Why Modern Atheists Are Mushriks

Around this time last year I wrote an article in which I argued that Muslims who focus on refuting atheism must understand that it is not atheism per se that is attractive to those who renege on Islam.[1] Instead, it is often the case that people adopt atheism because they have been dazzled by the material successes associated with Western modernity and want to join its ranks. They want to belong to the right crowd and appear sophisticated, intellectual, cool, and so on. Since secularism and its logical end station atheism are two key components of Western modernity, it is only natural that Muslims who want some of the prestige of Western modernity to rub off on them become zealous converts to its central dogmas.
I also argued that the priority for Muslims should not therefore be to refute atheism, but rather to unmask Western modernity and show it for what it is. We need to treat the disease rather than merely alleviating its symptoms. Or to use what has become another common metaphor: instead of countering the effects of the blue pill, we need to identify who it is that has been slipping it into our drink so that their company may be avoided. There have been attempts to deal with modernity by way of post-colonial and critical studies, where scholars deconstruct and problematise Western modernity and liberalism. My issue with these approaches is that for their theoretical work these thinkers do not accept or apply a Qur’anic epistemology. These are secular efforts which are rooted in a materialist mindset, and I believe that they end up reinforcing modernity. It should not be a case of the “subalterns”, the “othered”, or “racialised” speaking up against the empire, the whites, or the Islamophobes. It is rather the case of īmān versus kufr and tawḥīd versus shirk. This should be the starting point for our analysis.

As I mentioned in last year’s article, one thing we need to do is to stop referring to modernity as modernity, and instead start calling it what it really is: jāhiliyyah. It is – as it always has been since its inception – a specific form of jāhiliyyah that I have chosen to call Farangism. I argue that Farangism is made up of a mishmash of Judaism, Christianity (specifically Protestantism), and paganism. Those who are interested in the Christian underpinnings of Farangism might very well read Brad S. Gregory’s The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society. And those who want to know more about the Jewish underpinnings can read Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century. In this article, I want to elaborate upon my claim that paganism (in the form of materialism) is a constituent part of modernity.

One problem that Muslims have is that we seem to believe that atheism is a completely novel category of kufr that has only been treated in one or two āyahs of the Qur’an, such as 52:35, which ultimately leaves us in the dark when it comes to conceptualising it as a contemporary phenomenon. This error has been made because of a misdirected focus. Atheists should not be defined by what they do not believe, but rather by what they actually believe. If we approach them from that vantage point, it is more correct to primarily understand them as being materialists. And as such, they are actually pagans and thus thoroughly discussed in the Qur’an. Here are some reasons for why I believe that this designation makes the most sense.

Number one: their incessant demand for a material god
Shirk is the concept of worshipping the created instead of or along with the Creator. Or to put it differently: it is the worship of the material instead of or along with He who is beyond the material. Atheists are known to say that they refuse to believe in a god that they cannot see, hear, or touch. They demand proof for His existence, that is, empirical proof; the empirical method is specifically developed to investigate material phenomena. This demand echoes the words of previous unbelievers, including the kuffār of Quraysh, who would say:

“Those who have no knowledge say, ‘If only Allah would speak to us or a sign would come to us!’ The same was said by those who came before. Their hearts are all alike. Indeed, We have made the signs clear for people of sure faith.”[2]

This is a typically pagan mindset, where worship is directed to material gods (i.e. idols that can be heard, seen, or touched).

This argument could be objected to by pointing out that atheists do not actually worship a material god. They are likely only stating a hypothetical and rhetorical claim. Let me offer an example that illustrates why this objection is actually invalid.

Suppose that you are sitting in the mosque during Ramadan at ifṭār time, and are about to break your fast. Joining you is a man whom you have just seen giving ṣadaqah to a poor person, and he tells you that he performed the Hajj pilgrimage last year. After finishing your ifṭār you go and perform your prayers together. Right after the taslīm this man turns to you and says: “You know, the only reason that I don’t believe in Hubal, al-Lāt, al-ʿUzzā, and Manāt is because I haven’t seen these idols. If someone were to roll in the statues depicting them inside the masjid right now, I would bow down to them just like I bowed down to Allah. The only thing stopping me is that there aren’t any existing statues of them in the world. I don’t worship them because they don’t exist anymore.”

Would you accept this person as a monotheist and a Muslim? You actually would not, despite his Hajj, prayer, fasting, ṣadaqah, and the fact that he has not actually worshipped Hubal and the other idols. Similarly, the atheist’s mere claim that he would have worshipped Allah if only He had been a material god – effectively an idol – renders him a bona fide pagan.

Number two: their enslavement to the material system they live under
“Allah sets forth the parable of a slave owned by several quarrelsome masters, and a slave owned by only one master. Are they equal in condition? Praise be to Allah! In fact, most of them do not know.”[3]

You either worship Allah, or you worship things that He has created. There is no other option. You are either a slave to Him, or to a million things other than Him. Paradoxically, the first option entails liberation, whereas the second option means being shackled.

“We have put shackles around their necks up to their chins, so their heads are forced up, and have placed a barrier before them and a barrier behind them and covered them all up, so they fail to see the truth. It is the same whether you warn them or not—they will never believe.”[4]

They are slaves to the state and its institutions, being indoctrinated through the educational system, and sent out to die as soldiers for imagined concepts like the nation. They are slaves to the customs and norms of their societies. They are slaves to their employers and their politicians, and to what the media feeds them on a daily basis. In short, they are slaves to the system to which they belong. Even if a Muslim cannot change the system, at least he gets to stand before his true Master and exclaim: “Allah is greater [than this system and everything else around me].” On the other hand, the materialist-pagan never even gets a break from serving his various masters all day long.

This freedom from servitude of mankind through the servitude of Allah was articulated by a few of the Sahâbah when asked by the Emperor of Persia what had brought them to his lands:

Allah has sent us to take whoever wishes from the servitude of mankind to the servitude of Allah and from the tightness of this world to its expanse and from the injustice of the ways of life [in this world] to the justice of Islam.[5]

Number three: their worship of their addictions
This point is directly related to the previous one. The Farangi pagan is a slave of his addictions. He is addicted to his alcohol, entertainment, technology, pornography, and other vain sources of comfort.

Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنه reported: “The Prophet said, ‘May he be miserable: the worshipper of the dinār and dirham [i.e. money], and the worshipper of the striped silk cloak. If he is given anything, he is satisfied; but if not, he is unsatisfied’”[6]

He thinks that he is free, as he wastes away all alone in the small cell that he calls home, watching Netflix after being exhausted from work. He comforts himself with the junk food that he cannot stop eating, even as he knows that it is slowly killing him. Take away his Netflix, his junk food, and his pornography, and he will have nothing at all to live for.

“Have you seen the one who has taken their own desires as their god? Will you then be a keeper over them?”[7]

Number four: ancestor/tribe worship
One salient feature of Farangism is the insistence on elevating one’s tribe or ancestors to the status of ṭawāghīt, that is, objects to be worshipped with or instead of Allah. This can assume different forms. The far right will usually talk about “race realism” and invoke differences in biology and intelligence quotient (IQ) levels to justify the worship of the tribe. On the other hand, those who are a bit more tempered will instead talk about “Western values” and invoke their Western civilisation as being the yardstick of truth.

“When it is said to them, ‘Follow what Allah has revealed,’ they reply, ‘No! We follow what we found our forefathers practicing.’ Would they still do so, even if their forefathers had no understanding or guidance?”[8]

The consequences of this for those outside of their tribes have, as evidenced by history, been catastrophic. In fact, the two World Wars tell us that they are even willing to kill each other for this idol of theirs.

Number five: the pagan Greco-Roman historical continuity
In his book In Search of the Sacred: A Conversation with Seyyed Hossein Nasr on His Life and Thought (p. 301-302), Seyyed Hossein Nasr explains this point in elaborate detail:

As Christianity became the dominant religion of the West, after the fall of the Roman Empire—to which it itself contributed—and as it created a new civilization, which is what we call Western civilization, it was not able to nullify completely the influences of the Greco-Roman antiquity and its pagan and antireligious aspects. As you remember, before the rise of Christianity, the late phase of Greek and Roman civilization and cultures present us with the only known case in history before modern times in which you have a fairly extensive, if not complete and total, rebellion against religion. Both the Greek and Roman religions had decayed, and it is in the late Greek period and among the Romans that you find agnostic, or even atheistic and materialistic philosophies that deny any transcendent principle, such philosophies as those of the New Academy, the Epicureans, the Skeptics, and groups like them. Even before the later period of Antiquity there were the Sophists who were a class of principle-less dialecticians against whom Socrates had spoken already, men who were willing to argue in favor of anything because they did not believe in anything. One just could pay them to argue for the truth of anything that one desired. You do not meet that kind of phenomenon in either ancient Persia, India, or China, all of which possessed great civilizations. Although Rome did not have the same strong philosophical tradition as Greece, nevertheless aspects of hedonism, skepticism, and this-worldliness which characterized much of the late Greek culture were also to be seen in Rome. And as the Roman religion became gradually enfeebled, various Eastern religions began to fill this vacuum, including the cult of Isis and Osiris, Mithraism and Manicheanism from Persia, and of course Christianity, which won the day. It won over all of these other religions and eclipsed all the secular philosophies of the day, but it was not able to fully neutralize the negative influence of various existing philosophical and religious movements. There was a great deal of skepticism, naturalism, and rationalism that remained in a latent state and that with the weakening of medieval Christian philosophy and theology manifested itself with fury during the Renaissance.

The only thing that I would amend in Nasr’s analysis is his differentiation between the pagan and the antireligious elements of Greco-Roman civilisation. The materialist and naturalist philosophies were not a departure from paganism. Instead, they were the elite’s articulation of paganism which stood in contrast to the more crude, folk religion form of paganism practiced by the masses. At any rate, the secular humanists of the Renaissance were consciously attempting to revive ancient pagan ideas and culture, which is what they did. The French revolutionaries continued this project, and it is very much alive today, through Farangism. Take as an example someone like the late American novelist and public intellectual Gore Vidal. He was an atheist who admired and wrote about Julian the Apostate, the 4th century Roman emperor who tried to overturn the gains made by Christianity during the time of Constantine and reinstate paganism as a state religion. Julian the Apostate was considered by Vidal to be a sort of champion of the materialist philosophy that Vidal himself advocated for as an atheist. This type of identification was spot on, as Julian the Apostate and Gore Vidal were both pagans.

Number six: the insistence on a ribāwī economy
With the revival of paganism, it was during the Renaissance that banking in the modern sense emerged in rebellion against the revealed law. It appears that there is a connection between the materialist, pagan mindset and the ribāwī economy in which material gains are prioritised over everything else. Indeed, the pagans of old and the pagans of today consider ribā to be an intrinsic part of any country’s economy.

“Those who consume interest will stand on Judgment Day like those driven to madness by Satan’s touch. That is because they say, ‘Trade is no different than interest.’ But Allah has permitted trading and forbidden interest. Whoever refrains—after having received warning from their Lord—may keep their previous gains, and their case is left to Allah. As for those who persist, it is they who will be the residents of the Fire. They will be there forever.”[9]

Number seven: the obsession with nudity and sexual deviancy
It cannot have escaped anyone that today’s materialists seem quite obsessed with nudity and zinā. This is to the point that they have created all sorts of political and activist movements around these causes. For some, their identities and very lives revolve around their preferences in the bedroom. As pointed out by American law professor Steven D. Smith in his Pagans and Christians in the City: Culture Wars from the Tiber to the Potomac, this is nothing new. One finds the following description on the book’s back cover:

Traditionalist Christians who oppose same-sex marriage and other cultural developments in the United States wonder why they are being forced to bracket their beliefs in order to participate in public life. This situation is not new, says Steven D. Smith: Christians two thousand years ago faced very similar challenges.

Picking up poet T. S. Eliot’s World War II–era thesis that the future of the West would be determined by a contest between Christianity and “modern paganism,” Smith argues in this book that today’s culture wars can be seen as a reprise of the basic antagonism that pitted pagans against Christians in the Roman Empire. Smith’s Pagans and Christians in the City looks at that historical conflict and explores how the same competing ideas continue to clash today. All of us, Smith shows, have much to learn by observing how patterns from ancient history are reemerging in today’s most controversial issues.

Just think of the Greco-Roman attitude to “homosexuality” and juxtapose that against the attitude of materialist Farangis like Gore Vidal, Stephen Fry, Christopher Hitchens, and Douglas Murray. After such a period of reflection, the point made by professor Smith should be clear.

Anyone familiar with Islamic history knows that the pagan Arabs insisted on performing ṭawāf around the Kaʿbah while being nude. In contemporary times, you still have pagan Hindu ascetics who walk around nude. Again, this seems to be quite important for pagans of all stripes, to the extent that putting on clothes such as the hijab incenses them.

Number eight: the animosity towards the god of Ibrāhīm
This is something that I find quite telling. You will usually find that atheists, whilst claiming that they do not believe in Him, seem quite angry with the god of Ibrāhīm عليه السلام specifically. They are known to be particularly hostile to those who follow Ibrāhīm and Muhammad عليهما السلام. They have this in common with their Hindutva pagan brethren. On this matter, Al Jazeera reports:

Many members of the so-called “alt-right” – a loosely knit coalition of populists, white supremacists, white nationalists and neo-Nazis – turned to India to find historic and current justifications for their racist, xenophobic and divisive views. Using a specific, “white nationalist” brand of Orientalism, they projected their fantasies about a racially pure society onto the Indian culture and in response received a warm welcome from Hindu fundamentalists in India. While an alliance between the Hindu far right and the Western alt-right may appear confounding on the surface, it actually has a long history, going all the way back to the construction of the Aryan race identity, one of the ideological roots of Nazism, in the early 20th century. In the 1930s, German nationalists embraced the 19th-century theory that Europeans and the original Sanskrit speakers of India who had built the highly developed Sanskrit civilisation – which white supremacists wanted to claim as their own – come from a common Indo-European, or Aryan, ancestor. They subsequently built their racist ideology on the assumed superiority of this “pure” race. [10]

It could be objected here that Israel, a nation that claims a connection with Ibrāhīm, is allied with Hindutva-run India. But this is not because the Hindu pagans have an affinity for Abrahamic monotheism. It is actually because the Zionists are doing exactly what the Medinan Jews did: finding a common cause with the pagans through their shared hatred of Muslims:

“Had they believed in Allah, the Prophet, and what has been revealed to him, they would have never taken those pagans as allies. But most of them are rebellious.”[11]

Another objection may be that the pagan Arabs, like the Jews, claimed affinity with and respected Ibrāhīm. Does that not contradict my point here? First of all, I did not say that the materialist pagans of today are entirely identical to the Arab pagans referred to in the Qur’an. They have a lot of commonalities, but without their beliefs necessarily mirroring each other on every single point. That being said, even here there is a clear overlap. Even though the pagan Arabs respected their ancestor Ibrāhīm, this was more a case of tribal pride rather than actual loyalty to the god of Ibrāhīm. In fact, they did not actually like exclusively worshipping Ibrāhīm’s god:

“Yet when Allah alone is mentioned, the hearts of those who disbelieve in the Hereafter are filled with disgust. But as soon as those gods other than Him are mentioned, they are filled with joy.”[12]

Their respect for Ibrāhīm is akin to how today’s atheist French nationalists might respect figures like Joan of Arc, which is not for her religion (which they detest) but for being a symbol of French nationalism.

Number nine: using qadar (determinism) as an excuse
When recently interviewing the aforementioned atheist Stephen Fry, the New York Times gave their article[13] the headline: Stephen Fry Would Like to Remind You That You Have No Free Will. Determinism has become quite common amongst atheists, especially since Sam Harris wrote an entire book about this topic. This was in fact a common belief amongst the pagan Arabs as well:

“The polytheists will argue, ‘Had it been Allah’s Will, neither we nor our forefathers would have associated others with Him in worship or made anything unlawful.’ Likewise, those before them rejected the truth until they tasted Our punishment. Ask them, ‘Do you have any knowledge that you can produce for us? Surely you follow nothing but assumptions and you do nothing but lie.’”[14]

Number ten: the claim that “when we die, we are only bones”
The absence of any belief in the afterlife is a quintessential materialist tenet. This also happens to have been a typically pagan belief shared amongst Arab polytheists as well:

“And they argue, ‘There is nothing beyond our worldly life. We die; others are born. And nothing destroys us but the passage of time.’ Yet they have no knowledge in support of this claim. They only speculate.”[15]

Number eleven: changing the natural order
This altering of Allah’s creation also seems to be a peculiar pagan practice, inspired by Iblīs who has been quoted in the Qur’an:

I will certainly mislead them and delude them with empty hopes. Also, I will order them and they will slit the ears of cattle1 and alter Allah’s creation.” And whoever takes Satan as a guardian instead of Allah has certainly suffered a tremendous loss.[16]

In the case of the Makkan pagans, they would invent certain classifications regarding their cattle:

They say, “These cattle and crops are reserved—none may eat them except those we permit,” so they claim. Some other cattle are exempted from labour and others are not slaughtered in Allah’s Name—falsely attributing lies to Him. He will repay them for their lies. They also say, “The offspring of this cattle is reserved for our males and forbidden to our females; but if it is stillborn, they may all share it.” He will repay them for their falsehood. Surely He is All-Wise, All-Knowing.[17]

It might, at first glance, seem peculiar that a certain type of cattle classification is criticised so severely, but this pagan practice of toying with Allah’s natural order is a serious matter. It has run amok, to the point of being extended to actual human beings. Today you will see them classifying human beings into him, her, they, zie, sie, ey, ve, tey, e, and so on.[18]

Number twelve: eliminating unwanted children
This pagan practice has been severely criticized in the Qur’an:

Lost indeed are those who have murdered their own children foolishly out of ignorance and have forbidden what Allah has provided for them—falsely attributing lies to Allah. They have certainly strayed and are not ˹rightly˺ guided.[19]

It is a common practice in Farangi society, based on materialist, i.e. pagan, morality.

Bonus observation: the common pagan aesthetics
This point is a mere personal observation that does not necessarily demonstrate anything with full certainty. It is not an actual argument, but something I nevertheless felt like bringing up. I, again, find it quite telling that Farangi materialists and other pagans seem to have shared aesthetic sensibilities. After observing the desire for qazaʿ haircuts, the previously mentioned proclivity for nudity, and the flamboyant moustaches and outfits, it is not difficult to conclude that all of this stands in stark contrast to the modesty and simplicity associated with millah Ibrāhīm. Just type in “Aron-Ra” (who is a prominent atheist debater) to Google Images, followed by a search for “pagan priest”, and you will see what I mean.

Conclusion, and a related point
It should hopefully be clear by now that it would be wrong to say that atheism has not been dealt with in the Qur’an except for a few instances. The atheists of today are materialists, and as such they are a type of mushriks whose beliefs run parallel with many of the Arab pagan tenets that have been refuted in the Qur’an. This is why I have referred to Farangism as a hodgepodge of Christianity, Judaism, and, indeed, paganism.

Also, I would like to add a final related point.[20] The idea that mankind can be reduced to our material elements goes back directly to Iblīs. To him, we are mere clay. To the Farangi pagans, we are similarly mere atoms in orbit. We are reduced to our biology and our worth lies in our appearance, how much material possessions we can accrue, how much material items we manage to produce through our industries, and so on. Our spiritual worth does not matter because there is no such thing as a soul or spirit; we are mere clay. The father of materialist reductionism is none other than Iblīs himself.

Source: http://www.islam21c.com


[1] https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/unmasking-western-modernity-farangism-studies/.

[2] Al-Qur’an, 2:118

[3] Al-Qur’an, 39:29

[4] Al-Qur’an, 36:8-10

[5] Ibn Kathir’s al-Bidayah wal-Nihaayah (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, n.d.), vol. 7, pp. 39-40.

[6] Al-Bukhāri

[7] Al-Qur’an, 25:43

[8] Al-Qur’an, 2:170

[9] Al-Qur’an, 2:275

[10] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/13/why-white-supremacists-and-hindu-nationalists-are-so-alike

[11] Al-Qur’an, 5:81

[12] Al-Qur’an, 39:45

[13] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/05/03/magazine/stephen-fry-interview.html?campaign_id=20&emc=edit_wg_20210503&instance_id=30158&nl=watching&regi_id=23546060&segment_id=57125&te=1&user_id=e9d3f5f4cbf0ef1d3e124c45d91e5699

[14] Al-Qur’an, 6:148

[15] Al-Qur’an, 45:24

[16] Al-Qur’an, 4:119

[17] Al-Qur’an, 138-139

[18] https://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/

[19] Al-Qur’an, 6:140

[20] The credit for this observation goes to American Muslim activist Shahid King.


Mirza Safwat is a Bosnian-Swedish sociologist and novelist. His interests include Farangi studies in general, and the Islamic movement under Farangi hegemony in particular. You can follow him at https://twitter.com/MirzaSafwat

pseudo science explaining God

Why psudo-science fails to explain God
The following scenario takes place at an educational institute:
“Let me explain the problem science has with God…” The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. “You’re a Muslim, aren’t you, son?”
“Yes, sir.”
“So, you believe in God?”
“Is God good?”
“Sure! God’s good!”
“Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?”

The professor grins knowingly and considers for a moment.

“Here’s one for you: Let’s say there’s a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?”
“Yes, sir. I would.”
“So, you’re good…!”
“I wouldn’t say that.”
“Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could… In fact, most of us would if we could… God doesn’t.”

[No answer.]

“He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Muslim who died of cancer, even though he prayed to God to heal him. How is this God good? Hmm? Can you answer that one?”

[No answer.]

The elderly man is sympathetic.
“No, you can’t, can you?”

He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones.

“Let’s start again, young fella. Is God good?”
“Er… Yes.”
“Is Satan good?”
“Where does Satan come from?”
The student falters.
“From… God…”
“That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t He?”

The elderly man runs his fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking student audience.

“I think we’re going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen.”
He turns back to the Muslim. “Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? Did God make everything?”
“Who created evil?”

[No answer.]

“Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All the terrible things – do they exist in this world?”
The student squirms on his feet. “Yes.”
“Who created them?”

[No answer.]

The professor suddenly shouts at the student. “WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME. PLEASE!” The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Muslim’s face. He speaks in a small, deadly voice, “God created all evil, didn’t He, son?”

[No answer.]

The student tries to hold the professor’s steady, experienced gaze, but fails.
Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an ageing, confident panther. The class is mesmerised. “Tell me…” he continues, “How is it that this God is good if He created all the evil throughout all time?” The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. “All the hatred, the brutality, the pain, all the torture, all the needless deaths and ugliness, and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world – isn’t it, young man?”

[No answer.]

“Don’t you see it all over the place? Huh?” The professor pauses. “Don’t you?” The professor leans into the student’s face again and whispers, “Is God good?”

[No answer.]

“Do you believe in God, son?”
The student’s voice betrays him, and in a cracked voice he mutters, “Yes, professor. I do.”
The old man shakes his head sadly. “Science says you have five senses that you use to identify and observe the world around you. You have never seen God, have you?”
“No, sir. I’ve never seen Him.”
“Then tell us if you have ever heard your God?”
“No, sir. I have not.”
“Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, or smelt your God? In fact, have you any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?”

[No answer.]

“Answer me, please.”
“No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.”
“You’re AFRAID… you haven’t?”
“No, sir.”
“Yet, you still believe in Him?”
“That takes FAITH!” The professor smiles sagely at the underling. “According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says that your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?”

[The student does not answer.]

“Sit down, please!”

[The Muslim sits, browbeaten into apparent defeat. However, ‘the help of Allah is at hand and victory is imminent.’]

Another Muslim, wearing a religious cap, having a beard and easily identified as a Muslim by his dress, lifts his hand up.”Professor, may I address the class?”
The professor turns and smiles. “Ah! Another Muslim in the vanguard. A Fundamentalist, I see. Come, come, young man! Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering!”

The Muslim ignores the sarcasm in the tone of the professor. He looks around the room, waits for the attention of the students and turns to the professor. “Sir, you have made some interesting points. With your permission,sir, I would like to tackle each point individually. This subject has to be tackled logically and scientifically, and not emotionally. The first point is your basic doctrine that God does not exist. The universe, therefore, started with the doctrine of ‘The Big Bang’ and through a process of evolution, Man finally came into existence. Is that not your belief, professor?”

“My son, it goes without saying. There is enough scientific evidence for this. What are you getting at?”

“Let us not be hasty. Let us use logic and reason and proper scientific argument. As a preamble, I wish to point out that I use the word ‘doctrine’ knowingly, for the priests of pseudo-science are, in fact, merely promoting atheism as a religion. I have a question for you, professor. We have in this world millions upon millions of fireworks, ammunition and bombs. Have you heard of any going off spontaneously, or do you admit that, although the ingredients may be in existence in a container, there is required a detonating mechanism to set off the explosions? Two factors have to be present: firstly, the correct ingredients in correct amounts in a suitable environment; and, secondly, somebody to set off the explosion, whether it be by means of a match stick, or the hammer of a pistol, or some electrical spark. For example, if somebody said that he had a bullet in his hand and it went off on its own and killed somebody sitting nearby, would any scientist accept such a ludicrous statement?”
“Of course not. What are you trying to say?”
“Surely, then, if you want us to believe in the Big Bang, that a massive explosion took place on its own without anybody there to ‘pull the trigger’ or ‘light a match’ or ‘electrical spark’ then explain to us how smaller bangs are not taking place all over the world without any external agency? Any scientific claim has to be reproducible for it to be accepted.”

The professor’s mouth opens, but no words come out.

“Also, we know that it is scientifically impossible for matter to create itself. Take this wooden desk. It did not come into existence by itself. Some external agency had to make it. Even the wood did not come into existence by itself. It came from a seed that was planted and nourished. The seed itself came from some source and could not come into existence by itself. Can you explain to us how the original matter came into existence – matter that the priests of pseudo-science state was ignited by the mysterious Big Bang to produce the first living matter? Also, why are your priests not able to reproduce this phenomenon in the laboratory? Professor, you must know that any scientific argument must be reproducible for it to have any scientific credence.”

“Son, it is naive to thing that we can do such a thing. The energy that was unleashed with the Big Bang was such that we do not have access to, otherwise we would also have reproduced the same phenomenon.”

“Professor, you have not told us who provided the basic ingredients, and you are unable to tell us who it was who pushed the button or pulled the trigger or lit the matches for the Big Bang to take place. Where did this tremendous energy, that you are speaking about, originate? Come, come, professor! Let us be scientific about it. Yes, professor, it takes a lot of FAITH in the doctrinal teachings of the priests of pseudo-science to believe in the Big Bang. Do you expect us to discard proper scientific principles and believe in all this hocus-pocus on blind faith in the face of definitive scientific principles?”

[No answer.]

“If you don’t mind, professor, I will now go on to the doctrine of evolution as promulgated by the priests of pseudo-science. You are aware that no fossils have been shown that would directly link the descent of Man from the apes and that there is a constant search for what is termed, the ‘Missing Link’?”

“Yes, but there is so much other evidence…”

“Sorry to interrupt, professor. You admit there is no direct link. You must also admit that there are no fossils showing definite intermediary steps in the transition from ape to Man. And I’m sure you are also aware of the Piltdown Forgery, professor?”
“Piltdown…? Piltdown…?”
“Let me refreshen your memory, professor. Some fossils were discovered in a place called Piltdown in England. These fossil-remains showed all the features that all the priests of pseudo-science and atheism were searching for as the ‘Missing Link’ in the chain of evolution. The whole world was led to believe in it, and even the sceptics were convinced – until it was found, some forty years later, that someone from the scientist-priest fraternity had ‘doctored’ the fossils to make them appear to be the missing link. It was a big lie, a massive forgery that your priests had forged to try and convince the world that the religion of atheism was true and Man had descended from the apes! If you want more enlightenment on it you can read the works of Professor Tobias, of South Africa, on the details of the forgery.”

The professor’s face goes an ashen white. Still no comment.

“Speaking about forgeries – professor, do you know what is plagiarism? Can you explain to the class what is plagiarism?”

Rather hesitantly, the professor speaks, “Plagiarism is to take somebody else’s work and pass it off as one’s own.”

“Correct. Thank you, professor. If you were to take the trouble of doing a bit of honest and truthful research you will find that the Western nations had plagiarised all the TRUE scientific works of the Muslims and then built on it and passed them off as their own ‘discoveries’, which led to modern scientific progress. You don’t have to take my word for it. Just write to the ‘Centre for Studies on Science’, Al-Humera, Muzzammil Manzil, Dodhpur, Aligarh, India, and they will gladly send you all the relevant literature to prove this point.”

By now the class is fully attentive to the Muslim student’s words and they hastily jot down the address.

“Let us come back to the doctrine of evolution which the priests of pseudo-science have fostered on the world. The back-bone of all their doctrines is the concept of ‘natural selection’. This means that species adapted to the changes in the environment by a change in morphology and physiology, changes which they then passed on to succeeding generations, enabling them to survive; while those species which did not adapt, became extinct. The classic example given is that of the dinosaurs which could not compete with smaller, more agile animals which had miraculously ‘evolved’, thus the bigger, more slower animals became extinct, whilst the smaller animals survived. Also, during the course of evolution what was of no use anymore, disappeared, like tails and claws, being replaced with tail-less species with hands which could hold, the final result being Man. You do subscribe to this doctrine, don’t you, professor?”

The poor professor is unsure whether to nod or not, as he is uncertain from which angle the next salvo is coming!
“Come, come, professor! This is the cornerstone of the doctrine of evolution which you priests have been brainwashing the unwary masses with. Let us challenge this pseudo-science with true science. Professor, has any scientist ever produced any new species of life in his laboratory by controlling and changing the environment? Remember, science can only accept material doctrines if they are reproducible.”

[No answer.]

“Of course not, even though attempts have been made, sure enough! Let us go a step further: We know that the Jews circumcise their male offspring very soon after birth. We also know that circumcision has been practised by them in an unbroken chain since the time of Abraham (A.S.). As a result, certain illness patterns have changed. Any male child with an inherited bleeding tendency would have died from bleeding and this disease would not have passed on to the next generation. You agree, professor?”

The professor nods eagerly, thinking that this is a point in his favour.

“So, tell us, professor, after thousands of years of circumcising all male infants, why are Jewish children not born without a foreskin? Even if the whole foreskin was not missing, according to the doctrine of natural selection of your priests, there should be some signs of the foreskin getting smaller! Don’t you agree, professor?”

The poor professor just stares blankly ahead, not knowing what hit him!

“Professor, do you have children?”
Somewhat relieved at the change of topic, the professor tries to muster some of his previous confidence. “Yes, I do. I have two boys and a girl.” The professor even manages to smile when he mentions his children.

“Professor, did you breast-feed them when they were infants?”
Somewhat taken aback by this obviously silly question, the professor blurts out. “What a stupid question! Of course, I did not! My wife did the breast-feeding.”
“Professor, have your priests ever discovered any males who breast-feed infants?”
“Again a stupid question. Only females breast- feed infants.”
“Professor, without undressing you, I am certain that you have two nipples, just like all other males. Why have these not disappeared because of redundancy? According to the doctrine of natural selection, such useless items as nipples in males, should have disappeared in all males thousands – if not millions – of years ago! Professor,” the Muslim student spoke gently, he did not shout and he did not push his face into that of the professor’s, “I’m sure that, based on proper scientific argument – and not on pseudo-science – you will agree that the doctrine of evolution is just a big load of rubbish?”

The professor’s face changes a number of colours and all he can do is splutter helplessly.

The Muslim student turns to the class of students and addresses them with a wisp of a smile on his lips. “In fact, one can go further and state that whoever believes he is descended from the apes, must be a monkey!”

It takes a few moments for the class to catch on to the pun in the Muslim student’s statement, but the moment it hits home, they roar with laughter.

When the students recover from their laughter the Muslim student continues. Turning to the professor, he says, “There are so many holes in the doctrine of evolution that it leaks like a sieve. However, time is running out – I have to rush to the Mosque for prayers shortly – so we will not deal with all the myths now. Let us go on to the topic of morality that you raised. But, before that, let us look at the point you may about your brother dying of cancer. If you are upset that he died, then you are absolutely foolish. That human beings, as well as all living matter, will certainly die is such an established fact, that it is believed in by all people, irrespective of whether they believe in God or not, and nobody can really object to the process of death. Secondly, you cannot be so naive as to object to the process of illness – whether it being cancer or any other illness, or an accident, etc. – as a prelude to the process of death. Your objection stems from your misconception that ‘goodness’ is to relieve suffering, and to cause suffering is being ‘cruel’. If this was so, then, professor, you have no choice but to agree that the cruellest people in the world are the medical research-scientists who use animals for all their horrible experiments. Surely you must be aware of the thousands upon thousands of animals that are tortured in different ways and made to suffer a million agonies to prove or disprove certain scientific and medical claims? Are these experimenters not cruel? You’re still with me, professor?”

The professor looks quite ill. The Muslim student goes across and gives him some water to drink.

“Professor, I’m going to ask you another obvious question. You are aware of examinations – tests that are given to students in order for them to pass and be promoted to the next grade?”
The professor merely nods his head.
“A student has to make certain sacrifices, and even live away from home, to attend a university or college; he has to deprive himself of all home comforts; he is loaded with work; he has to give up his leisure time and his sleep in order to get ready for the examinations; then he is faced with horribly difficult questions to answer in the examination and he may also be grilled in his oral examination – and he still has to pay the institution for putting him through this torturing process! – you do not consider all this to be cruel? Is the professor a ‘good’ person for all the mental and physical suffering he is putting the student through?”

“I do not see your point. Of course, the institution and the professor are doing the student a favour by putting him through a training process in order for him to qualify in his particular field. Only a very short-sighted person would object to students having to write examinations, irrespective of the sacrifices they have to make.”

The Muslim student sadly shakes his head. “Professor, it is amazing how you can understand the need for tests and examinations when you have to set them, but you can’t see the same wisdom when God sets tests and examinations for His creatures. Take your brother – if he withstood the test of his illness and he died with faith, what we term as Imaan – he will be rewarded abundantly in Paradise for the suffering that he underwent here. So much so, that he would wish that he had suffered a hundred times more so that his reward would be so much greater, a reward that no eye has seen and no mind has imagined! Unfortunately, ‘only a very short-sighted person’ – and an ignorant one – would object to the tests placed on His creation by God, bearing in mind the everlasting rewards awaiting those who are successful.”

“Paradise? Huh! Have you seen Paradise, touched it, smelt it, tasted it, heard it? According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says that your Paradise doesn’t exist.”

“We will come to that point also, God willing. Let us continue. Tell me, professor, is there such a thing as heat?”
The professor has recovered somewhat and he is feeling more confident. “Yes, there’s heat.”
“Is there such a thing as cold?”
“Yes, there’s cold, too.”
“No, sir. There isn’t!”
The professor just stares blankly. The student explains, “You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, or – at the opposite pole – a little heat, or no heat, but we can’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can reach 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go further beyond that. There is no such thing as ‘cold’, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 degrees below zero. You see, sir, ‘cold’ is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat but merely the absence of heat.”

Silence. A pin drops somewhere in the room.

The Muslim student continues. “Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?”
“That’s a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn’t darkness? What are you getting at…?”
“So, you say there is such a thing as darkness?”
“You’re wrong again, sir! Darkness is not an entity – it is the absence of an entity. It is the absence of light. One can have dim light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. If one has no light constantly then one has nothing, and this is called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were, one would be able to create darkness in a positive way and make darkness darker and obtain it in a container. Can you fill a jar with darker darkness for me, professor?”
“Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?”
“Yes, professor. The point I’m making is that your philosophical premise is flawed, to start with, and so your conclusion must be in error. You are not scientific, but pseudo-scientific!”
The professor goes toxic. “Flawed…? How dare you…!”
The Muslim student is very cool and calm, and he speaks gently, as if to a little child. “Sir, may I explain what I mean?”
The students in the class eagerly nod their heads. They are all ears. The professor has no alternative but to consent. “Explain… oh, explain…” He waves his hand indifferently, in an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. The class is silent, expectant.

“You are working on the premise of duality,” the Muslim student explains, “that, for example, there is life and then there’s death, two different entities; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as a finite entity, an entity we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain what a thought is. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen them, much less understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive entity. Death is not the opposite of life, but merely the absence of life.”
The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from one of the other student’s desks. “Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?”
“Of course there is. Now look…”
“Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such a thing as injustice? No, sir. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?” The Muslim student pauses. “Isn’t evil the absence of good?”
The professor’s face has turned an alarming colour. He is so angry that he is temporarily speechless.
The Muslim student continues. “If there is evil in this world, professor – and we all agree that there is – then God must be accomplishing some work through the agency of evil. What is that work that God is accomplishing? Islam tells us it is to see if each one of us will choose good over evil.”
The professor bridles. “As a philosophical scientist, I don’t view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognise the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation, because God is not observable.”
“I would have thought that the absence of God’s moral code is probably one the most observable phenomena going,” the Muslim student replies. “Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week. Professor, you have tried to put the blame of the evil in this world on the shoulders of God – in whom you don’t believe – which is an obvious contradiction. However, let us analyse who is really responsible for the spread of evil – those who believe in God, or those who don’t? A fundamental belief that a Muslim has is that of being resurrected on the Day of Judgement and answering for his actions in this world. For every good that he did he will be rewarded, and for every evil that he committed he will be held responsible. Every Muslim has to believe that he/ she is responsible for his/her actions and that nobody else will bear his/her burden on the Day of Judgement. The concept of Paradise being a reward for the believers and that Hell will be the abode of the disbelievers, the infidels, is also a fundamental belief, as well as the belief that even Muslim wrongdoers will be punished for their misdeeds. Professor, these concepts have stopped countless millions of Muslims from committing wrong. We all know that punishment is a strong deterrent for committing crimes. Without this concept we would not be able to run our worldly affairs: fines, penalties, jail sentences are part and parcel of any civilised system. On the other hand we have the priests of atheism who do not believe in these concepts when they are mentioned in relation to moral issues. To them there is no Day of Judgement, no accountability, no reward, no punishment. The message to the masses is quite clear, that ‘if you can get away with it then you are O.K. You have nothing to worry about’. Also, seeing that they state that there is no such thing as sin – sin, in our context, means going against the Laws of God – each individual is free to do anything he wishes and no action can be labelled as ‘wrong’. Let me put it this way: the atheist priests maintain that God does not exist. If He does not exist, then He can’t have set down any rules of what is right and what is wrong – thus there can’t be sin, sin means going against the wishes of God. So, man is free to make up his own rules, his own code of ‘morality’. Thus men get ‘married’ to men; women get ‘married’ to women; to spread AIDS and other diseases is O.K.; there is nothing sinful with adultery and fornication, as long as those involved are ‘consenting adults’; according to the logic of the atheists even incest would not be sinful if the parties are ‘consenting adults’, seeing incest is a sin based on a code of morality with its basis being religion, whereas the professor has categorically stated that he ‘absolutely does not recognise the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world factor’; to kill infants in their mothers’ wombs is fine – it is exercising the ‘rights’ that the woman has; and so forth. The list of ‘rules’ passed by the atheist social pseudo-scientists priests is endless. The height of intellectual dishonesty is to place the blame for the spread of this immorality and filth on God! Let us be scientific about the whole issue, professor. Take a group of people who are God-conscious – who believe in Him as he should be believed in – and take a group of people who are adherents to your atheistic creed. Assess, objectively, who is spreading evil. I don’t wish to labour the point, but any objective observer will immediately see that the group of God-conscious people who use the Laws of the Almighty as their code of morality, are in fact, spreading goodness; whereas the those who make up their own rules of ‘relative morality’ are, in fact, the one’s spreading evil throughout the world.”

The Muslim student pauses for these important remarks to sink in. The eyes of the students in the class light up as they see these issues in a clearer light. Nobody had ever explained these important issues to them before, having being brought up on the diatribe spewed forth by the mass media.

“Professor, I am amazed, but not surprised, at your unscientific attitude to morality. I am amazed that, even though you believe that Man evolved from the apes, he will not behave like an animal! I am amazed that, even though you do not believe in angels, you expect Man to behave like one on his own accord, without the assistance of a Divine moral code. The reason that I’m not surprised is that such muddled thinking is to be expected from those who are adherents of the false creed of atheism!”

There is a burst of spontaneous applause from the class.

“We have already discussed evolution, professor. Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?”
The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives the student a silent, stony stare.
“Professor, since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an ongoing endeavour, are you not teaching a doctrine – a doctrine that leaks like a sieve and has less merit to it that any theological teachings? This is pseudo-science, not science, and its proponents are nothing but its ignorant priests!”
The professor goes blue in the face. “What impudence!” He huffs and puffs and strides up and down in front of the class, finally managing to regain some of his self control. “In the light of our philosophical discussion, I’ll overlook your impudence, son. Now, have you quite finished?” The words come out as a hiss.
“Sir, you don’t accept God’s moral code to do what is righteous?”
“I believe in what is – that’s science.”
“Sir, with due apologies, what you believe in is not science, but pseudo-science – and your pseudo-science is also flawed!”
“PSEUDO-SCIENCE…..? FLAWED…?” The professor looks as if he is going to have a fit. The class is in an uproar. The Muslim student stands cool and calm, that wisp of a smile back on his face.

When the commotion subsides, he continues, “You see, professor, TRUE SCIENCE is to discover the laws and designs that the Creator of the universe has put into the system of the running of the universe, from the mega to the micro, from the measurable to the immeasurable. Pseudo- science is an atheistic religion that tries to oppose this concept by forgeries, manipulation of statistics, half-truths, etc. Pseudo-science postulates a mythical unnamed force -their own, man-made, false deity – caused a Big Bang and then started a process of evolution that is contrary to what actually happened. The priests of this atheistic religion are the ones that try to justify the gibberish that must accompany such falsehood by means of forgeries, half-truths and manipulation of data. Truth must win – the truth of the logical conclusion anybody with any sense can deduce, that there is one God (Allah) Who is the Creator of the whole universe. He created the whole system whereby the whole universe has been running smoothly from time immemorial. Let us go back to the point you had made earlier to the other student and which I said I will deal with later. I will give you an example which everyone can follow: Is there anyone in the class who has seen air, oxygen molecules, atoms, the professor’s brains?”
The class breaks out in laughter.
“Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain, felt it, smelt it or tasted it?” Nobody says anything. The Muslim student sadly shakes his head. “It appears that no one here has had any sensory perception of the professor’s brains whatsoever. Well, according to the rules enunciated by the professor himself, the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol of the professor’s pseudo-science I HEREBY DECLARE that the professor has no brains!”
The professor buckles into a chair. The class again applauds spontaneously.

The student goes and ministers some water to the professor. After a while he recovers. He glares at the student. “Your insults in no way proves the existence of God.”
The Muslim student replies. “Professor, I’m really surprised. I would have thought that you would have conceded defeat. But, it seems that you are a glutton for punishment.”

He pauses, looks very thoughtfully at the class and then at the professor. With a heavy sigh he addresses the professor again. “Sir, you have parents – you have a father and a mother?”
“Another of your stupid questions. It is obvious that we all have parents.”
“Be patient, sir. Are you certain that your father is your father and that your mother is your mother?”
The professor goes livid. “How preposterous! OF COURSE, MY FATHER IS MY FATHER AND MY MOTHER IS MY MOTHER!” He is shouting.
The Muslim student pauses. The pause becomes lengthy. There is an eerie atmosphere suddenly as the students sit on the edge of their chairs. With a quiet well controlled voice, the Muslim student says, “Prove it to me!”
The atmosphere is electric. The professor is unable to control himself. His face changes to a purple hue. “HOW DARE YOU!” He is shouting even louder, quite beside himself. “I’VE HAD ENOUGH OF YOUR INSULTS..! GET OUT OF MY CLASS..! I’LL REPORT YOU TO THE RECTOR…!
The class sits petrified at the outburst. Is the professor heading for a fit or a stroke?
The Muslim student stands his ground, unruffled. Facing the class he lifts his hand up, reassuring them that there is nothing to worry about. He then turns his compassionate eyes on the professor. A force appears to emanate from his eyes, directed at the professor. The professor cannot maintain his stare. His gaze drops. His anger subsides. He flops back into his chair and holds his head in his hands.
After a few minutes, the Muslim student speaks, very gently. “Dear professor, I am not implying that your parents are not your parents. All I am trying to point out is that neither you, nor me, nor any of us in this class can prove that our parents are our parents or not.”

Complete silence.

“The reason is that we did not witness the act of intercourse between our parents when we were conceived. We were not present to identify whose sperm it was that fertilised the ovum in our mother’s womb. We take our parents word for it that they are our parents. We consider our parents to be honest and truthful in the matter. We do not question them their integrity. In the same way, your children will have to take your word that you are their father and that their mother is really their mother. Is that not so, professor?”
The professor lifts up his head. He looks up at the Muslim student. One can see his face clearing up as some understanding dawns on him. The anger is gone. Very slowly he repeats, “We take the words of our parents.. We take the words of our parents…”
“Yes, professor. There are so many things that we have to take the word of others. The existence of air, of oxygen, of molecules, of atoms, and so forth. So, when it comes to matters that are metaphysical, from our real scientific research we know that there have been no persons existing in the world more honest and reliable than those who are termed Messengers (Rasools). We Muslims are prepared to stake our lives on the fact that Muhammed – peace be on him – had an absolutely flawless character. He never lied to anybody. His integrity was such that even his avowed enemies called him ‘Al-Ameen’ (the Truthful).If he said that God (Allah) exists – and we are prepared to accept the word of our parents that they are our parents- then, in all sincerity and honesty, we have to accept his word for it, as we have to accept many other things – the existence of Paradise and Hell; the existence of angels; the coming of the Day of Judgement; accounting to God for our deeds in this world; and many other concepts. Besides this one point, there are many other pointers to the existence of God (Allah).The Revelation called ‘Al-Quran’ is there for anybody to study. It has certain specific challenges for anybody who has any doubts. These challenges have not been met in the fourteen hundred years of its existence. If one is not prepared to believe in such a Messenger – peace be on him – then it is pure hypocrisy to accept the word of scientists, whose doctrines keep on changing, and even to believe in the word of our parents. Judging from the number of law-suits that take place every year in our courts, where parents deny parentage of their offspring, and also taking into account that there are innumerable babies conceived from donor sperms of men who are strangers, and also the fact that innumerable infants are adopted in infancy by childless couples and brought up as their own children, statistically there is room for a large degree of error in any person’s claim that his/her parents are really his/her biological parents.”
Turning to the class the Muslim student concludes. “It is every individual’s duty to learn more about Islam. Al-Quran is there for everybody to study. Enough literature also available on Islam. It is my duty only to inform you that the only Truth is Islam. There is no compulsion in religion. Clearly the right way has become distinct from error; And he who rejects false deities and believes in Allah (God), has grasped a firm handhold which will never break; And Allah is All-Hearing and All-Knowing. Having informed you, it is also my duty to invite you to join the brotherhood of Muslims by embracing Islam. Allah is the Protecting Guardian of those who believe. He brings them out of darkness into the light. As for those who disbelieve, their guardians are false deities. They bring them out of light into darkness… These are verses from Al-Quran – Words of the Almighty – which I have quoted to you.”

The Muslim student looks at his watch. “Professor and students, I thank you for having giving me the opportunity to explain these issues to you. If you would kindly excuse me, I have to go to the mosque for my prayers. Peace on those who are rightly guided.”

[Down-loaded from the Internet, published and enlarged. Author unknown.]


FacetoFloor's Weblog


Among the challenges for Muslims in the West in refuting secular ideology is the need to frame the discussion properly. Many Muslims attempt to argue for the Deen within a secular framework—taking secular notions for granted and failing to examine the inconsistencies and absurdities that underlie secularism. Bi’idhnillah, our intention here is to address this challenge.

Our First Principle

We say that there is an Eternal, Incomparable, Transcendent (Free-of-Need) Creator. The proof for this is that the world exists. The world can’t be beginningless (for this would lead to the fallacy of the infinite regression). The world can’t be self-created. The non-existent could not produce something—for action requires existence. The non-existent can’t act; a thing must be to do. From this, reason necessitates the recognition of the Creator. The Creator must be One (there could not be a duality or a multitude of Creators). The…

View original post 2,745 more words