Ken from Time Immortal, a very educated Catholic, has been in an ongoing discussion with Atheists. It’s clear that atheists have become frustrated with the calmness of the presentation of Ken’s arguments and have decided to make a comment area into a renewed battlefield.

Its definately an interesting discussion and his last post goes into some very interesting topics. It’s a good read!

As people of faith we need not yield to utter universalism in order to build bridges especially when the larger mission is establishing a morality based on faith, not failed project of Enlightement based ethics.

As Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad recently wrote in Islamica:

“It is therefore crucial for Muslim communities to forge ties with other defenders of traditional humanity, and to wish them well. The Catholic Church differs from Islam on some moral issues, such as contraception and divorce, but generally advocates the set of ethics that is normal to sacred societies and underpinned the greatest cultural achievements of medieval Europe, both Muslim and Christian. Like Islam, it is not only a matter of private faith and worship, but of rules fixed in revelation (the pope has spoken against “the view that the Decalogue on which the Church has based her objective morality is nothing but a ‘cultural product’ linked to the ancient Semitic Middle East”). With Ratzinger holding the tiller, the Church is unlikely to accept further concessions to the values of the secular establishment, still less to the Jacobin and Hitlerian demand that “priests should not meddle in politics”.

…

It is necessary to convince Muslim communities that despite the rise in Christian rhetoric in far-right circles, it is conservatives, not liberals, who are our most natural partners in the great task of guiding Europe back to God, and that Ratzinger’s criticisms are grounded in respect…

Cosmology is defined as:

The study of the universe as a whole, of the contents, structure, and evolution of the universe from the beginning of time to the future.

It is indeed a very interesting scientific and philosophical area of study, especially in regards to today’s environment of secular science. As today’s society continues to polarize itself into the ‘atheist’ and ‘theist’ camps, it becomes ever more important to take note of the congruencies present with religion and science.

Consider the example of George Ellis, professor of applied mathematics and cosmology at the University of Cape Town. An accomplished academic, he is a winner of the Templeton Prize and has co-authored work with Stephen Hawking, one of the most famous cosmologists of today.

On the origin of the universe George Ellis has some interesting viewpoints. He demonstrates in numerous ways the idea that the key factors, constants, and laws which defined our universe are unusually set at values which support the creation of life.

One thing which must be kept in mind is that, according to cosmologists, when the universe was first forming the constants and laws which we take for granted today were very much flexible. This means that during the “Big Bang” many numbers could have easily been set at values which would have created a universe with too little matter, too much matter, too much gas, or too strong an affect of gravity. The current set of constants is “unusual” because given the vast possibile values for these constants and laws, it is odd that we live in a universe where everything is set ‘just right’ for life. It is clear that even the smallest changes to certain variables would have resulted in a universe where there were no galaxies, no stars and no planets.

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”

Before it seems we begin to repeat the Intelligent Design (ID) argument, it is important to realize that there are specific questions raised in analysis of the Big Bang that are not raised in the ID argument with evolution. Of course, there are still possibilities and explanations that atheists can stick to (religously?) for each of the questions and concerns raised by theistic cosmologists, but there is something else I found in George Ellis’s approach which was most fascinating.

Not only does Professor Ellis discuss the possible explanations for such precision (parallel universes, an unknown theory, God), but he does take it a step further to by emphasizing the importance of ethics in relationship to the universe.

As a scientist, he raises the interesting question: were ethics, aesthetics, and “meaning” something hard-coded into the universe, just as some of these cosmological constants have been? If so, they seem to be well outside of science’s boundaries of collection, examination, and definition (much less experimentation). This is, George Ellis says, the very important place for religion and it’s sciences.

It is in defining treatment of man to his fellow man, and living in a congruency with the universe that we find a place for religion. And is this not the Shariah and Islam itself?

Although Ellis takes an extremely pluralistic approach to this topic (regarding various religions), I found the discussion to have special consequences for Muslims. Specifically, I find the concept that ethics and “meaning” are hardcoded into the very definition of the universe (gravity) as directly Islamic. Is it not our belief that the natural state of man is to recognize God and know the generalities of right and wrong? Ellis notes the combined understanding of ethics from all three major faiths to be extremely similar, another pointer to the idea that we have all been receiving the same information. For Islam this is simply a manifestation of the continuing communication between God and man.

The topic itself brings up the interesting point of how society without religion would define ethics, if it even could. It seems clear that even today’s atheists struggle with an ethical standard imposed by cultural and legal limits. It should be made abundantly clear that such vague ethical standards have strong religious roots, owning to centuries of religious influence on their surrounding environment. As atheists become further distanced from those roots we will see new and strange ethical standards become adopted (or could they end up with no ethics at all?)

Having changing ethical standards has many consequences. For example, what does this mean to the moral standards of our forefathers? Can we excuse slavery, apartheid, the holocaust because we begin to define morality for each society, for each generation? Indeed, what does it mean to the morals of any generation if they can simply be superseded by the next? In a godless, ethically malleable society, will the only recognition of our forefathers be of scientific accomplishment, and not of their moral steadfastness? If we can already assume that our ethics are not necessarily universal, then do we have to be ethical at all?

Interesting questions indeed. Of course for the Muslim, awareness that the proper, ethical. way to live has been transmitted to us is a comforting notion.

It is even more comforting (for this Muslim) is knowing that God created every single thing, from all these scientific laws to the laws of right and wrong.

George Ellis is the co-author of “On the Moral Nature of the Universe: Theology, Cosmology & Ethics“

I’ve read and debated with Christians about these before, and while in those days (and in these days still) I did not give weight to the words of the Bible, sometimes there is just too much evidence for it to be so easily ignored. Most Muslims have read these somewhere or another, but sometimes I find that extremely good references such as the ones below become intermingled with ones which require a bit more elaboration, detail, and sometimes even imagination than the average person is willing to spend on the subject.

So this is, in my humble opinion, ‘the cream of the crop’ on the matter.

Old Testament

Deuteronomy 18:18: I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

The Prophet Muhummad (??? ???? ???? ? ???) did exactly as the above, the Quran is literally the output of “my words in his mouth”. Bretheren is taken to mean “brothers”, and the Arabs are the brothers to the Jews, who are the subject of this verse.

Isiah’s Prophecy (Isaiah 29):

“And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which [men] deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, [I pray thee]: and he saith, I cannot; for it [is] sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, [I pray thee]: and he saith, I am not learned. “

Uncanny how similar this is to the very first revelation that the Prophet (??? ???? ???? ? ???) received, the response that he is illiterate was the very response that Sayiddina Muhummad (??? ???? ???? ? ???) had to give a thousand years later.

From Martin Lings biography of Sayiddina Muhummad (??? ???? ???? ? ???),

The Angel said to him: “Recite!” and he said: “I am not a reciter,” whereupon, as he himself told it, “the Angel took me and whelmed me in his embrace until he had reached the limit of mine endurance. Then he released me and said: ‘Recite!’ I said: ‘I am not a reciter,’ and again he took me and whelmed me in his embrace, and again when he had reached the limit of mine endurance, he again released me and said: ‘Recite!’, and again I said ‘I am not a reciter.’

(”Reciter” used here is not the best translation here, since the word can mean “recite” as well as “read” . There are some interpreters who suggest that this misunderstanding is what caused our Prophet (??? ???? ???? ? ???) to not repeat the words immediately, though allahu’alim.)

In the New Testament:

Jesus is quoted as saying in John 16:7-14,

“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you.”

First thing to note: “Comforter” is translated from the Greek “Periklytos”, this also has the meaning of “admired one” or “glorified one”. At the same time the name “Muhammad” ‘coincidentally’ means “admired/praised one”.

Again, the prophecy is very amazing when viewed in the light of Sayiddina Muhummad’s (??? ???? ???? ? ???) life.

1) The first part “because they believe not on me”. The Quran emphasizes belief in Jesus (AS).
2) Jesus seems to be saying that it will be difficult for him to demonstrate righteousness because he is not going to be present. Taken another way it could mean that since Jesus(AS) is leaving imminently, his behavior of righteousness will be insufficient to use as an example. Sayiddina Muhummad’s (??? ???? ???? ? ???) life on the other hand is documented clearly in this regard.
3) Judgment. The Quran and Islam in general emphasize this much more than, say, the New Testament.

Then the next part, again, “he shall not speak of himself but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak…”

Similar to Deuteronomy… again, very much seems to be describing the form of direct revelation with Muhummad (??? ???? ???? ? ???) experienced.

—-

These evidences are interesting for the agnostic and the Christian in the light of the fact that they a require pretty in-depth reading of the Bible to discover, and convenient indexes and such were not available in the time of the Prophet(??? ???? ???? ? ???). It should also be remembered that the Quran was revealed in a time when books were rare and hand-copied, and literacy itself was also rare. It was common knowledge that the Prophet (??? ???? ???? ? ???) himself could not read or write.

There was some discussion in the comments about the idea of a baby being born, and what religion he and she would have if ‘left alone in the desert’. I too have heard this sort of opinion in the past.

As I recently had a child of my own, I was watching a few studies on the subject of child-development, including a very interesting documentary on “Feral Children”. Feral children are those who are isolated from the rest of humanity either by human means or due to the fact that they were raised by animals. All these children are not exposed to language early on.

The children in the documentary were rescued from strange situations including being raised by animals or locked in a room their entire lives. Interestingly enough, once rescued, many attempts were made at teaching them language, all of which failed miserably. Doctors have since come to the conclusion that children have a ‘critical period’ of approximately 2-3 years in which, if not exposed to the ideas and concepts of language, their brain becomes literally incapable of comprehending the concept later on in life. You can familiarize yourself with the language development process here.

So, with this in mind, I believe we can firmly toss aside the idea of leaving children on their own, as certain very basic brain development occurs because of the parents influence.

Now, what is Islam’s view on the nature of children? Well, the opinion that we are discussing is based of the sayings of our beloved Messenger:

The Prophet Muhammad ??? ???? ???? ? ??? said, “No babe is born but upon Fitra (as a Muslim). It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist.”
(Sahih Muslim, Book 33)

Let us look at some classical commentaries of this hadith:

Imaam An-Nawawi states in his commentary of this Hadith “and what is more correct is that it means that every new born is born prepared to accept Islam, so whoever parents are Muslims or one of them continues upon Islam in the rulings of the world and hereafter, and if his parents were disbelievers then its rulings its rulings are implemented upon him in this world…”

Imaam Al-Manawi in his own study of Fitra concludes “And what occurs is that man is inherently created to be strongly prepared to accept Islam, but he must learn it…”

Looking at the hadith with the commentary helps us understand what is meant, and it seems the literal interpretation is not what is meant here.

Another way to look at the hadith is to understand it in the manner that Islam is, for Muslims, viewed as a natural state compared to other religions with complex theologies. It is very easy to understand the concept of Tauheed (Oneness of God), in fact, to believe in something to the contrary requires extreme effort. If we take the Trinity for example, it has gotten to the point that many Christians have labeled the trinity a ‘mystery’ that cannot be understood.

As Muslims we do view our religion and faith as the proper understanding of the reality that surrounds us. And we are firm believers in the idea that belief in Tauheed (Oneness of God) and its subsequent consequences is an underlying truth which even children are drawn towards. I don’t think I have ever spoken to anyone about Islam except that they find a certain appeal to it. It seems Islam has an appeal for all sorts of people, all aspects of humanity, whether it be spiritual, logical, scientific, even carnal.

This appealing nature of Islam is what I believe the hadith is referring to.

It may be useful to ponder on what this means about those who deny Islam, and where that denial comes from.