New Approach to Tackle Evolution

The problem with debating the science to undermine evolution.

Amongst many that advocate creation over evolution in explaining the origin of species, the general approach is to try to undermine the science that underpins the theory of evolution.

There are four main problems when trying to look at the scientific evidence to undermine the theory.

1.    Problem of authority.

2.   For every scientific argument one brings to undermine it there will be a scientific       

      explanation      

3.   The theory is consistent according to the scientific methodology.

4.    It inadvertently reinforces the idea that science is the only paradigm to establish knowledge.

Let us consider each in turn:-

1. The problem of authority.

One of the main problems arguing the theory of evolution is that many wont trust nor believe that the whole of the scientific community have made a clear and categorical collective mistake over the science. Why should they believe someone like me, who hasn’t studied evolution at degree level, nor has any published papers on the subject matter, nor teaches at any academic level unlike professors who have spent decades researching the topic? so effectively for a layman it becomes an issue of trust.

2. For every scientific argument against evolution there will be a counter to this argument.

We may raise the question of an incomplete fossil record that shows a smooth transition from one species to another, or the lack of the observation of the addition to DNA as a form of genetic mutation, or the argument of irreducible complexity or origin of life.

Each of these points may be valid questions relating to the science of evolution but each will have a rather detailed counter to them. The discussion will then become very technical with the average educated Muslim unable to either understand what is being presented or left without an answer to rebut this.

Therefore this approach can be counter-productive and doesn’t leave the individual with a clear understanding of whether it can be rejected or accepted and how this may or may not compromise their belief.

3. The theory is consistent with the scientific method.

According to the principles and axioms of the scientific method, only data that can be sensed qualifies for enquiry and as the issue of God’s existence or none existence cannot be subjected to direct sensation, it does not qualify as a valid area of study under this method so we preclude the option of their being a supernatural creator from the debate by reinforcing the tenants of the scientific method by arguing within its frameworks.

This framework explains Dawkins view on the issue when he said

“I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing are very very low”.

What he meant was as he can’t subject the question of Gods existence to the scientific method, Gods existence is as viable to him as the viability of the existence as pixies, lepricorns or unicorns as he mentioned in one of his interviews. Just as he could never sense these entities, likewise he will never accept proof for God until he accepts the limits of the scientific method of thinking and accepts it as a mere branch of thinking and not the main methodology of thinking.

4.     It inadvertently reinforces the idea that science is the only paradigm to establish knowledge.

Sheik Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, a prominent Islamic scholar once said:-

“Therefore, the error was the adoption of the scientific method as a basis for thinking, and adopting it as an arbitrator in the judgment on things. This error must be corrected, and the rational method must become the basis of thinking...”

By using science to undermine the scientific theory, effectively we are inadvertently making the scientific method of thinking the basis.

Therefore the discussion isn’t actually a discussion over the specific scientific evidence for or against evolution rather it’s a discussion over the question of what is the correct basis for determining our knowledge and ultimately truths and certainties.

Can science be that basis and thus what follows from science must also be true. Or is science an inductive approach that leads to only speculative conclusions which can never override conclusions based on a more sound basis for knowledge such as the rational approach to knowledge (as opposed to the inductive scientific approach) ?

The correct approach is to question whether science is the only basis for rational inquiry and seeking truth.

Many people have become accustomed to accepting that science is the only basis for truths, therefore the dictum ‘if its scientific it must be true’. Hence the real confusion over evolution is confusion over the study of knowledge itself, a subject in philosophy called epistemology.

This concerns the question of how we know what we know, and what tools/methodology of thinking we can use to determine these truths.

Firstly science is not in the business to ascertain truths and certainties but the probability of the correctness of a theory which has yet to be disproven. This is because science is a methodology to understand and interpret the events we sense in the universe.

Historically a debate among philosophers centered on epistemology (study of knowledge itself), ie looking at the question of whether we can know truth, or are we trapped in an unending skepticism; is knowledge known prior to experience or after it?

For centuries in Europe such ideas and methodological approach to knowledge were confined in the paradigm of religion, specifically Christianity. As such any theory that ran contrary to Christianity was banned and adherents to these irreligious views were punished. This led to an inevitable clash which began to question the very essence of knowledge and methodology to ascertain knowledge. Thus not only was there a break from religion but also the rationalism that believed in innate knowledge or knowledge necessary prior to experience. As a result many new philosophers began to argue that humans are a blank slate, and that the only thing we can ever know for certain is what we experience.

However these new natural philosophers (Locke, Hume, Berkeley) began to ask the uncomfortable questions as to whether experience alone can establish certainty. David Hume proposed that our senses are liable to mistakes thus if we can only know through our experiences which relies on our senses then how can we be 100% certain of our knowledge? His answer was we can never be 100% certain of any observation but only have a propensity or probable assumption of the truth through our senses. This in fact comforted many empiricists as they felt certainty was akin to dogma which would result in decay and ultimately decline due to not being able to question previous positions and thus move forward with better substantiated theories.

Philosophers such as Sir Frances Bacon in the 17^th Century then began to refine this empirical (knowledge through experience) approach by developing the scientific method. In brief the scientific method is the isolation of a variable and defining a question that one seeks to answer which one may then hypothesize about. Then an experiment is designed to test ones hypothesis in order to answer a particular question. The testing recording and observation is repeated as often as one can in order to obtain a conclusion.

You therefore move from specific observations to a conclusion. As another example of induction, which is at the heart of the scientific method, consider the following. Every time you cut your hair it grows back so you conclude that cutting hair results in it growing back. This knowledge is induced and is consistent with the scientific method. In this cause the conclusion is very sound. This type of knowledge is referred to as ‘a posteriori’ knowledge in epistemological terms.

Deductive knowledge uses ‘a priori’ knowledge or previous information. The point being that the new information formed is not directly sensed as a means of arriving at it.

To understand the application of these 2 types of thinking consider some examples.

The obvious and less controversial examples are seen in mathematical reasoning. We can say for example that 3 is a prime number and that is it greater than 2. We then deduce that there is a prime number greater than 2.

Take another example. As far as deductive reasoning, a student observes that every time he makes a spelling mistake in his homework, the teacher deducts a mark without fail so he establishes previous info relating to the implication of making a spelling mistake. Here he has deduced the consequence by taking a piece of previous info and applying it to a reality which is the homework in front of him.

Often existing previous information is pondered and new previous information is formed without any link to having sensed each step of the way. This is commonly referred to as the constructivist branch of rational thinking or simply constructivism in epistemology which as stated is the study of knowledge.

An example of this is to state that all bachelors are unmarried, Then to state that Abdullah is unmarried and to deduce that Abdullah is a bachelor. Here 2 pieces of information have been used to generate a new piece of information.

This type of rational deductive thinking extends beyond the metaphysical world and everyday world around us and is able to conclude with certainty, based on a priori knowledge, ex cause and effect, that the universe had a creator upon which all dependent things depend.

The scientific way of thinking naturally excludes the scope for certain types of knowledge such as what preceded the big bang which marked the birth of space and time and whether a creator could have initiated or caused the initial spark that caused the universe assuming the big bang theory is correct. This thinking is firmly of the deductive type and can never be induced as no sensation can be made to validate it.

This shows that the conclusion or theory developed from the scientific method is based on the assumption that the particular experiment or observation can be generalized and that other such future events will follow the same pattern of the previous experiment. This assumption gives the ability of the theory or conclusion to predict future events.

Scientific thinking sees absolute truth as a weakness and fact as dogma.

Karl Popper recognized the indefinite and inductive nature of science and set about developing the idea of falsification, an idea that Dawkins himself proposes in his book the ‘God Delusion’. Here a theory can be considered scientific if an experiment can be conceived of in order to falsify it. So Dawkins asked whether the theory of intelligent design with the belief that an intelligent creator beyond this universe created all life can be falsified. Dawkins stated that no experiment could be conceived of in order to prove that a God does not exist thus the theory isn’t scientific. The scientific theory is therefore valid until an observation or experiment disproves the theory. Therefore we are not assuming the theory to be correct or true but we are saying the theory hasn’t been disproven.

So it becomes quite evident that the scientific methodology isn’t really about what is factual or definitively true, as this is beyond the remit of science. It’s about adopting what hasn’t been falsified yet with no limit placed on the endpoint of the process, and this is seen as this methodologies strength and our definite belief through rational deductive thinking is seen as a weakness in this context.

It’s of no surprise that when we feel we have cornered an evolutionist he mutates his argument and falls onto a new possibility which can’t be falsified easily so the theory survives the death blow. The theory of punctuated equilibrium to explain the lack of intermediate fossils is a classic example of this.

A question arises as to whether such responses are genuine or indicate ulterior motives. An example which indicates how the thinking as to knowledge is forced to remain within the realm of the scientific method only comes to mind and is related to the origin of the universe. Steven Hawking said in a speech

“ Many scientists were still unhappy with the universe having a beginning because it seemed to imply that physics broke down. One would have to invoke an outside agency, which for convenience one can call God, to determine how the universe began. They therefore advanced theories in which the universe was expanding at the present time but didn’t have a beginning. One was the Steady State theory proposed by Bondi, Gold and Hoyle in 1948”

Also, Richard Dawkins was once asked why he told an audience at an Atheist conference to not study the philosophy of science and to just do the science to which he could offer nothing in defense of his statement to the enquirer.

Even if one dismisses the ulterior motives argument, despite the clear indications above, what is clear is that scientific theories like evolution develop into paradigms such that evidence is interpreted by such theories rather than the evidence substantiating it. That doesn’t mean evolutionists do not claim that evidence doesn’t exist to substantiate the theory in origin, however subsequent evidence are viewed in the light of evolution thus giving a ‘positive feedback’ effect to such a theory.

Popper notes this when he narrated a reality to a social scientist who immediately interpreted the new reality along the framework of his theory rather than validate whether the new reality actually affirmed his theory.

Rational thinking is the basis for thinking and Scientific thinking is a branch.

Rational thinking is the correct basis of thinking and scientific thinking is merely a branch of rational thinking and not the basis of thinking. It has its place and on occasion is more appropriate to use than pure deductive thinking.

The correct view is that there are three types of rational knowledge.

The first type was a form of synthetic propositions like the part is not greater than the whole, second was the empirical observation and the third was knowledge transmitted through narrations from one generation to the next.

Thinking more generally is composed of 4 elements:-

1. Reality

2. 5 Senses

3. The Brain

4. Previous information (apriori knowledge used to link the sensed reality to existing knowledge to produce new thoughts.

Note: Re 4, See the constructivist variant of rational thinking.

Through using the rational method of thinking we can clearly conclude that a creator for this universe exists. This is through applying previous information that we have obtained through observing the universe, information such as causality and deducing that the cause of the universe must have been via an external agent which was not subjected to the laws of the universe.

Two final points are worth mentioning to clarify the scope and context of the 2 types of thinking. Firstly, that they are not mutually exclusive but complementary. For example many pieces of previous information have been established through the scientific method and these pieces of information are then used in deductive rational thinking. Similarly, to form the hypothesis or propositions to be tested under the scientific method itself relies on the rational way of thinking.

There are extremes within both camps such as those who deny the role of the other for example within the rationalists there are those that claim that sensation is not relied on for the formulation of previous information and this previous info is innate for example the fear or heights known as the Innate knowledge thesis.

We must be rational, and not occupy such as extreme positions and instead incorporate both types of thinking when we state that scientific thinking is a branch of rational thinking. 

Furthermore the Islamic position is very clear as we learn in Surah(chapter) Baqarah verse 31 of the Quran, when Allah informs us that he taught Prophet Adam PBUH the names of all things. This acted as the seed of information upon which the complex information we now have as a species had arisen from as sensation alone cannot produce thinking else a book in Chinese would be read given enough time to one not learned in the basics of the language.

 

CONCLUSION

As a final point the current discourse on evolution particularly taking is best addressed not by addressing the science but rather through addressing the methodology of thinking. The ultimate conclusion is why reject something that is certain using a sound method of thinking (ie the rational or deductive method of thinking) and instead adopt something which by definition must remain uncertain to remain valid ie the scientific method based on induction.

Allah the creator helps us make this choice is the Quran..

Allah SWT inform us in Surah(chapter) ‘An Najm’ verse 23 against following conjecture in place of certainty established through the rational method of establishing truth and certainty.

“They are merely following their conjectures and carnal desires although guidance has come to them from their lord”

This is the way to put to rest the debate and break the deadlock and not to fight the argument with science as so many such as Harun Yahya and others tirelessly do and rescue those upon whom doubts have shaken their creedal convictions.

I pray that this brief paper will help give confidence in how to deal with the arguments that pitch scientific thinking as the only worthy and reputable form of thinking and once again establish the balance towards the rational method of thinking so that it will be easy to clarify the power and simplicity of the Islamic belief.

The 3 Questions Part I

Ideas without labels..

When you wake up tomorrow, were do you expect to find yourself?

In bed in the safety of your home? In a hotel? On the sofa if you fell asleep watching a movie? Once you wake up, you may start to think about the time, getting to the bathroom for a shower, what to eat for breakfast, what to wear and so forth. You will then start your day based on your goals and objectives.

Instead of this familiar setting, try to imagine the following: you wake up tomorrow and find yourself in the boot of a moving car! You hear some faint voices coming from inside the vehicle, voices you do not recognise. What would be the first set of questions that come to your mind? Would they be?

• “Am I going to be late for work?”
• “Am I going to miss my breakfast?”
• “Am I going to be able to get my children to school on time?”

      Or would they be:

·   “How did I get into this boot?”

·    “What happens at the end of the journey when the boot swings open?”

Based on answers to the above 2 questions,

·     “What do I need to do right now?

It is self evident that the second set of questions would be what your mind would be focussed on unless you were so overtaken by fear and anxiety that you started to panic and started behaving irrationally and emotionally, by screaming and crying, a strategy that would be far from the ideal response.

Firstly you would use all the information available to try to understand how you got into this situation. You would no doubt use all your five senses to gain as much information as possible from your surroundings. You would try to listen to the conversations happening within the car. Are they familiar voices? If not are the accents familiar? Do I understand what is being discussed? Do the voices sound hostile?

Based on the answer to this question, you would no doubt try to predict what would happen at the end of the journey. Will I become a hostage for a ransom? Will I be killed straight away? Will it be a police officer that will take me to a prison cell? Or will it be my friends taking me to a surprise party? 

Based on the answer to the previous two questions (how I got here and what happens at the end of the journey) you would have a view towards what to do here and now! Do I try to escape? Do I try to bargain with the driver? Do I give up and accept fate? Do I relax and enjoy the ride? This answer would follow from the previous answers.

Let us assume that our hypothetical passenger were a thinking person. Let us show two different sets of answers and the key to note is how, in both cases, the answer to the first two questions shape the answer to the third and most important question, “What do I do now whilst I am in the boot?” 

Answer 1

How I got here?

My school friends came into his flat with my parent’s permission carefully put me into the boot of their car while I was still asleep as it was my 18^th birthday and they wanted to give me a surprise party.

What happens at the end of the journey?

The boot flings open and a party hat is thrust onto my head and a party popper is popped in my face.

What do I do now?

Just relax and enjoy the journey!

Answer 2

How I got here?

I have been abducted by a gang intent on killing me if a ransom is not granted to them.

What happens at the end of the journey?

I will be blindfolded and gagged and kept in a dark cellar and possibly tortured and under constant threat of assault by armed guards until the ransom is paid. Even then there is no guarantee I will be released.

What do I do now?

I need to try and escape!

The main point to note is that the answer to one question influences the answers to subsequent questions.

Mixing up the answers and breaking the flow

If for example you were to mix the answers up, you would cause a disaster. You could be relaxing when you should be trying to escape captors with disastrous consequences for what would happen at the end of the journey!

Substituting the Boot for this Life

Is this life not similar to the boot of the car?

Doesn’t this life also have a before, during and after aspect just as this unanticipated journey in the car has a before, during and after ride in boot aspect?

Look at the parallel :

Before:  Didn’t we come into this world without information just as we found ourselves in the boot with no information?

After: Doesn’t the question of what really happens to us when we die (the end of the journey of life) cross our minds when we are free of life’s distractions?

During: Doesn’t the question of the purpose of life come to our minds naturally once we have answered the previous 2 questions?  

The irony is that distractions and preoccupation with ‘living life’ distance our minds from thinking about these most fundamental questions about our existence the answers to which can shape our existence and drive our purpose through life.

We are however innately programmed to ponder and think about these questions as evident when we observe very young children bursting with curiosity who start to ask similar questions such as

“Were did I come from?” (How did I get into the boot?)

“My parents!”, OK but who made my parents? Who made the first human being? Did we come from apes as suggested by Charles Darwin, or was the first human being created by a Creator? Or is there another explanation that science will eventually uncover?

“What happens when I die?” (What happens at the end of the journey?)

Will I just turn to dust and become part of the food chain? Or will I be raised back to life and made to answer for my actions? Will my soul be re-incarnated into another living entity?

“What is the meaning of Life?” (What do I do now?)

Is life just about following your desires and squeezing every little drop of personal enjoyment out of this short life? Or is there some other goal or direction that is worthy to be the answer to the question of the what meaning of life is?

For the majority of people, once society has provided some form of answer to these questions, most folk stop thinking about these questions critically and become so preoccupied with life and all its distractions, that we simply fail to notice the signs around us that are informing us of the true reality of these questions in a way that satisfies the mind and fills ones heart with tranquillity.

If we were zapped from our life routines and put onto a deserted Island, after we had secured our basic needs, we would inevitably start to ponder about these questions. This is perhaps a reason why prison inmates find answers to these questions when confined to a cell free of life’s distractions and preoccupations.

These Questions have already been answered in three different ways.

There are other answers, such as reincarnation, but these answers are beyond the context of this document for reasons why will be made clear in a later section.

Each of these 3 different ways has resulted in a fundamentally different viewpoint towards LIFE, its objective and how to live it.

Communist Viewpoint

How did I get here?

According to Communism there is no creator of man, life and the universe who made the world and life on Earth, and instead, we came here through a process of Darwinian evolution.

What happens when I die?

It is irrelevant as we are just part of nature and so it is not of consequence as our bodies are part of a cycle of nature and we just form part of future living things.

What do I do now?

We just serve the state and all personal aspirations such as the intrinsic desire for property and wealth are said to not exist!  So there is consistency between the three questions even though the conclusions are wrong.

Secular (West’s) Viewpoint

How did I get here?

Its not important, rather what is important is to agree we will most probably never know!

According to the West’s viewpoint (Secular viewpoint), the issue of whether a creator of man and the universe exists and hence the whole question of wether religion was the way to live our lives according to (question 3 ie in a personal and societal sense) needed to be avoided as a focal point and instead the focus needed to the need to separate Religion from life or societal governance. Put another way question 1 and 2 needed to be left unresolved and question 3 needed to be defined in a way that kept question 1 and 2 unresolved. What does this mean? 

Background to the rejection of Religion’s influence outside the Church.

The concept of religion needed to be replaced by Personal Freedoms (Freedom of Belief, Ownership, Individual and Speech) which, it was intended, would become the means to the achievement of the maximum amount of happiness and pleasure. 

Religion would only be allowed to have influence inside the Church and followed or rejected by individuals according to their own personal choice (Freedom of Religion).

In medieval times, Religion was being used to deny the rights of people and maintain the rich/poor divide between wealthy landowners, who took protection behind the Church who took away the right of poor peasants to complain about their condition of poverty by telling them that they would get their wealth in the next life (Heaven) and that they were going against God's will if they complained. It is quiet easy to see why frustration built up over many centuries, unfortunately towards the concept of Religion instead of the people who had manipulated it for their selfish aims.

It must be noted that the secular belief was established prior to the theory of evolution so it cannot be argued that Allah (SWT) and hence religion had been dismissed by the theory of Evolution as the secular belief referred to here pre-dated Darwinism. From this it is clear that the focus was on removing religion from life to appease those who rejected it on grounds of its implementation having a negative impact on life.

What happens when I die?

You may be questioned by a Creator (assuming you think that one exists) for your actions, or you may not be, we will never know as such knoledge is beyond scientific enquiry and therefore we shouldn’t preoccupy ourselves with the question!

What do I do now?

Mankind should pursue the path of seeking Freedom because, contrary to the idea within Christianity which asserts ‘Original sin’ and that Man is inherently evil, the advocates of Freedom assert that Man is inherently good, but needs Freedom to manifest the good that exists within him.

Islamic Viewpoint

In Islam, the answers to the 3 questions are very consistent and follow through with faultless flow and without contradiction.

How did I get here?

Allah is the creator and he created everything that exists including me.

What happens when I die?

When we die we will be reckoned on every action we have performed in our life and therefore we need to live in accordance with his guidance for success in a worldly sense as well as success in the next life which leads to Heaven or Hellfire.  

What do I do now?

I need to understand the solutions for life’s problems from the Islamic viewpoint and live by them.

These solutions are in harmony with my innate design because Allah (SWT) created me and hence is the one who is qualified to define the solutions to human problems.

Islamic viewpoint has an Intellectual basis for its answer to the 3 questions.

Unlike the other two ideologies, Islam makes the intellectual conviction in the answer to the three questions a condition for entering the belief in Islam.

This is a very profound distinction from the other two ideologies which do not draw their adherents to reflect upon the basis of the respective ideology, but rather encourage people to only think within the walls defined by the answers such ideologies define around the 3 questions.

Q1 – How did I get here?

Islam compels the human being to think and ponder over the creation. To probe the question, by studying the reality we sense around us, and ask questions relating to its cause. There is much literature on the intellectual basis to prove the existence of Allah (SWT) through the mind and it is beyond the scope of this document. However two pertinent points can be made.

The proof in the existence of Allah (SWT) is through the rational process of thinking, of which scientific thinking is a specific type vital in certain areas only.  Due to the tremendous advancements made in the area of science, industry and technology which are attributes to scientific thinking, any conclusion which is not within the realm of direct sensation is not given credibility. As Allah (SWT) cannot be directly sensed as in the case of water boiling at 100 degrees, the belief in Allah (SWT) is deemed to be based on superstition and conjecture and not taken as sure knowledge.

Secondly, as discussed within the subject of the compromise Secular solution, there is a vested interest in not allowing any return to any form of religious prominence within society. It is considered a threat to the notion of liberty and freedom.   Therefore many people in the forefront of attempting to explain the origin of creation beyond the scope of a divine explanation do so to further their materialistic career ambitions and behind the restricted scope of the scientific method of thinking, which as stated has an important but restricted scope.

Q2 – What happens after I die?

Believing in the existence of Allah (SWT) does little to help assist man in understanding what happens after death. Man is unable to communicate with Allah (SWT) to understand the answer to this question unlike Allah (SWT) who communicates with man by sending prophets defining the code by which to live (question 3) as well as details of the afterlife.

2 points can be said in this regard.

Why man needs Allah (SWT) in the first place?

Some would argue that the principles by which we need to live are not difficult to arrive at and in fact many philosophers, such as Confucius had defined such principles before prophets like Jesus came to humanity.

However the human mind, devoid of divine guidance, will tend to orientate towards solutions which do not take into account all the complex inter-relationships between different rules. Also law makers will tend to struggle to separate their interests from their impartial judgements.

 The mind will therefore tend to take into account one aspect and not other aspects in the legislative process. Take for example the solution to the housing problem in the 1960s. The solution was to build high rise flats but this caused other problems linked to depression, and subsequent drug abuse/crime caused by the lack of green areas needed for recreational needs. Contrast this with the rule of Zakat, which is a tax on disposable income. This is an economic rule which takes into account the impact on one’s ability so as not to damage the basic needs of the family which is a social dimension.

The textbook approach, according to Secularism, would be to advocate the bringing together (in the process of defining laws/solutions) of experts in different fields so as to remove the natural bias that would otherwise exist. However, even when this approach is employed, the fact that different experts are needed to understand the reality onto which laws are to be enacted is testimony to the complexity involved in the process of crafting solutions for society. The proof that the balance within the Secular framework is still far from the correct is in the visible deterioration within the secular society. Just considers the credit crisis due to the malaise within the free market due to the inherent imbalance within the framework of regulation and market freedom.     

This complexity is evident when one considers to detailed rules in Islam which have a complex interaction which the mind is sometimes unable to comprehend and appreciate. However, the proof of the suitability of such divine solutions is in their effect on society as far as the key performance indicators (KPI’s) of any viewpoint. Such KPI’s are in areas such as fostering the respect for citizens amongst themselves, generation of wealth for each and every individual, reducing the incidence of crime etc.

Democracy will find the right balance?

Many would argue that when the human mind is liberated from the notion of a creator, then the mind will find the right balance in time. Connected to this strand of thinking is the comparison with the past were children were sent up chimneys and workers had no rights and were enslaved to their employers. Also were decisions were made in the interests of landowners instead of the electorate. Aside from the discussion about how much influence corporations play in shaping the decision making bodies of government in a way that benefits the interests of corporate backers rather than the electorate, there is little merit in the view that a system that uses trial and error, should take precedence over a system that is perfect and in balance with the nature of man and his environment.

Who decides what Allah (SWT)’s law is?

There is a criticism often levelled against any notion of a divine system namely that people will appoint themselves as the authority in interpreting divine law and will be above accountability. This is where Islam did not leave this onerous responsibility on the shoulders of one person or a group of people alone. Islam has made it compulsory for there to exist at least one (many are encouraged) political parties to account the ruler and by so doing create a climate of open debate around the solutions and their compatibility with the Islamic viewpoint. Also there is a specific judge that has the executive powers to remove the ruler if the ruler’s integrity is demonstrably compromised. As a final right, (for sceptics who may argue that such judges may also become part of the state apparatus the way many contemporary scholars have become mouthpieces for their governments), the people have the right to rebel against the ruler by force if necessary. The preservation of the integrity and purity of the Islamic foundation of state is imperative and in this regard, all ideologies share common characteristics.   

So what is Human Nature ?

Consider the above point from a different perspective. Man is not born inherently good or inherently bad but inherently neutral and unable to assess right or wrong. Rather than having an inner voice, man is tainted by his unique experiences that have befallen him during his life coupled with the solutions and ideas that are prevalent during his time and place. Such are the factors that influence and shape his sense of good and bad/right and wrong.

These factors become the standards for right and wrong and the criteria which society uses to define its conduct. So cohabitation outside marriage was regarded wrong and then it became acceptable. This is despite the fact that the inherent makeup of man had not changed during the 2 short spaces of time. Therefore a person born 100 years ago would have had a different definition of right and wrong in this regard as compared to a contemporary person born in the 1990’s for example. There is no inbuilt intelligence within the human makeup that defines when the rule being adhered to is right or wrong.

Allah (SWT) defines the correct standards from the onset and these do not change as they are perfect and accurately reflect the reality of man, his intrinsic design and are in harmony with the complex interaction between people in society, the environment.

The correct standards and underlying thinking in the divine system  creates a state of calmness and inner peace not witnessed in any man made alternative approach which causes turmoil, emotional anxiety and unnecessary stress.

This is just like the unique balance of nature which is disturbed by global warming which is when man decides how to undertake industry according to the human mind as opposed to following the industrial policy as defined by Allah (SWT). Just one of the many rules of the comprehensive rules of the Islamic ideology. 

How do we separate the prophets sent by Allah (SWT) from fraudulent claimants of Prophethood?

When Allah (SWT) sends a Prophet to deliver the instructions on how to live (Question 3) and also gives information on the afterlife (Question 2) and hence the connection between this life and the afterlife (Relationship between Question 1 and 2 with Question 3), he also appeals to the human mind by giving the Prophet a miracle that is beyond human capability and hence acts a validating mechanism to ensure that the message is genuine.

A miracle is therefore something that breaks or defies the rules of nature. This is not like an amazing feat that is very difficult but is humanly possible like running the mile within 3 minutes which may be possible at the current rate of progress in human athletic performance. Examples are the laws that are inherent within the physical and intellectual world are shattered. For example when Moses was able to suspend the laws of physics, by divine intervention, and part the red sea whilst being pursued by pharaoh.

The other thing to note is that when Allah (SWT) sent a miracle, it was a miracle in an area that the people were already infatuated with so as to make it easier for the mind to be drawn to it. Examples include the fact that the people to whom Moses was sent were infatuated with magic, the people of Jesus were infatuated with healing and the people of Abraham were infatuated by fire. Note the miracles for these prophets also tally up with these infatuations namely the turning of the stick into a serpent and the parting of the sea, the raising of the dead and the ability to withstand fire.

The intellectual belief of those believers that did not witness the miracle?

After a while, people who did not witness the miracle would start to drift from intellectual belief to emotional belief. Superstition and conjecture would start to prevail amongst many until another prophet with a new miracle would come to rejuvenate the intellectual basis behind the belief.

This is like the air that escapes from the tyre that is inflated.

The Quran explains that the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) is the last and final prophet before the end of time.   This face value, this may seem to presents a problem as far as the point mentioned above.

How can a miracle that occurred 1400 years ago keep people at the level of intellectual belief required to fulfil the command that the belief should be decisive and not based on conjecture and faith alone, but be intellectual and built on the objective mind.

The Miracle of Prophet Muhammad.

All the previous miracle were temporary in nature. They were limited to a particular place and time. The principle miracle of Islam is a physical miracle which exists for ALL times and ALL places!

Note : Some miracles were also limited in space and time, such as the splitting of the moon, however unless this was seen at the time, it is questionable whether this miracle can be relied upon today. However there is a crack that runs across the perimeter of the moon according to satellite images and ancient records report this phenomenon in other parts of the world.

How is the Quran a miracle?

Does it withstand burning? Does it bring back to life anyone who touches it?

To understand this question, one needs to understand the law that the Quran broke and the infatuation of the Arabs of the time. The Arabs were infatuated with poetry and there were indisputable laws within which poetry could be written. These were not manmade rules but natural rules of the language that had evolved naturally.

To help understand this, although the analogy is not 100% accurate consider writing English poetry. Let’s assume the key variables to consider are the style or rhyme of the writing, the meaning of the narrative and the grammar. Naturally if one wants to express a particular meaning, then there will need to be a compromise in other aspects such as rhyme or style.

Classical Arabic poetry follows similar but more complex inescapable rules. The Quran so excelled in every variable contained within its rules, that it is considered indisputably beyond human capability even by the enemies of Prophet Muhammad who wanted nothing more than to disprove the authenticity of his miracle.

The Quran is amongst us today, so we are as privilege as the immediate society of the last prophet to witness its miraculous nature.

I don’t appreciate Arabic so how can I appreciate this miracle?

Even though one may not appreciate the rules of classical Arabic, this does not mean that the miracle of the Quran cannot be appreciated.

The fact that nobody has been able to reproduce a chapter like the Quran, and to this day those determined to refute Islam have not even focused on this area is an intellectual evidence as far as its inimitability. This can be appreciated even for those who cannot read and asses the miracle from the language aspect.  

As far as the meaning contained within the Quran, there is such astounding and consistent correlation with known and undisputed matters, for example scientific knowledge which was not known until many centuries later that to ascribe this work to other than the creator of man and the universe cannot be given any credibility whatsoever. Furthermore, as Allah (SWT) mentions in the Quran, if the book was from other than him, there would be much contradiction and inconsistency. There is no rule is Islam which solves one problem but creates another problem. This is something that can only happen by a perfect legislative source.

For further reading, see resources found online

Miracle of Poetry - http://www.theinimitablequran.com

Miracle of meaning - 

http://harunyahya.com/presentation/miraclesofthequran/index.html

All views expressed by these authors are not necessarily the same as the author of this post. The links are meant to give an overview in the subjects in question.

Q3 – What do I do now?

Based on the firm belief in Allah (SWT) through the rational process of thinking(Question 1), and also the Quran being the word of Allah (SWT) and its description of the afterlife (Question 2), it is possible to know what to do now. The Quran not only answers question 2, but also defines, along with revelation which came in the form of the prophet’s actions, the complete conduct for life as far as the relationship between man and Allah (SWT) in the form of worships, the relationship between man and himself and society.

Impact of Life’s Viewpoint on society and the individual.

These three viewpoints can be referred to as Creeds. The way of life that arises from this creed can be called an Ideology or civilisation.

A Creed is the most fundamental template for shaping every aspect of life as far as driving people’s goals, generating all the solutions to mans problems and defining what a nation is prepared to go to war for, propagate to other nations. All Creeds are not unique in this respect. They all share these qualities and that is why the answer to the 3 questions is such a powerful and over-riding thing that it is like a dye which stains or taints every solution within the civilisation that adopts it. 

Are all the solutions adopted by a government shaped by a particular Life’s Viewpoint?

Let us consider some examples to illustrate this point.

Communism:

 In the Communist Creed, it is believed that Allah (SWT) does not exists (in contrast to the Secular Creed were the issue is not resolved and left open). Everything is considered material and part of nature. All humans are considered equal in every respect.

As a result of this Creed, which views man as just a cog in a wheel, it flows that individual human aspirations such as the inherent desire for materialistic possessions are given no regard and deemed to not even exist as part of human nature. They are considered nurtured desires from exposure to the Capitalist free market model. This is just one example of how the Creed shapes the solutions used to treat problems within society, in this case an economic problem related to wealth production and distribution. Because there is no desire for private property there is no reservation to make all property public and divide it on the basis of people needs as opposed to their contribution to the wealth generated in the form of work.

Secularism (Freedom & Democracy):

Secularism in many respects is a knee jerk reaction to the feudal system. This system was a power sharing arrangement between Church and Kings/Landowners were the latter were able to exert influence over the general population and subjugate them by throwing Religion at them when they complained. When conflict between the 2 parties erupted, facilitated by the actions of people like King Henry VIII who rebelled against the Church, albeit for alternative motives, the solution was a compromise were the influence of the Church would be sectioned off to places of worship and left to individual discretion for areas such as having individual virtues such as morals.

State would be a separate institution and Democracy, or Demos Cratos i.e. ‘People Power’  would be the form of government were the people would now be sovereign and rightful in making laws instead of the Church who made rules as Allah (SWT)’s agent on Earth.

From Secularism, as Allah (SWT) was removed from the centre of mans focus, the idea of Freedom and enlightenment overtook Europe and a new age was borne from the ruins of the middle ages which were marked by amongst other things intellectual backwardness and subjugation of poor by the rich.

Freedom has effectively shaped every aspect of Life in the West. From the goals that exists within individuals to the goals that drive the governments in all countries that have adopted Capitalism.

As an example, consider the concept of the Free Market. One of the forms of Freedom is Freedom of ownership which advocates that the market should be left unregulated for all goods and services bar those that are directly tied to the safeguarding of freedoms such as the judiciary. This is an example of a solution that is defined by the Secular creed.  

Islam

The Islamic Creed asserts that an unlimited and all powerful creator (called Allah) created life and governs every aspect of the universe. It is Allah who created man and is therefore the only entity qualified to define the solutions to solve all problems humans face in life. This Creed then resolves the final question, namely what is the purpose of life in a manner that is consistent with the other questions, namely how did I get here and what happens to me after I die.

As an example, the Islamic economic system views the fundamental economic problem as needing to ensure adequate production but the focus is on distribution of wealth.  It is therefore dissimilar to both the Secular view which asserts that production is key to solving the economic problem which includes the distribution of wealth through the trickle down effect and the communist view which believes that distribution is paramount and doesn’t leave any scope for incentivising individuals to increase production through  the market mechanism which entails private ownership as an integral component of its functioning. Instead it denies private property altogether.

As a result of this unique Islamic viewpoint, key utilities such as electricity, water, oil and telecoms infrastructure should not be available for private ownership unlike in Capitalism. These key utilities should be held in public ownership and administered on behalf of the public good.

This is not the same as the Socialist/Communist model which pushes everything towards Nationalisation and shuns the private sector as Islam has a very vibrant and prolific concept of private ownership and markets.

Another economics example is the fact that there is a raft of legislation to prevent various practices that restrict the circulation of wealth amongst the participants of the market. This is in contrast with the Secular model were everything is pushed towards private ownership and the evidence is that such trends facilitate the increased polarisation or increased gap between wealthy and less wealthy in society. The result is that great wealth is both produced and more fairly spread. 

A political example is the concept of sovereignty and authority as far as the election of the political authority.

Sovereignty is the entity entitled to decide the legal rules is firmly in the domain of the Creator, Allah. As far as the authority to appoint the ruler, this is in the hands of the people and no person has the divine right to rule. As long as specific conditions are met, then the person can be appointed as the ruler or Caliph. There is a rule commanding the formation of political parties which are key in ensuring accountability outside the state apparatus exists and even within the state apparatus, a specific judge exists to remove the ruler if the ruler diverges from the rules of Islam which are the foundation of the Islamic Society. This is a different concept from the equivalent idea coming from the Secular creed which bestows sovereignty to a parliament which in principle rules on behalf of the people but in reality tends to be hijacked by corporate interests. The aspect of voting for the ruler however is similar in as far as the majority vote is what brings the ruler into power. However this is not sufficient to argue that Islam is Democracy as in Democracy, or Demos Cratos, the people have the power and authority to decide on laws.

Communism, which views Allah (SWT) to not exists and people as an extension of nature and hence of low value sacrifices the rights of individuals to the collective ‘good’ has a very paternalistic view of public participation. The governments effectively decide on behalf of the people what is in their collective interests.

Hence the form of the solutions are clearly shaped or fashioned by the Creed. This is the main point of this section.  It is like a die that is placed in a washing machine. All clothes removed from it will be coloured by the die without exception. However some areas, such as traffic lights will be independent of the viewpoint.

The individual is also shaped by the specific ideas found in each of these societies in a unique way. In the Secular society people become very individualistic and selfish driven by materialistic drive. Morals are not generally prevalent after a long exposure to these values which can be summarised as “life is short, enjoy yourself!” & “be free” and “me first”.  

The communist person has effectively squashed their innate drives and lives as an unconfident and subservient personality.

How different viewpoints view each other

It is clear from the preceding discussion that different viewpoints have the same elements namely a creed or unique answer to the three most fundamental questions of human existence, and a complete system that is coloured by the Creed (see previous discussion) and has a way of protecting the creed and subsequent solutions and a way of spreading the solutions to others.

It is therefore of no surprise that these three alternatives (which we may refer to as Ideologies) cannot peacefully co-exist with each other. They are like competitors who would love for their competitors to go out of business so as not to impact their own influence and market share.

This point needs no elaboration in light of the hostilities between the Soviet Union and the West during the cold war era. Now we are seeing the same friction between Islam and the Western Secular nations.

The Secular attack on Islam has relied on misrepresenting the Islamic alternative, stating things out of context and judging specific rules of Islam in the broader context of the Secular model. This is an unfair and intellectually bankrupt approach to enhancing an informed approach to debate. It is a sign of fear and defeat as any informed debate would demonstrate the supremacy of a Divine system over a man-made one which is formed from the mind which is limited and subject to prejudice and bias.  

The key difference is that Islam has no presence in the form of a Government to practically contribute to the discussion at the international level and demonstrate the supremacy of the Islamic solutions in the face of the unfolding collapse of the Secular ideology.

Can we implement different solutions from the different viewpoints together?

Not only do these viewpoints not tolerate each other, they are like different blood groups which means they cannot be mixed together. So we cannot take some rules from the solutions that come from Secularism and implement them in the Islamic Society as the underlying philosophy is completely different. This is equivalent to trying the ban interest or usury (which is from the Islamic economic system) in the Capitalist system that comes from the Secular viewpoint. This is impractical and unworkable as there is so much dependency on interest as far as the Capitalist system is concerned. To remove it would have insurmountable implications as far as the Secular notion of free markets which view currency as a commodity as well as a medium of exchange.

This is why the trial with specific aspects of Islam in isolation of the whole lead to the failure of the Islamic experiment undertaken by the assassinated Military leader Zia-ul-Haqq in Pakistan in the 1970’s.

However in Islam, the ban on interest sits in a wider context were money is purely a medium of exchange and not a commodity. There are many ways of generating wealth through work and rules of investment to overcome any synario of restricted wealth generation (that critics would argue renders the prohibition on interest impractical) which do not lead to wealth polarisation and instability in currency markets and all that this entails.

Conclusion

It should be clear that all civilisations share a common basis in that they all have a framework grounded in the answer to the three fundamental questions of life and existence.

It should also be clear that these questions have a clear role in fashioning the outlook on life and the solutions which are needed to uphold such an outlook. These solutions are not transferable amongst different civilisations as the roots of these solutions emanate from completely different viewpoints which are irreconcilable.

What is now needed is an analysis of the different viewpoints so that the viewpoint most consistent with the objective reality that the untainted human mind senses is adopted for humanity. This is the subject of part II.

Questions/Comments/Feedback to

civilisationchoice@gmail.com