A DIALOGUE BETWEEN ANATHEIST PROFESSOR & A MUSLIMSTUDENT PDF english islamic book

A DIALOGUE BETWEEN ANATHEIST PROFESSOR & A MUSLIMSTUDENT PDF english islamic book

A D I A L O G U E B E T W E E N A N A T H E I S T
P R O F E S S O R & A M U S L I M S T U D E N T
The following scenario takes place at an educational institute:
“Let me explain the problem science has with God…” The atheist professor of
philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to
stand. “You’re a Muslim, aren’t you, son?”
“Yes, sir.”
“So, you believe in God?”
“Absolutely!”
“Is God good?”
“Sure! God’s good!”
“Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?”
“Yes.”
The professor grins knowingly and considers for a moment.
“Here’s one for you: Let’s say there’s a sick person over here and you can cure
him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?”
“Yes, sir. I would.”
“So, you’re good…!”
“I w ouldn’t say that.”
“Why you wouldn’t say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you
could… In fact, most of us would if we could… God doesn’t.”
[No answer.]
“He doesn’t, does he? M y brother was a Muslim who died of cancer, even
though he prayed to God to heal him. How is this God good? Hmm? Can you
answer that one?”
[No answer.]
The elderly man is sympathetic. “No, you can’t, can you?”
The professor takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student
tim e to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy w ith the new ones.
“Let’s start again, young fellow. Is God good?”
“Er… Yes.”
“Is Satan good?”
“No.”
“Where does Satan come from?”
The student falters. “From… God…”
“That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t He?”
The elderly man runs his fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the
smirking student audience.
“I think we’re going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen.”
He turns back to the Muslim. “Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? Did God make everything?”
“Yes.”
“Who created evil?”
[No answer.]
“Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All the terrible
things – do they exist in this world?”
The student squirms on his feet. “Yes.”
“Who created them?”
[No answer.]
The professor suddenly shouts at the student. “WHO CREATED THEM? TELL
ME. PLEASE!” The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Muslim’s
face. He speaks in a small, deadly voice, “God created all evil, didn’t He, son?”
[No answer.]
The student tries to hold the professor’s steady, experienced gaze, but fails.
Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an
ageing, confident panther.
I _ J
2
The class is mesmerised. “Tell me…” he continues, “How is it that this God is
good if He created all the evil throughout all time?” The professor swishes his
arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world.
“All the hatred, the brutality, the pain, all the torture, all the needless deaths
and ugliness, and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the
world – isn’t it, young man?”
[No answer.]
“Don’t you see it’s all over the place? Huh?” The professor pauses. “Don’t
you?”
The professor leans into the student’s face again and whispers, “Is God
good?”
[No answer.]
“Do you believe in God, son?”
The student’s voice betrays him, and in a cracked voice he mutters, “Yes,
professor. I do.”
The old man shakes his head sadly. “Science says you have five senses that
you use to identify and observe the world around you. You have never seen
God, have you?”
“No, sir. I’ve never seen Him.”
“Then tell us if you have ever heard your God?”
“No, sir. I have not.”
“Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, or smelt your God? In fact,
have you any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?”
[No answer.]
“Answer me, please.”
“No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.”
“You’re AFRAID… you haven’t?”
“No, sir.”
“Yet, you still believe in Him?”
“Yes…”
“That takes FAITH!” The professor smiles sagely at the underling. “According
to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says that
your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God
now?”
[The student does not answer.]
“Sit down, please!”
[The Muslim sits, browbeaten into apparent defeat. However, ‘the help of
Allah is at hand and victory is imminent.’]
Another Muslim, wearing a religious cap, having a beard and easily identified
as a Muslim by his dress, lifts his hand up.”Professor, may I address the class?”
The professor turns and smiles. “Ah! another Muslim in the vanguard.
A Fundamentalist, I see. Come, come, young man! Speak some proper
wisdom to the gathering!”
The Muslim ignores the sarcasm in the tone of the professor. He looks around
the room, waits for the attention of the students and turns to the professor.
“Sir, you have made some interesting points. With your permission,sir, I
would like to tackle each point individually. This subject has to be tackled
logically and scientifically, and not emotionally. The first point is your basic
doctrine that God
does not exist. The universe, therefore, started with the doctrine of ‘The Big
Bang’ and through a process of evolution, Man finally came into existence. Is
that not your belief, professor?”
“My son, it goes w ithout saying. There is enough scientific evidence for this.
What are you getting at?”
“Let us not be hasty. Let us use logic and reason and proper scientific
argument. As a preamble, I wish to point out that I use the word ‘doctrine’
knowingly, for the priests of pseudo-science are, in fact, merely promoting
atheism as a religion. I have a question for you, professor. We have in this
world millions upon m illions of fireworks, ammunition and bombs. Have you
heard of any going o ff spontaneously, or do you adm it that, although the
ingredients may be in existence in a container, there is required a detonating
mechanism to set off the explosions? Two factors have to be present: firstly,
the correct ingredients in correct amounts in a suitable environment; and,
secondly, somebody to set off the explosion, whether it be by means of a
match stick, or the hammer of a pistol, or some electrical spark. For example,
if somebody said that he had a bullet in his hand and it went o ff on its own
and killed somebody sitting nearby, would any scientist accept such a
ludicrous statement?”
“Of course not. What are you trying to say?”
“Surely, then, if you want us to believe in the Big Bang, that a massive
explosion took place on its own w ithout anybody there to ‘pull the trigger’ or
‘light a match’ or ‘electrical spark’ then explain to us how smaller bangs are
not taking place all over the world w ithout any external agency? Any
scientific claim has to be reproducible for it to be accepted.”
The professor’s mouth opens, but no words come out.
“Also, we know that it is scientifically impossible for matter to create itself.
Take this wooden desk. It did not come into existence by itself. Some external
agency had to make it. Even the wood did not come into existence by itself. It
im e from a seed that was planted and nourished. y
The seed itself came from some source and could not come into existence by
itself. Can you explain to us how the original matter came into existence –
matter that the priests of pseudo-science state was ignited by the mysterious
Big Bang to produce the first living matter? Also, why are your priests not
able to reproduce this phenomenon in the laboratory? Professor, you must
know that any scientific argument must be reproducible for it to have any
scientific credence.”
“Son, it is naive to thing that we can do such a thing. The energy that was
unleashed with the Big Bang was such that we do not have access to,
otherwise we would also have reproduced the same phenomenon.”
“Professor, you have not told us who provided the basic ingredients, and you
are unable to tell us who it was who pushed the button or pulled the trigger
or lit the matches for the Big Bang to take place. Where did this tremendous
energy, that you are speaking about, originate? Come, come, professor! Let
us be scientific about it. Yes, professor, it takes a lot of FAITH in the doctrinal
teachings of the priests of pseudo-science to believe in the Big Bang. Do you
expect us to discard proper scientific principles and believe in all this
hocus-pocus on blind faith in the face of definitive scientific principles?”
[No answer.]
“If you don’t mind, professor, I w ill now go on to the doctrine of evolution as
promulgated by the priests of pseudo-science. You are aware that no fossils
have been shown that would directly link the descent of Man from the apes
and that there is a constant search for what is termed, the ‘Missing Link’?”
“Yes, but there is so much other evidence…”
“Sorry to interrupt, professor. You adm it there is no direct link. You must also
adm it that there are no fossils showing definite intermediary steps in the
transition from ape to Man. And I’m sure you are also aware of the Piltdown
Forgery, professor?”
“Piltdown…? Piltdown…?”
“Let me refreshen your memory, professor. Some fossils were discovered in a
place called Piltdown in England. These fossil-remains showed all the
features that all the priests of pseudo-science and atheism were searching for
as the ‘Missing Link’ in the chain of evolution. The whole world was led to
believe in it, and even the sceptics were convinced – until it was found, some
fo rty years later, that someone from the scientist-priest fraternity had
‘doctored’ the fossils to make them appear to be the missing link. It was a big
lie, a massive forgery that your priests had forged to try and convince the
world that the religion of atheism was true and Man had descended from the
apes! If you want more enlightenment on it you can read the works of
Drofessor Tobias, of South Africa, on the details of the forgery.”
The professor’s face goes an ashen white. Still no comment.
“Speaking about forgeries – professor, do you know what is plagiarism? Can
you
explain to the class what is plagiarism?”
Rather hesitantly, the professor speaks, “Plagiarism is to take somebody
else’s work and pass it off as one’s own.”
“Correct. Thank you, professor. If you were to take the trouble of doing a bit of
honest and truthful research you w ill find that the Western nations had
plagiarised all the TRUE scientific works of the Muslims and then built on it
and passed them o ff as their own ‘discoveries’, which led to modern scientific
progress. You don’t have to take my word for it. Just write to the ‘Centre for
Studies on Science’, Al-Humera, Muzzammil Manzil, Dodhpur, Aligarh, India,
and they w ill gladly send you all the relevant literature to prove this point.”
By now the class is fully attentive to the Muslim student’s words and they
hastily jo t down the address.
“Let us come back to the doctrine of evolution which the priests of
pseudo-science have fostered on the world. The back-bone of all their
doctrines is the concept of ‘natural selection’. This means that species
adapted to the changes in the environment by a change in morphology and
physiology, changes which they then passed on to succeeding generations,
enabling them to survive; while those species which did not adapt, became
extinct. The classic example given is that of the dinosaurs which could not
compete w ith smaller, more agile animals which had miraculously ‘evolved’,
thus the bigger, more slower animals became extinct, whilst the smaller
animals survived. Also, during the course of evolution what was of no use
anymore, disappeared, like tails and claws, being replaced with tail-less
species with hands which could hold, the final result being Man. You do
subscribe to this doctrine, don’t you, professor?”
The poor professor is unsure whether to nod or not, as he is uncertain from
which angle the next salvo is coming!
“Come, come, professor! This is the cornerstone of the doctrine of evolution
which you priests have been brainwashing the unwary masses with. Let us
challenge this pseudo-science w ith true science. Professor, has any scientist
ever produced any new species of life in his laboratory by controlling and
changing the environment? Remember, science can only accept material
doctrines if they are reproducible.” t
[No answer.]
“Of course not, even though attempts have been made, sure enough! Let us
go a step further: We know that the Jews circumcise their male offspring very
soon
6
after birth. We also know that circumcision has been practised by them in an
unbroken chain since the time of Abraham (Peace Be Upon Him). As a result,
certain illness patterns have changed. Any male child with an inherited
bleeding tendency would have died from bleeding and this disease would
not have passed on to the next generation. You agree, professor?”
The professor nods eagerly, thinking that this is a point in his favour.
“So, tell us, professor, after thousands of years of circumcising all male
infants, why are Jewish children not born w ithout a foreskin? Even if the
whole foreskin was not missing, according to the doctrine of natural
selection of your priests, there should be some signs of the foreskin getting
smaller! Don’t you agree, professor?”
The poor professor just stares blankly ahead, not knowing what hit him!
“Professor, do you have children?”
Somewhat relieved at the change of topic, the professor tries to muster some
of his previous confidence. “Yes, I do. I have two boys and a girl.” The professor
even manages to smile when he mentions his children.
“Professor, did you breast-feed them when they were infants?”
Somewhat taken aback by this obviously silly question, the professor blurts
out.
“What a stupid question! Of course, I did not! My wife did the breast-feeding.”
“Professor, have the atheist priests ever discovered any males who
breast-feed infants?”
“Again a stupid question. Only females breast- feed infants.”
“Professor, w ithout undressing you, I am certain that you have two nipples,
just like all other males. Why have these not disappeared because of
redundancy? According to the doctrine of natural selection, such useless
items as nipples in males, should have disappeared in all males thousands – if
not millions – of years ago! Professor,”
The Muslim student spoke gently, he did not shout and he did not push his
face into that of the professor’s, “I’m sure that, based on proper scientific
argument – and not on pseudo-science – you w ill agree that the doctrine of
evolution is just a big load of rubbish?”
The professor’s face changes a number of colours and all he can do is splutter
helplessly.
The Muslim student turns to the class of students and addresses them with a
wisp of a smile on his lips. “In fact, one can go further and state that whoever
believes he is descended from the apes, must be a monkey!”
y
7
It takes a few moments for the class to catch on to the pun in the Muslim
student’s statement, but the moment it hits home, they roar with laughter.
When the students recover from their laughter the Muslim student
continues. Turning to the professor, he says, “There are so many holes in the
doctrine of evolution that it leaks like a sieve. However, tim e is running out – 1
have to rush to the Mosque for prayers shortly – so we w ill not deal with all the
myths now. Let us go on to the topic of m orality that you raised. But, before
that, let us look at the point you made about your brother dying of cancer. If
you are upset that he died, then you are absolutely foolish. That human
beings, as well as all living matter, w ill certainly die is such an established
fact, that it is believed in by all people, irrespective of whether they believe in
God or not, and nobody can really object to the process of death. Secondly,
you cannot be so naive as to object to the process of illness – whether it being
cancer or any other illness, or an accident, etc. – as a prelude to the process of
death. Your objection stems from your misconception that ‘goodness’ is to
relieve suffering, and to cause suffering is being ‘cruel’. If this was so, then,
professor, you have no choice but to agree that the cruellest people in the
world are the medical research-scientists who use animals for all their
horrible experiments. Surely you must be aware of the thousands upon
thousands of animals that are tortured in different ways and made to suffer a
m illion agonies to prove or disprove certain scientific and medical claims?
Are these experimenters not cruel? You’re still with me, professor?”
The professor looks quite ill. The Muslim student goes across and gives him
some water to drink.
“Professor, I’m going to ask you another obvious question. You are aware of
examinations – tests that are given to students in order for them to pass and
be promoted to the next grade?”
The professor merely nods his head.
“A student has to make certain sacrifices, and even live away from home, to
attend a university or college; he has to deprive himself of all home comforts;
he is loaded w ith work; he has to give up his leisure tim e and his sleep in
order to get ready for the examinations; then he is faced with horribly
difficult questions to answer in the examination and he may also be grilled in
his oral examination – and he still has to pay the institution for putting him
through this torturing process! – you do not consider all this to be cruel? Is the
professor a ‘good’ person fo r all the mental and physical suffering he is
putting the student through?”
“I do no t see your po in t. O f course, th e in s titu tio n and the professor are do in g the
student a favo ur by p u ttin g him th ro u g h a tra in in g process in o rder fo r him to q u a lify
in his pa rticu la r fie ld . O nly a very short-sighted person w ould ob je ct to students
having to w rite exam inations, irrespective o f the sacrifices they have to make.”
8
( ——————————————————————;—————————————————————————
The Muslim student sadly shakes his head. “Professor, it is amazing how you
can understand the need for tests and examinations when you have to set
them, but you can’t see the same wisdom when God sets tests and
examinations for His creatures. Take your brother – if he withstood the test of
his illness and he died with faith, what we term as Imaan – he w ill be rewarded
abundantly in Paradise for the suffering that he underwent here. So much so,
that he would wish that he had suffered a hundred times more so that his
reward would be so much greater, a reward that no eye has seen and no mind
has imagined! Unfortunately, ‘only a very short-sighted person’ – and an
ignorant one – would object to the tests placed on His creation by God,
bearing in mind the everlasting rewards awaiting those who are successful.”
“Paradise? Huh! Have you seen Paradise, touched it, smelt it, tasted it, heard
it? According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol,
science says that your Paradise doesn’t exist.”
“We w ill come to that point also, God w illing. Let us continue. Tell me,
professor, is there such a thing as heat?”
The professor has recovered somewhat and he is feeling more confident.
“Yes, there’s heat.”
“Is there such a thing as cold?”
“Yes, there’s cold, too.”
“No, sir. There isn’t!”
The professor just stares blankly. The student explains, “You can have lots of
heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, or – at the opposite
pole – a little heat, or no heat, but we can’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can
reach 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go further
beyond that.
There is no such thing as ‘cold’, otherwise we would be able to go colder than
458 degrees below zero. You see, sir, ‘cold’ is only a word we use to describe
the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in
thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat but
merely the absence of heat.”
Silence. A pin drops somewhere in the room.
The Muslim student continues. “Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?”
“That’s a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn’t darkness? What are you
getting at…?”
“So, you say there is such a thing as darkness?”
“Yes…”
9
“You’re wrong again, sir! Darkness is not an entity – it is the absence of an
entity. It is the absence of light. One can have dim light, normal light, bright
light, flashing light. If one has no light constantly then one has nothing, and
this is called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word.
In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were, one would be able to create darkness in a
positive way and make darkness darker and obtain it in a container. Can you
fill a jar with darker darkness for me, professor?”
“Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?”
“Yes, professor. The point I’m making is that your philosophical premise is
flawed, to start with, and so your conclusion must be in error. You are not
scientific, but pseudo-scientific!”
The professor goes toxic. “Flawed…? How dare you…!”
The Muslim student is very cool and calm, and he speaks gently, as if to a little
child. “Sir, may I explain what I mean?”
The students in the class eagerly nod their heads. They are all ears. The
professor has no alternative but to consent. “Explain… oh, explain…” He
waves his hand indifferently, in an admirable effort to regain control.
Suddenly he is affability itself. The class is silent, expectant.
“You are working on the premise of duality,” the Muslim student explains,
“that, for example, there is life and then there’s death, two different entities;
a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as a finite
entity, an entity we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain what a
thought is. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen them, much
less understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant
of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive entity. Death is not the
opposite of life, but merely the absence of life.”
The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from one of the other
student’s desks. “Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country
hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?”
“Of course there is. Now look…”
“W rong again, sir. You see, im m o ra lity is m erely th e absence o f m orality. Is there such
a th in g as injustice? No, sir. Injustice is the absence o f justice. Is there such a th in g as
evil?” The M uslim student pauses. “Isn ‘t evil the absence o f good?”
The professor’s face has tu rn e d an alarm ing colour. He is so angry th a t he is
te m p o ra rily speechless.
The M uslim student continues. “If there is evil in th is w orld , professor – and we all
agree th a t there is – th e n God m ust be accom plishing some w o rk th ro u g h th e agency
o f evil. W hat is th a t w o rk th a t God is accom plishing? Isla m te lls us it is to see if each
o n e o f us w ill ch o o se g o o d o v e r evil.”
1 0
The professor bridles. “As a philosophical scientist, I don’t view this matter as
having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not
recognise the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of
the world equation, because God is not observable.”
“I would have thought that the absence of God’s moral code is probably one
the most observable phenomena going” the Muslim student replies.
“Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week. Professor, you
have tried to put the blame of the evil in this world on the shoulders of God –
in whom you don’t believe – which is an obvious contradiction. However, let us
analyse who is really responsible for the spread of evil – those who believe in
God, or those who don’t? A fundamental belief that a Muslim has is that of
being resurrected on the Day of Judgement and answering for his actions in
this world. For every good that he did he w ill be rewarded, and for every evil
that he committed he w ill be held responsible. Every Muslim has to believe
that he/ she is responsible for his/her actions and that nobody else w ill bear
his/her burden on the Day of Judgement. The concept of Paradise being a
reward for the believers and that Hell w ill be the abode of the disbelievers, the
infidels, is also a fundamental belief, as well as the belief that even Muslim
wrongdoers w ill be punished for their misdeeds. Professor, these concepts
have stopped countless millions of Muslims from committing wrong. We all
know that punishment is a strong deterrent for committing crimes. Without
this concept we would not be able to run our worldly affairs: fines, penalties,
jail sentences are part and parcel of any civilised system. On the other hand
we have the priests of atheism who do not believe in these concepts when
they are mentioned in relation to moral issues. To them there is no Day of
Judgement, no accountability, no reward, no punishment. The message to the
masses is quite clear, that ‘if you can get away with it then you are O.K. You
have nothing to worry about’. Also, seeing that they state that there is no such
thing as sin – sin, in our context, means going against the Laws of God – each
individual is free to do anything he wishes and no action can be labelled as
‘wrong’. Let me put it this way: the atheist priests maintain that God does not
exist. If He does not exist, then He can’t have set down any rules of what is
right and what is wrong – thus there can’t be sin, sin means going against the
wishes of God. So, man is free to make up his own rules, his own code of
‘morality’. Thus men get ‘married’ to men; women get ‘married’ to women; to
spread AIDS and other diseases is O.K.; there is nothing sinful with adultery
and fornication, as long as those involved are ‘consenting adults’; according to
the logic of the atheists even incest would not be sinful if the parties are
‘consenting adults’, seeing incest is a sin based on a code of morality with its
basis being religion, whereas the professor has categorically stated that he
‘absolutely does not recognise the concept of God or any other theological
factor as being part of the world factor’; to kill infants in their mothers’ wombs
is fine – it is exercising the ‘rights’ that the woman has; and so forth.
n
“You’re wrong again, sir! Darkness is not an entity – it is the absence of an
entity. It is the absence of light. One can have dim light, normal light, bright
light, flashing light. If one has no light constantly then one has nothing, and
this is called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word.
In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were, one would be able to create darkness in a
positive way and make darkness darker and obtain it in a container. Can you
fill a jar with darker darkness for me, professor?”
“Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?”
“Yes, professor. The point I’m making is that your philosophical premise is
flawed, to start with, and so your conclusion must be in error. You are not
scientific, but pseudo-scientific!”
The professor goes toxic. “Flawed…? How dare you…!”
The Muslim student is very cool and calm, and he speaks gently, as if to a little
child. “Sir, may I explain what I mean?”
The students in the class eagerly nod their heads. They are all ears. The
professor has no alternative but to consent. “Explain… oh, explain…” He
waves his hand indifferently, in an admirable effort to regain control.
Suddenly he is affability itself. The class is silent, expectant.
“You are working on the premise of duality,” the Muslim student explains,
“that, for example, there is life and then there’s death, two different entities;
a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as a finite
entity, an entity we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain what a
thought is. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen them, much
less understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant
of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive entity. Death is not the
opposite of life, but merely the absence of life.”
The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from one of the other
student’s desks. “Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country
hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?”
“Of course there is. Now look…”
“W rong again, sir. You see, im m o ra lity is m erely the absence o f m orality. Is there such
a th in g as injustice? No, sir. Injustice is the absence o f justice. Is there such a th in g as
evil?” The M uslim student pauses. “Isn ‘t evil the absence o f good?”
The professor’s face has tu rn e d an alarm ing colour. He is so angry th a t he is
te m p o ra rily speechless.
The M uslim student continues. “If there is evil in th is w orld , professor – and we all
agree th a t there is – th e n God m ust be accom plishing some w o rk th ro u g h th e agency
o f evil. W hat is th a t w o rk th a t God is accom plishing? Isla m te lls us it is to see if each
.o n e o f us w ill ch o o se g o o d o v e r evil.”
1 2
The professor bridles. “As a philosophical scientist, I don’t view this matter as
having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not
recognise the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of
the world equation, because God is not observable.”
“I would have thought that the absence of God’s moral code is probably one
the most observable phenomena going” the Muslim student replies.
“Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week. Professor, you
have tried to put the blame of the evil in this world on the shoulders of God –
in whom you don’t believe – which is an obvious contradiction. However, let us
analyse who is really responsible for the spread of evil – those who believe in
God, or those who don’t? A fundamental belief that a Muslim has is that of
being resurrected on the Day of Judgement and answering for his actions in
this world. For every good that he did he w ill be rewarded, and for every evil
that he committed he w ill be held responsible. Every Muslim has to believe
that he/ she is responsible for his/her actions and that nobody else w ill bear
his/her burden on the Day of Judgement. The concept of Paradise being a
reward for the believers and that Hell w ill be the abode of the disbelievers, the
infidels, is also a fundamental belief, as well as the belief that even Muslim
wrongdoers w ill be punished for their misdeeds. Professor, these concepts
have stopped countless millions of Muslims from committing wrong. We all
know that punishment is a strong deterrent for committing crimes. Without
this concept we would not be able to run our worldly affairs: fines, penalties,
jail sentences are part and parcel of any civilised system. On the other hand
we have the priests of atheism who do not believe in these concepts when
they are mentioned in relation to moral issues. To them there is no Day of
Judgement, no accountability, no reward, no punishment. The message to the
masses is quite clear, that ‘if you can get away with it then you are O.K. You
have nothing to worry about’. Also, seeing that they state that there is no such
thing as sin – sin, in our context, means going against the Laws of God – each
individual is free to do anything he wishes and no action can be labelled as
‘wrong’. Let me put it this way: the atheist priests maintain that God does not
exist. If He does not exist, then He can’t have set down any rules of what is
right and what is wrong – thus there can’t be sin, sin means going against the
wishes of God. So, man is free to make up his own rules, his own code of
‘morality’. Thus men get ‘married’ to men; women get ‘married’ to women; to
spread AIDS and other diseases is O.K.; there is nothing sinful with adultery
and fornication, as long as those involved are ‘consenting adults’; according to
the logic of the atheists even incest would not be sinful if the parties are
‘consenting adults’, seeing incest is a sin based on a code of morality with its
basis being religion, whereas the professor has categorically stated that he
‘absolutely does not recognise the concept of God or any other theological
factor as being part of the world factor’; to kill infants in their mothers’ wombs
is fine – it is exercising the ‘rights’ that the woman has; and so forth.
1 3
“Be patient, sir. Are you certain that your father is your father and that your
mother is your mother?”
The professor goes livid. “How preposterous! OF COURSE, MY FATHER IS MY
FATHER AND MY MOTHER IS MY MOTHER!” He is shouting.
The Muslim student pauses. The pause becomes lengthy. There is an eerie
atmosphere suddenly as the students sit on the edge of their chairs. With a
quiet well controlled voice, the Muslim student says, “Prove it to me!”
The atmosphere is electric. The professor is unable to control himself. His face
changes to a purple hue. “HOW DARE YOU!” He is shouting even louder, quite
beside himself. “I’VE HAD ENOUGH OF YOUR INSULTS..! GET OUT OF MY
CLASS..! I’LL REPORT YOU TO THE RECTOR…!
The class sits petrified at the outburst. Is the professor heading for a fit or a
stroke?
The Muslim student stands his ground, unruffled. Facing the class he lifts his
hand up, reassuring them that there is nothing to worry about. He then turns
his compassionate eyes on the professor. A force appears to emanate from his
eyes, directed at the professor. The professor cannot maintain his stare. His
gaze drops. His anger subsides. He flops back into his chair and holds his
head in his hands.
After a few minutes, the Muslim student speaks, very gently. “Dear professor,
I am not implying that your parents are not your parents. All I am trying to
point out is that neither you, nor me, nor any of us in this class can prove that
our parents are our parents or not.”
Complete silence.
“The reason is that we did not witness the act of intercourse between our
parents when we were conceived. We were not present to identify whose
sperm it was that fertilised the ovum in our mother’s womb. We take our
parents word for it that they are our parents. We consider our parents to be
honest and truthful in the matter. We do not question them their integrity. In
the same way, your children w ill have to take your word that you are their
father and that their mother is really their mother. Is that not so, professor?”
The professor lifts up his head. He looks up at the Muslim student. One can
see his face clearing up as some understanding dawns on him. The anger is
gone. Very slowly he repeats, “We take the words of our parents.. We take the
words of our parents…”
“Yes, professor. There are so many things that we have to take the word of
others. The existence of air, of oxygen, of molecules, of atoms, and so forth.
So,when it comes to matters that are metaphysical, from our real scientific
research we know that there have been no persons existing in the world more
honest and reliable than those who are termed Messengers (Rasools).
1 4
We M uslim s are prepared to stake o u r lives on th e fact th a t M uham m ed (Peace and
Blessings Be Upon Him) had an absolutely flawless character. He never lied to
anybody. His in te g rity was such th a t even his avowed enem ies called him ‘Al-Ameen’
(the TruthfuO .lf he said th a t God (Allah) exists – and we are prepared to accept the
w ord o f ou r parents th a t th e y are o u r parents- then, in all sincerity and honesty, we
have to accept his w ord fo r it, as we have to accept m any oth e r th in g s – the existence
o f Paradise and Hell; th e existence o f angels; the com ing o f the Day o f Judgem ent;
accounting to God fo r o u r deeds in th is w orld ; and m any o th e r concepts. Besides th is
one po in t, there are m any o th e r pointers to the existence o f God (Allah).The final
Revelation called ‘The Noble Quran’ is there fo r anybody to study. It has certain
specific challenges fo r anybody w ho has any doubts. These challenges have n o t been
m et in th e fourteen hundred years o f its existence. If one is n o t prepared to believe in
such a Messenger (Peace and Blessings Be Upon Him) then it is pure hypocrisy to
accept the w ord o f scientists, whose doctrines keep on changing, and even to believe
in th e w ord o f o u r parents. Judging fro m th e num ber o f law-suits th a t take place
every year in our courts, where parents deny parentage o f th e ir offspring, and also
ta kin g in to account th a t there are innum erable babies conceived fro m d o n o r sperms
o f men w ho are strangers, and also the fact th a t innum erable infants are adopted in
infancy by childless couples and b ro u g h t up as th e ir ow n children, sta tistica lly there
is room fo r a large degree o f erro r in any person’s claim th a t his/her parents are really
his/her biological parents.”
Turning to the class the M uslim student concludes. “It is every individu al’s d u ty to
learn m ore a b o u t Islam. ‘The N oble Quran’ is there fo r everybody to study. Enough
lite ra tu re also available on Islam. It is m y d u ty o n ly to info rm you th a t the o n ly Truth
is Islam. There is no com pulsion in re lig io n. Clearly the rig h t way has become distin ct
fro m error; And he w ho rejects false deities and believes in Allah (God), has grasped
a firm handhold w hich w ill never break; And A llah is All-H earing and All-Know ing.
Having inform ed you, it is also m y d u ty to invite you to jo in the b ro the rho od o f
M uslim s by em bracing Islam. A llah is the P rotecting G uardian o f those w ho believe.
He brings them o u t o f darkness in to th e lig h t. As fo r those w ho disbelieve, th e ir
guardians are false deities. They b rin g them o u t o f lig h t in to darkness… These are
verses fro m ‘The Noble Quran’ – W ords o f the A lm ig h ty – w hich I have quoted to you.”
The M uslim student looks a t his watch. “Professor and students, I th a n k you fo r
having g ivin g me the o p p o rtu n ity to explain these issues to you. If you w ould kin d ly
excuse me, I have to go to the mosque fo r m y prayers. Peace on those w ho are rig h tly
guided.”
For fu rth e r reading a b o u t Islam and the collapse o f Atheism , please visit these sites:
w w w .islam ic-invitation.com
w ww.islam galaxy.com
www.islam green.com
w w w .w aytoparadise.net www.islamic-invitation.com