The Jewel Of Medina hysteria - Here we go again.

As a child, I remember watching one of my favourite superhero cartoons. A hideous monster with immense powers was unleashed on the innocent citizens of a made-up city in super hero world. One by one the superheroes were beaten by the monster and with each attempt, as the super heroes failed, the monster appeared to get stronger they realised their failing - each time the super heroes struck at the Monster, it was drawing on their strength and getting more powerful.

I have been inundated with emails about the recent release of the polemical, not to say highly distasteful, Jewel of Medina. My main concern relating to this issue is that someone out there is going to do something crazy. We know that four people have already been arrested in London over an alleged attack on the publisher – I am praying there will be not further incidents.
Why do Muslims fall for it every time? Why do we always get duped by “let’s see what we can do to wind up Muslims and get a story from a random hot-head?”

First it was global upheaval, following the publication of cartoons in the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten. More than 100 people died in the ensuing protests. As you may recall, London had its own angry protests, images of Muslims beamed all over the world calling for violence, whilst covering their faces, the very images in the psyche of non –muslins when videos of innocent captives are killed on camera at the hands of violent extremists. Those Muslims who attended may have felt they did something for the sake of Allah. From a simplistic point of view, I take your point. However, when one examines the impact it plays on the political arena, it was exactly what our enemies wanted to happen. If I was the Caliph (you never know!), I would probably have been tempted to lash you for your political naivety. We played right into their hands. The forces that work against us relished those moments and furthered their demonisation case against us as an “extreme, violent and alien community living in our midst.” I can just imagine them, “Fools” they cackle, whilst watching us dig our own graves. The prophet once said: “A Muslim is never bitten from the same hole twice.” Not only do we get bitten the second time, but actually out-stretch our hand.

Let me stop you in your tracks before you say “fear Allah brother, the hadith says we should x , y and z”. This is the type of simplistic reasoning in political Islam is the thorn in the side of the Muslims, with ignorant zealots representing us in the public space. For example, one extraordinary and horrific example of following divine rules without applying common sense occurred in 2002 when fire broke out at a girls' school in Mecca. Saudi religious police were ordered that those trying to escape were properly attired in headscarves and black abayas, i.e. covered. Eyewitness accounts told of girls being forced back into the burning building to retrieve their head-coverings. Several who went back died in the blaze - the price of enforcing this rigid outlook or principles. “But we must follow Quran and Sunnah, you cry,” yes we do, there is no need to state the obvious here. Taking into account the whole picture is not in any shape or form not following the Quran and Sunnah.

The best thing we can do is hit them where it hurts. “Don’t give them free publicity!” If you want this monster to die, ignore it. It might be the best weapon we have. The greatest irony is that no doubt more copies will be sold due to this Muslim backlash.

I’m angered by these attacks against our beloved Messenger as much as any Muslim but not to the extent of being prepared to put a smile on the faces of our critics by giving them exactly what they want from us – a reaction. For me these slurs are pure ad hominem, an indication that these polemicists have to resort to playing dirty as they can’t take us on honorably, through argument and reason.

No doubt I will be branded a "Moderate" by some and that too would be an ad hominem.

Adam Deen

My Next Event : Debate - "There is no God"

Bradford Univeristy Islamic Society Presents:Debate: There is no God': A Statement for
Debate.

Hamza Andreas Tzortzis & Adam Deen vs. Brian Layfield & Robert Tee (Humanist Society)Wednesday 15th October 2008

Horton BarnDoors Open at 2pm http://www.bradfordisoc.com/

A new philosophical perspective on the inimitable challenge of the Quran. - Miracle of The Quran

Draft version 1.0


Now that we have demonstrated the recovery of our notion of miracles, how do we apply this philosophical perspective to the miracle of the Quran ?(http://adamdeen.blogspot.com/2008/07/miraculous-recovery-philosophical_17.html)


Many accounts have been made to justify the Quran as a miracle with regards to its literacy. With the multitude of works on the topic of Quran, there has not been a concise explanation with regards to why the Quran is actually a miracle, using current Quran’ic research and applying the concise concept of miracles to the challenge of the Quran. Drawing on this new formulation of a miracle, we can achieve a more cogent argument that encapsulates the Miracle of the Quran in its entirety.
The author of the Quran claims his work is revelation from God; in return the author boldly confronts his sceptics by setting a falsification challenge. The Qur'an challenges humanity to attempt to match the reality of the Qur'anic text, the smallest chapter (surah) to be exact. Failure to do so would inductively lead the individual taking up the challenge to accept the divine authorship of the Quran.

"And if you are in doubt about which We have revealed to Our Servant then bring one chapter like it"[1].

The author asks humanity to take up the challenge of producing one chapter like it as evidence of its divine authorship, which implies that if this cannot be achieved one can infer that the Quran is not of human but of a supernatural endeavour.

If the Quran is a miracle, then what are the certus parbus for the challenge of the Quran? The Arabic language has 28 letters and a finite number of grammatical rules.
The finite letters and grammatical rules allow any expression in the Arabic language to either fall into the literacy forms prose or poetry.

Poetry as a mode of expression uses metrical speech. That is to say that it employs strict rhythmical patterns. The rhyme in Arabic poetry is due to its rhythmical divisions called ‘Al Bihar’, which means the seas in Arabic. There are sixteen unique rhythmical divisions in the Arabic language they are at-Tawîl, al-Bassit, al-Wafir, al-Kamil, ar-Rajs, al-Khafif, al-Hazaj, al-Muttakarib, al-Munsarih, al-Muktatab, al-Muktadarak, al-Madid, al-Mujtath, al-Ramel, al-Khabab and as-Saria. A literary analysis of any arabic poem will conclude that it adheres to or is based upon one of these rhythmical patterns.[2]

Arabic prose can be termed non-metrical speech, meaning that it does not have a rhythmical pattern like poetry as mentioned above. Arabic prose has two divisions; they are ‘Saj’ which is rhymed prose and ‘Mursal’ which is straight prose. ‘Saj’s’ rhythmical quality is irregularly employed making it distinct from ‘Al bihar’.[3] Mursal can be defined as a literary form that is continued straight throughout without any divisions, either of rhyme or of anything else, its function is for everyday spoken language. [4]


Recent studies by contemporary Arabic scholars have described the Qur’anic mode of expression as a unique literary form. Although some of the verses can be described as one of the ‘al-bihar, the totality of a chapter cannot be matched to any given division.

Kristina Nelson writes

“Although some of the lines of the Qur’an may be scanned according to the Classical Arabic metres*, these are not as characteristic of Qur’anic syllabic rhythmic patterns as are the abrupt or progressive shifts in rhythmic patterns and length of line, and the shifts between regular and irregular patterns.”[5]

To understand how the Quran achieves this, is to view the Qur’anic text as a unique fusion or intermingling of metrical and non-metrical speech, thus creating a unique literary form that does not fit into any division of the ‘al- bihar’ or ‘Mursal’. Non Muslim Arabic scholars have recognised this unique literary form and proclaimed that the Qur’anic literary form is to be viewed as original, going so far, in some cases, as to label it inimitable.

“The best of Arab writers have never succeeded in producing equal in merit to the Quran itself”.[6]

“The challenge was taken up during Muhammed’s lifetime, and the surviving specimens of emulation do nothing to undermine the Quran’s claim to inimitability; neither do the crude parodies put out by later writers, among them eminent authors, who viewed, who feigned to rival the unique beauty of the Muslim scriptures”[7]

“The Quran is unapproachable as regards convincing power, eloquence, and even composition…”[8]

“From the literary point of view, the Koran is regarded as a specimen of purest Arabic…..It has been said that in some cases grammarians have adopted their rules to agree with certain phases and expressions used in it, and that thought several attempts have been made to produce a work equal to it as far as elegant writing is concerned none has succeeded”. [9]

“So there has been no opportunity for any forgery or pious fraud in the Quran, which distinguishes it from all other important religious works….It, is exceedingly strange that this illiterate person should have composed the best book in the language”. [10]

“Whenever Muhammed was asked a miracle, as proof of the authenticity of his mission, he quoted the composition of the Quran and its incomparable excellence as proof of its Divine origin. And, in fact, even for those who are non-Muslims nothing is more marvellous that its language, which with such a comparable plenitude and a grasping sonority with simple audition ravished with admiration those primitive peoples so fond of eloquence. The ampleness of its syllables with grades cadence and with a remarkable rhythm have been much movement in the conversion of the most hostile and the most sceptic”[11]


Not only is the literary form of the Quran viewed as unique, but its uniqueness is reaffirmed by the combination of inimitable stylistic form with coherence of the overall message. Some might argue that the challenge can never be achieved because it is based upon a subjective criterion, that the author has set a challenge which is based upon aesthetic appreciation. It is equivalent to an artist’s challenge to match his work of art with a more objectively beautiful piece of work. As beauty is ultimately a subjective matter, this could never be achieved. If the Quran were to set a challenge of this nature then its critics would be right in that no amount of Arabic could ultimately disprove the Quran. Although there have been many studies on the depth and beauty of the Qur’anic text, the author of the Quran is not asking to match its beauty. Rather, where the author says “bring one chapter like it..” , it is clear from what has been mentioned earlier, that the challenge is in reference to the structure of the language or literary form. This then would make the challenge an objective one, as its objectivity can be identified in the difference between prose and poetry literary forms.

The Qur’anic literary form lies outside the productive capacity of the Arabic language.


The 28 letters and finite grammatical rules are the conditions (ceteris paribus) of the productive capacity of the Arabic language. The productive capacity of the Quran produces Arabic prose (saj or mursal) and poetry (Al Bihar). All pre-Quranic text and post-Quranic texts fall within these classifications of the Arabic language.

The Quranic mode of expression does not fall into the given categories of the Arabic language. This suggests that the inimitable mode of expression lies outside the productive capacity of the Arabic language. The Quran functions in a unique literary form and as a result, has proven inimitable for 1400 years. Hence, there are good reasons to believe that, although the Quran appears naturalistically impossible, given the capacity of the Arabic language, a Supernatural explanation appears most reasonable.

We may present the basic argument in summary as follows:

1. Prose and poetry are inside the productive capacity of Arabic language
2. The Qur’anic literary form is unique and does not fit into the known divisions of Arabic language
3. Therefore the Quran outside the productive capacity of Arabic language.


Given the truth of the three premises, the conclusion (4) necessarily follows.

Adam Deen

[1] chapter 2 verse 23 the Qur'an
[2] Louis Cheikho, Shu’ara' 'al-Nasraniyah, 1890-1891, Beirut.
[3] “A literary form with some emphasis on rhythm and rhyme, but distinct from poetry. Saj’ is not really as sophisticated as poetry, but has been employed by Arab poets, and is the best known of the pre-Islamic Arab prosodies. It is distinct from poetry in its lack of metre, i.e. it has not consistent rhythmical pattern, and it shares with poetry the element of rhyme, though in many cases some what irregularly employed.” A. Von Deffer. 2003 (Revised Ed. 1994). ‘Ulum al-Qur’an: An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an. The Islamic Foundation, p. 75
[4] Ibid.
[5] Kristina Nelson. 1985 (2nd Print 2002). The Art of Reciting the Qur’an. The American University in Cairo Press, p. 10
[6] E H Palmer (Tr.), The Qur'an, 1900, Part I, Oxford at Clarendon Press, p. lv.
[7] A.J Arberry : The Holy Koran (translation p27-8)
[8] Dr Hertwig Hirschield : New researches into the composition and exegesis of the Quran p8-9)
[9] F.F Arbuthnot- The construction of the Bible and Koran
[10] Basanta Coomar Bose-Mohamedanism
[11] Paul Casanova-L’Enseignement de L’Arabe au College de France

Embryology in the Quran

Draft version 1.0

The Quran is not a science book neither does it claim to be, however the author, with the use of 7th century Arabic, tries to bring our attentions to our humble beginnings, but interestingly uses terminology that corresponds to modern science.

One cannot help noticing, that the author of the Quran must have known about the developments within modern science.

There are many examples of this in the Quran, In Chapter 23 verse 14 the Author of the Quran speaks of the evolution of the Human Embryo. Professor Keith More an expert on Human embryology was presented with these descriptions in the Quran, he found them so accurate, that he added this information in the second edition of “Before we are born”.

Translation :
“Then We made the Nutfa into a Alaqa; then of that Alaqa We made a Mudga; then we made out of that Mudga bones and clothed the bones with flesh;”

Transliteration:
“Thumma khalaqna alnnutfata AAalaqatan fakhalaqna alAAalaqata mudghatan fakhalaqna almudghata AAithaman fakasawna alAAithama lahman”

Nutfa
The Arabic word ‘nutfa’ has been translated by the words “drop of fluid” in some Quranic transaltions, as we do not have the term that are strictly appropriate. The word nutfa means a selection from a whole or something, which comes from a verb “to dribble, to trickle’ ( nata’a ), an example of its usage , if you have a bucket of water and you pour everything out it , what is going to be remain in that bucket are some droplets , that is referred to as the nutfa ( a little of something ).
It is clear that the author of the Quran is using this word Nutfa with respect to Sperm, we now know that out of the millions of sperm only one penetrates the egg and gives raise to the formation of the human baby.

Alaqa
The next word to pay attention to is the word ,‘Alaqa’ which means to hang or cling to, a leech and blood clot. We find that the human embryo after 20 days starts to appear elongated and segmented like a leech- like organism and not only that but the word Alaqa describes the function of the embryo, as the embryo is clinging onto the wall of the womb. Moreover because of the intricate formation of the blood vessels within the embryo, the blood is clotted in closed vessels; it has with no blood flow, so hence the word Alaqa perfectly describes this stage of the embryo.

Mudga
Mudga means to be chewed , small chunk of meat. At 28 days old the human embryo starts to show a disfigured appearance with what are called Somites, which is the formation of the back bone. Professor Moore describes that the somites resemble teeth marks.

Clothed bones with flesh
Then finally, we made out of the Mudga bones then covered it with flesh.
It is stated in the verses that the bones develop and then the muscles form which wrap around those bones. Recently embryologist assumed that bone and muscles developed at the same time. For this reason for a long time these verse were seen as inaccurate. Yet advanced microscopic research conducted by new technological developments have revealed that the revelations of the Quran are word by word correct. These examinations at the microscopic level show the development inside the mother’s womb takes place just the way described in the verses. First the cartilage tissue of the embryo ossifies, and then muscular cells that are selected from among the tissue around the bones come together and rap around the bones.
This event is described in a scientific publication with the following words

“During the seventh week the Skeleton begins to spread throughout the body and the bones take the familiar shapes, at the end of the seventh week and at the during the 8th week the muscles take the position around the formed bones.” (Developing Human, 6 print 1998)

Go ahead and sin because God loves you.

A wise man (Franklin P. Jones) once said “Children are unpredictable. You never know what inconsistency they're going to catch you in next” and I was to glean the full meaning of this insight on a grey Sunday afternoon in October, as I was lounging on our exceptionally comfortable new couch.

My seven year old son had recently been told by an adult Muslim relative, that committing sin was not something he should worry about because God being forgiving, He would forgive whatever sins anyone did. Basically it’s ok to do forbidden things because God is the most Merciful, which translates in the head of my child as, do exactly as you please because nothing is really that bad, hey if God can forgive it, so can dad. This rather self serving and convenient conception of God’s mercy I call “S.C gone mad”. By S.C. I mean ‘Sufi Concepts.’

My son can and ought to be forgiven for being confused by this rather deep and effectively, quite complex, theological matter. Particularly when it seems grown Muslims themselves are increasingly prone to adopting the “I can do whatever because God will forgive me” mode of reasoning. What has astounded me in my small scale investigation of the matter is that generally speaking, Muslims who adhere to this type of reasoning, tend to be the very same ones intent on following their whims and desires, whatever ugly muddy path this may take them down. They then seek to rationialise the reconciliation of their alleged religiosity and unorthodox actions, by using the now ultra ’in’ God-will-forgive-me card. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not denying God is the Most Merciful, nor that he does indeed forgive great sin, in his creation when - and this is the important caveat - his creation sincerely repents. But sincerity is key here. It is possible to err, we all do it to more or lesser degrees, but once we have realised our error, we repent and seek to avoid repeating the same error. The analogy I gave my son was that of a particular boy in school who goes around thumping all the kids. When it came to my son‘s turn to get a thump, the offender later approached him and apologised for hitting him. My son accepted the apology and school life resumed. But only days later, the boy came up to him and hit him once again for no reason. Again, the boy apologised, but my son came home flustered. He was willing to accept the apology, but only if this really meant an end to the thumping - otherwise as he quite rightly pointed out, they were just ‘words.’ Similarly, those people propounding the ‘God
Forgives anything’ pseudo-sufi concept are in essence demeaning and undermining the concept of repentance - and annoyingly for me - confusing my child.

In my view, this is a classic case of the abuse of Sufi teaching, when classical Sufi teachings are rightly focused on adherence to the sharia as the path to an enlightened state of being. It is with great sadness and no less frustration that I note that these days, all those claiming to be Sufis are essentially Muslims struggling with living out their faith and seeking get out clauses to legitimise their lifestyles. According to Fethullah Gulen a prominent Sufi writer “a sufi is one who totally adheres to the Sharia” - and he would know - he heads one of the oldest and most established Sufi tariqas in Turkey, with a massive global following.

There is evidence in the Quran to support the case for God’s infinite forgiveness, but to note this without noting the other aspects of God’s being is to read the Quran very selectively indeed:

“O son of Adam, so long as you call upon Me, and ask of Me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky and were you then to ask forgiveness of Me, I would forgive you. O son of Adam were you to come to Me with sins nearly as great as the earth, and were you then to face Me, ascribing no partner to Me, I would bring you forgiveness nearly as great as it.” Hadith–ul-Qudsi

But also the Messenger of God (may peace be upon him) said:
"God removes faith from one who engages in illicit sex or consumes intoxicants just as a man removes his shirt when pulling it over his head"

What these pseudo Sufis seem to not quite get, is that repentance is not a way to legitimise forbidden actions, but rather it is an acknowledgement of one’s straying i.e. disobedience of God. The essence of repentance is to return to God and to adhere to what He loves and renounce that which He dislikes. Something that is Haram ( forbidden) is still forbidden whether God loves us or not. Also, what is often forgotten (not to say, omitted), is that God has other attributes too - he is also the Most Just and The Punisher! Let‘s break it down (or revisit the discussion I had on sunday). If we have two types of Muslims, one who understands that he must adhere to God’s duties and commands, but falls now and then, and sins but then repents sincerely - compared to a Muslim who actively chooses to live a particular lifestyle in full knowledge and awareness that it is antithetical to Islam, and contrary to its teachings. This person is sinning continually and sins willingly, not unconsciously or out of a momentary weakness. This person disobeys God, consumes intoxicants, fornicates, and banks on this notion of forgiveness. Would it be just of God who, as we are reminded, is the Most Just, to treat these two people in the same way?

I'm a big believer in doing things all the way or not doing them at all, so my advice to Muslims who have chosen a non- Islamic lifestyle , is this: You need to make a decision - which essentially comes down to being consistent with yourself and the world around you. Either you’re a Muslim and you strive to abide by God’s requirements, or you’re not! The notion of a Muslim as one who submits entirely to God is absolutely central to not misunderstanding what is meant here. When one submits oneself to God, there is a struggle at times between one’s desires, and one’s obligations. At times there may be complete symbiosis, but at times, there may also be conflict. If that struggle is absent, if the desires guide all actions and God’s forgiveness is just a way to sleep better at night - perhaps it is time to reconsider your route.

God does not need any single one of us, and He certainly doesn't need any favours from His creation. Someone once said that agnostics are atheists without balls. I think we have our own version of agnostics in the Muslim community. Basically, believers without balls. In my view, it’s not enough to merely claim to be Muslim because you believe in God and that Mohammed is the last prophet. Shaytan (the devil) too believes these facts and knows them to be true more than most of us. But Shaytan is not a disbeliever because he didn't believe - he is a disbeliever because he rebelled against God’s commandments and wilfully chose to live in sin. Now I'm not saying that a Muslim of this ilk is a disbeliever, there is plenty of room in the Muslim community for Muslims at all levels of progress in their Deen and I am far from perfect myself, but what I am saying is that the Muslims in question need to grow a pair and be consistent in whatever route they decide to take. Either you’re a Muslim and you sincerely strive in God’s way, falling off the bandwagon at times, but heaving yourself back on at all costs, OR you’d rather bat for the other camp. In which case, stop confusing our children with mishmash ideas and get on with living out your desires, in full knowledge that in the end, God will forgive you anyway, right? Not so sure anymore?

You may be curious as to my son’s response to this discussion. He quite shrewdly replied “Well, God does punish, if he didn't, then there wouldn't be hell fire would there.”. O the Wisdom of our youth… All praise be to God.

Adam Deen