and noting the concern of the communities represented by these groups. These memoranda did not attempt to undermine Islam nor challenge its tenets. In any event, it is not correct to describe the MCCBCHS memorandum as being representative of the Initiative at any level.

The workshop organised by the Pro-Tem Committee was a success. About 100 individuals, including Muslims, attended and unanimously agreed that a national conference was necessary to consider how best to implement the proposals. The workshop also mandated a Steering Committee to organise the national conference and take the necessary steps. The Conference and the draft Bill presented were a product of the Steering Committee and wider civil society.

Is the initiative anti-Islamic? Are the person or organisations involved?

To be anti-Islam is to be completely focused on the destruction of the religion and all it stands for. There is no foundation for an accusation of this nature to be brought against the persons and organisations involved in the initiative. Neither can the same be said of the draft Bill. Such accusations are borne out of a total ignorance of the Initiative, its underpinnings or its context, and a lack of willingness to understand or inquire, and/or the intent to manipulate public perception. There are several ways in which this can be seen:

The draft Bill makes no reference to any religion, Islam or otherwise. It is therefore not focused on Islam. If it is not focused on Islam, it cannot be said to be ‘anti’. The critics have attempted to give basis to their accusations in several ways:

ACCIN states:

“Pihak Penaja jelas menunjukkan sikap yang anti-Islam. Ini adalah kerana beberapa memorandum yang dikeluarkan oleh mereka sebelum ini seperti berikut:

Seseorang Muslim patut diberi hak untuk meninggalkan Islam walaupun agama Islam tidak membenarkannya;

Artikel 11 Perlembagaan Persekutuan (dilihat dari aspek pelbagai dokumen antarabangsa mengenai hak asasi manusia dan hujah-hujah kes mahkamah di negara-negara bukan Islam) seharusnya diguna-pakai dalam menentukan hak seseorang Muslim memilih untuk murtad, dan bukannya undang-undang syarak;

Untuk memudahkan proses murtad Mahkamah Sivil dan bukannya Mahkamah Syariah yang seharusnya diberi kuasa menentukan hak seorang Muslim itu keluar dari agamanya;

Usaha yang diambil oleh Pihak Berkuasa Syariah Negeri memulihkan orang-orang yang bakal murtad dipertikaikan;

Istilah “Muslim” di bawah Undang-undang Enakmen Negeri terlalu luas walaupun didapati konsisten dengan undang-undang Syariah;

Seseorang itu tidak harus dianggap Muslim hanya disebabkan kedua ibubapanya Muslim atau beragama Islam atau dalam keadaan lain berdasarkan Undang-undang Syariah. Individu berkenaan sepatutnya membuat pilihan atas kehendaknya sendiri;

Agama seseorang Muslim itu tidak sepatutnya tercatat pada Kad Pengenalannya.”

In the same vein, TERAS states on its website:

“4. Apakah matlamat penubuhan IFC?

Matlamat IFC ialah untuk meminda beberapa ajaran asas Islam yang bakal merugikan orang Islam dan berpihak kepada kepentingan orang-orang bukan Islam.

5. Apakah tuntutan orang-orang bukan Islam yang dibuat melalui IFC?

Seseorang anak yang dilahirkan oleh ibubapa Islam tidak seharusnya secara terus menjadi orang Islam.

Orang-orang bukan Islam yang telah memeluk agama Islam hendaklah diberikan kebebasan untuk kembali kepada agama asal mereka (murtad) dan tidak boleh dikenakan tindakan undang-undang.

Sebarang kes pertukaran agama orang Islam kepada bukan Islam tidak sepatutnya dikendalikan oleh mahkamah syariah tetapi dikendalikan oleh mahkamah sivil.

Tidak perlu dicatatkan di dalam kad pengenalan seseorang Muslim bahawa ia beragama Islam.

Orang bukan Islam tidak perlu dikehendaki menganut Islam sekiranya ingin berkahwin dengan orang Islam.

Orang Islam hendaklah dibenarkan keluar daripada Islam (murtad) sekiranya ingin berkahwin dengan orang bukan Islam tanpa boleh dikenakan apa-apa tindakan undang-undang.

Seseorang atau pasangan suami isteri yang menukar agamanya dengan memeluk Islam tidak patut diberikan hak jagaan anak.

Orang-orang yang bukan Islam yang mempunyai hubungan kekeluargaan dengan seorang yang memeluk Islam hendaklah diberikan hak menuntut harta pesakanya selepas kematiannya.

Kerajaan hendaklah menyediakan dana yang mencukupi untuk membina dan menyelenggara rumah-rumah ibadat orang bukan Islam sebagaimana kerajaan menyediakan dana yang serupa untuk masjid. Kerajaan juga perlu membenarkan pembinaan rumah-rumah ibadat orang bukan Islam tanpa perlu adanya peraturan-peraturan tertentu.

Orang-orang bukan Islam hendaklah dibenarkan dan tidak boleh dihalang daripada menggunakan perkataan-perkataan suci Islam dalam percakapan dan sebagainya.

Bibel dalam Bahasa Malaysia dan Bahasa Indonesia sepatutnya dibenarkan untuk diedarkan kepada umum secara terbuka.

Pelajaran agama bukan Islam untuk penganut agama itu hendaklah diajar di semua sekolah.

Program-program berunsur Islam dalam bahasa ibunda sesuatu kaum hendaklah ditiadakan. Program dakwah agama lain selain Islam pula hendaklah dibenarkan untuk disiarkan dalam bahasa ibunda masing-masing.

Orang-orang Islam yang membayar zakat tidak sepatutnya dikecualikan daripada membayar cukai pendapatan dan wang hasil zakat sepatutnya digunakan juga untuk keperluan orang-orang bukan Islam.

Sepatutnya Islam tidak disebut sebagai pilihan pertama masyarakat Malaysia seperti dalam soal pakaian menutup aurat kepada pelajar sekolah.”

These points clearly show a lack of understanding of the rationale and intention of the initiative. These points have not been raised by the Steering Committee nor the draft Bill itself. The accusations are baseless. In fact the matters raised by TERAS seem to be more of a complaint in respect of any and every issue which it believes to be a part of its mandate to speak out on. How these relate to the Initiative remains a mystery.

Neither can the proposed Commission do any of the things stated by ACCIN, TERAS and others as it is only an advisory and consultative body. In any event, it would ultimately be for the duly appointed Commissioners to consider how best to move forward within the parameters of the law. The points made by ACCIN, TERAS and others are as such a distortion of the truth.

A belief in dialogue

The Steering Committee (and before it the Protem Committee) firmly believe in dialogue. There was much dialogue between all persons attending the meeting on behalf of their organisations or as individuals. The Committees had in their time made it clear to all concerned that the Committees were open to dialogue on any matters which were of concern. The Steering Committee is still committed to dialogue, especially with organisations such as ACCIN, TERAS and PAS and welcomes the possibility of these organisations taking the opportunity to do so. The Steering Committee believes that the Initiative is a necessary, precious and invaluable step forward in our society’s evolution. It is a means to bringing us closer to the Bangsa Malaysia that we all aspire to. The confrontational air that has been adopted thus far can only serve to divide us further.

Please support our work by buying a copy of our print publication, Aliran Monthly, from your nearest news-stand. Better still take out a subscription now. If you prefer to read our web-based edition, please support our work and make a donation.

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar wrote this in his capacity as Chairperson of, and on behalf of, the Steering Committee of the Initiative towards the Interfaith Commission of Malaysia.

Christmas 1914 Truce

2006-05-30T07:29:00.000-04:00

A supplement to my entry abt Courtesy in Wars throughout History: http://www.fylde.demon.co.uk/xmas.htm

Can "Modern Science" be found in the Qur’an?: A Rebuttal

2006-03-24T10:20:00.000-05:00

source: http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=81169
Mr Andy Bannister, if you don't like this appearing here, plz notify me.

--------------

Can "Modern Science" be found in the Qur’an?
A general rebuttal of this Muslim polemic by Andy Bannister

Every so often on newsgroups like soc.religion.islam and in other circles a particular argument surfaces. This is the claim that within the pages of the Qur’an, modern science can be found. Everything from comets to astronomy, embryology to geology, all this and more are claimed to be found in various Suras. And then it is argued that because Muhammad could not have known this science, the Qur’an must be divine.

Rebuttals to this argument usually consist of debating the particular point of science being advanced (see for example some of the excellent work by Andrew Vargo which can be seen elsewhere on the Answering Islam site). Whilst this is easy enough to do, it becomes somewhat irksome having to do it again and again. Therefore in this short paper, I have tried to produce a rebuttal of the very concept of modern science in the Qur’an. I believe that the polemic itself contains inherent logical flaws, and I hope that the points in this paper can be used whether embryology, geology, or any other point of science is being claimed as proving the Qur’an.

The paper arose out of a debate on the soc.religion.islam newsgroup about rivers and oceans, hence some references to that subject.

Anyway, here are six inherent flaws in the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument:

Those who pursue the argument leave no room for alternative interpretations
The argument as it stands makes Allah out to be weak
The argument is a modern polemic
At the end of the day, the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument does not find science in the Qur’an, rather it uses science to judge the Qur’an
Selective interpretation can be used to prove anything
Applying the argument means that the Qur’an is no longer authoritative
Conclusion

I hope that people find this paper of use. What I found both fascinating and encouraging was some of the responses that Muslims made to it. I had several who actually agreed with what I had said, and disagreed with their fellows who had been trying to use this polemic to promote the Qur’an. For example, a Muslim called AbdulraHman Lomax wrote of point 4 above "this is, in fact, the reason why our scholars generally reject the efforts to proclaim ‘science in the Qur'an’" and concluded his reply to my post with the words "Basically, *Andy is right.*".

Finally, for those who are interested, here are the links to the original debate in the archives of the soc.religion.islam newsgroup:

http://www.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=544267403
The posting from Suleiman that started it all
http://www.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=548759839
My reply to Suleiman and his friend Abujamal
(basically the text of this paper)
http://www.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=549129641
AbdulraHman Lomax’s reply to me

Please feel free to use and/or distribute any part of this paper. If you have any comments or suggestions, then do please email the author at andybannister@mac.com.

1) Those who pursue the argument leave no room for alternative interpretations

The very nature of the Qur’an means that Muslims often have alternative interpretations of what a particular verse means. There is nothing wrong with this; exegesis is often a difficult, tricky business, especially when we do not know the exact historical context in which a particular verse was revealed. For example, consider Dhu Al-Qarnayn/Zul-qarnain in the Qur’an. Muslims are divided over who this mysterious traveller, referred to in Sura 18, actually is. Some (e.g. Yusuf Ali) believed him to be Alexander the Great, others disagree and have other theories as to his identity, such as Cyrus the Great. There is plenty of room for healthy debate.

However, those who preach the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument are not relying upon what a particular verse says, but upon their interpretation. In fact, it might be better to rename their position as the "Belief that an interpretation of the Qur’an contains modern science demonstrates that it is from Allah." No verse in the Qur’an has yet been found to contain outright science (see point 2 below for more on this).

Consider Sura 25:53 which was what started this particular thread on the soc.religion.islam newsgroup:

"It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water: One palatable and sweet, and the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed." (Sura 25:53; Yusuf Ali)

Now the Muslim with whom I was debating (subsequently backed up by several others) argued that:

"the above verse of Quran clearly refers to the meeting between big rivers and the larger seas and oceans, where the river in some cases goes in the sea water for miles without mixing between the two entities of water. it is a well recognized phenomenon these days by scientist, also, the Quran clearly and undeniably points out to the reason for that, sweetness of one and saltiness of the other, in modern scientific terms, its differences in specific gravity between the two entities, which is also the explanation provided by modern scientist." (Suleiman, in thread "Scientific facts and Qur’an", soc.religion.islam, 4-Nov-99 See http://www.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=544267403 etc.)

However, when you compare the various English translations of the Qur’an, you begin to see that the verse is not talking about rivers, but bodies of water, according to the Arabic (I have a Muslim to thank for pointing this out to me):

YUSUFALI: It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water: One palatable and sweet, and the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed.

PICKTHAL: And He it is Who hath given independence to the two seas (though they meet); one palatable, sweet, and the other saltish, bitter; and hath set a bar and a forbidding ban between them.

SHAKIR: And He it is Who has made two seas to flow freely, the one sweet that subdues thirst by its sweetness, and the other salt that burns by its saltness; and between the two He has made a barrier and inviolable obstruction.

Now in order for a "modern scientific" interpretation to work, one has to insist these are not two seas or sheets of water, but that one is a river. The Arabic does not make that distinction. Why is this important? Because in order to find modern science in this verse, Suleiman et al have to insist that one body of water is a river (fresh water) and that one is an ocean (salt water). They can then introduce the idea of rivers of fresh water flowing into the seas and not mixing. Now, laying aside the issue of whether (as I would claim) or not (as Suleiman et al would claim) these two waters mix, there is a more fundamental issue. If the Arabic does not specify one is a river, then there is a much simpler interpretation:

The first "sea" or "body of water" or "bahr" (in Arabic) in question is the Red Sea (close to Mecca and Medina) and known to Muhammad, which is salt water.
The second "sea" or "body of water" or "bahr" in question could be any local sheet of fresh water (plenty of oases to choose from).
These two "seas" or "bodies of water" or "bahr" are separated by land; this is the impassable barrier.
Hence Sura 25:53 was actually a comment by Muhammad on the wondrous miracle (as he saw it), that Allah has seen fit to separate fresh and salt water.

This interpretation has a number of advantages going for it over the position put forward by Suleiman and others who would claim a modern scientific miracle in this verse. The advantages are:

i Suleiman claimed that Muhammad had probably never seen a river flow into the sea (he "lived thousands of miles away from rivers and seas" according to Suleiman’s first post on 4-Nov-99) If Suleiman is correct in this statement, then this fits my latter interpretation above, as in Muhammad’s mind fresh water and salt water did not meet.

ii It means that Sura 25:53 is applicable both to the time the verse was written (circa 600AD) and today; the Muslims who first read it could understand it and praise God for his provision, as can Muslims today. The alternative interpretation requires that this verse was meaningless for 1,300 years until those of us with the advantage of modern science could probably explain its meaning. Therefore the Qur’an was not relevant to all men at all time.

iii It explains why Muhammad wrote Sura 25:53. Despite having no concept of rivers/oceans and mixing/non-mixing, he would, however, understand the importance of fresh water, and it is perfectly understandable why he sees a supply of fresh water, separate from undrinkable salt water, to be an example of Allah’s provision and therefore worthy of mention.

In order to use Sura 25:53 to support the "modern science proves the Qur’an" position, then this latter interpretation needs to be rejected in favour of the former, with no real arguments in favour of the former interpretation other than it must be right because it is a miracle! (Note: Suleiman’s interpretation does not show that the Qur’an contains a miracle, merely that his interpretation of it is something special).

2) The argument as it stands makes Allah out to be weak

If Allah was going to use science to prove the Qur’an, then why not do it in a way that does not depend upon clever exegesis from the supporters of that argument? Rather, Allah could have done it in a way that was indisputable. For instance, why not predict TV with a verse such as: "Say: ‘Men shall watch images that move in a small box that stands in the corner of their dwelling.’" Or the moon landings: "Say: ‘Lo! And men shall walk upon the face of the moon, and plant a flag thereon.’" Do you see? Verses such as these could have no argument against them, unlike the current situation, which requires a) a somewhat tortured exegesis of these "miracle verses" and b) a categorical insistence by those who interpret them that theirs and theirs alone is the right interpretation (often ignoring over 1,000 years of what previous Muslim scholars and interpreters have said.)

You see, elsewhere in the Qur’an, when it speaks about a subject it is crystal clear. Consider Sura 3:2:

"Allah! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-Subsisting, Eternal. " (Yusuf Ali)

Nobody could argue other than that this verse is claiming that Allah is the only god, who is living, self-subsisting, and eternal. It is very clear as to what it means. If a "scientific miracle" exists in the Qur’an, then it would be a wonderful proof of the divine authorship that Muslims claim for it. Yet apparently this miracle is buried away, requiring clever exegesis and interpretation to find it. Somehow this doesn’t add up, does it? If Allah had meant for there to be science in the Qur’an, it would have been written clearly.

3) The argument is a modern polemic

I find it very interesting that the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument is a recent one. Can anybody find a Muslim scholar putting this argument forward five hundred years ago? Or two hundred years ago? Or even one hundred years ago? Answer: probably not. And the reason is that it is a modern polemic. You see science is not a recent thing, yet this argument is. Why? Because it is only recently that Muslims have found that people have begun questioning the Qur’an, rather than accepting it blindly. The need has arisen for more proofs of its "divine authorship", proofs that might appeal to a scientific, Western mind-set, as Islam has sought to make inroads in the west. And so this argument has arisen.

An interesting thought is this; that whilst the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument being a modern polemic does not prove it wrong per se, it does pose Muslims who seek to use it with an interesting problem. And the problem is this; that if they are not careful, they will bind the Qur’an to one era. You see, if Allah intended to place science in the Qur’an as a sign, then presumably one hundred years from now, Muslims must still be able to find "modern" science. Yet science will have progressed. So consider:

The Qur’an consists of approximately 6,400 verses.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that 10% of these can be cleverly interpreted so that they appear to contain "science".

Therefore we have 640 verses for our source material.

Now, as the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument has become so popular in the last 30 years, verses have been quoted at a massive rate. Let us assume that 20 new verses per year are put forward as containing science. That means (given the 30 years figure) over 90% of such verses have already been used up, and in less than 5 years time, there will be no more source material. Do you see what this means? Looking back in 10 years time, over Muslim history from 700AD - 2010AD, people will see that the Qur’an allegedly spoke to modern science from 1970 - 2002 and then fell silent on the subject; that revelation ran out. What does this tell us? That the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument is a modern polemic, limited to a small time frame, that will soon burn itself out as the source material dries up.

4) At the end of the day, the "modern science proves the Qur’an" polemic does not find science in the Qur’an, rather it uses science to judge the Qur’an

The arguments in the soc.religion.islam newsgroup over the exact meaning of Sura 18:86 prove this point marvellously. Here is that particular passage again:

"Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."" (Yusuf Ali)

Now of course no Muslim would claim that this verse was supposed to contain science. Why? Because we, at the beginning of the 21st century, know full well that a man cannot reach the place where the sun sets. Why, given a fast enough aeroplane, one can even "chase" the sunset (or indeed overtake it). And of course we know full well that the sun certainly does not reside in muddy puddles, lakes, or in any other body of water. Fine. But here comes the rub: what Muslims have done in using this polemic is to use science to judge the Qur’an. Those verses that appear to be scientific are proclaimed as a miracle, those verses that appear to contradict it are stated to be metaphysical, or metaphoric, or whatever. For example:

Sura 18:86 = talks about someone finding the sunset = scientific nonsense = therefore it is claimed to be speaking metaphorically!

Sura 25:53 (for example) = talks about two separate bodies of water, one salt one fresh = does not contradict science = therefore is claimed to be scientific

Do you see the problem? Muslims claim that the Qur’an is God’s final revelation, containing guidance for living and all that is true. Yet those who pursue the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument inherently contradict this fundamental tenet of Islam. Logically, they have to claim that science, not the Qur’an, is the ultimate truth, and use the former to judge the latter.

5) Selective interpretation can be used to prove anything

As I explained in point 4 above, the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument relies upon selective exegesis, picking up and using those verses that seem useful, and ignoring those that cause difficulties. By exactly the same method one can prove anything. Suppose I want to convince people that I am a prophet with the ability to foresee the future. Now I first wrote this paper at the time of an important England/Scotland football match that took place here in the UK on the 14 November 1999. Imagine that before the match, I had made three statements:

1.England will win
2.Scotland will win
3.It will be a draw

Now after the match (which, incidentally, England won 2-0), I simply say: "Statements 2 and 3 were metaphoric, I never intended them to be taken literally. However, in statement 1, I was talking about fact. Therefore I am a prophet!" It does not take a genius to see the fundamental flaw in this reasoning. Yet those who preach the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument rely on exactly this reasoning; show them dozens of verses in the Qur’an that appear to contradict science (the one I often point out is Sura 18:86, quoted above), and they will claim: "It’s fictional, a story" or "It’s metaphysical" or any number of other possibilities. When it comes to correct and proper exegesis, the end cannot be used to justify the means.

6) Applying the argument means that the Qur’an is no longer authoritative

If some Muslims wish to argue that the Qur’an contains modern science and is therefore a miracle, then there is a further problem. The logical extent of their argument is that the Qur’an is no longer authoritative. Let us suppose for example that Sura 25:53 does talk about the science of oceans. However, it is only one sentence. In order to find out more about this subject, we need to step outside of the Qur’an, as it is not authoritative. There are a wealth of journals, books, and scientific papers that we could read to find out more than the Qur’an teaches on this subject. This then leads naturally to the question: if we can learn more about one subject in the Qur’an by reading externally, then why not others? How can Muslims claim that the Qur’an contains all the guidance mankind needs for living? Perhaps we need to read elsewhere? How do they know that the Qur’an teaches us all we need to know about God’s nature? Or about how he wants us to live? Perhaps they need to read elsewhere to get the full picture? And so on. The "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument destroys the authority of the Qur’an.

Conclusion

It is impossible to argue a position in isolation. There are always consequences, implications of the position you choose to hold or preach. And this is true of the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument. For many Muslims it sounds very nice and neat in theory, and if it were true it would indeed be a proof of the Qur’an. However, for a Muslim who chooses to use the polemic, the logical consequences are dire; it is restrictive, it demotes God, it sets up science as a higher standard than the Qur’an, it doesn’t prove anything at the end of the day, and above all, it removes the Qur’an’s authority over anything. As a polemic it is both weak and dangerous, and as such I believe best avoided by Muslims.

--------------

Note to all: for the sake of completeness of knowledge, I urge you to also read the feedbacks and follow-ups of this article. Two example links:
http://www.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=549129641
http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=81169

Iconographication of Muhammad (S.A.W.)

2006-02-20T10:02:00.000-05:00

Mohamed: the messenger of Allah
By Paul Vallely
Published: 03 February 2006

Images of the Prophet Mohamed have long been discouraged in Islam. The West has little understanding of why this should be so - nor of the intensity of the feelings aroused by non-believers' attitudes to the founder of Islam.

To historians, Mohamed was a prophet and religious reformer who united the scattered Arabian tribes in the 7th century, founding what went on to become one of the world's five great religions. To Muslims, he was the last in a line of figures which included Abraham, Moses and Jesus, but which found its supreme fulfilment in Mohamed.

They believe that he was visited by the Angel Gabriel who commanded him to memorise and recite the verses sent by God which became the Koran - and that he completed and perfected the teaching of God throughout history.

Because Muslims believe that Mohamed was the messenger of Allah, they extrapolate that all his actions were willed by God. A singular love and veneration thus attaches to the person of Mohamed himself. When speaking or writing, his name is always preceded by the title "Prophet" and followed by the phrase: "Peace be upon him", often abbreviated in English as PBUH.

Attempts to depict him in illustration were therefore an attempt to depict the sublime - and so forbidden.

More than that, to reject and criticise Mohamed is to reject and criticise Allah himself. Criticism of the Prophet is therefore equated with blasphemy, which is punishable by death in some Muslim states. When Salman Rushdie, in his novel The Satanic Verses, depicted Mohamed as a cynical schemer and his wives as prostitutes, the outcome was - to those with any understanding of Islam - predictable.

But understanding of Islam is sorely lacking in the West. The culture gap has its roots in the fact that Christianity - like Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism - is essentially an iconographic religion. In its early years, the Christian world took the statues of the old gods and goddesses of Greece and morphed them into images of the Virgin Mary and the saints, which were worshiped in all the churches. Muslims, like Jews, take a polar opposite view. Islam and Judaism are religions of the word, not the image.

Islam has traditionally prohibited images of humans and animals altogether - which is why much Islamic art is made up of decorative calligraphy or abstract arabesque patterns.Throughout history Muslims have cast out, destroyed or denounced all images, whether carved or painted, as idolatry. Despite that prohibition, hundreds of images of Mohamed have been created over the centuries. Medieval Christian artists created paintings and illuminated manuscripts depicting Mohamed, usually with his face in full view. Muslim artists from the same era depicted Mohamed too, but usually left his face blank or veiled.

Sixteenth-century Persian and Ottoman art frequently represented the Prophet, albeit with his face either veiled, or emanating radiance. One 16th-century Turkish painting, in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, shows Mohamed in very long sleeves so as to avoid showing even his hands.

The ban is not absolute. Today, iconic pictures of Mohamed are sold openly on the street in Iran. The creation, sale or owning of such images is illegal, but the regime turns a blind eye (Muslims in Iran are Shia not Sunni).

Two things are different today. The cartoons published first in Denmark and now more widely across Europe set out not to depict but to ridicule the Prophet. And they do so in a climate in which Muslims across the globe feel alienated, threatened and routinely despised by the world's great powers.

The combination of this with Islam's traditional unhappiness at depictions of any human form, let alone of their most venerated one, was bound to be explosive. The affair is an example of Western ignorance and arrogance combined. We have lit a fire and the wind could take it a long way.

Let's try to get beyond caricatures

2006-02-17T14:15:00.000-05:00

Opinion, International Herald Tribune
Friday, February 10, 2006.
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono

JAKARTA The distasteful cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, first
published in Denmark in September 2005 and subsequently reproduced in
other media, continue to spark a chain of reactions ranging from
peaceful protest to violence in many Muslim communities.

The international community must work together to put out this fire. A
good start would be to stop justifying the cartoons as "freedom of the
press," which only hardens the Muslim community's response. Another
vital step would be to discontinue their reproduction, which only
prolongs the outrage.

To non-Muslims, the image of the Prophet Muhammad may only be of casual
interest. But to Muslim communities worldwide, it is of enormous
spiritual importance. For the last 14 centuries, Muslims have adhered to
a strict code that prohibits any visual portrait of the Prophet. When
this code was violated and their Prophet mocked for the purpose of
humor, Muslims felt a direct assault on their faith.

Reprinting the cartoons in order to make a point about free speech is an
act of senseless brinkmanship. It is also a disservice to democracy. It
sends a conflicting message to the Muslim community: that in a
democracy, it is permissible to offend Islam.

This message damages efforts to prove that democracy and Islam go
together. The average Muslim who prays five times a day needs to be
convinced that the democracy he is embracing, and is expected to defend,
also protects and respects Islam's sacred symbols. Otherwise, democracy
will not be of much interest to him.

The cartoon crisis serves as a reminder that all hell may break loose in
a world of intolerance and ignorance.

The global community needs to cultivate democracies of freedom and
tolerance - not democracies of freedom versus tolerance. It is tolerance
that protects freedom, harnesses diversity, strengthens peace and
delivers progress.

Since the Sept. 11 terror attacks, many in the Western world have shown
increasing interest in the Islamic world. Yet this interest has not been
accompanied by a greater knowledge and understanding of Islam. In
December last year, the summit of th e Organization of the Islamic
Conference in Mecca lamented "the feelings of stigmatization and concern
over the growing phenomenon of Islamophobia around the world as a form
of racism and discrimination."

The West and Islam need not collide in a clash of civilizations. Many
Islamic communities comfortably embrace some Western habits.
Correspondingly, Islam has become the fastest-growing religion in some
Western nations, including the United States. The Western and Islamic
worlds can conscientiously work together to nurture a global culture of
respect and tolerance.

The international community must not come out of the cartoon crisis
broken and divided. We need to build more bridges between religions,
civilizations and cultures. Government leaders, religious figures and
ordinary citizens can go beyond supporting religious freedom - they can
express solidarity with those who are defending the integrity of their
faith.

We also need to intensify interfaith dialogue so that we may further
tear down the walls of misunderstanding and mistrust - an undertaking
that Indonesia has actively promoted.

Muslims around the world also have responsibilities. No one - certainly
not Muslims - will be better off if the current crisis descends into
open conflict and more bloodshed. The best way for Muslims to fight
intolerance and ignorance toward Islam is by tirelessly reaching out to
non-Muslims and projecting Islam as a peaceful religion. We also need to
be forgiving to those who have sincerely apologized for offending Islam.

Indeed, at this difficult moment, Muslims might emulate the Prophet
Muhammad's well-known qualities in dealing with adversity: composure,
sound judgment, magnanimity and benevolence.

Just click it!

2006-01-29T18:21:00.000-05:00

It couldn't get any easier than this: by clicking this link, TNT pledges to donate 19 cents to World Food Program. That's it. No pulling money out of your pocket. Just some microjoules of energy for moving yer finger to click on the mouse button.

19 cents may not sound like much, but it is certainly enough for ONE SCHOOL MEAL for a poor kid in a poor country somewhere (yeah, I admit my ignorance of the fine details).

In case if you don't believe me, and think that this is some stinky scam, go to the WFP site yourself and find out. I congratulate you on your healthy skeptimism though. Too many gullible chumps around nowadays (Yours Truly is sometimes an unwitting subject).

This is sooooo much better than the "oooh, plz plz forward this email to all yer friends, and Bill Gates will donate $xxx to one kid with cancer" shebang.

Calculus of Eeman

2006-01-21T06:35:00.000-05:00

Let:

x : perceived spiritual height
t : time, where t = - 9/12 is a busy night for your parents.

v(t) = dx/dt : effort
a(t) = dv/dt : wills/intentions

Some constants, as decreed by The Ultimate Judge:

t1 : milestone of self-accountability.
t2 : when x(t)'s agents of change loses its main player, perhaps leaving only three legacy contributors.

Observations:

Ideally, we want x(t) to be a highly positive function, preferably with positive v(t) and a(t).

I'd say that regardless of how low x(t1) is, as long as a(t) is sufficiently positive, then we have a decent odds of surviving the post-t2 period.

Although a stable x(t) with a high x(t1) is commendable, I find it not as impressive as the case of low x(t1) with high a(t) starting at some point in time, achieving dramatic x(t) growth within short span of time.

Having encountered some living examples, this inspires me to upshift my own a(t) and increase my v(t) so that, God Willing, I'll achieve significantly higher x(t) some day, hopefully before t2.

More observations to come.

moQotD 20060120: Skema

2006-01-20T15:32:00.000-05:00

If being skema means following the sirat al-mustaqiim, then
heck yes, I want to be skema!

for non-Malayspeaking readers:
skema: adj, being a straight stick.

And no, I don't want to translate "sirat al-mustaqiim". Google it, and fair chance that you'll get much better definitions than whatever my shallow knowledge can come up with.

Capping smear?

2006-01-18T06:07:00.000-05:00

This incident happens too often enough to warrant creation of its own word:

The act of missing its mark when you're trying to cap your pen/marker and ended up smearing your fingers/palm. It might be followed by a small cursing, depending on the temperemental of the person.

So let's see what would be a good word/phrase to describe this phenomenon...:

capping smear?
cap smear?
capping incident?
capping miss?
cap miss?
miscap? <-- hey, got a pun value there!

Opinions, suggestions, all are welcomed. So is an indignant rebuff about first rights to creation of the word... (in that case, *sigh*....)

How much does a little bit of your money worth to them?

2006-01-14T16:18:00.000-05:00

Extracted without permission from a UNICEF page. Copyright owner can contact me if you have any issues with this.

$15 a month (about 50¢ a day) can feed three children for almost four weeks.

$25 a month (about 80¢ a day) can provide vitamin A for 7,500 children.

$35 a month (about $1.15 a day) can provide two sturdy tents for families struck by disaster.

$50 a month (about $1.70 a day) can provide clean water for four villages.

$70 a month (about $2.30 a day) can provide lifetime immunizations for almost 50 children.

If you find that spending this amount of money each month is hardly inconveniencing you at all, then please donate! You pledge on your own terms, you decide how much you want to donate each month (heck, even 1 dollar if you insist), and you can choose whenever to stop.

Frankly, to me, this is much better than any subscription contracts I've ever seen.

South Park Kids

2005-12-31T22:50:00.000-05:00

South Park kids, as we know them:

South Park kids, if they'd been real people:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_park

Stanislav Petrov: The Man Who Saved the World in 1983

2005-12-22T06:28:00.000-05:00

Somehow, "saving the world" is a very popular theme in Hollywood movies, story books, comics, etc... Which made me wonder: hey, what about the real world? Are there any heroes on the global scale as well? After googling for "saved the world", I found one candidate saviour: Stanislav Petrov. Here are two articles that talk about his (largely unsung) heroism:

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1421370

http://www.mosnews.com/feature/2004/05/21/petrov.shtml

Authorship Clues in the Quran

2005-12-20T18:17:00.000-05:00

by Brandon Yusuf Toropov
Reproduced faithfully without permission from the free magazine Message International, October-November 2005's issue. Copyright owner can yell at me at haya_shiloh@yahoo.com (although I would prefer a thank you note instead, of course)

Who wrote the Qur'an? The non-Muslim's answer to this important question usually sounds like this:

"The Qur'an was authored by a human being; it is not a literal revelation from God. It is a book created by human intelligence, like any other book. It was, as a matter of historical fact, written by Muhammad, in the seventh century A.D."

If this is your view, rest assured that you have plenty of company!

You should also know, though, that this point of view is not without its difficulties. To believe it, you must also believe that Muhammad, peace be upon him:

- Knew that the Earth and heavenly bodies were once a single point, and were separated violently (21:30)

What's more...
- If you don't believe that he had access to special knowledge that made possible this prefiguring of the modern Big Bang theory - a theory entirely unknown to the Arabs of the seventh century - you must conclude that 21:30 of the Qur'an is merely an intriguing coincidence, a matter of getting something right by chance.

Perhaps this passage is simply an intriguing coincidence. If it is, however, it is not the only one.

This man, the supposed "author" of the Qur'an, would also have to have:

- Known about the relativity of time (22:47; 23:112 - 114; 70:4), a subject similarly unknown to Arab tribes of this period.

Either he possessed some extraordinary source of knowledge allowing discussion of this subject thirteen and a half centuries before Einstein, or we are looking at another intriguing coincidence.

Which is it?
- Most non-Muslims will instinctively answer along these lines: " Even if it means granting the text of the Qur'an a second striking coincidental feature, the likeliest explanation is that both passages are merely examples of happenstance."

And yet:
Consider that the same author would also have to have:

- Known that the universe is continuously expanding (51:47).

- Known that matter is created in pairs (36:36). (By the way, this discovery earned the scientist Paul Dirac the Nobel Prize in 1933.)

- Known what modern biological science knows about the foundation of life on Earth, namely that it is water-based (21:30).

- Known that iron is not native to the Earth, coming instead from an extraterrestrial source (57:25).

- Known that the planet Earth travels in an orbit (27:88; 21:33).

- Known that the sun, too, moves in an orbit (37:38), as indeed modern astronomy proves that it does.

- Known that the Earth's atmosphere acts like a protective shield for living creatures (21:32).

- Known that the stages of human development in the womb unfold in a specific, describable sequence (23:14) that has been confirmed by modern experts in human embryology.

- Known that the roots of mountains extend deep into the earth and serve the function of preventing shocks (21:31).

- Known details of how the Earth's rain cycle functions that were mysteries to scientists until the twentieth century (30:48).

- Known what modern oceanographers have now learned, namely that bordering seas meet but do not mingle with one another (55:19 - 20).

- Known that oceans have complex subsurface wave patterns (24:40).

- Known that, in communities of honeybees, only the females are workers (16:68 - 69). (The Arabic verb forms can connect only to female beings).

- Known, seven years ahead of time, that the humiliated Byzantine army of his day would rejuvenate itself and secure a major victory, which in fact it eventually did against the Persians (30:1 - 4).

- Known, two years before he did so, that he would enter Mecca in triumph (48:27).

- Known that the body of the Pharaoh who had opposed Moses would be preserved for future generations (10:91 - 92) - it is today on display in the Royal Mummies Chamber of the Egyptian Museum.

- Known to refer (12:54) to the Egyptian head of state of Joseph's, peace be upon him, era as king (Aziz-Malik) and not Pharaoh, the word that appears erroneously in the book of Genesis.

- Known that the fabled Arabian lost city of Iram (89:6 - 8) whose historical existence was confirmed by archaelogists only in 1990, was a historical reality.

- Known that the ancient flood that had beset the southern Arabian people of Saba from their dam system (34:15 - 17), similarly confirmed by modern archaeology, was a historical reality.

- Known the name of Haman (28:38), a historical figure close to the Pharaoh of the era of Moses, peace be upon him... despite the problems that a) the name Haman does not appear in the Torah's version of the story, and b) the ability to translate the hieroglyphic language system of the Egyptians had been utterly lost for centuries at the time of the revelation of the Qur'an, and indeed would remain lost until the year 1799. After the discovery in that year of the Rosetta Stone, scholars were able to unlock the mystery of the hieroglyphs and, eventually, to confirm that there was indeed a Haman, unmentioned in the Hebrew scriptures, who was close to this Pharaoh in this period, and who was involved in construction, just as the Qur'an says. If we believe that human authorship is the only possible explanation for the origin of the Qur'an, we must assume either that Muhammad, peace be upon him, somehow had access to this information, or we must believe that this passage is yet another in a remarkably long series of intriguing coincidences.

How many coincidences do we need to get the message?
The message is simple: no human intelligence could have produced this book in the seventh century.

Please know that there are many, many more such coincidences in the Qur'an. I have listed here only those that do not require advanced knowledge in such topics as Arabic, mathematics, Islamic history, or classical poetic forms. Even with the brief list I have provided, there comes, I think, a point at which one is obliged to evaluate the Qur'an's message carefully, closely, and respectfully. These supposed coincidences are, I believe, clear signs to humankind that the Qur'an's message is of a special quality, and must not be ignored.

Only the repeated exposure of the individual human heart to the Qur'an's message can settle such a momentous question, "Who wrote the Qur'an?"

If you are a person who believes that there is no such thing as a divinely inspired revelation, the question is: how many coincidences does it take for you to consider such a revelation to humanity may be possible?

If you are a person who believes that there is such a thing as a divinely inspired revelation, the question is, how many coincidences are you willing to ignore before considering the possibility that a particular text presents such revelation?

Please know that I am NOT interested in any debate about the possibility that any ONE of these verses I have cited is just a coincidence, or is for some other reason unpersuasive to you.

The truly remarkable thing is that ALL of these features should present themselves in a text supposedly composed by human intelligence - and the profound unlikelihood of that is the intriguing coincidence I wish to discuss.

Knowing what you now know about these supposed coincidences, do you honestly believe that the Qur'an is simply the product of human intelligence, a book like any other book? Or does it seem more likely to you that its message is of a special quality?

'You sure YOU have the worst problem?

2005-12-14T09:38:00.000-05:00

You better not be laughing at this picture. Whatever the desperate boy is doing, whether drinking urine or eating faece, it's NOT funny.

An entry about Kevin Carter (the photographer of the picture above), taken from Wikipedia:

Kevin Carter (1961-1994) was a South African photojournalist and member of the Bang-Bang Club.

Carter spent much of his career covering the unstable situation in the last stages of the South African Apartheid regime. He is best known for winning the 1994 Pulitzer
Prize for Feature Photography for a haunting photograph from the Sudan famine crisis of a small, starving Sudanese child being stalked by a vulture. However, he also came under heavy criticism for just photographing - and not helping - the girl:
The man adjusting his lens to take just the right frame of her suffering might just as well be a predator, another vulture on the scene. [1]
He later confided to friends that he wished he had intervened. Journalists at the time were warned never to touch famine victims for fear of disease. This criticism and the death of a close friend in township violence may have contributed to Carter's suicide at the age of 33. His suicide note read:
I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings & corpses & anger & pain... of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen... The pain of life overrides the joy to the point that joy does not exist.

Vulture or not he was to that poor child, at least he helped spread awareness to the world about the famine issue... The photo should help spur people to do the right thing.

I congratulate you if you're still reading up to this point. Some people immediately turn away when they see the first sign of portrayals of misery. Seems like you're not one of them.

Well, the question now is, what next? shall you move on another random webpage and shove this unpleasant memory behind? Or mourn a bit, and then continue your life unaffectedly?

If you feel the urge to do something, then the least you can do is to donate online to relief efforts. Quick and easy. There are many you can choose from, and here are some suggestions: Red Cross, Red Crescent, UN's World Food Programme, UNICEF, UNHCR, Oxfam, Mercy Corps...

May each of our small acts help make the world better...

Little Johnny

2005-12-09T02:31:00.000-05:00

The teacher asks everyone in the class to demonstrate something exciting. When Johnny's turn came, he walked to the blackboard and drew a small dot.

"What's that?", the teacher asked, puzzled.

"It's a period."

"Well, I see that, but what's exciting about a period?"

"Darned if I know, but this morning my sister said she missed one... Dad had a heart attack, mom fainted, and the guy next door shot himself."

(source: wikipedia)

Self Discipline & Willpower, defined

2005-11-24T10:31:00.000-05:00

Self Discipline, my definition:
To be able to keep to planned schedules.
To be able to concentrate at task at hand and not easily get distracted.
To be able to prioritize tasks, and to stick to it.

Willpower, my definition:
To not give up easily.
To persevere within reasonable predicted chance of success.
To be able to swallow pride/humiliation to do what is necessary.
To not be easily daunted by the amount of effort needed to accomplish something.

Gotta work on 'em.

20051121: 10 reasons why yesterday's not so bad:

2005-11-22T09:34:00.000-05:00

managed to finish my take home exam in time, and have put more or less my best effort into it, given how much "best effort" I can generate when doing a weeklong exam 6 hrs before the submission deadline.
good food
took my medication according to schedule
downloaded songs legally (& freely!) from Ruckus.com
my Sims 2 characters graduated with 4.0 GPA (now, if only...)
talked to mom
learnt some random stuff online
Big Brother passed to me a good site talking abt depression first hand
weather's nice
got someone willing to listen... too bad I wasn't in the mood to talk at that time.

moQotD 20051105: Relationship recipe

2005-11-05T05:54:00.000-05:00

A healthy and prosperous relationship relies on two condition: first, enough recognition of each other as they are, and second, enough desire to improve each other. In two words: constructive acceptance.

or so I thought, me who sometimes got too much fancy for my own ideas, who sometimes later found out how ignorant my earlier lofty grandiose statement was, or found out that the wheel have already been invented before , .

Impossible Feat

2005-09-06T00:12:00.000-04:00

I would like you to do a very simple task... so simple yet impossible to do! You just need to uphold the following statement:

Do NOT think of a blue elephant.

ah-hah!! you DID think of one didn't you!

The World's Religions, in a nutshell

2005-08-18T13:55:00.000-04:00

Taoism: Shit Happens

Hinduism: This shit has happened before

Confucianism: Confucius say, “Shit happens”

Buddhism: It is only an illusion that shit happens

Zen: What is the sound of shit happening?

Islam: If shit happens, it is the will of Allah

Jehovah’s Witnesses: Knock, Knock, “Shit happens”

Atheism: There is no such thing as shit

Agnosticism: Maybe shit happens, and maybe not

Protestantism: Shit won’t happen if I work harder

Catholicism: If shit happens, I deserve it

Judaism: Why does shit always happen to me?

Televangelism: Send money or shit will happen

Rastafarian: Smoke that shit

source: http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/product2360.html

Angry copyright owners can yell at me here.

addendum: As a Muslim, methinks I should point out that even if shit doesn't happen, it is STILL the will of Allah...

Heinz's Dilemma: My thoughts on it

2005-08-15T10:04:00.000-04:00

Heinz's dilemma, as narrated by this site:

In Europe, a woman was near death from cancer. One drug might save her, a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The druggist was charging $2000, ten times what the drug had cost him to make. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, ut he could get together only about half of what it should cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or to let him pay later. But the druggist said no. The husband got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should the husband have done that? Why?

My answer: depends on what options does Heinz have at that time. If it turns out that the choice is the best one (or the only one) he have in the context of his situation, then yes, he is justified in his action. Do note that I do not condone the act of stealing in general, but the scenario he is in might be an exceptional circumstance that calls for an override/relaxation of the rule.

I'm tempted to directly say "No, he should instead go through the proper (ergo legal) channel in order to obtain the medication... e.g. plea his case to the authorities, to ask for their intervention.", but without knowing enough background info about his situation, I think that answer would be naively rash. Maybe he should, but then, maybe he couldn't, for various likely reasons. Corrupt government... ridiculous amount of paperwork needed, when the wife could die any time soon... or perhaps he's a renegade from the law... any of these and more other possible details could drive him to choose that option.

too comfy

2005-07-30T14:58:00.000-04:00

Holiday.

This is the time that I've been looking forward to, that I've been dreaming of while I was toiling away in business, when I could hardly stop to catch my breath, when days zipped by so fast I can see the date dial whirring on my watch... (which is a lie, coz I don't have an analog watch... or heck, any watch, for that matter)...

And yet here I am wasting away these precious moments of utter freedom.

thought of the moment: "5 masa sebelum 5 masa..."

it's a durian summer

2005-07-15T10:11:00.000-04:00

long time no update blog.

dang, am so lazy that i'm copy pasting my latest friendster profile here for this entry. hey, i need a place to archive my writings, rite? this is as good as any.

lonih on internship with my big bro li'l company. unbeatable offer dude: free housing, free food, free transportation! but make no mistake, it's not a cikai2 job aaa. first you need to squeeze three or four new programming languages into you brain within the first week until stuff oozes out of your ears. then you have to prop your eyes awake on some midnights doing some field repairs for your clients. then you need to learn to master the ettiquettes of interacting with big shot players (why must my butt get itchy at the wrong times?!?). And wait, i never recall babysitting the boss's kids as part of the job description? not complaining though, coz hey, its all fun stuff, even if it's killing me. i think by now i can open up my own taska dah kot, hur hur hur.

Movies... with a can't-help-it dash of philosophy

2005-05-31T10:26:00.000-04:00

Hmm... I got tagged by brown-eyed girl the other day to continue her meme [*]. Normally I wouldn't indulge in this kind of thing... not that I am oh so high above it or what... it's just that whenever I do it, I would spend ridiculously such a long time for something that simple; as if this questionnaire means the death of me if I answer incorrectly, heh.

But what the heck.

Total number of films I own on DVD/Video: hmm. "own"? as in, "legally own"? hehe, only one: Alien Quadrilogy. the rest... cough cough. on strict leech policy though, and I only suck a few times a year, honest! and yes sir, I am trying to give up this sin, sir!

The last film I bought: not hard to guess eh?

The last film I watched: the Incredibles. um, remember abt the "a few times a year"? add one to that.

Five films that I watch a lot or that mean a lot to me (in no particular order):

those Aliens movies
Fifth Element
Stephen Chow's
Fight Club
Back to the Future

Sheesh, despite my obsession with meta-thoughts, philosophical mumbo jumbo, I still get suckered & sucked in by pretty movies anytime... pretty as in great action, animation/effects, innovative ideas etc.

[*]meme: If you're curious abt this thingie, Cecil Adams has an amusing way of treating the subject: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040213.html

If you like that article, then you might wanna read its sequel too: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040312.html

Superiority Complex?

2005-05-07T15:15:00.000-04:00

How would you feel if somebody comes to you and says, "Hey, 'know what, I got the best religion in the world!"?

How would I feel?

Perhaps some indignant defensiveness. Perhaps a spark of curiosity. Perhaps a confident smirk.

How would you respond?
Anything from this list?
- "Push off, ye self-righteous preacher!"
- *rolls eyes*
- "Yeah, cool. so what?"
- "Interesting. Care to back that up?"
- "Good for you. I'm occupied right now, maybe later we can talk this over a drink, eh?"

Okay, so far I've nailed the Loathing, the Don't Care, the Interested, the Too Busy responses... anything else that I'm missing?

Anyways, my point of contention is: I have all these while seeketh here and there, and so far, what I found led me to this conclusion:

"Hey, 'know what, I got the best religion in the world!"

By no means I am saying that my claim is final; By no means I am saying that I have done a thorough and objective analysis of every possible aspects. But I do examine lots of arguments from both sides, heck even from other sides, from those that don't wanna take sides as well. Admittedly, I still have some unresolved issues with this religion of mine, which I hope time will shed more light onto it. But as it is now, compared to other belief systems, I find Islam to be the best religion of all.

I find this conclusion to be reinforced again and again especially as I get to learn more about these topics:

Muhammad as a Person
This guy is the Ultimate Role Model for us Muslims. Namely, a Prophet. Even when being viewed in secular terms, he is still the greatest person in humankind history, as attested by lots of scholars (non-Muslims & Muslims alike). He is a balanced character, not just being great in one aspect and bad in the rest; rather, great in ALL aspects. Character, leadership, wisdom, clarity of thoughts, you name it.

*eep... Generalizing Statement Alert*
A more accurate claim: He is not just great in a few aspects like other great figures of history; rather, if we list down all his great attributes, and compare them to those of others, we will find his résumé list not only quantitatively superior, but also qualitatively so as well... such a holistically well-rounded GREAT person he is.

Qur'an as a proclaimed Scripture
The more I get to know about it, even in material aspects, the more improbable it is to think of it to come from human source. Its touted strengths (authenticity of propagation, beauty of language that transcends poetry and prose, internal & external consistency, soundness of claims be it of factual matter or human nature) are by large undisputed by scholars, and the replies towards arguments against it are empirically provable. This is impressive especially comparing it to how proclaimed scriptures of other faiths stand to scrutiny.

Islamic creed as a Belief System
The proposed Muslim way of life is so uplifting in all aspects - spiritually, emotionally, intellectually, economically... it is so complete, so thorough. It is optimistic, yet practical. It is balanced, and it doesn't violate anybody's rights. It is deceptively constrictive, but as I get to know more the reasoning behind all the do's and don'ts, I began to appreciate their existence. It's not a naive misguided "the ends justifies the means"... rather, the ends as well as the means are both justified. And not simply dogmatically justifiable, but actually through knowledge and reasoning.

Incredulous eh? Perhaps I have a serious problem of superiority complex there? Well, perhaps I do, and maybe in future I will be proven wrong, humiliatingly even. But nevertheless, based on what I know so far, I believe my stand is correct. Whether you agree or not, that is up for you to decide, after you do your own share of research and Truth-Seeking.

If you care at all, that is.

mistachment

2005-05-07T13:55:00.000-04:00

I wanna put a new word into the English dictionary:

"mistach" - verb: to send two emails - one right after the other, with the first one containing the sentence "please see attachment" or similar, and the second one containing "oops, forgot the attachment, heh heh heh" or something to the same effect. This act is usually accompanied by an exasperated exclamation right after hitting the first email's "Send" button.

e.g. sentence: "People are freakin mistaching a lot nowadays... yeah, me too."

As the body dies...

2005-04-28T12:42:00.000-04:00

I find the following description to be grotesquely fascinating, as I read about "death" in wikipedia. I really have to share it with you folks... *snicker*

Physiological consequences of human death

For the human body, the physiological consequences of death follow a recognized sequence through early changes into bloating, then decay to changes after decay and finally skeletal remains.

The changes in the immediate post-death stage have received the most attention for two reasons - firstly it is the stage mostly likely to be seen by the living and secondly because of the research of forensics in potential crimes.

Soon after death (15 to 120 minutes depending on various factors) the body begins to cool (algor mortis), becomes pallid (pallor mortis), and internal sphincter muscles relax leading to the release of urine, feces, and stomach contents if the body is moved. The blood moves to pool in the lowest parts of the body, livor mortis (dependent lividity), within thirty minutes and then begins to coagulate. The body experiences muscle stiffening, rigor mortis, which peaks at around twelve hours after death and is gone in another twenty-four, depending on temperature. Within a day the body starts to show signs of decomposition (decay), both autolytic changes and from 'attacking' organisms - bacteria, fungi, insects, mammalian scavengers, etc. Internally the body structures begin to collapse, the skin loses integration with the underlying tissues, and bacterial action creates gases which cause bloating and swelling. The rate of decay is enormously variable; a body can be reduced to skeletal remains in days, or remain largely intact for thousands of years.

In most cultures, before the onset of significant decay, the body is ritually disposed of, usually either cremated or deposited in a tomb, often a hole in the earth called a grave, but also in a sarcophagus, a crypt, sepulchre, or ossuary, a mound or barrow, or endlessly monumental surface structures, a mausoleum such as the Taj Mahal. In certain cultures efforts are made to retard the decay processes before burial, mummification or embalming. This happens during or after a funeral ceremony. Many funeral customs exist in different cultures.

A new alternative is "ecological burial": this involves subsequently deep-freezing, pulverisation by vibration, freeze-drying, removing metals, and burying the resulting powder, which has 30% of the body mass. [1] (http://www.promessa.se/sagardettill_en.asp)

Graves are usually grouped together in a plot of land called a "cemetery" or a "graveyard" and can arranged by a funeral home or undertaker or by a church.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death

(dang... I wanna insert the word "morbid" somewhere in this post, but couldn't find a place for it. Oh wait a minute... hey I did put it in! yayy! *another cheap snicker*)

So Close

2005-04-25T00:30:00.000-04:00

Just found out from wikipedia that Prophet Muhammad's birthday in Gregorian calendar was calculated to be on April 20th, 570/571 AD.

Note that this year, that's only two days away from April 22nd, i.e. 12 Rabiul-Awal - also his birthday in Hijri calendar.

Yeah, not as dramatic a revelation as it would have been if they had coincided on the same day, i gotta admit that. But still, no harm for a little wow there.

Female-Led Prayers: A Step Forward for Women?

2005-04-18T17:22:00.000-04:00

Taken from http://www.islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=9651
If the copyright owner wishes this post to be retracted, please contact me at haya_shiloh@yahoo.com

I think this is a good reply to the Dr. Amina Wadud Leading a Friday Prayer issue. I think further analysis is still necessary, perhaps in lights of relevancy to the issue (e.g. possible red-herring-ness, i don't know).

Question:
On March 18, 2005 Amina Wadud led the first female-led Jumu`ah Prayer. On that day, women took a huge step towards being more like men. But, did we come closer to actualizing our God-given liberation?
From Sarah - United States

Answer:
This answer was kindly provided by Sister Yasmin Mogahed, a member of Ask About Islam Editorial Staff. Yasmin is an Egyptian-American journalist based in Wisconsin, USA. She is currently studying for a Master's degree in Journalism.

Salam, Sarah.

Thank you for your inspiring question!

Well, answering your question, I can say that I don’t think so.

What we so often forget is that God has honored women by giving them value in relation to God—not in relation to men. But as Western feminism erases God from the scene, there is no standard left but men. As a result, the Western feminist is forced to find her value in relation to a man. And in so doing, she has accepted a faulty assumption. She has accepted that man is the standard, and thus a woman can never be a full human being until she becomes just like a man—the standard.

When a man cut his hair short, she wanted to cut her hair short. When a man joined the army, she wanted to join the army, and so on. She wanted these things for no other reason than because the “standard” had it.

What she didn’t recognize was that God dignifies both men and women in their distinctiveness, not their sameness. And on March 18, Muslim women made the very same mistake.

For 1,400 years, there has been a consensus of scholars that men are to lead Prayer. As a Muslim woman, why does this matter? The one who leads Prayer is not spiritually superior in any way. Something is not better just because a man does it. And leading Prayer is not better just because it is leading. Had it been the role of women or had it been more divine, why wouldn’t the Prophet have asked Lady `A’ishah or Lady Khadijah, or Lady Fatimah—the greatest women of all time—to lead? These women were promised heaven and yet they never led Prayer.

But now, for the first time in 1,400 years, we look at a man leading Prayer and we think, “That’s not fair.” We think so, although God has given no special privilege to the one who leads. The imam is no higher in the eyes of God than the one who prays behind. On the other hand, only a woman can be a mother. And the Creator has given special privilege to a mother. The Prophet taught us that heaven lies at the feet of mothers. But no matter what a man does, he can never be a mother. So why is that not unfair?

When asked who is most deserving of our kind treatment? The Prophet replied "your mother" three times before saying "your father" only once. Isn’t that sexist? No matter what a man does, he will never be able to have the status of a mother.

And yet even when God honors us with something uniquely feminine, we are too busy trying to find our worth in reference to men, to value it or even notice it. We too have accepted men as the standard; so anything uniquely feminine is, by definition, inferior. Being sensitive is an insult, becoming a mother is a degradation. In the battle between stoic rationality (considered masculine) and selfless compassion (considered feminine), rationality reigns supreme.

As soon as we accept that everything a man has and does is better, all that follows is just a knee jerk reaction: if men have it, we want it too. If men pray in the front rows, we assume this is better, so we want to pray in the front rows too. If men lead Prayer, we assume the imam is closer to God, so we want to lead Prayer too. Somewhere along the line, we’ve accepted the notion that having a position of worldly leadership is some indication of one’s position with God.
A Muslim woman does not need to degrade herself in this way. She has God as a standard. She has God to give her value; she doesn’t need a man here.

In fact, in our crusade to follow men, we, as women, never even stopped to examine the possibility that what we have is better for us. In some cases, we even gave up what was higher only to be like men.

Fifty years ago, we saw men leaving the home to work in factories. We were mothers. And yet, we saw men doing it, so we wanted to do it too. Somehow, we considered it women’s liberation to abandon the raising of another human being in order to work on a machine. We accepted that working in a factory was superior to raising the foundation of society—just because a man did it.
Then after working, we were expected to be superhuman—the perfect mother, the perfect wife, the perfect homemaker, and have the perfect career. And while there is nothing wrong, by definition, with a woman having a career, we soon came to realize what we had sacrificed by blindly mimicking men. We watched as our children became strangers, and soon recognized the privilege we’d given up.

And so only now—given the choice—women in the West are choosing to stay home to raise their children. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, only 31 percent of mothers with babies, and 18 percent of mothers with two or more children, are working fulltime. And of those working mothers, a survey conducted by Parenting Magazine in 2000, found that 93 percent of them say they would rather be home with their kids, but are compelled to work due to “financial obligations.” These “obligations” are imposed on women by the gender sameness of the modern West and removed from women by the gender distinctiveness of Islam.
It took women in the West almost a century of experimentation to realize a privilege given to Muslim women 1,400 years ago. Given my privilege as a woman, I only degrade myself by trying to be something I’m not, and in all honesty, don’t want to be—a man. As women, we will never reach true liberation until we stop trying to mimic men and value the beauty in our own God given distinctiveness.

If given a choice between stoic justice and compassion, I choose compassion. And if given a choice between worldly leadership and heaven at my feet, I choose heaven.
I hope my words answer your question. In case you have any comment or you need more about the topic, please don’t hesitate to contact us again. Thank you and please keep in touch.
Salam.

Useful Links:
Woman Leading Men in Prayer
Women Leading Friday Prayer: AMJA’s Statement

Not scared of Hell

2005-04-15T14:38:00.000-04:00

I have this peculiar attitude: I'm not scared of Hell. It's not that I feel cocky, but it's rather that I feel resigned to my fate, if that is what God deemed me to get. So I shall get thrown into Hellfire? so be it. I asked for it anyways. After all those guidelines, hidayahs, knowledge, I still chose the path to doom time and time again. That is what I deserve then.

Of course I tried to avoid Hell. Of course, given Hell or Heaven, I would choose the latter without even stopping to think. But what if God's creed dictates otherwise? who am I to plea against the Infinite Justice? Yes, God is also Infinite in His Mercy, but what if He chose that I am not even worth considering?

To make matters worse, I am not even one for repenting. Oupp, don't get me wrong here. Doesn't mean I don't want to improve myself for the better; I just find it hard to make an effort to ask for God's forgiveness for what I have already done. I see them as the irreversible past. The minus score has been given. I might get higher score later through super duper noble good deeds (if their worth won't get thrown out of the window first because of my self-congratulatory nature, that is), that might offset my past demerits, and indeed, these are among the goals that I am striving for. But what if they are not enough? That's it, then, I'd say. I'm screwed. Maybe not for eternity, since I still believe in one God, but what goes around, comes around, I guess.

Something's wrong with me somewhere... hmm.

Heck, maybe I AM too cocky. Maybe I am underestimating the horrors there are in Hell. That I think I am going to experience suffering only at the level I can consciously think of, like being bitten on the nose by a mosquito while my arms and legs are tied, or being forced to listen to chalkboard scraping for eternity, or force-fed to watch crappy TV shows for another couple of eternities.

Maybe I am cocky coz the punishment isn't here yet, so I can talk big all I want, without realizing that later I have to stuff my foot in my mouth.

Maybe, maybe.

But I do have one true fear. I fear that my action, or inaction, would somehow cause somebody else to suffer, be it now or in the hereafter. I really take this seriously. It's ok if I got thrown to Hell because of my own doing, but somebody else because of me? Noooo, I'd rather jump in their place and experience Hell multiple times than let others take the brunt of my wrongdoings (Again, talking big here eh?).

And now that I am in the leadership position, now that people are relying on me to lead them to Heaven or Hell, I am in a much more catalytical position than I was bargaining for.

I am scared. Really, really scared.

Love without sight

2005-04-14T09:05:00.000-04:00

Is it possible to grow to love someone not through her/his physical looks, not because of the voice, or the strength, or the daintiness, but through listening to the words spoken by her/him?

When there is a curtain between the two, when there is a distance between the two, when eyes see words, not face; when the hands weaves the words, not the mouth... can we grow to love someone that way?

Somehow, I think this is more beautiful way to start. It strips away from the judging person the superficial aspects that gets in the way, and goes straight to the heart, straight to the mind, and straight to the soul. We see not how winsome her looks are, but how charming her mannerism is. We hear not how sweet her voice is, but how eloquent her words are. We are not able to lust for her sexuality, but we can admire her clarity of thoughts.

(dammit so much for gender equality in writing, but what the heck, i'll dispose of political correctness for a while, and just speak my mind)

True, I would admit that this is not to say that physical traits are unimportant. In the quest for love, the paths of each individual can't forever be apart. When lives become intertwined, what comes straight to the eyes, to the ears, to the senses, rules our immediate judgment. If each party can't come to accept what the other physically is, despite loving what is inside, what is unseen, I don't think things will bide well for them.

I can see that we have two ways to begin the journey. One way is the classical western way: Love at First Sight, where looks is foremost before we notice the inner person. The other way is this Love Without Sight, where consciousness preceeds the manifestation. (Arranged marriage is another interesting possibility, but I won't address it for now).

If love hinges on certain traits that one have, then clearly the latter is at an advantage here. For a person is the same person inside, although appearance might change. Taut young skin shrivels into wrinkles of age. Strength of youth dwindles into frailty of old. Sharp senses at the prime blunts into dull sensations near the end. But the soul stays. More enriched, yes, more experienced, wiser to the world, but the same person nevertheless. And if this is what you come to love, then you had chosen to love something that is truly immortal.

The Power of Shahadah

2005-04-13T03:31:00.000-04:00

I was reading Jeffrey Lang's Even Angels Ask. Then I came to this one short account, which really moved me to tears. I really want to share this with everybody. Following is a faithful reproduction of the story. To the copyright owners, if you feel that this is a breach of your rights, do send me a note (haya_shiloh@yahoo.com), and I shall respectfully remove it.

Mosques and Islamic centers in Europs and America bring together a vast array of peoples from all over the Muslim world. Very often a masjid will contain many small cultural clusters with no one of them in the majority. This is especially true of the masjids run by Muslim student groups at western universities. Such a diverse assemblage of cultures will produce many differences of opinions, which can evolve quite easily into bitter arguments and community rifts.

Such a quarrel arose one night in the mosque at the University of San Francisco. I do not remember the precise cause of the fray; it had something to do with a pile of anti-Shiite tracts that someone left in the mosque. This happened at the height of the Iran-Iraq war, and a great deal of politico-religious propaganda was being disseminated by both sides of the conflict and by their allies. I recall vividly how explosive the scene became.

The Saudis raged against the Kuwaitis and Iranians, the Pakistani students allied themselves with the Saudis, the white Americans defended the Iranians, the African Americans were against the white Americans, the North African and Palestinian students seemed to be fighting each other and everyone else, the Malaysian students looked terrified. All sorts of bitter, malicious, racial and personal attacks flew back and forth.

"You Shiah are Kaffirs!"
"You Saudis worship your king!"
"What do Americans know about Islam?!"
"Pakistanis are nothing but the lackeys of the Saudis!"
"Our people were Muslims long before you white boys ever were!"
"You're proud of following Elijah Muhammad?![*]"
"Palestinians got what they deserved!"

Faces were red with rage. Shouts become threatening roars. The American students were clenching their fists and tensing their arms, readying themselves for a fight. This was definitely going to be the end of our community.

From over in the corner of the room a desperate cry rang out:
"La ilaha illa Allah! Muhamadan rasulu Allah!"
It was Ilyas, the always quiet, skinny, short student from Indonesia. He hardly ever spoke a word. The room quieted.
"What did he say?" Several persons asked each other.
Ilyas shouted again at the top of his lungs:
"La ilaha illa Allah! Muhamadan rasulu Allah!"
"Say it!" Ilyas yelled, "Say it!"
Most of us murmured confusedly: "La ilaha illa Allah - Muhamadan rasulu Allah?"
"What does he want?" someone whispered.
"Say it like you mean it!" Ilyas screamed.

Maybe it was because he said it with so much authority or with so much passion, but for some reason we now felt the need to obey this normally meek and inconspicuous member of our mosque. Our voices rose in unison with Ilyas leading us:
"La ilaha illa Allah! Muhamadan rasulu Allah!"

You could feel the hate and anger dissipating. All eyes were fixed on Ilyas. The faces of the brothers looked mesmerized. Some of them showed sadness, some remorse, and others excitement. The whole company now needed Ilyas to lead them again.
"Again!" Ilyas bellowed. "Again!"
This time we all rang out in one passionate, thundering cry:
"La ilaha illa Allah! Muhamadan rasulu Allah!"
Then again we cried out, following Ilyas's lead:
"La ilaha illa Allah! Muhamadan rasulu Allah!"

Ilyas stopped, froze there for a moment with tears in his eyes. He looked at us in the way a child looks at his parents when he wants them to stop fighting.
"That's what it is all about, brothers!" Ilyas pleaded, his voice cracking. "That's what binds us!"
"Just look at us!" He shouted, stretching out his arms.

At that, the brothers began to slowly approach one another with looks of great embarrassment on their faces. What easily could have exploded into a spectacle of complete pandemonium, was now a scene of handshakes, brotherly hugs, and sincere apologies. The next day, the mosque was back to normal, and I never heard anyone discuss the argument again.

-----
Taken from Even Angels Ask, by Jeffrey Lang, p157-158

[*] Elijah Muhammad was the leader of Nation of Islam, considered by mainstream Muslim community as a heretical cult. For more info, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Muhammad

Infinity

2005-02-20T16:13:00.000-05:00

Infinity is God as numbers are us,
Infinity is in the mind, is in the heart, is in the spirit.
Infinity sets us apart from mere animals.

Where comest this idea?
How can we even think up of such a thing?
Have we seen it act?
Have we counted its effect?
Nay, it’s all in the mind.
We can think of it, but as for senses,
To observe, we are powerless.

And yet we know it is true,
For our reasoning fits it well,
And without it, we would never be where we are.

Through infinity, we can think of perfection!
Through infinity, discretes become a whole!
Through infinity, we foresee causalities!
Through infinity, faith breaths anew everyday.

For if we are to think just in numbers,
We see only numbers.
If our life is ultimately numbered,
What is there to gain, for futile in the end.

Materialism is numbers.
Existentialism is numbers.
Hedonism is numbers.
Shortsightedness is in numbers.

For infinity is proof of God.

One-sidedness

2004-12-03T14:09:00.000-05:00

Whenever I browse books on Islam, I often feel graarghharrghghhrrrhhh (sorry but couldn't find a better way to convey the feeling). Books that praise Islam, and books that undermine it. Of course, being a Muslim myself, I am more graaargharaghrrrghhed by anti-Islam books. Although, no, it's not abt their anti-Muslim nature that bugs me, but the staunch & narrow position they adopt. And both sides are guilty of it. Islam is DEFINITELY bad, one side says. No, Islam is DEFINITELY good, the other cries. And each party goes their own narrow way to prove their point, with utmost confidence and utter obliviousness of the opposition's case. As if the opponents never speak. Or spoken only once, and only one rebuttal is sufficient to defeat their case.

You know what I really want to see instead?

an approach from the middle ground. objective. unbiased. thorough.

Like:

okay, here's an issue. Lets see... the pro side says this, this, and this in its favor. The opposition says that, that, and that. now let us evaluate each of these claims...

and not only that, but the author should not stop there, but go on:

... and in response to pro's claim A, the opposition rebutts with point A1, and A2. Likewise, for opposition's claims X and Y, the pro replies with so and so, and they also countered A1 and A2 with this and this argument.

plus, acknowledging that there might not only be just two sides of an issue, the author also lays out what other parties say abt the matter.

... Now there are also some other factions that say this and this instead. Though a minority, their points are nevertheless are worthy of consideration due to the soundness of the argument itself.

it would be great also if we are to see that despite the author's extensive grasp of facts, he/she still mantains a humble attitude as he/she offers his/her opinion/evaluation on that matter.

Yes, I might be wrong, and new facts may surface that might invalidate my points. But as far as my research into this matter reveals, this is the conclusion that I think is most reasonable.

The reader shall be free to make their own decision critically, without rhetorical influence from the author.

Ah well, perhaps I'm expecting too much. Perhaps, my ideal author just belongs in the same fairy tale world as knights in shining armor and virgin princesses who never farts.

So if you can't change the world, change yourself, I'd say.

gotta be aware of what ya read. double-layered aware. triple-layered.

be critical.

Refuse to blindly bite the rhetorical bait the author offers. Refuse to be pulled around by the nose ring as he/she toys with your emotions. take off that nose ring. looks ugly on you.

don't lax your criticalness on an author just coz he/she's on your side.

don't be afraid to be proven wrong. be ready to accept a defeating blow, if it is a valid argument.

And as I always say: sincerity. That is the utmost valuable asset you can have. If you are sincere in your beliefs, if you are sincere about what you know and what you don't, what you feel right and what you feel not, and you sincerely seek the truth & justification about it, I'd say you would survive well, regardless of what is the Truth. regardless of which religion is the Truth, if any.

M.O. QotD 20041202

2004-12-02T18:23:00.000-05:00

True strength lies in self-restraint, not muscle power.

Memorizing Power of Muhafizs & Muhaddiths

2004-11-21T11:03:00.000-05:00

Among the greatest strength that was touted about Muslim's scriptural authenticity is the fact that throughout time, numerous people have memorized the Quran back to back, and also the hadiths complete with the sanad (i.e. the source references) traceable back to the actual person who heard the Prophet (s.a.w.) saying it.

What I learn from my Psychology class, however, is that human memory is very fallible. They tend to subconsciously reconstruct past event according to their whims/beliefs. A racist witness will testify the gun being in the hands of the black person, when reality was otherwise (this was a case fact). They are also open to suggestive/leading questions, e.g. after witnessing a car crash incident, when asked which car disregarded the stop sign, the subject would point to one of them, when in fact there was NO stop sign present at all in the first place. Upon recounting the event as well, their vivid descriptions include details of shattered glass all over, blood spatters, when in fact the collision was actually a clean one etc etc (These instances were quoted from my readings of the Psychology text, to the best of my memory, which, hehheh, itself is not so reliable, no?)

So who has a better case here? Were all the Hadith & Quran propagators were very much fallible then?

I don't have evidence that they are, but I DO know two instances of the opposite case, to quote faithfully from Khalid Baig's book "First Thing First":

1) "Prominent scholar Dr. Hamidullah tells of an effort in Germany by the Christian scholars to gather all the Greek manuscripts of Bible as the original Bible in Aramaic is extinct. They gathered all manuscripts in the world and after examining them reported: "Some two hundred thousand contradictory narrations have been found... of these one-eight are of an important nature." When the report was published, some people established an Institute for Qur'anic Research in Munich with the goal of examining the Qur'an the same way. A gigantic research project was started that continued for three generations. By 1933, 43,000 photocopies of Qur'anic manuscripts had been collected. A report published shortly before World War II showed the results of the examination of these manuscripts. While some minor mistakes of calligraphy were found, not a single discrepancy in the text had been discovered!"

(Khalid Baig, "First Things First", p.59-60)

2) [Regarding hadith manuscripts:] "... One manuscript from the first century was discovered in this century and published by Dr. Hamidullah. It is Sahifa Hammam ibn Munabbah, who was a disciple of Abu Hurairah r.a.. It contains 138 ahadith. Muhaddithin knew that the ahadith of this Sahifa had been absorbed [i.e. integrated] into Musnad Ahmed and Muslim collections, which have been published continuously since their third century debut. After the discovery of the original manuscript it was naturally compared with the ahadith in Muslim and Musnad Ahmed that were thought to have come from that Sahifa. And what did they find? There was not an iota of difference between the two. Similarly Mussanaf of Abd al-Razzaq is extant and has been published. As has been Mu'ammar ibn Rashid's al-Jami. The recent appearance of these manuscripts should bring the most skeptical into the fold of believers."

(Khalid Baig, "First Things First", p.44)

Perhaps, when those psychologists conducted their memory-fallibility experiment, they just took normal people as subjects. If they also try out their tests against the muhafizs & muhaddiths, they might get an altogetherly different result...

Confirmation Bias

2004-11-17T13:46:00.000-05:00

It is common for people to commit the confirmation bias fallacy: When they want to prove something is true, they give a case when it is definitely true, not when it is possibly false.

You say your stick is as hard as steel. You hit it against a pillow and go "Yea, yea! look how strong it is! Yea, yea!"

If I wanna prove something is strong, I'll try to break it. If it holds together, then will I know that it IS strong.

... or at least strong enough under the conditions that I tested it.

Presumptions

2004-11-17T06:01:00.000-05:00

Oh how often it is,
when I gloat in my presumptions,
when I forgot that the world doesn't revolve around me,
that I was jarred again into reality,
that I was humiliated of my naivete.

M.O.QotD 20041014

2004-10-14T12:23:00.000-04:00

When you are ridiculing something you know little about, in truth you're ridiculing your own ignorance. And yet towards whom are you laughing at?

heavenly mocha

2004-10-12T05:22:00.000-04:00

1/3rd choc...
1/3rd coffee...
1/3rd milk...
2 spoons of honey...
a wee bit of creamer if desired...
and sugar as needed.

... and Starbucks can kiss my donkey.

I love to scrape!

2004-10-05T11:34:00.000-04:00

I love to scrape the inner sanctums of my nostrils.
I love to scrape the cavern walls of my earholes.
I love to scrape the linings of my glasses.
I love to scrape the crevices of my watch.
I love to scrape the dust off my laptop.
I love to scrape the dirt out of my nails.
I love to scrape dandruff off my scalp.
I love to scrape the undissolved chocolate blobs at the bottom of the mug.
I love to scrape the lint off the dryer... sometimes i scrape others' too.
but I hate scraping off the residual glue from stickers... they're so darn hard to get off, and messy too.

Courtesy in Wars throughout History

2004-08-22T00:52:00.000-04:00

This is so amazing!:

- Chinese barons, after the fall of Chou Dynasty, revere the acts of chivalrous courtesy during warfare. "Confronted with invasion, a baron would send in bravado a convoy of provisions to the invading army."*

- "As in the Homeric age, warriors of opposing armies, recognizing each other, would exchange haughty compliments from their chariots, drinking together, and even trade weapons before doing battle."*

- Despite their disputes, the armies of Prophet Muhammad's (p.b.u.h.) wife Aishah and of his son-in-law, Ali, when it comes to prayer times, both sides join together for congregational prayers.

- It is rumored that in the medieval times, the English people loves tea time so much that even during battles, when its time comes, a horn would be sounded, arms dropped, tables set up and they would drank tea together in dignified bliss. (Imagine gentlemen raising their teacup delicately with thumb and index, other fingers straightened daintily... ehheh)

* Quotes & paraphrase taken from Huston Smith's The World's Religions, p160

QotD 20040821

2004-08-21T21:23:00.000-04:00

When you know a thing, to recognize that you know it; and when you do not, to know that you do not know - that is knowledge.

-Confucius-

superficialness

2004-08-17T12:17:00.000-04:00

if the book is of such a great read, should I be complaining abt its disagreeable cover? How important is the cover actually? understated? overstated? is the analogy even proper? For just a book, cover represents nothing of the author's works. It's just the company's hired artisan, drawing from a separate bank of knowledge and creativity. The cover and the contents are mutually exclusive in terms of origin.

But it's a different matter with a ningen. ningens are an irreducible entity. Every part of it is related somehow to other, each grows in interaction. You can't just close your eye on one disapproved aspect and judge it only based on the rest. Take one out, and everything else is missing something. They say the whole is more than the sum of its parts. I am saying that the remainder is less than the sum of the leftover parts.

who am I to judge anyway?

LITEC TAing again...

2004-08-16T13:47:00.000-04:00

I just accepted an extension offer of my tenure as Teaching Assistant for Embedded Control (a.k.a. LITEC)...

this is gonna be a tougher term...

for one, I'm taking a heavy load of classes... Chem I is notorious for its uber mammoth class works, and to make it worse, they say that Fall term's Chem I is of more evil stock than Spring's. There's Electric Circuits, also a stinky one, and I suck at electronic circuits. Models of Computation i ain't know nothin abt. Lastly there's Media Imaging, which at least I heard is a fun class where we can let loose our creative streak into digital art, and it also teaches us some basic web designing, which is something I had always wanted to learn but never really got down to it coz of this freakin freakin procrastinator's streak in me. yeah yeah, i know, i used "streak" twice in short span of writing, which is bad for essays, but i couldn't care less.

personal class load aside, this LITEC course I'm TAing is much different now. Last semester, we used the aging Motorola HC11 control board, which has been in the market since late 1980s, and one which I used when I took the class myself, so I was quite familiar with it. But now they are using a spanking brand new board, Cygnal from Intel (if i'm not mistaken), which is so advanced that I am so clueless abt pretty much anything other than how to spell its name.

In other words, us old school TAs are just as n00b abt this board as the students who shall be taking this class, and that ain't bode well... at least there's one week-long crash course training for us TAs though. I hope that shall save us from most embarrassments.

and if that's not enuff to spice things up, how about this next revelation: instead of designing smart cars like we used to do, now we shall design SMART BLIMP... ya know, the cigar shaped flying thingy, looks like zeppelin... big bag of gas with fans and gizmo stuck on its belly... now instead of just worrying abt turning left and right, speeding up and slowing down, we gotta worry abt lift and sink as well... ooooh sweet Isa ibnu Maryam.

Lord, do give me strength...

Knowledge Strata

2004-08-12T08:12:00.000-04:00

"Where is the knowledge that is lost in information? Where is the wisdom that is lost in knowledge?"

-T.S. Eliot-

I found this quote when I was reading The World's Religions (by Huston Smith) just now. Which sets my mental gears spinning: hey yeah... that makes sense! We are at every moment bombarded with bucketfuls of information; stimuli that our senses pick up constantly and our brain sorts out for those useful ones. Those handpicked candidates are Knowledge. Knowhows of practical stuff. How to do this, how that works, when will that happen, etc. Their applications is however limited to their field of relevance. Your knowledge on how cars works can't help you much with your sex life and vice versa.

That's where wisdom come in.

Wisdom is something of more grandeur. It is what you can read between the lines of knowledge. Something we can't get just by watching individual events, but by relating our observations as a coherent wholeness. It's the insights, the philosophical meaning, the spiritual implications. Wisdom transcends knowledge's compartmentalized boundaries, for with wisdom you can derive analogies and lessons from one knowledge field into a wholly separate one.

Wisdom is the holy grail of truth seekers.

peekaboo

2004-08-10T03:03:00.000-04:00

salaam & greetings to all,

The long-sought outlet for my mental escapades, here at last. Where I shall divulge my fancies to the most trivial details. To spew out the all nitpickings on society and how the world goes round. Toy around with layers upon layers of metaphysical thoughts. Wonders of nature's supreme coherency. Meaning of life. What a braindead movie that was. Debating with myself on religious beliefs. Crafting up the definition of a perfect human. The Most Basic Question of All Questions. How holographic sketching shall work. How far can I go in being a cheapskate miser. Why Kino no Tabi smacks dab to my taste. narcissism galore.

This is about me, how I see the world, and its inhabitants that I care about. May among all these rants, you shall find what you seek and more. Enlightment, i hope, or at the very least, mild amusement.