It is one of the most favourite subjects of official historians in Pakistan.  Their books tell us that Dahir was a brutal and promiscuous ruler who had married his sister.  It is indeed true that he had married his sister but the official historians deliberately leave out two important points.

1. The marriage was never consummated.

As Chachnama states:

It was he who, by the advice of a credulous minister, solemnised his marriage with his own sister, to prevent the working of a prediction. The marriage was not intended to be consummated, and, as a matter of fact, it was not consummated. [1]

2. That the act was socially abominable in that society and Dahir had his brother alienated from him due to this act.

Dahir’s brother Daharsiah wrote the following to Dahir when he learnt of this news:

What you have done is wicked and infamous. Whether you did it through necessity or of your own free will, you can never be excused, and whether you considered it allowable to do such an illegal and detestable act, in order to secure worldly pomp and power, or took the initial step by reason of the temptation of the devil, what you now ought to do is to turn from your evil ways, to forswear year sin, and to grieve (for your transgression), so that you may not be shut off from (the communion of) our religion, and our alliance with you may not be cancelled. If you fail to turn from this sin, in accordance with our suggestion and advice, you will make yourself deserving of opprobrium and will receive (your) punishment. You would have then to thank yourself for the consequences of these ugly deeds. [1]

By leaving these two subtle but important points, official historians create a generalization which implies that incest was a norm of that society. One can easily find such impressions upon conversing with people who have been exposed to such biased version of history. Such intellectual dishonesty helps in creating an image of the promiscuous, immoral, barbarian ‘Other’ that our ruling elites to create in order to produce and sustain hatred against Hindus.

The above lines from Chachnama clearly indicate that Dahir’s act was clearly a deviance and not a norm of that culture.  Though this conclusion does not even require a background in history if one is aware of some basic principles of biology, genetics and evolutionary psychology. The taboo against incest is not only social but it also lies deep within our biology. The abhorrence we feel towards it is embedded into us by the nature. No society or culture could have survived if it had made incest a norm as the biological penalty is extremely high. Nature is a cruel administrator and that we can observe in our society where excessive cousin marriages have led to fatal blood diseases in extreme cases and minor aberrations in others.

Notes

[1] The Chachnama-An Ancient History of Sind

From The Chachnama-An Ancient History of Sind

Muhammad Kásim, then complied with the prayer made by the people in the suburbs of Braminábád, and permanently settled their affairs in the same way and on the same lines, as had been followed in the case of the Jews, Fireworshippers, Nazarenes and Magians of Irák and Syria. He then sent them back to their homes; and to their headmen he gave the generic name of Ráná.* He then sent for Wazír Siyákar and Mókah Basáyeh, and asked them as to how the Jats of the Lúhánah tribe had been treated by Chach and Dáhar, and how matters now stood in regard to them. Wazír Siyákar replied in the presence of Mókah Basáyeh:

“In the reign of Rái Chach the Lúhánahs, that is, the Lákháhs and the Sammáhs* were not allowed to use soft clothe of silk or velvet. On the contrary they used to wear a rough black blanket, and put on a rough coarse scarf on their shoulders, and they went about with bare head and feet. If any one of them wore some soft stuff, he was fined, and when they went out of their houses, they used to take a dog with them, in order that they might easily be distinguished from the other tribes. None of their elders or chiefs was allowed to ride a horse. If any guides were required anywhere by any prince, they served as such. In fact it was their business to show the way as guides upto the limits of another tribe. If any headman or Ráná was obliged to use a horse, he rode it without any saddle or reins, and with only a blanket on its back. If an accident occurred to any traveller, the Jat tribes were called to help, and it was the duty of their headmen to see that such help was given readily. If any one of them committed theft, his children  and the other members of his family were thrown into flames and burnt. They guided caravans on their way both during day time and at night. Among them there is no distinction of high and low; they are all of the wild nature of brutes. They have always been refractory and disobedient to the rulers; and are in the habit of committing highway robberies. In the robberies committed some time ago on the high roads of Debal, they were probably concerned as accomplices. It was also a duty of theirs to supply firewood for the royal kitchen, to collect provisions for the personal use of the king, and to keep watch over his person, as his body guards.”

A tradition

Hearing this account of the Lúhánah Jats, Muhammad Kásim is said to have
remarked:

“what a villainous set of people these are. They are quite like the
wild men, living in some villages of Fárs and Mount Payeh, and they should now be treated as such.”

Muhammad Kásim, therefore, thought it proper to deal with them exactly in the same way, and following the rule made applicable by the commander of the faithful, Umār, son of Khattab, (may the great God be pleased with him) to the people of Syria, he ordered that if any stranger or a traveller should arrive within their limits, they were bound to entertain him with food as a guest for a day and night, and if he fell sick, for three days.

by Awais Masood

I always believed that there are limits to credulity and ignorance but I was proven wrong when I watched Zakir Naik presenting ‘arguments’ against evolution. [1]

It was difficult for me to digest that a large number of people present in the live audience and watching on screens could buy into such third grade arguments. Moreover one can raise strong questions regarding the credibility of such a (pseudo) scholar. It is understandable – in the context of low literacy rates, much lower rates of scientific education and suppression of rational inquiry in our region – that general public could misunderstand science and take things for granted but it is criminally ignorant to let people like Zakir Naik churn out rubbish in the name of science.

In this series of rebuttals, I intend to take on Naik’s arguments, statement by statement and debunk those claims and expose what I perceive as either abject ignorance or criminal trickery.

Argument : Zakir Naik claims that evolution is a theory and not a fact [1]

It is perhaps the most popular and actually the most ridiculous argument presented by creationists. It actually exhibits a complete ignorance of science and scientific method and raises serious questions regarding the academic credentials of Naik who claims to be a doctor of medicine.

Anybody who has gone through elementary courses in science knows that there are other ‘theories’ of science such as ‘Theory of Gravitation’ and ‘Electromagnetic Theory’ but nobody declares gravity to be theory and jumps of a thirty storey building in a hope that he/she will start floating in mid-air rather than falling downwards.

The reality is that in scientific jargon, the terms ‘theory’ and ‘fact’ carry very different meanings. The colloquial usage of term ‘theory’ which stands for unsubstantiated claims is not valid for the scientific theories of Evolution, Electromagnetism and Gravity.

What is then a scientific theory? Biochemist, Science Fiction writer and popularizer of science, Isaac Asimov explains:

Creationists frequently stress the fact that evolution is “only a theory,” giving the impression that a theory is an idle guess. A scientist, one gathers, arising one morning with nothing particular to do, decided that perhaps the moon is made of Roquefort cheese and instantly advances the Roquefort-cheese theory.

A theory (as the word is used by scientists) is a detailed description of some facet of the universe’s workings that is based on long observation and, where possible, experiment. It is the result of careful reasoning from these observations and experiments that has survived the critical study of scientists generally.

For example, we have the description of the cellular nature of living organisms (the “cell theory”); of objects attracting each other according to fixed rule (the “theory of gravitation”); of energy behaving in discrete bits (the “quantum theory”); of light traveling through a vacuum at a fixed measurable velocity (the “theory of relativity”), and so on.
All are theories; all are firmly founded; all are accepted as valid descriptions of this or that aspect of the universe. They are neither guesses nor speculations. And no theory is better founded, more closely examined, more critically argued and more thoroughly accepted, than the theory of evolution. If it is “only” a theory, that is all it has to be. [2]

Similarly, Paleontologist Stephen J. Gould states:

If the vernacular word FACT has any currency in science, it can only be defined as “confirmed to so high a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”   By this definition, evolution – the observation that all organisms are connected by unbroken ties of genealogy – is as much a fact as anything discovered by science – as well confirmed as Copernicus’s claim that the Earth moves around the sun.[3]

Gould states at another place:

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, “fact” does not mean “absolute certainty.” The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. [4]

Skeptic, Psychologist and historian of science Michael Shermer comment on scientific thinking:

Scientists agree that the following elements are involved in thinking scientifically:

Induction: Forming a hypothesis by drawing general conclusions from existing data.

Deduction: Making specific predictions based on the hypotheses.

Observation: Gathering data, driven by hypotheses that tell us what to
look for in nature.

Verification: Testing the predictions against further observations to confirm or falsify the initial hypotheses.

Science, of course, is not this rigid; and no scientist consciously goes through “steps.” The process is a constant interaction of making observations, drawing conclusions, making predictions, and checking them against evidence. [5]

Shermer further explains:

Through the scientific method, we may form the following generalizations:

Hypothesis: A testable statement accounting for a set of observations.

Theory: A well-supported and well-tested hypothesis or set of
hypotheses.

Fact: A conclusion confirmed to such an extent that it would be
reasonable to offer provisional agreement.

A theory may be contrasted with a construct: a nontestable statement to
account for a set of observations.The living organisms on Earth may be
accounted for by the statement “God made them” or the statement “They evolved.” The first statement is a construct, the second a theory. Most biologists would even call evolution a fact.

Through the scientific method, we aim for objectivity: basing conclusions on external validation. And we avoid mysticism: basing conclusions on personal insights that elude external validation.[5]

Conclusion

I consider the above arguments enough to explain why Naik’s statement holds no ground. It may seem wasteful to spend so much time refuting a single statement (rest of them will be refuted too in future) but I find it important as it leads us to another important question. Is he totally ignorant of the scientific method or he deliberately uses false statements  in front of his audience. In first scenario he comes out to be a totally ignorant speaker who holds no credibility to take part in debates regarding science. His shameless arrogance is appalling in this regard. How could he stand in front of millions of people in audience and argue regarding things, he is totally ignorant of? Is such a man worth listening to? If he is deliberately lying, the case becomes more severe. He is charlatan who cheats and deceives his audience with verbal trickery and false arguments and all that in the name of religion!

References

1. Zakir Naik on Evolution, Video

2. Asimov, Isaac, The “Threat of Creationism”, New York Times Magazine, 14 June 1981

3. Gould, Stephen J,  ‘Creation Science ‘ is an Oxymoron, Skeptical Inquirer Vol. XI, no. 2 / Winter 1986-87

4. Gould, Stephen J, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Discover 2 (May 1981): 34-37

5. Shermer, Michael, Why people believe weird things: pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time, 2002

Editor’s Note:

Zakir Naik aka The Ignorant

As the world moves forward, our society still faces the twin curses of ignorance and superstition. Science serves as a tool for expanding our knowledge of the natural world and it is the best tool we have. Only a scientific outlook based upon the the urge to learn and reason can take us out of the misery we find ourselves in. It is a tragedy that education of masses has been deliberately neglected by our ruling elite. Science is a special target of the oppressors as it can free minds from obscurantism, superstition and ignorance which in itself can endanger the very rule of these oppressors.

We suffer from a double tragedy when our educated youth falls victim to ignorant idiots such as Zakir Naik who do not know anything about science and scientific method but are readily available to malign, distort and destroy science. The basic underlying values of science such as Empiricism, Skepticism and Rational Inquiry are absent from the skewed worldview of Zakir Naik and his blind followers who shamelessly indulge in ridiculous retrospective evidentialism.

I present here a brief by renowned paleontologist late Stephen Jay Gould that puts light on scientific methodology and explains why Creation Science (a pseudo-science invented by fundamentalist Christians in USA) is a threat to science. The arguments, though mainly deal with US education system, are quite valid in Pakistan where creationism is still a holy truth for the majority.

Stephen J. Gould

‘Creation Science’ is an Oxymoron

By Stephen Jay Gould

Skeptical Inquirer
Vol. XI, no. 2 / Winter 1986-87
p 152-153

Science, above all, is a methodology for acquiring testable knowledge about the natural world – “the art of the soluble,” in Sir Peter Medawar’s apt phrase.  It is not, and cannot be, a compendium of certain knowledge. If the vernacular word FACT has any currency in science, it can only be defined as “confirmed to so high a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”   By this definition, evolution – the observation that all organisms are connected by unbroken ties of genealogy – is as much a fact as anything discovered by science – as well confirmed as Copernicus’s claim that the Earth moves around the sun. Evolutionary biologists argue intensely about mechanisms of evolutionary change – and such meaty debates are the soul of exciting science, the chief sign of its good health – but we all accept the fundamental fact of genealogical connection.

As a methodology of research, science adopts as its cardinal postulate – proved fruitful by its enormous success since the time of Galileo, Newton, and Descartes – the commitment to explain empirical phenomena by reference to invariant laws of nature and to avoid appeals to the miraculous, defined as suspension of those laws, for particular events. The notion of “abrupt appearance” – the origin of complex somethings from previous nothings – resides in this domain of miracle and is not part of science.  Punctuated equilibrium, catastrophic theories of mass extinction, hopeful monsters, and a variety of hypotheses about rapid rates of change in continuous sequences – not about unintelligible abrupt appearances – are part of scientific debate and bear no relationship to the nonscientific notion of abrupt appearance, despite pernicious and wishful attempts by many creationists to distort such claims and misquote and half-quote to their alien purposes.  Punctuated equilibrium, in particular, is a claim that evolutionary trends have a geometry that resembles a climb up a staircase, rather than a slide up an inclined plane.  It is, in other words, an alternative theory about the nature of intermediate stages in evolutionary trends, not, as creationists have claimed, a denial of those stages.

As a term, CREATION SCIENCE is an oxymoron – a self-contradictory and meaningless phrase – a whitewash for a specific, particular, and minority religious view in America, biblical literalism. As a religious idea, it differs sharply from the tenets of most other faiths – from the enormously lengthy cycles of repetition in Hindu thought, from the usual interpretation of origins in my own Jewish faith, and the allegorical readings of the Bible accepted by Catholics since the time of St. Augustine.  Biblical literalism, like all notions in the diverse array of faiths professed by Americans, belongs in the homes and churches – not in legislatively mandated curricula of science courses in public schools.

It is particularly tragic that public understanding of science should be so threatened just when science has become so central and crucial in all our lives.  This battle is for science itself, not only for the right of teachers to teach a fact of nature unimpeded by state commands. How can Americans hope to understand the nature of science if a partisan and minority religious doctrine, completely outside the norms and procedures of science, be taught as science, against the conscience and convictions of trained teachers, in the nation’s schools.

Excerpted from Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion by David Hume (1711-1776 AD)

David Hume

Look round this universe. What an immense profusion of beings, animated and organised, sensible and active! You admire this prodigious variety and fecundity. But inspect a little more narrowly these living existences, the only beings worth regarding. How hostile and destructive to each other! How insufficient all of them for their own happiness! How contemptible or odious to the spectator! The whole presents nothing but the idea of a blind Nature, impregnated by a great vivifying principle, and pouring forth from her lap, without discernment or parental care, her maimed and abortive children!

It must be acknowledged, that there are few parts of the universe, which seem not to serve some purpose, and whose removal would not produce a visible defect and disorder in the whole. The parts hang all together; nor can one be touched without affecting the rest, in a greater or less degree. But at the same time, it must be observed, that none of these parts or principles, however useful, are so accurately adjusted, as to keep precisely within those bounds in which their utility consists; but they are, all of them, apt, on every occasion, to run into the one extreme or the other. One would imagine, that this grand production had not received the last hand of the maker; so little finished is ev

ery part, and so coarse are the strokes with which it is executed. Thus, the winds are requisite to convey the vapours along the surface of the globe, and to assist men in navigation: but how oft, rising up to tempests and hurricanes, do they become pernicious? Rains are necessary to nourish all the plants and animals of the earth: but how often are they defective? how often excessive? Heat is requisite to all life and vegetation; but is not always found in the due proportion. On the mixture and secretion of the humours and juices of the body depend the health and prosperity of the animal: but the parts perform not regularly their proper function. What more useful than all the passions of the mind, ambition, vanity, love, anger? But how oft do they break their bounds, and cause the greatest convulsions in society? There is nothing so advantageous in the universe, but what frequently becomes pernicious, by its excess or defect; nor has Nature guarded, with the requisite accuracy, against all disorder or confusion. The irregularity is never perhaps so great as to destroy any species; but is often sufficient to involve the individuals in ruin and misery.

Excerpt from The Battle for God (published 2000) by Karen Armstrong.

There have always been people, in every age and in each tradition, who have fought the modernity of their day. But the fundamentalism that we shall be considering is an essentially twentieth-century movement. It is a reaction against the scientific and secular culture that first appeared in the West, but which has since taken root in other parts of the world. The West has developed an entirely unprecedented and wholly different type of civilization, so the religious response to it has been unique. The fundamentalist movements that have evolved in our own day have a symbiotic relationship with modernity. They may reject the scientific rationalism of the West, but they cannot escape it. Western civilization has changed the world. Nothing — including religion — can ever be the same again. All over the globe, people have been struggling with these new conditions and have been forced to reassess their religious traditions, which were designed for an entirely different type of society.

There was a similar transitional period in the ancient world, lasting roughly from 700 to 200 BCE, which historians have called the Axial Age because it was pivotal to the spiritual development of humanity. This age was itself the product and fruition of thousands of years of economic, and therefore social and cultural, evolution, beginning in Sumer in what is now Iraq, and in ancient Egypt. People in the fourth and third millennia BCE, instead of simply growing enough crops to satisfy their immediate needs, became capable of producing an agricultural surplus with which they could trade and thereby acquire additional income. This enabled them to build the first civilizations, develop the arts, and create increasingly powerful polities: cities, city-states, and, eventually, empires. In agrarian society, power no longer lay exclusively with the local king or priest; its locus shifted at least partly to the marketplace, the source of each culture’s wealth. In these altered circumstances, people ultimately began to find that the old paganism, which had served their ancestors well, no longer spoke fully to their condition.

In the cities and empires of the Axial Age, citizens were acquiring a wider perspective and broader horizons, which made the old local cults seem limited and parochial. Instead of seeing the divine as embodied in a number of different deities, people increasingly began to worship a single, universal transcendence and source of sacredness. They had more leisure and were thus able to develop a richer interior life; accordingly, they came to desire a spirituality which did not depend entirely upon external forms. The most sensitive were troubled by the social injustice that seemed built into this agrarian society, depending as it did on the labor of peasants who never had the chance to benefit from the high culture. Consequently, prophets and reformers arose who insisted that the virtue of compassion was crucial to the spiritual life: an ability to see sacredness in every single human being, and a willingness to take practical care of the more vulnerable members of society, became the test of authentic piety. In this way, during the Axial Age, the great confessional faiths that have continued to guide human beings sprang up in the civilized world: Buddhism and Hinduism in India, Confucianism and Taoism in the Far East; monotheism in the Middle East; and rationalism in Europe. Despite their major differences, these Axial Age religions had much in common: they all built on the old traditions to evolve the idea of a single, universal transcendence; they cultivated an internalized spirituality, and stressed the importance of practical compassion.

Today, as noted, we are undergoing a similar period of transition.Its roots lie in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries of the modern era, when the people of Western Europe began to evolve a different type of society, one based not on an agricultural surplus but on a technology that enabled them to reproduce their resources indefinitely. The economic changes over the last four hundred years have been accompanied by immense social, political, and intellectual revolutions, with the development of an entirely different, scientific and rational, concept of the nature of truth; and, once again, a radical religious change has become necessary. All over the world, people are finding that in their dramatically transformed circumstances, the old forms of faith no longer work for them: they cannot provide the enlightenment and consolation that human beings seem to need. As a result, men and women are trying to find new ways of being religious; like the reformers and prophets of the Axial Age, they are attempting to build upon the insights of the past in a way that will take human beings forward into the new world they have created for themselves. One of these modern experiments — however paradoxical it may superficially seem to say so — is fundamentalism.

By Riffat Hassan

Department of Religious Studies
University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky

[Dr. Riffat Hassan is a theologian and a leading Islamic feminist scholar of Quran. She has taught at Punjab University, Oklahoma State University and Harvard University. This article (source) is being presented for its feminist message.]

Introduction

What I will say may surprise both Muslims who “know” women’s place and non-Muslims who “know” what Islam means for women. It is this: I am a Muslim, a theologian, and a women’s rights activist, and while I am critical in a number of ways of the life that most Muslim societies offer to women, twenty years of theological study, as well as my own deepest faith, convince me that in real Islam, the Islam of the Qur’an, women and men are equals. Liberating ideas lie at the heart of most enduring faiths, and Islam shares in these. Two themes in particular strike me as being of the highest importance. The first is the fundamental equality of humans before God. The other is religion’s revolutionary aim of human liberation. From religion should come freedom to seek understanding of the will of God and life’s purpose, and freedom to honor God’s creation through self-development and striving toward God’s ends.

Unfortunately, most Muslim societies also mirror a fault that has been noted by feminist theologians in cultures shaped by other religions: the gap between rhetoric of equality and the reality of profound inequality between the lives of women and men. While Muslim women continuously hear the refrain that Islam has given women more rights than any other religious tradition, they continue to be subjected to grossly unequal treatment.

Most Muslims — women and men — consider it self-evident that men are superior to women. Going further, they justify many manifestations of inequality as inherent in Islam. In fact, women are regarded in a number of contemporary Muslim societies as less than fully human because it is widely believed that in some contexts (such as inheritance or witnessing to contracts), one man is equal to two women. Most Muslim females, learning their culture’s assumptions even before they learn language, and denied the opportunity to become educated, also internalize this belief.

The dominant, patriarchal interpretations of Islam have fostered the myth of women’s inferiority in several ways. They have used sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (including disputed sayings) to undermine the intent and teachings of the Qur’an, which Muslims regard as the Word of God. They have taken Qur’anic verses out of context and read them literally, ignoring the fact that the Qur’an often uses symbolic language to portray deep truths. And they have failed to account for the overriding ethical values of the Qur’an, which stresses that human beings — women as well as men — have been designated to be God’s “khalifah” (vicegerent) on earth and to establish a social order characterized by justice and compassion.

A refutation of the whole mosaic of arguments for women’s lesser place would fill a book. It might require a second book to explicate, proactively, the Qur’an’s vision of women’s equality with men and what it might mean in day-to-day life. For now, my hope here is simply to shake false certainties about women in Islam and stimulate additional study for the sake of empowering Muslim women.

The central question is whether, according to normative Islam, women and men are equal or unequal. It is clear to me that, according to the perspective of the Qur’an, women and men are equal, and that women are entitled to an equal opportunity along with men for the actualization of their human potentialities. In fact, because of its protective attitude toward all downtrodden and oppressed classes, the Qur’an is particularly concerned about safeguarding the rights of women, and much Qur’anic legislation is designed to ensure that women are treated with justice in the home and in society.
Islam Seeks Liberation

The Qur’an holds before us a sublime vision of our human potential, our destiny, and our relationship with God. Its vision of human destiny is apparent in the exalted proclamation: “Towards God is thy limit” [Surah 53:An- Najm:42]. With this attitude, the Qur’an seeks to liberate all persons so that we may realize our potential fully. If all Muslims were to pursue the values of the Qur’an, they would create a Paradise of justice and peace on earth.

The means and ends of human liberation are foundational themes of the Qur’an: justice and the duty to strive for it, compassion for all things, the need to strive continuously for the cause of God (“jihad fi sabil Allah”). The most important form of “jihad” for contemporary Muslims is “ijtihad,” or the exercise of rational judgment to understand the essential message of the Qur’an and to apply it to particular circumstances. Central to this message is an ethic of responsibility for our lives, for nature, and for the elimination of all inequities and injustices from human society. According to the Qur’an, justice is a precondition for peace: Without justice — between men and women, as between classes and between nations — there can be no peace in the world.

Indeed, a large part of the Qur’an’s concern is to free human beings from the chains that bind them — above all, authoritarianism and the blind following of tradition. “Let there be no compulsion in religion,” says the Qur’an [Surah 2:Al-Baqarah:256]. God tells the Prophet Muhammad, “We made thee not one to watch over [others'] doings, nor art thou set over them to dispose of their affairs” [Surah 6:Al-An'am:107]. The greatest guarantee of personal freedom lies in the Qur’anic decrees that no one but God can limit human freedom [Surah 42:Ash-Shura:21] and that “Judgment is Allah’s alone” [Surah 12:Yusuf:40]. As the eminent jurist Khalid M. Ishaque pointed out, “The Qur’an gives to responsible dissent the status of a fundamental right.”(1)

Our right to freedom includes the freedom to tell the truth, as one sees it. Without this, other freedoms are a charade and a just society is impossible. According to the Qur’an, truth is one of God’s most important attributes, and the Qur’an emphasizes that standing up for the truth is a right and a responsibility that no Muslim may disclaim, no matter how hard the truth may be to tell [Surah 4:An-Nisa':135]. Further, the Qur’an forbids others to harm those who testify to the truth [Surah 2:Al-Baqarah:282].

The right to freedom of thought and expression was exercised by Muslims in the early centuries of Islam and was pivotal in the creation of an Islamic civilization characterized by outstanding achievements in diverse fields of knowledge. The early Muslims celebrated cultural diversity and engaged in rigorous intellectual discussion. Here, it is apt to mention Wilfred Cantwell Smith’s comment that, whereas the original Muslims believed in God, modern Muslims believe in Islam.(2)

Centered in God and self-critical, the original Muslims believed that although God had given them the Qur’an and the Prophet had exemplified its teachings, it was their responsibility to implement its message in the “Islamic” societies that they were creating. These Muslims read the Qur’an as an “open,” rather than a “closed,” text and strove continually to understand its deeper meaning. This intellectual striving (“ijtihad”) — which Allama Muhammad Iqbal, poet-philosopher of Pakistan, calls “the principle of movement” in history(3) — made the Muslims of the first three centuries dynamic and creative peoples who paved the way for the European Renaissance.

It is a profound tragedy and irony that today’s Muslims, in large numbers, regard Islam in monolithic terms and regard the “shari’ah” (the code regulating all aspects of a Muslim’s life) as fixed. In much of the contemporary Muslim world, we see the substitution of traditionalism for the exercise of ijtihad — even a denial of the right of ijtihad.

To me, being a Muslim means renewing the cry of the modernists, “Back to the Qur’an and forward with ijtihad.” In the same vein, it means acting on these words of Iqbal: “The teaching of the Qur’an that life is a process of progressive creation necessitates that each generation, guided but unhampered by the work of its predecessors, should be permitted to solve its own problems.”(4) These are useful guidelines today for the liberation of all Muslims, especially women, from traditional authoritarianism.

Human Rights in the Qur’an

The Qur’an strongly guarantees all fundamental human rights, without reserving them to men alone. These rights are so deeply rooted in our humanness that their denial or violation is tantamount to a negation or degradation of that which makes us human. These rights came into existence with us, so that we might actualize our human potential. These rights not only provide us with the opportunity to develop all of our inner resources, but they also hold before us a vision of what God would like us to be, what God deems to be worth striving for. The renunciation of a God-given right would be no more virtuous than the refusal to utilize a God-given talent.

The first and most basic right emphasized by the Qur’an is the right to be regarded in a way that reflects the sanctity and absolute value of each human life. Each person has the right not only to life but also to respect, not by virtue of being a man or a woman, but by virtue of being a human being. “Verily,” states the Qur’an, “we have honored every human being” [Surah 17:Al-Isra':70]. Human beings are deemed worthy of esteem because, of all creation, they alone chose to accept the “trust” of freedom of the will (Surah 33:Al-Ahzab:72). Human beings can exercise freedom of the will because they possess the rational faculty, which is what distinguishes them from all other creatures (Surah 2:Al-Baqarah:30-34). Although human beings can become “the lowest of the low,” the Qur’an declares that they have been made “in the best of moulds” (Surah 95:At-Tin:4-6), having the ability to think, to have knowledge of right and wrong, to do the good and to avoid the evil. Thus, on account of the promise which is contained in being human, namely, the potential to be God’s vicegerent on earth, the humanness o fall human beings is to be respected and considered an end in itself.

Flowing from this primary right is the right to be treated with justice and equity. The Qur’an puts great emphasis on the right to seek justice and the duty to do justice. Justice encompasses both the concept that all are equal and recognition of the need to help equalize those suffering from a deficiency or loss.

Yet justice is not absolute equality of treatment, since human beings are not equal as far as their human potential or their human situation is concerned. While each person’s humanness commands respect, the Qur’an also establishes the right to recognition of individual merit. Merit depends not on gender or any other characteristic, but only on righteousness. Righteousness consists of “just belief” plus “just action,” including faith, prayer, wealth- sharing, equitable and compassionate behavior, and patience in the face of hardship or difficulty.

Of importance to women in the Muslim world today is the Qur’anic idea that justice takes into account the unequal conditions of different groups of people. This idea stems from the Qur’anic ideal of community, or “ummah,” a word deriving from the root “umm,” meaning mother. Like a good mother with her children, the good community cares about the well-being of all its members, offering particular support to the downtrodden, oppressed, and “weak” classes. This includes women, slaves, orphans, the poor and infirm, and minorities.

As discussed earlier, another fundamental right is the right to be free of traditionalism and authoritarianism. Instrumental here is the right to seek knowledge, which the Qur’an emphasizes perhaps more than any other right. Acquiring knowledge is a prerequisite for evaluating the conditions of life and working toward the creation of a just world. Denied knowledge, Muslim women are denied justice.

Additionally, with great implications for the status of Muslim women, human beings possess the right to work, to earn, and to own property. This right is not the monopoly of men. In Islam, everything belongs to God, not to any person, and so every human being has the right to a means of living. Given the Qur’an’s recognition of women as persons in their own right and not as adjuncts to men, the right to earn a living is of great importance to women, and the Qur’an entitles both women and men to the fruits of their labors.

Human beings also have the right to develop their aesthetic sensibilities and the right not only to survive but to thrive, to enjoy “the good life.” This requires self-actualization or development, which is not possible without social justice. Not only an end in themselves, women’s rights are a basic component of social justice and a fundamental aspect of creating a just society, in which all people can actualize their God-given potential.

It is often said that rights entail responsibility, meaning the responsibility not to use rights to justify destructive behavior. Rights also entail another kind of responsibility: the duty not to neglect them. Rights given to us by God ought to be exercised, since everything that God does is for “a just purpose,” as pointed out by a number of Qur’anic verses.

In short, as beings in a covenantal relationship with God, we must strive to secure and guard the rights which God has given us and which, therefore, cannot be revoked by any temporal authority.

Sexism Is Not Islam

Given the human rights established by the Qur’an, how is it that Muslim women are among the most voiceless and powerless “minorities” in the world? One answer is that women’s oppression — including their “protection” — in the name of Islam is based on pre-Qur’anic, non-Qur’anic theological assumptions and on patriarchal impulses camouflaged in the language of popular piety. It also consists of the simple fear of change.

The belief that women are inferior to men derives, in my judgment, from three fundamental theological assumptions or ideas that have played pivotal roles not only in the Islamic, but also in the Christian and Jewish, tradition. These three assumptions are:

1) God’s primary creation is man (Adam), since woman (Eve) is believed to have been created from man’s rib and is, therefore, ontologically derivative and secondary. This idea has been the most damaging to women throughout history, for if it is believed that man and woman were created unequal by God, then they cannot become equal essentially, at a subsequent time.

2) Woman (Eve) was the primary agent of “man’s Fall,” or man’s expulsion from paradise. With enormous implications for women’s sexuality, this story undergirds the myth of feminine evil. Consequently, women have been regarded as “the devil’s gateway” — a phrase adopted from the early Christian Tertullian — and treated with hatred, suspicion, and contempt.

3) Woman was created not only from man, but for man. Her existence, therefore, is instrumental and not of fundamental importance.

Common though these assumptions are, a correct reading of Qur’an does not support them. The idea that Eve was created second, and is derivative — which is found in the creation story in Genesis 2 — is not found in the Qur’an. In its thirty or so passages about human creation, the Qur’an always speaks of the creation of humanity as a whole (“an-nas,” “al-insan,” “al-bashar”). The term “adam” (borrowed from Hebrew, in which “adam” derives from “adamah,” meaning “earth”) occurs twenty-five times in the Qur’an. In twenty-one instances, it refers not to a specific person but to human beings when they reach the stage of moral autonomy and become capable of being God’s vicegerents on earth. In the Qur’an, “Adam” represents humanity, not just a male person. It is important to note that there is no “Eve” in the Qur’an.

According to the Qur’an, God created woman and man simultaneously, of like substance, and in like manner. Several verses state that God created man and women from a single life-cell or being. Both man and women have male and female components [Surah 49:Al-Hujurat:13], and both together form the human species. It is a clear teaching of the Qur’an that man and woman are equal in the sight of God, and the Qur’an uses both feminine and masculine terms and imagery to describe the creation of humanity from a single source.

As for the second assumption, the Qur’an does not state that Eve tempted and deceived Adam, causing his “Fall” and expulsion from paradise; as noted, Eve is not even mentioned by name in the Qur’anic text. In Islam, the story of humanity’s first act of disobedience is not even the tale of a “Fall.” Instead, as Iqbal writes, it shows “man’s rise from a primitive state of instinctive appetite to the conscious possession of a free self, capable of doubt and disobedience.”(5) God approved of this development of human will and therefore forgave this first transgression.

Finally, woman was not created to serve the ends of man, nor vice versa: both were created to serve God’s purpose. Both are called upon equally to be righteous, and women and men are “members” and “protectors” of each other.

In the face of this truth about the Qur’an, how do Muslims rationalize the commonly held theological misconceptions used to justify women’s secondary status? The answer is, largely, through the prevalent norms of Muslim culture, which has incorporated the many sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad that make up the Hadith literature, a leading source of Islamic tradition. While the Qur’an has absolute authority as God’s Word and is therefore the primary source of Islam, the Hadith literature has been the lens through which the Qur’an has been interpreted through the ages. Reflecting the culture of the seventh- and eighth-century Arab world, the sayings voice the cumulative biases, against women, of the Jewish, Christian, Hellenistic, and pre-Islamic Bedouin Arab traditions.

To take one example, it is through the Hadith literature that the idea of Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib entered the Muslim world. Throughout Islamic history, certain “ahadith” (the plural of “hadith,” a saying) have been used by patriarchal Muslim culture to undermine the aim of the Qur’an to liberate women from the status of chattels and make them free and equal to men.

As important as the Hadith literature is, controversy surrounds every aspect of it, from the authenticity of individual sayings to the literature as a whole. In theory, all Muslim scholars agree that they must reject any hadith that contradicts the Qur’an. Nevertheless, the ahadith invoked to justify women’s secondary status not only are retained, but they enjoy overwhelming popularity among Muslims in general.

The belief of most Muslims that the first woman was created from Adam’s rib shows that, in practice, the Hadith literature has displaced the teaching of the Qur’an on women’s creation. It is no wonder: throughout most of Muslim history, the sources of Islamic tradition have been interpreted only by Muslim men who have arrogated to themselves the task of defining the ontological, theological, sociological, and eschatological status of Muslim women.

The challenge for contemporary Muslim theologians who uphold gender equality and justice is to analyze and refute time-honored understandings of certain Qur’anic verses and ahadith that have been used against women. Their task is to reinterpret these texts in the light of the cardinal Islamic belief that God is just and that God’s word must reflect God’s justice. Indeed, the Qur’an is full of verses affirming the equality of women and men. I defy patriarchy’s theologians to reconcile these verses with any bias against women or even relegation of women to a sheltered — that is, inferior — status. To wit(6):

Never will I suffer to be lost
The work of any of you,
Be he male or female:
Ye are members, one of another
[Surah 3:Al-'Imran:195]

If any do deeds
of righteousness, –
be they male or female –
And have faith,
They will enter Heaven,
And not the least injustice
Will be done to them.
[Surah 4:An-Nisa':124]

The Believers, men
And women, are protectors,
One of another: they enjoin
What is just, and forbid
What is evil: they observe
Regular prayers, practice
Regular charity, and obey
God and His Apostle.
On them will God pour
His mercy: for God
Is Exalted in power, Wise.
God hath promised to Believers,
Men and women, Gardens
Under which rivers flow,
To swell therein,
And beautiful mansions
In Gardens of everlasting bliss.
But the greatest bliss
Is the Good Pleasure of God:
That is the supreme felicity.
[Surah 9:At-Tawbah:71-72]

Whoever works righteousness,
Man or woman, and has Faith,
Verily, to him will We give
A new Life, a life
That is good and pure, and We
Will bestow on such their reward
According to the best
Of their actions.
[Surah 16:An-Nahl:97]

For Muslim men and women, –
For believing men and women,
For devout men and women,
For true men and women,
For men and women who are
Patient and constant, for men
And women who humble themselves,
For men and women who give
In Charity, for men and women
Who fast (and deny themselves),
For men and women who
Engage much in God’s praise, –
For them has God prepared
Forgiveness and great reward.
[Surah 23:Al-Mu'minum:35]

Men and women are created as equal creatures of a universal, just, and merciful God whose pleasure is that they live, in harmony and in righteousness, together.

Manifestations of Inequality

Denying women the right to interpret the Qur’an and the other sources of Islam, patriarchal authorities have distorted the truth of Islam almost beyond recognition. They have made Islam a means of keeping women in bondage, physically and spiritually. The most gross violation of human rights in Muslim societies is that of the rights of women, who are deprived of the freedom to be fully human.

Female children are discriminated against from the moment of birth. Many girls are married when they are still minors, although marriage in Islam is a contract and presupposes that the contracting parties are both consenting adults. (The phenomenon of child marriages gives special importance to the human right, recognized by the Qur’an, to move freely and to emigrate from oppressive conditions.)

Ironically, while the Qur’an often notes women’s rights in marriage, the culture regards a husband as his wife’s gateway to heaven or hell. This is not only tragic, but also ironic, as Islam rejects the idea of any intermediary between a believer and the Creator.

While Islam may have abolished female infanticide, “honor killings” of women by their husbands remain common in certain Muslim countries.

Although the Qur’an presents the idea of “no-fault” divorce and speaks of divorce nonjudgmentally, Muslim societies make divorce legally and socially hard on women. One means is the denial to mothers of custody of their children.

Similarly disempowering to women are pseudo-Islamic practices with regard to inheritance. The Qur’an allowed women to inherit wealth and receive similar gifts, but Muslim societies have discouraged gifts to women and favored the circulation of wealth among men.

Modernity has not brought justice to most Muslim women. Since the 1970s, several countries have enacted laws in the name of “Islamization” that reduce women’s status, mathematically, to less than full humanity. Such oppression of women serves to reinforce cultural identity and express rejection of Western corruption. Controlling women is a proxy for controlling sexuality, licentiousness, and the family structure in which patriarchy is invested. Keeping women at home, subservient and dependent, is both means and end.

More intensely than many other societies, Muslim communities tend to divide the world into private (women’s) and public (men’s) spheres. This structure segregates the sexes. Women must wear veils to make themselves “faceless” in public because women’s intrusion into male space might disrupt, if not destroy, the fundamental order of things.

Segregation and enforced veiling — together, the tradition of the “curtain” — exemplify both the twisting of Qur’anic ideas and the adoption of pre-Islamic traditions oppressing women. For instance, the purpose of the Qur’anic statements about women’s dress and conduct was to enable women to transact business in the public realm, free from sexual harassment or molestation. Zealous and patriarchal Muslims, however, place form over substance. In the name of protecting women’s chastity (what about men’s chastity?) women are veiled and even confined to their homes — at the expense of their freedom and ability to engage in gainful work or other activity in the public sphere. This grossly distorts the Qur’anic directive, in which confinement was not the norm for chaste women, but the punishment for unchaste ones.

The pre-Islamic roots of this tradition also give the lie to the argument that secluding women is a Qur’anic ideal. Veiling is part and parcel of discriminatory ideas about women rooted in the Jewish and early Christian traditions. These words of St. Paul are an example:

Christ is the source of every man, man is the source of woman, and God is the source of Christ. For a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered is a sign of disrespect to his source. For a woman, however, it is a sign of disrespect to her source if she prays or prophesies unveiled; she might as well have her hair cut off. If a woman is ashamed to have her hair cut off or shaved, she ought to wear a veil. A man should certainly not cover his head, since he is the image of God and reflects God’s glory, but woman is the reflection of man’s glory. For man did not come from woman, and man was not created for the sake of woman, but woman was created for the sake of man. [I Corinthians 11:3-9]

Family Planning and Abortion

Control of women centers largely on control of women’s bodies. Beliefs that identify women with the body, to the exclusion of the mind and spirit, remain a common feature of many religious, cultural, and philosophical traditions. Islam is no exception. Moreover, while women are identified with the body, in these traditions they are not seen as “owners” of their own bodies.

To control women’s sexuality is a means of controlling their bodies, and to control (or deny) family planning is to govern women’s sexuality. This is why the matter of who controls women’s bodies — whether it is men, the church, the state or community, or women themselves — was a significant underlying issue of the United Nations Conference on Population and Development in 1994, and why it will resurface at the UN Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995.

Women in most Muslim societies have minimal access to reliable means of contraception. This reflects the influence of conservative Muslims who proclaim from public platforms and preach from the pulpits of the mosques that family planning is against Islam. Like the traditions of veiling and confinement, denial of family planning supports male ownership and control of women, both directly and symbolically.

The Qur’an does not directly address contemporary family planning issues — a silence that in itself indicates neither support nor opposition nor a lack of relevant principles. Instead, the open text of the Qur’an establishes an ethical framework in which it is appropriate to discuss family planning questions. (The Qur’an does include both pronatal verses and verses directed toward population control. Of the three, mutually contradictory ahadith concerning the withdrawal method of contraception, two imply that it is acceptable.)

Given Islam’s religious and ethical framework, family planning itself should be seen as a fundamental human right, especially for masses of disadvantaged Muslim women.

Among the principles supporting women’s access to family planning services are the equality of women with men, the entitlement to respect for one’s humanity, the right to justice and equity, the right to be free of traditionalism and authoritarianism, the right to privacy, the right to gain knowledge and use one’s reason, the right to work and earn and own property, the right to move freely, and the right to enjoy life. Family planning helps women and men to secure and exercise these fundamental human rights. The rights to respect and freedom from authoritarianism, suspicion, and slander, in particular, also respond to the belief, still held by some, that contraceptives make it possible for women to engage in licentious behavior without penalty.

Several additional Qur’anic principles support those who choose to use family planning. First, each individual is responsible for his or her actions. Although the Qur’an calls God the sustainer of all creation, it does not absolve individuals or communities of responsibility for their survival and well-being. Rather, it reminds human beings that we are responsible for our deeds — indeed, for our souls [Surahs 74:Al-Muddaththir:38 and 52:At- Tur:21: "for itself lies every soul in pledge"]. Similarly, the Qur’an notes that reason is what elevates us above other creatures, that righteous belief demands righteous action, and that God asks us to change ourselves as a precondition of changing our conditions. All these ideas support human responsibility where reproduction is concerned.

Finally, the Qur’an does not make a requirement of marriage or childbearing. Nor does it follow pre-Islamic traditions that sanctify sperm itself as the equal of human life. The quality, or righteousness, of people is more important than their quantity.

A review of Muslim jurisprudence shows that many jurists have considered abortion to be permissible within the first 120 days of pregnancy for a number of reasons. Traditionally, scholars have distinguished between the impermissible abortion of an ensouled fetus and the permissible abortion of a fetus not yet ensouled. There are differences among the authorities as to whether a compelling reason is required for abortion and what constitutes a compelling reason.

Pursuing Justice

The Qur’an not only offers women justice, but requires all Muslims to seek justice, including their own rights. It is not enough merely to appreciate one’s rights in theory. Muslims are called upon, in oppressive conditions, to strive to make possible the exercise of the rights given by God.

Male-centered and male-dominated Muslim societies assert, glibly and tirelessly, that Islam has given women more rights than any other religion. Meanwhile, they keep women in physical, mental, and emotional confinement, depriving them of the opportunity to actualize their human potential. A deeply symbolic and pragmatically devastating case in point is that, while literacy rates are low in many Muslim countries, literacy rates of Muslim women — especially in the rural areas where most of the Muslim people live — are among the lowest in the world.

It is only because the masses of Muslim women are steeped in poverty and illiteracy that oppressive ideas have been accepted and tolerated for so long. Until recent times, the vast majority of Muslim women have remained wholly or largely unaware of their “Islamic” (in an ideal sense) rights. Even privileged, educated Muslim women — like women of other religious traditions — have been denied systematically the opportunity to acquire the critical tools for examining the roots of their tradition and discovering how they became so disadvantaged. Their exclusion disables their response.

The negative ideas about women that prevail in Muslim societies are rooted in certain theological ideas. Until we demolish the theological foundations of Muslim culture’s misogynistic and androcentric tendencies, Muslim women will suffer discrimination despite statistical improvements in education, employment, and political rights. Islamic tradition will remain rigidly patriarchal until we break the chains of ignorance in which women are shackled.

Ultimately, it will be up to Muslim women, once educated about Islam and their rights, to articulate in a proactive fashion the meaning of their lives, their selves. Reacting against the Western model of liberation no longer suffices. What is required is a positive formulation of their own goals and objectives, individually and collectively.

Although prevailing conditions seem to be far from desirable, I believe strongly that there is hope for the future. There are indications that an increasing number of Muslims are, in fact, returning to the Qur’an and attempting to apply its teachings to reform Muslim practices. With the efforts of women and human rights activists who are striving to actualize the liberating vision of the Qur’an — and with the help of God — more and more Muslim women will become educated and aware. As this happens, they will reject the myths and arguments by which religious hierarchs imprison their bodies, hearts, minds, and souls. Then they will grow into whole human beings, free of guilt and fear, secure in the knowledge that they are equal to men in the sight of God and that, therefore, they must not be unequal to men in any human society.

Notes

1. K.M. Ishaque, “Islamic Law — Its Ideals and Principles,” in A. Gauher, ed., The Challenge of Islam (London: The Islamic Council of Europe, 1980), p. 157.Back to Text

2. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Islam in Modern History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957).

3. Allama Muhammad Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam (Lahore: Shaikh Muhammad Ashraf, 1962); the quotation here is from Lecture 6, “The Principle of Movement in the Structure of Islam.”

4. Ibid., p. 168.

5. Ibid., p. 85.

6. The translations of the five passages quoted here are from ‘Abdullah Yusuf ‘Ali, The Holy Qur’an, New Revised Edition, (Brentwood, MD: Amana Corporation, 1989).

by PAUL KURTZ

Free Inquiry – Volume 29, Number 3

Increasingly, world civilization is becoming secular; that is, it emphasizes worldly rather than religious values. This is especially true of Europe, which is widely considered post-religious and post-Christian (though with a small Islamic minority). Secularist winds are also blowing strong in Asia, notably in Japan and China. The United States has been an anomaly in this regard, for it has suffered a long dark night in which evangelical fundamentalism has overshadowed the public square with its insistence that belief in God is essential for moral virtue. Interestingly, this is now changing, and secularism is gaining ground. Even President Obama recognizes the existence of unbelievers; at least 16 percent of Americans do not belong to a religious denomination. Young people today are more secular, with up to 25 percent nonreligious.

Accordingly, we may ask, what is secular ethics? Although secularists are nonreligious, they may also be good citizens, loving parents, and decent people. Instead of religion, they look to science, the secular arts, and literature for their inspiration. They point out that religious belief is no guarantee of moral probity, that horrendous crimes have been committed in the name of God, and that religionists often disagree vociferously about concrete moral judgments (such as euthanasia, the rights of women, abortion, stem-cell research, homosexuality, war, and peace). As I have pointed out, secular ethics needs to be internalized within the life of a person to be effective.

The ethics of humanism traces its origins back to the beginnings of Western civilization in Greece and Rome, through the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the scientific and democratic revolutions of the modern world. Secular humanists today affirm that every person should be considered equal in dignity and value and that human freedom is precious. The civic virtues of democracy are essentially humanist, for they emphasize tolerance of the wide diversity of beliefs and lifestyles, and they are committed to defending human rights. The conjunction of secular and humanism brings both of these intellectual and moral forces together.

But “How can you be ethical if you do not believe in God?” protests the believer. Perhaps such a person should enroll in an elementary course in ethics, where he or she would discover a rich philosophical literature dealing with this question. The good is usually defined as “happiness,” though there are differences between the eudemonistic (emphasizing enriched self-development) and the hedonistic (particularly American) brand of intemperate consumption. Perhaps a harmonious integration of the two theories can be achieved. I would call it rational exuberance. Philosophers have emphasized the importance of self-restraint, temperance, rational prudence; of a life in which satisfaction, excellence, and the creative fulfillment of a person’s talents is achieved. It does not mean that “anything goes.” Humanist ethics focuses on the good life here and now.

Secularists recognize the importance of self-interest in a person’s life—many of them are libertarians. Every individual needs to be concerned with his or her own health, well-being, and career. But self-interest can be enlightened. This involves recognition that we have responsibilities to others. There are principles of right and wrong that we should live by. No doubt there are differences about many moral issues. Often there may be difficulties in achieving a consensus. Negotiation and compromise are essential in a pluralistic society.

However, there is now substantial evidence drawn from evolutionary biology that humans possess an innate moral sense. Morality has its roots in group survival: the moral practices that evolved enabled tribes or clans to survive and function. This means that human beings are potentially moral. Whether or not this moral sense is realized depends on social and environmental conditions. Some individuals may never fully develop morally—they may be morally handicapped, even sociopathic. That is one reason society needs to enact laws to protect itself.

There is also of course cultural relativity, but there are, I submit, also a set of common moral virtues that cut across cultures—such as being truthful, honest, kind, keeping promises, being dependable and responsible, avoiding cruelty, etc.—and these in time become widely recognized as binding. Herein lie the roots of empathy and caring for other human and sentient beings. Such behavior needs to be nourished in the young by means of moral education (and cultivated throughout life). In any case, human beings are capable of both self-interested and altruistic behavior in varying degrees.

Secular humanists wish to evaluate ethical principles in the light of their consequences, and they advise the use of rational inquiry to frame moral judgments. They also appreciate the fact that some principles are so important that they should not be easily sacrificed to achieve one’s ends.

To say that a person is moral only if he or she obeys God’s commandments—out of fear or love of God or a desire for salvation—is hardly adequate. Ethical principles need to be internalized, rooted in reason and compassion. The ethics of secularism is autonomous in the sense that it need not be derived from theological grounds. Secular humanists are interested in enhancing the good life both for the individual and society.

Today, a new imperative has emerged: an awareness that our ethical concerns should extend to all members of the world community. This points to a new planetary ethics transcending the ancient religious, ethnic, racial, and national enmities of the past. It is an ethic that recognizes our common interests and needs as part of an interdependent world. It is rather urgent in our global world that we develop morality applicable to the twenty-first century and beyond.

Postscript: Secular ethics, in my view, will not be fully effective unless it can be applied to personal morality.

By Asghar Ali Engineer

14 January, 2004

(I am not trying to endorse any religious point of view here but I rather intend to bring out alternative voices both within and outside of religion. Anything not written by me, need not correspond fully to my views)

The question of sexual equality is very important parameter of modernity along with democracy and human rights. Whatever be the status of women in the Qur’an, status of women in Muslim societies is far from satisfactory. Be it in India, Pakistan, Bangla Desh or any other Muslim country in West or South East Asia like Malaysia and Indonesia. In all these countries the problem of women’s status has acquired critical proportions. Many women’s organisations have sprung up in these countries and are struggling for their rights. The problem is acquiring more and more serious proportions as modern education is spreading among middle class women.

Earlier the orthodox in the community were strongly opposed to education for women. Even today in rural areas and smaller towns education for girl child is frowned upon. Nevertheless in bigger towns and among growing middle classes it is no more possible to stop women from acquiring education and hence proportion of educated women is increasing and with increased percentage of education among women awareness for their rights is also increasing. They increasingly demand equal status with men. Some women tend to become indifferent to religion and even consider religion as serious obstacle in their right to equality.

The orthodox among Muslims too, on their part, show stiff resistance to any change and want to maintain status quo. They of course quote from the Qur’an and hadith and also from opinions expressed by the Islamic jurists, to prove their case. This further strengthens impression among these women that Islam is not going to help them and they begin to reject it.

However, there are also women who are determined to use religion in their favour and for fighting their battle against the male understanding of the divine scripture. They believe in women reading and understanding the Qur’an. Thus there are various women’s organisations doing this exercise and re-interpreting the Qur’an. It is a better sign and I believe, a more healthy sign. Women have as much right to understand and interpret the Qur’an from their perspective. Even most orthodox among the Muslims would agree that women have also right to interpret the Qur’an.

Sexual Equality And The Qur’an

The important question is whether the Qur’an accords equality to women or gives women an inferior position. According to conservative view, women have an inferior position and the ‘ulama quote the Qur’anic verses in their support as well as ahadith and opinion of the fuqaha’ (Islamic jurists) in their favour. But this also raises an important question, which we must deal with.

Would sexual inequality prevalent in the past in the Muslim societies be binding on the modern generations too? Or to ask the same question in reverse i.e. can we be justified in projecting our modern values in the past? Should we expect that past generations follow our norms of sexual equality? Obviously, this would be an unfair position and so it would be equally unfair to expect that we blindly imitate the past generations and their opinion leaders. We have to evolve our own norms and values. But many of us do not accept changes in norms and values and consider it against Divine Will.

One also has to throw some light on the question of legal philosophy in Islam. The Islamic law is considered of divine origin and hence immutable. The time is not supposed to have any influence and external changes either have to be rejected or so moulded as to be acceptable to the immutable divine law. However, there have been an alternate point of view too inherited from past. Imam Shatibi of 14th Century Spain whose theory of Islamic law takes into account what he calls maqasid al-Shari’ah (i.e. purposes of Shari’ah) and masalih of umma (i.e. good of the community).

According to this alternate view it is maqasid (purposes) for which law has been framed, matters that law per se and keeping in view the maqasid changes can be affected to achieve these purposes and the good or welfare of the community should always be kept in view. One cannot sacrifice the purpose or the welfare of the community for the sake of law. Thus this alternate theory is more dynamic and change-oriented. But it was a minority view in the Islamic world.

But today there is more acceptability to this viewpoint. In fact Shari’ah was never meant to be static as it is assumed by many of us today. Shari’ah law was most dynamic and reflected needs of the time. The different jurists living in different places and in different circumstances adopted different views and they differed from each other on many issues. The eighteenth Century Islamic thinker from Indian subcontinent Shah Waliyullah also argues in his magnum opus Hujjat Allah al-Balighah that the Shari’ah is devised in keeping with the nature of the people and needs of the time. He devotes entire chapter of his book to develop this argument. He even gives an example of how ahkam (legal injunctions) change with circumstances.

The example given by him is quite interesting and pertains to law of inheritance. When the Prophet (PBUH) migrated from Mecca to Madina, his blood relations were left behind and so he established what is called muwakhat (mutual brotherhood) and the Qur’anic verse about inheritance was revealed. However, when those left behind in Mecca came back and joined their families and Islam flourished the verse, making inheritance a right of close blood relatives was revealed, cancelling the earlier one. Thus with the change of circumstances the hukm (religious injunction) also changed.

Thus Shah Waliyullah had this insight that Shar’i ahkam reflect social situations as far as mu’amalat (inter-personal and social) issues are concerned. The great Imams after whom Shari’ah schools are known are also categorised according to their social role. Thus Imam Malik was conservative and has been called as imam al-muhafizin (imam of those who wanted to preserve as much as he could). Imam Abu Hanifa, on the other hand, was more liberal and open and has been referred to as imam al-mujaddidin (the leader of modernists) and Imam Shafi’i was moderate and has been called imam al-wast wa i’tidal (i.e. leader of moderates). Imam Hanbal who was much more rigid has been described as imam al-mutashaddidin (i.e. leader of those who take extreme positions). In Saudi Arabia it is Imam Hanbal who is followed generally. This categorisation also shows that there were significant differences among the Islamic jurists and some among them were open and liberal and some quite rigid and unyielding.
Changing social situations did influence thinking of eminent jurists like Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Shafi’i.

The situation today has changed greatly and re-thinking on many issues like man-woman relations is highly necessary. Even the Qur’an, as pointed out by Shah Waliyullah and other Islamic ‘ulama, did respond to social situations and some verses revealed earlier were cancelled later with the changing situations. The debate about nasikh (verse which cancelled) and mansukh (verse which was cancelled) rages even today. It is important chapter of the Qur’anic ‘ulum (i.e. Qur’anic sciences).

Thus on man-woman relations also we find different verses which are selectively quoted by anti-equality and pro-equality of sexes. These verses were revealed in response to different situations and hence differing stances in these verses. Some verses make certain contextual concessions in favour of man and some lay down norms for long time to come. The Qur’an, it is important to note, does not confine to given situation or status quo (though has to make certain concessions to it) but basically wants to transcend the given situation. The most important characteristic of the Qur’an is its transcendence and anti status quo spirit.

Before the Qur’anic revelation woman’s situation was far from satisfactory. She was not only unequal but subordinate to man in every respect though between Mecca and Madina there were significant differences also. Meccan society was highly patriarchal in ethos and Madinese society was perhaps matriarchal in distant past and its traces survived until rise of Islam.

Without this social background we cannot appreciate the changes Qur’an effected in Arab women’s life at the time. However, the Arab men were not easily reconciled to these significant changes in women’s status. We will throw some light on the kinds of debates, which took place on man-woman question at the time. Islamic revolution had brought lot of awareness among women of the time as modern democratic society has brought so much awareness among Muslim women today.

There are two significant verses in the Qur’an which reflect debate on men-women relationship in Madanese Islam. In Meccan verses we do not find these debates, as Muslims were too weak to think of these issues there. It was only in Madina that when Muslims began to acquire dominant position that these gender issues came to the fore. Women were far more aware of their rights after becoming Muslims and they posed questions to the Prophet (PBUH) about their status in response to which these verses were revealed.

Of these verses the two significant verses are 4:34 and 33:35. Both these verses make statements on men-women relations, which appear to be quite different. The modern scholars are keenly debating these verses. While 4:34 is often quoted by the orthodox to prove their point, there is controversy about 33:35 about its real status on sexual equality. Again the orthodox ‘ulama maintain that it is all about spiritual equality. Is it? It needs some discussion.

First the verse 4:34 which is frequently quoted for Qur’anic position on sexual equality. The verse is translated as under by Maulana Mohammad Ali of Lahore: “Men are maintainers of women, with what Allah has made some of them to excel others and with what they spend out of their wealth. So the good women are obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded. And (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the beds and chastise them. So if they obey you, seek not a way against them..”

The same verse is translated by Muhammad Asad as follows: “Men shall take full care of women with the bounties which God has bestowed more abundantly on the former than on the latter, and with what they may spend out of their possessions. And the righteous women are the truly devout ones, who guard the intimacy which God has (ordained to be) guarded. And for those women whose ill will you have reason to fear, admonish them (first); then leave them alone in bed; and then beat them; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them.”

However, Ahmed Ali in his Al-Quran differs from both Maulana Mohammaed Ali and Muhammad Asad in translating the word ‘wa’dribuhunna. Mulana Mohammad Ali and Muhammad Asad translate it as ‘admonish then’ and ‘beat them’ respectively. But Ahmed Ali translates it as ‘go to bed with them’ and cites Raghb’s Mufridat fi Gharib al-Qu’an, Lisan al-Arab, and Zamakhshari. ‘Daraba ‘ala’, according to Raghib is said for he camel mounting over she camel and thus Ahmed Ali translates it as ‘going to bed’ rather than beating the wife.

Thus we see there are significant differences in translation of this controversial verse. There are few key words in this verse ‘qawwam’, ‘qanitat’, ‘nushuz’ and ‘wa’dribuhunna’. The understanding of the verse very much depends on understanding these words properly. ‘Qawwam’ traditionally has been translated as ‘ruler’, ‘authority over women’ etc. However, modernists and women rights activists are challenging this meaning. Maulana Mohammad Ali translates it as ‘maintainer’, Mohammad Asad as ‘to take full care of’ and Ahmed Ali as ‘guardians’.

Thus ‘qawwam’ should not mean ruler or an authority but one who takes care of or maintains wife or acts as guardian. It is thus not a statement of superiority of man over woman but an economic function. And it should also be noted that woman can also perform this function (and she does in our times) and hence she can also be ‘qawwam’ as per the Qur’an. Thus this verse cannot be understood properly unless we properly understand these key words.

Another key word is ‘qanitat’ which is generally translated as ‘obedient’ and implying thereby ‘obedient to ones husband. But that is also problematic. ‘Qanitat’ means ‘devoted to’ or ‘obedient to God’ and not to husband. Then another important word is ‘nushuz’ which literally means ‘rebellion’ which has been rendered as ‘ill will’ by Muhammad Asad and Maulana Mohammad Ali as ‘desertion’ by wife and Ahmed Ali as being ‘averse’ towards husband. However, ‘nushuz’ as such applies to both husband as well as wife. The modern legal term for it is ‘mental cruelty’ and with respect to husband it also means ‘ill-treatment’ of wife in physical sense and we find mention of ill treatment of wife by husband (nushuz) in verse 4:128. Thus it clearly shows nushuz is applied to both husband as well as wife. And another key word ‘wa’dribuhunna’ has already been explained. The word daraba has several meanings in Arabic language and here, as pointed out by Raghib himself could mean sexual intercourse
with wife rather than beating or chastising the wife. Thus Ahmed Ali comes much closer to the meaning of the verse.

It is important to note that the Prophet (PBUH) has also strongly disapproved of beating ones wife. We find a hadith in authentic collections, which is as follows: “Could any of you beat your wife as he would a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?” And according to hadith in Abu Da’ud, Nasa’I, Ibn Majah, Ahmad bin Hanbal and others “Never beat God’s handmaidens” i.e. he forbade to beat any woman.

In fact the above verse under discussion was revealed in response to a situation which has been described by Zamakhshari in his Kasshaf. This verse shows that there was practice of wife beating specially among the Arabs of Meccan origin. According to Zamakhshari Habiba bint Zaid complained to the Messenger of Allah that her husband Sa’d bin Rabi’ slapped her. The Prophet told her to ‘retaliate’. But this caused serious problem among men as they would not accept retaliation from their wives and hence they complained to the prophet and then this verse (4:34) was revealed.

However, it caused stir among women of Madina. They were disturbed and approached the Prophet and wanted to know their real status vis-a-vis men and then the verse 33:35 was revealed. The verse is quite important one as regards women’s status and is translated by Maulana Muhammad Ali as under: “Surely the men who submit and women who submit, and the believing men and the believing women, and the obeying men and the obeying women, and the truthful men and the truthful women, and the patient men and the patient women, and the humble men and the humble women, and the charitable men and the charitable women, and the fasting men and the fasting women, and the men who guard their chastity and the women who guard, and the men who remember Allah and women who remember – Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and mighty reward.”

This verse is an important statement of equality of men and women. It mentions ten times men and women being equal in all respects and their reward will also be equal. It is not merely in spiritual terms as some would like to believe as the verse mentions being truthful, guarding ones chastity and being humble and patient too. Thus men are no superiors to women in any respect, spiritual or material. This statement is being made when even Greek philosophers were discussing whether women have soul or not. The Qur’an, on the other hand declares that men and women both will be forgiven and would be given great reward in equal measure. There are other verses in the Qur’an which declare equality of men and women. The verse, 2:228 for example, is one among them. This verse says, “.in accordance with justice, the rights of the wives (with regard to their husbands) are equal to (the husbands’) rights with regard to them, although men have precedence over them.”

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, commenting on this verse says that the Qur’an through these four words (lahunna mithlul ladhi ‘alayhinna) has made revolutionary declaration of equality of men and women. According to him these four words have given women all that was their right but they had never got them. These four words lifted women from the dust of deprivation and humility and made her sit on the throne of dignity and equality.

He also explains the words “and the men are a degree above women” by saying that they were earning and feeding them (the verse 4:35) and the Maulana, it is interesting to note also clarifies that men do not get any distinction by birth over women. If women earn and run the family women would also have this distinction of being a degree above men. Thus the statement of Qur’an “men are a degree above (women) is functional and not biological, in any way.

The meaning of the scripture reveals itself differently in different cultures and social conditions. Our jurists and the ‘ulama could not have understood the meaning in their social and economic environment which we can understand today. Thus the interpretation of the Qur’an should not be static leading to freezing of Qur’an’s meaning in one particular age. While we should not fault the interpretations of eminent jurists and ‘ulama of earlier periods, we should not surrender our own right to understand and interpret the Qur’an under our own circumstances.

Thus our struggle is against the status quoist approach to the Qur’an and it is our duty to develop a new hermeneutics of the Qur’an which takes into account the economic and social needs and functions of our own times. Women are playing very vital role in our society and have even become economic leaders and managers. Thus the old hermeneutics cannot take us very far today.

When women were so aware of their rights in the time of the Prophet and were active on religious and social fronts, how can they remain passive today and accept the role assigned them by the orthodox ‘ulama who refuse to take into account the new socio-economic dynamics? It has always been a human endeavour to understand divine intentions as sincerely as they can. If our forefathers did it we can also do it today with same sincerity but different understanding mediated by our socio-economic needs.

by Awais Masood

Freak Stage Magician

They use Global Positioning System (GPS) devices to find out the direction of Kiblah. Their smart phones, priced hundreds of dollars, are equipped with all the necessary software they need to perform their religious duties. Their black berry devices are all too ready to send out emails containing lucrative material preaching the ideology of the school of thought they belong to. They use World Wide Web to watch streaming videos of hate-mongers, pseudo-scholars and so called security analysts spilling out the most profound lies in the name of history. They watch TV Channels dedicated to bring stage illusionists, presenting self-sustaining and cyclic arguments as rational proofs of what they want to believe. They cannot help but clapping, along with all the mindless spectators present at those TV “entertainment shows”, at the most ludicrous arguments that any college freshman, taking a course comprising of epistemology, can debunk in less than five minutes.

They belong to the urban educated middle class of Pakistan. They are one of the luckiest people in this country who are equipped with the necessary tools of language and basic understanding to grasp the reality of this universe and the way this world behaves with an open mind. But here comes the catch. The method that has assisted us in learning how this world behaves is termed as a human invention, a faulty tool created by all so incompetent and “evil” human species. The way science elegantly describes this universe and challenges our dogmatic notions is ignored and most of the time comically challenged with the utmost stubbornness. It has become a custom of these people to dig

DNA could be used to confirm paternity or convict criminals but not evolution?

deeper into its intellectual ignorance by rejecting natural sciences and at the same time using the technology developed (by infidels of course) upon the foundations of  science. It is therefore not strange to find a person rejecting Theory of Evolution, modern genetics or the Big Bang Model of the universe but it will not stop him from having a DNA test to confirm the paternity of his children (what else could one expect from male chauvinists) or play with the wireless inventions of the modern day that owe their existence to the underlying electromagnetic theory of Physics.

I can recall watching a discussion with Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg (who shared Nobel Prize for Physics with Abdul Salam and Glasshow). Weinberg narrated how Salam went to oil rich Gulf States, in order to convince them to develop universities in the Islamic world, where research in natural sciences would be given its due share. He was given a cold shoulder as most of the rulers of Muslim majority countries are interested in technology but consider natural sciences as corrosive to faith and hence to the hegemony of those monarchs who use religion as a tool of authoritarian rule and subjugation of their subjects.

What else could be more comical than a religious zealot using a computer connected to internet and within all his/her senses (if

Internet

he/she is left with any) denying the authenticity of science. What is more troubling is the fact that he/she does not even appear to understand the absurdity of that claim. One must need to realize that the GPS devices, desktops, laptops and the blackberries and all such computing devices are manifestations of elegant engineering achievements which are based upon the basic predictions and theories of natural sciences. Any powerful computing device of today consists of a large number of micro-processing devices. It is quite common these days for an average microprocessor, which itself is no large than a postage stamp, to contain millions of embedded electronic switches, turning on and off more than one billion times a second in a musical harmony which can easily disrupt a fundamentalist’s mind as it is usually unable to understand figures such as billions. It is quite natural because for most of the fundamentalists, planet earth is a few thousand years old (rather than four billion years, which is the actual age of the earth).

This state-of-the-art computing technology of today did not grow out of nowhere. It was not plucked from trees. It did not land from the heavens. It was not brought to us by extra-terrestrials traveling in U.F.O(s).  It was developed scientifically, systematically, meticulously and (most importantly) intelligently. It is based upon some of the most important discoveries of natural sciences that explain how a certain element of nature named Silicon shows a peculiar electronic behaviour under certain conditions. The electronic behaviour is itself explained by natural sciences as a phenomenon that exists due to the flow of an elementary particle of all matter, named as electron. If just for once, it is assumed that there exists no such particle named electron or that there exists no such phenomenon as the motion of electrons, the whole body of knowledge that was used to develop the world of today will collapse. There will be no foundations to support the sky scrapper of the modern day technology. Therefore whenever a fundamentalist uses his/her computer to post, on an online forum, an arrogant, ignorant and absolutist stance that science is not reliable, he/she actually exhibits a perfect example of self-contradiction, intellectual degeneration and cowardice.

The purpose of above example is to relate how technology exists due to the accurate and precise explanations predictions of the natural sciences.The same argument could be based upon the examples of breakthroughs in applied sciences such as medical science, mechanical and structural engineering to name a few. Therefore whenever a Science-Rejecting-Arrogant-Fundamentalist visits a doctor to seek cure for an ailment affecting him/her or his/her children, undergoes a complicated surgical procedure, drives an automobile, boards an airplane, switches on an air conditioner, makes an electronic financial transaction to his/her favourite Jihadi outfit or simply switches on TV to watch the renowned stage magician from India, play tricks with his/her mind, in the name of religion, he/she implicitly acknowledges the accuracy of the scientific theories and their predictions that led to those technological achievements. Natural science is the firm, solid and essential foundation of all the luxuries that these confused arrogant fundamentalists use to preach their baseless hypocrisy to unsuspecting youth, caught in the vicious ford between modernity and tradition.

Scientific Method

Scientific method allows human species to expand the circumference of its knowledge. These techniques, employed by scientists, allow us to understand this universe as it is. Science is elegant and beautiful as it incorporates both the beauty and creativity of human consciousness and at the same time requires the accuracy and precision of observation and evidence. Scientific method involves:

1. Observation of natural phenomena.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis – an outcome of the creativity of human mind which could be artistically aesthetic – to explain the observed natural phenomena.
3. Usage of the formulated hypothesis to predict new phenomena or observable outcomes of the model, that are testable.
4. Testing those predictions through experiments and hence falsify the hypothesis if those predictions are wrong.

By continuously applying the above method, human species has been able to expand the sphere of its knowledge to a level where children of both Secularists and Fundamentalists alike have much higher chances of survival through infancy as compared to their ancestors. Science has beyond no doubt helped us in reducing infant mortality rates. It has allowed us to live longer and healthier by providing better health care services. It has served to raise our consciousness  by ridding us of the self-indulgent delusion of being the centre of a small pre-Galilean universe. It has saved us from indulging in the horrors of burning alive old women at stakes after declaring them as witches just because we had low yield of crops that year. It has freed us (or at least some of us) from the evil spirits and demons that ran amok during the times of our ancestors and caused great damage through storms, hurricanes and thunderstorms. It has allowed us to stop exorcising demons out of anguished psychological patients and instead provide them with proper medical care and finally it has enabled us to challenge the tyranny of those ruling in the name of divine rights. Science is a perpetual, systematic quest of seeking the unknown and turning it into the known. It requires respect towards facts, the ability and courage to shed already present notions of the world, when finally contradicted by evidence, no matter how dear and personal they are to the scientist.  Most importantly, science operates on the principle of methodological naturalism, that is; this universe, which is to be studied, is a closed, self-sustained system where we strive to explain the unknown. But whatever remains unknown in this system does not belong to the supernatural. It only remains “unknown” to be later explored, sought, explained and hence converted to the “known” by the systematic study of the world.

Had it been a habit of the scientists to attribute, what they could not understand- during the course of their work- to the supernatural, we would not have known this world as we now know it today. Had Benjamin Franklin and Michael Faraday used supernatural explanations, rather than conducting experiments, to study and explain the phenomena related to electric charges, our beloved fundamentalists would not have been able to appear on TV screens and shamelessly deny the discoveries of science. Had Galileo and all the following astronomers, made use of tradition instead of observation to explain a model of the solar system, these modern day stage acts would have been using their putrid arguments to explain how their scriptures prove that sun and everything else in the universe revolves around the planet Earth.  Had Newton (and every one else) attributed motion of objects and their fall towards the earth to a divine presence rather than the inherent laws of this ordered universe, we would not have even developed a basic theory of mechanics and hence pop-artists-turned-fundamentalists would not have been able to travel in Sports Utility Vehicles (SUV), priced millions, along with their fellows in order to preach what they thinks is right. In fact no fundamentalist would have been able to drive a car, board a plane (or crash those cars/ planes into buildings) because there would not have been any cars or planes.

Modern astronomy has shown us that this universe is extremely vast for our minds to fathom. We live on a a small sized planet, revolving around a middle sized star, located at an insignificant spiral of a galaxy, that contains billions of such stars and we are in an expanding universe that may contain billions of such galaxies. Not to forget the theoretical possibility, that there could be many, perhaps billions of such universes. To imagine such cosmic loneliness may turn out to be one of the most horrifying mental experiences by opening doors to an intolerable feeling of despair and hopelessness. But perhaps all is not that bleak as we expect. The same doors that can make a human mind plunge into despair, may lead a way towards the realization of the most cherished gift of nature to human species. The very same, not yet fully understood, human consciousness that allows us to realize the vastness of this cosmos, look at it, touch it, feel it and perhaps love it, is what makes us special. It is exactly when Descartes exclaims, “Cogito, ergo sum“, a human is defined. Our brain creates a visual model of this world inside us, which is then interpreted by our subjective consciousness as the world we see. This world is all what our mind shows us to be. It is, at the end, only our ability and capacity to think that differentiates us from lifeless matter and most of the other animal species. Being extremely insignificant creatures of this universe, the very thing that makes us special is the ability to realize, understand and explore this insignificance. Such a realization can open new doors towards appreciating the beauty of life, consciousness and last but not the least, every other being that can think, feel and understand like us. To develop a very humble feeling of pride in being a human  and to be able to feel and care for every other human being is perhaps not a bad deal at the end. Note: The example of electron is inspired from an audio recording of a Keynote address delivered by Pervez Hoodbhoy.