Letters to the Editor

Of course it does.

“But this is absurd,” the believers in science will protest, “seeing that science has done so many good things such as increase in agricultural output, medical advances, development of means of communication, and so forth? Why, you just look around, and you find thousands of scientific products spread all over the surroundings.” This is how the lovers of science and scientific advances protest whenever any criticism is leveled against it.

To deny the good contributions of science is to be from the moon. But, with developments, gradually science became a philosophy, and then a religion. It is least understood in the non-Arab Muslim world. And hence, it has had disastrous effects here. It is this aspect that we criticize. And, from this angle science has done more harm than good. (But there are aspects too which deserve criticism, but we do not discuss them now).

Its materialistic aspect requires hard work and application for drawing benefits from it. This the Muslims did not attempt, and so, missed the benefits. On the other hand, its philosophical and religious ramification penetrated into Muslim minds, and left them impaired. Thus, once again, science is a source of destruction for many.

We in YMD have all along presented a balanced view of the developments in the modern world. Changes and development have been going on since man first stepped on the planet. To change his surrounding is in human nature. To investigate is his pleasure. To adopt new ideas and new ways of doing things is to be human.

That said, and admitted, yet from universal perspective, one might add that developments and changes wrought by modern science have definitely done more harm to the people than good. How? Well, by taking away people’s faith in God. Science claims achievements greater than the real, and gives to understand that there is no problem: moral, social or economic, but it can solve. One of the earliest scientist said, “Give me a place to stand, and I will move the earth.” Common people, and the class of the uncommon who have “other than Allah” in their hearts, believe in them and, in consequence, lose faith in their Lord and in the Truth He revealed through Muhammad.

Thus, modern science, while offering material benefits, destroys the “soul.” With the destruction of the human soul, material developments lose their meaning and significance. Modern developments please only those who recognize animal spirit as the only mode of human existence.

Today’s man’s only way of finding momentary peace and happiness is either to get drunk or go high on hashish. If young, they go on sex-spree. Those who do not approve of this method, or are obliged by the business joints they work for, not to resort to this way of removing their tension, wait for a year to take a week out, rush to a holiday-spot, to do exactly what some others do the year around: wine, sex and drugs. At ordinary times this class can be located in Psychiatric wards.

Of the variety of factors that have gone into driving man to this senseless way of life, one is, beyond any doubt, science and scientific philosophy. But this does not make modern science an enemy of man. It is the Next-worldly consequences of its influence that makes it. The pains of this life would be a pleasure if the Hereafter’s happiness was assured. But the pain modern man undergoes is merely a prologue to the abiding suffering he faces in the Hereafter. In this sense modern science is anti-human, while the science, as it was developed by the Muslims in the past, was not.

But our concern is not science. First and foremost, it is faith.

When scientists claim to solve all human problems, then they are definitely stretching the truth. We are yet to hear the scientific community say, “Sorry. We seem to have created some problems that we have no solution for. Kindly look for solutions in quarters other than science.” Their refusal to acknowledge this fact lends credence to the truth of our statement about their intellectual integrity.

It does by making pooh-pooh of the idea.

There was no need to answer scientifically a question that was unscientific. The questioner was not looking for a scientific answer. Indeed, he had it. He wished to know what Islam has to say about it. But, concealed behind such questions, although it might not have been the case in this particular case, is the challenge: “Now, here is science. What does religion has to say? Have we not caught you on the wrong foot? Will you please stop interfering in our day to day affairs – in view of such scientific advancements? Will you please keep religion apart?”

The question was unscientific because, to start with, it was wrongly worded. The correct statement put simply, has to be as follows, “Marriage between close kin over several generations in a family that carries certain genetic disorders is likely to lead to inheritance of such genes.”

Muslims, who are, as pointed out above, scientifically extremely poorly educated, including those who take degrees in science, conclude from the above that marriage between cousins could lead to the birth of diseased children. Several points in the above statement are not understood, or, in a hurry to obey science and scientists, ignored. Firstly, “Close-kin marriages over several generations,” secondly, “families that carry genetic disorders,” and thirdly, “could lead to inheritance of such genes” are all clauses that require close scrutiny. But they are all ignored and a young graduate in science refuses to marry his cousin because science has declared it dangerous.

Genes are a highly complicated thing. Indeed, at the biological level, they have no parallel in complexity. It is not like the quantum theory, which is weird, but it has fixed parameters and predictable results within a certain range of possibilities. Genetic code on the other hand is not merely complicated, but is totally and completely unpredictable in its behavior. One wonders how such a complicated system works at all, and why there are no greater failures when it comes to biological organisms. The birth of thousands of normal individuals, every second, over the globe, is a mystery, given the complexity of the structure that determines the normalcy. There are billions of DNA strands within an individual, which replicate billions of times, with errors perhaps one in several billions. How does one explain this? There isn’t a way. Some scientists have been forced to conclude that some kind of an Unseen hand must be in control. Otherwise, statistically speaking, normal humans should not be appearing at all.

The complications involved tell us that it is misleading to say that a person “inherits the gene” for a disease, since humans are born with the same number and types of genes. What we should say rather is that we inherit allele forms of certain genes. These alleles could be defective. But, what are the chances of defective inheritance. Science cannot determine this, and will never. Why? Because the whole process is incredibly complicated. If it did not exist, we would have thought it cannot exist.

Further, most of the genetic disorders are caused by the mutation of a single gene. The mutation results in alleles which cause the diseases. But, mutation itself is unpredictable. There are other factors too. Presence of bacteria or viruses for instance can mean unknown disturbances. During experiments, for instance, when gene mutation was artificially tried, totally unexpected results have been obtained. Some rats, injected with “deadly genes” have given birth to normal rats. But others injected with the same genes but along with some bacteria or viruses dropped dead. Research goes on, conducted by thousands of scientists, but as tremendous advances are made, tremendous complications arise.

Yet, notwithstanding these complications, of which we have presented a minute part, here we have Muslims with degrees in science (without which they could not be discussing genes and genetic effects) who rush to conclusions that are as completely unscientific as belief in the intercession of saints. It seems after rejection of Islam as the only way of life, Muslims are more prone to suffer consequences of false theories than others.

We do not believe that the stigma is culture-based. For centuries people of all kinds and class, of every region of the world, and of every religion have been marrying first-cousins. The stigma is gradually developing in our times, created and encouraged by irresponsible statements of the scientists.

The best paragraph in your response is the second last one of the above statement.

You might note that there are several ways to answer a question. One is the straight-forward answer: in terms of yes or no. Another is to explain why. A third is to educate over the issue. But we opt for something higher. We delve deeper, and try to make corrections at the psychological, ideological and belief level. The problem lies there. If it is not addressed at these levels, doubts and skepticism concerning Islamic issues will never go away. And, permanent residence of doubts in the heart leads to hypocrisy. Sometimes, some incision is necessary for a meaningful treatment. Our readers might exclaim: “O, this is being harsh.” Well, surgery is harsh.

Your assumption apart, we might point out that intentions are determined by actions. To reverse it, actions speak of the intentions that were there at the start of those actions. The action of acquiring “not 11 or 13 mouths to feed” but merely 2-3 children, adopted as the norm by the scientifically educated Muslims of out times, speaks well of their intentions and presumptions. They think they feed their children. And this is what they communicate between themselves and to their offspring: to create more of their likes: doubters and half-believers, half deniers.

What is more alarming (about their state of belief) is that they lie about the number of children. Nowhere, except perhaps in the Gulf, where life is still faith-based, Muslims produce more than 2-3 children. But they dig at the Prophetic statement (who said, “marry such women as produce plenty of children”) by mentioning 11 or 13 children. As if in India, Pakistan, or USA there are Muslims producing 11 or 13 children. This dig at the Prophetic statement by none other than Muslims themselves, is no less irritating than the comical strips that fanatical West produces, at a regular pace, taking out their anger on the Prophet, for the failures of their own lives.

We are not guides to evil to offer “acceptable methods of family planning.” Nor do we think Muslims need to be educated in methods of family planning. They are well-educated in such things, are experts at practice, and hence the 2-3 children they have. What they want to hear from us is a “yes” to their practices. When we say no, they are upset.

Poor economic situation and overpopulation as the cause of poverty does not seem to hold water in today’s situation. Thanks to “overpopulation” China, India, Brazil, Pakistan, Indonesia, Vietnam, and dozens of other countries are able to put their human power to such use as has given rise to such an unprecedented economic boom as to run a chill in the Western spine.

Perhaps you should rather be saying, “how a Muslim family is to live and breed, and make a doctor or engineer of each child,” an attainment, without which, modern Muslims think, a family is a failure. This we believe could be your real concern.

If you could cite ten such families, we could discuss the issue further.

If Islam preaches families to produce no more than 2 or 3 children (which it does not), instead of showing how a dozen children can be supported (which it does), then, the first assumption granted, what claim Islam has to beauty?

Let us assume that Islam says, “Cut down family size. Produce no more than 2-3 children. There is no food around.” Let us also assume that science says, “People. Do not die lonely. Keep producing children; in dozens; and enjoy their company till death. We will find ways of feeding every one, and feed them well; if not on this earth, then on other planets.” Let us assume we have Islam and science of above descriptions. Which of the two is beautiful: science or Islam?

You need to look into your two statements: Islam discourages large families, and Islam is a beautiful religion. Do you see a contradiction between the two?

Such scholars as you have in mind have no place in Islamic history. They belong to another religious discipline. Anyone who deliberately (and not by error) said anything against what the Prophet said, does not belong to us. The Prophet has said,

مَنْ غَشَّنا فَلَيْسَ مِنَّا

“He who deceived us, is not of us.”

Did you not say one line earlier that you have found it in the Qur’an and ahadith?

Today, the West stands for much that is evil. If the winds have not yet reached some people, it is because the picture of false Paradise that the media creates through its morning and evening bombardment.

The West today, its masses imprisoned by atheists, materialists, hedonists, and perverted minds, deserves a diatribe during every ideological discussion, for its masses to realize and identify the true causes of their loss of humanity, their soul-less existence, and their detachment from their Lord, and for the Muslims to stop looking at it as “the optimum-best system of life and opportunities at the moment.”

It is in our fate to disagree with you over many of your statements. We do not believe that rich countries, such as those of the West, should help the less fortunate ones such as the Muslim countries. We abhor charity. Dependence on charity gives rise to indolence, and happens to be one of the major causes of Muslim backwardness. We believe on the other hand that Muslim countries should erase borders dividing them and allow their masses to move about freely, thus meeting the manpower requirements of every region and allowing for an even distribution of wealth, prompting growth of the kind they experienced during their golden age of the Salaf.

As for the solution at the individual/family level, we do not believe in curtailment of family size (which your statement implies), but that at the societal level, Muslims must change their attitude towards the extra wealth in their possession, whether or not their governments open borders. They must realize that the extra money in their hands is not theirs, even if Zakah is paid, but grinding poverty remains.

These lines are a restatement of the Malthusian plot, and representation of Western thoughts imposed on Islam. Islam does not give approval to a word of it.

We offer the kind of guidance that Ibrahim b. Ad-hum offered. When someone complained to him of a large family, he answered, “Brother! Transfer to my house such of your household as you think Allah is not his or her Nourisher.”

There is.

What would go wrong if the questioners opened up the Qur’an themselves?

How legitimate the question about fossil records in the Qur’an or Islam is, could perhaps be judged better if it is addressed to Hindus, Buddhists or Jews. What do the Hindu Vedas, the Buddhist literature, or the Jewish Talmud say about fossil records, dinosaurs, and extinct animals? We think you could pose the question to a few around you and amuse the YMD readers with the answers they give.

All said, we thank you for bringing up so many topics for discussion. We are sure many of our readers will feel benefited. We also hope they enjoy the discussion, which (within the means granted to religious people) we, (although sometimes vainly), try to make lively.

If you called him Abu-Bakr, it should be alright. But if you added a second name, e.g., Abu-Bakr Ibrahim, then, if you are in the Arab world, they would think Abu-Bakr is his name while Ibrahim that of his father.

We believe Ibrahim should be sufficient.

We do not see what you can do about it, especially when your parents have failed to persuade the other family. Surely, they might be having other reasons besides stating that you live in another town. If that is the only reason, why should you not shift to her town?

Whether the family is forcing the girl to marry another person or not, is theirs and her affair. We never know what goes behind the scenes. Who knows the girl may have begun to feel her parents feel. So, you could give it a final try by agreeing to their conditions.

Unless somebody in the post office is a friend of yours and is playing prank on it, we do not think it is something strange. Magazines do get exchanged at delivery. Yet another possibility is that someone in the line was reading your magazine, and the other, and interchanged them while replacing them. All sorts of things can happen.

But next time you get a magazine other than YMD, first pull up the postman, and next, complain to the Postal Department.