Thursday, January 21, 2016

The Athmor Paradox and the Argument from Conscience

The Atheist Morality paradox is a dilemna of atheists and agnostics that if there is atheist morality, what is it based on? the answer given may be 'on human reason and logic' but given the fact that morality is not amenable to scientific testing, this reason and logic will vary from person to person. Thus, there can be no objective morality based on reason and logic alone. 
Some people talk about atheist morality that atheists are as moral as theists or even better. the basic problem is that what thing are you basing your morality on? If the answer provided is reason, then each individual has his own reason. For example, a thief will argue that he gets easy money by stealing, then why should he work? This is the atheist morality paradox(athmor paradox). Actually, morality is something related to the soul and is non-material or spiritual. There can be no materialistic and objective reason for it . All material reasons cited are subjective and differ from person to person. In materialism, good cannot be proven to be good and bad cannot be proven to be bad. But everybody knows that whenever someone murders anyone else, one feels a bad feeling in the heart and one judges it to be bad. This judgement is not from any material reason only(though material reasons may be cited , which are however secondary), but by a moral and spiritual reason. this is the argument from conscience. No doubt, hormones play their role in it, but the ultimate perception of the good and the nad is related to the soul(see the concept of soul).

Tismitiwtesbador argument for the existence of the Day of Judgement

Tismitiwtesbador is a vovel-corrected acronym for there-is-so-much-injustice-in-this-world-that-there-should-be-a-day-of-recompense and is self explanatory. No doubt people do get justice in this world but not all the cases of rape, murder, loot, theft, oppression, tyranny and the like are addressed. Many times the courts give decision against the truth. how many rapes are turned down in a court due to lack of evidence. How mant thefts go on without justice due too lack of evidemnce? How many abductions occur without an inkling of who has done it? How many judicial judgements are orchestrated by the influence and power of the accused. In short, an unimaginably large portion of the population on this earth is subjected to injustice and does not get justice and dies without justice. 

Now, a human being can take three positions in this case, all of which of which are not amenable to scientific testing;
- there is a day of recompense, where all the wrongs done will be redressed and the right things done will be rewarded.
-there is no day of recompense at all. 
- i do not know.(the IDNK argument based on the assumption that scientific method can be used to arrive at all reality. )

The first belief is the most logical of all the three and it provides an incentive for people to do good and acts as a threat to do bad. this helps to build a better society. the second belief is illogical, and it will motivate people towards bad deeds for personal gains. this has been seen in the world. Some people talk about atheist morality that atheists are as moral as theists or even better. the basic problem is that what thing are you basing your morality on? If the answer provided is reason, then each individual has his own reason. For example, a thief will argue that he gets easy money by stealing, then why should he work? This is the atheist morality paradox(athmor paradox). Actually, morality is something related to the soul and is non-material or spiritual. There can be no materialistic and objective reason for it . All material reasons cited are subjective and differ from person to person. In materialism, good cannot be proven to be good and bad cannot be proven to be bad. But everybody knows that whenever someone murders anyone else, one feels a bad feeling in the heart and one judges it to be bad. This judgement is not from any material reason only(though material reasons may be cited , which are however secondary), but by a moral and spiritual reason. this is the argument from conscience. no doubt, hormones play their role in it, but the ultimate perception of the good and the nad is related to the soul(see the concept of soul).


Friday, January 15, 2016

An Introduction to the Scientific Method

Watch this video:

Two divisions of reality or experience

Reality is perceived by human experience, which is of two types:
  • Material experience(The Scientific method and others).
  • Non-material experience: These are the things experienced by humans but not proven by the scientific method. Morality, consciousness, love, hate, emotion, anger and humanity and all other emotions all fall under non-material experience or non-material reality. no doubt hormones play a role in these emotions but the Question 'who is the perceiver' cannot be answered by materialism. The perceiver has to be non-material. in other words, it has to be the soul.  Hence, it is clear that materialism is not a complete perception of the reality. 

Invalidity of the Smitmtktr argument

Scientific-method-is-the-only-method-to-know-the-reality(smitmtktr) argument asserts that the whole of human experience and reality can come under the purview of the scientific method.  However, this is not the case. this is not the case. Morality, which exists, is not provable by the scientific method. The scientific method cannot tell us why morality exists or what is the cause of morality. Hence, realities do exist that are not amenable to testing by the scientific method. The scientific method covers only the material realities nd not the non-material ones , like morality. The smitmtktr argument is a consequence of materialism, reductionism and scientific naturalism,  all of which are faulty notions. Human experience consists of

  • Material experience(The Scientific method and others)
  • Non-material experience: These are the things experienced by humans but not proven by the scientific method. Morality, consciousness, love, hate, emotion, anger and humanity and all other emotions all fall under non-material experience or non-material reality. no doubt hormones play a role in these emotions but the Question 'who is the perceiver' cannot be answered by materialism. The perceiver has to be non-material. in other words, it has to be the soul.  Hence, it is clear that materialism is not a complete perception of the reality. 

Ioppactaftool Argument

This is an acronym for the inability of physicochemical processes and chance to account for the origin of life, which is a fact. If life did not come about by chance and unguided physicochemical processes, then its origin is beyond the natural forces. This argument is ignored by atheists and agnostics. They will say , " I do not know."(the IDNK argument), but this is a false claim as we do know that life cannot come about by chance. Watch this video:

An Analysis of the The Tinsetbig Argument

Tinsetbig is an acronym for there-is-not-enough-evidence-to believe-in-God, which is an argument put forth by atheists and agnostics that the evidences at hand are not sufficient to believe in God. There are several faults in this assertion:
  1. The decision that there is not enough evidence to believe in God is a subjective one and many may argue that there is enough evidence to believe in God. Hence, this argument of insufficiency gets deflated on the grounds of lack of objectivity.

  2. The second thing that makes this argument weak is the covert assumption made by the proponents in proposing this argument that the scientific-method-is-the-only-method-to-know-the-reality(smitmtktr argument), while this is not the case. Morality, which exists, is not provable by the scientific method. The scientific method cannot tell us why morality exists or what is the cause of morality. Hence, realities do exist tha are not amenable to testing by the scientific method. god is one such reality. However, other methods like argument from design, reasoning by analogy, the Sakina effect, fulfilment of prophecies, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument and the inability of physicochemical processes and chance to account for the origin of life(ioppactaftool argument )prove the existence of God. The methods other than the scientific method to arrve at the reality are:

  •                         Tawatur(based on a large number of witnesses of different backgrounds)
  •                         Conscience
  •                         Reasoning by analogy
  •                        Human logic(scientific method is only a part of human logic
Third, the tinsetbig argument does not take into consideration the evidences of the existence of God which are overwhelmingly important.

The Gravity Fairy Argument or The Russel's Teaspot Analogy

This is an argument which states, " Just as the existence of gravity fairies is highly unlikely, the existence of god is also unlikely, since both are assumed to be present, while in the reality, they are not. '. This is a very shallow argument, though, on the face of it, it looks bright. the existence of god is supported by evidence, while that of Gravity fairies is not. The teleological argument, the argument of design, the argument from morality and many others are the evidences of theism. hence, Theism is not based on a wild guess but a carefully thought out reasoning. 

Thursday, January 14, 2016

The RATRP Science

The reaction-to-religion-pseudoscientific(RATRP) science is a form of pseudoscience that comes into existence as a result of reaction in the mind of the proponent against religion. On hearing some religious facts, the proponent makes some conterstatements, which later come to be known as science. These statements are not proven by the scientific method but are just a reaction to the what the proponent hears from religionists. Hence, they are not science but opinions , which in due course of time are passed down as science. 

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Analysis of the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit

              The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit is a counter-argument to modern versions of the argument from design for the existence of God. It was introduced by Richard Dawkins in chapter 4 of his 2006 book The God Delusion, "Why there almost certainly is no God".   The argument is a play on the notion of a "tornado sweeping through a junkyard to assemble a Boeing 747" employed to decry abiogenesis and evolution as vastly unlikely and better explained by the existence of a creator god. According to Dawkins, this logic is self-defeating as the theist must now account for the god's existence and explain whether or how the god was created.

 In his view, if the existence of highly complex life on Earth is the equivalent of the implausible junkyard Boeing 747, the existence of a highly complex god is the "ultimate Boeing 747" that truly does require the seemingly impossible to explain its existence.
     [According to Dawkins, this logic is self-defeating as the theist must now account for the god's existence and explain whether or how the god was created. ]  In this argument, the author is making an assumption that God is created just like other things that are created. Suppose this assumption is true. If god is created by x, x will be created by y and so on to an infinite regress. Hence, the beginner of the creation would not be reached. This would mean that if such an infinite regress were actually present, there would have been no universe as the first maker would never be reached , or simply does not exist. The infinity minus oneth maker also does not exist and this will ultimately mean that the infinity minus (infinity minus 2) th God also does not exist, as its existence would necessitate the existence of an infinitieth god. If we say that the last God also does not exist, we fall into a logical fallacy as the teleological and other arguments prove the existence of God. Hence, there is a god who is uncreated. that is the only explanation of the universe being present. the teleological argument does not apply to god as we do not know what God is? Atheists cannot claim that God is a machine or a human being or more complex or less complex than his crweation. how can dawkins prove that god is more complex than his creation. He is using a false analogy in this case. 
see the video;
    

Basic Flaw in Russel's teaspot Analogy

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion.[1] Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapotorbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

The basic fault with this assertion is that it is the common SBOPT ie shift the burden of proof tactic, commonly used by atheists. but the problem is two fold. 
1. If it is said to the atheist, If I do not suppose that God exists, how can you prove that he does not exist?', then he will be able to provide no answer. His position is similar to saying , 'a planet x, some 300 million light years away, does not exist and i believe it does not exist.'
2.  Existence of God is based on evidence, unlike the teaspot existence which is a wild guess. Hence, this is a foolish analogy and a partial thinking process on the part of the proponent. Existence of God is proven beyond any doubt by the cosmological argument, the argument from morality, the teleological argument, the sakina effect, fulfilment of prophecies etc.  and many others. Thus, it is insane to see any analogy between the teasopt and God. Existence of god is deduced , while that of a teaspot is imagined. 

An analysis of the Argument from poor design


The argument from poor design, also known as the dysteleological argument, is an argument against the existence of a creator God based on the following reasoning:

  1. An omnipotentomniscientomnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.( This premise is an assumption. only god knows what type of organisms he has to produce and why.)
  2. Organisms have features that are suboptimal. (This is a subjective argument. many organs thought to be vestigial are now known to have some functions. Hence,any conclusion is inconclusive. Not to know why an organ exists does not mean that organ is meaningless.)
  3. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
The argument is structured as a basic modus tollens: if "creation" contains many defects, then design is not a plausible theory for the origin of our existence. It is most commonly used in a weaker way, however: not with the aim of disproving the existence of God, but rather as a reductio ad absurdum of the well-known argument from design, which runs as follows:
  1. Living things are too well-designed to have originated by chance.
  2. Therefore, life must have been created by an intelligent creator.
  3. This creator is God.
 The term "incompetent design", a play on "intelligent design", has been coined by Donald Wise of the University of Massachusetts Amherst to describe aspects of nature that are currently flawed in design.[2]

This argument is faulty, as God never sought to make human beings without faults.He made the human body susceptible to certain agents like bacteria, viruses, fungi, etc. This was to introduce diseases in order to test him in this world or for some greater good. Moreover, the assertion that human creation has poor design is subjective. even the most sophisticated jet fighter is susceptible to crashing. that does not mean it is not intelligently designed. failure of the machinery is, in contrast, direct proportional to the complexity of the machine and points more towards a maker. 

Did Umar RA burn the house of Fatima RA?

This is related in a weak  report, which is found in the book of a fabricator. This event is not present in any other book or collection of hadith and is , thus, a fabrication and nothing more. This event is regarde as fabrictaed even by Shia Ulema, as Maulana Ishaq says.


For the definitions of the Islamic terms in bold, refer to the Islamic Encyclopaedia at http://islamicencyclopedia.org/public/

Shift-the-burden-of-proof tactic(SBOPT)

This is a tactic that is used to avoid presenting proof of your claim by demanding proof of the opponents claim.  It is an escapist tactic used in discussions. Atheists use it quite often. 

Right to blaspheme right to insult- Is it a right?

Some people believe that right to blaspheme is their fundamental right that no one can take away from them. by this, they mean that they can insult anybody they wish and they have a right to do so. this means that anybody can insult them, their mothers, brothers , sisters, daughters and other relatives as well. the right to do so may be called the right to verbal insult. It can also be stated that anything cane be done with the relatives of the person in question or the person himself. This may be termed as the right to physical insult. If insult and abuse are to be allowed on any grounds, then the rights to verbal and physical insults are also to be allowed. Every logical person knows that these are not rights but an infringement on the rights of others. Freedom has to be within limits , keeping in  view the rights of others. if you have freedom of speech, others have freedom of respect. Your freedom of speech does not allow you to abuse somebody. How can it be logical that your freedom of speech allows you to abuse millions of people worldwide at once by insulting their figure of respect, which they may revere more than their lives. a reactionary blow on your face from a person you abuse is similar to a violent reaction shown by some people to your so called foolish '\right to insult''. In short, right to insult does not exist and you cannot get away with insulting somebody and saying,'' This is my right to insult.'" This is as foolish as it can be.

An important distinction to be made is that you can criticise a reputed figure but you cannot abuse him in public. hence, the right to criticise is a legitimate right while the right to insult is a logicall fallacy as it gives others to insult you, which may be verbal or physical. If physical, it may be death. Hence, you are inviting your own death. 

IDNK argument.

Thew I-do-not-know (IDNK) argument is an escapist argument, where a person says i do not know, while in the reality, he does know. this is used to avoid answering a question.

Is Allah the Moon God?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31MYJyiVYsQ

Default Answers to the Basic Questions of Life ,


Following are some of the  default answers to the basic questions of life , which place the subject under atheism or agnosticism. 
  • How did life begin on earth? It began in some naturalistic fashion.
  • Why are we here? there is no reason for us being here. We are not important(Laurence Krauss). We are here to work( Some others). 
  • Who created the human being? A naturalistic process that we do not know yet. 
  • Why is something good or bad? It will be due to physico-chemical attributes that we may discover in future. 
  • What is the purpose of life? Why do you think there is a purpose of life?
  • Is there a Day of recompense? No, not at all. 2. Well, I do not know. ( He means there is not any or this question is not important. We are here to work only to make this planet a better place to live on. for that purpose, knowing the answer of this question is irrelevant.)
  • Why is there injustice on this earth? because there is no god(the Argument of Evil)
  • Why is there evil on this earth? Because there is no god(the Argument of Evil)
  • Is there any life after death? 1. No, what happens after death is the same as what happened before your birth . i have discussed this faulty notion in my video.)
  • What is consciousness? We will find out in the future. It will be a physico-chemical process. 
  • Does God exist? . 1. No. 2. I do not know. This is an escapist argument , called the IDNK argument. The proponent means that either God exists or not. This is similar to the we-are-not important (WANI) argument ie it is umimportant if god exists or not( Richard Dawkins). This may also be termed as the existence of God is not important(EGINI) argument. This is similar to the scientific-naturalism-is-the-only-method-of-reaching-the-truth (SNIOMORT) argument, which is a faulty one.  Here, the author considers anything beyond the scope of the scientific method as unimportant. 
  • Who created God?1. No one. As God does not exist. 2.. Idnk argument. 
  • How should we lead our life? As per our desires and wishes. You can adopt humanism, secularism, socialism, capitalism etc. 

You can improve this article by adding the answers of christians, Muslims , buddhists, Hindus etc to these basic questions of life. Mail your articles to ishfaqahmadnbhat@gmail.com. You can also add your material in comments. 

Covert Assumptions and Implications of Atheism

There are some covert or hidden assumptions of atheism and there are many dangerous implications also. Atheists, as a rule always deny the existence of these assumptions, but the fact is that they just mean them. One statement leads us to many statements. Their statement that God does not exist leads them to commit to many others assumptions. Some of them are dealt with briefly and explained in the video. The reason why atheists deny these assumptions is that they want to escape answering some questions and they want to shift the burden of proof on the opponent. These are well known escapist arguments and ploys to evade a logical discussion. Some of the assumptions are:

  • God does not exist.
  • Religions are false. Nothing was created.
  • Life is purposeless. We are not here due for any particular cause.
  • There is no afterlife.
  • There is no recompense for your deeds. So, you can do anything you want.
  •  
  • Nothing is good or bad.
  • Man is just an animal and is here to satisfy his needs.
  • The first life somehow spontaneously sprung into existence. The first DNA somehow came from RNA which somehow formed spontaneously. In short, there is a naturalistic beginning of this world by chance.
  • Giving alms to the poor is wastage of wealth.
  • Morality is not to be taken seriously.
  • Science is what religion is not.
  • You can rob, loot, plunder, steal, kill , oppress and do whatever you want to people in order to benefit yourself. There is no recompense in the after life. Hence, you will not be held to account if you somehow escape the judicial process of this world. This is an implication
It should be noted that none of these assumptions can be proven by the scientific method and they are just beliefs that atheism stands on. They are some of their beliefs. They are the atheistic answers to some of the questions that we have in our life. In short, they are the atheistic perceptions of the reality and not reality themselves. the video discusses them at length and also discusses the concept of atheism. 

some atheists say that atheism is not a religion, but this is untrue , as you have to answer the basic questions of life that come to everybody's mind. Depending on what answer you give to them, your religion ( ie a belief system ) is decided. It is clear that the answers to these basic questions of life cannot be reached by the scientific method. hence, the answers you give are based on a non-scientific belief system, which may be atheism or any other religion. How close to reality are these answers is decided by the human reason and morality, which is a broader term than the scientific method. Closer the beliefs of a belief system to reason, better is the religion. the beliefs of a religion are also substantiated by other evidences, like deductive arguments, inductive reasoning and reasoning by analogy. Hence, no human being can claim to say, ' I do not have a belief system". If he ignores these beliefs, then he is giving the default answers, which are the typical atheist answers. 


You can also contribute to this blog.

Just send articles to ishfaqahmadnbhat@gmail.com alonqwith your name. You can also become a regular member. Together we Muslims can grow to new heights. Your article may provide insight into a thing that was not known previously. You can write about virtually everything. Jazakallah.

This blog is aimed at spreading the knowledge of islam as well as modern fields of knowledge. Hence, the scope of articles you send mayrange from 'How to do a thing" to 'what is it', or 'what I think about it'. In short, this is an education portal. We will be glad if you send us your articles. 

How to Use the Nanodrop Spectrophotometer


Nanodrop spectrophotometer is used to measure DNA or protein concentration or purity.

EditSteps

  1. 1
    The Nanodrop machine and computer are switched on. Open the nanodrop program.
  2. 2
    Add water to the point where the liquids are to be added. Click ok on the pop up window. This will initialize the software. Blot dry the surface with a blotting paper.
  3. 3
    Add the control liquid, eg Nuclease free water. Click blank on the software window. This will set the software values , taring these values as zero.
  4. 4
    Blot the surface of the interface again and add DNA. Click measure. The various parameters and OD ratio 360/380 ratio will come. For pure DNA, it should be 1.8. Protein contamination lowers it and RNA contamination elevates it.
  5. I have written this article on wikihow. Hence, it is not copy-paste material. 

FACTORS AFFECTING DEVELOPMENT



 Development is a slow process and will only occur if we begin 

somewhere. The only things development needs are: 

 time

 political stability

 education 

 sound economyAND

 the will to learn and work.

Time is the most critical factor of all of these. America developed 

because it got 230 years of peace and repose. The Islamic Golden Age 

prospered in Science and Technology because it got enough time to do 

so. Spain was a fountain of knowledge in the Muslim world, as it had a 

huge time span of  800 years. Europe developed because it had enough 

time to do so. Political stability is the next most important factor. The 

African and Asian countries did not develop much because they were 

not free, unlike the western countries. These are the cases where political 

instability led to stalling to development process. If we have a look on 

any of the developing or underdeveloped countries, we will notice that 

they have been a subject of colonialism, imperialism and political 

instability at some time in the course of their recent history. America 

was also underdeveloped when the British had colonized it. 

Eurpoe was in Dark Ages during the Islamic Golden age, because of 

illiteracy at that time. At the time Muslim Spain had some 800, 000 

volumes of books,  France had only 50, 45 of which were Bibles. 

Development follows literacy. Initially,the Indian Civilization was 

developed as it was educated while the rest of the world was not. 

Aryabhatta lived in this time. Then this knowledge was transferred to the 

Greeks who developed into the Greek Civilisation. The Indian 

civilisation then declined due to wars and forsaking the knowledge. The 

rest of the world was undeveloped at this time. After the Greeks, the 

Muslims were the most advanced in Science and Technology, because 

they translated all the books of the Greeks and set up many seats of 

knowledge. This was the Islamic Golden Age. The Greeks declined , 

again due to political instability and apathy to knowledge. Lastly, the 

Muslims also declined due to the Crusades and the following laziness of 

Muslims. 

A poor country does not develop even if the will of its people is strong . 

An example is Afghanistan. In contrast, a rich country does not develop 

if the will of working and learning is not present. Examples are the Arab 

countries. A very strong will, for the Muslims, depends upon the 

strength of Iman in their hearts. Loss of Iman leads to pleasure seeking 

and an amotivational syndrome. The most learned muslims have been 

from the period of highest Iman. Bukhari, Abu hanifa, Khwarizmi, Ibni 

Sina, Al Beruni and others all were from the period of best Iman.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ARE THE SAVIOURS OF MUSLIMS PLUS FACTORS AFFECTING DEVELOPMENT


I have a dream that every Muslim be an expert in science and

technology. That will save us from obliteration, and the wrath of decline.

Of course , Iman is a prerequisite to all this but that does not mean we

have to sit down and wait for things to happen. Science and Technology

are our saviours(God willing) and we should turn to them as soon as

possible.. Debating Milad, Rafayadain and Aameen-bil-jahar etc. is

foolishness and those people are fools who do this. If every Muslim

becomes competent enough to understand the intricacies of technology,

we would have our problem solved in months if not days.

I have analysed all the reasons why we are on a decline. This is the

single and the strongest reason of our decline. Our masses are apathic to

Science and Technology. Our masses do not know our problems. How

come can they solve them? Nowadays you need not to go to a college

for getting knowledge. You can use the Internet. Billions of files are

available on Youtube , Wikipedia and elsewhere on the Internet about

almost everything. The only thing to be given is time.

One more problem in this direction is the fact that in most of the Muslim

countries, there is no or poor Internet connectivity. In Pakistan , Youtube

is banned. How can a population solve its problems when it does not

know its problems and when it s unaware of what is going on around the

world. Efforts should be made to improve the Internet connectivity of

Muslim population. Trusts should be created for this. No doubt the

Internet has some disadvantages but it has become a necessary evil these

days and no moral or logical argument can be presented to totally ban its

use. That will be a disaster to the Muslim world. Modifications like

government censoring of unwanted material would solve this problem.

The damage done by Internet to the Muslims is too small compared with

the damage that will be done to the Muslim ummah if we do not use it.

It should be remembered that an expert comes into existence by

consulting a lot of literature, graphics, photos and real world

embodiments of the concepts regarding a particular topic that he wants

to master. This can be done satisfactorily on the Internet if you have a

fast connection. Nowadays, there are virtual universities the services of

which you can also take. No doubt, an exclusive Internetist cannot be

like the professional expert in a field but he is far better than the illiterate

log of wood lying in his home and doing nothing for the Muslim world.

When we have a huge population of Internetists, they can then learn

from each other and this way the learning will be magnified. That is how

learning takes place. Learning from each other and a learned population

leads to exponential development. A million minds will solve a problem

faster than a few thousand ones.

Last but not the least, a man is blind if he does not know a language.

English is a must for knowing the world today. In this respect , again

help can be taken from the Internet but you can also take a short course

in speaking and comprehension. All this said, if you do not know the

English language, you can still read anything on Wikipedia in any

language that you are able to read. Wikipedia is now available in Urdu,

Arabic, Turkish and any language that you can think of . There is no

excuse left for the masses not to study. The only problem is their will not

to do so. Otherwise virtually everything is a click away in the 21st

century. When technology is available, why should not we use it?

It makes me very sad when i see that I live in a society where the

majority is illiterate and where the majority will not understand a

technical aspect that you are keen to discuss. The biggest enemy of

muslims is illiteracy, not anything else. Said the Glorious Prophet pbuh;

'Seeking knowledge is an obligation( farz) on every Muslim. "

FACTORS AFFECTING DEVELOPMENT

 Development is a slow process and will only occur if we begin

somewhere. The only things development needs are:

 time

 political stability

 education

 sound economyAND

 the will to learn and work.

Time is the most critical factor of all of these. America developed

because it got 230 years of peace and repose. The Islamic Golden Age

prospered in Science and Technology because it got enough time to do

so. Spain was a fountain of knowledge in the Muslim world, as it had a

huge time span of  800 years. Europe developed because it had enough

time to do so. Political stability is the next most important factor. The

African and Asian countries did not develop much because they were

not free, unlike the western countries. These are the cases where political

instability led to stalling to development process. If we have a look on

any of the developing or underdeveloped countries, we will notice that

they have been a subject of colonialism, imperialism and political

instability at some time in the course of their recent history. America

was also underdeveloped when the British had colonized it.

Eurpoe was in Dark Ages during the Islamic Golden age, because of

illiteracy at that time. At the time Muslim Spain had some 800, 000

volumes of books,  France had only 50, 45 of which were Bibles.

Development follows literacy. Initially,the Indian Civilization was

developed as it was educated while the rest of the world was not.

Aryabhatta lived in this time. Then this knowledge was transferred to the

Greeks who developed into the Greek Civilisation. The Indian

civilisation then declined due to wars and forsaking the knowledge. The

rest of the world was undeveloped at this time. After the Greeks, the

Muslims were the most advanced in Science and Technology, because

they translated all the books of the Greeks and set up many seats of

knowledge. This was the Islamic Golden Age. The Greeks declined ,

again due to political instability and apathy to knowledge. Lastly, the

Muslims also declined due to the Crusades and the following laziness of

Muslims.

A poor country does not develop even if the will of its people is strong .

An example is Afghanistan. In contrast, a rich country does not develop

if the will of working and learning is not present. Examples are the Arab

countries. A very strong will, for the Muslims, depends upon the

strength of Iman in their hearts. Loss of Iman leads to pleasure seeking

and an amotivational syndrome. The most learned muslims have been

from the period of highest Iman. Bukhari, Abu hanifa, Khwarizmi, Ibni

Sina, Al Beruni and others all were from the period of best Iman.

The beginning of a new era.

Now, ia, we will bring many Authors who will contibute to this blog.