The Sublime Maturity of Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī, Part II

Our beloved Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī has been gracious enough to offer yet another fine example of Muslim ethics in practice.

As everyone knows, Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī has presented irrefutable “proof” for the existence of his god. In a post entitled, “Wahhabi Contention: What happens if kalam arguments are undermined rationally,” Shaykh Abū Adam responds to the totally outrageous suggestion that this “proof” might not be rationally defensible.

So confident is the good Shaykh in this “proof” for the existence of his god that he humbly and modestly declares that it “is not false, and it is not antiquated, and will never be undermined.”

What is this “proof” for the existence of his god? It is the following

“…anything with a beginning needs a Creator, simply based on the existence of events; the changes we see around us. It is a simple and logically sound argument based on premises that no reasonable person would deny.”

Wow!! I mean, what idiot could possibly refuse to believe in Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī’s god after that argument! As the good Shaykh humbly and modestly puts it, he “can tell you” of ” philosophers in this day and age that have been silenced by these types of arguments.” Go get’em Shaykh! You silence those evil kuffar! Oh, and just in case you had the audacity to ask for an example of “philosophers” who have been “silenced by these types of arguments,” the good Shaykh has this to say: “A friend of mine has a Phd in math from Berkley, for example, and he converted because some of his students presented such proofs.” What an amazing story! Nothing beats unverifiable anecdotal accounts like this one. I mean, it’s so much more persuasive than Christians claiming to have been personally visited by Jesus.

Oh, but there’s more. The good Shaykh has this to say about Immanuel Kant:

“Kant, the miserable kaafir, may Allah give him what he deserves along with his ilk, did not bring anything new that the scholars had not already faced.”

If this awe-inspiring example of humility and exceptionally good taste doesn’t convert you to Islam in the next second, there has got to be something wrong with you! I can’t wait to convert to Islam and finally acquire a moral license to start calling people “miserable kaafir” and praying that Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī’s god will give them what they deserve along with their ilk. (There’s so much justified contempt in the use of the word “ilk”…I just love it!!)

And, there’s still more! The good Shaykh continues:

“You see, the philosophers were and are in general haughty, proud of their intelligence, and showing this was important to them, so they engaged in debates to win, even if it meant denying their own mother, and one of the ways to do that is to simply engage in producing doubts.”

I mean, never mind whether this comment bears even the slightest correspondence to reality. Its self-confidence is all the proof we need. Thank heavens the good Shaykh is anything but haughty. Thank heavens, also, that he is not in the least bit proud of his own intelligence, as his pride in his ability to prove the existence of his god makes abundantly clear.

Unbelievably, there are some rebellious souls who are simply incapable of beholding the awesome moral beauty embodied by Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī. The Shaykh was apparently asked the following totally ridiculous question by one such rebellious soul:

“Do you realize how arrogant *you* sound when you say things like this? What a pity that your heart and mind is so closed.”

To this nonsense, the Shaykh gave the following, totally non-arrogant and highly intelligent, response:

“Muslims today have been influenced by western style education systems to respect people like him, or even have awe for them. Thus an antidote is needed. My contribution is to say that he is just another miserable kafir.

I do not see a connection between asserting that Kant was just another miserable kafir and saying that my heart is closed.”

Right on! I mean, if the good Shaykh can’t see a connection, there can’t possibly be one. What was that silly questioner thinking? That the good Shaykh is blind?!? Good heavens! I can’t even bear to contemplate such an outrageous idea!

Anyway, that is our moral lesson for today. Please join me in expressing uncritical devotion and fawning gratitude to the noble Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī for providing us with a fine and flawless example of sublime moral conduct. Ameen!

The Sublime Maturity of Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī, Part I

Our beloved Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī has done us all an enormous favour by providing us with an example of Muslim ethics in practice. In a piece elegantly titled, “Moderating Idiocity,” the good Shaykh has demonstrated the proper Islamic way to deal with a terrible evil: asking too many questions.

I first visited his website, Sunni Answers, hoping to learn how Muslims deal with certain issues, such as proof for the existence of the Muslim god, predestination and human accountability, and human evolution. I was less interested in hearing a statement of Islamic beliefs than in learning whether and how Muslims deal with certain obvious difficulties that arise for a person of the Islamic faith. For example, do Muslims have rational answers to these issues? Is Islam compatible with modern science? How does Islam deal with the modern scientific account of human origins? Do Muslims respect reason, logic, and evidence? Are Muslims committed to truth? Conversely, is it the case that Muslims are simply driven by fear to cling irrationally and obstinately to a certain catalogue of beliefs, regardless of whether those beliefs can be supported by logic, reason, or evidence?

I posed a number of questions on Sunni Answers. At first, I was treated with suspicion, then hostility, and finally censorship. It all happened so very fast.

I gather that Muslim ethics imposes a limit on the number and kind of questions you are allowed to ask. If you ask a question about, say, predestination and accountability in Islam, and if a Muslim scholar’s response only generates more questions, you should remain silent, be grateful that he even gave you a response (no matter how silly or pathetic), and resist the urge to ask more questions. Asking more questions is clearly being unruly and improper. Decency requires unquestioning acceptance of a Muslim scholar’s response (again, no matter how silly, incoherent, and utterly pathetic).

I made the mistake, however, of persisting. When I was told, for example, that human beings have a will, but that this will is itself willed by the Muslim god, I asked whether it even makes sense for a Muslim to speak of the former as a “will”. After all, what does it mean to say that human beings have a will, when they have no control over their own actions? This, however, was clearly a mistake. I overstepped my bounds. I was not acting like a humble questioner, whose duty is to accept the answer and to never, ever question the answer.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m sure the good Shaykh is exhibiting only the highest standards of ethics and maturity when he employs terms like, “idiocity.” I’m sure he has only the best of intentions when he insists that anyone who doesn’t accept his ridiculous “proof” for the existence of his god must, of necessity, practice “atheist/agnostic debating acrobatics.” It can’t possibly be on account of his pitiful intellectual shortcomings that anyone would be totally unimpressed by his “proof” for the existence of his god.

I’m also sure the good Shaykh is exercising sound judgment when he accuses me of not having read his “proof” for the existence of his god, even after I specifically asked questions about that “proof”.

“That being said. This person, who calls himself “Sign of Saturn” has appeared in one thread, where he wanted to start a debate about Kant. He was told that this is not important to us, or even the topic here. Then he said that someone lied about Kant by calling him an atheist, even though he had been told explicitly by the person who’s post he inferred it from that he had not meant to say that. Then he comes back and wants to debate whether Islam allows lies. Hello? Moderated”

You see, the good Shaykh has certain rights the rest of us don’t have. He has the right, for example, to misrepresent what others actually say and do. After all, accuracy isn’t required when speaking about the despicable kuffar. He also has the right to make accusations about others. He has the right, for example, to accuse others of sophistry, even though his “proof” for the existence of his god is itself a highly pertinent example of sophistry (though not a very good one, since it couldn’t possibly persuade anyone). He also has the right to dictate the terms of the discussion, dismiss questions he doesn’t like, answer questions you didn’t ask, and determine who is unruly and who is sufficiently obedient. Oh, and that, “Hello? Moderated” bit is classic! Great one, Shaykh!

“I felt the best choice in the end was to just block such sophistry, because it fills the website with confusing material for those who come here to learn. I won’t block anyone that has a serious question or is willing to at least try to understand what I am saying.”

Clearly, I’m unruly and not sufficiently obedient. Clearly, I’m guilty of “sophistry” and spreading “confusing material.” Clearly, by asking him questions for clarification, I’m not trying to understand him.

Oh, and “posters need to be courteous with Islam and Muslims, as this is Allah’s religion,” but Muslims apparently need not be courteous with non-Muslims, who can be generically accused of sophistry. Muslims apparently “have no permission from Allah to let a mocking kafir be disrespectful to Islam or a Muslim,” but apparently nothing stands in the way of letting a Muslim be disrespectful to non-Muslims, especially when those non-Muslims are much-despised atheists and agnostics.

The good Shaykh also says, “Muslims who think it is praiseworthy to humble oneself for a kafir should remember this.” Oh, those despised kuffar! They must humble themselves towards us, not the other way around! (And, in case you are wondering, the idea of dialogue among equals must never cross our minds!)

As if to make it abundantly clear as to what warrants censorship, the good Shaykh has this to say:

“Our purpose is not to engage with people who want to side-track us from our stated purpose. If their questions and concerns fall within the general scheme of our stated purpose, then fine and good. If they detract us from that purpose, then they will be moderated. We can only handle so much in a given day”

Indeed!

Thank you, Dear Shaykh, for that lesson in Muslim ethics. There is no question that you are an inspiring moral example for the rest of us. Please keep up the good work and please continue to be a role model for our times.

Islam and Evolution

An over-enthusiastic Muslim going by the name of “loveProphet,” who appears to be a regular at Sunni Answers, has argued that human evolution is “scientifically wrong”. He says the following:

“The comment that the proof for human evolution is irrefutable shows absolute ignorance of science. Scientific “facts” change so many times and scientific theories do too.

I’ve personally been studying the topic of evolution specifically for more than a year and although i’m not going to be bothered into going over it here, its actually plain that its nowhere close to facts like gravity nor is it irrefutable but rather i even deem human evolution scientifically wrong(and other agnostic biologists have too).

I’ve known quite a few well qualified biologists who don’t believe in it(one having a PhD). Its a theory that is a “house of cards”.

In fact i’d say that there’s scientific evidence for the Islamic account of the appearance of humans.
Note also how much distortion and lies that the evolutionists have done on the topic as atheists don’t believe they’re accountable except if they’re found out. Is it ok according to atheists to lie and misrepresent others’ beliefs?

I don’t see any point in discussing with an atheist/agnostic who is not even open to considering the other side who even resorts to mockery and ad hominem attacks.

You’ve basically ruled out the possibility of Islam being correct without any proof at the start and then based your arguments on this premise and then said about its beliefs ‘its absurd and wrong,’”

I tried responding to this curious comment, but for some strange reason, my own comments weren’t posted. I’ve therefore reproduced my comment below.

…..

Well, in that case, I’d say you’ve made things very easy for all of us, indeed.

If you believe that the thesis of evolution is wrong — that is, the thesis that biological life evolves from one species to another through a natural process or mechanism of change — then, I warmly invite you to substantiate that belief. If it really is “actually plain” that the thesis of evolution is “nowhere close to facts like gravity nor is it irrefutable,” then you should have absolutely no problem showing us why it’s wrong. The further it is from the facts, the easier it should be to refute it definitively and convincingly.

Again, I’m quite eager to have you show me why and how the scientific community is wrong and why and how you’re right

…..

UPDATE: Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī has indicated that he, too, shall soon, by the will of his god, be dealing with Darwinism. This is wonderful news! We warmly look forward to the day when he, too, will attempt to refute the scientific community and show us all why evolution is wrong and (Islamic) creationism is right.

Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī on Islamic Ethics

An over-enthusiastic Muslim going by the name of “loveProphet,” a VIP member of Sunni Answers, made the following remark:

“By the way, i have yet to see any atheist who has not believed what he has for reasons other than what i mentioned and the Sheikh has mentioned. Whether it is Kant or Dawkins.”

I found the remark a bit strange, since it appeared to be the product of a thoroughly pitiful and uneducated mind, one so shallow that it assumes that anyone who is a philosopher and not a Muslim must of necessity be an atheist.

So, it was pointed out to “loveProphet” that Kant actually wrote a book entitled, The One Possible Basis for a Demonstration of the Existence of God. That Kant wrote such a book certainly makes it difficult to accuse him of being an atheist.

However, when this was pointed out, I was first told, “It’s irrelevant whether or not Kant was an atheist.” Then, Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī declared, “I hope this is not going to be about Kant,” only to then declare that he’s “just another blasphemer.” Finally, loveProphet, the one who lumped Kant together with Dawkins, had the audacity to accuse me of “jumping to unwarranted conclusions.”

This raises a serious question about Muslim Ethics. Muslims seem to think they have a moral license to make ignorant and slanderous comments about “blasphemers”. Does Islamic ethics permit such behaviour?

I tried posing this question for Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī, but for some strange reason, it wasn’t posted. I’ve therefore reproduced the question below:

…..

Suppose a pitiful, uneducated man hears another, equally pitiful, uneducated man declare that the Prophet Muhammad was a court jester. Suppose this first pitiful, educated man forsakes entirely the intellectual responsibility of actually learning about Islam and simply parrots the view that the Prophet Muhammad was a court jester. According to Islam, how should one respond?

Now, suppose a similarly pitiful, uneducated educated man hears another, equally pitiful, uneducated man declare that Immanuel Kant was an atheist — and this not as a term of endearment, but rather as a term of slander. Suppose this first pitiful, uneducated man forsakes entirely the intellectual responsibility of actually learning about Immanuel Kant and simply parrots the view that Kant was an atheist. According to Islam, how should one respond?

Do you condemn those who make irresponsibly ignorant statements about Islam? Do you condemn those who make irresponsibly ignorant statements about non-Muslims? Would your response to the above scenarios be the same? If not, why not?

“Free Will” and “Accountability” in the “Thought” of Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī

I asked Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī the following question: In Islamic beliefs, is there a place for human accountability? If so, what does human accountability mean or entail in light of the doctrine of predestination?

I was given an answer here. However, the answer only generated more difficulties. He believes, for example, that human beings have a will, but that this will is itself willed by his god and that all human actions are the outcome of the will of his god. Somehow, though, he asserts that human beings, who have no control over their own actions, are still accountable and therefore liable to receive punishment for those actions.

Unfortunately, when I tried to present those difficulties to the good Shaykh, they weren’t posted. I’m sure it’s just a technical problem with their website. So, I’ve reproduced the comments below.

…..

“We call it will because this is how we refer to it in our daily lives.”

That is most certainly not “how refer to it in our daily lives.” When those who have not been taught to believe what you believe — that is to say, most everyone else on the planet — employ the term “will,” they do not mean a human will that was willed by God. They rather mean that an action can ultimately be attributed to the autonomous decision of a free and independent human agent.

Again, will implies autonomy. What you’ve described is something other than autonomy. It is something other than the ordinary use of the concept of will. If you want to call it “will,” then you are most certainly not employing the term in the ordinary sense. You are effectively redefining the term such that it is decidedly incompatible with the ordinary use of the term.

Hence, my point. If human actions are, as you say, the result of human desires, and if human desires are, as you say, created by your god, then the use of the term “will” is not only misleading, but superfluous.

It would be more straightforward and honest for you to say, “My god creates your desire to commit action X, something over which you have no control. You then carry out action X, something over which you have no control. X is a punishable action, something over which you have no control. My god therefore punishes you for committing action X, something over which you have no control.” Inserting the use of the term “will” is therefore entirely unnecessary.

In any case, if you want to insert the term “accountable,” too, then you would have to redefine it also, because the ordinary use of the term “accountability” is most certainly not consonant with what you’ve described.

The Mysterious Education of Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī

Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī is a man of mystery. He has many bold statements to make about science and philosophy, statements we could not possibly imagine being made even by an undergraduate student in the sciences or philosophy.

Consider, for example, the following remark, made by the good Shaykh in response to some anonymous questioner (apparently):

“It is interesting that you assert that scientific questions are falsifiable, in the tradition of Karl Popper I presume. This pleases me, because the theory of man’s evolution (not all aspects of evolution) thus becomes non-scientific. After all, claimed historical events cannot be tested in a controlled experiment to see if they happened.”

This is not a Muslim layman speaking, but rather a so-called scholar of Islam. In other words, this is the cream of the Muslim crop. This is as good as it gets. One of the so-called scholars of Islam has concluded that evolution is a non-scientific question.

However, when asked for his educational background, I kept getting referred to his Islamic credentials, which can be viewed here. This raises certain troubling questions about the good Shaykh. I posed these questions on his blog, but for some mysterious reason, they weren’t posted. I’ve reproduced them below.

…..

“No, but it is irrelevant. As I made an effort to explain yesterday, this is not an academic website, but a website about Islam, and my Islamic credential are posted. What are you going to say, ‘your degree is so and so, therefore there is no god?’”

If someone who has never studied Islam were to make arrogant and ignorant pronouncements about Islam, what would you say? Similarly, if someone who hasn’t studied science were to make arrogant and ignorant pronouncements about science, what would you expect a scientist to say?

Contrary to what you might think, dear Shaykh, an educational background is of the greatest relevance. Just as you would hold that those who have not studied Islam lack the authority to make authoritative pronouncements about Islam, so, too, do those who have not studied science lack the authority to make authoritative pronouncements about science. On what authority do you say that evolution is non-scientific?

How would your Islamic credentials give you the authority to speak about the natural sciences? How would the study of kalam, fiqh, hadith, ‘aqidah, tafsir, tasawwuf, and so forth, give you the authority to speak about the natural sciences?

Do you have any relevant education beyond mere training in the so-called Islamic “sciences”? If not, why don’t you just say so?

Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī’s Reflections on Quantum Theory

I was having a discussion with an over-enthusiastic Muslim by the name of “loveProphet” about the Kalam cosmological argument, along with some other matters, here. Mr. “loveProphet” presented the Kalam cosmological argument as “proof” of the existence of his god. He specifically referred to an article by James Watson. I then pointed out that this argument rests on a certain premise, the validity of which cannot be taken for granted. In fact, there is good reason to reject that premise. That, of course, leaves the conclusion of the argument, namely, that a god exists, in doubt.

The Kalam cosmological argument begins with the premise, “Whatever begins to exist has a cause of existence.“. However, quantum physicists have long argued that not all events have a cause, a point repeatedly made by physicist Victor Stenger in response to the Kalam cosmological argument.

Much to everyone’s delight, the noble Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī entered into the discussion to offer his characteristically brilliant insights. However, when I tried to ask the good Shaykh a few questions, they didn’t get posted. This was no doubt due to certain technical difficulties with their website.

Below, the questions I have for the dear Shaykh.

…..

“I will also not spend time arguing with someone who says that things can happen for no reason and without anything bringing into existence simply because we will never agree, because that undermines the use of logic. Arguing without logic is a waste of time.”

If we reason according to incompatible premises, then it may very well be the case that we will never agree. In that case, it’s simple enough to agree to disagree. That would be the simple and civil thing to do.

However, you’re going further than that. You’re now implying that anyone who disagrees with you on this point is arguing without logic. That’s going too far.

First, every physicist who studies quantum behaviour will point out that not every event has an evident cause; that at the quantum level, there are events that do not have an evident cause. He or she will point out that particle behaviour defies much of our common sense, which only imposes the view that every event has a cause. You are saying that because what a physicist describes defies your own understanding, the physicist must therefore be lacking in logic. In that case, you’d be accusing the entire community of physicists of being illogical. That would, of course, be a truly remarkable case of brazen arrogance.

When Einstein argued that time and space can bend, many people thought that he, too, was illogical. The scientific community later realized that he was right. When quantum physicists first described the mysterious behaviour of subatomic particles at the quantum level, Einstein himself was incredulous. In fact, he resisted quantum theory until the end of his life. He proposed experiment after experiment to prove quantum theory wrong, but each experiment only proved him wrong. Physicists have shown that quantum behaviour really is as they’ve described. No credible scientist has shown them to be wrong.

“I detect you are trying to get relief from anger rather than being reasonable. I do not think you understood what I was doing. All I did was to answer, ‘how would Islam explain randomness’ and I did. I did not write an article on Quantum Behavior.”

That was not my question. You answered a question I didn’t ask. I pointed out that the starting premise of the Kalam cosmological argument is not correct. In fact, unless you are able to successfully refute over 70 years of research in physics, one can safely say that the Kalam cosmological argument rests on a false premise, one whose origins lie in a thoroughly outdated scientific worldview. My question was simply this: if the starting premise of the Kalam cosmological argument is false, then doesn’t the entire argument fall apart? My question was not, “How does Islam explain randomness?” I’m uninterested in that question.

The rest of your post is more ad hominem nonsense. Again, it’s just silly for a poseur to make arrogant pronouncements about philosophy and physics, matters for which he clearly lacks any scholarly authority, and then to accuse others of boosting their own egos.

Again, I’m happy and willing to have a discussion about quantum mechanics. I’d actually be delighted to have you show me that the community of physicists is completely incorrect.