Books and Documents

Islam and Science (22 Sep 2016 NewAgeIslam.Com)

Science and Religion

By Naseer Ahmed, New Age Islam

22 September 2016

Can Science and Religion ever reconcile? In popular imagination, Science is based on reason and Religion is based on faith. Speaking historically, belief without a good rational basis or evidence may have been a necessity in the past, but today, this is neither necessary nor a good thing. Today blind belief is more harmful than blind rejection but acceptance on a rational basis is not only good but indispensable to leading a truly “moral” life with values that are transcendental and not merely utilitarian.

Religion gave us concepts and moral principles that were far beyond the capacity of human minds to fully comprehend their utility and role in leap frogging their society on the scale of civilization. However, once these were practised as a religious duty and the benefits became obvious, the concept became understandable from hindsight and over a period even self-evident. These ideas or concepts or moral principles then became a part of rational inquiry in philosophy and helped develop what came to be known as “practical ethics” or ethical values based on practical or utilitarian considerations. In religion the same principle of say honesty is absolute and without practical or utilitarian considerations but simply in reverence for the law of God.  A person will thus be honest even if he stands to lose and has everything to gain by being dishonest if honesty is a moral value.  The fact that it also has a practical value is secondary. If it is only an ethical value then he may compromise after weighing the pros and cons of honest behaviour in a given situation. Without first practising honesty as a religious duty, its practical value may never have become known to mankind. Therefore belief in religion helped mankind to practice moral principles before the practical value became evident.

To us who have grown with the moral/ethical precepts, the principles may look self-evident but imagine a person who has not been taught about right and wrong, good and bad, truth and falsehood etc. If he is watching a movie and sees a scene of snatching of a gold chain, the scene is perfectly understandable to him. Even a monkey snatches what takes it fancy. However, if he sees a person finding a gold chain and then making efforts to find its owner and return it, this would not make any sense to him at all unless he can associate such behaviour with moral principles. If he has not learnt those moral principles, such a scene would make him think the person is stupid. Criminals and psychopaths are such persons who have for whatever reason never imbibed moral principles.

Consider for example, the golden rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. This is an idea which to my mind transformed us from the state of living as savages into a civilization. Religions taught us not only “moral behaviour” but gave us shared values which built trust and cooperation among people sharing the same religious beliefs. Speaking generally, to this day we trust coreligionists and distrust people from other religions. That is the reason we need inter-faith dialogue with people from other religions to find common ground which helps build trust from knowledge of what is common and shared.

We know for a fact that many civilizations co-existed in different parts of the world and may have lived without contact with each other for a long period before they developed the means to venture out and make contact with people in distant lands. Then if the golden rule is what transformed every such society, then it must be common to all people and all religions. Indeed, this appears to be a fact. It is found in all major and minor religions in all parts of the world.

Was this golden rule given by religion? Why is this question important? If religion is thought to be a construct of the human mind, then the question is unimportant but if we are to investigate the claim of the theists that their scriptures are divinely inspired or revelations from God, then the question is relevant. All academic disciplines are based on “reason” and take it as axiomatic that there is no God and that everything is just a result of the evolutionary process. With such an “axiom” as the starting point, the claim of the theists is never taken seriously or put to a scientific test. We will depart from such a stand and investigate the claim in as scientific a manner as possible since Science by its very nature is bound to pursue any theory that holds a promise of leading to the truth - else it is not Science but superstition.

We will also rely on the Quran for our investigation because it makes claims that no other book of scriptures makes which makes it eminently suitable for a scientific analysis. The claims are:

1.       There is only one God and that the Quran is a revelation from the one and only God.

2.       It confirms previous scriptures and religions and says that Islam is not a new religion but the religion of God all through the ages.

3.       It says that prophets have been sent to all nations at different periods in history for the guidance of the people and that many of these prophets were contemporaneous.

4.       The followers claim that the Book is preserved as it was revealed.

5.       It is in a language that is still spoken.

6.       It claims that Muhammad is the last of the Prophets.

7.       It confirms that the Quran has given the complete “Deen” or the Islamic way of life or the “Moral way of life”

8.       It provides a method to test whether the scripture can be from any other source other than God.

The verses that provide the test criteria are several but the test is the same:

(2:23) And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true. (24) But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith.

(17:88) Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur´an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.

What is being compared in the challenge to produce a Sura or chapter like thereunto? Every scholar of the Quran has only talked about the linguistic excellence of the Quran but that is a subjective criteria and not amenable to any scientific inquiry or testing. There has to be something of substance to compare. Otherwise the challenge is meaningless.

(10:37) This Qur´an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds. (38) Or do they say, "He forged it"? say: "Bring then a Sura like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can besides Allah, if it be ye speak the truth!"

The nature of the Book is described as a confirmation of what was revealed before and a fuller explanation thereof. We may therefore expect in the Quran a complete explanation of the one-line Golden Rule which must be as old as civilization itself.

(11:13) Or they may say, "He forged it," Say, "Bring ye then ten suras forged, like unto it, and call (to your aid) whomsoever ye can, other than Allah!- If ye speak the truth! (14) "If then they (your false gods) answer not your (call), know ye that this revelation is sent down (replete) with the knowledge of Allah, and that there is no god but He! will ye even then submit (to Islam)?"

It is replete with knowledge of Allah (about the best way of living for mankind as we shall shortly discover)

So What Is To Be Compared?

Here we need to consider what is the main objective of the Book. The first Sura has 7 verses of which verse 6 and 7 contain a prayer and the rest of the Quran is understood to be an answer to the prayer.

(1:6) Show us the straightway, (7) The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.

The Book essentially shows mankind the straight path(moral way) to success in this world and in the hereafter.


5:3 This day have I perfected your dinakum for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your dina.

The main objective of the Book is therefore to give mankind a complete way of life. It is also the straight way or the “moral way” of life.

In 12:76 Dini malikimeans Law of the King.  So it also means the law. The day of judgment is called  Yaum-i-din  or the day mankind will be judged by his deeds or by the way he lived his life. In 16:52 And to Him l-dinu constantly.  I-dinu is translated as “is due the worship”. What can constant worship mean? If every action of man is in accordance with the din-e-islam or according to the moral way of living, then it becomes constant worship.

The Substance of the Book is therefore the “moral way of life”

Since scriptures were revealed before, it is a confirmation of what was revealed before and a fuller explanation of the same but also abrogation of a few instructions of yore and replacement by what is better in keeping with the times.

(2:106) None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?

The Moral Way of Life is living a life based on “moral principles” which is the main objective of the Quran to give to mankind. So what is claimed to be inimitable in the scriptures must be the moral principles in general, irrespective of from which scripture or religion since the same principles were revealed before. What may also be inimitable is the form in which these appear in the Quran which is claimed to be the last Book.

In what we are discussing, the hypothesis of the theist can therefore be framed as:

The scriptures are inspired/revealed by the Divine. These are not a construct of the human mind.

The Falsifiability Test      

The claim in the Quran appears to be that the scriptures in general have given mankind moral principles to live by and these are revelations from God or inspired by God and beyond human capability to produce.

If we can find durable moral principles produced by man, then this claim of the Quran as understood by us is falsified. Then either our understanding of what is claimed to be unique is defective or if we can find enough moral principles as a result of human thought, then there appears to be no need for religion and we can rely on reason alone.

Are Moral Principles Good Criteria For Testing?

For religions to succeed, these moral principles had to make mankind take a qualitative and quantitative leap on the scale of civilization. The starting state being living as savages. The fact that the “moral principles” have civilized us is uncontested since philosophy supports these and even the atheists observe them as long as it serves their self-interest. Without them, we will be back to the days of living like savages.

Adherence to the moral principles initially may have been only out of reverence to God but once these were practiced and the advantages to both the individual and the society became obvious, these became understandable in hindsight and even self-evident.  Human laws were then framed based on these principles and even today, legal judgments are based not only on the laws of the land but sometimes based on the universally accepted moral principles. These therefore continue to be followed for their positive value even without a belief in religion.

The obvious choice for testing the claim of the theists therefore is “Moral Principles” because:

1.       Everyone recognizes their value

2.       The main object of the scriptures is to guide mankind on “moral living”

3.       If man could produce moral principles through an evolutionary process, then clearly we never needed religion.

4.       If we can now produce our moral principles for living in the 21st century, then we don’t need religion anymore and discard it as baggage from the past.

The test is therefore to see to what extent we have got our moral principles from religion and to what extent from human effort. If we have even a single good example of a durable ‘moral principle” from human effort, then the hypothesis of the theist is doubtful. The falsifiability test is therefore to find at least a single good example of a durable “moral principle” that has come from human effort.

What Is The Testable Prediction?

The Quran describes Muhammad as the last prophet and the “moral way of living” as having been completely defined for mankind. The testable prediction is therefore that we should not be able to find a single moral principle after 632 CE from any source – religious or secular.

The following argument does not require more than an understanding of plain English for the readers to understand the complete argument. And let there be no doubt that the method is both sound and in the best traditions of science although never before applied to such a question. It meets the important falsifiability test as well as makes a testable prediction that any sound theory must satisfy.  Such a method has never been employed for such a question simply because what makes the scriptures inimitable by man has never been defined before. Once defined, the theory becomes both testable and falsifiable.

Research Question: Are moral principles important to us?

Finding: Very much so. These are what have civilized us and are extensively studied and emphasized. Literature is replete with stories with a moral.

Research Question: List Moral Principles from religion and Moral Principles from Human thought/endeavours outside religions

Finding: The history of Philosophy begins around 600 BC when man started applying reason to the moral principles from religion and producing “practical ethics” or showing the practical value of the moral principles. Since the moral principles are logical in hindsight, philosophy assumed that these could be produced based on reason. However, philosophy has failed to produce a single durable moral principle. All Moral Principles have come from Religion and none outside religion.

Research Question: What does Philosophy do as far as moral principles are concerned?

Finding: It shows how to use them and how to resolve moral dilemmas

Research Question: What has it produced?

Finding: It has produced Ethics theories such as Utilitarianism

Research Question: How is Utilitarianism different?

Finding: It is very much different. Utilitarianism is centred on what is good for self or the individual and morality is centred on what is right or wrong and what is just with no consideration for self but to do what is morally right. Utilitarianism is amoral. Utilitarianism can be rationally justified; Moral Duty can only be justified as conformance to the moral code out of reverence for the code or for the love and reverence of the giver of the code which is called God. These are often against self- interest and will therefore appear as irrational to those who are not trained to be moral. Utilitarianism is rational and human. Moral duty is based on reverence for the moral code and not based on what appears to be rationally the best choice in self-interest. Kant who proposed “The Principle of Supreme Morality” concedes that moral behaviour is irrational without a belief in an immortal soul and consequences beyond this life of our deeds measured on the scale of morality”. This explains the strong connection between religion and moral principles. Moral Principles appear to be not only found in religion but make sense only with “religious beliefs”. Ethical precepts are the same moral precepts but only of a practical nature.

Research Question: What about atheists who also display “moral behaviour”?

 Finding: Many people have moved away from religion and become atheists. However, they realize the importance of moral principles since the society values these. Disregarding these entirely would harm them personally and professionally. For example, honesty is a good business principle for businesses that thrive on custom, customer or repeat business. Dishonesty would make the customer not come back. The percentage of repeat business in the turnover exceeds 90% for most businesses. Honesty for such businesses is therefore an extremely strong utilitarian principle.

At tourist spots where repeat business is rare since a tourist rarely comes back, cheating is rampant because honesty is only a moral principle and not a utilitarian principle.

Research Question: Are all religions alike?

Finding: Not every religion has scriptures claimed to be divinely inspired.

Research Question: Why is there such great variety in beliefs and practices if there is only one God who has sent revelations to all the people?

Finding: Taking Islam as an example, there is the religion in the Quran. The Ahadith compiled some 200 years later which are purported to be the sayings of the Prophet distort the message of the Quran and therefore the practice of the Muslims on every subject. Each religion has a part that is “divine” which in course of time is corrupted by humans with their own understanding and “interpretations”. Every religion therefore has a human component which unfortunately gets frozen at a certain distant point in time making these anachronistic. The human part is mostly superstition. With the part that makes sense having been adopted by even atheists, what appears to remain is only superstition. Also every religion appears to have degenerated into worship of ancestors over a period. The great variety is because the human component now dominates every religion including Islam.

Research Question: Why is religion necessary then?

Finding: The transcendental and absolute values of morality that religion gives us have never lost their importance. These can exist only within the framework of religion. The concept of God as the giver of the moral code for whose love and reverence the moral way of life is practiced is indispensable to morality without which we are left only with “practical ethics” in which we play the game of “catch me if you can” or “cheat if you can get away with it”.

Research Question: Is there an alternate hypothesis that explains the facts better?

Finding: The alternate thesis is to suggest that the founders of the religions which gave us the moral principles were only great visionaries who saw what was good for mankind and proposed a moral code. Realizing that there was no way to attract human beings to these moral codes since these contradicted the utilitarian thinking of man, they invented utilitarianism beyond this life and therefore talked about God, Heaven, Hell, Judgment day etc.

The problem with the alternative theory is that it makes all such founders of great religions liars and the foundation of their moral code based on a lie which by definition is immoral. The alternative thesis leads to a paradox and must thus be rejected.

Predictability Test

Is there any new moral principle since the revelation of the Quran which claims that Muhammad was the last prophet and the guidance to mankind on the “moral way of living” was completed implying that there cannot be any new moral principle after that?


There is no new durable moral principle after the revelation of the Quran.

Conclusion: The scriptures contain moral principles that human thought has been unable to produce despite Philosophers spending considerable effort on the subject. The hypothesis meets the falsifiability test.

The alternative hypothesis leads to a paradox and is rejected.

The hypothesis also meets the predictability test

The claim of religion that their scriptures are divinely inspired/revealed has not been disproved despite the ease with which it could have been disproved if the claim was false. It is therefore more likely to be true than false. The belief of the theists in their scriptures as divinely inspired is justified based on the findings.

Naseer Ahmed is an Engineering graduate from IIT Kanpur and is an independent IT consultant after having served in both the Public and Private sector in responsible positions for over three decades. He is a frequent contributor to NewAgeIslam.com

Related Article:

Deen-e-Islam or the Moral Way of Living in Islam


URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-science/naseer-ahmed,-new-age-islam/science-and-religion/d/108636




  • Naseer Sb, 

    You sound reasonable in saying that "historically, belief without a good rational basis or evidence may have been a necessity in the past, but today, this is neither necessary nor a good thing".

    Indeed, today's blind belief is more harmful than blind rejection.

    Notably, this what even Galileo seems to have supposed.

    I think in the time of Galileo, the interactions between people and the scientific ideas were complex. His affair was consistently and simplistically portrayed as a battle between science and religion or Christianity.

    But still, he tried a bit to reconciel between them, though he was basically doing science, not the religion-based discourse.

    By GRD - 11/2/2017 8:24:57 AM

  • The great combination of Muslim Sceince and relgion will be when, we invent Halaometer, at least my Muslim brothers will not have to ask for meat food that it is Halal or not every time when they go to vendor shop.

    For Hindu we will have vegetometer.

    By Aayina - 10/8/2016 6:06:55 PM

  • Hats off ji. Isn't it miraculous that no two human beings ever born look the same. This gives a strong argument to suggest that a common humanity is balderdash.

    About economists, it is said that if you join all of them end to end they will never reach a conclusion. 

    These are aspects of Truth, but not the whole truth.

    How does it matter to me,  if you are a kafir or a mushrik? And I am sure, for you, this question should be totally irrelevant. My sympathetic apprehension that you may serve a hell-term, should impell you to assuage me that you are not going to hell because it does not exist. Are you not sure of your non-belief? Why do you become my enemy for my nurturing some kind of concern for you? Do you use your anger to reinforce your non-faith? Please rest in peace with your life's findings.

    But I think your major worry is how can Muslims retract their paths from savagery by saying that they can modify the laws and rules and customs applicable to them. You too are having a kind of bout of sympathy but this time it is not for me,  but for my religion of Islam! Your love for Islam per se is so powerful that you forgot you are a self-confessed atheist. My suspicion is confirmed. You are a spurious Hindu atheist and you have been brought up like that because this spuriuosness has been your family religion. You are rattled at the prospect of our ability to change our laws. I assure you, change will come because drift is the law of nature, but the credit is in holding out and Muslims are holding out creditably well. This will ensure that sharia will remain the divine 'source' of law to give a unique and stable  framework in which newer and newer contents will take shape to settle the issues of the day. The contents of our package need not be the same as the contents of your package, which would more and more be in a state of free fall. Are you willing to be different?

    By Manzurul Haque - 10/2/2016 2:45:52 PM

  • Naseersaab,

    If you took the trouble to understand what others are saying, you would not have any need to call them trolls or liars or whatever else comes to your self-righteous mind.

    Let me repeat what I said before. If the same precept is expressed by wise men in different countries and at different times, it does not necessarily mean that what they are saying comes from divine origin. It means they are expressing a universal sentiment felt by all those who try to co-exist in groups. That applies to Confucius's dictum, "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." Some may call it "the principle of the practice of the family of God," others may see it as "the principle of the practice of the family of man."

    The fact that the source of all religions is divine inspiration does not mean all moral precepts are divinely inspired. Unless if one uses the word "divine" not in its literal sense but in its poetic sense.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/2/2016 1:15:09 PM

  • shariah is man made law? says who?

    what world is mr nseer ahmed living in? in the world of make believe? or eye wash? or white wash?

    let him try telling the al-azhar that shariah is man-made. let us see how that turns out for mr naseer ahmed!

    shariah derives from the koran and sunnah. both are unimpeachable (according to islam). shariah is inseperable from islam and the muslim way of life. it is the 'way' or 'path' for a true muslim to follow. you think you can interpret the koran as you like and claim it to be the only correct way. you are just wrong.

    by the way the miraculous part of the koran is that no two people can ever agree on a single meaning. if two people read the koran there are five interpretations.

    so the burden of proof is on the one who is making whimsical interpretations. not on the one who follows the customary practice and accepted norms and leading authorities.

    mr naseer ahmed forgets what happened to his "polytheists/idol worshippers are not kuffar" theory. it was greeted by a stunning silence from all the islamic students, scholars, exegetes and all manner of holies on this forum.

    try getting just one practicing muslim to agree with mr naseer ahmed that shariah is man made.

    almost everyone one of the islamic experts use the word 'shariah' as a contrary to what they term 'man-made' law. this is the real world! not some laboratory model.

    mr naseer ahmed cannot fool all the people all the time.

    shariah (according to the vast majority of islamic scholars, many of whom have spent their entire lives studying the koran) is divine law, as against democracy (which is not equal to a shura) which is a system that produces man made laws.

    mr naseer ahmed is still a majority of one.

    we will talk about it when you are at least a million. come back then and ask nicely.

    good luck!

    By hats off! - 10/2/2016 4:13:45 AM

  • GM Sb, You are the ultimate troll!

    I repeat for the nth time that  Confucius said many things which are his original thoughts but the moral principle that you attribute to him viz “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” as his original thought is not his original thought. The rest of what he said are not moral principles.

    The findings regarding the moral principle cited are as follows:

    The dates only indicate the first recorded instance.


    "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do." (c. 2040 – c. 1650 BC)

    A Late Period (c. 664 BC – 323 BC) papyrus contains the Golden Rule: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."


    "Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales (c. 624 BC – c. 546 BC)


    "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." — Confucius c. 500 BC)

    "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." — Laozi (c. 500 BC)



    One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires.

    Brihaspati, Mahabharata

    Jeffrey Wattles has written a book on the subject and this is what he has to say:

     The golden rule, "Do to others as you would have others do to you," is widely assumed to have a single meaning, shared by virtually all the world's religions. (Jeffrey Wattles)

     Interestingly Jeffrey Wattles calls it "the principle of the practice of the family of God." which sounds like Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam which Secularlogic mentioned.

    Religion is associated by the scholars when they talk about the Golden rule.

    The following is reproduced from my article:




    The Quran confirms that the source of all religions is divine inspiration.


    The answer is in the article.

    The following is also what Confucius said which is a general truth (not a moral principle) and applicable to the two of us who will not change their minds. I have a reason which is clearly articulated in the article and willingness to drop the theory if it can be falsified.  You cannot give one good example that satisfies the falsification test and yet call it a dubious theory. It shows how dubious you are. After strenuous efforts you gave a dubious example of Confucius which is proved to be false.

     Only the wisest and the stupidest of men never change.

    Now please stop trolling and even if you do, I intend to ignore you and anyone else who comes with anything other than an example that meets the falsification test.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/2/2016 3:27:43 AM

  • Hats Off said that he could understand the Quran as well as I can. All my articles are based on the Quran. Why does he not prove me wrong based on the Quran?

    Fiq, sharia etc are man-made laws.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/2/2016 2:53:31 AM

  • Naseersaab,

    Instead of wasting time on whether a word was appropriate or not, let me simplify it for you. Your dubious theory that morality came to us solely through religions is not necessary in order for one to be a good Muslim. Nor does any modern scholar support your theory. The best thing you can do with it is to drop it. 

    You know that I have said over a dozen times that morality can be of either human or divine origin. That itself should have given you pause before reaching the ridiculous conclusion that   I dismissed moral principles as unnecessary! I hope I have made myself clear.

    Regarding Confuscius, as I said before, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, "But we should not regard the contents of the Analects as consisting of old ideas. Much of what Confucius taught appears to have been original to him and to have represented a radical departure from the ideas and practices of his day." There will be some who will maintain that there were antique precedents to what Confucius said, but one can say that also for the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount! Even the Bible itself says, "There is nothing new under the sun". You may be very cocksure about this matter, just because it suits your ludicrous theory, but we cannot take you seriously.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/1/2016 3:01:03 PM

  • Hats off is an institution with a purpose. Best is to express our viewpoint and let them stew in their juice. There is no way you can convince them. 

    At the same time our own people do not understand us because most of them are stone-dry in their minds. We can see their capability by reading some of their comments here. Their overconfidence in their jahiliyat would not let them come out of it. 

    A typical scenario of 'tu kahe gabr mujhe' gabr musalman mujhko'.

    By Manzurul Haque - 10/1/2016 2:20:34 PM

  • all the four schools of islamic fiqh (shia as well as sunni) agree that apostasy is punishable offence.

    three out of the four sunni schools recommend death for apostasy. all four schools fiqh agree that the evidentiary value of women and the kuffar is less than that of a momeen male. they also agree that polytheists and idol worshipers are indeed kuffars. mr naseer ahmed's thesis was entirely ignored by all the sufis and the exegets on this very forum. they probably thought that his rants do not deserve any attention at all.

    mr naseer ahmed's interpretation is wrong, it has never been supported by any islamic scholars on this forum. they are not willing to offer dishonest proofs like mr naseer ahmed does.

    or he is embarrassed by the depressing islamic news from all over the world. like saudi arabia (an islamic tribal society), pakistan, turkey, nigeria and indonesia and is over compensating.

    mr naseer ahmed is just trying to appear brave through writing up pseudo-scientific jargon.

    according to shariah, the women's and kuffar's evidence is not equal to that of momeen men. all the schools of fiqh agree with this. there is no difference regarding this. so is it with blood money for women and kuffar versus momeen males. ask any sharia judge or ulema.

    mr naseer ahmed neither has the linguistic skills nor the rational approach for islamic tafsir. he does not agree with abrogation. abrogation is supported by the koran itself. but he denies it. abrogation is a mainstream islamic principle, supported by clear evidence.

    he depends upon market research and symbolic logic and null hypothesis to cover up his maverick and untenable positions regarding the most universally proved islamic principles.

    mr naseer ahmed thinks that polytheists are not kuffar. he says idol worshippers are not kuffar. he is totally wrong and cannot ever support his conclusions. no school of islamic fiqh (both shia and sunni) agree that polytheists and idol worshippers are momeen. they either convert or get killed. there is no jizya for them.

    he says sex slavery is benign. he thinks jizya is a respectable thing for kuffar. he thinks arabia is not tribal. he thinks there was a so called golden age. this was leaden age for zoroastrians, bahais, ahmadis, the people of byzantium and nearly everyone who was not in agreement with islam and were therefore forcibly converted.

    this is not moral.

    By hats off! - 10/1/2016 11:26:39 AM

  • The wise cracks by atheists are many. H. L. Mencken was not a moral person nor someone who did the right thing.
    Religion not only tells you what is right but the why and how part of it also in a manner that has not been matched by any man. Read:

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/1/2016 4:18:47 AM

  • Between Jn Ghulam Mohiyuddin sb and Jn Naseer Ahmed sb, hats off is having the best of time. Congratulations! 
    By Manzurul Haque - 10/1/2016 4:18:05 AM

  • Hats Off can read:

    On Apostasy etc:

    The Quran prescribes hadd punishments only for kufr in the temporal dimension. Kufr in the temporal dimension is also kufr in the spiritual dimension but not vice versa.

    Hadd punishments for kufr relating to God or the spiritual dimension are not prescribed in the Quran as that would violate the right of conscience that the Quran clearly grants to man.

    Some forms of Kufr may appear to stride both the dimensions - for example, an apostate who turns hostile and carries on activities harmful to a section of the society or the state. Such a person can be punished for the harm that he has caused or can potentially cause but not for apostasy. Apostasy is merely incidental and irrelevant to the case as apostasy is not kufr in the temporal dimension.

    Usury, if it does not contravene laws of the land, will only be kufr in the spiritual dimension. Through legislation, usury could be made a punishable offence since it is injurious to man as well but it is not hadd. Legislating punishments for kufr related to the spiritual dimension alone, violate the freedoms granted to man by the Quran and is kufr.


    Learn to make distinction between man-made and divine laws which the article clearly points out. In fact it begins with acutioning against blind belief saying that is worse than blind rejection.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/1/2016 3:43:39 AM

  • GM Sb says: How can you take "principles" to mean "moral principles" when you and anyone following this discussion must know that I have been repeatedly saying that moral principles can be derived both from human and religious sources. –

    You are confirming that when you said principles you meant moral principles. Why do you then say you referred to my thesis and not to moral principles?

    Your saying that moral principles are derived from human thought alone without divine inspiration repeatedly is not enough. Where is the proof to falsify my thesis?

     He says: Even after I told you about your misunderstanding, you would not concede the point. Your contention that "principle" was a wrong word for me to use becomes your main argument now, and what I have been saying for past several days becomes null and void!

    What have I misunderstood when after saying that principles referred to my thesis you are now back to saying that principles referred to moral principles? I got you right the first time.

    Your repeatedly saying that moral principles can also come from human thinking is not proof.

     GM Sb further says: “You say, "The moral principle “Do unto others…” is decisively proved to be much older than Confucius."

     Everything for you is "decisive"! Can't wise men of different countries and different eras come to the same precept independently? You thinks this is sufficient reason for you to call me "a deliberate liar"! Well, if you say so, it must be decisive!”

     He is talking about two different things. Does he concede that the moral principle which he was attributing to Confucius is decisively proved as of ancient origin and perhaps as old as civilization itself? The decisive proof that I have talked about is limited to exactly what I said.

     What proves that he is a deliberate liar is his saying the following even after decisive proof is provided to show that the moral principle cannot be attributed to Confucius as his original thought which by the way even Confucius never claimed as his original and his book starts with a disclaimer:

      “He declares "it has been shown decisively that the moral principle he was attributing to Confucius was not his." To use the phrase "it has been shown decisively," in matters such as these shows his Trump-like inclination to deceive.”

     If I get him right, what he is perhaps trying to say is that if anybody talks of a moral principle, we should attribute it to the man in good faith as his original thought because we are all capable of arriving independently of each of the moral principles independently. (This is his belief without proof and as a matter of fact against all evidence to the contrary)

     In effect, what he is saying is that Religion was never necessary in the past or now and that man could have independently of religion and God arrived at the moral way of living.

     He is entitled to “his way and his beliefs” and we must part now and go our separate ways.

     Those who will not believe will not believe no matter what evidence is provided and will believe in whatever they want to believe in even with all the evidence against it. Only Allah can guide people to the truth.

    My apologies for having hurt your feelings in the process while trying to address your doubts. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/1/2016 2:32:20 AM

  • mr naseer ahmed does not understand that any statement that is based on "religion", "moral" or "god" cannot be falsified.

    this is the reason why universally among academics, hypotheses which offer "scientific" proof of divinity are placed in the same class as pseudo-science.

    the most famous practitioners of pseudo-science are zakir naik and haroon yahya. that is after rashad khalifa. mr naseer ahmed is getting close.

    this is the reason he is not able to "falsify" the "alternate hypothesis".

    the very fact that the UN charter over-rides the moral principle behind punishment for apostasy completely demolishes the non-hypothesis of mr naseer ahmed.

    islam mandates death for apostasy. this is completely immoral. the UN a man-made council over-rides it.

    most islamic countries have therefore created an islamic charter, incorporating all manner of immorality in it.

    the un is an irreligious body and superseded the islamic death for apostasy.

    all the four schools of islamic fiqh support punishment for apostasy. three of them recommend death. one is ambiguous.

    so is the matter with the inferiority of female witnesses as moralized by the koran. this is also countermanded by superior man-made moral.

    this proves that there is nothing divine, nothing durable and nothing principled about religious moral principles.

    let mr naseer ahmed try and get this article published in some academic journal. then we will see.

    By hats off! - 10/1/2016 2:04:29 AM

Compose Your Comments here:
Email (Not to be published)
Fill the text