New Atheists & Sarah Palin Agree: Arrest Clock-Wielding Muslims Just In ...

Being a Muslim and British values

I was listening to the BBC World Service the other day and listened partially to a programme (I think it was the World Have Your Say programme) where a BBC interviewer was interviewing Muslim school girls in the UK. The gist of the interview was investigating possible Muslim sympathies with the Islamic State and exploring where these perhaps come from.  One line of enquiry was whether such sympathies were taught in the mosque.  During the interview I was amazed to hear the interviewer mention "British values" and she asked how are these reconciled with being a Muslim. As an example of a "British value" the interviewer mentioned same sex marriage. This led me to the immediate question - is same sex marriage a British value?

Of all the possible values that you could say are British, I found it odd that the interviewer mentioned same sex marriage. Indeed, given the history of the British Isles and the fact that same sex marriage has only recently been recognised under UK law, I don't believe it is correct to say that this is a British value.  I can understand that tolerance is a British value. I can understand that respecting the law of the land (which allows same sex marriage) is a British value.

Indeed, for those who believe in Scripture and/or the Quran which quite clearly does not accept same sex marriage, can we say that those people who hold such beliefs do not reflect British values for not accepting/agreeing with same sex marriage? Isn't "tolerance" of different views a British value? I am sure that the Church of England does not agree to same sex marriage as a matter of principle.  Indeed, in a democracy, isn't it one of the fundamental principles that we can have different views on a topic BUT we tolerate them? It doesn't mean we accept them to the point we agree, we condone or we encourage.

I think it has to be accepted that we must expect that those who believe in Scripture and/or the Quran (which is clearly opposed to same sex marriage) that they will not accept or agree to same sex marriage. So, I don't think we can say that acceptance of same sex marriage is a "British value". For that matter, what is a British value?

I don't think it is a surprise that people who believe in Scripture and/or the Quran do not accept same sex marriage but I don't think that is a basis to infer such people as being opposed to British values.

Is Snapchat Satanic?

As a Muslim, as a believer, I belive in the "unseen". Part of the "unseen" is the world of the jinn and Satan (Iblis) and his jinn (demon) followers. The difficulty for a believer in such things is how to verify their existence? Can we prove the "unseen" exists? Certainly, an inability to prove something "unseen" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Until our understanding of science developed we were unable to prove the existence of "unseen" things such as gravity and magnetism.

In this light I was disturbed to see Snapchat's recent introduction of allowing users to video themselves vomiting rainbows. I will say that again, vomiting rainbows. Maybe I am too old to understand (I am in my 40s) but why would someone want to see themselves vomiting a rainbow? The zombie face, I can understand. Change your appearance and shock your friends and family. But vomiting rainbows? What does it mean?

As far as I could find out vomiting rainbows means you find something too sweet - sickly sweet. Ok. But is this such a popular thing that it is added as a feature to Snapchat? Obviously it is. So why do people want to show themselves vomiting rainbows? The most popular answer I received to this question is that it is "fun". Really? This is fun? Maybe I don't have the right sense of humour to see the "fun" here.

Actually, I find the image shocking and, to me, Satanic. This depiction is what I imagine a demon to look like. I think this is the popular image that we all think a demon looks like. But how, have we ever seen a real demon?

Why do we think that demons have horns and big eyes? Just fantasy? We made it up? Collectively?

What about vomiting? I cannot think of anything positive about this. Of course the symbolism is unpleasant.

What I find strange is why would anyone want to depict themselves like this? Ok, maybe a few people perhaps, but such a number that it warrants its own application on Snapchat? Wow. This led me to thinking how did this come about. Certainly, to me, the depiction looks Satanic, it makes people look like demons. I have two thoughts on this. Say the "unseen" is true - that there really are demons - wouldn't they want their natural enemy - humankind - to depict themselves as demons? Who knows?

Putting the demonic copying to one side - isn't it that this is truly a waste of time? Does anyone need to send to another person a picture of themselves vomiting a rainbow?  In Islam, we believe that one of the tricks of Satan (Iblis) is to waste our time - preoccupy us with irrelevant and foolish matters. I think anyone reading this article who has teenage children will agree that whilst smart phones are incredible devices with very many wonderful uses - how often do our children waste their time with pointless activities on them? Could there be a more pointless activity than showing yourself vomit a rainbow?

One thing we can all agree on is that our time on Earth is limited. Again, we can agree we should use our time constructively and usefully. I don't think there is time for depicting ourselves vomiting a rainbow.

An inevitable clash between belief and science - virgin birth of Jesus

You might be surprised to know that the Quran refers to the virgin birth of Jesus.  In fact, it is a requirement of the Islamic faith to believe in this.

So how to reconcile a virgin birth with science? I don't think you can.  You can talk of assexual reproduction but do we have any scientific examples of this in humans? This is an issue that you either believe or you do not. There is no scientific basis (as we know to today) to explain this. So how come some people believe and others do not? This issue is dealt with in the Quran itself.

Quran - Surah Maryam 19:16 - 34

The Quran reveals that Mary was visited by the Angel Gabriel and she conceived a son.  Mary says

"How can I have a son, when no man has touched me, nor am I unchaste" [19:20].

When Mary is experiencing the pains of childbirth she says

"Would that I died before this and had been forgotten and out of sight" [19:23].

Why is Mary saying this? She recognises the embarrassment of her situation - she is chaste - untouched by man but yet she is pregnant. What will her family think? What will the community think? We can easily imagine her predicament even in our relatively liberal times.  Note that Mary wishes she was dead. Indeed, when Mary returns to her people with the new born Jesus they say

"O sister of Aaron (Harun), your father was not a man who used to commit adultery, nor your mother was an unchaste woman" [19:28].

What are her people saying to Mary? What is the inference? If we imagine any young girl in this position today what would you think? So you can see the question of believing the virgin birth was at the very beginning, at the time of Jesus' birth. No need for a scientific perspective, the inference is clear.

For a moment, imagine the event replayed today with someone you know, someone who you believe (or believed) was chaste. Would you believe them?  Would you think I believe that the young girl believes her story but maybe something happened that she didn't recollect?  What a test?

I believe Mary. Why do I believe Mary? I believe the Quran is God (Allah) inspired and it contains no errors. I also believe that this event (or story if you disbelieve) would not have been recorded in history if it didn't have other corroborating factors. Indeed, how many teenage pregnancies have occurred throughout the ages?  Why did this event (or story) stick? Why are we talking about it today? Well, it just so happened that the child born to Mary did turn out to be a very special man - I don't think there is much doubt or at least any evidence to show that Mary was not the mother of Jesus. Isn't it a coincidence that the boy born of virgin birth came to be a significant figure in our history (not to mention the three main monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Doesn't this mean something? Isn't it a bit more than a coincidence?

Have you any experience of speaking to an innocent person charged with a crime but they cannot prove they didn't do it? Usually, there will be additional data points to point to the truth. Is the person usually honest? Science cannot in all circumstances determine the truth of a particular event.

What I find amazing about the mentioning of the virgin birth of Jesus in the Quran is that it (to my mind) succinctly describes Mary's predicament. Imagine, Mary, the mother of a prophet, visited by the Angel Gabriel, wishing she was dead because of her virgin pregnancy. The Quran shows that this was a difficult matter to explain. Look at the reaction of Mary's people.

"O sister of Aaron (Harun), your father was not a man who used to commit adultery, nor your mother was an unchaste woman" [19:28].

What are Mary's people saying? We can imagine.

So, do you believe in the virgin birth of Jesus? Science will not help you believe. All we have to go on is that Mary was reported to be a young girl of unblemished character, a pious young lady. We have her word (assuming you don't doubt that she claimed this). We have the fact that the child born of the event was a remarkable figure. A coincidence? And for Muslims, we have this recorded in the Quran which we believe to be the infallible word of God (Allah).

I would be interested to know if Christians believe in the virgin birth? Do they really believe? Notwithstanding the fact that to believe is to fly in the face of our scientific understanding today. For those who do not believe what are they saying? What is the evidence not to believe Mary?

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

After posting this post I received a good deal of feedback as to why some people do believe Mary and the virgin birth of Jesus. Let's look at how such people believe?

Well, let's look at the facts.  That's right, FACTS.  The fact is that Mary gave birth to a significant person in history. Putting aside whether Jesus was a prophet (as believed by Muslims) or son of God (as believed by Christians), Jesus is an amazing historical figure. How many of us know of Jesus? How many other historical figures do we know?  What are the chances of a claim of virgin birth AND the child who is born of such birth being such a remarkable figure?  When we say remarkable, how remarkable? Well, a person who has a religion based on him - that religion is the largest in the World - plus Jesus is honoured in the second largest religion in the World. So when we say a significant historical figure - perhaps one of the most significant historical figures.

Is all of this a coincidence? It would be such a remarkable coincidence that you have to say that a coincidence is unlikely.  Surely, more than coincidence?  So if not coincidence?

Who wrote the bible?

It seems to me that the science proves religion wrong debate is based largely on finding scientific errors in the Bible and then using this to show that the Bible cannot be divine and therefore dismissing the entire notion that a "creator" was responsible for creating the universe, the Earth and mankind. This led me to thinking who wrote the Bible? Is the Bible the word of God? Is it God inspired? Is it correct in every aspect?

The book "Who Wrote The Bible?" by Richard Elliott Friedman provides a scholarly analysis of who wrote the Bible and, based on evidence, shows that for the first five books of the old testament that there is a strong case to show that a number of different authors wrote the Bible. Indeed, Mr Friedman shows how different authors wrote/compiled the first 5 books of the Bible in accordance with their own social and political perspectives. This isn't cheap shot at dismissing the authenticity of the Bible, it is a scholarly study based on evidence.

If we take the evidence presented by Mr Friedman as authentic (and I have no reason to doubt this) it is clear that the Bible, or at least the first 5 books, were not written by a prophet of God, certainly it appears they were not written by the prophet Moses.

Indeed, Mr Friedman's conclusions are mentioned in the Quran: 2:79

Sahih International: So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

Pickthall: Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.

Yusuf Ali: Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

Shakir: Woe, then, to those who write the book with their hands and then say: This is from Allah, so that they may take for it a small price; therefore woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

Muhammad Sarwar: Woe to those who write the Book themselves and say, "This is from God," so that they may sell it for a small price! Woe unto them for what they have done and for what they have gained!

Mohsin Khan: Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allah," to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby. 

Arberry: So woe to those who write the Book with their hands, then say, 'This is from God,' that they may sell it for a little price; so woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for their earnings.

This is not to belittle the Bible or to cheaply say that the Quran is better than the Bible. It is agreed amongst the biblical scholars that no one knows who wrote the Bible. This is an important fact when considering whether it contains a divine message.  Whilst one could say that the Bible is "God inspired" and leave it at that - it seems absurd to do this when the historical evidence appears to show that editing and refinement took place - by whom we do not know - for what purpose - we can only guess at.  

If we therefore have doubts over the divinity of the Bible we therefore cannot simply say that scientific errors in the Bible mean there isn't a creator.  The scientific errors in the Bible would, if anything, suggest that the Bible isn't divine. Finding the Bible to be error strewn isn't proof that the universe wasn't created by an intelligent designer. 

The Quran in comparison has a much clearer history with less doubt as to its authorship.  I would also say that I am unaware of any clear contradictions in the Quran to scientific facts.  Indeed, Islam has never had the aversion to science that Christianity has had.  If anything, we can see from the historical record that after the revelation of the Quran there was a burst of scientific knowledge. Did you know that the names of stars have Arabic origins? 

Does the finding of an extinct human like species really mean that there isn't a creator?

The Independent ran an article today with the heading "Sorry creationists, but scientists have found an entirely new species of human" (see the above screen shot).

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/sorry-creationists-but-scientists-have-found-an-entirely-new-species-of-human--ZJG6L_Gk8e?utm_source=indy&utm_medium=top5&utm_campaign=i100

This led me to ask myself - is this really the case? Does the finding of an extinct species mean there is no creator? Well, I don't think this is the case. From a scientific perspective, there is no "science" to prove that there is no creator. At best, the case is inferential, the inference being that humans gradually evolved from pre-human species. Again, what is the scientific evidence for this? I think it is fair to say that this isn't conclusive.

The fossil record hasn't really shown the gradual evolution - the fossil record seems to show long periods of stasis (no change) with species appearing fully formed and then departing into extinction. Defenders of the view that there is no creator (based on the inferences of evolution) say that we are lucky to have the fossils that we have and that it would be foolish to think we will ever have a complete record to show the gradual evolution of one species into another. However, such a view of itself isn't "scientific".

From an Islamic perspective it is clear that Allah created man.  Does this mean Allah created man by the process of evolution and natural selection? Was man placed on the Earth fully formed? These are questions I will explore and hopefully proffer an answer. Certainly, for now, I don't think we can say that the finding of extinct human like species means that there isn't a creator.

The World couldn't have been created by chance could it?

The World couldn't have been created by chance could it?

I am currently working on writing a book to explain how people believe there is a God. In my efforts to write my book I have been reading up on scientific discoveries and how "believers" see these as signs of God - an intelligent creator/designer.

As part of my reading  I came across the above article entitled "How the World's most notorious atheist changed his mind". I was interested to read that Mr Antony Flew changed his mind about the existence of a god because he felt that the complexity of life and the universe could only be explained by the existence of an intelligent source.  He concluded that to suppose life and the universe came about by accident or chance was illogical.

Here is an extract from the article:

Dr. Benjamin Wiker: You say in There is a God, that "it may well be that no one is as surprised as I am that my exploration of the Divine has after all these years turned from denial...to discovery." Everyone else was certainly very surprised as well, perhaps all the more so since on our end, it seemed so sudden. But in There is a God, we find that it was actually a very gradual process—a "two decade migration," as you call it. God was the conclusion of a rather long argument, then. But wasn't there a point in the "argument" where you found yourself suddenly surprised by the realization that "There is a God" after all? So that, in some sense, you really did "hear a Voice that says" in the evidence itself "'Can you hear me now?'"

Antony Flew: There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself—which is far more complex than the physical Universe—can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.

http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/

The ironic thing is that many seem to point to science as a basis for their disbelief in God (intelligent designer) however the science doesn't disprove the existence of God.

Quran 3:190

Sahih International

Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding.