Why Do We Like The West?

We do not only like to be in a Western country, we love to be in one. And there are other reasons to it apart from money, beauty, culture, art and all the liberty. Consider this for an example:

As a part of my application for a driving theory test in Denmark earlier in June this year, I had to appear for something that is known as to be able to drive on a slippery road. As a part of my rehearsals there I was supposed to take an interpreter for me who would help me in translating the instructions given on radio in Danish to English. This was mandatory as I had listed that I needed an interpreter as my Danish is not so good. At the nick of the time all the few friends I had talked to about this to go with me to the interview did not turn out for some odd reason. I finally had to go to the slippery ground alone. The instructors there did not agree to let me in without an interpreter and asked me to bring one by giving me a short span of time. After trying to call a few more acquaintances and failing I walked to a taxi standing nearby as a last hope. The taxi driver was not only very friendly but he was also extremely honest. And this came to me as no surprise. I told him about my problem and he started ringing all over to his friends to find me an interpreter. Eventually the person arranged for me a person who was Danish and also knew English. The person would not only charge a lot less than most other person and this is what that nice taxi driver explained to me how and why should he charge like this. Examples such as this are not few about Western friendliness and honesty, somethings which come for free most of the times. 

Why Should I Become an Atheist?

After reading a book like "The End of Faith", many people would want to convert to atheism. There could be many compelling reasons for that. After getting the idea that all one has is a short life, with the present moment as its most precious gift, without an otherworldly life and with no God in sight. Indeed, the idea that there is no God and, consequently, no after-life is a source of great relief too. This gives one the possibility of availing the endless opportunities and exploring the endless avenues which would otherwise have been prohibited due to more or less strict religious laws. Indeed, the idea that a personal God is constantly monitoring one's actions   can be a great source of inhibition for pursuing many fantasies.

But the main reason why a person would believe in such a book, or message therein, would depend on that person's belief in the author, or the messenger. That belief comes from the trustworthiness of the latter. This is to say that if the author of a very nicely written book having compelling reasons for its readers to take its message seriously was himself a complete impostor, nobody would take the book seriously. That veritable traits such as honesty, sincerity, truthfulness, a general predisposition towards innocence and a lack of social crookedness etc. are to be considered more seriously as parameters of credibility as opposed to scientific acumen, wit, eloquence, intelligence quotient etc.

If we look at the spectrum of personalities that inhabit the Western continents, where atheism is flourishing, we find that it is quite easy to find many people that are quite credible. This is what makes atheism quite attractive as an idea for life. In other words, this is the main reason why one would want to develop a disbelief in a super-natural being that controls the lives of people and an after-life.

Personal credibility plays a great role in making people believe in ideas. Consider this person who had lived in a town for around 40 years and he had never cheated, stolen, lied, or had never done anything, what so ever, immoral  otherwise. As a matter of fact the person has been found to have immaculate and extraordinary personal character from the point of view of the Western scholars also. A good example of this can be found here. It is this reputation of him that walks two steps ahead of him and makes people believe that they should consider him as the Prophet of God when he proclaims to be so. It is this reason that when Muhammad (PBUH) made his way to Mount Safa, the most well-known hill in Makkah, to announce the message of Islam to its people and asked the crowds, "O people! Will you believe me if I say there is an army marching behind this mountain which is about to attack you?".

They all answered, 'Of course we would, we have not heard a lie from you throughout your life'.

Muhammad, The Last Prophet (saw) said, 'O people of the Quraish! I warn you to fear God's punishment. Save yourself from the fire. My position is the same as that of the sentry who sees the enemy from afar and warns his people of the danger of their enemies. Does such a person ever lie to his people?'

It is this message, that was delivered by one of the most credible persons of history, that makes one think that he might as well be right on his account of existence of God and the prospect of an afterlife. 

On Dishonesty of The Muslims!

Hi Sam, I hope that you are doing well. After my last post on your wall, I have decided to try to address another of your articles titled, "Honesty: The Muslim Worlds Scarcest Resource". This is a difficult thing to do as you have quoted verses from the Quran in this article and you have left people only with a binary choice: either to refute or to endorse the verses. I have chosen to write my comments and thoughts about them. First of all, I have to admit that even though I have recited Quran a number of times in my life, I have never read it, This is to say that I have done the recitation in Arabic which I can only read but not understand. To understand Quran one has to revert to some translation of it in a language that one understands, which are normally English and Urdu in my case. I have to emphasize that this is normally the case with most of the Pakistani people. I cannot claim this about Muslims of other countries though but I can anticipate that for people other than the Arabic speaking Muslim countries the situation would be the same. I can very well imagine that for Muslim converts, specially belonging to the European and other Western countries, the situation would be radically different. I speculate that an average European converted Muslim would be a lot more aware of the text and contents of the Quran than an average Muslim belonging to a typical Muslim country. I attribute this primarily to the innate curiosity I have observed in people living in Western countries about whatever subject they encounter. I also attribute this to the fact that Muslims who were born and raised in Muslim countries, families or neighborhoods tend to take Islam for granted (if it has to be considered a gift of any kind). I have to further admit that I have never been a formal student of philosophy or logic. I would try to sound as much rational as possible, but I expect my naivety or lack of rationality be forgiven but not overlooked. I have to say this because I may want to continue this work in future as well without coming across as a nuisance to the reader who is specifically inclined towards reason over dogma. I hope that the way I want to express myself would improve by the passage of time.

Islam, like almost all other religions, claims to be the true religion of God.  Islam also claims that Quran is the true, ultimate and final word of God. Islam also claims that Muhammad (PBUH) is the final Prophet of God. Islam also claims to obsolete Christianity and Judaism as earlier versions of Islam itself.  For other religions, like Hinduism for example, Islam does not even consider them as religions of God i.e. Allah. Islam has also addressed atheism by labeling it as wrong. So how does this minimize the conflict? This piece of information, and everything that is based around it, which can be found elsewhere on the web and in the libraries, actually adds to the multidimensional conflict the humanity is in at the moment. This obfuscates the problem because even after almost one and a half millenium of its advent its preceding religions, Christianity and Judaism, still claim to be the true religions of God. Added to this are the present circumstances we live in, where we have all the technology and infrastructure to create and propagate new and interesting ideas about so many subjects. The problem gets further obfuscated if we look at it from the lens of an intellectual who demands adherents of a system of beliefs to rationally argue in favor of the beliefs they hold dear to themselves. This, in my point of view, is an extremely reasonable demand although it is difficult to meet. This also demands a lot of hard work and immense intellectual honesty.

The point of writing this article is to try to offer an honest explanation of the points you have raised in your article titled; "Honesty: The Muslim Worlds Scarcest Resource". I shall now come to this. I presume that what you have challenged the ordinary Muslims to endorse (or to refute to) in this article are the various verses of the Quran where the God has himself mocked the infidels, and not only that, He has also asked the Muslims to kill them. I am not going to address each and every verse. I am only going to address the rather more critical verses where the God has asked the Muslims to kill the infidels. IN other words, I am going to pick the verses which appear to me as more sword-like. For the purpose of brevity, I am going to skip the verses where the God has mocked the infidels themselves. The only thing I have to say about this is that this is something God holds personally against the infidels. This is to say that Islam believes in a personal God and according to the Islamic point of view everyone is accountable for their personal doings. I also have to add here that a lot of Quran has to be read in context. This means that it has to be read with the help of a suitable explanation. This is important because if it is read out of context the meaning of whole verses gets distorted. I have chosen Tafsir Ibn Kathir for this purpose which is a well known and widely accepted source of explanation for the Quran. 

Most sword-like of these are the three verses from the second chapter of the Quran titled Al-Baqarah (meaning, "The Calf") in English. These are verses 190-193 which are stated below one after the other.

وَقَاتِلُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلاَ تَعْتَدُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ         لاَيُحِبِّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ      

Translation: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight against you *200 but do not commit aggression because AIIah does not like aggressors. *201

Explanation: *200. The believers are asked to fight those who hindered their efforts in the cause of God, and acted with hostility towards them merely because they sought to fashion human life according to the revealed guidance of God. Earlier, when they were weak and scattered, the Muslims were asked merely to preach and be patient with the wrongful repression meted out to them by their opponents. However, now that a small city state had been established in Madina they were commanded for the first time to unsheathe their swords against those who had resorted to armed hostility against their movement of reform. It was some time after this injunction that the Battle of Badr took place, to be followed by several other battles. 

*201. The believers are told that material interests should not be the motivation for their fighting, that they should not take up arms against those who were not in opposition to the true faith, that they should not resort to unscrupulous methods or to the indiscriminate killing and pillage which characterized the wars of the pre-Islamic era, the Age of Ignorance. The excesses alluded to in this verse are acts such as taking up arms against women and children, the old and the injured, mutilation of the dead bodies of the enemy, uncalled-for devastation through the destruction of fields and livestock, and other similar acts of injustice and brutality. In the Hadith all these acts have been prohibited. The real intent of the verse is to stress that force should be used only when its use is unavoidable, and only to the extent that is absolutely necessary.

وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ ثَقِفْتُمُوهُمْ وَأَخْرِجُوهُم مِّنْ حَيْثُ أَخْرَجُوكُمْ وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ وَلاَ تُقَاتِلُوهُمْ عِندَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ حَتَّى يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِيهِ فَإِن قَاتَلُوكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُمْ كَذَلِكَ جَزَاء الْكَافِرِينَ

Translation: (2:191) Fight against them wherever they confront you in combat and drive them out from where they drove you out. Though killing is bad. persecution is worse than killing *202 Do not fight against them near the Masjid Haram unless they attack you there.

Explanation: *202. Here the word fitnah is used in the sense of 'persecution'. It refers to a situation whereby either a person or a group is subjected to harassment and intimidation for having accepted, as true, a set of ideas contrary to those currently held, and for striving to effect reforms in the existing order of society by preaching what is good and condemning what is wrong. Such a situation must be changed, if need be, by the force of arms. 

Bloodshed is bad, but when one group of people imposes its ideology and forcibly prevents others from accepting the truth, then it becomes guilty of an even more serious crime. In such circumstances, it is perfectly legitimate to remove that oppressive group by the force of arms.  

فَإِنِ انتَهَوْاْ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

Translation: (2:192) And if they attack you first (even in that sacred area), strike them (without any hesitation); this is the due punishment for such disbelievers. If, however, they desist from fighting (you should also do likewise), and know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful *203 .

Explanation: *203. God, in whom the believers have faith, is forgiving and ready to pardon even the worst criminals and sinners after they have renounced their arrogant defiance towards Him. It is suggested that this attribute of God should be reflected in the behaviour of the believers as well. As the saying goes: 'Mould your morals according to the attributes of God.' Hence, Whenever the believers have to resort to armed conflict, they should do so not for the sake of quenching their thirst for vengeance but in the cause of God's religion. Their conflict with any group should last only as long as that group resists the cause of God. As soon as it gives up this resistance hostility should cease.

وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لاَ تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ لِلّهِ فَإِنِ انتَهَواْ فَلاَ عُدْوَانَ إِلاَّ عَلَى الظَّالِمِينَ

Translation: (2:193) Go on fighting with them till there is no more a state of tribulation and Allah's way is established instead. *204 Then if they desist from it, there should be no more hostility except against those who had been guilty of cruelty and brutality. *205

*204. Here the term fitnah is used in a different sense from the one in which it was used above (see verse 191). It is evident from the context that fitnah refers here to the state of affairs wherein the object of obedience is someone other than God. Hence the purpose of a believer's fighting is that this fitnah should cease and obedience should be consecrated to God alone. 

An investigation of the usages of the word din (which occurs in this verse) reveals that the core of its meaning is obedience. In its technical usage, the word refers to that systern of life which arises as a result of a person recognizing someone as his Lord and Sovereign and committing himself to following his commands and ordinances. This explanation of the word din makes it quite clear that when some human beings establish their godhead and absolute dominance over others, this state of affairs is one of fitnah. Islam seeks to put an end to this and replace it by a state of affairs in which people live in obedience to the laws of God alone. 

*205. What is meant here by 'desisting' is not the abandonment of unbelief and polytheism on the part of the unbelievers but rather their desistance from active hostility to the religion enjoined by God. The unbeliever, the polytheist, the atheist, has each been, empowered to hold on to his beliefs and to worship who and whatever he wishes. In order to deliver these people from their error, Muslims are required to counsel them and tell them where their good lies. But Muslims ought not to try to achieve this purpose by resorting to force. At the same time, these misguided people have no right to either enforce the false laws of their own contriving instead of the laws of God or to drive the people of God to bondage of others than God. In order to put an end to this fitnah, both persuasion and force be used, whenever and to the extent to which each of the two is needed, and a true believer will not rest until the unbelievers give up this fitnah. 

The statement that hostility is meant only against wrong-doers seems to imply that when the true system of life replaces the false one, ordinary people should be granted a general amnesty. At the same time, however, it would be justifiable to punish those who exceeded all limits in their hostility to the Truth, at the time when they held the reins of power. Yet in dealing with such people, it becomes the true believers, after they have one final victory, to adopt a general attitude of forgiveness and tolerance towards the vanquished rather than subject them to revenge for the wrongs they committed in the past. Those criminals whose records were exceptionally bad could, however, be punished. The Prophet (peace be on him), availed himself of this permission in respect of some notorious enemies whose hostility had exceeded all limits, even though pardon and forgiveness behoved none more than him. Thus 'Uqbah ibn Abi Mu'avt and Nadr b. Harith from among the captives of the Battle of Badr were put to death and when a general amnesty, was proclaimed after the conquest of Makka four out of seventeen persons were executed. (See Ibn Hisham, vol. 1, p. 644 and vol. 2, pp. 409 ff. - Ed.). The link to an online version of the book is here. These acts were based on the permission to put to the sword those who have been conspicuously ruthless in their hostility to Islam and the Muslims. 

One may argue then that why is Islam religion of peace then if their Prophet (PBUH) had to execute himself his enemies while he could have easily forgiven them. There are various answers to these questions which can be found elsewhere on the web. There are obviously arguments in the favor of the Prophet and then there are critiques that question the genuineness of his Prophethood. Indeed the curious student of religion (and particularly of Islam) should keep on trying to find the truth. What is interesting to note, in these verses, however, is that even though Muslims have been allowed to use power and force to try to quell forces that make a hindrance in their way while they try to live their lives according to the tenets of Islam, they have been allowed to do so only with caution, by following a certain set of rules, and by having due regard for other peoples beliefs and ideas. To this end, I would briefly try to comment on the highlighted parts of the explanation of verse 2:193. The first sentence highlighted as black piece of text explains what Quran means by the word 'desist'. The second part highlighted as green clearly talks about everybody else, including atheists, that they have a right to worship anything else they hold themselves dear to. One may get offended by the use of the word 'empower' here. I might have gotten offended if I were an atheist by inferring that how does anybody, whether a human being or a God of peoples' imagination, have the authority to 'empower' me into believing or worshipping anything I would like to do while I am already a free-man. Resentment to Quran's authoritative style by use of such words can grow further if I look at the opposition of it, or of other books like this, and their hypothetical authors, and their apostles, as the sole purpose my life. This rather invokes an emotion of rebelliousness in my intellectually motivated assumed self. But the bottom-line, however is that Islam somehow allow everyone to practice whatever they want to practice. I also presume that this has been asserted about an Islamic state. I have heard from many people that Muslims residing in non-Muslim states are required to abide by the rules and regulations of those states. So while living in Rome Muslims have to do as Romans do. Of course, they have to abide by laws which are not in conflict with the teachings of Islam.

The next line, in red, instructs Muslims to counsel the non-Muslims to embrace Islam as the right path, without resorting to the use of force. That non-Muslims are not not allowed to force their ideas upon Muslims is emphasized next. And that whenever Muslims are being forced into believing ideas of non-Muslims, they are recommended to use persuasion and force to resist this. I think that this would happen in the worst scenarios.    

After having read this, however, there is no denying that Islam is actually not a religion of terror, or turmoil or oppression. Thanks to this current wave of Islamo-phobic sentiments from various parts of the world that we have to actually open up the Quran and read and try to understand that what does Islam actually stand for as a religion. 

It is also interesting to note and reiterate that Islam had the atheists in mind and made room for them.

One could keep on arguing in favor of, or against, certain things about Islam or other equivalent ideologies. I would rather to stop here and talk about something else for a while. Human beings have an innate ability to think. That whether there is a God who made thinking machines out of them or whether they thought themselves about some God(s) and developed ideas and evolved religions is a subject of keen scientific and academic investigation.

Try to hang around with a bunch of Muslims in any randomly chosen location of the world. This is to say that, that place could be a shopping center in the busy city of Lahore. A rural village in Pakistan. A bus station in CopenHagen, Denmark. Or a hostel dormitory in a far flung town of Western France. Try to eavesdrop on any conversation those people are having about infidels. Be they educated or illiterate, computer science researchers or ordinary dish washers, taxi drivers and cleaners. They all say one thing unanimously, which, when translated to plain English, simply means: that if these western people recite the kalimah Tayyaba, they would become better Muslims than us just by the virtue of having recited it and by the virtue of having better values than us. The point I am trying to make here is not that the people be forced in to reciting kalimah Tayyaba, and hence be forced in to embracing Islam. The point I am trying to make here is that, ordinary Muslims who have been to the Western countries are normally so very impressed by the general attitude of the people, their behaviors, their general honesty, candidness and courtesy towards all others alike. The point I am trying to make in short is that ordinary Muslims already hold people from foreign countries in high esteem. Ordinary Muslims do not, at the same time, consider themselves to have something which makes them better off than an ordinary Frenchman or a Dane. There are aspects about the Western society that nobody can deny that they have benefited the whole human society in general. Specially in our times we have, and we could have, benefitted a lot from the scientific and technological advancement most of which has happened in Western states. I am a member of a religious spiritual club which issues a monthly magazine on Islamic spirituality and that is full of allusions to many scientific achievements of the Western researchers in various fields that affect human development, ranging from medicine to meditation. The point I am trying to make is not that whether the Western or Islamic way of thinking about life is right or whether that Islam can co-exist with the West or not, the point I am trying to make is that I don't see a great deal of a dispute of ideas on the street.

Whether is a God or not, or whether we want to believe in one or not, if one exists, is a question more of intellectual speculation and should be addressed more in an academic spirit. Other than that, earth quakes are erupting, glaciers are falling, people are dying. For some it is wrath of God, for others it is will of God and yet for others it is the sheer absence of God.

(WORK IN PROGRESS)

A Free Thinker's Ride on Sam Harris's Wall

Hi Sam, I hope that you are doing well. I have read al most all of your significant articles and your books, namely, "The End of Faith" and "A Letter to a Christian Nation". So far, I have only been a passive reader of your work. And despite the fact that I am a Muslim, I enjoyed it. It gave me an alternative view on religion. An alternative view on how other human beings can look at religion. The answer to why I read your books is rather complicated and has many factors. But the most compelling answer to this, in my point of view, is that I have lived in Europe for quite a few years and the way the European society normally functions and the way the people are is often times extremely impressive. The people are good natured, honest with their work and candidly welcoming and despite all of this the countries are secular and people are mostly agnostic or atheistic. This is impressive. I wonder why an average European atheist is so nice. Nice to the extent that he normally doesn't know anything bad. This drew me closer to your book titled "The End of Faith" around last year this time. I found it extremely well written and thorough. In the book you have a special chapter titled "The problem with Islam" which is also extremely well written and the excerpts from which can be found elsewhere on the web. I have to admit that even though I am a Muslim, I cannot completely argue about the portions of the book firstly because my knowledge about the Quran is limited and secondly because you have raised some logical issues in it that require special attention to detail by a learned and an unbiased person (possibly an Islamic scholar) who has specialized in Islamic studies. I also have to admit that after reading the book, I, for the first time, not only understood atheism but also seriously considered it. This is to say that I had to ask this question to myself again and again that, is there really a God? a divine force who has created the universe and the life? Or stated simply, Is Allah really the God or just a mythical figure. I remember that I was in Copenhagen around that time trying to look for a postdoc position in a nice Danish university.

After having lived in Europe and after having studied and worked there for a while I believe that religion is not necessarily required to organize the society. Actually the way things have been, it is not required at all. Human beings, if they have a will and desire to improve things, can self-organize themselves and their surroundings.

What is the importance of religion then if people can live their lives by having good morals otherwise and can live peacefully? The need to having a religion becomes superfluous if people can get everything they need in their lives by the virtue of a good social order AND if there actually is no God. This last bit is something no one is sure about. Surely, as a religious person (like a Muslim or a christian or a Jew or a Hindu) cannot give the proof of existence of the God he or she believes in, an atheist cannot give a proof of the non-existence of God either. A religious person can only argue in favor of his existence by presenting the signs of his existence as portrayed in the religious texts. Similarly an atheist can only argue in the non-existence of God by possibly using scientific methods as tools. The end result of this is what we are seeing; a war of ideas, words and weapons on every level of the human society. For instance, your blogs are extremely heated up by the continuous bashing of Islam. Similarly,  in various places in the Muslim countries there are uproars against the USA.

Religion, however, is only important if what religion claims to be or have is actually true. Stated more specifically, and that too about Islam, is that, Islam is the true religion of God (or Allah, to be more specific) IF AND ONLY IF what we know about Islam is in reality true. and IF AND ONLY IF the God (or Allah, for that matter) actually exists and IS not an invention of the prehistoric Arabs or people of the middle-east. 

How can we know that? The answer is that it is not a very simple project to undertake. Nobody has ever seen God. And whether there is an afterlife is only known to the dead, with whom we cannot communicate. 

To this end, to satisfy my curiosity about this matter, I further investigated on the Internet to try to know anything I could about a possible afterlife. I came across your lecture titled "death and the present moment". In this lecture you say that we live in nothingness once we are dead. That mind is run by the brain and mind ceases to exist once the brain is dead. That we are as good as a dead animal once we are dead. That is to be dead is as if we were never born. That further intrigued me to research on as to what really happens once we are dead. I came across these ideas about "near death experiences" and "out of body experiences". I am not going to go in to the details regarding the nature of these experiments but the crux is that there is a certain part of the "self" that exists even once we are dead. The guys (who were normally western researchers) inferred that there IS an afterlife for the dead human-beings. 

Having said this, this does not mean at all that there is a God. Or even if there is one, that Islam is the true religion of God. This does not simply imply that. What it implies to me is that the existence of God is an all time open question the answer to which has not been found yet by so many scholars, scientists, and philosophers. 

This, however, does imply that there might or might not be a God. And if there is one, there might be a true religion and hence a true word of God. The consequence of thinking like this is that both the religious people as well as the atheists should soften up a little bit on this topic and try to adopt alternative approaches to addressing this problem. For instance, adopting the scientific method is a really good option. So, for instance, you may appoint a PhD student in your lab to develop a thesis "Is there really a God?" (jokes aside). Burning Holy scriptures and mocking religious figures (like Muhammad (PBUH) or Buddha) only creates more unrest in the society.

I think that a very viable option for you, and I seriously recommend that you do it, is to engage in open dialogues with religious (Islamic) scholars. I think that this is very important that you ask openly and honestly, on the media, various questions related to the verses of Quran specially where the God has demanded to kill the infidels. This is extremely important for the society to understand as well. So, for instance, you can challenge an Islamic scholar of your choosing to come to CNN or BBC, for instance, to address your questions. This would otherwise be very interesting for the general education of masses.

I like your work on free will. I will have to spare ample time to read and understand it.