Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Accident…Again

The son prepared a few questions for his father that night. Some of the questions were collected from some books he had previously read and the rest were the result of discussions with his friends and teachers at school. His father was late, so he began writing down his questions on a piece of paper so that he won’t forget them. When his father came later on, he was carrying a sack made of cloth, but the son could not figure out what was inside it.

When the time came for his lesson, the son asked the following question:

S: Dad, I feel astonished: How do some people deny the existence of the Creator while the entire world is filled with proofs of His existence?

F: I’d like you to be more precise in presenting your question. Does your question concern their denial of the Creator or it is about their disbelief in Him, glory and praisebe to Him?

S: What is the difference?

F: The difference between denying God’s existence and not having faith in God is that the denier has a reason about non-existence of God. But the one who doesn’t believe in God doesn’t have proof of God’s existence.

S: Which group is the majority?Those who deny God or those who don’t believe in His existence?

F: Those who deny God do not exist. Denial requires a reason, and how can they get one? Of course, there are people who deny His existence but when you discuss it with them, you’ll find out that in fact they do not deny the facts but they just don’t believe.

S: But there are many people who deny God’s existence because they are not convinced with the evidences of His existence.

F: These are not called deniers. A denier is a person who has convincing and solid reasons for the non-existence of God. And you see that this is different from the one who doesn’t believe in Him (Glory and praise be to Him). So, son, distinguishing between these two groups is necessary.

S: What about the group that doesn’t believe in God?

F: Those are creeds and trends...Why are you looking at this sack son? What are you thinking of?

S: I’m listening to you. I was looking at the sack because I don’t know why you’ve brought it here?

F: You’ll see that this sack has a close link to one of the creeds that doesn’t believe in God.

S: I’m listening to you, Dad!

F: There are different types of those who don’t believe in God; they are usually named materialists because they solely believe in materials and deny anything immaterial. The most two important ideas they believe in are: First: the universe doesn’t need a Creator as materials do exist since ever. And this is what we call the eternity of materials.

Second: The universe is organized and this fact can’t be denied except that this organization has no organizer and has been created accidentally along the years. This is called creation by chance, the probability theory so if you ask the infidels: who has created the universe? They would reply: Nobody has created the universe; the universe is eternal. Also, if you asked: How do you interpret the organization in every aspect of the universe? They would answer: The organization is there by chance.

The father noticed that his son kept having a glance on the sack whenever he has an opportunity so he smiled and the son understood the reason behind this smile. Then the son laughed and said:

S: How does the content of the sack reply to the materialists?

Is it a reply to the eternity of the universe or to the accidental creation of it?

F: The second one... it’s a reply to the idea which says that organization is created by an accident or chance. Take the sack and look what is inside...

The father emptied the sack; there was ten metal pieces that have the same size, numbered from one to ten. He continued:

F: In the past, there were some people who used the word “chance” to justify their ignorance. It is just like a cave that they turned to in order to deny the existence of God because chance doesn’t have rules and it’s not ruled by a specified pattern... chance means that there will be no place for law and rules. However, today things are different... modern mathematics worked around the case and discovered governing laws to the contrary of what some would think that there are no regulations that govern this operation.

S: One time, our mathematics teacher spoke about the probability law but he did not explain it for us.

F: What you’re talking about is called the Probability Theory. It has been evolved and it’s now considered as one of the important theories used in many fields where the old mathematical laws are not functional.

S: Will you explain it for me?

F: Yes! Look at the ten numbered pieces... put them in the bag and mix them well.

S: OK!... Well... Is that enough?

F: Mix them more. Hold the sack from both sides and move it well.

S: Well... I’ve mixed the pieces very well

F: Now, without looking, get me the piece with number one.

Can you do that?

S: I’ll try... OK! Number one; please come out... Well...

Oh! No, it’s number seven.

F: Put it back in the bag, mix the pieces in the bag once again and then try fetching another piece. Maybe number one will come out.

S: The second attempt... First I mix the pieces and then get one piece... It is number four.

F: Try for the third time!

S: Well!... It’s number two. I’m going to be closer to number one. May I repeat once again?

F: Yes, go ahead and do one more attempt.

S: Number ten comes out this time. I’ve got far away. How long should we repeat this for the piece with number one to come out?

F: Look, son! The probability theory says: the probability that number one comes out is one to ten which means you have to repeat the process randomly ten times so that you may get number one.

S: Ok!

F: But if you want to get two pieces say, number one and two sequentially, the probability will be 10 x 10 which means you have to repeat your attempts randomly a hundred times in order to find those numbered pieces sequentially. If you want to have three pieces sequentially, then you have to perform 1000 attempts. Therefore, the possibility of getting the three pieces in order is one to thousandth.

S: What if I want to get out all the ten pieces sequentially?

F: In this case you have to perform 1010 operations. That’s ten billion attempts.

S: This probability seems to be impossible.

F: Actually it is.

S: Well, now how can we infer that what materialists say about the accidental creation of the universe is invalid?

F: We show the invalidity of what they rely upon with the following method: The number of organized things and particles in the universe is countless. All aspects of the universe are controlled by a law or a system of rules. Each organization involves a number of units which far exceeds the ten pieces you saw in the sack. The possibility of these countless things being randomly organized to create an organization is almost zero in Mathematics. So the universe’s organization could not be created randomly or accidentally. Thus, there is planning, knowledge, will and power gathered to establish the universal organization. All constituents of the universe follow a system and blind chance doesn’t play any rule in this highly organized system.

S: Well-done Dad! This is very convincing scientifically

F: I’ll give you a practical example of this.

S: Please go ahead, Dad.

F: The example is based on the protein elements which are the basic constituents of any living substance. I’ve extracted this section from a book called “The Manifestation of God in Modern Science.” This is a valuable book and I advise you to read it, but I’m not sure if you can find it in libraries or not. Anyway I borrowed it from a friend and copied the parts I needed. Take these few sheets and read them.

S: Give them to me, please!

Protein is one of the essential components of all living cells. It constitutes of five elements: Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen and Sulfur. The number of atoms in each single protein is 40,000. If we say that the 92 chemical elements in the world are distributed randomly, then the possibility of mixing these five elements together to make one single protein component can be calculated to know the quantity that should be mixed in order to make this component and to know the duration of this process. The Swiss mathematician, CharlesYujengay , has calculated the probable time required for the above- mentioned processes. He found out that the probability of having the opportunity for the random formation of protein is 1/10160 which means that the process may have to be repeated over and over 10160 times in order to end with the formation of one protein component.

This number is not expressible in simple words. Another interesting fact is that the amount of substances required for the formation of one protein component by chance far exceeds all the substances currently available in the world by millions of times. The duration involved in the random formation of this single protein element on the surface of the Earth is endless billions of years. The Swiss mathematician estimated the period as 10243 years. Proteins are formed of long chains of amino acids. So howdoes the constituents match?

If they were formed in an alternative way, they would not be suitable for living and sometimes they turn into toxins. The British scientist, J. B.Leathes , has calculated the number of reactions necessary in one of the simple proteins and he found out that it would be 1048. Therefore, it’s rationally impossible for the entire reactions to occur randomly just to form one single protein component.

Interestingly, proteins are lifeless chemical components.

They don’t come alive unless they acquire that strange secret which we don’t know the real essence and nature of, yet. It is the unlimited brain. It is God solelyWho is able to know the fact that the protein component is capable of being the basic component of life. So He built it, visualized it, and favored it with the secret of life.

S: Dad! What a great scientific reasoning! Indeed “Those truly fear Allah, among His Servants”

F: All what you’ve read was about the formation of a single component of protein! Can you guess the number of protein components in the universe? What about the non- protein elements? How many infinite systems are there in the world? Thinking of that makes the accidental creation of the world a sort of madness or intentional obstinacy based on irremediable complex personality.

RationalAnd Evaluation Reasoning

S: Dad! I’m still overwhelmed by the scientific reasoning of refuting accidental creation of the world. Certainty of God’s existence is something that is open to discussion, glory and praisebe to Him. I’m now familiar with the error of materialists. Dad! Would you please tell me about the other theory of materialists and their idea of the eternal material existence which claims that there is no Creator for the universe?

F: Of course, son! They claim that the universe has been in existence since ever so there is no point of asking who the creator is because, as they assume, that there was no time where there was nothing existent. This allegation is just some kind of assumption for they have no evidence that the universe has been in existence since ever!

S: Right Dad! What’s their evidence?

F: I told you; they have no evidence; on the contrary, the evidence they forward is against their allegation. Scientifically, the age of the universe is around billions of years whichmeans that at the beginning it wasn’t inexistence and later was created. What does this mean other than: “It is X years old”?

S: Quite correct... If we pinpoint an age for the universe, it means that there should be a beginning.

F: It also means that it’s not eternal

S: Of course! And according to that there should be a Creator and He is the Almighty God. But Dad! Is there any scientific proof that the universe is not eternal?

F: Yes son! Physics will provide us with the reason. Thermal Dynamics proves that the constituents of this universe lose their energy gradually and this leads towards a day when all creatures are approaching the temperature of absolute zero. At that time, there won’t be any energy and there will be no movement at all. There is no get away from this situation because of the gradual loss of energy as time passes. This proves that the universe is not eternal. If it was so, then it would have reached the temperature of absolute zero long time ago. The burning Sun, the shining stars and the Earth, which is full of different forms of lives, are clear evidence that the universe is originally related to a time started at a specific moment. Thus it is an event amongst the events and this means that there should be a beginning for the universe and there should be an Ageless, Eternal,Wise Creator, Who encompasses everything. His Power is unlimited and He must have created this universe.

S: Mighty... Great... Glorybe to God... “Truth has (now) arrived”

F: “and Falsehood perished”

S: Actually the progress in science serves faith and brings human beings closer to God... Where did you find this reason, Dad?

F: From the same chapter of the book “The Manifestation of God in Modern Science.” FrankAlen had written this chapter.

S: May God reward him the best! What a great service he has delivered in refuting the materialists’ claims about the eternity of the universe and its accidental creation. But Dad! Did this book deal with the Organization Proof?

F: Yes... The same author discussed aspects of the universal organization and concluded that there has to be a Creator to the universe. He said:

“The Earth provides a suitable environment to life which cannot be attributed to mere chance. The Earth is a sphere hung in the space rotating around itself which results in the succession of days and nights; it also rotates around the sun once a year which results in the succession of sequential seasons that expand the livable regions of our planet and increase the types of different vegetables far more than if the Earth being static. The Earth is enveloped by gases which are necessary for all forms of life, more than 500 miles above the earth.

The thickness of the gas- cover protects us from the deadly meteorites which possess an approximate speed of more than thirty miles per second by preventing them from reaching the surface of the Earth with such deadly speed. Also the gas-cover keeps the Earth’s temperature within a range suitable for life. It also carries water vapor from the oceans to far regions flourishing life in those lifeless regions. Rain is the source of fresh water without which the Earth would be a desert without any sign of life. In conclusion, the oceans and the atmosphere complement each other to create a balance in the universe.

Water is characterized by four significant properties that protect lives in the oceans, lakes and rivers, especially when winter becomes long and extremely cold. Water absorbs great amounts of Oxygen when its temperature is low. The density of water reaches its maximum at four degrees Celsius. We also know that the density of ice is less than that of water which makes the ice formed in lakes and rivers floats over the water surface because it is lighter than water. Thus the water maintains its temperature making life possible underneath water in extremely cold regions.

When water freezes, a great amount of heat is liberated which helps protect the living creatures in the seas. The dry parts of the Earth are suitable for many creatures. The soil contains several elements that plants absorb and transform into various types of nutrients which animals lack and need. There are also a large number of minerals close to the surface of the Earth.

It was the reason behind the creation of the current civilizations and the emergence of the available industries and arts. In conclusion, the Earth is created in the best way for living. It’s doubtless that all this is arranged by a Wise and Expert Creator. It’s not sensible that it is a mere coincidence or a random mixture of things.Asheia (one of the Jewish prophets) was right when he said the following and this is aimed at God: “He didn’t create it aimlessly; it has been created and visualized for the creatures.”

Some people mock the size of the Earth compared to the infinite space surrounding it. If the Earth was smaller than it is now, e.g. equivalent to the size of the moon or its diameter is quarter of the Earth’s current diameter, it would be unable to keep the surrounding atmosphere and water vapor; the temperature would have reached a degree that no living creatures would be able to survive. On the other hand, if the Earth’s diameter was double its current one, the surface would expand four times the current size and this would result in doubling its gravity. As a result, the height of the atmospheric envelope would decrease and the atmospheric pressure would increase from 1Kg/cm2 to 2Kg/cm2 which would highly affect life on earth. In this situation the area of the cold regions would highly expand and the area of the livable regions would greatly decrease. Therefore, people would have group and live separately far from each other; the isolation would grow and traveling and communication would become impossible.

If the Earth’s size was the same of the sun (assuming that it should have the same density), its gravity would be 150 times more than what it is currently. Also, the height of the atmospheric envelope would be four miles less and as a result water vaporization would become impossible. The atmosphere pressure would be more than 150 Kg/cm2; so an animal of a one-pound weight would weigh 150 pounds. The size of a human being would shrink to the size of a weasel or a squirrel and their intellectualism would be impossible to develop.

If the Earth’s orbit moved to double the distance from the sun, the quantity of heat received from the sun would decrease to one fourth of its present level; the rotation time around the sun would take longer and the winter would become longer and all living creatures on Earth would freeze. On the other hand, if the distance of the Earth from the sun was half of the current one, the heat received would be four times greater; the rotation velocity would increase; the duration of the seasons would shrink to the half if we call them seasons at all; and living on Earth would become impossible.

In conclusion, the current size of the Earth, its distance from the sun and its velocity within its orbit provide the living conditions and the prerequisites for human beings to live, think and enjoy life the way we see it.”

S: O God! This is the best useful knowledge I’ve ever heard.

I must look for this book and read it carefully. If I find it, I would buy it for any cost.

F: Also look for the book “The Faith Story” written by SheikhNadim Al-Jeser . You’ll find excellent discussions and useful experiences about faith.

S: Would you please tell me about it?

F: We will continue our discussion tomorrow, son!

Mind and Freedom

Tonight the son was eager to hear his father’s experiences with the materialists and he didn’t prepare any question in advance. He was ready to hear his father:

F: My first experience with the materialists was before reaching puberty. I acquired my religious personality from the social environment where I grew up; my parents were honest believers; the school atmosphere was religious; and the city where I lived when I was young generally followed religious culture and practices. That’s how I passed my childhood and was about to reach adolescence. I was a good believer in theory and practice, but... What kind of belief and faith? I followed and did what others did. I didn’t know that such kind of faith wouldn’t endure or last against the first encounter of doubt. This actually happened when I was thirteen years old; I was given a lot of attention from my geography teacher who was a communist and was planning to draw me closer to his beliefs and then enroll me in the communist party.

That was after he noticed my excellence at school and my ideological interests which were different and distinctive from those of my peers at that level of junior high school. The preliminary discussions between us were about simple insignificant religious matters. He intended to influence my thoughts while I intended to influence his. I was unaware of his plan of changing my ideology. After a few meetings, I noticed that he was avoiding direct clash with my religious thoughts. After a while he manipulated the discussion from simple cases to deeper concepts over ideology, the creation of the universe and monotheism. He gradually moved to discussing the existence of God but in a gentle way avoiding any direct clash which might end up with a strong reaction from me because of what I carried from my environment.

He had profound knowledge about the psychology of dealing with youth who have just begun to shape their own ideologies, and at this age, they also feel so confident and bumptious. Young people at this age deny what they don’t believe in even if all mankind have unanimity upon.

This attitude might finally result in revolt and disobedience which is the basics for building new thoughts and ideologies. That’s why missionaries and messengers try to attract the youth who make up a large proportion of people in adolescence in order support their thoughts and ideologies. The youth would sacrifice themselves without caring for the harm they may get afterwards (as the cave companions did). You can see in the Arab world that the [political] parties originate among young students in schools and these thoughts become part of their daily lives until their graduation from university. It’s extremely rare that an ideological stream chooses men in their forties or businessmen, or those who have large families.

S: That’s right Dad! I also noticed that most of the parties form students’ unions which become the most powerful and active of all unions.

F: But this is before getting the authority in their hands

S: And after getting the power?

F: Afterwards, they don’t give people a chance to live at ease unless they show unconditional support. It’s an opportunity for those to seize power in an illegal way and be in a position to crush people, deny them their basic rights and transform the government apparatus into a fearful tool against people.

S: Do youthink, Dad, that it is better to keep the authority in the hands of ideologists or in the hands of dictatorial and opportunists

F: First of all, the question should be about the ideology. If the ideology is not Islamic, then it should not be considered as the best option. It should be rejected whether it’s been carried by the ideologists or opportunists. If the ideology is Islam, the believers are responsible for protecting it. Neither rich nor those who believed in Islam after its victory are eligible for this responsibility. For, if we won, they would say: Weren’t we with you? And if the infidels won or had a share, they would say to them: didn’t we support you and prevented the believers from hurting you?

S: OK Dad! Will you please continue about the teacher of geography?

F: Yeah! This man utilized his knowledge about the psychology of the youth and discovered my love for reading just like your love for reading so he encouraged me to solve the problem of God existence by reading books. Thereby he advised me to read the book “The Origin of Kinds” written by an Egyptian unbeliever calledSalama Mousa . But when he saw that I couldn’t find the book, he lent it to me. Soon I started reading it.

S: As far as I know, the book “The Origin of Kinds” is written by Darwin the one who established the theory, isn’t it?

F: Yes! The original book was written by Darwin and he was the one who formulated the theory of evolution and development. He has said: “All kinds of animals are from one origin and later they evolved and varied through natural selection according to the law of survival of the fittest, which assumes the survival of the fittest and death of the weak ones.” Darwin chose this title for his book but the Coptic author (Salama Mousa ), who was a representative of the Western ideology in the Islamic world, tried to publicize these thoughts amongst Muslims.

He also named his book “The Origin of Kinds” and extracted his concepts from Darwin’s book. The book was written in a simple style to attract young people and to turn them away from religion much more than the original book of Darwin did.

S: Why didSalama Mousa do that?

F: Darwin did believe in God whileSalama Mousa was not only an unbeliever but also a propagandist of the disbelief in God.Salama Mousa presented the theory in an attractive way avoiding the principal weak points. These weak points were mentioned by Darwin in his original book, which if one reads, he would feel that the author didn’t try to find an alternative for the faith in God, whileSalama Mousa tried to mislead young people by claiming that the Darwin theory is an undisputable scientific fact and that this fact is the alternative of the myth which says that God is the creator. God is far greater than what those ignorant ones claimed.

S: Well! What else?

F: I read the book carefully... My belief started to crack... What is happening here? I’m facing scientific facts that said: Human species are not created by God, they evolved through a number of random steps; those steps were repeated many times and provided a countless numbers of types and species with different properties and characteristics; the weak species became extinct while the stronger ones survived during their evolution; therefore human beings are created in the same way. He claimed that science was supported by many facts and undeniable evidence and archeological discoveries. Should I respect my mind and accept those so-called scientific facts? Or respect my parents and society and accept what they taught me?

S: It must have been a hard choice for you then!

F: The information in the book was supported by striking photos which consolidated those facts. But he organized the information in a misleading way as to perplex and confuse simple minded readers. I was like a villager who has just come to the capital of his country wondering about everything with a feeling of awe, daze and happiness.

It was the first time I’ve read a book that destroys religion completely; it showed how what my people, society, family, everyone I knew including myself believed in was wrong; All traditions, religious practices, prayers and social relationships were false. What we believed in or practiced was either derived from religion or related to religion somehow and because the whole religion is based on faith of God, then everything would collapse if what this book claims turns to be true.

S: This was a terrible feeling for anxiety could tear a human being and turn him into a feather in a blowing wind. I experienced this condition when you started your program with me.When you separated me from the school of traditional faith to get me enrolled with a free will in the school of real faith. You’ve done well, Dad!

F: Anyway, I decided to choose between my mind and my social environment... It’s true that my social environment was precious to me but my mind was more precious. I was a young man who respected his mind which was capable of showing me the right path. So should I choose my mind but then... No... No... If I followed my mind then I would be disobeying my parents whom I loved and respected and respecting them was a moral and religious obligation...

What?Moral obligation? And religious obligation? What is moral? What is religion?God’s law? What’s God’s law? Who is God? What is God? Is He the One, my mother told me about, or the oneSalama Mousa called a myth? Should I follow women’s opinions or the opinions of authors, intellectuals and prominent scientists? O God! What should I do? O God... Did I say “O God”? How can I call God when I doubt him? What was inside me that made me say “O God”... Was it myself, or part of myself, or what? A wind stormed inside my mind; I started reviewing everything... I decided to swim against the current but if I couldn’t, I would rest on the bank to find out the right direction then swim again.

S: What happened after that?

F: After a long deep thinking, I decided to deal with the case rationally as well as morally. The rational approach means that I had decided to investigate the problem by research and rational examination and to judge the case accordingly. And if I reached a conclusionñwhatever itwasñ I would believe in it and follow it whether it matched the inherited thoughts or not and whether the social environment agreed with it or not. However, from the moral point of view, it was fair not to show any hostility and conflict with the society because I was still in the investigation stage of ideology. So conflicting with the inherited and traditional customs was not rational before reaching the correct final conclusion.

S: This was quite a sensible and rational decision.

How long did it take you to study the ideological issue?

F: It took about two years. I was in doubt all the time and was trying to find a way out.

S: What about your religious obligations during those couple of years... I mean did you, for instance, abandon prayers?

F: Good question... I didn’t make the mistake that young people usually commit during the doubt period... The majority of young people who encounter this stage, which is full of doubts about their religion, leave their prayers. After they pass this difficult period, however, they find it too hard to start praying again because they’ve quit calling God and “By no means! But on their minds is the stain of the (ill) which they do!. ” But I rationalize the problem thisway :I thought after the doubt period I would reach one of two conclusions:

o Either I would believe in God and the fact that religion, Heaven and Hell are reality,

o Or I would discover that all the above-mentioned concepts are myths.

After considering both approaches, I thought which one was safer and better for my future: stop praying or continue it? The answer was quite clear... So I decided not to cease praying.

S: You were like a student studying for an exam. But he/she is in doubt about whether a chapter is included or not in an exam and then he decided to study that chapter anyway to be on the safe side.

F: Yes, exactly! In our Islamic history, there were many ideological streams posing doubts about the religious principles. Scholars and Imams confronted them with intellectual arguments and provided reasoning for every case. Those who are doubtful sometimes submit to rational proof and sometimes they wander away. ImamJaafar alSadeq has solved this problem when he tried the “precaution method” withIbn Abi al-Ojae

S: Who was this person, what did he say to him?

F: Ibn Abi al-Ojae did not believe in the hereafter. So ImamSadeq argued and said to him: “You see, if the truth was what you say,then we would all survive. But if the truth was what we have said - and it truly is, then we would be saved while you would be doomed.”

So, if the case is what you say (there is no God, Heaven or Hell), then we all will be saved from punishment. But if the case is what we say (the existence of God, Heaven and Hell), then we’ll be saved, while you’ll be punished. In both conditions, a believer will always be safe, but unbelievers would have 50% chance of survival. Thus, what does a sane person do when there is a possibility of danger?... And what kind of danger?... The danger of being in Hell. This method (precaution method) is what we adhere to in our daily life, and it is what I applied concerning the prayer, as I didn’t cease to pray throughout the doubt period.

S: Dad! God was supporting you.

F: That’s how I continued my prayers as I was looking for God, in order to find Him myself as you found Him yourself.

S: But I found Him in no time.

F: O Son! This is because of the program that God helped me to prepare for you... But in my case, I was navigating without any guide or compass.

S: May God help you Dad! Please tell me how you spent your journey from doubt to faith?

F: After I decided not to follow the inherited and traditional ideology and thoughts, I considered the fact that every single idea (without exception) might be either true or false and that the sole reasoning is the mind. As I avoided following the ancestors, I decided not to be deceived by the superficial concepts, as well. So it wouldn’t be rational to accept and confirm Western ideologies just because they came from the West and from technologically and industrially advanced countries.

The Western civilization has both the good and the bad. It’s not wise to adopt what is bad through guidance to good aspects. Should we, for instance, import AIDS as we import medical sciences from the West? Or should we be selective and take science and leave the disease? Is it acceptable to follow their footsteps in everything because we respect their progress in technology? It’s not wise to admire everything in the Western society. It is necessary to question every idea even if it’s presented by someone who claims that it is a scientific concept. That’s how I found out thatSalama Musa had deceived me by presenting Darwin’s theory as a confirmed scientific fact when later I found out that Darwin himself didn’t fully believe whatSalama Musa advocated.Salama was simply misleading his readers by leading them to Hell.

S: So you started your research by rejecting both the imitation of traditional customs and the dazzle of every new or modern thing.

F: Yes! It was so. I began reading books which were either proving the existence of God or denying His existence. In the beginning, I read the books, which were written by those scholars or semi-scholars, that were available in the bookstores... I found sincere attempts and honest intentions for guiding people to the right path but they addressed the older generation. Those sincere ones know neither today’s language nor today’s culture. Therefore, if the youth read those books, they will neither understand the language nor the content. Hence, the reader would abandon reading such books after just looking at the strange style of writing and the content of the first page. On the other hand, books which propagate atheism follow another strategy. Such books don’t provide the reader with a direct and frank infidelity.

They usually provide the reader with information which is genuinely true but follows a wrong track. So when the reader pursues reading, he/she will find him/herself following a track that takes him/her far away from religion. He will neither be given an infidel’s concept nor asked to publicly declare his deviation from religion, but he’s inspired as if he had chosen freely to devalue religion without being asked to. The declaration of infidelity was a very rare concept that was adopted by the Eastern Bloc and the Soviet Union who were controlled by communism. It was just when the political parties began spreading the materialistic ideology, known as Dialectics Materialism.

It was a necessary step to penetrate politically inside the Soviet Union. Hence, Materialistic concepts, in this situation, were a conspiracy against Muslims to make them join the Eastern Bloc. The Western culture, which I carefully studied for many years, is not an atheistic one; it has an anti-religious attitude which means that it doesn’t deny the existence of God frankly but it tries to create a kind of religious doubt as if it attempts to weaken human faith in God without fully destroying the concept of the Creator.

S: What is the secret behind this, Dad?

F: The same as the one in the communist concept... This is also some kind of preparation to encourage joining the Western policy because Christian people in the West do believe in God but they don’t want Muslims to comply with their religion. This is because they know that Islam doesn’t allow its followers to be enslaved by others “And incline not to those who do wrong”, so they are bound to create suspicions about our religion and to separate Muslims from Islam to facilitate their politicians’ intention. The colonization masters had utilized this condition in recent centuries. The Christian’s missionaries were the first ones who involved in colonizing Muslims’ countries. If you wish to know more details, you can read the book entitled “Missionaries and Colonization” to be more familiar with the facts.

S: What is about Zionism?

F: Zionism is a political-religious movement. In the last century, Western policy was dominated by Zionism. American Jews control 95% of the political and economic fields in America, while they don’t make more than 5% of the American society. This new emerging force has played more decisive role in opposing Islam and alienating Muslims from their religion in order to attach them to the Western culture. They started by occupying Palestine which acted as nucleus for their greater vision of establishing greater Israel that spreads between the Nile and Euphrates rivers and using the whole world to serve their intentions as God’s chosen people, as they claim. The Western powers have proved their enmity towards Islam during the last century.

This attitude can be proved through the double standard they have adopted towards Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They have extended their assistance and an unconditional support to Israel, the only country with religious system in the Middle East, while they have declared an open war against Iran and Sudan because of their inclination towards Islam. If the West is against religion, why do they support Israel? And if they are not against Islam, why are they against Iran and Sudan?

S: Father! Do you rememberSalman Rushdy’s crisis?

F: May God bless you.Salman Rushdy is an example of what I am saying. He did not claim that God is a myth. He mocked of the personality of the Prophet of Islam, his conduct and thoughts. The whole Western World, with its political and cultural institutions, moved to defend the intellectual freedom which was, according to them, demonstrated inSalman Rushdy’s personality.

This paradox was carried further to the Western judicial system when a group of Muslims filed a lawsuit againstRushdy in the UK. The case was rejected! They found out that British law stands against slandering Christianity and Judaism but does not do the same for Islam! Therefore, according to the British lawRushdy cannot be punished for offending thousands millions of Muslims in the UK and across the world.

Can you see, son! If someone slanders Christianity or Judaism he would be persecuted but not if he slanders Islam. So freedom of expression works on one direction only, when it is alright to slander Islam and Muslims!

Similarly, it is the freedom of the dress code. If a woman in a western country decides to walk in the street nearly naked, no one will interfere with her individual personal freedom which should be protected by law. She is only using her right to choose the way she dresses! But when Muslim female students wear head scarves in France as their choice to dress, the French Minister of Education approved personally of expelling them from school! No personal freedom was practiced or protected!

S: What vulgar bias they have practiced against Islam. It is an obvious fight against Islam under the name of freedom! Women have the right to reveal their bodies but are not permitted to wear head scarves! A writer has the right to slander Islam but not allowed to criticize Judaism!

F: Another striking example is the case ofRogieh Garouy , the Marxist French philosopher who has embraced Islam after deep study and scrutiny. He was a respected cultural figure in France and enjoyed freedom of expression before embracing Islam. But, this freedom was taken away after he became a Muslim. He was persecuted for his research regarding the actual number of Jews killed by Nazis during the Second World War

S: Is it a crime to discuss and question a historical event? Where is the freedom of intellect, then?

F: Because it was about Jews.

S: It is Zionism, then, that stands behind mottos of personal and intellectual freedom to serve its intentions and attack Islamic ideology.

F: And the freedom of trade; it was intended to lift the boycott of Israel. Upholding free trade meant not mixing politics with trade. When Libya, Iran, or Sudan policies were not acceptable to the West, they applied economic sanctions on them and freedom of trade did not exist anymore for Muslim countries.

S: Father! The same thing happened with democracy. They uphold democracy when it goes along with Western interests. They advocate people’s right to choose their leaders through ballot voting while they support dictatorships against people’s will when they choose Islam. This has happened in Turkey and Algeria in recent years. Democracy is not meant to be for Islam or to be a choice for Muslims, for example, Nixon, a president of the U.S.A., in his book “The Leaders” said: “If democracy was applied in Egypt or Saudi Arabia, it would be a catastrophe!”

Western deceit and double standard have been disclosed to the whole world.