tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32785579420794554072024-03-13T17:22:11.358-07:00A look into the interplay between Science,Religion and Philosophy My blog is an effort to explain religion above dogma and to see how religion interacts with Science and Philosophy. Its an indepth journey into the various Atheistic arguments and the fallacies embedded in them.Dr Atifhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09931984896882692130noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3278557942079455407.post-90491748615916149822014-03-04T11:44:00.006-08:002022-09-15T00:21:09.441-07:00The journey towards the inescapable !<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">What is the simplest and most commonly accessible argument for the existence of God? Ofcourse , The answer is the perennial question "If there is no God , where did it all come from?". Though its more of a question than a response but the obvious ancillary proposition which follows from this question is "As there is all this , hence God must have done it and therefore God exists". Any lay believer if encountered with the question "Why do you believe that God exists?" would abruptly and impromptu give this reply. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">This line has been the historical line of defense of all believers in all cultures. And why not? Virtually Every serious creedal documentation of religion has exclaimed that in the beginning God created the universe. Not only that God created the universe , God invites human imagination to ponder over the universe and in an intellectually provocative tone asks the believers to look around if they doubt the existence of God. And it is this simple act of <i>looking around</i> that has forced humans historically to believe in God.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">"If there is no God , where did it all come from?", Though this question is a simple line and lacks in all sorts of philosophical numbo-jumbo , it encompasses the depth of most subtle and sublime human experiences. No matter how unembellished and undemanding this argument for the existence of God is , it successfully and satisfactorily responds to some of the pinching inquisitive rhythms of human soul. It not only tells you that why and how this gigantic sun hovers over the horizon of our galaxy? , why starts glitter during the dark nights? Why is there that odd looking moon in the sky? What fills the eyes of a new born with all that innocence and inexplicable beauty? Where did my affiliation with my mother come from? And so on. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">The question not only addresses the <i>why</i> question related to the ontology of various galactic and universal physicality and abstracts , it explains the connection between human necessities and material possibilities. Even if Cellular dehydration and osmoreceptor stimulation causes my thirst , why is there water to quench my thirst? Even if the shifts of sun and moon explains the length of shadows , why is there a day and night sequel befitting my biology? Even if there are rods and cones in my retina , why are there colors out there whose' differntial wave length when reaches my optical lobe through electro-chemical wave enables me to see? If atoms explain my being , Not stones but why after all am i experiencing the whole set of reality? Yes , Why? What else can respond to all this perplexity than the undecorated perennial answer <i>God did it</i>? </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />Neil turok is a theoretical Physicist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics Canada. Having born in Africa , which is something odd for a modern day phycist , he has decided to embark on an odd adventure. Contrary to the borde-guth-vilenkin theorem which necessitates a singularity at the beginning of any expanding universe , Neil has proposed a "Two clapping universes theory" (which is an attempt at the renewal of the long forgotten cyclic universe theory). </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Just a few months back , he was invited at a university symposium during which he adressed a crowd educating them on his new theory. The speech was full of metaphors , semantic contradictions , doubts , Ifs and Buts , stochastic prepositions , observational limitations and cautions in reference to the heisenberg uncertainty principle. Most of the audience was seen yawning after the first twenty minutes. Those who managed to stay awake could not manage to keep the incredulity off their faces. <br />At the end of the speech the audience was asked to pose any questions if they had in their minds. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">One guy rose to the challenge and for whatever odd reasons asked the extraneous question "Sir , what forces the electrons to follow it's path?". Neil , astonished and bewildered , in return unsuccessfully made an appeal to the incomplete "Quantum stability model" but the guy had an ancillary question "What makes matter at quanta stable" and Neil , having just delivered an enriching and scholarly speech about the the universal event which took place some 14 billion years ago , was left clueless about an ongoing visible and reachable phenomena.God of the small things was laughing at his face.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />Though the affirmation of the existence of God through an appeal to the creation of the universe has been common in every culture , skeptics ever since Aristotle have rejected the idea of the beginning of the universe. The reason for the doubts are obvious. The universe that we inhibit seems to be quite old and solid. The rusty mountains , the grand old sun , the numerous stars which seem to be obediently stationed in the upper sky and the very ground on which we roam around are things so firm that it is hard to imagine of an event which might have initiated them.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"> It seems to be more "natural" to assume that they have always been around eternally than to assume that they came into being as the result of some event in the distant past. If the "event" is affirmed , it must have been the strangest metaphysical event ever. It must have been an event not only transcending the nature but originating the very nature. Things of such a nature have run currents of anxieties in the minds of the naturalists since time immemorial and their verdict has always been "The creation of the universe trans-natural hence utterly rejected."</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />Naturalism , though has never been defined in some unequivocal way , has been portrayed by most as the "spirit of science". After all , if one goes through every single theory of science very carefully , the word God or nature has never been mentioned there. So how can someone champion atheism in the name of science? Definitely a scientific atheist shall have to make an appeal to something outside science and that outsider is Naturalism. Some sort of naturalism has been around since long and the first of the naturalists with in the ranks of Muslims were the Mutazillites.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Armed with Aristotelian logic and the rudimentary science of that time , they took the onus of defending the laws of nature (Read as naturalism) upon themselves.They hardly understood anything about the laws of nature then but establishing causal relations and not going contrary to observation was what the Mutazillites perceived as naturalism. Under the influence of this unripe naturalism , Contrary to the common Islamic belief of a created universe , they followed the path of Aristotle. They affirmed the existence of God but rejected the creation of the universe claiming that God and the universe have been co existing since ever and God has no temporal precedence over the universe but is still "superior" to the universe that he never created. The kind of intellectual gymnastics that was undertaken by the mutazallites to affirm these contradictory propositions is a matter of past now but ignorance in abundance , if the universe did not have a beginning , their <span data-dobid="hdw">benighted </span>arguments did not have an end.</span></span><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;">Just like their <i>peaceful</i> successors , the Mutazzilites were ready to enforce their Aristotelian doctrine on the reluctant Muslims with the patronage of the state through the sword. The Abbasid Caliphs converted to Mutazalism and unleashed all of their might in favor of it. A dark of era of killings and torture for traditional muslim scholars who rejected Mutazalism followed.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />It was precisely this turbulent era that Abu Hamid Muhammad Al-Ghazali was born in Tus, Persia. Born as a poor orphan , he was soon admitted in a religious ceremony where he would spend his time listening to the heated debates between the orthodox Muslims and the Mu'tazallites. As an obedient student , he was much influenced by his mentor Al-Juwayni. Al-Juwayni was a distinguished theologian and an ardent opponent of the Mu'tazallites. Al-Ghazali went through a period of skepticism during the coming years and went into a long seclusion which will end upon something remarkable.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />Al-Ghazali is important for two reasons. He was the first to defend the basic doctrines of Islam after going through the doctrines of the philosophers (Read Naturalists). Secondly , both his religious nature and intelectual gifts were of such a nature that the combination hardly ever surfaced again in the Muslim world after him.Commenting on the depth of the soul , the Greek Philosopher Heraclitus once remarked <i>"One would never discover the limits of the soul , should one travel down every road--so deep a measure does it posses"</i>. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">If not all , Al-Ghazali had proceeded on most of the roads down towards the soul. Having carefully examined the texts of the Mu'tazallites , Al- Ghazali somewhere around 1098 AC penned down his ground breaking book "The incoherence of philosophers (read Naturalists)". The first chapter of the book is titled "Refuting the doctrine of the world's past-eternity" in which he debunks the Mutazallite's doctrine of a universe uncreated. Al-Ghazali argues that if the universe if uncreated then it must be past infinite universe. But as infinity does not exists in the real world hence time or past events can not be infinite hence the universe must have had a beginning. Commenting on the infinite regress problem Al-Ghazali writes</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
</span><blockquote>
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>"They (Naturalists) say that the universe is eternal and the precedence of God over the universe is in rank than in time. They negate the initiation of the universe and hence they negate the temproral precedence of God over the universe (ie He existed before the universe came into being). I say that this is contradictory for the reason that the affirmation of the infinity is impossible as infinity does not exist in the real world and translating mathematical infinity into the real world leads to paradoxes , hence time must be finite and the universe must have a beginning"</i></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /> After giving an affirmative argument , the attention of the sage diverts towards a naturalist's objection to this argument. In a menacing </span><span style="font-size: large;"><span data-dobid="hdw">sibylline</span> tone , Al-Ghazali remarks.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
</span><blockquote>
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>"They (naturalists) say that if the universe had a beginning then time must be infinite and if we (naturalists) are being accused of affirming an eternal universe with God , our opponents affirm an eternal time with God hence we are doing the same thing. I (Al-Ghazali) say that Time is originated and created, and before it there was no time at all. We mean by our statement that God is prior to the world and time" </i></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br />Al-Ghazali's arguments became nukes against Aristotelian philosophy world wide. The great Christian sage Thomas Aquinas summed up Al-Ghazali's arguments in his marvel "Suma Theologica" and thats when Al-Ghazali's thought made their way to Europe.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">But Al-Ghazali was just being logical and philosophical. No matter how convincing his arguments were , without any empirical observation and mathematical modeling, it was hard to digest for the naturalists what he was saying. His words were taken as an expression of his faith and his mind was labelled as a victim of the circumstances of his times.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;">He survived an era in which his faith was under attack and left without any option , the humble Al-Ghazali was forced to strike back with all his mental faculties.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;">For the naturalists Al-Ghazali was a problem , a man who had appeared on their turf with their weapons and had conquered. A few centuries after Al-Ghazali , Ibn Rush , the last of the Mutazalites, while trying to write a refutation of Al-Ghazali wrote "The rational people (referring to himself and his likes) had an issue with the beginning of the universe and he (Al-Ghazali) has only added to the problem as according to him not only the universe but Time was created as well and this is <span data-dobid="hdw">utterly </span><i>unacceptable</i>"</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">What makes it unacceptable? That Ibn Rushd never explained.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />The debate continued and almost every notable thinker had to say something about it. Immanuel kant discussed the issue in his "critique of pure reason" and after affirming and dismissing various propositions , at the end was overwhelmed by his skepticism to conclude that "The debate is not settled and can never be settled ". David Hume out of the blue attacked the causality principle and Bruttarnd Russell when cornered in a debate by the Christian theologian Frederick Copleston , setting aside his delicacies and lordship , made a remarkable claim with a palpable irritation <i>" I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all".</i></span> <br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />Sometime around 1910 , Einstein discovered that gravity is a geometrical function of space and time. That is to say that the space-time fiber's deformation yields into what we perceive as gravity. In 1915 He introduced the field equations modeling his general relativity. In 1920's Aleksandr Friedman and Georges Lemaitre discovered solution to the field equations and to Einsteins painful surprise they hinted at an expanding universe. For reasons that he could never make clear , Einstein regarded a past eternal universe more satisfying. It has been reported that towards the end of his life , he regarded an expanding universe with a certain fastidious distaste. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">In the early years of the twentieth century , the signature of hydrogen was discovered in the light coming from far off galaxies. An American astrophysicist Vesto Slipher was the first one to note that the light coming from distant galaxies was shifting towards the red portion of the spectrum. This meant that the frequency of hydrogen atoms in the upper space was declining. In 1930's Edward Hubble using a far more sophisticated telescope made the same observation with more precession and unlike Slipher , Hubble knew that he had struck pure gold.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">The conclusion from this observation was simple and obvious. The light source (Galaxies) were moving away from us and hence the red shift. If the galaxies were receding then the universe was expanding and if it was expanding it must have been expanded from a state of lesser expansion and there must have been a point of beginning (known as singularity today). What was conceived as a mere expression of faith of Al-Ghazali had gained an empirical and scientific credibility. Al-Ghazali had entered into the troubled imagination of the naturalists in a very odd fashion and as this time his entrance had been empirical, he could not be thrown out for being <i>just</i> faithful.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">This was unacceptable. The dogma of "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" had become a soaring reality. The ardent atheist physicist Fred Hoyle rejected the idea by mocking it as the "Big Bang" and ever since his mockery has given the name to the mystery. The expression "Big Bang" has captured a hold of its own over the public imagination just like "If there is no God then where did it all come from?". No matter whether one can understand it or not , most of the laymen have heard of the event and whether they can understand its mathematical modeling or not , almost everyone can conceive of the event. In 1964 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson accidentally discovered the microwave background radiation which confirmed the "Big Bang". The thermal radiation left over by the mysterious event is still there in the space to be measured.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">By 1960s Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking had demonstrated that insofar the backward contraction of the universe was controlled by the equations of general relativity, almost all the lines of conveyance came to an end at the singularity. And all lines of conveyance does not only include time and space , actualization Ibn Rushd's fears , time had a beginning. Not only this but singularity itself has become a term of its own kind. A mystery , a stupefying fact and bewildering expression which donates an infinitely dense and infinitely compact with an infinite gravity.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Read together with the fine tuning of the universe , the medieval cosmological argument of Al-Ghazali has marked a triumph of faith. The connection between God and the universe has become so plain that it glows with its own energy and can even be seen in the dark. On the rostrum of the history , Al-Ghazali stands aloof , noble and uncorrupted but his ardent foes <i>The Naturalists</i> have resurfaced as atheists and the current of anxiety has traveled down all the way from Ibn Rushd et al to the modern day atheists. Astrophysicist Christopher Isham puts it best: </span><br />
</span><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"> “<i>Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang
supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some
atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as
continuous creation or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a
tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only
suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper
than the usual desire of a theorist to support his or her theory</i>.”</span></blockquote>
</div>Dr Atifhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05621211333344486045noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3278557942079455407.post-31114169245891834402012-11-26T06:10:00.001-08:002014-03-06T00:16:44.128-08:00A Paradise that never was !<span style="font-size: small;">Petrograd ,November 1917 ,one a cold foggy morning a huge crowd composed of all age groups has gathered infront of the infamous Winter Palace where the Tsar monarchs used to reside. The zeal and zest of the crowd is unprecedented. Faces are glittering with a happiness of the highest magnitudes and not a moment goes without slogans. For Manov Makhail , it is a normal day. As a priest in the nearby church , He has just left the church for his home with the Bible in his armpit.Not much aware of the events taking place in the city , he fails to make much sense of the crowd infront of him. All what he knows is that a revolution is gearing up in the city but the rest of the details are of no interest for him. In this state of incredulity , he decides to join the crowd artlessly hoping that Jesus might praised by the zealots , as it had been the case in every revolution that Jesus was remembered. When he fails to see any signs of acknowledgment of Jesus from the crowd , he starts raising the slogans of Jesus himself alone. His voice does not match with the chorus of "long live communism , death to religion , death to Capitalism". The crowd was waiting for Vladimir Lenin , the Messiah of communism. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">A girl standing nearby the priest is the first to notice him. It was as if she was just waiting for the moment. She immediately starts kicking the poor priest and soon he is lynched to death by the crowd. Pages of bible lay shattered on the ground. The crowd gets further motivated and starts chanting "god of the wrath is dead , welcome the communist brotherhood". After all new gods were out there in the market and everything new has a certain attraction and preference over the old one. Karl Marx , who before selling his own opium to the masses had called religion to be an opium of the masses , was all set to serve as the new god and Lenin , who had given his ten commandments in his "April thesis" was a perfect candidate for serving as the prophet of Marx. Things were all set to capitalize on the fragile moments. The crowd was eagerly waiting for the new religion as well. The biblical god had become too old to serve as the deity and he was much of an unpleasant character as well. His attribute of being "god of the wrath" was long criticized and deplored. But little did the crowd which had gathered infront of the Winter Palace and everyone else who lived in that era knew that soon the "god of wrath" was about to manifest himself in the strangest way and the wrath was going to be unmatched this time.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">The idea of communism was first properly tabled by the German Philosopher Karl Marx. The basic pretensions of the theory are much simple. It proposes a society which shall be free of any class system. The production of the society shall have a common ownership and individual ownership shall be discouraged. The peak of such a communist society shall be a financially uniform society in which there shall be no capital at all. This was the paradise which Marx dreamed of and the the first proper experiment of erecting this paradise took place in Soviet Russia after the people fed up of the last of the Tsar kings , Nicolas Tsar , threw him out in 1917 and later executed him along with his family. It was precisely this Communist utopia or paradise which the crowd gathered infront of the Winter Palace was eagerly dreaming of.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">The economical aspects of Communism are of no interest to me and they are not much relevant in this age to any intellectual urgency either. Communism soon became something more than a mere theory of economics and that "something more" enters the troubled imagination of every person till this day. Karl Marx portrayed Communism to be a theory of society not a theory of economics only. Communism to achieve its goals requires a certain kind of social metaphysics. As it makes an appeal to the materialistic needs , it needs a naturalistic and materialistic explanation of everything that governs a society. It was under these influences that in 1873 , Karl Marx sent a copy of his <i>Das Capital </i>to Charles Darwin who had already printed his <i>Origin of Species. </i></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">Karl Marx had read <i>Origin of species</i> <i> </i>and was pretty much convinced that Darwinism not only provides a metaphysics to reject the biblical account of creation and thus serves as a ladder to the rejection of religion which he saw vital to the foundations of communism but it also provides an elegant materialistic explanation of the class struggle. In 1861, Karl Marx wrote to his friend Ferdinand Lesale
"<i>Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it
provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle.
... Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time,
‘teleology’ in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its
rational meaning is empirically explained</i>." <a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/letters/61_01_16.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/letters/61_01_16.htm</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">Russian 1931 , The dream of Marx has actualized itself. The Communist Party of Russia is the sole authority of power in the country. Joeseph Stalin , the premier of Russia , has replaced the long hated god. Marx had inducted Darwinism into the moral calculus of the Communist paradise and now he alone hovers on the moral landscape of Russia. Churches are being demolished and priests are being killed like anything. Joseph Stalin , having succeeded in eliminating by killing the landlords was moving towards <i>Collectivization</i>. The farms had to be gathered and the peasants were to work on collectively on such collective farms. The peasants could not get a good amount from their first year of experiment and they started to refuse to work in collective farms. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">The uprising of the Ukrainian nationalism , which the poor peasants sought out as a way to escape , was a further factor after the refusal of the peasants to work in collective farms to displease Joseph Stalin. What happened next is the darkest and bloodiest chapter of the human history. A historian records it as bellow.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><i><br /></i><i>On 7 August 1932 a law came into force that stipulated that all food was
state property and that mere possession of food was evidence of a
crime. Among the most enthusiastic enforcers of the law were urban
members of youth organizations, educated under the Soviet system, who
fanned out into the countryside in order to prevent the "theft" of state
property. They constructed and staffed watchtowers (over 700 in the
Odessa region alone) to ensure that no peasants took food home from the
fields. The youth brigades lived off the land, eating what they
confiscated from the peasants. They often humiliated the starving
peasants by forcing them to box each other for sport, or forcing them to
crawl and bark like dogs. Under the pretext of grain confiscation, the
brigades routinely raped women living alone. </i></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">(Genocide revealed by Snyder)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;">By the end of 1932 , people living in Ukraine and the rest of the Soviet republic had started dieing of starvation. Joeseph Stalin had inflicted people with the worst famine of the previous century. He ordered the Commun stores not to give ration to the peasants and thus a man made famine was installed to punish the people. The coming months added to the miseries. Russia had the worst winter that year and coldness added to appetite. Having nothing to eat , people started eating babies. Soon the Cannibalism became a widespread phenomena. Some 2500 cases of Cannibalism were registered. Around 11 million people died of this man mad</span>e famine known as <i>Holodomor</i> which means Perished by hunger. The God of the wrath had appeared.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/HolodomorUcrania9.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/HolodomorUcrania9.jpg" height="456" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
(People passing by a starving to death person in Ukarine , Russia 1932. After all, the fittest has to survive)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/GolodomorKharkiv.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/GolodomorKharkiv.jpg" height="462" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
(1933 Russia , a lady passing by the corpses and the starving ones. After all , <i>why</i> should she care?)<br />
<br />
Joeseph Stalin had to kill Seven million more before he breathed his last on the 1st of March 1953. The next to join in as god was Pol Pot who tried to implement Communism in Cambodia. Just like Stalin , he was a frank atheist as well. Pol Pot led<i> The communist Party of Kampuchea</i> in Combodia. The blood of some 3 million people is at his hands and most of them were people of the lower classes , to whom the promise of the Communist paradise had been made. Millions were killed by the Chinese Mao , the Afghan Noor Muhammad Tarakai and Hafizullah Amin , Nicolae Chachescue of Romia. Round about 90 million people had to die at the hands of Communists before it was realized that the paradise never was.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/ChoeungEk-Darter-7.jpg/450px-ChoeungEk-Darter-7.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/ChoeungEk-Darter-7.jpg/450px-ChoeungEk-Darter-7.jpg" height="640" width="480" /></a></div>
<br />
<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTESnyder201038.E2.80.9339_58-0"></sup><br />
(The Infamous Chankhiri tree (killing tree) against which the infants were smashed to death in Cambodia)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.paleriders.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/killing_fields.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.paleriders.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/killing_fields.jpg" height="380" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
(The Killing Fields of Pol Pot :<i> In Phnom Penh and other cities, the Khmer Rouge (the Communist Zealots of Cambodia) told the residents that they would be moved only about "two or three kilometers" outside
the city and would return in "two or three days." Some witnesses say
they were told that the evacuation was because of the "threat of
American bombing" and that they did not have to lock their houses since
the Khmer Rouge would "take care of everything" until they returned.
People who refused to evacuate would have their homes burned to the
ground and would be killed immediately. The evacuees were sent on long
marches to the countryside, which killed thousands of children, elderly
people, and sick people.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Kiernan.2C_B._1997_pp._251-310_31-0"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#cite_note-Kiernan.2C_B._1997_pp._251-310-31"></a></sup>
These were not the first evacuations of civilian populations by the
Khmer Rouge. Similar evacuations of populations without possessions had
been occurring on a smaller scale since the early 1970s.</i>)<br />
<br />
The list of atrocities caused by the atheist communists is endless and a bit of research on it shall further reveal the sordid face of the Communist Atheists of the previous century to the readers. The question however remains that what essentially went wrong in the moral calculus of that era when all these crimes were undertaken so shamelessly. It is very much likely that some very bad and lethal mutation had taken place in the moral body of the humans living then. Is Atheism and social Darwinism so poisonous?<br />
<br />
Who can count the calamities of the past century and forget the Nazis? The most remarkable expression related to social Darwinism came from them. Adolf Hitler had a huge program of eugenics in his mind based on Darwinian concepts of diversity. His goal was to resurrect the noble blue eyed long legged Aryan race which he deemed to be the fittest and hence the only to deserve to survive.<br />
<br />
Richard Weikart has a whole book on this issue , titled as <i>From Darwin to Hitler:evolutionary ethics ,Eugenics and Racism in Germany. </i>There he writes "A sinister current of influence ran from Darwin's theory of evolution to Hitler's policy of extermination. A generation of German biologists had read Darwin and concluded that competition between species was reflected in human affairs by competition between races".<br />
<br />
The Nazi propaganda films of that era when the blood was being shed by the Nazis , most of their films will start with this passage. <i>"in the last few decades mankind has sinned terribly against the law of natural selection. We have allowed the weak to live." </i>We have sinned against the law of natural selection? Read this line a few times till you absorb the tremendous amount of brutal imbecility embedded in the line. Such lines despite their ignoramus nature , come quickly. The Darwinian argument is simple. <i>Human being is the carrier of certain traits just like the rest of the animals. Humans have been favored by nature that they have made their way to the fittest. There is nothing wrong if you kill the ones whom you feel to be weak in this competition , as after all , such preying goes on round the clock in the animal kingdom. </i>The conclusion is inevitable if the premises are endorsed. Stalin , Hitler , Maow , Pol Pot <i>et al </i>endorsed the premises wholeheartedly and the the conclusion followed inevitably. <br />
<br />
The horrors of the 20th century should have been enough to give a break to all the humans but Darwin has entered the moral debate once again with a new face. A Neo Atheist scientist and Darwinist , Steven Pinker , has introduced a remarkable claim into the debate. He says "<i>Something in modernity and its cultural institution has made us nobler. On the scale of decades , comprehensive date again paint a shockingly happy picture. Some evidence has been under our nose all along"</i><br />
<br />
These lines of Steven Pinker are of a splendid stupidity. All one can say is Good Luck though. A few years before the monster was unleashed , Mathew Arnold in 1851 was hearing its footsteps. Standing on the "Dover Beach" he said something in a fatidical tone.<br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="poetry">
<i><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Sea of Faith</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">But now I only hear</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Retreating, to the breath</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">And naked shingles of the world.</span></i></div>
<div class="poetry">
<i><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></i>
<i><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ah, love, let us be true</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">To one another! for the world, which seems</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">To lie before us like a land of dreams,</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">So various, so beautiful, so new,</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">And we are here as on a darkling plain</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Where ignorant armies clash by night.</span></i></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />Dr Atifhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05621211333344486045noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3278557942079455407.post-18791321603221554992012-10-21T09:52:00.002-07:002012-10-24T13:41:38.608-07:00Pashtun Nationalism: A Failed ideology<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">"How about the chicken who responds back violently when her child is attacked? Is she being violent or not?" This was a question posed infront of Ghandi by the then young Wali khan , whose father Abdul Ghaffar khan , popularly known as bacha khan , was indoctrinating the idea of tolerance into the Pashtun socities , together with Mr Ghandi. Mr Ghandi did not have any satisfactory answer to that question of Wali khan and he just smiled away by saying that there are more important political issues to think about than the question. But the question did have a depth and it did pointed out the hollowness of the "doctrine of tolerance" vigorously preached by Bacha khan those days.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">These were the good old days of united India when Abdul Ghaffar kha, popularly known as Bacha khan surfaced from a small village of Charsada, North West frontier province. He was born in an age when the western enlightenment at one hand and the soviet Marxism on the other were impressing people globally. The effected ones were mostly from the third world which was mainly occupied by the Royal colonial Britain. The Turk Caliphate had fallen and nationalistic Arab states had started emerging in the Gulf and middle east. European imperialism and soviet communism were becoming the dominant ways of looking at the world. Under these influences various movments were initiating in the subcontinent as well. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">These were precisely such fragile and precarious moments of the near past when Bacha khan was becoming mature enough to make sense of his surroundings. He raised in a comparably better part of the province where the farms yielded a good amount of corps to satisfy the belly of the landowners and there was enough water to quench the thirst of the farms. His family was much well off. His father Bahram khan owned a good amount of land to keep his head high in the society. It was his father who got him commissioned in the British Indian Army where an officer shall offend Bacha khan and as a consequence he shall quit the Army.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">The later part of Bacha khan's life is the focus of this article during which he synthesized a doctrine that he would preach all his life. He tried to combine the philanthropist-ism of the west and Marxism of the east in such a fashion that these two ingredients shall be dominated by Pashtun nationalism (sometimes referred to as Afghan nationalism). The theme of this blend was colored by "tolerance" , a vague word in this age and an utter stranger to the society in which he lived then.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">The Pashtun society of that era, as it has always been the case , was a deeply religious society. Mosque was the center of the society where most of the social disputes shall be handled by the elders and "Mullah" was the most influential character of the society whom everyone shall respect. The central part of the province which included cities like Mardan , Charsada , Peshawar and Swabi were relatively peaceful. These cities were dominated by the Yousafzai , Uthmanizai , Muhammadzai and Momand tribes of Pashtuns. The west of province where mainly the Masood and Wazir Pahstuns lived were much at a continuous unease. Mullah Powindah and Faqir of Ippi had raised a local insurgency against the British occupation. Their gorilla warfare kept the British outside of what are now known as the tribal areas and the center of Taliban insurgency these days.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">The religious nature of Bacha khan himself has been a matter of much debate. All what can be said with confidence is that he was not an irreligious man.He performed two Hajjs and would offer his prayers regularly. However he did reject Islam as a political ideology. His "tolerance" was of such a quality that he shall borrow glasses from Mr Ghandi , his political partner and close friend , to read the Quran. Ghandi was his time tested friend and both opposed the two nation theory. Bacha khan was Muslim and Ghandi was Hindu but both were secular enough not to consider religion as a source of dispute or difference and above all both were self proclaimed flag bearers of tolerance , a specious term they never cared to define properly.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">What happened next in the political theater of the Indian Subcontinent is of a great importance but is in irrelevance with the topic. Awami national Party , presided by Asfandyar Wali khan , the grandson of Bacha khan , is the main offspring of the ideology of Bacha khan. ANP is the ruling party in Khyber Pukhtoonkhwa nowadays. ANP is the ally of Pakistan people's party in center and Sindh as well. The themes of socialism have been eradicated from the party. It once stood for socialism and hence was a major supporter of soviet union in the region but ever sense of demise of the bipolar world , it has shred off its socialistic themes. Though its flag still happens to be red but in the current so called War against Terror they are Pro-America. Asfandyar Wali khan made a secret visit to America <a href="http://www.paktribune.com/news/print.php?id=200261">Link</a> in the recent past. For this visit he was severely deplored by his old socialist friends. Socialism negated , Awami national Party still stands for Pashtun nationalism and the dream of Pashtunistan ( a state composed of Major portions of Khyber Pukhtoonkhwa and Afghanistan which shall be the homeland of Pashtuns) still lives somewhere in the deep dungeons of insecure future. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">Awami National Party confronted with the first ideological challenge when USSR invaded Russia on the requist of the then Afghan communist president Babrak Karmal. USSR forces accompanied by the military of PDPA (stands for People's democratic Party of Afghanistan which was a secular communist party that ruled Afghanistan after the Saur revolution in which President Daud Khan was dethroned and killed) started massacring the Afghan people. The major uprising against the invaders took place from the Pashtun majority areas of Afghanistan. Pashtuns from the tribal belt of Pakistan also joined hands with them in their battle against Russia. It was a critical time for Awami national Party (which was then known as National awami Party). At one hand was the slogan of "Lar o Bar Yo Pashtun" (Every Pashtun no matter where is one) and at the other hand it was the old socialist friend Russia. In those weak moments , Awami National Party joined hands with Russia against the Pashtun population.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">After the expulsion of Russia from Afghanistan , Dr Najib Ullah Ahmedzai still lived in Kabul as the last remain of the people's democratic Party of Afghanistan. He got a no objection certificate from Russia and hence was appointed as the president of Afghanistan. He belonged to the Parcham faction of PDPA and had earlier served as the commandant of KHAD (Afghanistan's national intelligence agency). He was involved in the massacre of many Mujahideen during the Russia-Afghan war. He was the person who advised the Russians to bombard the cities and villages indiscriminately which resulted into thousands of deaths. This shameless man decided to preside over the graveyard , a large part of which was filled by the corpses that were there due to him. Awami national Party started supporting Dr Najib and in his face again some saw the prince of Pushtunistan.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">Dr Najib was later killed by the Taliban after they captured Kabul. His dead body was hung through a street lamp post in the same city from which he used send his death squads to kill the Mujahideen. After all heroes die young. Meanwhile in the Pakistani Pashtun area Wali khan , the son of Bacha khan and president of Awami national Party , was defeated in the general elections of 1990 by a poor "Mullah" of his constituency Maulana Hassan Jan. This defeat exemplified the unpopularity of Awami National Party in the region. Wali khan never contested any election after that humiliating defeat. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">It is a perplexing question that why shall a Pashtun nationalist party stand for the massacre of Pashtuns? After all they claim to look after the interests of Pashtuns. What comes as a further surprise is the support of these so called Pahstun nationalists towards America against the Taliban , a wide majority of whom happen to be Pashtuns. Asfandyar Wali khan symbolically seated himself in the middle of Zardari and Obama to show where he stood on the war against "terror". The same America which has killed thousands of Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistani tribal agencies.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.pakhtoonmagazine.com/pictures/data/media/1/Asfandyar_in_FOP.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="332" src="http://www.pakhtoonmagazine.com/pictures/data/media/1/Asfandyar_in_FOP.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
( Third from the left , Asfandyar Wali khan is sitting with the gang which has killed more Pashtuns than ever killed in the history)<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://speakforchange.org/wp-content/uploads/et_temp/drone-attack-victims-54988_240x240.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://speakforchange.org/wp-content/uploads/et_temp/drone-attack-victims-54988_240x240.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
(A Pashtun lady killed in a drone attack in Waziristan. She was probably asleep when the missile struck her)<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: small;">What about Mullah Omar and Hakim Ullah Mehsood? Both happen to be Pashtuns. Gul Badeen Hikmatyar is a Pashtun and so is Jalal uddin Haqqani. The vast majority of the leadership of Taliban across both sides of the Durand line happen to be Pashtuns. Why does not the slogan of "All pahstuns no matter where they are , are one" encompass these Pashtuns? Same goes for the people who get killed in drone attacks who happen to be as Pashtun as Asfandyar Wali khan is. It was Russia against the Pashtuns and the Pashtun nationalists were with Russia. Now it is America versus pashtuns and they are with America. I have always thought about this paradox , ever since my childhood. I was myself raised in an ANP affiliated family and i have always asked these questions. I got many chances to meet Asfandyar Wali khan. I asked him these questions but the answer was never there. Instead i had to hear a big rant which included naming me an Islamo-fascist , Wahhabi , stooge of the Arabs and what not and i have always ignored these labels as ad-hominems.</span></span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: small;">There is a deep philosophical question as well. What defines a person? We open our eyes one day and find ourselves in this universe which is wide and huge enough to make us feel that we don't count much in the grand scheme of the things. It is after this realization , which further deepens after maturity , that we start associating us with groups so that we get counted in the bigger picture. One's affiliation with an ideology stands for how he has defined himself and allocated himself a role in this universe. What about nationalism as an ideology? Is it good enough to be adopted to live with? I don't think so. It is the specific sequence of my genome that makes it sure that i belong to such an such race. Why should one fall to his genetic structure? Is the genetic structure a good enough reason to get myself individualized from the rest of the humans? Certainly Not.</span></span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: small;">If one has to individualize himself on the base of race , why stop with Pashtuns? There are sub-casts in the Pashtuns and why should not i look for the interests of the Yousafzais which happens to be my sub-cast? Or why stop there , why should not i just care for my family which comes from Mubarik Khel sub-cast of the Yousafzais? Even why stop there? Why should not i identify myself with my own self only as i am the perfect copy of my own genetic structure and no one else can compete me in that? It all shall be ofcourse as irrational and radical as the so called nationalism of Awami national party is. It is more plausible and rational to think of myself as a creation of the Almighty Allah , a dignity which is shared by all my fellow humans. This coming from one source and going towards that same source after death bonds me in a magnificent relation with the humanity across me. The grandeur of this bond is so great that any kind of racism or nationalism seem to be doctrines of idiots infront of it. </span></span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: small;">It is evident that Pashtuns have always been predominantly religious. This religious face of Pashtuns has never been acceptable to ANP. They want to deface them. One solemn donkey once told me that only a secular Pashtun is the real Pashtun and so Mullah Omar and his sympathizers are not Pashtuns.These are the types of ignoramus efforts to redefine what a Pashtun is. What is common in all these daft new definition is that Islam is always negated. A Muslim Pashtun is not something which they are ready to accept.If such is the nature of biased towards Islam , I am justified in assuming that it is a battle against Islam camouflaged under Pashtun Nationalism. </span></span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: small;">These days Awami national Party is on the run. The fallacious and inhuman doctrine of nationalism is breathing its last. Asfandyar Wali khan narrowly escaped a suicide attack after which when inquired by a journalist he said "The bomber was most probably a Pashtun". It is a rare event that Asfandyar is seen in his native place. The fear of being attacked by his own fellow Pashtuns for his obvious crimes keep taunting him. Same goes for the rest of the leadership of Awami national Party. They rarely attend any open meetings.That very kin whose name they use is their enemy and infact they have made a classical example of self enmity in this age.</span></span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: small;">Islamists with weapons in hands are dominating the adjacent areas of the Durand line which was to be become a part of Pashtunistan. They are against many things and one of those things that they castigate the most is racism and nationalism. The dream of Pashtun nationalism whose epic is Pashtunistan is no where in the picture. Bacha khan together with the rest of the racists rests deep down the soil , the ultimate resort of all these discarded gods. His interpretation of the vague term tolerance has met with the American interpretation in this age. Both of them agree that Taliban are intolerant. As a result both have become intolerant of the religious Pashtuns.</span></span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: small;">After his secret visit to America , Asfandyar Wali khan uttered with sanguine confidence that "I had gone there to present the case of Pashtuns". This lines stands for a remarkable stupidity of its own kind but line is not new. Wali khan , Asfandyar's father , had presented the case of Pashtuns in the court of USSR. He lost it there and I am sure that Asfandyar shall lose it in America. It does not take much of a thought to come to the conclusion that the future of Pashtuns is associated with Islam. Islam is embedded in their nature , expressed in their consciousness and constructed in their subconsciousness. All the efforts to construct a secular Pashtun society have failed in the past and this one has failed as well. Though the most shameful phase of the failure for the so called Pashtun nationalists is yet to come. </span></span>
Dr Atifhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05621211333344486045noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3278557942079455407.post-81338063218446888632012-10-14T02:31:00.001-07:002012-10-18T06:34:47.045-07:00Islam and postmodernism<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>As it is a general sentiment these days among the modernist camp that
Islam must be "reformed" properly to make it acceptable to the people in
this age so it also necessary to address this issue of reformation as
well in details. We all know that the idea of reformation manly
originates in the modernistic camp under the influences that the Western
"enlightenment" is no more compatible with Islam or Islam is
incompatible with the western enlightenment. The western enlightenment
is a broad term which encompasses all the social doctrines that became
prevalent in the post modernism west. Such ideologies will primarily
include democracy , the social doctrines related to the relation ship
between men and women , the various economic theories and so on. </b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b><br /></b><b>Why should one think of making Islam compatible with the Western
enlightenment? The reason that the modernists give is obvious. The
western enlightenment is prevalent , accepted and has taken a grip over
the popular imagination therefor Islam must be brought into the
boundaries of it so that it remains acceptable to the general public.
The parts of Islam that stay out of the boundary must be chopped and
trimmed. What remains outside includes Jihaad , Niqaab , ruling related
to apostasy etc. What they don't understand is that it is impossible to
think of a theoretically neutral world. It is impossible that one day
the whole world will give up all the various theories prevalent and
people will roam around with out any ideology with the flags of western
enlightenment in their hands. </b></span></span>
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b><br /></b><b>Marxism offered a resistance to imperialism , one of the tenets of
western enlightenment but faded away after sometime. Chinese socialism
is offering a resistance to the economical tenets of western
enlightenment but lack the various equipment to rebuke it completely.
Islam and the Muslim world is the only resistance left these days. It
has all thew potential to ideological replace the western enlightenment
whose core ingredients include materialism , relative morality ,
consumerism and imperialism. The decline of western enlightenment has
already begun and i am sure that it shall fall to Islam as Allah has
said in the Quran<i> Huwalazi arsala rasoolahu bil huda Wa deen al Haq Leyuzheral Haq ala deeni kuli </i>. It is Allah who has sent his messenger with the true Deen and truth so that he makes it prevalent over all the religions. </b></span></span>
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b><br /></b></span></span>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>Instead of investing the potentials futilely in efforts to neutralize
the ideological bases of Islam , , under the influences of supremacy of
western enlightenment , we should work on methods to present Islam as
an alternate to the western enlightenment. The west has wickedly ruled
the world for long now. It is evident from the history that no man made
doctrine survives for long. People get fed up , the internal
inconsistencies break the ideologies and the social changes negatively
effect them. The real beauty of Islam is that it has survived for so
long and has presented an ideology to the world. It has established
itself and its ideological bases are firmly rooted. Why surrender it to
the west? Why come up with the modals of reformed Islam (which is not
Islam) to make it reconcilable with the western enlightenment? The only
reason that i can see is the lack of faith.
</b></span></span></h3>
Dr Atifhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05621211333344486045noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3278557942079455407.post-20217762387526371432012-08-29T11:05:00.001-07:002012-08-29T11:06:41.866-07:00Is human all and only matter?<br />
One of the trends which have captivated the imagination of the new enlightened crowd is the slogan that Human is all matter.Coupled by the influences of the age , this onliner slogan has been shaped into some kind of an argument for the invalidity of religion as it follows a predictable path. If human being is all and only matter then is nothing beyond that and we know that the matter of human body is an accumulation of hydrocarbons , which when buried decomposes. So a matter has decomposed into the soil and nothing more. So no life after death and so no God and lets join the Dawkins's party which after deeply "absorbing" this argument is chanting "Probably there is no God so lets enjoy".<br />
<br />
I don't know how this "Probably" comes into such an apparently solid argument and how much disturbing it is for the faithfuls of Dawkins but the argument is a trivial argument like the rest of the cliches coined and regurgitated against religion . A superficial look into the argument reveals a certain fallacy in the proposition and the argument becomes a non-sequitur. <br />
<br />
For the preposition that "Human being is all and only matter" , it must be true that I am my body. For the sake of easiness , lets say that I am A and my body is B. So according to the proposition , A is B. If A is B or equal to B then all that we say about A shall be true for B as well and all that we say about B shall be true for A as well. Like if you have two match similar match boxes infront of you who match in every aspect then whatever you say about the first match box shall be true for the second match box as well.<br />
<br />
There is a famous novel by Franz Kafka titled as "Metamorphosis". In the novel , a fellow one day wakes up and finds himself in the body of a beetle , waving his legs here and there. He accepts the misery and starts his life in the body of a beetle. It is perfectly conceivable on the part of humans to believe that they shall exist even when his material body will vanish. Humans during the whole coarse of history have been believing in a life hereafter of some kind. Even today , most of the people of the world can conceive of a life in here after of some kind. This conception of life in hereafter comes without the conception of the existence of our physical bodies in hereafter.<br />
<br />
So , i can imagine that i shall exist when my material body shall not exist.The vice versa is unthinkable. So there is atleast one proposition which is true for A and not true for B and the proposition is "A can possibly exist when B does not". As already said that for any two bodies to be identical , all the statements that are true for one should be true for the other as whatever shall be true for one body shall be true for the other body as they are the same thing. We see that there is atleast one statement that is true for A (me) and untrue for B (my body) so A and B are not identical and so I am not my body only. We can safely assume from this that Human being is not matter (ie body) only. Dr Atifhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05621211333344486045noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3278557942079455407.post-75007256763475088262012-06-17T05:20:00.002-07:002012-06-17T05:33:28.799-07:00The Nature of Reality II<h2 class="uiHeaderTitle" tabindex="0">
</h2>
<br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;"> <span style="font-size: large;">In this part i would like to analyze three atheistic claims which are relavent to the topic at hand.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-weight: normal;">1.</span>There must be a proof for each and
every thing</b></span><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: normal;">: Usually an atheist would come up with his normal preaching
tone and will shout out “You must have proof and evidence for your
beliefs and if you cannot substantiate your faith with evidence then
there is something irrational, irresponsible and immoral about you
because you have accepted something without any evidence or proof.” Is
it really the case? I honestly think no, it is not.</span></div>
<div class="uiHeaderTitle" style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" tabindex="0">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br style="font-weight: normal;" /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: large; font-weight: normal;"> The
concept that you must be having a proof or evidence for each and
everything that is a part of your world view and if not so you should
reject it,is known as evidentialism. Evidentialism has taken a grip over
the popular imagination since the advent of scientific revolution in
the nether regions of west. However if we observe the basic human
instincts we will find out that at the core of human nature faith plays a
more important and fundamental role than evidentialism. The
fundamentals of our understanding rest on some evincible, solidly
constructed and deeply implanted faith. Rest of the building of our
understanding stands on the foundations which are generously enriched by
faith. This concept is known as foundationalism or the concept of
properly basic belief.</span></div>
<div class="uiHeaderTitle" style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" tabindex="0">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br style="font-weight: normal;" /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: large; font-weight: normal;"> Have you ever thought what past
is and where has the moment in which you started reading this line gone?
Do you remember the days during which you became familiar with
something known as past and you started believing in it involuntary and
you don’t remember when did this conceptualization of past came into
your understanding? Were you offered a compelling proof or evidence for
past before you started accepting that there is something known as past?
I don’t think so.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> Our conceptualization of past is so fundamental and
foundational that it is utterly impossible to think of ourselves without
a hold the concept of past. So is there any empirical or scientific
evidence that there is a past? None whatsoever. To such whimsical peaks
of sheer irrationality and insanity can skepticism about past lead to
that the ever skeptic Bertrand Russell with his wrinkled face and big
jaw once remarked “It is possible that the whole world, together with
all its wrinkled faces, apparent memories, rusted cars, crumbling
mountains popped into existence just ten seconds ago.” There is one
thing more mysterious and sublime about the past that is: as there is no
evidence or proof for the past so can you ever stop believing in past?
Hell no. This belief is involuntary, deeply constructed within my
understanding, I can’t stop believing in past – it is basically proper
foundational belief. Welcome to the faith.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-size: large;">The world of
sensibilities apparently seems to be a generic and simple world where
our empirical senses do their service quiet consistently and honestly.
There are flowers in the garden which can be seen and smelled. The birds
chirping on the trees can be heard. I can touch the trees to feel their
solid barks while I can enjoy a chonsa mango while doing all these.
Lucky me, to such a perfection I can grasp the universe. Thanks to my
empirical senses. But there is a troubling thought deep down which is
acting like a nasty showstopper.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-size: large;">The flower that I see
is just a reflection of light rays activating the rods and cones in the
retina of my eye which then activates an electrochemical wave which
travels through the optic nerve to the optic center in my brain. So the
flower is right here in my brain just as a figment of my imagination. So
is there a flower outside me in the outer world or it is inside my
brain? Wait wait, I can touch it to know that it is outside me but the
sense of touch breaks down to the same electrochemical wave reaching to
another center in my brain. Alas! I’ve been deluding myself all my life.
The whole world is inside me and there is no proof for the existence of
anything outside my brain. All my life I have been believing that the
outer world is real without any proof.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-size: large;">There have been
some crazy people known as solipsists who used to belief that the outer
world is not real. It is all inside and it is all just a figment of
imagination. The main argument of a solipsist is the one given above
that there is no scientific proof for the existence of anything in the
outer world instead science says something otherwise which is that the
empirical senses break down electrochemical waves for getting certain
centers in the brain so its all inside me.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-size: large;">So if everything is proof
based and there is no proof for the existence of anything in the outer
world why are not we all solipsists?</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Why do we keep on believing that
the outer world is real? Faith is at service again and it is my faith
like the rest of my fellow human beings that there is a universe outside
me and it is real. Can one ever stop believing that outer world is just
a figment of imagination, a bombardment of electrons in brain and a
delusion? Give it your best try, it is impossible because our belief in
the realness of the out world is foundational, it needs no proof, it is
properly basic. Thanks to the faith, it has saved us from a headache.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Same is true for the belief in God. It is a properly basic foundational
belief and even if a person does not have a proof for the existence of
God, he is perfectly rational in his belief just like his belief in past
or the realness of the outer world. This belief is so fundamental to
human beings that no race or civilization through the course of history
has lived without God. There are things otherwise which are not
foundational to human understanding and they must be substantiated with a
proof. For example if a person claims that Islamabad is the capital of
Pakistan or Rajistan is the largest state of India etc then he must be
having a proof or evidence for it as these two claims are not
fundamental and can be easily distinguished from the properly basic
foundational beliefs.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-size: large;">To be continued inshallah..</span></div>Dr Atifhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05621211333344486045noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3278557942079455407.post-11078008745280314652012-04-16T12:09:00.001-07:002012-04-16T21:16:20.791-07:00The Nature of Reality<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 458.1pt; text-align: center;"><span style="color: red; font-family: Algerian; font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">The Nature of Reality<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Have you ever pondered on the question that what is reality? Is there any ultimate reality? And if there is an ultimate reality then what is the nature of that reality? Will we ever be able to explore the ultimate reality? These questions might seem to be perplexing but they do generate a </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">colourful</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> world of introspection and deep thought.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> Of course we do share some reality otherwise I wouldn’t have been writing this and you wouldn’t have been reading it. The way we all make sense of each other originates a sublime and lucid within us humans that we have some reality in common and if we didn’t share a reality we would never have been able to make sense of each other.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Ever since the beginning of the age of “</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">enlightment”</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> governed by the scientific realism of Galileo and his descendants, a reductionist world view that “the world of matter is the only reality and there is nothing beyond that and the world of matter is all that matters” has succeeded in achieving a grip over the popular imagination. The whole of this rumble has inducted new </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">colours</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> on the incredulity-laden horizons of the human thought in the earlier part of the 21<sup>st</sup> century. Matter has succeeded in becoming god for many and for others it is something like god.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The matter after becoming god has further in some mysterious way succeeded into launching its prophets. T.V evangelists prophets of matter like Richard Dawkins and his like can be seen preaching for their god un-exhaustingly. Their bishops can be seen trolling around on internet here and there. Their tone of preaching is always the same; their insecurities however may be different from each other. Sitting on the pulpit of atheism they deliver their sermons within an un-parallel pseudo confidence and anger but deep down their sentences are as hollow as a group of wet sponges on a wire. And their insecurities are more obvious than that of the person who is stupidly but intentionally cutting the very branch on which he has invested his <i>gluteus maximus</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The reality in the material world is composed of the observer and the observed. The fan in your room is there because you are there to observe it. The tress around us are there because we are here to observe them. The whole set of sounds which illuminate the world are only there because there are ears to percieve them. The appealing colors of this universe which vividly fill our souls with enriching fantasies only exist because there are eyes to see them. The world of matter is there because we are here to observe it. Whenever, this pair of the observer and the observed is broken, the material reality shatters into pieces. Close your eyes and then there is nothing. There is no good reason to believe that the moon will exist even if there is no one to observe it. There is an ancient paradox which asks a deep and disturbing question “Does the tree which falls down in a remote jungle where there is no one out there with ears makes sound?” This exposes the trivial and fragile nature of the material reality, the god of Dawkins and his bishops.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The material reality around us serves to effect something which is not material. The juicy zinger burgers served in KFC just serve to satisfy our appetite and appetite is of course not material. I am sure that despite their erroneous tall claims and loud sermons, Dawkins and his bishops will never dare to put their fingers on appetite. Similarly, the colorful drinks in a café only serve to quench our thirsts and again thirst is something immaterial. I am sure that you can think of several other examples like this. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">So is there any good reason to believe that the material Zinger burger served in Kfc is more important than my immaterial appetite? I don’t think so that there is any. So is there any reason to believe that the material world is more important than the reality which fills our bodies and translates the currents of empirical senses into experiences? I don’t think so that there is any. The preferences accurately decided makes one to conclude that “There is a deeper sublime immaterial reality inside me and the material world has just been brought into existence for the services of that immaterial reality. The immaterial reality transcends this material world and so is superior to it”.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Allah has addressed this issue in the 19th verse of Surah e Hashar.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; tab-stops: 458.1pt;"><span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">وَلَا تَكُوْنُوْا كَالَّذِيْنَ نَسُوا اللّٰهَ فَاَنْسٰـىهُمْ اَنْفُسَهُمْ <sup>ط</sup> اُولٰىِٕكَ هُمُ الْفٰسِقُوْنَ</span><span style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #006600; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">And be not like those who forgot Allah, so He made them forget themselves. Those are the defiantly disobedient.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">It is the arrogance of these guys which has converted into ignorance. The ignorance has actualized itself into some weird but alarmingly important kind of cognitive defect which has made them forget their own selves and what a shame this is! As they have deprived themselves of conceptualizing their own existence and have opted for a reductionist view, they are more like epistemic and ideological dwarfs who are shamelessly roaming around telling the rest of the people to reduce their heights.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">That famous quotation <i>Man Arafa Nafsahu Arafa Rabbahu </i>He who knows himself, knows his creator is the converse of that verse. The priests of atheism who are futilely involved in the efforts to persuade people that God does not exist should spare sometime out of their busy preaching schedules to ponder on their own existence. The day they realize their own existence, they will realize the existence of God. In the superfluous rhetoric and incoherent polemics that “God does not exist”, all what they have done is that they have negated their own existence.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> It would be appropriate to say that Richard Dawkins does not exist or at least a half human without a soul. </span><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The famous mathematician Kurt Godel once remarked “</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">In materialism all elements behave the same. It is mysterious to think of them as spread out and automatically united. For something to be a whole, it has to have an additional object, say, a soul or a mind. “Matter” refers to one way of perceiving things, and elementary particles are a lower form of mind. Mind is separate from matter”.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The indian poet Wasim Barelvi has the right words for these Psuedo Atheists whose mouths have grown disproportionately to their heads and this ratio fallacy has caused an ironic dilemma.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; tab-stops: 458.1pt; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">ذرا سا قطرہ کہیں آج اگر ابھرتا ہے </span><span dir="LTR" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; tab-stops: 458.1pt; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">سمندروں </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">ہی </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">کے لہجے میں بات کرتا ہے</span><span dir="LTR" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; tab-stops: 458.1pt; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; tab-stops: 458.1pt; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">کھلی چھتوں کے دیے کب کے بجھ گئے ہوتے </span><span dir="LTR" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; tab-stops: 458.1pt; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">کوئی تو ہے جو ہواؤں کے پر کترتا ہے </span><span dir="LTR" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; tab-stops: 458.1pt; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; tab-stops: 458.1pt;"><span style="color: #006600; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">In this age, even a person as worthless as a drop of water likes to speak in the tone of a Sea. The lamps of the houses deprived of walls would have been blown out by the wind but there is someone out there who keeps on trimming the feathers of the wind. <i>Alhamdulilah wa subhanallahu ta’ala.<o:p></o:p></i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; tab-stops: 458.1pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">To be continued Inshallah...<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">(If a Sunniformer happens to read it , then kindly share it on SF)</span></div>Dr Atifhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05621211333344486045noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3278557942079455407.post-74638658036205267662012-03-30T05:02:00.003-07:002014-03-05T05:00:15.501-08:00The calamity of Sufism<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<u><span style="color: red; font-family: Algerian; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">The Calamity of Sufism<o:p></o:p></span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Ever since its origin in the historically slippery,traditionally chaotic and infamously mischievous dungeons of A'jam, Tasawwuf has been a mystery of its own kind. It started from Platonism, shaped into perennialism and now some of our friends are trying to fool the people by saying that Tasawwuf is nothing more than "Tazkiyyah Nafs". I wish it were but it is the opposite. Tasawwuf is rather "Ghalaba e Nafs" as the pioneers of Tasawwuf gave preference to their personal desires and experiences over the revealed knowledge which is preserved in the form of Quran and Sunnah. The way the earlier Sufis tried to induct their personal experiences, Platonic philosophies and Greek mythologies into Islam, made Tasawwuf a disorganized religion in its own self.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Yes, Tasawwuf is a parallel religion with its own creed and rituals and has nothing to do with the Islam revealed by Allah on Muhammad (PBUH) and practiced by him and his Companions (RAA). The whole of this game initiated by Sufis has reached some nether regions of deviance and perplexities in our age and time and the tradition of Sufism has produced "gems" like Ghulam Ahmed Qadyani , Ahmed Raza khan , Yousaf Kazzab and Gohar Shahi.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Though the tradition of Tasawwuf has introduced many evils into our society and a quick youtube search reveals some amazing clips of Sufis in which they are dancing, gathering with the ladies, standing in the lock-ups after sodomizing teens and so on but right now I want to focus on pure academic issues related to Tasawwuf. The rest are well known to everyone.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">It seems to be a tall claim to say that Tasawwuf is a parallel religion and it has nothing to do with Islam but I think that I can substantiate this claim. My personal upbringing took place in a Sufi-inclined family and I had access to the basic books of Tasawwuf in my childhood. It was the early portion of the time when I was becoming old enough to start making sense of my surroundings that I read Ahya ul Uloom of Al Ghazali.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">It was just an year after that I started reading Fusus Al Hikam and Fatuhaat Makiyyah of the so called Shaykh e Akbar Ibn Arabi. Surfing through the pages of Fusus Al Hikam, the first impression I got was that Ibn Arabi is talking about something other than Islam, at least the Islam I know of. I was taken by the feeling that he (Ibn Arabi) has a parallel interpretation for Tawheed and Prophethood and almost every other basic belief of Islam is tuned according to his interpretations in his books.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">His interpretation is not even remotely attached to Islam. Reading a few other books of the "prophets" of Tasawwuf made me sure that I was right. It was then that I decided to go for an exploration of Tasawwuf and its origins and the more I read the more certain I became that my first impression was right. The first impression has become the last impression for me since then.<br />
<br />
First of all let me write down the names of the books which are the books of Makhiz of Taswwuf. Not only the writers of these books have a very important status in Sufism and are unanimously accepted by the various orders of Tasawwuf as "Walis and Qutabs etc." but all the basic concepts of Sufism are derived from these books. I shall be quoting mainly from these books to substantiate my claim.<br />
<br />
1. Manazil as Saireen by Abu Ismail Harvi (A famous Sufi, died in 481 AH)<br />
<br />
2. Ahya Al Uloom by Abu Hamid Al Ghazali Rahimahullah (Born in 450 AH in Tus , Iran. Reverted from Sufism to Ahl us Sunnah wal Jama’ah before he died)<br />
<br />
3. Fusus al Hikam and Fatuhaat e Makiyyah by Muhi uddin Ibn Arabi (known as Shaykh e Akbar in the religion of Sufis, died in 638 AH)<br />
<br />
4. A'warif al Ma'warif by Shahab uddin Saharwardi (The pioneer of Saharwardi order, died in 539 AH)<br />
<br />
5. Al insaan ul Kamil fi marifat ul awakhir wal Awail by Abdul Karim Al Jaili (died in 832 AH)<br />
<br />
6. Quwat al Quloob by Abu Talib Makki (died in 386 AH)<br />
<br />
Now lets see how this religion interprets its main tenets. I shall be discussing Tawheed, Risalah, the finality of prophet-hood and the Day of Judgment according to the religion of Sufism.<br />
<br />
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u><span style="color: #7030a0; font-family: "High Tower Text","serif"; font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">1. Tawheed.</span></u></b><span style="color: #7030a0; font-family: "High Tower Text","serif"; font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
Tawheed is the main pillar of Islam and it was the basic purpose of the Prophethood of Sayyadina Muhammad (PBUH). Every student of Quran and Hadith knows the amount and magnitude emphasis on Tawheed in Islam. So strong is that emphasis and so vital </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Tawheed is that its negation is the only unforgivable sin in Islam.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Tawheed in Islam is to affirm that God is One, He is the sole Creator of Universe and everything that which is in the universe. He is above His Throne and there is nothing like unto Him. He is alone worthy of worship. He has made this world for test and one day we shall be presented in front of Him and He will judge us according to our performance in the test of this worldly life.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">“Indeed, your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and earth in six days and then established Himself above the Throne. He covers the night with the day, [another night] chasing it rapidly; and [He created] the sun, the moon, and the stars, subjected by His command. Unquestionably, His is the creation and the command; blessed is Allah, Lord of the worlds.” {Surat-ul-Aaraaf 7, Aayat 54}<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">“And your Lord has decreed that you worship none except Him…” {Surat-ul-Israa 17, Aayat 23}<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">“And do not invoke with Allah another deity. There is no deity except Him. Everything will be destroyed except His Face. His is the </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">judgement</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">, and to Him you will be returned.” {Surat-ul-Qasas 28, Aayat 88}</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">“There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” {Surat-ush-Shoora 42, Aayat 11}<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 14pt;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 14pt;">“[He] who created death and life to test you [as to] which of you is best in deed and He is the Exalted in Might, the Forgiving.” {Surat-ul-Mulk, Aayat 2}</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br />
<br />
However, The Tawheed of Sufism is derived from Plato's theory of forms. Though I am not interested in getting into the philosophical numbo jumbo right now but a brief explanation of Plato's theory of forms is necessary here as it is the core of Tasawwuf. I would request you to read it carefully because this theory manifests in various forms here and there in Tasawwuf.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">Plato used to believe that all the forms and absolutes exist in their perfect states in some place outside our three dimensional world. These perfect forms exist outside God and they are uncreated. Goodness and beauty are the main forms. There was an age when everything was this ideal world and there was nothing else existing. Humans have descended from the ideal world by crossing a barrier before coming into this world of imperfections. Those forms now exist in an imperfect state in this world and human existence is nothing more than the exemplification of those forms. After death we shall travel back to that ideal world. (One can easily smell now that from where Wahdat al Wujood came)<br />
<br />
Though this Platonism can be seen in the early Sufi texts as well but Ibn Arabi became much more obvious in its explanation. Becoming obvious is a crime in the cult of Sufis as Mansoor Al Hallaj had already faced the music for bringing up these ideas to the general public and had faced the consequences for that. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">However, after the fall of the Abbasid caliphate at the hands of Mongols, The Muslim world went into a mental and physical chaos. The scholars were badly persecuted and watched in that era and this situation provided a very good playing field for the Sufis. Ibn Arabi appeared then. He is the first person to write in detail about the "Islamic version" of Platonism and thats why he is known as the pioneer of Wahdat al Wujood in Islam. Almost a century after him, Shaykh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyah will appear on the scene and will crush the deviance of these Sufis through the sword of Quran and Sunnah, Rahimahullahu Ta'ala.<br />
<br />
For the most part of your life, you must have wondered what this often heard mysterious term "Wahdat al Wujood" means and you might have asked "Muftis and Scholars" about it and they might have given you some watered down definition of it or they might have told you that "You cannot understand it baby and it is Haram to read the books of Shaykh e Akbar Ibn Arabi for the laymen". Here it is now: <br />
<br />
According to Ibn Arabi there was an age when there was nothing but God (Lahoot) and then there were no specifications for Him as there was nothing but Him. This was a state of absolute purity. Then from this transcendent state he came down and came down six steps (Known as Tanazulaat e Sitta among the Sufis). When he came one step down, he entered into "Aalam e Ijmaal". (Also known as Haqiqat e Muhammadiyah among the Sufis. </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">This concept is of extreme importance as it became the basis for the denial of the finality of Prophethood. I will explain it when we reach there) Then He came further down till he appeared in the shape of everything that we see around us. So all that exists is God in essence and there is no reality of being as everything that exists is He (Astaghfirullaha Rabbi). During this descent, he accepted impurities and specifications (Kasaa’if and Ta'yunaat). Humans will again meet their real self (God) when they die. (Welcome Plato into Islam).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Reaching this “ultimate” level of understanding is known as the Tawheed of the special of the special people. In this ultimate level the sufi has to deny every other existence and has to affirm only the existence of the One (God). Even if he has to claim to be God in this negation, it is justified. I hope that now we can understand from where the <i>ana al-Haqq </i>(I am God)<i> </i>of Mansoor al-Hallaaj came. The main crime of Mansoor was to reveal this secret into the public, rest the Sufis still revere him as a great saint. A sufi scholar of our age has compared the “sacrifice” of Mansoor Hallaaj with the sacrifice of Imam Ahl us Sunnah Ahmad bin Hanbal (RA).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 19px; line-height: 21px;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MtSmnlJtyz8/T38wZedXLSI/AAAAAAAAAD8/SHep1dS2vh0/s1600/Seerat_e_Mansoor_Hallaj_Shaykh_Zafar_Ahmad_Usmanir_a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MtSmnlJtyz8/T38wZedXLSI/AAAAAAAAAD8/SHep1dS2vh0/s640/Seerat_e_Mansoor_Hallaj_Shaykh_Zafar_Ahmad_Usmanir_a.jpg" height="178" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 19px; line-height: 21px;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Zafar Ahmad Uthmani in the book Seerat-e-Mansoor Hallaaj says that the “Wisest person in the Ummah”, Ashraf Ali Thanvi looked into the case and found the trial of Mansoor Hallaaj equivalent to the test Ahmad ibn Hanbal RA had to go through. </span><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">inna lillahi wa inna ilaihi raji’oon</span></i><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Other than this “ultimate” kind of Tawheed there are other two or three types of Tawheed which are for the “ignorant Muslims”. Abu Ismail Haravi explains this classification of Tawheed in the following way:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">التوحيد على ثلاثة أوجه الوجه الأول: توحيد العامة وهو الذي يصح بالشواهد، والوجه الثاني: توحيد الخاصة وهو الذي يثبت بالحقائق، الوجه الثالث: توحيد قائم بالقدم وهو توحيد خاصة الخاصة. فأما التوحيد الأول فهو شهادة أن لا إله إلا الله وحده لا شريك له، الأحد الصمد الذي لم يلد ولم يولد، ولم يكن له كفوا أحد.(منازل السائرين ٤٧)</span><span dir="LTR" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">"Tawheed is divided in three categories. The first category is the Tawheed of the general public. This is the Tawheed which is authenticated by proofs. The second category is the Tawheed of the special people which is proven by facts. The third category is affirming the Qadeem (this means that one has to affirm that only the God exists and the rest of the existences are new, <i>haadis</i>, and so should be negated), and it is the Tawheed of the special of specials. The first Tawheed is the witness that there is none worthy of worship except Allah, He is Alone without partners, The One and Only, The Absolute, The Eternal Who do not gives birth nor is He begotten, and there is none comparable unto Him. (so the Tawheed of Quran is just for the ordinary people. The special and special of specials have their own Tawheed)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"> (Manazil Al Sai'reen ,Abu Ismail Abdullah bin Mohammad Al-Haravi pg. 48)</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
<br />
</span><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Al-Ghazali has classified Tawheed into four types in the following way:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">والرابعة: أن لا يرى في الوجود إلا واحدا وهي مشاهدة الصديقين و تسميه الصوفية الفناء في التوحيد، لأنه من حيث لا يرى إلا واحدا فلا يرى نفسه أيضا وإذا لم ير نفسه لكونه مستغرقا بالتوحيد، كان فانيا عن نفسه في توحيده بمعنى أنه فنى عن رؤية نفسه والخلق. (أحياء علوم الدين ٤</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>/</span><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;"><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span>٢٤٥)</span><span dir="LTR" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">And fourth (category of Tawheed) is: That he does not see in existence except one, and it is the observation of the Siddiqeen (Siddiqeeen is a rank among the sufis other than countless other self-invented ranks) and the Sufis call it perishing in Tawheed because he does not experience except one so that he does not see his own self even. And when he does not experience his own self because of being drowned in Tawheed, he loses his own self in His unity. It means that he sees that he is perished along with the rest of the creation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">(Ahyaa al-Uloom al-Deen, 4/245)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Al-Ghazali now explains the “crime” of Mansoor al-Hallaaj:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">فاعلم أن هذه غاية علوم المكاشفات واسرار هذا العلم</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">لا يجوز أن تسطر</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">في كتاب، فقد قال العارفون: إفشاء سر الربوبية كفر. (أحياء علوم الدين ٤</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>/</span><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;"><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span>٢٤٦)</span><span dir="LTR" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">"So know that this is the peak, the knowledge of "Mukashifaat", and it is not permitted to disclose this knowledge in a book. So certainly the “Aarifoon” (those who know) said: “Disclosing the secret of God-ship is Kufr.” (So “worthy” is the secret!) <br />
(Ahya e Uloom deen V4,246, Al Ghazali)</span><span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">So al-Ghazali is saying that what Mansoor believed was not a crime but its disclosure in lay people was his crime.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">I hope that you all remember what Wahdat-ul-Wajood is. If not then re-read the explanation of Wahdat-ul-Wajood in the start of this article. </span><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Now lets see how Wahdat-ul-Wajood manifests in the work of Ibn-e-Arabi.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Ibn-e-Arabi writes in Fusus-ul-Hikam:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 19px; line-height: 21px;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D3_aBvm7xAw/T38v5ihrREI/AAAAAAAAAD0/f4Dcr3cX7Tg/s1600/fusus+%28shaer%29.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D3_aBvm7xAw/T38v5ihrREI/AAAAAAAAAD0/f4Dcr3cX7Tg/s640/fusus+%28shaer%29.jpg" height="98" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 19px; line-height: 21px;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Verily Allah is the straight path. He is obvious in common and not hidden. He is in small and big, in the ignorants and those who know.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">(Fusse-Hoodiya, Page no. 106)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">While describing the events of Ibrahim A.S and Ismail A.S, Ibn-e-Arabi takes a step forward and says in Fuss-e-Idrisiya of Fusus-ul-Hikam that the ram which was slaughtered by Hazrat Ibrahim A.S was in fact God Himself. <i>Nauzubillah min zalik</i>:</span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DozRh5yHhaU/T38vnHsg6XI/AAAAAAAAADs/Vc6u7_5vWzU/s1600/fusus+%28fa+amrul+khaliq%29.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DozRh5yHhaU/T38vnHsg6XI/AAAAAAAAADs/Vc6u7_5vWzU/s640/fusus+%28fa+amrul+khaliq%29.jpg" height="222" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 19px; line-height: 21px;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Though apparently the creation looks different from the creator but infact the creator is the creation and the creation is the creator. Look at what you see! Ibrahim’s son told him, "My father, do what you have been ordered." The son (Ismail) is the same as his father, so he (Abrahim) only saw himself sacrificing himself, "and He ransomed him with an immense sacrifice." That (Allah) which was manifested as a ram was manifested in the form of a human, and manifested in the form of a son. Rather, it is by the principle of the son being the same as the father. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">(Fusse-Idrisiya, Page no. 78)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">(Astaghfirullaha Rabbi. And yet these Jahmi, Ashari matter worshipers blame Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah for being anthropomorphic nowadays. Iqbal has the right words for it <i>Itni na barha paki-e-damaa’ ki hikayat, daman ko zara dekh zara band qaba dekh </i>yani do not narrate trivial fables of your purity, take some time and have a glance at your dirty linen.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">While talking about the events of Pharaoh and Moses A.S, Ibn-e-Arabi says that the claim of Pharaoh that he is the God was correct and valid as Pharoah was a manifestation of God so why will be him saying “I am your Lord most high” be wrong:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 19px; line-height: 21px;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-csJVBLSLi0M/T38vPytl_kI/AAAAAAAAADk/__pR7kTKyuc/s1600/fusus+moosa+%28ana+rabbukum%29.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-csJVBLSLi0M/T38vPytl_kI/AAAAAAAAADk/__pR7kTKyuc/s640/fusus+moosa+%28ana+rabbukum%29.jpg" height="304" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 19px; line-height: 21px;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Pharaoh was in the position of authority, and he was the master of the moment since he was the Caliph with the sword, even though he broke the customary divine laws when he said, "I am your Lord most high" - i.e. since all are lords, I am the highest of them through the power which you have outwardly given me over you. The sorcerers knew that he spoke the truth in what he said, and they did not deny it. They affirmed that to Pharaoh, and said, "You only judge in this passing life, so judge as you like, for the kingdom is yours." <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;">So the statement of Pharaoh, "I am your Lord most high," was valid. Although in fact Pharaoh was Allah but his physical appearance was that of Pharaoh.</span> (Na’uzu billah min zalik)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">(Fusse-Musviya, Page no. 210 - 211)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Obviously the god of Ibne-e-Arabi, Pharaoh, could not go to Hell so again negating the verses of Quran, Ibn-e-Arabi makes the erroneous claim that Pharaoh will go to Heavens and he died as a Muslim!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bSld4HHjBAU/T38uo-nOtBI/AAAAAAAAADc/9SqM9nJDLAU/s1600/fusus+moosa+%28pheron+in+heavens%29.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bSld4HHjBAU/T38uo-nOtBI/AAAAAAAAADc/9SqM9nJDLAU/s640/fusus+moosa+%28pheron+in+heavens%29.jpg" height="284" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype',serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: blue; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype',serif;">She said, "he may be a source of delight for me and for you." (28:9) She would be consoled by him with the perfection which she received as we have said. The consolation of Pharaoh was with the belief Allah gave him when he was drowning. So Allah took him pure and purified. There was no impurity in him since He took him in his belief before he had acquired any wrong actions. Islam effaces what was before it. He made him a sign of His concern so that none might despair of the mercy of Allah, for "no one despairs of solace from Allah except for the unbelievers." (12:87) If Pharaoh been of those who despair, he would not have embarked on belief.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: blue; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype',serif;">(Fusse-Musviya,Page no. 201)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">While going through these “high stations” of <i>wajd</i> and <i>haal</i>, Ibn e Arabi has committed an distressing blasphemy as well. Read it while holding your heart.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-66aVGcJyB6o/T38uTPE7aSI/AAAAAAAAADU/lwVZgf6TyEc/s1600/fusus+eesa.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-66aVGcJyB6o/T38uTPE7aSI/AAAAAAAAADU/lwVZgf6TyEc/s640/fusus+eesa.jpg" height="164" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 19px; line-height: 21px;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">he (Jibraeel A.S) said to her (Maryam A.S), "I am only Messenger of your Lord so that He can give you a pure boy," she relaxed from that contraction (qabd) and her breast expanded. It was at that time that Jibril breathed 'Isa into her. Jibril conveyed the word of Allah to Maryam as the Messenger conveyed the word of Allah to his Ummah. 'Isa was His word that He cast into Maryam, and a Spirit from Him. Then sexual desires arose in Maryam A.S. </span><i><span style="background-color: #fafafa; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype',serif;">(Inna Lillahi wa Inna Ilaihi Raji’oon)</span></i><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">(Fusse-Easviya, Page no. 139)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Wahdat ul Wajood had a very deep negative impact on the moral standards of the sufis. Shaykh ul Islam Imam Ibn e Taymiyyah has recorded the following mind blowing and soul shaking incident of a sufi.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">قال المراغي قرأت على العفيف التلمساني من كلامهم شيئا فرأيته مخالفا للكتاب والسنة فلما ذكرت ذلك له قال القرآن ليس فيه توحيد بل القرآن كله شرك ومن اتبع القرآن لم يصل إلى التوحيد قال قلت له ما الفرق بين الزوجة والأجنبية والأخت الكل واحد قال لا فرق بين ذلك عندنا وإنما هؤلاء المحجوبون اعتقدوه حراما فقلنا هو حرام عليهم عندهم وأما عندنا فما ثم حرام.</span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">(حقيقة مذهب الاتحاديين، صفحة ١٣١)</span><span dir="LTR" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Al-Mraghi said that I read upon al-Afeef al-Tilmisani (the famous sufi) something from the words of Sufis. I found that which I read upon him against Quran and Sunnah. So when I told him about that, he said that there is no Tawheed in the Quran rather the Quran is completely filled with Shirk. And whoever follows the Quran does not reach to Tawheed. I asked him that what is the difference between wife and a stranger lady and a sister though they are one being? He said that there is no difference between them in our school (wahdatul wajudi Sufis) but when the ignorant people say that they are haram, we also say that they are haram for you. And in our world there is no haram.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">(Haqiqat mazhab al-ittihadiyeen, pg. 131)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">The logical consequence of these <i>Khurafaat </i>of Ibn-e-Arabi was a heavy <i>takfeer</i> which did take place. The <i>takfeer</i> of Ibn-e-Arabi was done by almost all the prominent scholars of <i>Ahlus Sunnah </i>including Shaykh ul Islam Imam Ibn e Taymiyyah, Imam Al Dhahabi, Imam Ibn e Katheer, Imam Ibn e Hajar Al Asqalani, Imam Ibn e Rajab Al Hanbali, Imam Ibn e Khaldoon, Imam Ibn e Qayyam Al Jauziya and Mulla Ali Qari Al Hanafi. For a detailed look into the Takfeer of Ibn Arabi one may read “Tanbih al ghabi ila takfeer Ibn Arabi” by Shaykh Ibrahim bin Umar.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Ironically, despite this unanimity on the takfeer of Ibn e Arabi he became the “Shaykh e Akbar” in the vulnerable, gullible and myths-stuck sub-continent. It is a paradox which is yet to be solved. <i>Aik muamma hai samajhne ka na samjhane ka.</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" /> </span> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u><span style="color: #7030a0; font-family: "High Tower Text","serif"; font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">2. Prophethood in Tasawwuf<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u><span style="color: #7030a0; font-family: "High Tower Text","serif"; font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Quran and Sunnah have explicitly explained the concept of Prophethood and its finality. Allah Says in Quran:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">“Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is] the Messenger of Allah and seal (last) of the prophets. And Allah is ever Knowing of all things.” {Surat-ul-Hujuraat, Aayat 40}<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Not only that Sayyadina Muhammad (PBUH) is the last of Prophets and there will be no Prophet after him, Sayyadina Muhammad (PBUH) has explicitly said that all the super natural characterstics associated with Prophethood such as Wahi (Divine Revelation), miracles, kashf, and ilhaam have ended with him. Now the rest of the world will have to live like his humble followers for success in this world and the life hereafter.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Narrated Abu Huraira<span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span>: <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">The Prophet said, “The Israelis used to be ruled and guided by prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be Caliphs who will increase in number”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">[Reported by Bukhari and Muslim]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) left Ali bin Abi Talib behind him (as he proceeded) to the expedition of Tabuk, whereupon he (Ali) said: Allah's Messenger, are you leaving me behind amongst women and children? Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Aren't you satisfied with being unto me what Haroon was unto Musa but with this exception that there would be no prophet after me.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">[Reported by Muslim]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">A'isha and Abu Huraira (RAA) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">“Amongst the people preceding you there used to be 'Muhaddathun' (i.e. persons who can guess things that come true later on, as if those persons have been inspired by a divine powe)<span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span>, </span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> and <b><u>if</u></b> there were any such among my Ummah, Umar bin Khattab would be one of them. Ibn Wahb explained the word Muhaddathun as those who receive hint from the High (Mulhamun).”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">[Reported by Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmizi and Ahmad]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">This Hadith is a torpedo over the myth of Sufis who claim that people can have Devine inspiration after the Last Prophet (PBUH). The word “if” in the hadith has come for denial, and thus the meaning would be that there are no Muhaddathun (Mulhamun) in my followers, and if there would be any then it can only be Umar (RAA).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Regarding the Ilm-ul-Ghaib (knowledge of the hidden/unseen) Allah Says: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">“Say, None in the heavens and earth knows the unseen except Allah, and they do not perceive when they will be resurrected.” {Surat-un-Naml 27, Aayat 65}<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">And He ordered His Messenger (PBUH) to openly declare: </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
“Say, I hold not for myself [the power of] benefit or harm, except what Allah has willed. And if I knew the unseen, I could have acquired much wealth, and no harm would have touched me. I am not except a warner and a bringer of good tidings to a people who believe.” {Surat-ul-Aaraaf 7, Aayat 188}<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">However for the Sufis Prophethood has never been over. They have attacked the finality of Prophethood implicitly and explicitly and implicitly. First of all they have claimed for themselves all the characteristics which are specific for Prophethood only and then they have explicitly attacked the finality of prophethood.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Shahabuddin Saharwardi al sufi compares his “Ilhaam” with the Wahi of Sayyadina Muhammad (PBUH) and uses exactly the same words which have been used in Quran by Allah for the Wahi of Sayyadina Muhammad (PBUH).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">الشيخ للمُريدين: أمين الإلهام، كما أن جبريل أمين الوحي، فكما لا يخون جبريل في الوحي لا يخون الشيخُ في الإلهام، وكما أن</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">رسول</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">الله محمد</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> صلى الله عليه و سلم </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">لا ينطق عن الهوى فالشيخ مُقتدٍ برسول</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">الله</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span style="font-family: 'Traditional Arabic',serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 24px;">صلى الله عليه و سلم</span><span dir="LTR" style="font-family: 'Traditional Arabic',serif; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: 'Traditional Arabic',serif; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">ظاهراً وباطنـاً، لا يتكلم بهوى النفس. (عوارف المعارف، صفحة ٤٠٤)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">The Shaykh is the custodian of the ilhaam for his mureeds like Jibraeel A.S is the custodian of Divine revelation. So as Jibraeel A.S does not do any dishonesty in the Divine revelation similarly the Sheikh does not commit any dishonesty in his ilhaam. And as the Messenger of Allah Mohammad (PBUH) does not speak from his desires, so the Sheikh following the Messenger (PBUH) of Allah outwardly and inwardly, does not speaks from his desires.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">(Awarif al-Ma’aarif, pg. 404)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" /> </span> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Al Ghazali writes in Al Mnqaz min al Dhalaal:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">من أول الطريقة تبتدئ المشاهدات والمكاشفات حتى أنهم في يقظتهم يشاهدون الملائكة وارواح الأنبياء ويسمعون منهم اصواتا ويقتبسون منهم الفوائد. (المنقذ من الضلال ٥٠)</span><span dir="LTR" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">In the beginning observations and disclosures of the unseen start, till that they observe the Angels and spirits of the Prophets in their consciousness and they hear from them sounds and they get benefits from them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">(Al-Mnqaz min al-Dhalaal 50)</span><span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">It seems that Allah has been more charitable to the sufi Bayazeed Bastami than Sayyadina Muhammad (PBUH). Abu Talib Makki in his famous book Quwat ul Quloob describes the <i>Miraaj</i> of Bayazeed Bastami.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">أدخلني في الفلك الأسفل فدورني في الملكوت السفلى فاراني الأرضين وما تحتها إلى الثرى، ثم أدخلني في الفلك العلوى فطوف بي في السمٰوٰت و أراني ما فيها من الجنان إلى العرش</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">ثم أوقفني بين يديه فقال لي: سلني أي شيء رأيت حتى أهبه لك.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">He (Allah) entered me into the lower heavens then He took me to the lower kingdoms thus he showed to me all the earths and that which is beneath the earth. Then He entered me into the higher heavens then He showed to me that which is in the sky and showed to me that which is in it from Paradise till the Throne then He (Allah) made me stand in front of Him and said to me: “Ask for whatever in that which you saw so that I can grant it to you.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">(Quwat ul Quloob, pg.70, v.2)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Shaykh Ahmad Sarhindi takes another step forward in his Maktubaat:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: 'Traditional Arabic',serif; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">باید دانست که منصب ختم بر خاتم الرسل شده است علیه و علی آله الصلوٰت و التسلیمات، اما از کمالات آ</span><span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">ں</span><span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: 'Traditional Arabic',serif; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;"> منصب بطریق طبعیت متابعان اور انصیب کامل است.</span><span style="font-family: 'Traditional Arabic',serif; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">It should be known that though Prophethood has ended on Muhammad (PBUH) but still one can get the characteristics of Prophethood being the followers of Muhammad (PBUH)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">(Maktubaat, v.1, maktoob 260)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" /> </span> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u><span style="color: #7030a0; font-family: "High Tower Text","serif"; font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">3. The Finality of Prophethood and Sufism</span></u></b><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Now we reach to the most harrowing and cataclysmic part of the story. Though this portion might be extremely stinging and catastrophically painful but yet it is admonitory and a thousand lessons can be learned from it. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">The Hanafi Sufi tradition in the subcontinent has produced two false prophets and one false Mahdi in the last century. Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiani Al Sufi and Yousaf Al Sufi began their careers as Sufis and leter on claimed to be Prophets. Gohar Shahi was another Barelvi Sufi who in the later part of his career claimed to be Mahdi. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">There is a very good book "Jhootay Nabi" (False prophets) written by Shaykh Abul Qasim Rafique dilawari rahimahullah in which he has described the lives of some 70 false prophets. It is a very informative book and I will suggest the readers to read it. The book can be downloaded from <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/26949052/Jhootay-Nabi-by-Abul-Qasim-Rafiq-Dilawari">here</a></span>.<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"> Almost 60 out of the total 70 deviants who claimed to be prophets were Sufis. So what is the link between Sufism and False Prophets?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Sufism at one hand claims for itself all the special features of Prophets as i have cited some examples above. On the other hand , they have explicitly denied the finality of the prophethood by indoctrinating the erroneous belief of "Haqeeqat e Muhamadiyyah". This belief has opened the doors for the false prophets and from almost all the false Prophet Sufis have tried to enter through this door.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<u><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">The sufi belief of Haqiqat-e-Muhammadia<o:p></o:p></span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">When i was describing Wahdat ul Wujood above in the start of this article , i mentioned "Tanazulaat e sitta". God when desecnds down from his his perfect state has to take six stes till he becomes the imperfect human and the rest of the creation. At the first step of this "Tanazulaat e Sitta" ie when he comes one step down , he enters into the state of "Aalim Ijmaal". This state of Aalim e Ijmaal is also known as “Haqeeqat e Muhamdiyyah”. This state is the essence of all the prophets and its like the soul of prophethood. Whenever it enters into the material body of someone , it blesses him with prophethood. So , When it entered into the body of Adam As , it made him prophet, when it entered into the body of Abrahim As it made him the prophet and when it entered into the phsyical body of Muhammad Ibn Abdullah (PBUH) , it blessed him with prophethood. So , all the prophets were a continuation of each other and they were one in essence as all of them were illuminated with this "Haqeeqat e Muhammadiyyah". According to the Sufi doctrine , this Haqeeqat e Muhamdiyyah keeps on appearing in the world and it keeps on changing its material body. It has not ended with Sayidina Muhammad (PBUH).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">A moderator of a Deobandi forum claims that Haqiqat-e-Muhammadiyyah is uncreated. (remember something? Plato claimed that the forms are uncreated)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: #333333; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">“Haqiqah Muhammadiyyah is<span class="apple-converted-space"><i> </i></span><i>wajib</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>and not created; while Ruh Muhammadi is<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>makhluq</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>and from<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>mumkinat</i>.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">When he was asked by an innocent member that till now he thought that only Allah is uncreated. The moderator responded back to save his face by saying that Haqiqat-e-Muhammadiyyah is an attribute of Allah.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">(Have you ever heard that Allah has such an attribute? Indeed Allah is free of such falsehood these mubtadi’een attribute to Him. <i>Subhan Allahi amma yushrikoon</i>)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?62463-Haqiqat-al-Muhammadiyyah">http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?62463-Haqiqat-al-Muhammadiyyah</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">The Famous sufi Abdul Kareem jaili describes this belief of Haqiqat e Muhammadiyyah in the following words and claims that he saw it in his Shaykh Sharaf Uddin Ismail Al Jabrati.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OcHWFb8rGjQ/T38rh1xTvUI/AAAAAAAAADE/acjSfq749qE/s1600/jabrati.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OcHWFb8rGjQ/T38rh1xTvUI/AAAAAAAAADE/acjSfq749qE/s640/jabrati.jpg" height="220" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 19px; line-height: 21px;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: blue; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype',serif;">Know that, May Allah protect you, the perfect human (haqiqat-e-mohammadiya) is that Qutb (a rank among Sufis) over whom revolves all the heavens of existences from the beginning till the end. And since the beginning of existence and forever he is one. Then he (haqiqat-e-mohammadiya) has various embodiments. He (haqiqat-e-mohammadiya) appears in the cathedrals of the jews and christians. He is named according to his embodiment. His real name is Mohammad, his kuniya is Abul-Qasim, his property is Abdullah and his nickname is Shams-ud-Deen. I saw him in the form of my Sheikh Sharf-ud-Deen Isma’il al-Jabrati.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">(Al-Insaan al-Kamil – Abdul Kareem al-Jeli, page no. 210)</span><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt;"><br />
<br />
If this is the case , where will the verse of Quran go in which Allah has described Sayadina Muhammad (PBUH) as the seal of the prophets? The Sufis have their own interpretation of "Khatam ul Anbiyyah". They describe "Khatam ul Anbiyyah" as the one on whom the prophethood reached its its excellence. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt;">Like , if someone says that Milton was the last of the English poets , he does not really mean that there will be no poets after him but all what he wants to say that Milton was an excellent poet. Or if someone says that Shaykh Albani rahimahullah was the "Khatam ul Muhaditheen" he does not mean to say that there will be no Muhadith after him but all what he is saying is that Shaykh Albani rahimahullah excelled in ilm ul Hadith. For the Sufis,Same is the case with "Khatam ul Anbiyyah". “Khatam ul Anbiyyah” only means that Naboowat (Prophethood) reached its excellence on Muhammad (PBUH) and its does not mean that he is the last of the Prophets.The only thing is that now no Prophet will surpass the excellence of Muhammad (PBUH).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt;">So in the world of Sufis Sayyadina Muhammad (PBUH) is the last Messenger only in the context of merits that is that now no greater Prophet than him can come rest “smaller” <i>ummati nabis, barozi nabis, zilli nabis and gher tashri’ee nabis </i>can come. The arrival of these Prophets which may come after Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) will not effect the finality of Prophethood as no greater Prophet can come. Sayyadina Muhammad (PBUH) is <i>Khaatam</i> only in the sense of merits.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">If you happen to have met a Qadyani,this is exactly what the Qadyanis claim </span><span style="background-color: #fafafa; font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="background-color: #fafafa; font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani. The Qadiyanis say that the Prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani does not effect the finality of Prophethood of Sayyadina Muhammad (PBUH) as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was just a gher tashri’ee ummati nabi lower in rank than Sayyadina Muhammad (PBUH). I hope that now you can understand that infamous narration of Tahzeer un Naas of Maulana Qasim Nanothvi </span><span style="background-color: #fafafa; font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="background-color: #fafafa; font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">as well.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xFaGxsi6v0E/T38quixHKDI/AAAAAAAAAC8/vXM9CLHDoJg/s1600/qasim+nanotvi+front+page.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xFaGxsi6v0E/T38quixHKDI/AAAAAAAAAC8/vXM9CLHDoJg/s320/qasim+nanotvi+front+page.jpg" height="320" width="222" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-z0GNwpoydnI/T38oP8QwonI/AAAAAAAAACs/vLaIBMf-6kQ/s1600/qasim+nanotvi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-z0GNwpoydnI/T38oP8QwonI/AAAAAAAAACs/vLaIBMf-6kQ/s640/qasim+nanotvi.jpg" height="134" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt;"><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype',serif;">If a Prophet is born after the era of Syyadina Muhammad (PBUH), it will not effect the finality of Prophethood.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">(Tahzeer un Naas, Molvi Qasim Nanothvi)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt;">Ibn Arabi makes it more clear in the following way:<br />
<br />
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 18pt;">فإن النبوة التي انقطعت بوجود رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إنما هي نبوة التشريع، لا مقامها، فلا شرع يكون ناسخا لشرعه صلى الله عليه وسلم، ولا يزيد في حكمه شرعا آخر. وهذا معنى قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم: إن الرسالة والنبوة قد انقطعت، فلا رسول بعدي ولا نبي. أي لا نبي بعدي يكون على شرع يخالف شرعي، بل إذا كان يكون تحت حكم شريعتي</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 18pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 18pt;"><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span>(فتوحات مكية لابن عربي 3/6)</span><span dir="LTR" style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Thus the Prophethood which ended at Mohammad (PBUH) is only the tashri’e Prophethood. The status of Prophethood still remains the only thing is that now no new shari’at will cancel the shari’at of Mohammad (PBUH) nor will it add any law to it. As for as the saying of Mohammad (PBUH): “Verily the Messengerhood and Prophethood has ended on me and there will be no Messenger after me nor Prophet” means that there will be no Prophet after me who will go against my shari’at, but whenever there will be any, he will be under my shari’at.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">(Fatuhaat-e-Makkiya – ibn arabi 6/3)</span><span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">The dream of Ibn Arabi came true and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani the false prophet made exactly the same claim.The qadiyanis adore ibn arabi for opening the doors of prophethood and they respect ibn arabi a lot. Due to these un-parallel services of Ibn e Arabi, the first Qadiyani khalifa Mirza Nooruddin has written a whole booklet in the praise of ibn Arabi which can be read <a href="http://www.alislam.org/library/articles/Khalifatul-Masih-I-on-Ibn-Arabi.pdf">here</a>! This gives ibn Arabi a very special and profound status. He has a chair which no one else has. He is the “joint sheikh-e-akbar” of Deobandis, Barelvis and Qadyanis.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Just like the qadiyanis, Ibn Arabi had sever issues with the Hadiths regarding the finality of Prophethood. Talking about the famous Hadith of Sayyadina Muhammad (PBUH) <i>La Nabiya Ba’di</i></span><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"> Ibn Arabi writes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zo0J85tvysc/T38n74rbaXI/AAAAAAAAACk/zTVKzl3wuto/s1600/fusus+aziziya+%28la+nabiya+badi%29.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zo0J85tvysc/T38n74rbaXI/AAAAAAAAACk/zTVKzl3wuto/s640/fusus+aziziya+%28la+nabiya+badi%29.jpg" height="164" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 19px; line-height: 21px;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: blue; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype',serif;">And it was cut off in Muhammad, peace be upon him. There will be no Prophet after him, either giving law or bound by law. There is no Messenger after him, and he is the lawgiver. </span><u style="color: blue; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">This hadith (That the Prophet said that there is no Prophet after me) has caused severe distress to the Awliya' of Allah.</u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">(Fusse-Uzeriya, Page no. 134-135)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<u><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: #365f91; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani Al-Sufi joins the show (the duck finds the pond)<o:p></o:p></span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<u><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: #365f91; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Born in 1835 in a Hanafi Sufi family of the subcontinent, Mirza Ghulaam Ahmed was a practising Sufi before he claimed to be Prophet. Just like anyother Sufi, his life is filled with claims of miracles , kashaf and Wahi. His son , Mirza Basheer uddin Mahmood has written his biography titled "Seerat ul Mahdi". He has reported many events of the life of his father Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadyani. One can read that to find out about the early life of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed.He claimed to be the awaited Massiah and Mahdi in 1884 and subsequently claimed to be Prophet in 1901. The claim of Prophethood of Mirza Ghulam ahmed rests on the Sufi doctrine of "Haqiqat e Muhammadiyyah" and that taweel of Khaatam ul Anbiyaa by Sufis.<span style="color: blue;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani writes in his book Tariyaaq ul Quloob about <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250);">Haqiqat e Muhammadiyyah:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250);"><br />
</span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jCl-13-5S40/T38m9l2ervI/AAAAAAAAACc/qygIG-7YQxU/s1600/qadyani+mirza+on+haqiqat+mohammadia.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jCl-13-5S40/T38m9l2ervI/AAAAAAAAACc/qygIG-7YQxU/s640/qadyani+mirza+on+haqiqat+mohammadia.jpg" height="298" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype',serif;"><br />
</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype',serif;">As the Sufis have stated that the status of Prophethood are in two streams, thus</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype',serif;"> Ibrahim A.S who had a very close resemblance with Sayyadina Muhammad (PBUH) appeared in the shape of Sayyadina Muhammad (PBUH) again 1500 years after his death.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">(Tariyaaq ul Quloob 346 by Ghulam Ahmed Qadiani)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">He further elaborates it: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nuwDHeSdcnk/T38mcMkPF4I/AAAAAAAAACU/8aBMPN2JzY0/s1600/qadyani+haqiqat+muhammadia.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nuwDHeSdcnk/T38mcMkPF4I/AAAAAAAAACU/8aBMPN2JzY0/s640/qadyani+haqiqat+muhammadia.jpg" height="284" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 19px; line-height: 21px;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">It should be remembered that the spirituality of Muhammad (PBUH) has been appearing off and</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"> on during the days of internal chaos of Islam and Haqiqat-e-Muhammadiya has been manifesting in the shape of a perfect human in every age.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">(Aaina Kamalaat-e-Islam, pg 346)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">As for as the taweel of <i>Khaatam ul Anbiya</i> is concerned the Qadiyanis love to quote the Sufis to substantiate their claim. Mirza Basheeruddin Mahmood the son of Ghuilam Ahmad Qadiyani and the second Caliph of the Qadiyani Jamat has written a book on the taweel of Khaatam ul Anbiyaa in which he has quoted Ibn Arabi, Ash Sharani, and Jalaaluddin Roomi after sending blessings on them.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 19px; line-height: 21px;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-o98o85UE9SQ/T38mFWIes9I/AAAAAAAAACM/bMfAFjlRPuk/s1600/qadyani+front+page.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-o98o85UE9SQ/T38mFWIes9I/AAAAAAAAACM/bMfAFjlRPuk/s640/qadyani+front+page.jpg" height="640" width="404" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iqQPh723sdo/T38l6JB1SbI/AAAAAAAAACE/T6vQStSjTXM/s1600/qadyani+qoute+ibn+arabi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iqQPh723sdo/T38l6JB1SbI/AAAAAAAAACE/T6vQStSjTXM/s640/qadyani+qoute+ibn+arabi.jpg" height="640" width="462" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 19px; line-height: 21px;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Shaykh e Akbar Ibn Arabi writes in Fatuhaat-e-Makkiyah:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Thus the Prophethood which ended at Mohammad (PBUH) is only the tashri’e Prophethood. The status of Prophethood still remains the only thing is that now no new shari’at will cancel the shari’at of Mohammad (PBUH) nor will it add any law to it. As for as the saying of Mohammad (PBUH): “Verily the Messengerhood and Prophethood has ended on me and there will be no Messenger after me nor Prophet” means that there will be no Prophet after me who will go against my shari’at, but whenever there will be any, he will be under my shari’at.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">The son of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad then quotes Al-Sharani Al-Sufi.</span><span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xiyr-FK7xXM/T38lpSd0hlI/AAAAAAAAAB8/gp8Gm32Zw7o/s1600/qadyani+shorani.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xiyr-FK7xXM/T38lpSd0hlI/AAAAAAAAAB8/gp8Gm32Zw7o/s640/qadyani+shorani.jpg" height="604" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 19px; line-height: 21px;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Imam Sha’rani says in Al Yawaqeet Wal Jawahir v2 page 27<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">“As the prophet (PBUH) has said that there will be no prophet or messenger after me only means that there will be no Shari’ Prophet after me”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 19px; line-height: 21px;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 19px; line-height: 21px;">He then quotes Jalaluddin Al-Roomi's interpretation of Khatam un Nabiyeen.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 19px; line-height: 21px;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-F9EiKnhIKOU/T38lVFkCKBI/AAAAAAAAAB0/eY3yk6VTceI/s1600/qadyani+roomi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-F9EiKnhIKOU/T38lVFkCKBI/AAAAAAAAAB0/eY3yk6VTceI/s640/qadyani+roomi.jpg" height="640" width="377" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 19px; line-height: 21px;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: blue;">Jalal Uddin Rumi writes in his famous Mathnavi<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">“Hadhrat Muhammad (PBUH) was called Khatam ul Nabiyyen because no one has surpassed you in merits either after you or before you.As when a person excels in a field we say he was the last person in that field. Prophethood has ended on Hadhrat Muhammad (PBUH) in the same sense”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">I have read these lines again and again from various angles. I have changed my lenses for them as well but I could no where find “Tazkiyyah Nafs” in it which some friends claim Tasawwuf is all about. Anyways Welcome Ghulam ahmed Qadyani into Islam after Plato and pay thanks to Tasawwuf.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u><span style="color: #7030a0; font-family: "High Tower Text","serif"; font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">4. The Day of Judgment in the eyes of Sufis.<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Belief in Qayamah is one of the central tenets of Islam. The whole human race since Adam A.S till the last human on this earth shall have to gather in front of Allah on the Day of Judgment. Every person shall be paid according to his deeds there and the decision of Hell and Heavens shall take based on our beliefs and conduct in our worldly lives.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">However the Sufis believe in a “unification” instead of Qayamah. Remember Plato’s theory of forms? According to Plato after death we shall unite with the perfect state again. Transliterating Plato Abdul Kareem Jaili writes in Manazil as Sa’ireen:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">الجمع: ما اسقط التفرقة وقطع الإشارة وشخص عن الماء والطين بعد صحة التمکين والبراءة من التلوين والخلاص من شهود الثنوية والتنافی من احساس الاعتلال والتنافی من شهود شهودها.(منازل السائرين ٤٦)</span><span dir="LTR" style="font-family: "Traditional Arabic","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">The place of unification which removes the difference between the Creator and the creation and eliminates the difference and it frees the creation from duality so that the creation is negated into the Creator.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">(Manazil as-Sa’ireen 46)</span><span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(250, 250, 250); color: blue; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Though much more can be said but the space and time limitations are forcing me to end it here. This article shall Insha’Allah be translated into Urdu and Arabic as well and shall serve as an eye opener for the laymen who do not know much about the cult of Sufis.The harms and atrocities of Tasawwuf are multidimensional and there is a lot to be added to what I have written.Insha’Allah some other time. At the end I must thank brother Jamshaid Azam for his technical support.<span style="color: #1f497d;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="color: #006600; font-family: "Corbel","sans-serif"; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="color: #006600; font-family: "Corbel","sans-serif"; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">Allahum-mansur Ahl us Sunnah wal Jama’at min al waswaas wal akaazeeb ahl ush shirk wal bid’aat. Aameen Ya Rabbal Aalameen.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
Dr Atifhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05621211333344486045noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3278557942079455407.post-38664638075604005202012-03-02T07:39:00.001-08:002012-03-02T07:44:45.475-08:00A responce to the post debate babbling of Hoodbhoy and his fans.Out of the two hour debate <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB7xeoKqo4I&feature=related" target="_blank">these few minutes</a> have been posted separately on YT (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB7xeoKqo4I&feature=related).This is great boon to those who are hard pressed for time.<br />
<br />
<br />
Question (PH) : Why did you have to bring in science to make religion seem authentic?<br />
Answer : We'll talk about Islam - not religion. Indeed Islam does not need science to be authenticated. Unfortunately too many people are using science to make religion seem artificial. People of your inclination are foremost in this enterprise.<br />
<br />
Q: You brought in M-theory, gravity and Stephen Hawking into discussion but you do not do that for living.<br />
A: If he is not doing that for a living does it mean that he can not use these terms?<br />
<br />
PH : I do things pretty close to them.<br />
A : Congratulations - if you need.<br />
<br />
PH : You have got these things from popular science books but you do not understand them. You think you understand them. So do not go outside your field of expertize.<br />
A: He may understand some things and he may not understand some other things about these topics. The question is whether his understanding is good or bad for the point that he is making. If he is not supposed to use the popular science knowledge then why is it being written and publicized?<br />
<br />
PH: Do not hang important theological issues on popular science knowledge.<br />
A: That is not what is happening. Hamza is only arguing that the science that is being used to throw out Islam can not serve that purpose. The advisable thing will be to stop using science to undermine theology and the onus for that lies on scientists of a particular orientation that includes you.<br />
<br />
PH : The only way out is the one pointed out Syed Ahmed Khan, science is one thing, Qur'an is one thing and the Qur'an is to be interpreted in a particular way so that miracles become allegorical.<br />
A : Sir Syed Ahmed Khan (RA) was a human being. He had his own ideas also apart from his faith. He asserted that his graduates will have philosophy in one hand, science in another and they shall have the crown of no god but God on their head. This statement is allegorical, neither the Qur'an nor the miracles, and its implication of this statement are rather clear. When you are in doubt in matters scientific and philosophical then decide them in the light of Qur'an. Thus he believed that it is the Noble Qur'an that is superior and not science. Even if he did get his interpretation of the miracles wrong he knew the way out of it - to submit yourself to the Noble Qur'an. You are insisting on his mistake as a guideline for guidance - it is unjust to the departed soul - may Allah(SWT) show him Mercy.<br />
<br />
PH: The difficulty with people like Hamza is that they depend upon half baked knowledge. <br />
A : There is a difference between the people who want to do science or propose and prove and improve theories of science by reading popular science descriptions and the people like Hamza who is using popular science to that level only for which it is designed.<br />
<br />
PH : I'll get a blank if I ask him to write down what M-Theory is about.<br />
A : Nearly whole of the physics is based on the principle of least action - suitably interpreted and improvised for different situations. Origins of M-thoery lie in eleven dimensional supergravity theory. Eleven dimensional supergravity theory and hence M-Theory do not have the principle of least action to support it. So even if you ask Edward Witten to write the relevant action principle for M-Theory you shall again get a blank. Will you advice him also to abstain from M-Theory? Perhaps not. In deed it is not an entirely fair demand to ask him to explain scientific theories as a scientist would. It will be certainly fair if the conclusions he is drawing from popular science knowledge are correct or incorrect.<br />
<br />
PH : People of diverse religions and different countries can agree upon science but they do not agree upon religion.<br />
A : Not entirely correct assessment. Let us consider the number of people who agree upon a very cogent piece of science - special relativity. We can consider scientists only here and out of them only those who understand it. What will be the number of these agreeing and knowledgeable scientists? Let us assume it is hundred thousand. Now let us consider the number of people in the world who agree on unity of God? It will run into billions.<br />
<br />
PH : Hamza is a liar because he attributed hatred for Islam and Muslims to me.<br />
A : The paradigm that you follow at least tries to modify Islam in a way that is not acceptable to theologists of Islam. This can not be classified as love for Islam.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">***<br />
(Written by honorable brother Maripat of sunniforum.com)</div>Dr Atifhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05621211333344486045noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3278557942079455407.post-81443068083279467402012-02-28T05:26:00.002-08:002012-03-03T12:43:13.232-08:00A review of the debate between Hamza Tzortis and Parvez HoodbhoyIt was just yesterday when i happened to watch the debate which took place between our brother Hamza Tzortis and Parvez Hoodbhoy in lahore university of management sciences.It was the first debate of its kind in Pakistan and LUMS was a good venue for such a discussion as the mentioned institute stands for liberalism and it hosts such diverse opinions on its campus since long.<br />
<br />
Dr Parvez Hoodbhoy , the MIT trained physicist who has done his doctorate in particle physics , has been serving as a voice of secularism and liberalism in Pakistan. He has been airing his views on political and strategic topics as well. Before this debate ,he was one of the four members who took part in a TV debate on the creation of universe and purpose of life on Geo news( The video can be found on youtube).He has a handsome amount of following in Quid e Azam university Islamabad where he is serving as the head of the physics department.<br />
<br />
Brother Hamza Tzortis is a Greek convert to Islam.Born to secular parents , he converted to Islam nine years ago. He has engaged many prominent atheists including Dan Barker and Ed Bukner. He is a public speaker and has done his masters in psychology.<br />
<br />
I must admit in the beginning that the debate was not much focused and could not yield into an obvious conclusion. The topic was much smokey and the reasons of its smokiness are understandable. Dr Hoodbhoy could not have afforded debating for Atheism in Pakistan and thats why he did not play on the front foot. The moderators of the debate must have been well aware of limitations of Dr Hoodbhoy so they came with a topic which was mild enough not to cause any issues for the Dr.<br />
<br />
Brother Hamza Tzortis gave a very articulate opening for the Islamic world view and made some good philosophical and rational points. His main aim was to prove that the world view provided by Islam is perfectly reasonable , rational and compatible with the modern day epistemic realms including sciences. Dr Hoodbhoy in his response reduced rationality to Scientology and committed a straw-man logical fallacy. His main criticism surrounded the unscientific claims of some Muslims regarding science in Quran (which had nothing to do with the topic and neither had Hamza claimed that Quran is a book science). He then went on committing the fallacy of appeal to numbers and composition fallacy by saying "The internet forums are flooded with such unscientific claims about the Quran by Muslims". His biases were visible and obvious till the end and at the very end they finally overtook him and he got furious.<br />
<br />
As Dr Hoodbhoy seemed less interested in defending or speaking for the atheistic world view in responce to the very coherent case built by Brother Hamza for the Islamic world view , I want to focus on the objections raised by Dr Parvez Hoodbhoy here now. His babbling about evidentialism , empiricism and varificationism will be enough to make one sure of his ignorance about Philosophy and i am sure that he has not given a deep thought to all what he said.The bubble of the pseudo-confidence and unwarranted , unjustified and unsubstantiated arrogance of Dr Hoodbhoy can be easily blasted. It is much easy to persuade oneself that he has understood something while he has understood nothing and i think this calamity has found Hoodbhoy.<br />
<br />
On the empiricist point of view , the out world which the sciences inquire through our empirical senses breaks down to elector-chemical waves. What a person calls the outer world is infact naming a process incitement of rods and cones in the retina of the eyes which result in the origination of an elector-chemical wave (no different from the normal electric current but with a low magnitude ) and this ECV travels to the optic center of the brain through the optic nerve and thats it.If asked , it would have been more scientific for Mr Hoodbhoy to claim that the room was inside him and he was not inside the room. There is no scientific evidence for any existence in the outer world but still no one questions its existence. Similarly there is no scientific proof to assert that there are other minds in this world. There is no evidence for the reality of the past as well. It will be scientifically impossible to refute the person who claims that the present world was created some 10 seconds back including our memory. No matter how radical this claim may sound but on such reductionist scientific perspective of proof and evidence , its impossible to prove the past. <br />
<br />
However , one sees that these "skeptics" almost never get skeptic about these issues and they digest these issues like the rest of us on pure belief. This is known as the "concept of properly basic belief" and same is true for God. Belief in God is a part of the properly basic belief so Hoodbhoy sahib was doing "special pleading" all the way in this discussion when he was talking about the necessity of proof and evidence.<br />
<br />
The present Newtonian model of science is based on observation , prediction and experimentation (though these foundations are under threat these days due to the approach of physicists like Brian green and Jimmy gates etc towards the string theory .The famous theoretical physicist Lee Smolin has recently published a book "The trouble with physics" which shall be a good read on this issue) However the very notion which is the starting point of scientific method that is "1 Observe some part of the universe 2. Make some predictions about your observations 3. Run experiments over the predictions 4. Those which qualify , take them as scientific facts" can not be proved scientifically. How on earth can a person prove in a lab that this particular method of inquiry is "science" . This base of science is belief as it can not be verified by the very same scientific rules. Along with these lines , another question to ponder for Hoodbhoy will be that what scientific or experiment based evidence is there to conclude that only this method of inquiry is the "correct" method? I am sure there is none.<br />
<br />
What about Maths then? Mathematics happen to be all internal and has absolutely nothing to do with laboratory. Where do the numbers exists and what experiment was carried out to conclude 2+2=4? Its all this internal (or apriori) of maths which corresponds so well to the natural world though the numbers have never traveled in the natural world. Kurt Godel had the right words for it. He said " What we call nature is not nature but an aspect of nature exposed to our method of questioning".<br />
<br />
(to be continued Insa'Allah)Dr Atifhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05621211333344486045noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3278557942079455407.post-46490970418787148132012-02-13T13:12:00.000-08:002012-02-13T13:12:00.576-08:00The ontological argument<span style="font-size: small;">Since many days i have been thinking to write something about the ontological argument which i think is the strongest argument for the existence of God. The argument is air tight as it does not involve any externally existing scientific facts to make it vulnerable to any controversy due to the obvious fact that scientific facts change and hence the arguments based on the scientific facts have to undergo evolution. A good example will the multiverse scenarios and quantum vacuum issues related to the cosmological argument.<br />
<br />
At first sight Anselm's argument is remarkably unconvincing if not downright irritating; it looks too much like a parlor puzzle or word magic. And yet nearly every major philosopher from the time of Anselm to the present has had something to say about it; this argument has a long and illustrious line of defenders extending to the present. Indeed, the last few years have seen a remarkable flurry of interest in it among philosophers.</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
What accounts for its fascination? Not, I think, its religious significance, although that can be underrated. Perhaps there are two reasons for it. First, many of the most knotty and difficult problems in philosophy meet in this argument. Is existence a property? Are existential propositions -- propositions of the form x exists -- ever necessarily true? Are existential propositions about what they seem to be about? Are there, in any respectable sense of "are," some objects that do not exist? If so, do they have any properties? Can they be compared with things that do exist? These issues and a hundred others arise in connection with Anselm's argument. And second, although the argument certainly looks at first sight as if it ought to be unsound, it is profoundly difficult to say what, exactly, is wrong with it. Indeed, I do not believe that any philosopher has ever given a cogent and conclusive refutation of the ontological argument in its various forms.</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
The ontological argument has gone through huge improvements with time but the basic old version as presented first in the 12th century can be put like this "And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For suppose it exists in the understanding alone; then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater"</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
A second format can be " Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality"</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
Avoiding the issues related to this argument , i will jump to the new version of this argument presented by Alavin Platinga ,the famous American philosopher , in which he has come up with some very rational ideas to show the strength of this argument. The idea is the idea of possible worlds.</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
Lets consider some propositions to explain the idea of the possible world.</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
1. Hamid is a bachelor</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
2.Every bachelor is necessarily unmarried (as a "married bachelor" is a logically incoherent idea so the opposite that "Every bachelor has to be necessarily unmarried" must be necessarily true)</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
3.So, Hamid is necessarily unmarried (deduction from 1 and 2)</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
However we can see that the deduction though valid from the premises is untrue as we know that the person Hamid can get married anytime so he is not necessarily unmarried. To escape this contradiction , one must induct the idea of the possible worlds.</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
Possible worlds are sets of propositions which might be untrue in the present true world but may be true in some possible world. Like lets consider the following proposition which are true for the world in which we live.</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
A. Asif Ali Zardair is the president of Pakistan.</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
B.Misbah ul Haq is the president of Pakistan cricket team.</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
C.Dr Umar works at Agha khan hospital Karachi.</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
These three propositions combine and make our present world in which we are living. However if some other possibilities are considered , we will realize that our present world is just a single way in which reality has expressed itself though it could have and it can express itself in many other ways. Lets rewrite the above propositions.</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
A.Nawaz Shareef is the president of Pakistan.</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
B.Shahid Afridi is the captain of Pakistan cricket team.</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
C..Dr Umar works at Jinnah hospital Karachi.</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
These three propositions though untrue in the present world can be true in a possible world as they are logically coherent and they are ways in which reality can express itself. They are not propositions like " A prime number is the president of Pakistan" as we know that a prime number becoming the president is a logical and metaphysical impossibility. Reality can never express itself in such a way.</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
The problem which we faced in the case of "As Hamid is a bachelor so he is necessarily unmarried" can be solved through this concept as well by simply inducting the idea of possible world in the first proposition. It would be like this.</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
The old version of ontological argument can be exfoliated by the same concept. Consider the following premises.</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
A. God is the maximally greatest being. (Maximally great is a logically coherent idea and it puts in all the positive qualities of greatness in a being like omnipotence , omnibenevolence,omniscience etc)</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
B.For the maximally greatest being to be maximally greatest being , it must exist as maximally great in all the possible worlds. (As if it fails it exist in any possible world , it won't be maximally great being)</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
C.Therefor God must exist with his maximal excellence in all the possible worlds.</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
D.Our true world is a possible world. (As explained above)</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
E. Therefor God exists in the real world.</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
So it can be said without any doubt that God exists. </span>Dr Atifhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05621211333344486045noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3278557942079455407.post-25711109808455597082012-02-12T14:34:00.001-08:002012-02-28T04:47:19.707-08:00Science and Atheism<div data-referrer="pagelet_bluebar" id="pagelet_bluebar"><div class="slim" id="blueBarHolder"><div class=" fixed_elem" id="blueBar"><div class="clearfix slimHeader" id="pageHead" role="banner"><div id="jewelContainer"><div class="fbJewel" id="fbRequestsJewel"><a class="jewelButton" data-gt="{"ua_id":"jewel:requests"}" data-target="fbRequestsFlyout" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3278557942079455407&postID=2571110980845559708" name="requests" rel="toggle"></a></div><div class="fbJewel" id="fbMessagesJewel"><a class="jewelButton" data-gt="{"ua_id":"jewel:messages"}" data-target="fbMessagesFlyout" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3278557942079455407&postID=2571110980845559708" name="messages" rel="toggle"></a></div><div class="fbJewel" id="fbNotificationsJewel"><a class="jewelButton" data-gt="{"ua_id":"jewel:notifications"}" data-target="fbNotificationsFlyout" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3278557942079455407&postID=2571110980845559708" name="notifications" rel="toggle"></a></div></div><div class="clearfix" id="headNav"><div class="lfloat"><form action="http://www.facebook.com/search/results.php" id="navSearch" method="get" name="navSearch" role="search"><div class="uiTypeahead" id="umcey8_1"><div class="wrap"><div class="innerWrap"><span class="uiSearchInput textInput"><input accesskey="/" autocomplete="off" class="inputtext DOMControl_placeholder" id="q" maxlength="100" name="q" placeholder="Search" spellcheck="false" tabindex="" title="Search" type="text" value="Search" /></span></div></div></div></form></div></div></div></div></div></div><h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{"type":1}" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}">Secondly , the in-determinism at the quantum level and the determinism at the levels of general relativity ( Even Newtonian Physics) can not account for each other. In our journey of physics we have reached a point where things have gone above quantification , determinations and formalizations. Such absurdities and exceptions belong to the realm of metaphysics not physics. The other realization which we have acquired is the misuse of the word "proof".<br />
<br />
The growing trend in the western academics (David Berlinski , Kurt Godel will be a good read on this subject) is that the word proof suits Maths only or in some cases it suits mathematical physics. The concept of Proof gets diluted,subjective and foggy as one travels down from Maths to biology. It is as absurd to to think of a theory which can bind Quantam mechanics with General relativity as its is to assume that one day my experiences of seeing would become quantifiable and would be explained through formulas and equations.<br />
<br />
The only thing to which there is no exception during the whole course of human race and its such a indeterminate but yet determined reality that there is a consensus of humanity on it is death. The human shape which we have acquired is different from the fetus which we used to be once.The fetus has transformed into the physical shape which we have today and there is a biological explanation for that. But there is no explanation for the fact that how consciousness has transferred during all this process.<br />
<br />
It is as weird as if one day we find out that during a reaction between sodium and chlorine the light which was put on Sodium and chlorine somehow transferred into Sodium chloride and we got luminous Sodium chloride. So it is absurd to assume that consciousness will get vanished with the death of my physical body as it has an independent of the physical body existence. It would stay. Lets think about that.<br />
<br />
Either one has to take himself as a purposeless heap of hydrocarbons which has been somehow thrown into the prison of existence from the freedom of in-existence and the heap has then to create an imaginary enmity with religion and then keep on getting angry over it all his life. This is how an atheist ( denialist ) creates a purpose for the his existence and so purpose less is the purpose.<br />
<br />
The universe is much grand and magnificent. From micro to macro levels there are wonders. The universe is so huge that whenever i look at myself and the outer-world , i find out that my being is something ignorable compared to the rest of the universe. Then i have wishes which are so huge and numerous that even if i am given all the greatest possible authorities of the world , i can not fulfill them. Then there is death , the most objective reality. I know that one day i will go off this grand universe but it won't effect it to the least even. The earth won't reduce its speed by a fraction of second nor would the sun rise a second late. My departure will go unnoticed.<br />
<br />
My religion enables me to make sense of all this mess. It tells me that there is something more grand and majestic behind this universe which is its Creator. Its my religion which tells me that despite your ignorable status in this universe , you can have a personal relationship with the Creator of this universe. He has made you for a purpose and the purpose is installed in your nature. You have to believe in the one God,you have to thank him for his gifts , you have to be nice to the fellow humans and you have to form a better society till you are here. For all this , you will be granted paradise where all your wishes would become real and so on.<br />
<br />
As a rational being i will go with the second option and would ask your for the same. </span></span></h6>Dr Atifhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05621211333344486045noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3278557942079455407.post-2746436932697538732012-02-12T14:29:00.001-08:002012-02-28T04:48:52.236-08:00Science and Atheism<h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{"type":1}"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">My area of interest will be the consequences of the behavior of the scientific iconoclasts who are getting a far more visibility these days.The scientific establishment of America and Europe is getting on the nerves of the people of that region for obvious reasons. </span><br style="font-weight: normal;" /><br style="font-weight: normal;" /><span style="font-weight: normal;"> The notion that scientists have some exclusive methods to reach the wonders of nature is falling down and the very detached premises</span></span> <span class="text_exposed_show"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> "</span><br style="font-weight: normal;" /><span style="font-weight: normal;"> A. I have studied particle physics B. I am a scientist C. Therefore i know that God does not exist D. Therefore i will dictate the ignorant masses what doctrines to uphold and which to reject" is loosing its flavor. The whole of this argument has been illogical ever since it was proposed.</span><br style="font-weight: normal;" /><br style="font-weight: normal;" /><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Some TV evangelist priests of Atheism had put some taste into it (You know every priest inherited skills for that) has some and no matter how bad the taste was , human mind has some specific wires which are always keen to opt for a negative change, some people had started liking it.</span></span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br style="font-weight: normal;" /><br style="font-weight: normal;" /><span style="font-weight: normal;"> However ,there is a specific method to human behavior. It has been installed with a meter through which it keeps on measuring the amount of materialism a person can digest. Inject materialism above a specific level into a person and he will start throwing it out. I am sure that nausea has developed in the western world and a vomit is expected soon.</span></span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br style="font-weight: normal;" /><br style="font-weight: normal;" /><span style="font-weight: normal;"> A journey back to spiritualism from materialism will start then and it won't be a new phenomena.A realization is growing in the masses that theory of duality is far deeper than perceived.Their is no sole existence , its in duality. Either live in a spiritual duality with God , pray to him , thank him and weep to him or reject him and become your own antithesis. Living with one's own antithesis is a hell of a business and one can imagine it. There is no existence in the shape of 1 for humans.</span></span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br style="font-weight: normal;" /><br style="font-weight: normal;" /><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Despite the huge amount of scientific boosting , the theory of the darling ape has only been only able to incite a humor in the general public. Ask someone "You know you and the apes share a common ancestor and one of your grandfathers was a grand ape ?" and the answer on the streets will be "hahaha you must be kidding , right?".</span></span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br style="font-weight: normal;" /><br style="font-weight: normal;" /><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Then the priests of atheism came up with the cliche of the "God of the gaps" and promised the people that they will soon fill the gaps and there will be no space for God to occupy , he will be a history. In the realms of Physics , when the two of their most magnificent theories had to meet , ie the theory of General relativity and Quantum mechanics , they came to know that one of them is wrong! The very junction of these two theories could enable the humans to make some sense of the universe but there was no junction at all. The "God of the gaps" has majestically covered the junction giving a very sublime message to the priests " You have not filled any gaps yet , all what you know better today is that you don't know".</span></span> <br />
</span></span></h6>Dr Atifhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05621211333344486045noreply@blogger.com0