Does Belief Dumb Down?

Does BELIEF dumb down?

This questions hangs on two others.

On the one hand, belief at its most basic is about discernment, and the classification of the World on the basis of arbitrary terminology such as good and bad, right and wrong. But it is that judgement call, however arbitrary, that forces the Believer to think.

Furthermore morality, which is the prime concern of Believers, is often framed as judgements based on consequence. Consequence is a distant subject for thought, dealing both with far reaching ramifications and futures. These are not easy subjects to converse on, let alone present arguments about.

Which after all is what the Believer has to do both for himself and for his fellows. For when you make that judgment call, you invite the contrary both in thought and deed, both in yourself and others. For that is the nature of man, who after all is but a child of Adam. And then once invited, you must muster argument to justify yourself.

And on the other hand belief at its most basic is opposed to ignorance. For a believer "knows" and trusts his belief. Whilst the admittance of ignorance is certainly a motor for the pursuit of knowledge, belief does not readily lend itself to that pursuit there.

But it is the field within which belief operates there that explains the dynamic between these two poles.

For belief as regards the Muslim nation is clearly defined as being of six parts, collected into three themes. These are GOD, His Oneness and attributes, the communication of knowledge of Him, and His Ways, from Himself to ourselves and then our ultimate return back to Him. They relate to things which are invisible, and hence immune to reasonable question.

And so whilst these are taken as a given, by the believer, they leave open the question of how those beliefs impact on our everyday concerns. And whilst a believer might muster arguments in regard to the moral consequence of action using his or her beliefs, these as a rule do not preclude him/her from further examination of those questions. And in some cases they only provide the bedrock for the further examination of consequence.

So for example for a materialist person all research using embryos might be just Science doing what Science does, but for the believer such questions might hinge on the cases where such research is desirable, permissible and then plain wrong.

The thought processes of such a believer are therefore the more complex than the equivalent materialist.

And since the believer might elucidate cases, in those cases each would need their own justification. A more complex process and definitely not a dumbing down.

Isn't this a far superior version of rational behaviour that what masquerades as such in our time: the championship of freedom of expression when it is just plain stupid. Much of that that masquerades as rational is just that, the lack of discernment and the championship of the plain. Even down to the plain silly notion that there is no division between life and non-life, consciousness and dumbness.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:Bromley

Why I choose ISLAM

It is a daily choice to be a Submitter. Not least because of the daily vilification that we have to bear courtesy of our main stream media.

But possibly most when we are faced with justifying our belief, to ourselves, when we come into contact with our own who have forsaken theirs. These call themselves Muslims in a cultural tome mimicking our cousin-brothers; the People of the Book; being the Yuhood and the Nasara.

Well today my belief was shaken in that way and not by the hardship of Ramadhan's long London fasts; lasting a full eighteen plus hours in searing 27 degrees without hydrating fluids; nor by some arrogant rationalist that could not see past the end of his nose, but by a young man who claimed to be Muslim and yet paradoxically did not know, and even shied away, from the defining words of our Shahadah.

But then I remembered that this Islam of mine is a choice; a choice I choose to make. A choice that my religion emphasises to me at the two corners of each day, with the Sunnahs of Fajr and Maghrib where by convention we recite individually Kafiroon followed by Ikhlas in the two circuits of prayer.

And I make that choice with good reason, for I believe in the ascendency and primacy of hope.
That there is MORE.

And that such a belief can have a profound effect on the behaviour of men.

For when men allow fear to reign their psyche look what happens; "They ended up focusing on just those last few seconds and minutes of the struggle, and did George Zimmerman fear for his life? And that's really what it boiled down to for them".

The jury in their negatively fuelled stupidity focused on FEAR. Whether or not Tray Martin was to be feared never entered into their deliberations. A travesty of a judgement that did no truth to the facts and yielded justice to injustice.

And this is one solitary example of what effect fear, or the lack of hope, can have on mans behaviour.

It is the hope that there is MORE that makes me a better person;
More trusting
More generous
More truthful and kind and in the end
More Happy.

And so I choose Islam.
And I believe.
And I submit to GOD in the hope of His grace and mercy.

And I choose Islam because it provides me with a codex of rituals that are abundantly graceful and accessible. That give structure to my daily life and enable me to find both solace and meaning. And I am not ashamed of that.

And I choose Islam because it is not hidden nor shrouded in mystery, so much so that those who make it their duty to destroy it have full access to its sources. But they cannot because they fail to see its heart.

And I choose Islam because no matter what, there can be no denying Muhammed (saw). That he changed the history of the World in the most marvellous of ways, may he (saw) forever be blessed.

And so by God's abundant grace I am Muslim, may He deign to keep me so. Ameen.

Location:Sulaymaniyah

The Miraculous Eyebrow

The Miraculous Eyebrow

I, for one, have never attempted this experiment. Nevertheless it is telling.

"Shave your eyebrow, just the one. And watch it grow right back."

Obviously the trick is not in the timescale, since it would take a few weeks.

The real trick is in the contemplation of the regrowth of the eyebrow. So complete is its enaction of what it was, that the pair would never ever seem to have been parted at all.

Contemplate.
Can evolutionary genetics account for this complete fulfilment of what was?

We know that hair in different parts of the body behave differently, and that their fineness in one part might be coded for separately from their coarseness in another part of your body.

We know that DNA, the very stuff of our genetic code, provides a template for protein expression and the relative abundance of one protein, over another, in one type of hair follicle, over another in another part of the body, might account for different tensile strengths and different grades of brittleness.
And that this might account for there being short hair and long hair in different parts of your body, and even different thicknesses of hair types.

But the eyebrow is miraculous.

It grew back and then stopped growing. Or it grew at a moderate pace and then it's pace of growth slowed to the imperceptible.

Either way it's hair grew until it had formed completely the shape of your previous eyebrow and then stopped or slowed.

How did it know when to slow or stop growth?

How did each individual hair follicle in your eyebrow know when it's desired length had been reached?

Although I don't generally like to labour a point, I feel that I need to here for the devil is in the detail.

For if we take the materialist point, and the genetic point, then each individual hair follicle in your eyebrow would have coded within it it's particular protein composition.

And if its matter of growth was given by the brittleness of its composition then wouldn't it be a probabilistic expression of that particular nature. Might not one overgrow, and another undergrow.

Still more incredible is its growing at a moderate rate, and then slowing the rate of growth when a particular length had been achieved.

The materialist will say that it doesn't know when to stop, and that it is just our projection of ourselves on to it.

That we know, and that it can't and so doesn't. Sounds a bit dogmatic doesn't it?

The funny thing is that that is not how rationality works.
Rationality moves from known to unknown and not in the reverse direction.

And whilst we know that we know, perhaps the very definition of consciousness, to impart ignorance to other things without proof of such is a movement in a reverse direction. It is an assault on the very essence of rationality itself.

The foundation of Modern Science ASSUMES that objects that are non-living, and even some that might be living, do not and cannot know.

Modern Science tells us that "genes" are not living and do not know.
That the hair follicles in an eyebrow are governed by such not-knowing genes.

Then how so the EYE-BROW?

Of course another explanation might be that the eyebrow has purpose and knows its purpose and seeks to fulfil its purpose.

Crazy as it may seem, it explains the thing in a language which is more readily rational, in that we can relate to it more easily than dead robotics, than current Science.

In fact this current of thought was at the very foundations of Scientific thinking, being known as Aristotlian. For the Greeks held that stones, and all matter, fell not because of seeking decreasing potentials within a gravitational field, but because that was what they did in seeking their nature. A purposive understanding of a purposive World.

That this view of reality held sway for long is no surprise, but what is surprising is that Science developed in the way that it did.
But that is a subject of another blog.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:Athens

2nd blog in the series: 

https://shafeesthoughts.blogspot.com/2013/08/why-greeks-didn-do-science.html?m=1

How Can Islam claim to be a Religion of Peace, and yet talk about War?

The Revelations in regards to War; 
"How can Islam claim to be a religion of Peace and yet talk about War?" (Part 1)


Have you never thought to put things in their proper context?

Fact 1: Islam was revealed to the Arab Nation, whilst the two superpowers of the day (Rome and Persia) allowed the Arabian peninsula autonomy.

Persia, a mighty civilization, stretching over today's Iran, and Iraq, was at continual loggerheads with Rome stretching over Turkey, Syria and Palestine. For either of them to have garrisoned Arabia would surely have been advantageous to them, since Arabia straddled both Iraq and greater Syria. It would have opened up another front for either of them in their long conflict with one another.

But neither did.

From the secondary fact that "it never did" it follows that there must have been even stronger reasons for it not happening.

The first possible reason relates to the inhospitable nature of the land.
But would that really explain the non-occurrence? Rome and Persia were both militarized societies that well understood the need for sacrifice in order to secure gain. They would have willing paid such a price if mere inconvenience were all that stood in their way.

The second possibility was that they had evaluated the option and both decided that only rudimentary gain could be had in it's annexation.

A second fact explains that loss- consider the fact that the Arab people were a warrior nation who above all else loved freedom from control. To garrison Arabia would have been both costly and of questionable benefit. That is fact.

Instead Rome and Persia both sought to placate the Arab conundrum by enlisting differing Arab tribes to their cause and then gave them autonomy. That is telling when you consider the Arab.

And so Islam was sent to work on that polytheist Nation and made it the ultimate monotheistic Nation.

From a Nation that buried their new born infant girls it changed it to a Nation that allowed women the right to possess and own.

From a nation that was tribalistic to the point of injustice bring ingrained and rife, Islam changed this to a Nation that made Law greater that all tribes and even greater than the best of their chiefs.

All of these things and more did the message of Islam achieve.

And yet when the Prophet (saw) died the Arabian peninsula was wracked with rebellion, as if attempting to revert to its original state.

For every Arab wanted freedom from a universal law, and freedom from a universal justice.

The three places.
Just three places remained true to the ideal of Islam; Taif, Mecca and Medina; from the whole of the Arabian peninsula.

A complete message?
Tell me now, in such a region and in such a place, to have left out instruction on how to carry out War, would it have been a complete message?

In fact it taught the rules of War, making them both comprehensive and limited, and even I might add honourable.

Unlike today's enacted concepts of limitless war, Islam teaches by way of a GODLY command and in reference to your enemies "If they incline to peace, then you too incline to peace." A rule of behaviour that even when it is known to be used to the Muslims' disadvantage, throughout history it is the Muslims that have honourable done so.

An unusual message.
What is unusual is not that it talked about War but that in such a place; in the dessert far from everything, to it's coming down to an insular Nation;  it is the Islamic message that is truly international.

For the Prophet (saw) said on his farewell sermon that "No Arab is superior to a non-Arab!" And to whom was he speaking? To the hundred thousands of Arabs that were before him and in Arabic. And by this he implied that this message of God is for all Nations, and meant to be delivered to all Nations:
That all men are equal in the sight of God, and that what elevates them one above the other is nothing less than godliness, piety and doing good to one another.

A message of Peace and Hope, not a message of War and Despair.

Part 2- to follow, God willing.
Find it here: http://shafeesthoughts.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/the-development-of-jihad_9.html

Sent from my iPhone

A Short History of Progress

A History of Progress.

When the NHS was conceived off as an idea, it was assumed that one day it would fulfil all the needs of the people with regard to healthcare.

Historically that day never came, and looks more distant today than it did at it's very creation.

This is relevant because it shows a very real example of an occurrence where the needs of the people were thought to be finite and meet-able.

Utility is a measure of meeting a need and proving to be useful. Modernity can claim to have exponentially grown the needs of the people.

Why? Because the fulfilment of needs appears to be generative of still other needs. In the case of the NHS generative of further expectation. In simplistic terms as our lifespan lengthened, because of our fight against disease, so new diseases became prevalent and our expectation that they be fought with equal vigour grew. This is why the NHS focus has shifted significantly to both health inequalities and managing expectations.

And thus maybe fulfilling needs is the very kernel of progress: to seek to fulfil needs, is generative of still further needs.

For when we started to bring our specialities to the market-place the resultant efficiency in cost, and work saved, created more freedom for people to do other things that were not necessary. Before that time we lived, and still live in some parts of the World, in a hand to mouth existence.

And so unlike our other prior existence the marketplace and our increased efficiency savings allowed us both superfluous wealth and the time to spend it on recreation, on things other than were necessary. And this in turn generated still further industries on which that wealth could be spent, and then other needs that could then be met. A generative cycle that does not look like it can be sated.

And this is the conundrum of Heaven, an impossible place of satiety.

That maybe all of these needs that we fill ourselves with are superfluous; being as it were in addition to ourselves; and therefore can in fact cause us to loose ourselves.

The moral quandaries are two, individually they are the loss of ourselves, subsumed in the consumerism of the market-place.
The solution is not to deny the market place, but "to live in this life as if you are a traveller"(1) and are only passing through.

The second moral quandary is more insidious, and bodes of our collective responsibility one to another. For when the marketplace becomes King and efficiencies met reach a point of equanimity, the market is not moral. In the name of further efficiency savings, and further progress, exploitation becomes rife. And the people exploit the earth, its resources, and then still other people. And that exploitation of others is just slavery by another name; market efficiency and progress.
This is what is seen in the market factories of the developing World; Slavery by another name.

Shafeesthoughts
(1) a saying of the best of all men, Muhammad (saw), the Messenger from GOD, may he forever be blessed.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:NHS

Beauty Pageants

Beauty Pageants.

A friend recently, hit the nail on it's proverbial head, by saying that he liked my patriotism, in reference to my religiosity.

This is something that the powers-that-be hate tooth and nail. That we Muslims identify with one another even whilst we adopt different cultures and languages. It is a patriotism of a type because we gain a sense of belonging and identity through it. The second aspect of that patriotism is that we cannot help being proud of our religion and that is what my friend inadvertently referred to.

But just like secular patriotism, we are in danger of the same problem of doing, promoting and accepting wrong, just because it is what we 'as a collective' do.

Thankfully Muhammad (saw) kept us from that harm through his patriotic saying, "Help your brother whether he be the oppressor or oppressed".

In the era before Muhammad (saw) it was a pagan Arab slogan that cemented the tribal rights, and their sometimes consequent wrongs by quite literally admonishing the support of wrong-doing. But that was then transformed in Islam with Muhammad (saw)'s qualification "If he be the oppressor then help him by stopping his oppression."

A slogan that allows for no silence in the face of any wrong, and even less so when it is your brother who belittles himself through through doing, or accepting, wrong.

Later in the conversation he drew my attention to a woman of Iranian descent who was purportedly being threatened with stoning for taking part in a Beauty Pageant. Then I was at a loss for words.

But now my loss is all gain.
I can understand my Muslim brothers and their wives reaction to that nonsense. The single atomic unit of any Muslim society is the family and not the individual. This is quite unlike the West, where no matter how many policy essays address the benefit to society of families, the individuals rights remain paramount.

And so from my and the majority Muslim perspective, no women, nor for that matter any male, has the right to act or promote actions which can undermine the family. I do not believe that I need to spell out for you exactly how taking part in Beauty Pageants can undermine family values. I will leave that to your imagination.

So I believe in the primacy of family rights, over individual rights. And that acts that can undermine family values should be precluded by convention, and that anyone that seeks to undermine such values should be castigated with due measure.

But two wrongs never did make a right, as the English say.

Stoning or whipping is a punishment decreed by GOD for the sexual crimes. How then can they be advocated for anything less than that?

To advocate that is to make a mockery of the decree of GOD, and to visit an oppression that GOD himself likens to the killing of the whole of humanity.

We also know that it is decreed that the fornicator only be allowed to marry their like, the fornicatoress (S. Noor). Is not the similitude of a women who wishes to reveal her body to the World, like that of the fornicator? And whilst no sexual crime has been committed, the judgement in regards of her should be like that of a fornicator.

And should she not be excommunicated from the community?

And if it is that she, or for that matter he, feels more at home in the West, then they should be given every encouragement to relocate. That they might live with those whose values they mimic most.

And let us Muslim hold our values, true and solid, never deviating from them.

Shafeesthoughts.
This is about a conversation I had with my friend Lukas P. about a year ago. May God guide him to the straight path. And sufficient is God for me. Ameen.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:Europe

The MULTIVERSE: An Admission.

The Multiverse, as an admission!

Science is often motivated, or if you prefer inspired, by ideology.

That's why Darwinism gained greater credence during the essentially European Market Revolution. Scientists are people after all, and most people could both assimilate and understand the idea of progress through trial.

It's interesting, then, to note the motivation for the Multiverse postulate.

You see a Multiverse is the opposite of a Universe. It is an idea, which says that our Universe is but one of a multitude of such Universes.

If Scientist are serious about entertaining this idea then shouldn't they as a matter of rule engineer a suitable test? Isn't that what Scientists are supposed to do?

But wouldn't such a test, if it existed, rule out the idea of a Multiplicity of "Closed Boxed" Universes?
Since by definition they would then no longer be CLOSED boxes.

And so they cannot.
Then why entertain an IDEA which at roots is NOT SCIENTIFIC?

Well the answer lies in this fact:

"He Who created the seven heavens one above another: No want of proportion wilt thou see in the Creation of (Allah) Most Gracious. So turn thy vision again: seest thou any flaw?

Again turn thy vision a second time: (thy) vision will come back to thee dull and discomfited, in a state worn out."
(Surah Mulk).

At every point from the Anthropic Principle; which sensibly suggests that the laws of Nature that were in prominence from even less than a microsecond after the Big Bang must account for our (cognisant and rational beings') existence; to the Sciences that cannot find any flaw;

The guardian/ sun is the most perfect natural sphere.
; the World that we inhabit is perfect.

For Scientists that entertain the Multiverse postulate it is in fact TOO PERFECT.

In fact it's so perfect that they are forced to assume an untestable idea of a near infinite number of other Universes where the law of Nature and Physics do NOT produce cognisant beings like us, and do NOT produce a perfect Universe that we see around us. And then Our Universe is just one single of a Multitude of other Universes.

Hah.

Doesn't it just make you laugh.

That in order to avoid admitting the perfection of creation that they would go to such lengths.

And in order to avoid the then obvious admission that there must be a PERFECT Creator and Designer they would also go to such lengths.

And to deny those things they would appeal to something even remoter and even more infinitely more unlikely than a Single CREATOR.

So it all really boils down to you.

You DO THE MATHS and work out the likelihoods:

A single CREATOR who sent countless Messengers and Prophets to proclaim His Truth and Oneness.

OR

A near infinite number of Universes each with their own Physical Laws and Cosmic Constants.
And of those off course we only need ONE to have the exact right conditions and Laws to sustain cognisant life that can account for our existence, and also create a Universe which is absolutely perfect in every way.

And that the rest of those Universes, that we cannot see, are DEAD. Lifeless and full of nothing of significance.


I know where I'd lay my bet.
Especially if my life depended on it.

YOU CHOOSE !!!!!

Shafeesthoughts. :)

Location:CERN Labs, I wished.