Religion without Science is Blind

SameerJB

I said ......Theory of Relativity has to do with it........not Einstein.......plus better read soem works of Stephan Hawkings....its not necessary that you can infer everything from express statements....!!!!!

Sattar

I do look into the back view mirror more often than you think. The reason for fatwas of Kufr, that you have pointed out, is none other but the differences on the matters of new inventions i.e. biddah in the religion and nothing else. Take for example: Brelvis and Deobandis: They agree on dogma that all other Muslims agree upon; they agree on doctrine i.e. both agree with Imam Abu Hanifa`s interpretation of the law to the hilt. But they disagree on new additions i.e. biddah that I`ve pointed out in my post below.

Now take the case of Shias and Sunnis: The original schism is because of a political reason and not because of a dogma or even doctrine. Imam Jafar Sadiq, the main shia jurist was a student of probably Imam Abu Hanifa, one of the four sunni Imams, and Imam Shafi`i one of the key Sunni jurist in turn was a student of Imam Jafar Sadiq. Even a cursory look at their juristic work confirms that their difference were only doctrinal and to the extent of interpretation of law. All the historical records show that Imam Jafar is as revered by sunnis as they rever their four imams.

But the case of Quadianis wrt the Muslims is different: Quadianis invented a dogma that goes against the very core of the set of beleifs that makes one Muslim. That is exactly the reason, despite all the fatwas of Kuffar, from hardliners in each Muslim sect against the other, there is never a consensus (i.e. Ijma`a, which is necessary condition that turns ijtehad into a law) even with in those sects that the others are Kaffir. However, Quadianis are considered non-Muslims by each and every sect and Ummat (nation) has an Ijama`a on that and this consensus expresses itself in laws.

There is a mountain of difference between the two. And that is exactly the reason why we as Muslims should discourage even the slightest form of biddah even if it looks harmless and done with best of intentions, because it is so subjective and it has potential to turn malignant as the case of Quadianis have turned out to be.

Maharana,

The day of brahma (4.32 billion years) is what most scholars agree as the hindu age of the universe. The day is followed by the night of brahma when nothing exists (as brahma is sleeping, having absorbed all matter into himself).

This day-night cycle repeats till Brahma is 100 years old. So the entire life of Brahma is 311040 Billion years. Surely you`re not going to quote this ridiculous figure as the hindu age of the universe?!

Now I`m sure you didn`t earlier know what I`m going to tell you next:

Most hindu astronomical books mention the current age of brahma as 50 years (!)

- - - - -

I didn`t quite follow your second point. You seemed to say that the christians are going to ridiculous lengths to justify their bible...therefore we should do the same with ours (did I understand you correctly)?

Observe this board. Quite a few muslims on this board (hamidm, nasah, ballukhan, sattar, etc) are challenging islamic heresys...do you see a single hindu doing that with his religion?

- - - - -

``Another indian scientific nugget you might not know is a popularly available panchaang with an astrologer. Try to compare the positon of planets in panchaang with actual almanac and the western astrological almanac. You`ll be in for a big surprise.``

The only surprise here is that you don`t know this simple fact. A panchang is made using data *FROM* an almanac.

A panchang is simply a pictoral record of the planetary positions at a given instant of time. These positions may be calculated...but astrologers prefer to get it from an almanac.


cheers,

One should leave it to our internet mullah … Urstruly … to present a lovey-dovey picture of today’s Islam. There is dogma … then there is doctrine … and there is love everywhere. He assigns to “dogma” what he fancies … and calls it kosher. Well … so do others … and the result is fanaticism and unmitigated violence in the ranks of believers. He ignores the barrage of inter-sectarian fatwas of kuffr … issued against each and every sect by unwavering scholars … where arguably those who dissent are to be killed. A small of dose of reality may be a good idea for our budding genius here. Sahib, do look in the rear-view mirror every now and then ...

Ironman # 21,

Relax and look up the number 4.32 billion years again in the puraan. One day in the life of brahma is equivalent to 4.32 billion earth years. One day of brahma is not the age of the universe.
For an actual numerical calculation please read Stephen Cohen`s translation of Bhagvad Puraan which comes close to 14 billion years. Carl sagan confirms the same in his book.

I don`t believe that ancient indians were the greatest scientists or were a bunch of know-alls. Whatever their methods of reaching the conclusions, todays physcisists marvel at their insights. People in india have a tendency to either downplay their own country`s contribution or exaggerate it beyond belief. I guess there`s nothing wrong to openly admit the facts even if they favour your culture.
Try to look at the christians in the US and their crusade against evolution or any other scientific theory. These include well read people who go to unimaginable lengths to justify creation by bible. We belong to the other extreme, where people are defensive to even admit that some guys in ancient india speculated the age of the universe to be roughly 14 billion years. Can you imagine what the world would be if bible had the same creation theory as bhagvad puraan?

Another indian scientific nugget you might not know is a popularly available panchaang with an astrologer. Try to compare the positon of planets in panchaang with actual almanac and the western astrological almanac. You`ll be in for a big surprise.

Adios

re#22

``but what i don`t understand is why did god have to speak in long-winded parables and riddles ?............ why couldn`t he just come out and say the you shouldn`t eat bacon because it can cause trichinosis, and you shouldn`t drink because it can cause cirrhosis of the liver?............ (HAMIDM)

what a great question hamidm!

may be because the Evolving God of the Evolving Universe -- DID NOT KNOW -- 5 thousand years ago -- that along with his beloved creation the PIG -- he had UNKOWINGLY CREATED -- a species of parasite worm called Trichinella that ALSO loved to live in pig muscles....

-- yet the GOD of the YORE could see thru HIS well developed instinctive RIGHT BRAIN of the time -- that HIS Creations -- the pot belly pigs and the pot belly cachectic men who ate them over a gallon of fermented grapes juice -- had some SINFUL realtionship going on between them that definitely should be TABOO.....for the health of HIS -- `CHOSEN PEOPLE`.......

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Sameerjb

Under current circumstances, deobandi ijtehad is not going to be acceptable for barelvis and vice versa, wahabi ijtehad is not going to be acceptable for most except a group of bribed clergy by Saudis………

This statement is based on total ignorance about the principles of ijtehad and does not even represent the actual situation on the ground. However, it is true that the difference between the sects exist. It is imperative that first the nature of these differences should be understood before making such sweeping judgment. The differences among the sects can be classified into two broad categories:

1. Dogmatic

2. Doctrinal.

It is also imperative that the hierarchy of these two categories should be understood first. The origin of these two categories, however, is based on the interpretation of the religious tenets. The dogmatic differences are not that great in any sect. All sects believe in the seven basic beliefs of Islamic dogma e.g. Oneness of God, God being absolute, Qura`n being His message along with Torah, Bible, Psalm and some lost (un-named) scriptures to previous prophets, finality of the Prophet-hood of Mohammad (pbuh), angels, and the end of the days etc. A belief in these tenets is what makes one Muslim. In the matter of dogma the ijtehad is not allowed. For example, we are not allowed to sit down and come up with a reason to prove that there are actually two gods or there is none.

Then there is this category, which falls under doctrinal classification. The doctrinal principles are the result of the interpretation of those instructions from divinity that directly deals with social and personal life of human beings. Ijtehad is only allowed in this category; which means that you are allowed to reason and justify and find best possible solution to implement the rules, ethics and principles, which originate from the interpretation of such dogmatic tenets. The difference of opinion in such matters is called ``a blessing`` by the Holy prophet; because it is that difference of opinion that helps societies and their laws to evolve. It was that difference of opinion that gave the world the `science of jurisprudence`, which forms the backbone of any law. The five Imams - four of Sunnis and one of Shias - have opined differently on different matters based on their interpretation. All of their interpretations are valid since they are qualified by both Qura`n and Hadith; which is the qualifying criteria for any doctrinal issue. There is no serious, life threatening differences among Muslims in this regard either.

But then there is this third category of differences, which I deliberately did not include among the above two. The Arabic name for this category is Biddah, which literally translates into ``the new additions``. These ``new additions`` can further be divided into two categories:

1. Biddah i.e. new additions in dogma (which is not supported by neither Qura`n nor Hadith)
2. and new additions in doctrine, which do not qualify through Qura`n and Ahadith but considered so just because some ``Shiekh Sahib`` said so.

One example of the first category of Biddah is that of the one of the Brelvi belief that body of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was ``Nuri`` i.e. made up of light as opposed to ordinary human beings who are made up of flesh and bones – this issue is one of the bones of contention with Deobandis who believe that Prophet was made up of flesh and bones just like any other human being, however, he was undoubtedly an exceptional human being. The second example is that of the concept of ``Wali or Imam`` in shia doctrine, which is the main bone of contention with Sunnis.

The example of the doctrinal ``new additions`` is that of integrating local social customs with religious doctrine and considering them part of religion when actually they are not. For example, the Qura`n Khawani at the death of a person, or celebration of the birthday of Prophet. From religious point of view these rituals sound and look very pretty but they are actually ``new additions`` to the religion, which cannot be proven through Qura`n and Ahadith.

This category of differences is ``life-threatening`` because origin of these differences is not in religious dogma but its origin is in the ego – the ego of the sheikh sahib who invented this dogma and the ego of his followers who blindly follow him. For such people the message from Allah is very clear:

As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects, thou hast no part in them in the least: their affair is with Allah: He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did. AL-ANAAM (The cattle) 6:159

#16, Inquirer:

A little preamble is necessary before elaborating on what you ask for.

AFAIK, the Hindus believe there are three ways to approach God and attain salvation.

For the multitude, the preferred way is the ``bhakti-marg`` (the path of devotion) meaning an unquestioning faith in God, and letting every conscious act be in His name and devoted to Him. Any inconsistencies in the matter of faith and the observable universe are explained away as ``maya`` or illusion, and any logical problems are attributed to the unknown and unknowable nature of God. By totally accepting one`s inability to comprehend God and His ways, one becomes free to live happily. Though easy to follow, not every follower of this approach is expected to attain salvation, because one inevitably fails in being totally faithful. A few saints are said to have attained salvation that way.

The second approach is the ``karma-kand`` which consists of conscientiously following the dictates of your ``dharma`` i.e. the duties prescribed for you by virtue of your birth. One may not even think of doing anything against what has been prescribed. Here the focus is on duty and action, and living in a certain prescribed manner as a part of the society. This way of life may include certain aspects common to the bhakti-marg, but the focus is on one`s Dharma and not primarily on devotion to God. This path is also necessarily slow as one must go through the ``snakes and ladders`` like cycles of birth and death across some 8.4 million species, all hierarchically ordered, before escaping the cycles of life and death. And remember, any faulty karma will almost always push you down by one or more rungs of the ladder to salvation. As an example of the Karma-Kand path to salvation, performing a hundred ashva-medha yadnyas (ritualist horse sacrifice to be performed at the end of a conquest of the world) would make a king eligible to replace Indra, the King of Gods in heaven.

The third, and potentally the quickest (!) path is the ``Dnyana-Marg`` or the path of pursuit of knowledge. There are layers and layers of knowledge, and the brain must see through the illusions (Maya) all around us and aim to acquire the ``Brahma-Dnyana``, i.e. the Ultimate and Total Knowldge, which is supposed to be the exclusive privilege of Divinity. Possession of that knowledge makes you effectively become one with Brahman.

Interpreting it mythologically, it can mean that by achieving Brahma-Dnyana, you get to be on par with Gods in Heaven, and therefore they have a vested interest in keeping you from attaining that ultimate knowledge. The concept of Brahma-Dnyana therefore has a romantic appeal to intellectually inclined Hindus. Many a male child has been named Nachiketa by Hindu parents, putting a heavy burden on the poor baby right from birth. ;)

The original, mythical Nachiketa is a brilliant young Brahmin boy, who sets out to attain the Brahma-Dnyana, and is made to go from pillar to post and suffer all kinds of pain and trouble. He eventually accosts Yama-Dharma, the Lord of Death, who is also entrusted with safeguarding the Brahma-Dnyana. Yama-Dharma refuses at first, but Nachiketa engages Him in a intellectual debate and convinces Him of his eligibility to receive the Ultimate Knowledge.

The story of course does not give any clue about any aspect of the Brahma-Dnyana, nor does it tell what Nachiketa did with it. But actually the idea that there can be such a Brahma-Dnyana, is fascinating in itself.

Apart from Brahma-Dnyana, the Gods are also said to be stingy about some other items that humans have always longed for. The mortals are required to die at prescribed times, and Yama-Dharma is duty-bound not to make any exceptions to the time table. As a corrollary, no mortal may be granted immortality either, even when Lord Shiva Himslef has been propitiated through pennance.

But there are always legendary exceptions to such prohibitory orders in Hindu mythology.

Thus does Savitri trap the Lord of Death in his own words, and wins back the life of her dead husband for a long duration. There is also the story of Kacha, who is killed a number of times, but brought back to life through a life giving knowhow, jealously guarded by a Guru of the demons.

Quite a few of such stories are retold in a rather interesting way in the serialized novel ``Wanderings in the Twilight Zone`` that was published on Chowk a few months back.

Somewhat boring mystical question/answer/counter-question cycles are found in the Upanishads, that try to unravel the mysteries of the physical world. One of them (I forget which one) consists of the Guru asking the disciple to break a grain in to progressively smaller pieces and asking what does the disciple see inside. This session leads the dialogue into a philosophical realm, and can be considered to be an attempt to bring science and philosophy together.

Wish I could give you more references, but that would take some looking up.

- E

Allegoric Interpretation of Religious Language

Guys!!!Let us get to the point.

We require this not because religious allegories contain great truths, mystical stuff which common man does not comprehend.

We need it to throw out the professional mullahs, professional jehadis qnd mujahideens who want to kill for following some propositions of the Quran and Hadith in its ``true`` and ``literal`` spirit.

We need it because we want to give political space to other interpretations so that there is no monopolist of ``THE`` religious truth who wants to enslave us with their ``PURE`` and ``TRUE`` interpretation of Quran and HAdith.

This step would dilute the power of the mullahs and the create space for other discourses of freedom amongst the Ummah.

............. i am all for allegorical interpretation of the scriptures and any other argument that will absolve the poor pigs and make wine halal......... but what i don`t understand is why did god have to speak in long-winded parables and riddles ?............ why couldn`t he just come out and say the you shouldn`t eat bacon because it can cause trichinosis, and you shouldn`t drink because it can cause schrossis of the liver?............ what was all this allegorical nonsense about casting evil spirits into swine and then driving them into the sea?......... what is all that about ?............ and if lazarus wasn`t really dead, don`t you think it was rather dishonest of god and his son to pretend that he was? ........and how do you explain a virgin birth - today, if mary walked into the emergency room complaining of a ``sudden`` pregnency, they would kick her and her little lamb out the door!............or was he just being allegorical?........... and why did he have to invent gabriel instead of simply giving the message to one of daughter`s - lat or uzza?.............. allegorical daughters or allegorical winged angel?

......... seeing that it is ramadhan and all that, i don`t want to be blasphemous but i do smell an allegorical rat!.......

Allegorical interpretation of Islam is impossible. Islam lacks organization heirarchy in spiritual matters which is a necessity for any interpretation other than literal. In Christianity, before reformation, Catholic church was an organization whose interpretations were systematically adopted by the masses through the network of churches. Therefore only certain sects like Ismailies, bohras, ahmedis, druze, alavites and to some ectent shias can do it for their own sects and in fact most of them have done allegorical interpretations of various aspects of historical Islam. The prerequsite of majority sunni ijtehad requires sunni religious institutional heirarchy, which is only possible under the aegies of politically unified Muslim world like it once existed in the form of Ummayyids, Abbsids and Otomans - Khilafat.

Under current circumstances, deobandi ijtehad is not going to be acceptable for barelvis and vice versa, wahabi ijtehad is not going to be acceptable for most except a group of bribed clergy by Saudis. A Pakistani ijtehad is not going to be acceptable for Indian or Afghan and so on. Therefore a wide gulf exists between bringing Islam and science together to complement each other. Other problem is that religions do not like to be treated as junior partners despite a world totally dependent on science. They like to be the elder and dominant partner despite being losers every minute around the world. The religions face defeat left and right daily in modern life in which rational understanding and logic is totally in control without bothering to consider the beliefs part.

Science is hardly concerned from the fallout from religions but religions are trembling under the pressure from science based modern societies. It is religious people who write books and express need to bring science and religion closer, yet they refuse to surrender the worst and unscientific part of the faith in the form of belief in universal god. I do not know about Mohammed Gill`s personal faith but in general such writer would be extremely pleased if god is accepted by the science or existence of god is proven by science. They wish to pull science towards their beliefs and science accepting their blah blah because Einstein once said something like ``science is lame without religion``.

Basically religions have to accept/ surrender to science unconditionally, sign blank paper and let science do what it has been doing to make us better understand the nature and universe. I really do not understand the demand of religions to be treated superior or minimum equal in a world where they contribute nothing to generating wealth, economy, electronics, mechanics, computers, information tech, communications, physics, life sciences, transportation, production, banking etc. They are only service providers in few aspects of social life and yet want to be treated equally with science. They are really worth no more than equal status on negotiating table with some sanitation worker`s union in New York.

This article and the topic of ``religion and science`` defies the commonly acceptable status of religion as personal. Science is not personal and once such questions of bringing religion and science closer are raised, they raise the level of religion from personal to collective. Again authors of this and similar articles imply that religion has some place in modern world beyond personal set of beliefs and practices. The western societies have already made religion a matter of personal choice by separating state and church. Once it is personal, religion is not at the same wavelength in importance as science. The overlap is not needed and, in fact, avoided.

The statement like ``religion and science are the two faces of the same coin`` is both absurd and false. It is false because religion has already been relegated to personal and private whereas science is just the opposite. That day will never come when electricity will be considered personal and private matter and then the conflict between two personal matters would be resolved. Do whatever you want in personal life, but public life must remain on scientific basis .

#17 by Maharana,

``...then Bhagvad puran, in its very first chapter calculates the age of universe as approximately 13.86 billion years. You could confirm this in carl sagan`s book``


Maharana saab, some of us who happen to own a copy of the Bhagavad Purana have no need to refer Carl Sagan. (You can own it too...only Rs. 150 for both volumes I & II, from Gita Press, Gorakhpur).

There`s nothing in the first chapter. In the third, the total life span of the universe is given as 4.32 billion years...not 13.86, which is a modern scientific estimate.

Still, even this 4.32 billion appears very impressive.
After all, the earth`s age has been found to be 4.5 billion years.

But after you research a little more...it appears less than impressive.

- - - - - - - - -

To the ancient hindus, the earth was the center of the universe covered by the twins bowls of the sky. This was the cosmic-egg, brahma-egg or brahma-anda or brahmanda.

Inside this cosmic egg, there were objects (planets, moon) that revolved around the central earth in a regular fashion. To the great credit of these ancient scientists, they measured the motions of these objects very very accurately.

They found that taking into account all the motions (revolution around the earth, precession, etc)...these objects would all come in a perfect line once in 4.32 billion years and that, they theorized, would be cataclysmic for the brahma-egg.

So...a wrong idea by chance gives an impressive looking result.

- - - - - - - - - -

Maharana saab, there are many Indians who stretch a truth a little. Unfortunately, these are easily found out...and the WHOLE thing becomes a laughing stock, especially to the western man.

This is most unfortunate...because, just what we genuinely have is impressive enough.

By unwarranted `stretching` you make us lose that.

As I understand it, religion and science do not contradict each other. Rather, they complement each other. It seems that problems arise mainly when allegorical references in scripture (say Quran) are interpreted literally.

As I recall, there is a reference in Quran to the “wing of kindness” of Prophet Mohammad. Now, it may be a matter of time before a believer is heard screaming … ureka … Mohammad had wings … which explains his flight to the seventh cloud with gabriel where he met with god. The other option is to understand this reference in the light of metaphors of Arabic language.

In anther place … there is a reference where unbelievers are likened to pigs and apes (I think). I once came across an unflinching believer … who argued that flesh of pig is forbidden … since pigs were once human … and were turned into swine due to disobedience to Mohammad. My whole life flashed before my eyes in one instant. For a moment I could not tell if he was messing with my head or what. I still wonder at times.

Now, Quran does make passing references to principles of water cycle, motion of planets, formation of fetus in a womb etc. The idea is not to replace books on physics and biology with Quran. These references are made to emphasize Unity of Source of all creation … and harmony in nature … where material and forces are created for benefit of mankind. No oceans were parted for Moses, Solomon did not speak to birds, Jesus did not raise the dead, Mohammad did not fly to heavens to met his favorite deity. Physics works today like it has for billions of years. No room for magic or fairy-tales here.

Allegoric Interpretation of Religious Language::

Guys, Listen to what Gill is saying!!!

````Religion can benefit if such conflicts are resolved peacefully through ALLEGORIC INTERPRETATION of the Scriptural text which might appear to conflict with rational and empirical facts. Such a resolution was proposed early in the history of Islam by the first Arab philosopher al-Kindi (801-873 CE). His idea of allegorical interpretation was further worked upon by al-Farabi (870-950 CE) and formalized by Ibn Rushd (1128-1198 CE). Ibn Rushd’s proposed method was called the doctrine of double truth. ````

I am in complete agreement with Gill`s analyses and his suggestion. This is what is actually required in Islam now- ijtihad. Further, whenever there is a conflict between the Scientific Materialism and the propositions of any religious texts attempts should be made to save the propositions through allegoric interporetation of such propositions. In this way you will shoot down the literal interpreters or Mullahs and Pharsis- I heard a hilarious lecture by a maulavi on metaphysical reasons regarding what one should do in case one happens to break air during namaz. The stories about satan, hooris, heavens, hell, retribution by the god have to be interpreted allegorically. So should the stories about final day, journey after life and god revealing to the prophets. Infact, the best interpretation of the supposedly metaphysical beings and entities has been done by the sufi thought by connecting these stories to the maqams in one`s spiritual quest.
In this way you can save Islam from the mullahs and Talibs.

#14, Essensauer:
I agree with your interpretation of Einstein`s statement. My statement in #13, about the sharing of brain by rational as well as faith based thinking is similar to your faith in superior reasoning power.

Would love to know more from you about your ``parting thought.`` Could you provide some refernces/further elaboration?