The mother of all arguments
-by liphe Guru http://lifecheat.blogspot.com/2011/11/mother-of-all-arguments.html
That you will climb from stage to stage. Quran 84:19
The following is my humble attempt to crystallize a number of issues of belief both general and Muslim specific. I will try to aggregate some fundamental issues and hope it will help towards a better understanding of our reality in less time than it takes for a rerun of your favorite show. It is also hoped that in the process it will show the "you don't get it because you believe in God" crowd that we get it or at least we get it as well as they get it. The bunching together should give a zoomed out view as to why most issues remain unresolved at the end of almost every discussion with those that perceive the theists as less than rational, to put it mildly. One can speculate on the reasons behind the stubbornness that prevent resolutions between the two camps but the number one reason has to be the issue of the God constant.
If you read the post in sequence and bear with my rant, most of the commonly raised questions are answered otherwise jump to "The evidence" first and read the rest of it in light of it.
You can't prove a negative misdirection
Briefly our ability to be able to imagine the very notion of a God is consistent with our reality. Equally important is our capacity to debate the related issue of verifying the existence or not of the same. The two are related but not interdependent. In the event that we are not able to "prove" the existence of the God does not follow that we have solved the proverbial problem of "something from nothing" when applied to say the Universe (s). Arguments like "you can't prove a negative" or the even more logically absurd claim that positive truth claims bear a burden of proof while negative truth claims don't are not sound. The former needs no name dropping; the later was thoroughly discredited by Chamberlain, Garvey and Reitan among others. Chamberlain's argument is pretty straightforward, all truth claims bear a burden of proof, and the burden of proof is even greater if it takes the shape of notions like the teapot or the spaghetti monster, the parody form of it, not because of their negativity but because of the extent of their triviality.
Similarly, just because we have not being able to solve a related problem doesn't follow that we have automatically settled the problem we set out to solve in the first place. Neither can two unknowns be equated beyond the fact that they are unknowns. Attempts to remove the first cause or negate the need to know the "cause" ends up violating everything else in our aggregated knowledge base. One would think from purely a logical perspective that the starting point for any investigation should have focused on the "cause" or the "first cause", even if the exact nature of that cause necessitate waiting. After all we know next to nothing about nature of gravity but use it extensively as a cause in order to understand everything around us.
The idea should be to plug in a constant and then run the equation, as often done in mathematics and see what happens. If we can nail down the whole picture that would be ideal if not, we should follow the lead of the mathematicians and be satisfied with its usefulness till such time that the whole picture reveals itself. Other than for the purpose of advancement of knowledge, the established models are not to be set aside, especially not permanently, for the sole purpose of running after mere possibilities. Causeless reality and the in vogue multiple universes misdirection both falls into this category.
Increasingly the tactics employed seems to be that any "explanation" will do as long as it is not God. Richard Dawkins’s gaffe that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” kind of revealed the true motivation behind bringing up these possibilities. Which is fine but these are not scientific conclusions from the available data of the referenced works. I think it is nothing but intellectual dishonesty when philosophical views are mixed with science in order to claim a slam dunk. The likes of Futuyma, Gould, and Dawkins have a right to their philosophy but they do not have the right to try and pass the mix as though it is all science. In science theories must be tested against the evidence, no exceptions. For those who insist on these "possibilities' the question then is why not follow Martin J. Rees version of spiritual reality or indeed Bernard d’Espagnat and his work in “concept reality”. D’Espagnat’s current hypothesis is that some unknowable divine entity operates in this underlying realm/dimension. In other words, theoretical physics now predicts the reality of a hypercosmic god.
In essence the problem of the God constant is more related to knowing and not the existence or non existence as such. Once we are able to solve or at least put our issue of knowing in perspective, the verification of God's existence becomes that much more manageable and is easily elevated from being merely useful.
The Blind Faith Myth
Before we get deeper into the epistemology bit, the blind faith myth needs tackling since it is used by both camps but with different agendas receptively. People who routinely view faith as blind have obviously not thought this through. One can be forgiven for the use of blind faith argument against the curious position of the sect scene in which faith becomes mysteriously blind "after" one joins a sect or religion. But it is impossible to defend the notion of starting out with the premise of blind faith and then go on to exercise the very non blind act of "choosing" a sect and then inexplicably switch back to following the sect doctrine blindly. Unless the choice itself is also blind, blind as in pulling one out of a hat, the whole thing is nothing but the old bait and switch sophistry.
What is not clear however is the position of those who uses blind faith as a serious argument against those that follow the verified God model. Just because it can be justified against the sect absurdity doesn’t make it valid across the theist board. Of course if we were to follow the blind faith and the blind route option then by definition any faith will do, including the triviality of the spaghetti monster. By the same token It is equally logical to expect answers to valid questions in a verified faith model.
In practice "blind faith" is designed to discourage the asking of legitimate questions of the sect leaders' questionable practices. Basically it is a license to shut everybody up. There can be no other explanation. The demonizing of those demanding closer scrutiny seems to be the weapon of choice. The speed and intensity of its deployment is also in direct proportion to the level of calm and rationality with which the scrutiny is demanded. That in fact is true of any ideology where the sole objective is a power grab.
Here we must distinguish an important element of faith and that is personal experiences. The collective claim of billions is impossible to dismiss. Hence this apparent contradiction in no way takes away from those who are blessed with the ability to take the word of those near and dear to them and believe in their ways and do end up experiencing and enjoying the resulting spiritual awakening. Sadly, it must be added that these are the very same folks that do and are in real danger of ending up as cannon fodder for the sect driven misadventures.
In Islam everything has to do with verification and validation. Just bear with me and I will attempt to put the Islamic faith in perspective as explained in the verses of the Quran. Not surprisingly there are going to be Muslims that may not agree with my take but then again Islam is the ultimate do it yourself belief system, there is no provision for a central religious authority, no professional clerics and no rite of passage, hence all opinions are welcomed as long as we can back them up with reason and logic and above all the visible audible verses of the Quran.
Beyond the personal faith, the only sanctioned body in Islam is the Ummah, the people. The collective laws only kick in when a group of Muslims form a community and decide to be governed by the Quranic laws as interpreted by the people or their direct representative as opposed to a religious cabal. In which case it become a theocracy which Islam is not. For that matter none of the major religions started out to be theocracies but each one has been transformed into such with varying degree of success.
Personally, blind faith is seriously overrated and prone to completely falling apart.
The notion of blind faith has its origins in the mistaken belief that what cannot be detected with our senses, especially sight, must be acknowledged to exist through faith and assumed to be not verifiable. Agreed to some extent as far as the first part goes but the latter is definitely not true. While it is true that most people are unable to directly verify the physical existence of angels for example but then most people are unable to verify the existence of black holes either. In fact even experts need to do it through indirect indicators and markers; of course these markers in turn are verifiable through yet another set of inferences. The point is we routinely put our trust into the hands of others and believe that they have the tools and the capacity to verify which we can't.
"Experts"
Hence, when a person is unable to directly verify something then the next best thing to do, short of becoming an expert, is to rely on experts in that particular field. Mind you even if one decides to become an expert it is still not a guarantee to resolve one's understanding of an issue where there happens to be diverging views among experts. Thanks to the research into experts systems, it is now possible to define an expert; an expert is someone who is successful in committing to memory between 700,000 to a 1,000,000 facts of a certain discipline acquired over a period of 8 to 10 years, In situations where the issues are not yet nailed down, even if one were to decide on becoming an expert, in spite of the steep climb, all that will change is that those experts that disagree with a certain position will now have one more expert to either agree or disagree with.
Thankfully, in practice living by expert advice works most of the time but only for stuff that has limited impact on our lives. We are able to choose a good doctor or a hospital or efficient means of transportation and increasingly even the right diet plan by taking advice of relevant experts. In most instances we are able to seek second opinions without drastic personal adjustment. Unfortunately when it comes to belief systems there are many self declared experts that prey on people's trusting nature and dupe them into believing things that are not only untrue but sold with an angle. The difference here is that we are no longer seeking a particular advice for a particular need but the sum total of what will ultimately define us. Wrong advice could not only result in a difficult life but potentially sink our eternity. These so called experts can be found on both sides of the God debate, each set selling their particular flavor of snake oil.
These same experts often need to sell "trust me" and "shut up" approach under the guise of "blind faith" and the even worse version of it "blind following". Routinely individuals are brow beaten into believing that unless one become an expert as defined by a propriety religious institution, a person does not even qualify to discuss the path to salvation and/or even existence. In a final twist the path to salvation or understanding the sum total of existence is rerouted, by the "experts", through them of course. The backlash to this unnatural and in practice subjugating position was not only way over due but natural.
Similarly, the proponents of Scientism, a dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and attempts to reduce all knowledge to only that which is measurable, have their own bag of tricks. Ranging from "shut up and listen because you are not an expert" to mixing scientific data with personal philosophies in order to justify a world without a Prime mover.
The new challenge
This is obviously not the first time that the religious hegemony is challenged. History is full of people taking up the challenge with varying degree of success. The present backlash is distinguishable by the speed and reach of it. The influence of the internet cannot be emphasized enough. More on that later. This distinction is further divided into two distinct movements; the Muslim movement which has very rapidly encircled the globe even though the numbers are in millions, it is still small but growing very rapidly. This movement is distinct from the non Muslim movements because the latest chapter in the Abrahamic religions has a fallback position in the shape of a preserved primary document. Hence all that was required was to push the reset button. The result has been that instead of a mass exodus from Islam it is the sects that started losing “membership” and rapidly.
The non Muslim movements did not have the luxury to the same extent since the Primary Documents themselves have not only been compromised but made distinct by the religious cabals. The Bible is still very potent and definitely a blueprint for salvation, perhaps that is one reason why its reading was discouraged by the Church. Although some of the other religious works are in need of major overhauls. The other distinguishing feature of this non Muslim movement is that it had very limiting success in areas where largely Muslims are in majority. Most of this particular backlash against "religion" is localized in the “West” so to speak.
With time a certain narration in the West began to gain ground over the faith based movements. The momentums of this narration that promote the notion of the “blind faith” as the culprit have now two beneficiaries. Not surprisingly, the muddling of the issues gave the ‘trust me’ and “shut up’ brigade continued benefit under the disguise of resolving it for those confused by it. The other beneficiary is a more deceptive bunch who were able to step into the confusion and establish a book selling racket that took the blind faith into a new dimension. It repackage the essential elements of the blind faith and fed the unsuspecting a false premise of understanding, which now has a sizable following.
What this new movement managed was to muddle the distinction between science and pure fiction sufficiently to make it seductive enough to sell books with a promise of the elusive "alternative explanation". Obviously, talk shows, speaking engagements, Youtubing are all part of this racket. Many are sucked into the apparent freewheeling spirit of the movement that implies that everything and now is your right. It also tries to take credit for delinking an individual from the professional clerics and their subjugating ways.
Once these alternate positions hardened in their respective movements, it is now increasingly taxing to watch the expected chaos when these two movements come in contact. The resulting discussions are a back and forth of the “Western” group trying to paint the Muslim groups with the same brush of blind faith and the Muslims focusing on all the negative connotations of Atheists when describing the “Western" groups.
God's solution
Enter God, His infinite mercy have resolved this issue for the whole of humanity and for all times to come, the only prerequisite is for people to trust their own abilities or God given abilities and take the trouble of verifying things for themselves. It is very much possible if not always to dive into it and help from God should be assumed. As far as I am concerned, the rule in Islam is; if it does not checkout then chuck it out without fear.
So how did God resolve the problem of corrupt clergy or corrupt and/or incompetent "scholars"/"experts" who insist on being on top as opposed to on tap and the book selling rackets? Without getting into the full history of Revelations, let us say that God declared the human race to be ready for a permanent Gift from God. What changed is that previously the Revelations where aimed at a certain people or geographical location and in the latest chapter of this saga the message was declared to be Universal and for all times to come. This gift of gifts is a clear worded 100% verifiable book called the Quran. Through which we can easily determine the truth of any "something".
Now, if we were to take the message as detailed in the Quran at face value then the whole thing can be reduced to a simple two step process; first determine (multiple levels of verification on offer) that Quran is the word of God and then look up that "something" and you are done. It may sound very simplistic but here is the thing, if there is a God then it is reasonable to assume that God may have communicated with us. Hence if and when one is able to determine that a communication is from God, defined as an infinitely intelligent being, then what is it that could possibly prevent one from not following it to the letter?
At this point the obvious questions raised will have to do with the methods and degree of verification and validation and of course the correct interpretation of the message/communication. Keeping in mind the above, if there is one question that should rise to the top, it has to be; how can an individual bypass experts or expert knowledge and verify the word of God? The celebrated Gottfried Leibniz had this to say;
"The only way to rectify our reasonings is to make them as tangible as those of the Mathematicians, so that we can find our error at a glance, and when there are disputes among persons, we can simply say: Let us calculate [calculemus], without further ado, to see who is right."
And that is precisely what God did. Quran can not only be verified with expert knowledge across domains but in addition it can be done with something as basic as the ability to count.
Needless to say if someone is able to verify an alternative scripture or source at par with Quran then they are free to adopt that as their Bible so to speak. The verification must include the evidence that the authorship belongs to an infinitely intelligent being. How do we test that? Easy, nothing short of objective testing for uniqueness and the impossibility of duplication will do.
What God is saying in the following Quranic verse is of profound importance and debunks the notion of blind faith at a stroke;
And whoever invokes besides God another deity for which he has no proof - then his account is only with his Lord. Indeed, the disbelievers will not succeed. Quran 23:117.
The implication is crystal clear; you need proof for your God. This strike down the blind faith notion as popularly propagated and with good reason, if there was no condition of proof, by the way the word used is a root word, bur'hāna (بُرْهَٰنَ) meaning proof, then all one has to do is to say to God on the Day of Judgment that we had blind faith in xyz god. In practice if you take out the proof element there would be no difference between blindly believing in the Spaghetti Monster and the one and only God.
The proof issue
Before we get into the type of proof we must first remind ourselves of the constraint humans operate under. Proofs by their very nature are problematic unless the frames of references are clearly defined. Just to keep it real, it took two of the most celebrated mathematicians of our time, Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead to be exact, 378 pages before almost proving that 1+1=2. It may appear to be counter intuitive but in fact they only figured out how it could be done if they first proved some other stuff first like; what is addition? Not to mention Gödel telling everyone don't waste your time.
While pursuing any evidence we should not let ourselves be duped into an endless "do more" merry go round. If we can verify and validate with probability approaching 1 then we should not insist on 1 or nothing, neither should we incline towards mere possibilities hovering near zero. Those who cling on to lottery winning odds just to protect stubbornly held positions are not really interested in getting to the truth, however it is defined.
So now the only thing that remains is determining the strength of the proof in question, the closer to 1 the better. We also know from the Quran that part of our test in this world is to accept the existence of God through a process of training ones soul so to speak and we are suppose to do this through the use of our God given abilities of observation, reasoning and drawing solid conclusions. Furthermore, since we are constraint by relative proofs because our design and the design of the rest of God’s creation do not allow us to test the existence of God through an absolute proof. (There is nothing that is absolute in this Universe) it becomes necessary to define this relative proof. Otherwise even if a being were to come to us personally and claiming to be God, how would we know it is God? Think about it. Even a being who is say a mere 100 times more intelligent than us, the 200 I.Q. us, will easily be able to pull wool over our eyes and we will be none the wiser. Please go here for more on this
If we are genuinely after the "truth" we have to try and put aside arguments constructed for mere misdirection purposes. Since I mentioned Russell, we are not talking here about a claim of a teapot orbiting the sun, this has more to do with what can be verified literally using ones fingers. Hence, "you first no you first" should be left in the middle school where it belongs. What we will use in a bit from middle school is the math skills taught there. Let me be clear here, I am not demanding to prove the nonexistence of God. I am challenging the asserting of an alternative explanation of why the universe exists and is the way it is.
Furthermore I am merely requesting from those who demand the proof of the existence of God or my explanation of the “existence” to define (in detail) the nature of the evidence/proof that they can justify and are able to verify for themselves. Let me reiterate when it comes to Quran, multiple levels of verification are on offer as one would expect from God. An important fact to keep in mind is that Quran refers to itself as a book and any attempt to understand it fully must be done in its totality as opposed to trying to make sense out of it in bits and pieces.
The real question to be asked of those that still insist that they are waiting for evidence of God/reality and indeed of those that insist on blind faith is; since easily verifiable empirical evidence has been around for decades then why don't they know about it and/or deny it exists?
The evidence
Here I will repeat the one example I often use to draw attention towards this game changing phenomenon because it is very potent and puts things into perspective in a hurry. Not only that but the overall methodology of verification is current to our times and in sync with how integrity of modern communication is authenticated. Please have a look at this single example out of thousands on offer, derived from the Quran and previously used for its simplicity and capacity to invoke awe. The numbers demonstrate to any objective observers that an infinitely intelligent being is at work here.
Time to test that middle school math, in fact elementary Arithmetic will do, that in itself is a miracle of sorts and true to God's solution of verification that totally bypass the experts and "experts".
And as God says in the Quran bring another example like it and all the humans and Jinns are free to form a team and they will have till the Day of Judgment to come up with the goods.
1. Number of letters it is based on is 19 (total number of letters in Bismillah, the opening verse)
2. The length of the number below is a monstrous 114 digit long
3. The opening verse itself is repeated 114 times in the Quran which is a multiple of 19
4. The number below itself is divisible by 7
5. The reverse of this number is also divisible by 7, what are the odds on just this alone
6. The number mirrors the occurrences of Bismillah in the Quran chapter by chapter. 1 denotes onetime, 2 denotes twice and 0 none.
7. Each natural number (1,3,5,7,8) in the quotient is repeated 19 times each exactly, that is mind blowing
8. And if there are still undecided, here is something that brings it all home. The number 15873 is staring at us in the quotient multiple times appropriately separated with a zero, please verify for yourself, in the 15th Chapter, verse number eighty seven, the third word is none other than seven (سَبْعًا)
Here is the number and the calculations;
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111211111111111111111011111111 =
15873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015887301587301587301573015873 x 7
When read from right to left, we have:
111111110111111111111111112111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 =
15873015730158730158730158873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873 x 7
And it’s all about Seven, the often repeating. Quran 15:87 with 19 thrown in as well, confirming the two major numerical indicators so far discovered that has no other apparent meaning in the context of their respective verses. And even the sum and multiples of the number of the chapter and verse is perfectly in sync and 15:87 renders to 1+5+8+7=21=7 +7+7=7 x 3 and 1x5x8x7=280/7=40 by the way 7 is the first number mentioned in the Quran,
We must realize we haven't even properly scratched the surface. Let me just add a few relevant facts to the above example in order to underline how this single number is interlinked with the entire Quran.
There are exactly 77 chapter between the first chapter where the occurrence of the 7 is to be found the first time and the last chapter where the last occurrence of seven is to be found but that is not all, when we count the number of verses between the first occurrence of the number 7 and the last occurrence of the number 7, we find that there are precisely 5649 verses between them, the number is a multiple of 7, (807x7) of course.. From chapter to verse but it does not stop there, from another angle, the number of verses from the beginning of the chapter where the first occurrence of 7 is recorded is exactly 28 (7x4), in fact we now bore down to the number of words, 406 (7x58), even the sum total of all the versus in the Quran Sum(1:6236) =19,446,966 is also is a multiple of 7. Add to it the total number of 7s in the Quran 28 (7x4) and on the textual level the mention of 7 heavens mentioned exactly seven times for instance and much much more, all makes this discovery nothing short of impossible to duplicate, as rightly claimed by the Quran.
One thing more, the number 88 happens to be at 88th position counting from the longer end in both the above sequences. No I have not figured out its significance, yet, it goes to show Quran is an endless sea of knowledge which must not be restricted to any particular discipline and certainly not to exclude the universal domain of numbers.
A heads up for those who are either habitually dismissive or in the habit of repeating kneejerk arguments out there, to compare the claims of other scriptures also having “codes” is like comparing a fireworks display to the Milky Way Galaxy. Then there are those that matter of factly state, "these are just numbers it does not prove that there is a God", the question is then what does it prove? and where did they materialize from? If one doesn't know the answer to these questions then one is in no position to say it's not from God and let us not forget that the book they are found in is all about God. Above all, the Quranic numerical patterns has little to do with encryption, it is all about the modern notion of computationally securing a message and this message is computationally secure and beyond anything human science have been able to come up with to date. If this is not a big deal then my follow up question is in which Universe?
Similarly those who forever rely on the "experts" to determine their eternity for them, will try and repeat every worn out objection to this in your face evidence of God, thus denying themselves the expert free opportunity to get to the truth . Instead of verifying it for themselves, a large number will dismiss it because it does not fit into their reality and a good number will try to deny its very existence altogether as if their denial will somehow render this game changer undiscovered. A classic case of getting rid of their Cognitive dissonance and/or cognitive disequilibrium. The former as we know is the unease we feel because of holding conflicting ideas simultaneously and the later is the one where a discrepancy between something new and something already known or believed clash and is the one that is more relevant to the proof under discussion here.
I repeat, this is not a standalone number, add to it hundreds more of the so far discovered interconnected numbers, the seriously fascinating word count of the Quran (the singular form of day repeated exactly 365 times and the month 12 times as an example) and not to forget the unique literary masterpiece which Quran happens to be. All this multi-layered complexity reaches levels that are nothing short of Godlike.
You could find more amazing numerical consistencies in the Quran at:
http://kaheel7.com/Book/Marvels_BookSeven.pdf
Time for all-in.
For those who would like me to spell out the conclusion as how these numbers are "proof" of God I will insert a part of another of my previous post here; The mathematical patterns embedded in the Quran provides ample proof that it is the work of an infinitely intelligent being and the fact that the author of the Quran is claiming to be God is significant and we will use it in our conclusions. Needless to say in 1400 years since the compilation of the Quran, nobody has even come close to the literary eloquence of the text alone; with the added impossibility of embedding the mathematical pattern settles the issue once and for all.
The significance of the author of the Quran claiming to be God becomes apparent when we are unable to explain Quran's presence among us. In the absence of coming up with an alternative explanation to what is detailed in the text of the Quran, if somebody now turns around and say you are not God to the author so to speak then the logical question has to be on what basis is this objection raised. Is the objector more intelligent to be able to second guess the author? The author of the Quran has already demonstrated His infinite intelligence, the objector has not. In fact the objector is unable to come up with even a short three verses sequence in response to the gauntlet thrown down by the author of the Quran. Logic dictates to go with the infinitely intelligent being, call it what you want. I go with God because that is what the being is claiming. Since no other being who has claimed to be God or the claim associated with one has demonstrated the same degree of verifiable intelligence that would qualify one as a God, once again logic dictates to go with the one which has.
Even for Muslims it is important to focus on this one verified book as opposed to running after the sect fueled secondary sources. It is important because Quran is full of inductive truths while the secondary sources like the Hadith literature and tafsirs are full of contradictions and mostly frozen in an age where the knowledge base was not even one hundredth of what is on offer today. To mistakenly keep clinging to a notion similar to originalism that those who happened to be present at the time of the Revelation understood the message "best" is not only logically absurd but goes against the claim of the Quran that the message is Universal and timeless.
Not to mention the fact that there are several competing claims in circulation as to what that “best” understanding was, leaving behind the "our scholars are better than yours" mess. The implication that we somehow lack the capacity to understand the message of God is theologically bankrupt, a message directly addressed to us, declared easy to understand by God Himself and His declaration that He is the teacher of the message and the one that explains it cannot be beyond our understanding. Not to mention the illogical position that since this Universal message was already understood by one set of people hence another set of people with even a broader knowledge base are disqualified from understanding it.
This is not something that the traditionalists don’t understand or recognize as sound arguments against their take; in fact most are acutely aware of these truths but are counting on the premise that the majority will not look at their own less than convincing arguments too critically and will get away with it. If Muslim history is any indication they are right to think that way. The one thing that they were not prepared for was the game changing developments of the last couple of decades. The manner and speed of information exchange and the resulting debates that did begin to look at the poorly constructed claims caught them by surprise. Their current catch up should be appreciated, they have managed to flood the web with truck loads of misinformation but the proverbial genie is out of the bottle and there is zero chance of reestablishment of the tagleedy utopia (don't question the teacher) from the days of Ghazali till very recently.
Equally important is to point out some specific falsehood associated with Islam which is understandably absent from the primary document Quran but propagated in these secondary sources, some examples;
Laws on stoning as punishment. (an unbelievable farce embedded in deception)
Laws that set the age of marriage for girls to 9 years (one wonders, what could be the motive)Laws on silence of the girl as consent (just imagine)
Laws on beards and Niqab as obligatory
Laws that force women to be accompanied by mahrams (the ball and chain with a twist)
Laws on death penalty for leaving Islam (what are they thinking)
Laws on obeying unjust rulers (perhaps most are related to this gem)
Laws on instant divorce (of course this right is exclusive for the man)
Laws that propagate abrogation of Quranic verses (an impossibility but they need this one badly to complete the deception)
Laws on declaring Muslims who oppose the above farce as Kafirs (rejectors of truth)
The reason I listed the above is to remind both Muslims and non Muslims that these subjugating practices by some Muslims does not make them part of Islam and theses should be put in proper perspective in view of the arguments presented in this write up and dissenting voices through out history.
The power of the sects/cults
We are not yet home and dry. They've arrogated to themselves the power to change the rules arbitrarily. Although no amount of apologetic gymnastic can explain away the obvious trappings of sects, the degree of control a carefully organized sect can exert on a member should never be underestimated even in the information age. The obvious question to ask; why are they doing this? The answer is also very obvious, to defend a position of authority that enables them to subjugate the Ummah, that is the people. A religion that is heavily in favor of the individual against the state on one hand and the readily available primary document on the other leaves no wiggle room for distortion. Thus necessitating the raising of secondary sources to a level that can challenge the primary document. A theological impossibility but that never stopped "them" before.
Furthermore when one examines the secondary sources, human authorship is conclusive. One is not only able to spot the inherent weaknesses in the methodologies but the inherent contradictions in the resulting text is very unlike God's work and for all to see. The scrutiny does something else as well which the sects keep tightly under wraps; the deliberate emotional intensity of the interpretation of the message and the delivery of the same are designed to ensure that their foot soldiers will mindlessly defend the sect's subjugating irrational positions. The fact is that the carefully created facades are like the proverbial house of cards and they know it, remove one and there is nothing left of the house. Hence the strategy of the Hadith peddlers has always been not to give an inch, (in order to protect the subjugating reports with which to control the Ummah) in fact they have no choice but to continue supporting the farce.
The strategy itself is pretty straightforward and is employed across the various sects of different religions with just enough variation to call it their own. Basically it amounts to the same thing; first muddy the waters so that the primary message is drowned in the sea of misinformation and becomes invisible for all practical purposes. Secondly, instead of trying to mold people into righteous souls, the sects engage them in frivolous rituals that is supposed to manufacture good deeds with real rewards and then watch them predictably lose their way. The resulting guilt is then targeted in order to extend total control over them. Once the inevitable "spiritual" vacuum is created, that is when the vultures move in and offer their services, above all the one that makes "sins" go away. A endless loop is now in place.
If the focus were to shift heavily towards doing real good deeds as detailed in almost all scriptures, inevitably we will end up with a community or even the whole world that does very little wrong and hence will lose the need for someone to come along and make their sins go away. That in a nutshell is what a sect don't want. their relevance depends on it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, if verification is to be taken seriously, the current alternatives on the table favors the God Model as opposed to the "something from nothing" model or the even more farfetched causeless reality notion.
Equally important is the fact that the "we don't know model" or the more "scientifically" correct "we don't know yet" model is useless for all practical purposes and appears to be a copout invoked by those who constantly try to justify the non existence of God. For an individual who is trying to resolve fundamental issues, it does not help to state that "Science hasn't explained everything yet" basically “wait” and don’t hold your breath seems to be the message. An individual is often interested in answers to why I am here? where am I headed? sort of questions and needs answers preferably before he or she breath his/her last. To somehow try and substitute answers with a notion that “one day” there might be answers is not an answer.
When "there is no God" crowd is pushed, not believing in a god becomes "I'm not convinced there is a god" hence the implication is an attempt to show as if they are actively looking to unearth the evidence. In practice it is a conviction and all their efforts are directed towards defending this conviction. No matter how you look at it both positions are of no use to an individual with a very limited window, in cosmological terms, to make sense of the his/her reality and make any adjustments that may be crucial.
Even if we were to assume that some time in the future we may switch to a near perpetual life spans, what most people fail to appreciate about science is that it comes with the realization that with every discovery a whole new unknown opens up and most important, the emergence of general principle that point to whole domains that are likely to remain unknown. All that was missing from the God Model to bring it home was verifiable physical evidence of God's existence, in clear empirical form. The Quran through the universal language of numbers demonstrates the most important attribute of a God, intelligence without measure, hence logic and probability dictates not only to follow the God model but not to settle for the non verifiable Models on the table on which even the jury of their own experts is still out.
Closing comments
In our quest to make sense of the essence of our existence we should not let ourselves be distracted from the main purpose of life. I will end with the words of God so as not to lose sight of what it is all about;
............. all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds-shall have their reward with their Sustainer; and no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve. Quran 2:62
A few last comments on the one factor that changed everything. The advent of the internet has given the lonely warrior a glimmer of hope. For the first time in the history of mankind the speed and reach of an individual has become global. The human race has a window of opportunity to grab the initiative before the internet, as we know it, at the risk of sounding conspiratorial, is also tamed by those in power.
At the risk of sounding a web nut, the web has not only given the world an alternate source of news both in terms of independent journalist, bloggers and low budget wire news concerns, the internet has enabled everyone to do research on political systems, religion and practically any subject without leaving your home. It is further possible to bypass the propriety publications and make your findings public virtually free.
It has become possible to discuss, attend conferences, participate in forums and ask questions, seek answers in any language, earn a degree and even declare yourself an expert. The implications are frightening to the people in Authority; it is finally probable to get to the crux of issues within a manageable time frame at fraction of the cost formerly associated with such endeavors. It is finally possible to educate yourself. It has finally become possible to have a real choice. Make full use of it.
That you will climb from stage to stage. Quran 84:19
The following is my humble attempt to crystallize a number of issues of belief both general and Muslim specific. I will try to aggregate some fundamental issues and hope it will help towards a better understanding of our reality in less time than it takes for a rerun of your favorite show. It is also hoped that in the process it will show the "you don't get it because you believe in God" crowd that we get it or at least we get it as well as they get it. The bunching together should give a zoomed out view as to why most issues remain unresolved at the end of almost every discussion with those that perceive the theists as less than rational, to put it mildly. One can speculate on the reasons behind the stubbornness that prevent resolutions between the two camps but the number one reason has to be the issue of the God constant.
If you read the post in sequence and bear with my rant, most of the commonly raised questions are answered otherwise jump to "The evidence" first and read the rest of it in light of it.
You can't prove a negative misdirection
Briefly our ability to be able to imagine the very notion of a God is consistent with our reality. Equally important is our capacity to debate the related issue of verifying the existence or not of the same. The two are related but not interdependent. In the event that we are not able to "prove" the existence of the God does not follow that we have solved the proverbial problem of "something from nothing" when applied to say the Universe (s). Arguments like "you can't prove a negative" or the even more logically absurd claim that positive truth claims bear a burden of proof while negative truth claims don't are not sound. The former needs no name dropping; the later was thoroughly discredited by Chamberlain, Garvey and Reitan among others. Chamberlain's argument is pretty straightforward, all truth claims bear a burden of proof, and the burden of proof is even greater if it takes the shape of notions like the teapot or the spaghetti monster, the parody form of it, not because of their negativity but because of the extent of their triviality.
Similarly, just because we have not being able to solve a related problem doesn't follow that we have automatically settled the problem we set out to solve in the first place. Neither can two unknowns be equated beyond the fact that they are unknowns. Attempts to remove the first cause or negate the need to know the "cause" ends up violating everything else in our aggregated knowledge base. One would think from purely a logical perspective that the starting point for any investigation should have focused on the "cause" or the "first cause", even if the exact nature of that cause necessitate waiting. After all we know next to nothing about nature of gravity but use it extensively as a cause in order to understand everything around us.
The idea should be to plug in a constant and then run the equation, as often done in mathematics and see what happens. If we can nail down the whole picture that would be ideal if not, we should follow the lead of the mathematicians and be satisfied with its usefulness till such time that the whole picture reveals itself. Other than for the purpose of advancement of knowledge, the established models are not to be set aside, especially not permanently, for the sole purpose of running after mere possibilities. Causeless reality and the in vogue multiple universes misdirection both falls into this category.
Increasingly the tactics employed seems to be that any "explanation" will do as long as it is not God. Richard Dawkins’s gaffe that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” kind of revealed the true motivation behind bringing up these possibilities. Which is fine but these are not scientific conclusions from the available data of the referenced works. I think it is nothing but intellectual dishonesty when philosophical views are mixed with science in order to claim a slam dunk. The likes of Futuyma, Gould, and Dawkins have a right to their philosophy but they do not have the right to try and pass the mix as though it is all science. In science theories must be tested against the evidence, no exceptions. For those who insist on these "possibilities' the question then is why not follow Martin J. Rees version of spiritual reality or indeed Bernard d’Espagnat and his work in “concept reality”. D’Espagnat’s current hypothesis is that some unknowable divine entity operates in this underlying realm/dimension. In other words, theoretical physics now predicts the reality of a hypercosmic god.
In essence the problem of the God constant is more related to knowing and not the existence or non existence as such. Once we are able to solve or at least put our issue of knowing in perspective, the verification of God's existence becomes that much more manageable and is easily elevated from being merely useful.
The Blind Faith Myth
Before we get deeper into the epistemology bit, the blind faith myth needs tackling since it is used by both camps but with different agendas receptively. People who routinely view faith as blind have obviously not thought this through. One can be forgiven for the use of blind faith argument against the curious position of the sect scene in which faith becomes mysteriously blind "after" one joins a sect or religion. But it is impossible to defend the notion of starting out with the premise of blind faith and then go on to exercise the very non blind act of "choosing" a sect and then inexplicably switch back to following the sect doctrine blindly. Unless the choice itself is also blind, blind as in pulling one out of a hat, the whole thing is nothing but the old bait and switch sophistry.
What is not clear however is the position of those who uses blind faith as a serious argument against those that follow the verified God model. Just because it can be justified against the sect absurdity doesn’t make it valid across the theist board. Of course if we were to follow the blind faith and the blind route option then by definition any faith will do, including the triviality of the spaghetti monster. By the same token It is equally logical to expect answers to valid questions in a verified faith model.
In practice "blind faith" is designed to discourage the asking of legitimate questions of the sect leaders' questionable practices. Basically it is a license to shut everybody up. There can be no other explanation. The demonizing of those demanding closer scrutiny seems to be the weapon of choice. The speed and intensity of its deployment is also in direct proportion to the level of calm and rationality with which the scrutiny is demanded. That in fact is true of any ideology where the sole objective is a power grab.
Here we must distinguish an important element of faith and that is personal experiences. The collective claim of billions is impossible to dismiss. Hence this apparent contradiction in no way takes away from those who are blessed with the ability to take the word of those near and dear to them and believe in their ways and do end up experiencing and enjoying the resulting spiritual awakening. Sadly, it must be added that these are the very same folks that do and are in real danger of ending up as cannon fodder for the sect driven misadventures.
In Islam everything has to do with verification and validation. Just bear with me and I will attempt to put the Islamic faith in perspective as explained in the verses of the Quran. Not surprisingly there are going to be Muslims that may not agree with my take but then again Islam is the ultimate do it yourself belief system, there is no provision for a central religious authority, no professional clerics and no rite of passage, hence all opinions are welcomed as long as we can back them up with reason and logic and above all the visible audible verses of the Quran.
Beyond the personal faith, the only sanctioned body in Islam is the Ummah, the people. The collective laws only kick in when a group of Muslims form a community and decide to be governed by the Quranic laws as interpreted by the people or their direct representative as opposed to a religious cabal. In which case it become a theocracy which Islam is not. For that matter none of the major religions started out to be theocracies but each one has been transformed into such with varying degree of success.
Personally, blind faith is seriously overrated and prone to completely falling apart.
The notion of blind faith has its origins in the mistaken belief that what cannot be detected with our senses, especially sight, must be acknowledged to exist through faith and assumed to be not verifiable. Agreed to some extent as far as the first part goes but the latter is definitely not true. While it is true that most people are unable to directly verify the physical existence of angels for example but then most people are unable to verify the existence of black holes either. In fact even experts need to do it through indirect indicators and markers; of course these markers in turn are verifiable through yet another set of inferences. The point is we routinely put our trust into the hands of others and believe that they have the tools and the capacity to verify which we can't.
"Experts"
Hence, when a person is unable to directly verify something then the next best thing to do, short of becoming an expert, is to rely on experts in that particular field. Mind you even if one decides to become an expert it is still not a guarantee to resolve one's understanding of an issue where there happens to be diverging views among experts. Thanks to the research into experts systems, it is now possible to define an expert; an expert is someone who is successful in committing to memory between 700,000 to a 1,000,000 facts of a certain discipline acquired over a period of 8 to 10 years, In situations where the issues are not yet nailed down, even if one were to decide on becoming an expert, in spite of the steep climb, all that will change is that those experts that disagree with a certain position will now have one more expert to either agree or disagree with.
Thankfully, in practice living by expert advice works most of the time but only for stuff that has limited impact on our lives. We are able to choose a good doctor or a hospital or efficient means of transportation and increasingly even the right diet plan by taking advice of relevant experts. In most instances we are able to seek second opinions without drastic personal adjustment. Unfortunately when it comes to belief systems there are many self declared experts that prey on people's trusting nature and dupe them into believing things that are not only untrue but sold with an angle. The difference here is that we are no longer seeking a particular advice for a particular need but the sum total of what will ultimately define us. Wrong advice could not only result in a difficult life but potentially sink our eternity. These so called experts can be found on both sides of the God debate, each set selling their particular flavor of snake oil.
These same experts often need to sell "trust me" and "shut up" approach under the guise of "blind faith" and the even worse version of it "blind following". Routinely individuals are brow beaten into believing that unless one become an expert as defined by a propriety religious institution, a person does not even qualify to discuss the path to salvation and/or even existence. In a final twist the path to salvation or understanding the sum total of existence is rerouted, by the "experts", through them of course. The backlash to this unnatural and in practice subjugating position was not only way over due but natural.
Similarly, the proponents of Scientism, a dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and attempts to reduce all knowledge to only that which is measurable, have their own bag of tricks. Ranging from "shut up and listen because you are not an expert" to mixing scientific data with personal philosophies in order to justify a world without a Prime mover.
The new challenge
This is obviously not the first time that the religious hegemony is challenged. History is full of people taking up the challenge with varying degree of success. The present backlash is distinguishable by the speed and reach of it. The influence of the internet cannot be emphasized enough. More on that later. This distinction is further divided into two distinct movements; the Muslim movement which has very rapidly encircled the globe even though the numbers are in millions, it is still small but growing very rapidly. This movement is distinct from the non Muslim movements because the latest chapter in the Abrahamic religions has a fallback position in the shape of a preserved primary document. Hence all that was required was to push the reset button. The result has been that instead of a mass exodus from Islam it is the sects that started losing “membership” and rapidly.
The non Muslim movements did not have the luxury to the same extent since the Primary Documents themselves have not only been compromised but made distinct by the religious cabals. The Bible is still very potent and definitely a blueprint for salvation, perhaps that is one reason why its reading was discouraged by the Church. Although some of the other religious works are in need of major overhauls. The other distinguishing feature of this non Muslim movement is that it had very limiting success in areas where largely Muslims are in majority. Most of this particular backlash against "religion" is localized in the “West” so to speak.
With time a certain narration in the West began to gain ground over the faith based movements. The momentums of this narration that promote the notion of the “blind faith” as the culprit have now two beneficiaries. Not surprisingly, the muddling of the issues gave the ‘trust me’ and “shut up’ brigade continued benefit under the disguise of resolving it for those confused by it. The other beneficiary is a more deceptive bunch who were able to step into the confusion and establish a book selling racket that took the blind faith into a new dimension. It repackage the essential elements of the blind faith and fed the unsuspecting a false premise of understanding, which now has a sizable following.
What this new movement managed was to muddle the distinction between science and pure fiction sufficiently to make it seductive enough to sell books with a promise of the elusive "alternative explanation". Obviously, talk shows, speaking engagements, Youtubing are all part of this racket. Many are sucked into the apparent freewheeling spirit of the movement that implies that everything and now is your right. It also tries to take credit for delinking an individual from the professional clerics and their subjugating ways.
Once these alternate positions hardened in their respective movements, it is now increasingly taxing to watch the expected chaos when these two movements come in contact. The resulting discussions are a back and forth of the “Western” group trying to paint the Muslim groups with the same brush of blind faith and the Muslims focusing on all the negative connotations of Atheists when describing the “Western" groups.
God's solution
Enter God, His infinite mercy have resolved this issue for the whole of humanity and for all times to come, the only prerequisite is for people to trust their own abilities or God given abilities and take the trouble of verifying things for themselves. It is very much possible if not always to dive into it and help from God should be assumed. As far as I am concerned, the rule in Islam is; if it does not checkout then chuck it out without fear.
So how did God resolve the problem of corrupt clergy or corrupt and/or incompetent "scholars"/"experts" who insist on being on top as opposed to on tap and the book selling rackets? Without getting into the full history of Revelations, let us say that God declared the human race to be ready for a permanent Gift from God. What changed is that previously the Revelations where aimed at a certain people or geographical location and in the latest chapter of this saga the message was declared to be Universal and for all times to come. This gift of gifts is a clear worded 100% verifiable book called the Quran. Through which we can easily determine the truth of any "something".
Now, if we were to take the message as detailed in the Quran at face value then the whole thing can be reduced to a simple two step process; first determine (multiple levels of verification on offer) that Quran is the word of God and then look up that "something" and you are done. It may sound very simplistic but here is the thing, if there is a God then it is reasonable to assume that God may have communicated with us. Hence if and when one is able to determine that a communication is from God, defined as an infinitely intelligent being, then what is it that could possibly prevent one from not following it to the letter?
At this point the obvious questions raised will have to do with the methods and degree of verification and validation and of course the correct interpretation of the message/communication. Keeping in mind the above, if there is one question that should rise to the top, it has to be; how can an individual bypass experts or expert knowledge and verify the word of God? The celebrated Gottfried Leibniz had this to say;
"The only way to rectify our reasonings is to make them as tangible as those of the Mathematicians, so that we can find our error at a glance, and when there are disputes among persons, we can simply say: Let us calculate [calculemus], without further ado, to see who is right."
And that is precisely what God did. Quran can not only be verified with expert knowledge across domains but in addition it can be done with something as basic as the ability to count.
Needless to say if someone is able to verify an alternative scripture or source at par with Quran then they are free to adopt that as their Bible so to speak. The verification must include the evidence that the authorship belongs to an infinitely intelligent being. How do we test that? Easy, nothing short of objective testing for uniqueness and the impossibility of duplication will do.
What God is saying in the following Quranic verse is of profound importance and debunks the notion of blind faith at a stroke;
And whoever invokes besides God another deity for which he has no proof - then his account is only with his Lord. Indeed, the disbelievers will not succeed. Quran 23:117.
The implication is crystal clear; you need proof for your God. This strike down the blind faith notion as popularly propagated and with good reason, if there was no condition of proof, by the way the word used is a root word, bur'hāna (بُرْهَٰنَ) meaning proof, then all one has to do is to say to God on the Day of Judgment that we had blind faith in xyz god. In practice if you take out the proof element there would be no difference between blindly believing in the Spaghetti Monster and the one and only God.
The proof issue
Before we get into the type of proof we must first remind ourselves of the constraint humans operate under. Proofs by their very nature are problematic unless the frames of references are clearly defined. Just to keep it real, it took two of the most celebrated mathematicians of our time, Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead to be exact, 378 pages before almost proving that 1+1=2. It may appear to be counter intuitive but in fact they only figured out how it could be done if they first proved some other stuff first like; what is addition? Not to mention Gödel telling everyone don't waste your time.
While pursuing any evidence we should not let ourselves be duped into an endless "do more" merry go round. If we can verify and validate with probability approaching 1 then we should not insist on 1 or nothing, neither should we incline towards mere possibilities hovering near zero. Those who cling on to lottery winning odds just to protect stubbornly held positions are not really interested in getting to the truth, however it is defined.
So now the only thing that remains is determining the strength of the proof in question, the closer to 1 the better. We also know from the Quran that part of our test in this world is to accept the existence of God through a process of training ones soul so to speak and we are suppose to do this through the use of our God given abilities of observation, reasoning and drawing solid conclusions. Furthermore, since we are constraint by relative proofs because our design and the design of the rest of God’s creation do not allow us to test the existence of God through an absolute proof. (There is nothing that is absolute in this Universe) it becomes necessary to define this relative proof. Otherwise even if a being were to come to us personally and claiming to be God, how would we know it is God? Think about it. Even a being who is say a mere 100 times more intelligent than us, the 200 I.Q. us, will easily be able to pull wool over our eyes and we will be none the wiser. Please go here for more on this
If we are genuinely after the "truth" we have to try and put aside arguments constructed for mere misdirection purposes. Since I mentioned Russell, we are not talking here about a claim of a teapot orbiting the sun, this has more to do with what can be verified literally using ones fingers. Hence, "you first no you first" should be left in the middle school where it belongs. What we will use in a bit from middle school is the math skills taught there. Let me be clear here, I am not demanding to prove the nonexistence of God. I am challenging the asserting of an alternative explanation of why the universe exists and is the way it is.
Furthermore I am merely requesting from those who demand the proof of the existence of God or my explanation of the “existence” to define (in detail) the nature of the evidence/proof that they can justify and are able to verify for themselves. Let me reiterate when it comes to Quran, multiple levels of verification are on offer as one would expect from God. An important fact to keep in mind is that Quran refers to itself as a book and any attempt to understand it fully must be done in its totality as opposed to trying to make sense out of it in bits and pieces.
The real question to be asked of those that still insist that they are waiting for evidence of God/reality and indeed of those that insist on blind faith is; since easily verifiable empirical evidence has been around for decades then why don't they know about it and/or deny it exists?
The evidence
Here I will repeat the one example I often use to draw attention towards this game changing phenomenon because it is very potent and puts things into perspective in a hurry. Not only that but the overall methodology of verification is current to our times and in sync with how integrity of modern communication is authenticated. Please have a look at this single example out of thousands on offer, derived from the Quran and previously used for its simplicity and capacity to invoke awe. The numbers demonstrate to any objective observers that an infinitely intelligent being is at work here.
Time to test that middle school math, in fact elementary Arithmetic will do, that in itself is a miracle of sorts and true to God's solution of verification that totally bypass the experts and "experts".
And as God says in the Quran bring another example like it and all the humans and Jinns are free to form a team and they will have till the Day of Judgment to come up with the goods.
1. Number of letters it is based on is 19 (total number of letters in Bismillah, the opening verse)
2. The length of the number below is a monstrous 114 digit long
3. The opening verse itself is repeated 114 times in the Quran which is a multiple of 19
4. The number below itself is divisible by 7
5. The reverse of this number is also divisible by 7, what are the odds on just this alone
6. The number mirrors the occurrences of Bismillah in the Quran chapter by chapter. 1 denotes onetime, 2 denotes twice and 0 none.
7. Each natural number (1,3,5,7,8) in the quotient is repeated 19 times each exactly, that is mind blowing
8. And if there are still undecided, here is something that brings it all home. The number 15873 is staring at us in the quotient multiple times appropriately separated with a zero, please verify for yourself, in the 15th Chapter, verse number eighty seven, the third word is none other than seven (سَبْعًا)
Here is the number and the calculations;
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111211111111111111111011111111 =
15873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015887301587301587301573015873 x 7
When read from right to left, we have:
111111110111111111111111112111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 =
15873015730158730158730158873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873 x 7
And it’s all about Seven, the often repeating. Quran 15:87 with 19 thrown in as well, confirming the two major numerical indicators so far discovered that has no other apparent meaning in the context of their respective verses. And even the sum and multiples of the number of the chapter and verse is perfectly in sync and 15:87 renders to 1+5+8+7=21=7 +7+7=7 x 3 and 1x5x8x7=280/7=40 by the way 7 is the first number mentioned in the Quran,
We must realize we haven't even properly scratched the surface. Let me just add a few relevant facts to the above example in order to underline how this single number is interlinked with the entire Quran.
There are exactly 77 chapter between the first chapter where the occurrence of the 7 is to be found the first time and the last chapter where the last occurrence of seven is to be found but that is not all, when we count the number of verses between the first occurrence of the number 7 and the last occurrence of the number 7, we find that there are precisely 5649 verses between them, the number is a multiple of 7, (807x7) of course.. From chapter to verse but it does not stop there, from another angle, the number of verses from the beginning of the chapter where the first occurrence of 7 is recorded is exactly 28 (7x4), in fact we now bore down to the number of words, 406 (7x58), even the sum total of all the versus in the Quran Sum(1:6236) =19,446,966 is also is a multiple of 7. Add to it the total number of 7s in the Quran 28 (7x4) and on the textual level the mention of 7 heavens mentioned exactly seven times for instance and much much more, all makes this discovery nothing short of impossible to duplicate, as rightly claimed by the Quran.
One thing more, the number 88 happens to be at 88th position counting from the longer end in both the above sequences. No I have not figured out its significance, yet, it goes to show Quran is an endless sea of knowledge which must not be restricted to any particular discipline and certainly not to exclude the universal domain of numbers.
A heads up for those who are either habitually dismissive or in the habit of repeating kneejerk arguments out there, to compare the claims of other scriptures also having “codes” is like comparing a fireworks display to the Milky Way Galaxy. Then there are those that matter of factly state, "these are just numbers it does not prove that there is a God", the question is then what does it prove? and where did they materialize from? If one doesn't know the answer to these questions then one is in no position to say it's not from God and let us not forget that the book they are found in is all about God. Above all, the Quranic numerical patterns has little to do with encryption, it is all about the modern notion of computationally securing a message and this message is computationally secure and beyond anything human science have been able to come up with to date. If this is not a big deal then my follow up question is in which Universe?
Similarly those who forever rely on the "experts" to determine their eternity for them, will try and repeat every worn out objection to this in your face evidence of God, thus denying themselves the expert free opportunity to get to the truth . Instead of verifying it for themselves, a large number will dismiss it because it does not fit into their reality and a good number will try to deny its very existence altogether as if their denial will somehow render this game changer undiscovered. A classic case of getting rid of their Cognitive dissonance and/or cognitive disequilibrium. The former as we know is the unease we feel because of holding conflicting ideas simultaneously and the later is the one where a discrepancy between something new and something already known or believed clash and is the one that is more relevant to the proof under discussion here.
I repeat, this is not a standalone number, add to it hundreds more of the so far discovered interconnected numbers, the seriously fascinating word count of the Quran (the singular form of day repeated exactly 365 times and the month 12 times as an example) and not to forget the unique literary masterpiece which Quran happens to be. All this multi-layered complexity reaches levels that are nothing short of Godlike.
You could find more amazing numerical consistencies in the Quran at:
http://kaheel7.com/Book/Marvels_BookSeven.pdf
Time for all-in.
For those who would like me to spell out the conclusion as how these numbers are "proof" of God I will insert a part of another of my previous post here; The mathematical patterns embedded in the Quran provides ample proof that it is the work of an infinitely intelligent being and the fact that the author of the Quran is claiming to be God is significant and we will use it in our conclusions. Needless to say in 1400 years since the compilation of the Quran, nobody has even come close to the literary eloquence of the text alone; with the added impossibility of embedding the mathematical pattern settles the issue once and for all.
The significance of the author of the Quran claiming to be God becomes apparent when we are unable to explain Quran's presence among us. In the absence of coming up with an alternative explanation to what is detailed in the text of the Quran, if somebody now turns around and say you are not God to the author so to speak then the logical question has to be on what basis is this objection raised. Is the objector more intelligent to be able to second guess the author? The author of the Quran has already demonstrated His infinite intelligence, the objector has not. In fact the objector is unable to come up with even a short three verses sequence in response to the gauntlet thrown down by the author of the Quran. Logic dictates to go with the infinitely intelligent being, call it what you want. I go with God because that is what the being is claiming. Since no other being who has claimed to be God or the claim associated with one has demonstrated the same degree of verifiable intelligence that would qualify one as a God, once again logic dictates to go with the one which has.
Even for Muslims it is important to focus on this one verified book as opposed to running after the sect fueled secondary sources. It is important because Quran is full of inductive truths while the secondary sources like the Hadith literature and tafsirs are full of contradictions and mostly frozen in an age where the knowledge base was not even one hundredth of what is on offer today. To mistakenly keep clinging to a notion similar to originalism that those who happened to be present at the time of the Revelation understood the message "best" is not only logically absurd but goes against the claim of the Quran that the message is Universal and timeless.
Not to mention the fact that there are several competing claims in circulation as to what that “best” understanding was, leaving behind the "our scholars are better than yours" mess. The implication that we somehow lack the capacity to understand the message of God is theologically bankrupt, a message directly addressed to us, declared easy to understand by God Himself and His declaration that He is the teacher of the message and the one that explains it cannot be beyond our understanding. Not to mention the illogical position that since this Universal message was already understood by one set of people hence another set of people with even a broader knowledge base are disqualified from understanding it.
This is not something that the traditionalists don’t understand or recognize as sound arguments against their take; in fact most are acutely aware of these truths but are counting on the premise that the majority will not look at their own less than convincing arguments too critically and will get away with it. If Muslim history is any indication they are right to think that way. The one thing that they were not prepared for was the game changing developments of the last couple of decades. The manner and speed of information exchange and the resulting debates that did begin to look at the poorly constructed claims caught them by surprise. Their current catch up should be appreciated, they have managed to flood the web with truck loads of misinformation but the proverbial genie is out of the bottle and there is zero chance of reestablishment of the tagleedy utopia (don't question the teacher) from the days of Ghazali till very recently.
Equally important is to point out some specific falsehood associated with Islam which is understandably absent from the primary document Quran but propagated in these secondary sources, some examples;
Laws on stoning as punishment. (an unbelievable farce embedded in deception)
Laws that set the age of marriage for girls to 9 years (one wonders, what could be the motive)Laws on silence of the girl as consent (just imagine)
Laws on beards and Niqab as obligatory
Laws that force women to be accompanied by mahrams (the ball and chain with a twist)
Laws on death penalty for leaving Islam (what are they thinking)
Laws on obeying unjust rulers (perhaps most are related to this gem)
Laws on instant divorce (of course this right is exclusive for the man)
Laws that propagate abrogation of Quranic verses (an impossibility but they need this one badly to complete the deception)
Laws on declaring Muslims who oppose the above farce as Kafirs (rejectors of truth)
The reason I listed the above is to remind both Muslims and non Muslims that these subjugating practices by some Muslims does not make them part of Islam and theses should be put in proper perspective in view of the arguments presented in this write up and dissenting voices through out history.
The power of the sects/cults
We are not yet home and dry. They've arrogated to themselves the power to change the rules arbitrarily. Although no amount of apologetic gymnastic can explain away the obvious trappings of sects, the degree of control a carefully organized sect can exert on a member should never be underestimated even in the information age. The obvious question to ask; why are they doing this? The answer is also very obvious, to defend a position of authority that enables them to subjugate the Ummah, that is the people. A religion that is heavily in favor of the individual against the state on one hand and the readily available primary document on the other leaves no wiggle room for distortion. Thus necessitating the raising of secondary sources to a level that can challenge the primary document. A theological impossibility but that never stopped "them" before.
Furthermore when one examines the secondary sources, human authorship is conclusive. One is not only able to spot the inherent weaknesses in the methodologies but the inherent contradictions in the resulting text is very unlike God's work and for all to see. The scrutiny does something else as well which the sects keep tightly under wraps; the deliberate emotional intensity of the interpretation of the message and the delivery of the same are designed to ensure that their foot soldiers will mindlessly defend the sect's subjugating irrational positions. The fact is that the carefully created facades are like the proverbial house of cards and they know it, remove one and there is nothing left of the house. Hence the strategy of the Hadith peddlers has always been not to give an inch, (in order to protect the subjugating reports with which to control the Ummah) in fact they have no choice but to continue supporting the farce.
The strategy itself is pretty straightforward and is employed across the various sects of different religions with just enough variation to call it their own. Basically it amounts to the same thing; first muddy the waters so that the primary message is drowned in the sea of misinformation and becomes invisible for all practical purposes. Secondly, instead of trying to mold people into righteous souls, the sects engage them in frivolous rituals that is supposed to manufacture good deeds with real rewards and then watch them predictably lose their way. The resulting guilt is then targeted in order to extend total control over them. Once the inevitable "spiritual" vacuum is created, that is when the vultures move in and offer their services, above all the one that makes "sins" go away. A endless loop is now in place.
If the focus were to shift heavily towards doing real good deeds as detailed in almost all scriptures, inevitably we will end up with a community or even the whole world that does very little wrong and hence will lose the need for someone to come along and make their sins go away. That in a nutshell is what a sect don't want. their relevance depends on it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, if verification is to be taken seriously, the current alternatives on the table favors the God Model as opposed to the "something from nothing" model or the even more farfetched causeless reality notion.
Equally important is the fact that the "we don't know model" or the more "scientifically" correct "we don't know yet" model is useless for all practical purposes and appears to be a copout invoked by those who constantly try to justify the non existence of God. For an individual who is trying to resolve fundamental issues, it does not help to state that "Science hasn't explained everything yet" basically “wait” and don’t hold your breath seems to be the message. An individual is often interested in answers to why I am here? where am I headed? sort of questions and needs answers preferably before he or she breath his/her last. To somehow try and substitute answers with a notion that “one day” there might be answers is not an answer.
When "there is no God" crowd is pushed, not believing in a god becomes "I'm not convinced there is a god" hence the implication is an attempt to show as if they are actively looking to unearth the evidence. In practice it is a conviction and all their efforts are directed towards defending this conviction. No matter how you look at it both positions are of no use to an individual with a very limited window, in cosmological terms, to make sense of the his/her reality and make any adjustments that may be crucial.
Even if we were to assume that some time in the future we may switch to a near perpetual life spans, what most people fail to appreciate about science is that it comes with the realization that with every discovery a whole new unknown opens up and most important, the emergence of general principle that point to whole domains that are likely to remain unknown. All that was missing from the God Model to bring it home was verifiable physical evidence of God's existence, in clear empirical form. The Quran through the universal language of numbers demonstrates the most important attribute of a God, intelligence without measure, hence logic and probability dictates not only to follow the God model but not to settle for the non verifiable Models on the table on which even the jury of their own experts is still out.
Closing comments
In our quest to make sense of the essence of our existence we should not let ourselves be distracted from the main purpose of life. I will end with the words of God so as not to lose sight of what it is all about;
............. all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds-shall have their reward with their Sustainer; and no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve. Quran 2:62
A few last comments on the one factor that changed everything. The advent of the internet has given the lonely warrior a glimmer of hope. For the first time in the history of mankind the speed and reach of an individual has become global. The human race has a window of opportunity to grab the initiative before the internet, as we know it, at the risk of sounding conspiratorial, is also tamed by those in power.
At the risk of sounding a web nut, the web has not only given the world an alternate source of news both in terms of independent journalist, bloggers and low budget wire news concerns, the internet has enabled everyone to do research on political systems, religion and practically any subject without leaving your home. It is further possible to bypass the propriety publications and make your findings public virtually free.
It has become possible to discuss, attend conferences, participate in forums and ask questions, seek answers in any language, earn a degree and even declare yourself an expert. The implications are frightening to the people in Authority; it is finally probable to get to the crux of issues within a manageable time frame at fraction of the cost formerly associated with such endeavors. It is finally possible to educate yourself. It has finally become possible to have a real choice. Make full use of it.
