Miraculous Recovery - A philosophical perspective on miracles

The question of Miracles is an important one to Muslims as it is the foundation of our belief that the Quran is Divine and that it can not be explained by human endeavour. Based on this point, Muslims adhere to the Quran as the window of revelation that has given us our unique defining way of life. This given grounding in the miracle of the Quran warrants Muslim belief.There has been much research on the inimitability of the Quran and objective appreciation of its Miraculous nature by Muslim and non- Muslim a like; however the discussion of the inimitability of the Quran is premised upon the assumption that miracles can actually occur and are a philosophical possibility; sceptics of a naturalistic persuasion however, would disagree.

Often personal experience is used to cite ones proof of their particular faith, as the experience is seen as miracle. However, this seems not to be a cogent case for miracles as personal experience is subject to our senses, which are prone to error. If miracles have not been presented that they are even possible to begin with then any event put forward to a sceptic will always be viewed as an illusion, a trick of the eye and a naturalistic explanation alone will suffice.
There are also other problems with personal experience as a sole means in warranting ones belief. If we imagine two individuals each adhering to a particular faith and experiencing the same event say a great light appearing in the room, the experience would equally affirm their beliefs. This cannot be the case as both religious beliefs cannot be true; this would be an obvious contradiction. The reason this can happen is that a great deal of interpretation is involved in a personal experience. We make these interpretations based on the philosophy we already hold to be true, therefore what we learn from the experience is dependent on what we already believe. It is therefore useless to appeal to personal experience before we have settled the philosophical question. However, one may still assert some virtue in a personal experience. There is no reason or apriori contradiction in suggesting that God might occasionally intervene to provide direction or guidance. Nevertheless, we must understand philosophical limitations in attempts to justify religious beliefs. Therefore one could infer it is not enough for a given person to experience an event provide a cogent case for the existence of miracles or to validate a given faith.

However, less can be said for historical accounts; which many people believe are sufficient to determine whether miracles actually exist. No amount of historical evidence can convince us until it is established that Miracles are in fact logically possible. The result of our historical enquiry is contingent upon one’s philosophical views, which are held before we even begin to look at the evidence. Hence the question do miracles exist has to be answered philosophically before any investigation can occur.

Let us examine the notion of a miracle. Does the concept of a miracle make sense? The word Miracle is derived from the old Latin word miraculum meaning "something wonderful". Intuitively, a miracle is something that would seem to be impossible or extraordinary, but this seems too broad of a definition. A miracle, defined as a violation of natural law, seems to be appealing, as one could argue that only God might possess the ability to disrupt a natural law producing a miracle. However, if we examine this notion, it appears nonsensical for natural laws to be violated. More importantly, a violation of logical coherence occurs, giving rise to a logical impossibility of the existence of a miracle. So how then does one save the notion of miracles?Mainstream views of natural laws effectively characterise them as universal generalizations. The universality of natural laws is characterised by sets of 'nodes' by which the world appears to operate, free from any human interference and by a clear, objective, repeated, and undisputed observations about the universe at large. This is where it becomes problematic with regards to the matter of violation. Viewing them in such way would mean that a miracle would be defined by the very violation of that universal generalisation. The dilemma is that if we claim that something is a natural law, a universal generalisation, then it would not be logically possible to put forward the notion of a miracle. Indeed, the occurrence of a miracle is contrary to a natural law, an anomaly which would in return undermine the claim of the universality of that law to begin with. The Deists arguments against miracles were predominately based upon the mainstream Newtonian perspective of prescribed laws of their time. The world worked so perfectly in harmony that even God himself was bound by the mechanics of his own creation. A way to overcome such a problem would be possibly to view natural laws as not from a Newtonian perspective of prescribed laws, but rather in the descriptive sense. These laws are not seen in the rigid sense but as inductive generalisations. What we know of laws is that they are patterns and are simply observations of accounts of patterns in the world. They do not necessarily have to function in the way that they do. This then in return will give us room to speak of an exception to the rule. Hence, natural laws are seen as uncertain products of our inductive generalizations. However this still would not solve the problem of incoherence with universal generalisation and the occurrence of a miracle.

The problem with this view is that if any event was witnessed that did not fit in with the observed pattern, then this event would either be absorbed into the pattern resulting in a new pattern or the pattern would have to be abandoned all together. Either reformulation would not result in a law being violated. Incoherence still remains.Bilynskyi asks us to consider another dimension to the debate on natural laws introducing ceteris paribus. What if we were to say that natural laws function with the requirement of certain conditions to produce an event without any interference from God.

The problem here is that if we were to say that the universality of natural laws is dependent on ceteris paribus and that God is not interfering, then if a miracle is the interference of God with a given event, then that event can not be seen as a violation of that law, given that the law is recognised by its ceteris paribus stipulating the non-interference of God. Hence the incoherence is still not resolved. As Bilynskyj observes“so long as natural laws are conceived of as universal inductive generalisations the notion of violation of a nature law is incoherent”Bilynskyj argues that either we should abandon the notion of natural laws as universal generalisations, or abandon the idea that miracles are violations of natural laws. He chooses to abandon the first option, whist attempting to rescue the notion of violation by introducing the idea that natural laws should be seen as dispositions. He suggests that laws are not why things actually happen but instead are given accounts of underlying, ontological structures of the world.Bilynskyj is right that one of the two must be abandoned to save of notion of a miracle. However, William Lane Craig argues that one can still retain the understanding of the universality of natural laws by abandoning the “violation of a natural law” and replacing it with “events which lie outside the productive capacity of nature” . What Craig is advocating is that miracles should be re-characterised as ‘impossibilities’ rather than ‘violations’. Impossibility with regards to ceteris paribus implies the impossibility of an event occurring in any other way; unless a supernatural interference namely God exists. What Craig achieves here is defining the precise boundaries of what a miracle is. His definition has shown that miracles are naturalistically impossible but supernaturally possible. Craig has shown that miracles are physically impossible. Hence even if we bring back the Newtonian rigid ironclad prescriptive view of natural laws and use this new characterised definition that a miracle is regarded as being outside the productive capacity of nature, we rid our selves of any logical incoherence, yet still retain the significance of the event, achieving a miraculous recovery.

Adam Deen

Mother dressed in 'burka' denied French citizenship - Saga Continues with "House Muslims"

A Muslim member of the French Government has attacked the head-to-toe Islamic dress as a prison, applauding a court decision to deny citizenship to a Moroccan woman who wore it.

“The burka is a prison, a strait-jacket,” Fadela Amara, the Minister for Urban Affairs and a longstanding women's rights campaigner, said yesterday. “It is not religious. It is the insignia of a totalitarian political project for sexual inequality.”

The court decision denying Faiza Mabchour, 32, French citizenship has drawn approval from both Left and Right, highlighting a rejection of Muslim customs that conflict with the values of the secular French republic.

“The affair of the burka”, as it has become known, began in late June when the Council of State, the highest civil court, endorsed a decision to refuse nationality to Ms Mabchour because her practices conflicted with French society and especially sexual equality.

Ms Mabchour, a French-speaker who lives in a southern Paris suburb, came to France in 2000 after marrying a Frenchman of North African background. They have three children, all French. At her husband's request she converted to Salafism, a hardline school of Islam that is strong in Saudi Arabia. She began wearing the dress that the French media call the burka, but which is strictly a niqab.

In the first ruling of its type Ms Mabchour's application was rejected because she had failed to integrate. Emmanuelle Prada-Bordenave, the state commissioner who decided the appeal, noted that Ms Mabchour had appeared for interviews “clothed from head to toe in the clothing of women from the Arabian peninsula, with a veil covering her hair, forehead and chin and a piece of cloth over her face. Her eyes could only be seen through a small slit.

“She lives virtually as a recluse, disconnected from French society. She has no concept of laïcité [the principle of the secular State] nor the right to vote. She lives in total subservience to the men in her family,” she added.

The decision was the latest episode in France's struggle to balance the laïcité principle with the religious practices of Europe's largest Muslim community.

It follows a popular 2005 ban on religious head-covering in state schools and rising concern over demands from some Muslims for sexual segregation in public swimming pools and sports grounds.

Ms Amara, who is one of the most outspoken members of the Government, said that she deplored all head-cover by Muslim women. “It's just a question of centimetres of fabric,” she said, describing both as symbols of oppression. The headscarf ban has proved highly popular, at least with non-Muslims and teachers.

Last May a judge in Lille caused an uproar when she annulled the marriage of a couple because the bride had falsely told her Muslim husband that she was a virgin. On orders from Mr Sarkozy, the State has appealed against that decision. The “burka case” is seen by some of Mr Sarkozy's opponents as a reflection of his hardline policies over immigration as Interior Minister and then President.

Leaders of France's Muslim establishment played down the ruling and said they feared that it would stir anti-Muslim feeling. “The refusal of nationality is due to lack of integration,” said Mohammed Moussaoui, the president of the French Council of Muslims.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4347204.ece?Submitted=true

There are lessons to be learnt from the late Malcom X.

This whole case is telling of a new form of racism “Islamophobia”, which is becoming endemic and the ever increasing vocalism of what I call “House Muslims”.

Adam Deen

Secret of the Qur'an (History Channel)

Ch4 Quran Programme - Is Puin's Quran different ?

Taken from Muhammad Mohar Ali’s book “The Quran and The Orientalists”

In 1972 a stock of old parchments manuscripts containing manuscripts of the Qur’an was discovered in the loft of the Great Mosque of San’a. in the early eighties the Yamani Antiquities Authority, particularly its President Qadi Isma’il al-Akwa’, ivited through the German Foreign Ministry two German experts, Dr. Gerd. R. Puin and H. C. Graf Von Bothmer, for the restoration and preservation of the manuscripts. They worked at San’a for some years in this project. It appears that besides being experts in restoration and preservation in manuscripts that had “orientalists” motives; for, it is reported that Bothmer make microfilm copies of some 35,000 sheets of the manuscripts and took them to Germany. In 1987 he wrote an article on these manuscripts mentioning, among other things, that one of them, no. 1033-32, could be assigned a date in the last quarter of the first hijri century. More orientalist in nature was however the article which Puin wrote under title: “Observatons on Early Qur’an Manuscripts in San’a”. These writings attracted the attention of the orientalists to the San’a manuscripts and they held a seminar at Leiden in 1998 on “Qur’anic Studies” at which both Bothmer and Puin delivered lectures on the San’a manuscripts.It is not known what exactly they said there on the subject; but the above mentioned article of Puin clearly shows his intentions and conclusions on the subject. In the main he stresses three things in the article. First, he refers to the attempts made previously by the orientalists like Jeffrey Arthur, Otto Pretzel, Anthony Spitaler and A. Fischer to collect the existing manuscripts of the Qur’an in order to prepare what they call a revised version by comparing any differences in them and regretfully mentions that the very large number of manuscripts collected for the purpose at the University of Munich, Germany, were destroyed by bombing during the Second World War.

He then expresses the hope that the San’a find offers an opportunity to resume that project of work.Second, he mentions what he has been able to note the “discrepancies” in the San’a manuscripts and says: (a) In a number of manuscripts the letter alif (hamzah) is written in an incorrect way; (b) there are some differences in the numbering of ‘ayahs in some surahs and (c) in two or three sheets he has found surahs written not in the order as found in the Qur’an in circulation. Third he recognises that these “discrepancies” are minor and they would not probably lead to any sudden and significant advance in the field of Qur’anic studies. Nonetheless he asserts that the Qur’an, though it claims to be “clear” (mubin) is not so and that the existence of the above mentioned “discrepancies” show that the surahs of the Qur’an were not written down in their final form during the lifetime of the Prophet and that it is probable that a Qur’an with a different order of the surahs was in circulation for a long time.It must at once be pointed out that these statements and conclusions areclearly far-fetched and totally untenable. Before discussing this, however, it isnecessary to point out that this writing of Puin (and also of Bothmer) gave rise to wide-spread and wild speculations in the orientalists circles if only because these fell on ready and willing ears. One of the orientalist writers, Toby Lester, held telephonic conversations with Puin on the subject and then put forth an article in the January 1999 issue of the Atlantic Monthly under caption: “What is the Qur’an?”.

The article if made up of three types of materials: (a) information about the San’a find an the conclusions aid to have been arrived at by Puin and Bothmer; (b) assumptions of the other orientalists like Wansborough, Cook , Crone, Nevo and J. A. Bellamy about the Qur’an and (c) indications about what the orientalists are doing or propose to do in the field f Qur’anic studies.As regards the San’a manuscripts Toby Lester inflates and reiterates the views of Puin and says that according to him the Qur’an came into being through a process of evolution over a long period; that it is not a book sent down from the heaven on the Prophet in the seventh Christian century; that it is not “clear” as it claims to be, every fifth of its ayahs being either unintelligible of inexplicable and that there are instances of palimpsests or overwriting of some words or expressions in some sheets of the manuscripts. Lester further alleges that the Yamani authorities are unwilling to allow detailed study of the manuscripts for fear of causing uneasiness in the Islamic world but, nonetheless, these manuscripts will help the orientalists in proving that the Qur’an has a “history” just as the Bible has a “history”. As regards the assumptions of the other orientalists like Wansborough, Crone ad Cook, Lester sums up their view as already noted. Regarding the statements of J. A. Bellamy, we shall presently notice them.This article of Toby Lester, more than the articles of Puin and Bothmer, caused a wave of protests and anger against the Yamani authorities’ handling of the manuscripts, which in turn led to Puin and Bothmer to fear that their relationship with the latter would be adversely affected. Hence each of them hurried to write a letter to Qadi Isma’il al-Akwa to clarify their position. In his letter Puin defended himself as well as is colleague Bothmer and denied having said that there was among the manuscripts a different Qur’an than the one currently in circulation, that there was no basis of truth for what the American journal had alleged about their researches about the Qur’an and that the press campaign was intended to harm the academic relationship between he and the Yamani authorities.This defence of Puin is in fact a mere twisting and turning of the words and it does not tally with what he actually says in his article. He says, as we have noticed, that the Qur’an, though it claims to be “clear” (mubin) is not so, that the alleged “discrepancies” show that the surahs of the Qur’an were not written down in their final form during the lifetime of the Prophet and that it is possible that a Qur’an with a different order of the surahs was in circulation for a long time. He also says that the San’a find offers an opportunity to the orientalists to resume the work of preparing a revised version of the Qur’an. It is therefore necessary to discuss briefly the discrepancies and inaccuracies in the statements of Puin himself.

First, in his reference to the collections of the Qur’anic manuscripts at the University of Munich and the efforts of the orientalists in that connection Puin omits to mention a very important fact. It is that, shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War the authorities in charge of those manuscripts had actually issued a statement on the basis of their study of them. That had said that a study and comparison of the manuscripts, though not complete, had not revealed any discrepancy and difference in the texts except minor spelling mistakes in some places which was natural and all of which did not, however, affect the correctness and integrity of the Qur’anic text as a whole. The “discrepancies” in the writing of ‘alif at some places to which Puin refers to belongs to this type of error or style in writing and they do not in any way affect the integrity and correctness of the text as a whole.

Second, slight difference in the numbering of ‘ayahs with regard to somesurahs which Puin notices with regard to a few surahs is quite natural. Such difference in the numbering of ‘ayahs is acknowledged even by some classical Muslim scholars and it does not affect the text at all. Even the well known orientalist Flugel’s numbering of the ‘ayahs of some surahs differs slightly from the standard numbering. Significantly enough, while speaking about the difference in numbering of ‘ayahs Puin does not at all indicate any difference in the text of the surahs.

Third, palimpsests or overwriting of words or expressions in a few places do not suggest anything more than correction of mistakes omitted in the writing of the words in the first instance. It cannot be a proof in support of the theory of revision of evolution of the text unless and earlier copy of the Qur’an containing different words and expressions in the same place is shown to exist. This has not been found in the San’a manuscripts nor shown by any other orientalist to have ever been existence.Fourth, the conclusion that the surahs were not written down in their final form during the lifetime of the Prophet or that a Qur’an with a different ordering of the surahs was in circulation for a long time just because two or three sheets have been found where some surahs have been written in a different order, that is surahs from different places of the Qur’an in circulation have been put together, is hasty and untenable. It is important to note that is has been the habit of the Muslims since the very beginning to make collections of selected surahs in one compilation for purpose of study and memorisation, especially be students at madrasahs. And since mosques were invariably educational institutions, it is not at all strange that such collection of selected surahs should be found in a stock of Arabic manuscripts stored in a great mosque. In any case, by the very admission of Puin, this is confined to two or three manuscript sheets only out of more than35,000 sheets. Before hazarding such a serious conclusion Puin and his sort should have got hold of copy of the Qur’an, or a considerable part of the existing Qur’an.Even the existence of a complete copy of the Qur’an with a different order of the surahs does not ipso facto prove that such a Qur’an prevailed among the Muslims unless it is proved that it was accepted and acted upon by them at ant given time; for it is well known that for academic and other purposes the Qur’an has been published from time to time with surahs arranged according to the order of their revelation.
Thus for instance, A. Rodwell published a English translation of the Qur’an in 1861 rearranging the surahs according to their order of publication under caption: The Coran : Translated from the Arabic, the surahs arranged in chronological order. And early in the twentieth century a Muslim of Bengal, Mirza Abul Fazl, issued a new translation arranging the surahs according to the order of their revelation. Similarly Richard Bell made another translation in the early thirties with what he called a “critical rearrangement of the surahs.” It has also been pointed out that the orientalists aim at preparing and publishing what they call a revised and corrected edition of the Qur’an. And of late, as Toby Lester has mentioned in his article, J. A. Bellamy has made this suggestion on the assumption that he has found a number of “mistakes” in the Qur’an.

The existence of a Qur’an with a different arrangement of the surahs or with what is called “corrections” and “revisions” cannot be cited as proof that such a Qur’an has ever been in use among the Muslims.

Islam's Divinci Code ?, I dont think so.

to be continued...

France rejects veiled Muslim wife

Sorry, but I thought the Muslims were a bunch intolerant zealots?

Faiza M was described to be living "virtually as a recluse"
A French court has denied citizenship to a Muslim woman from Morocco, ruling that her practice of "radical" Islam is not compatible with French values.

The 32-year-old woman, known as Faiza M, has lived in France since 2000 with her husband - a French national - and their three French-born children.

Social services reports said the burqa-wearing Faiza M lived in "total submission to her male relatives".

Faiza M said she has never challenged the fundamental values of France.

Her initial application for French citizenship was rejected in 2005 on the grounds of "insufficient assimilation" into France.

She appealed, and late last month the Conseil d'Etat, France's highest administrative body which also acts as a high court, upheld the decision to deny her citizenship.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7503757.stm

comments welcome...

Misquoting Jesus A Talk By Bart Ehrman

Questions on Muslim apologetics : Q 3

Abdullah G said ...

Can any logical/rational argument for the existence of God be true in light of what we know from Quantum Mechanics. We know that QM show a world that runs counter to our intuition, so how can any argument based upon ration hold?

Adam deen said...

It surpirses me that one would want to even try to deny such an established statement, why dont things just pop into existence right now in our day to day lives ?

The Kalam cosmological argument thus follows
1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Quantum Theory is used to counter premise number one. In one of the ten interpretations of Quantum theory ( it is not known which of the interpretations are correct as they are all empirically equivalent)[i] virtual particles can arise spontaneously out of the quantum vacuum. This would be contrary to the idea that anything that begins to exist has a cause. However, what you must note is that the vacuum is not nothing, but rather it is a sea of fluctuating energy that serves as the indeterministic cause of such partials [ii]. A sufficient defeater of premise one would be to provide an empirical example where something begins to exist from literally ‘nothing’, i.e. there not being anything there at all. The nothing here would be analogous to providing a counter example to suggest that the universe can spontaneously begin to exist without a cause. Hence the quantum theory does not constitute a substantive counter to the theory that things do not pop into being out of nothing.
[i] Quantum Reality, Nick Herbert
[ii] [ii] Does Physical Cosmology Transcend the Limits of Naturalistic Reasoning ?, Bernulf Kanitscheider

Jesus 'would feel Anglican pain'

Dr Williams said the Church was "anxious and tormented"
The Archbishop of Canterbury has said Jesus would feel the pain on both sides of the divide in the Church of England over women bishops and gay priests.
Rowan Williams made his comments during a sermon at a communion service at York Minster ahead of a crucial vote by the Church's ruling body.
On Monday, the General Synod will decide how far the Church should accommodate opponents of women bishops.
More than 1,000 clergy have threatened to leave the Church over the issue.
They say they will go unless adequate safeguards are put in place to ensure they can receive pastoral oversight from a male bishop.
The controversy comes shortly after the creation of a worldwide movement of Anglicans who oppose the liberalisation of Church teaching on issues such as homosexuality.
Dr Williams said: "In the middle of our discussions at Synod, where would Jesus be?
"Jesus is going to be with those who feel the waterlessness of their position, with those traditionalists feeling the Church is slipping away from them, the landmarks have shifted....
"He will be with those in very different parts of the landscape who feel that things are closing in, that their position is under threat and their liberties are being taken away by those anxious and eager to enforce new ideologies in the name of Christ.
"He will be with those who feel that their liberty of questioning is under threat, he will be with gay clergy who wonder what their future is in a Church so anxious and tormented about this issue."
'Vatican meeting'
Any decision on woman bishops will have to be approved by parliament.

Christina Rees is a campaigner for women bishopsConservative MP, Robert Key, who sits on the Synod, said MPs could vote against any measure they thought was unfair.
"MPs don't see this as a theological squabble in the Church of England. They see it as something much broader," he said.
The Church of England has refused to confirm newspaper reports that senior bishops have had talks with Vatican officials over divisions in the Anglican Communion ahead of the Lambeth Conference later this month.
The Sunday Telegraph reported that Church of England bishops met senior advisers of Pope Benedict XVI to discuss the issue of gay priests and women bishops.
A number of bishops within the worldwide Communion have declined invitations to Lambeth - which takes place every 10 years - in protest at the presence of pro-gay clergy.
Meanwhile, a proposal to assist the opening up of hundreds of parish churches to tourists has been approved by the General Synod during its gathering at York University.
Members backed calls for the creation of a tourism group in each of the 44 dioceses to boost interest in church buildings.
The meeting was also due to debate whether fees charged for weddings and funerals should be raised.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7491829.stm