tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post8446991092248703085..comments2024-03-19T09:06:21.507-04:00Comments on Irtiqa: The importance of Evolution and Islam debate in LondonSalman Hameedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04327330113822656571noreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-20310802211195434412013-03-26T15:15:08.119-04:002013-03-26T15:15:08.119-04:00The full video of the conference is now on their Y...The full video of the conference is now on their YouTube channel. This really was an outstanding conference<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLKEMkEIXOoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-13857694762893446132013-02-18T09:20:22.981-05:002013-02-18T09:20:22.981-05:00The full video of the conference can now be viewed...The full video of the conference can now be viewed here: <a href="http://www.thedeeninstitute.com/evolution-conference" rel="nofollow">http://www.thedeeninstitute.com/evolution-conference</a><br /><br />Apparently there is a post conference discussion forum where people can go more into the theology and science in more depth. I attended the conference and thought it was absolutely amazing. I hope the Deen Institute continue to hold such conferences.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-40136533893547124282013-01-25T15:55:55.492-05:002013-01-25T15:55:55.492-05:00Mashallah brother Sharif
Jazakallah for that very...Mashallah brother Sharif<br /><br />Jazakallah for that very detailed analysis which should give us all food for thought.<br /><br />I think you have hit the nail on the head in quite rightly bringing to light that science is not the only means to acquiring truth, especially for Muslims.<br /><br />Yet, it is this very powerful illusion that science is the only possible means to understanding that lies at the heart of viewing the world in purely naturalistic terms which as you say, is completely alien to the Islamic view. <br /><br />From my point of view, I think it is truly sad that Muslims are affected by a supposition which is completely irreconcilable to our faith.<br /><br />May Allah guide us all to the truth<br />AmeenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-71088283609076702522013-01-23T17:09:32.710-05:002013-01-23T17:09:32.710-05:00I personally found the implications of this to be ...I personally found the implications of this to be staggering. And in light of this, it would seem utterly pretentious for science as a discipline to proclaim the unique right to make truth claims about the world when, by its very nature, it is capable of such complete, utter, and embarrassing fallibility. I can see how, if we assume naturalism, it would make sense to count the current scientific view as “knowledge” – if only by default, since under a naturalistic paradigm we have no other source of knowledge and therefore can never “do any better,” so to speak, than come to a provisional, but always open-ended and ultimately transitory and vulnerable “current consensus” – but from the point of view of a Muslim who believes he has good reasons to endorse the authenticity of the Qur’an as divine revelation, I cannot for the life of me understand why I should be persuaded to exchange the definitiveness (qat’iyya) of what God has revealed to us (regarding our nature and origin) for the presumptive and for all we know transitory “truth” of a paradigm that is less than two centuries old and seems already to be open to so many serious reservations. <br /><br />Once again, I do not expect a scientist qua scientist to accept the creation of Adam as a scientific statement or theory about how human beings have come about. But it is only on the prior assumption of naturalism that a scientific statement alone can have any epistemological value whatsoever (to the exclusion of statements that, for Muslims, issue from the Originator of the very universe science explores). Surely a Muslim scientist, qua Muslim, can, upon retiring from his lab, articulate for himself and fellow co-religionists an adequate interpretation of the empirical data that, while remaining true to the observable empirical facts, can nevertheless accommodate these satisfactorily within the broader perspective of a purposeful universe created and sustained by an omniscient Creator, one who has revealed certain crucial knowledge to us regarding our origins and purposes. <br /><br />If your purpose (Naveed) is to convert Muslims to naturalism (or some form of deism) in which revelation has no epistemic value, then the discussion should take place on that level. If, as you have indicated twice, the goal is to encourage Muslims to cultivate and excel in the natural sciences for their own worldly benefit, the question would then revolve around whether or not a robust natural science can be sustained in the midst of a strongly theistic worldview. Given the theoretical consideration that theism itself does not in principle deny the patterns that science studies nor judge their study as somehow impious, seconded by the historical consideration that we Muslims experienced our scientific golden age and our religious golden age simultaneously, I would be inclined to answer “yes.” In fact, I think the best way to encourage science among Muslims, rather than trying to destroy their religious view of the world first, would be to disentangle the disciplined practice of experimental science and its application in the form of technology from the overlay of philosophical naturalism with which it has come to be so tightly entangled in the West over the past few centuries. Wallahu a’alam.<br /><br /><br />Salamat to all,<br />Sharif<br /> <br />[P.S.: For a good treatment of these issues, particularly the larger philosophical assumptions concerning science and the relationship of Muslim theology to it (specifically evolution), I would suggest considering: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm.]Sharifnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-80913368170078558782013-01-23T17:08:56.958-05:002013-01-23T17:08:56.958-05:00Germane to these interpretive principles is the di...Germane to these interpretive principles is the distinction between certain or definitive (qat’i) and provisional or presumptive (dhanni) knowledge. Definite or certain knowledge would comprise completely unambiguous statements of indubitably authentic revealed data (i.e., the Qur’an and some highly rigorously authenticated hadiths), direct empirical observation, and the fundamental rules of rational thought (such as the laws of identity, non-contradiction, and the excluded middle). [The question of the moral knowledge of right and wrong is a whole different discussion.] Now, a previous poster (I believe Imran) explained how numerous discrete data of revelation indicate in a definitive (qat’i) manner the existence of Adam as a real person and how, from an Islamic epistemological perspective, it would be very difficult to overturn this on the basis of conclusions that, as Imran pointed out, while based on empirical evidence are nevertheless inferential in that they involve an extrapolation to an unknown time and place that we are not able to witness.<br /><br />This is apart from the fact that scientific theories, by the admission of scientists themselves, can never be fully “qat’I” in the Islamic since to begin with, since they are always best-hypothesis scenarios based on a perpetually limited (even if constantly expanding) set of data, open at any time not only to further modification and refinement, but to outright rejection and replacement upon the discovery of a new layer of hitherto unsuspected facts (Kuhn’s work, obviously, is central here). This fact was driven home to me many years ago in a course on the history and philosophy of science (taught by an avid materialist/atheist) upon considering that the Ptolemaic geocentric model of the universe was empirically adequate for over a millennium, capable not only of explaining existing observed data but also of accurately predicting the future movement of celestial bodies, and continued to be refined (by the addition of eccentricity and an ever increasing number of epicycles) in light of ever more accurate astronomical calculations century after century, only to be completely blown out of the water by the Copernican model in the late fifteenth century. I mean for over a thousand years, no one had any reasonable (empirical or scientific) basis to doubt that such a theory, which matched the data, boasted impressive predictive power, and had stood the test of time, was not an accurate representation of the world as it actually is, but lo and behold, look what happened! It is staggering to think that century after century of what people in those times experienced to be objective progress in understanding the structure of the universe turned out, from our perspective, to be ignorance heaped upon ignorance, hypothetical fallacy upon hypothetical fallacy, which means that essentially NO scientific PROGRESS was being made in their case at all, despite all appearances for them to the contrary (at least on this particular front). They were just completely and utterly wrong from start to finish (Kuhn’s paradigm shift).Sharifnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-23518305716059858762013-01-23T17:07:53.437-05:002013-01-23T17:07:53.437-05:00Admittedly, this conclusion can be taken to imply ...Admittedly, this conclusion can be taken to imply no more than a sort of 18th-century deism, and Flew himself is insistent that his intellectual acknowledgement of the necessity of an intelligent Creator God was neither born of, nor has subsequently elicited from him, any personal, existential, and worshipful response to the reality of such a being (such a response capturing very closely, I think, the nuances of the term "iman" as used in the Qur'an, as opposed to “faith” which, in modern parlance, often denotes the mere intellectual recognition of God’s existence, inevitably judged as primarily affective and therefore irreducibly subjective.) But not only is the deistic idea of an uninvolved God who doesn’t “interfere” in His creation alien to the Qur’anic worldview, it would seem arbitrary from a philosophical point of view to hold a priori that God, once having created the universe, either cannot or chooses not to have anything more to do with it, so to speak. Accordingly, Muslims will naturally (and rightly so) resist philosophical interpretations either of the universe as a whole or of specific sets of empirical data that entail a denial of God’s active and intentional agency in the world. It is philosophical naturalism – not as the operating methodological assumption of the natural sciences seen as a subset of a broader epistemological endeavor, but as a philosophical assumption about the overall nature and scope of reality per se – that is ultimately irreconcilable with Islamic theism and which, I suspect, lies at the basis of such vociferous objection on the part of Muslims not to the innocuous notion of gradual change in organisms over time, but to the accompanying naturalistic baggage that attributes the ultimate causality propelling such changes to randomness, chance, chaos, etc., rather than interpreting them as the manifestation of a deliberate and purposeful Divine plan. <br /><br />Conscientious Muslims, who feel they have defensible grounds (and not just subjective motives) for holding the Qur’anic revelation to be true, admit – as a principled epistemological stance – revelation next to the empirical sciences, as a source of knowledge (and not merely as an ethical motivator to moral action, as per an interpretation you offered in a previous post). Qur’anic verses will therefore count for them as objective evidence regarding reality that would be consulted in tandem with other possible knowledge sources, such as the natural sciences, when trying to understand a fundamental question such as the origins (and therefore the ultimate nature and purpose, if any) of man. Just as any true science presupposes a consistent and justified methodology, the science of Qur’anic interpretation (regarding matters both of creed and of law) – that is, the earnest task of figuring out what it is that God is actually saying to us and/or wants from us – likewise operates on rigorous principles that Muslims have every right to bring to the table and expect to be duly accounted for in any serious discussion of the compatibility between Islam and any other particular knowledge claim, idea, etc.Sharifnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-58735480956272569612013-01-23T17:06:45.306-05:002013-01-23T17:06:45.306-05:00Dear All,
It seems like the usefulness of th...Dear All,<br /><br /> It seems like the usefulness of this discussion may be reaching its end, but I did want to make a few points, if I may.<br /><br /> Naveed, you are certainly right that ultimate moral judgment is in the hands of God alone and that it is not our place to pass such judgment on each other. At the same time, Imran is correct to point out that "beliefs" do matter in such a discussion -- not morally, to be sure, but epistemologically, since no one can avoid entertaining certain beliefs about the nature of the world (and, implicitly, the sources of our access to knowledge about it). In that light, I think it is only honest, intellectually speaking, that the larger assumptions presupposed by the position you are urging Muslims to adopt be made clear, so that each may adopt his own stance in full light of the larger implications and commitments entailed thereby.<br /><br />The contention that "the evidence is there (subtext: and can only be legitimately interpreted from one particular metaphysical angle, namely, that of deterministic naturalism)" and that "science (subtext: our one and only source of reliable knowledge) has spoken and that's that" presupposes -- if even only implicitly -- a closed, materialistic, and deterministic view of the universe that, as I mentioned in a previous post, is fundamentally at odds with the Qur'anic picture of a radically contingent universe whose very instantiation and continuing existence cannot be adequately, or even coherently, accounted for through other than an appeal to a transcendent, all-powerful, and all-knowing Creator -- namely, the God of transcendental monotheism who, from that metaphysical perspective, is not merely an object of private subjective belief but the ineluctable and necessary condition of the very existence of the universe itself. The philosophical merits and demerits of this position as against the philosophy of naturalism is a critical discussion to have, though that would go beyond the scope of this particular blog.<br /><br />Again, the question of whether things happen EITHER through God's design and creation OR according to "natural law" is a false dichotomy to begin with, since it takes "natural laws" that map consistently occurring patterns in the universe utterly for granted. If anyone needs any convincing that our universe as a whole (and not just a specific "irreducibly complex" biological system) has been designed -- and with unspeakable intelligence at that -- the proof lies primarily in the very laws of nature themselves (even more so than in the exceptions thereto, affirmed as miracles by many theists but by denied by deists or atheists). To believe that the regularities we observe themselves were somehow randomly generated immediately upon the coming into existence of the universe, in just such a manner as to lead eventually to the universe we now inhabit, is statistically so utterly improbable that we may comfortably dismiss it, for all intents and purposes, as impossible. This point has been made by numerous scientists, philosophers and others, purely on the basis of available empirical evidence coupled with the laws of probability, and is not a mere "assertion of faith" made by solely religious people stuck in a time warp. It is precisely on this empirical and philosophical basis, in fact, that Antony Flew came to hold that the burden of proof lies, in fact, on the atheist, not on the theist (reversing his position to the contrary, which he himself had formulated and advocated for most of his life).<br />Sharifnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-68197124701409079072013-01-22T17:08:54.088-05:002013-01-22T17:08:54.088-05:00Dear Imran,
We both have very different conceptio...Dear Imran,<br /><br />We both have very different conceptions of what constitutes the behaviour and belief of a muslim, and for me that is ok. If I'm wrong, I'll be judged when I die, and nothing anyone here says or thinks about my faith will change that final outcome.<br /><br />Until then, I'm more than happy to discuss the scientific evidence, which we have, so there's nothing much to add on that front either.<br /><br />I'll leave it to the better judgement of whoever is reading these posts to come to their own conclusions.Naveedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08576156589906730351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-18377078267101097322013-01-22T16:41:46.647-05:002013-01-22T16:41:46.647-05:00Dear Naveed
Your apologies are humbly accepted as ...Dear Naveed<br />Your apologies are humbly accepted as we are all humans and prone to making mistakes. After all, that is the way God designed us.<br />In the end, I have no reason to hide my identity as I think both my position and beliefs are clear, although you have done nothing to explain what yours may be except continuing to remain evasive. Also, dismissing the Quran as mere “dogma” or belief in it as just “contextual” is not what one would expect from a Muslim. <br />Just like Salman claiming in the video posted earlier that we should not criticise Muslim beliefs “even though it may make us feel better to do so”. So although both you and Salman say that evolution does not mean atheism, you have done little to alleviate the potential that this is the position that you may have decided to adopt yourselves. <br />You may think it is irrelevant. However, since this Blog is directed at Muslims, I think it is a reasonable question to ask who is addressing us? Are they Muslims or not? <br />Also sadly, you continue to err in your theological arguments such as “I don’t recall Islam giving anyone the right to judge people for their beliefs, regardless of what they are”.<br />Actually, Islam teaches a detailed study of creed that establishes what articles of faith must be professed to be regarded as a Muslim. You are not permitted to just believe whatever you like as there are some fundamental and essential articles of faith such as belief in Allah, his Angels, his Books, His messengers, the last day, Divine Will (Qadar) and so on. So I would encourage you to please seek knowledge in these matters.<br />Whether the belief that Adam was created by Allah without forefathers also constitutes a fundamental article of faith to believe in as a Muslim, most would argue that it is emphatically so. However, I leave that discussion to the Islamic Scholars who are better qualified to make such a judgement.<br />Inevitably, I conclude with the words of my Lord, the Supreme Creator, the Originator, the Fashioner, the Sustainer, the giver of life who creates as he pleases from nothing. Indeed, we are not in doubt regarding our Lord who in a most eloquent verse describes both the origins and the nature of man which is very apt to this discussion:<br />“Does not man see that We have created him from Nutfah (semen drops). Yet behold! He (stands forth) as an open opponent. And he puts forth for us a parable, and forgets his own creation. He says: "Who will give life to these bones when they have rotted away and become dust? "Say: (O Muhammad) "He will give life to them who created them for the first time! And He is the All-Knower of every creation!" (36: 77-79).<br />Imrannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-46858805895871431842013-01-22T16:38:24.481-05:002013-01-22T16:38:24.481-05:00Salman
I suspect that the constructiveness of thi...Salman<br /><br />I suspect that the constructiveness of this discussion may have run its course, especially when you have simply resorted to type by using ridicule and mockery, rather than engaging in the discussion at hand. It is often used as a tactic to discredit others who don’t agree with you and I hope that any fair minded person can see that I have made every effort to discuss the scientific evidence with Naveed who at least has the courtesy to engage in a civil manner. <br /><br />Furthermore, your premise that people will refuse to accept evidence if it conflicts with their beliefs can equally be turned around to apply to you.<br /><br />Maybe, you are so convinced in the belief of common descent in which you have invested identity, meaning and a sense of community with fellow Scientists who share your view, that you are not willing to accept explicit and categorical evidences from the Quran which clearly establish the direct and umediated creation of Adam. <br />“When your Lord said to the angels: "Truly, I am going to create man from clay".So when I have fashioned him and breathed into him (his) soul created by Me, then you fall down prostrate to him. So the angels prostrated themselves, all of them:Except Iblis (Satan) he was proud and was one of the disbelievers. (Allah) said: "O Iblis (Satan)! What prevents you from prostrating yourself to one whom I have created with Both My Hands”. (38: 71-75).<br />By the way, its not just me who believes this but remains the consensus of the vast majority of Islamic Scholars both historically and up to the present time.<br />And I sincerely hope it is not the case that verses of the Quran do not sway you. Or is it the case as Allah mentions in another verse:<br />“It is the same to them whether you warn them or you warn them not, they will not believe. You can only warn him who follows the Reminder (the Qur'an), and fears the Most Beneficent (Allah) unseen”. (36:10-11).<br />Returning to the scientific argument, while accepting elements of evolutionary phenomenon displayed in the natural world, evidence for common descent is inferential, circumstantial and certainly not observable or conclusive to the degree of certainty that the Sun does not orbit the earth. You would require this degree of certainty in order to allow yourself to interpret these verses as symbolic. That maybe as unlikely as finding a fossilised rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian Period. For now, I will continue to research arguments on both sides as I am sure that there remains much to learn.<br />And by the way Dude, I don’t see any problem with Muslims not being able to make a contribution to Science if they do not accept common descent. Maybe it is you who has conflated this position to be the only tenable “Muslim Scientist” position. <br />Imrannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-36062587026157785752013-01-22T06:39:34.101-05:002013-01-22T06:39:34.101-05:00@ Salman (your comments are in quotations,
"...@ Salman (your comments are in quotations,<br /><br />"You finally got it! This is all a huge conspiracy. Several years ago, we all decided that lets start communicating science targeting Muslims. So first we had to hatch up a plan to get PhDs. But we knew that this wouldn't work and be credible. So we decided to do research alongside with it, and get faculty positions on that basis. Then we had to pretend that we actually care about communicating science - so we had to take time out of research and teaching to write for broader audience. Then we had to find all sorts of Muslims who had no problem with human evolution. The plan was all in place. But just before its execution, Imran caught us... :("<br /><br />Kind of against your philosophy of being sensitive and not adverserial, dont you think? You sarcasm speaks volumes about you.<br /><br /><br /><br />"And as per the alien abductions, dude, you are looking at the talk backwards. You seem to be implying that there is something inherently wrong with people who believe in alien abductions. They actually truly believe that they were abducted by aliens. And evidence to the contrary would not make a difference."<br /><br />Here is "evidence" from your talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_bpURQrG4Q<br /><br />A 3:55 you state that abductees are taken to crafts and things are done to them "which we cant really talk about" - sarcasm duly noted<br /><br />Between 4:00 and 5:00 you explain this is really sleep paralysis and is usually accompanied by "hallucinations"<br /><br /><br />At 8:04 - "while much of the public mocks these claims... if i were to claim i were abducted by aliens probably I would not be invited to give this talk..."<br /><br />You seem to run a mock about alien abductees and judging by the comment on your vid, people have been offended:<br /><br />"Sad from a guy who has not looked at the EVIDENCE for UFOs. And Michael Shermer has already been shown to be a pathological non-scientific skeptic. A true scientific skeptic is experimental, not dogmatitic.<br />What a sad presentation from a closed mind."<br /><br /><br />At 17:38 - "it is good to know what is real" - again imply what abductees, what believers, what Muslims believe is not real.<br /><br />Your whole presentation implies there is something wrong with abductees!<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />"In the same way, those sub-section of Christians who believe that Earth is 6000 years old, believe as strongly in the face of contradictory evidence. And so do those sub-section of Muslims who do not accept common descent. What you have cleverly done (or it may be a conspiracy...) is that you have conflated your position on evolution to "the" Muslim position. You may think that, but there is plenty of counter-evidence (uh-oh - we come back to evidence) that there are a lot of Muslims who are faithful and have no problem with human evolution. You may not like that, but that is not a conspiracy."<br /><br />Your studies relate to medics and physicians right? How did you deduce many Muslims (your vid at 10:36) accept evolution and some or "subset" or "sub-section as you like to call it, accept it? And then you have the gall to claim others are "conflating their positions to Muslim position". You fall foul of your own claims by conflating your single-class studies to the braoder Muslim population, who dont give a monkeys about you! (excuse the pun if you please).<br /><br /><br />"By the way, biology textbooks in Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Malaysia - all include common descent. In fact, an appreciation of Allah (SWT) is mentioned as the specific goal of Pakistani and Malaysian textbooks - and yet they include common descent. The conspiracy must run quite deep."<br /><br />If I study christianity as a Muslim do I become a Christian? Hmmm... <br /><br />CoolnessofHindAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-48753052011934807982013-01-22T00:41:44.522-05:002013-01-22T00:41:44.522-05:00Imran,
I just looked at the link for Salman's...Imran,<br /><br />I just looked at the link for Salman's talk. You've grossly misrepresented his position. His gist of his talk was how even in the face of immutable evidence, people are not willing to let go of their contextual beliefs.<br /><br />I'd ask people to watch the talk and come to their own conclusions. Naveedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08576156589906730351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-84159298948452381962013-01-22T00:22:22.967-05:002013-01-22T00:22:22.967-05:00Imran,
Let me start by apologising. The reason fo...Imran,<br /><br />Let me start by apologising. The reason for wondering about your name wasn't a resort to name calling on my part. There was previously a gentleman on this thread with very similar views to yours who was extremely obnoxious and offensive in his delivery. When he was called out on his behaviour, he deleted all his posts. Soon after that, you logged in anonymously with the same ideas and references, which lead me to - possibly mistakenly - believe that you were him. For this I apologise unreservedly. <br /><br />The gist of what I said was that muslims will struggle in natural sciences until they let go of dogma. Sure, economics and social causes do play a large role, but that still does not explain why rich states such as Saudia Arabia, which have universities such as KAUST with the largest endowment fund in the world, but have not managed to come up with any excellent research in stem cells or biology.<br /><br />While you're prose is quite civil, the undertone in your comments suggests that somehow the beliefs of Salman and I are tainted for agreeing with the evidence for common descent. And just because our views on common descent don't coincide with yours therefore the insinuation is that the site is "designed"? Have you ran a survey of muslim scientists as to whether they believe in common descent to come to this conclusion? I don't recall Islam giving anyone the right to judge people for their beliefs, regardless of what they are. Which is why I'm going to reiterate, that if you believe that arbitration for beliefs is in the hands of God, then I do not need to submit my beliefs to anyone for fact checking. People are free to view this as evasive, but I'm hoping others will recognise this as an attempt to keep the debate focused on the evidence.<br /><br />Finally, the evidence has nothing to do with personal views. Its not just Salman and I that think that common descent has strong evidence for it, the entire scientific world is in consensus that the evidence for it is overwhelming. It's exactly why both Ken Miller and Dawkins can put aside their world views to agree with the evidence. Now you could start arguing that consensus on evidence in science is a misnomer, that the peer-reviewed system is broken or that this is a global conspiracy against the muslim faith, but then I really don't have much to add to that debate.Naveedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08576156589906730351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-35586691582668057772013-01-21T22:16:24.163-05:002013-01-21T22:16:24.163-05:00Imran,
You finally got it! This is all a huge con...Imran,<br /><br />You finally got it! This is all a huge conspiracy. Several years ago, we all decided that lets start communicating science targeting Muslims. So first we had to hatch up a plan to get PhDs. But we knew that this wouldn't work and be credible. So we decided to do research alongside with it, and get faculty positions on that basis. Then we had to pretend that we actually care about communicating science - so we had to take time out of research and teaching to write for broader audience. Then we had to find all sorts of Muslims who had no problem with human evolution. The plan was all in place. But just before its execution, Imran caught us... :(<br /><br />And as per the alien abductions, dude, you are looking at the talk backwards. You seem to be implying that there is something inherently wrong with people who believe in alien abductions. They actually truly believe that they were abducted by aliens. And evidence to the contrary would not make a difference. In the same way, those sub-section of Christians who believe that Earth is 6000 years old, believe as strongly in the face of contradictory evidence. And so do those sub-section of Muslims who do not accept common descent. What you have cleverly done (or it may be a conspiracy...) is that you have conflated your position on evolution to "the" Muslim position. You may think that, but there is plenty of counter-evidence (uh-oh - we come back to evidence) that there are a lot of Muslims who are faithful and have no problem with human evolution. You may not like that, but that is not a conspiracy. <br /><br />By the way, biology textbooks in Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Malaysia - all include common descent. In fact, an appreciation of Allah (SWT) is mentioned as the specific goal of Pakistani and Malaysian textbooks - and yet they include common descent. The conspiracy must run quite deep.Salman Hameedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04327330113822656571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-56750483816438604992013-01-21T17:18:47.341-05:002013-01-21T17:18:47.341-05:00Continued.....
However in the spirit of providing ...Continued.....<br />However in the spirit of providing compelling evidence, I would point all who may be following this thread to view the following link for an insight into the potential motives of Salman Hameed (the administrator of this blog). Not my words but his own.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_bpURQrG4Q<br /><br />To summarise, Salman equates Muslims who reject common descent with those people who are convinced that they experienced Alien Abduction. He says no degree of evidence will convince them since they perceive their experience of abduction to be real. Similarly, Muslims will reject evidence of Evolution because they perceive it to be a threat to their faith in which is invested identity, meaning and a sense of community. He goes on to say that it would not be a wise strategy to criticise their beliefs “even though it would make us feel better to do so”. Rather, we need to reduce the threat that evolution poses to their faith. <br /><br />I have to give credit to the Man. It is quite a clever strategy and then people wonder why Muslims are so willing to harbour conspiracy theories of perceived plots to undermine their belief. And it makes you wonder whether this entire blog is not but an elaborate ploy to execute Salman’s idea’s. We can certainly argue that this was “designed” at least. I allow others to view the link and make up their own minds whether Salman’s words are evident of someone who claims to be a Muslim.<br /><br />Also, for any of my Brothers and Sisters in Islam who are struggling with the concept of Evolution, please recognise that Evolution does not necessarily mean acceptance of Common Descent. There are aspects of Evolution that pose no problem for a Muslim to believe such as the following:<br /><br />1. Change over time – that life millions of years ago is not the same as life on earth today<br />2. Small scale Evolution within a species<br /><br />So often, evidence is cited for particular elements of evolution as evidence for common descent. Take for example, our understanding of how viruses evolve allowing Science to produce new medication to combat this. It is even an example that Salman Hameed gives in his video to convince Muslims to accept Evolutuion. So you are faced with a dilemma in thinking that rejection of common descent leaves you powerless to combat disease. You see, the mistake here is to equate Evolution with common descent. <br /><br />Evolution does not = common descent<br /><br />The two terms are often used synonymously to mean the same thing where evidence is presented for an aspect of evolution to infer common descent. The fact that viruses and bacteria adapt (A) which we would all accept is not evidence that humans originated from common ancestors (B).<br /><br />Acceptance of A) does not = Acceptance of B).<br /><br />My Brother Naveed, we may disagree but I sincerely hope you do not share the views of Salman Hameed as expressed in the video that I have posted earlier. I conclude with verses of the Quran (as a reminder of what we believe, a warning and a supplication) for us to all consider as Muslims since the words of men are but mere conjecture and folly in comparison to the words of our Lord, the supreme creator.<br /><br />“O mankind! Be dutiful to your Lord, Who created you from a single person (Adam), and from him (Adam) He created his wife [Hawwa (Eve), and from them both He created many men and women (4:1)<br />“And of mankind, there are some who say: "We believe in Allah and the Last Day" while in fact they do not believe. They think to deceive Allah and those who believe, while they only deceive themselves, and perceive it not!” (2:8-9)<br />"Our Lord! Let not our hearts deviate (from the truth) after You have guided us, and grant us mercy from You. Truly, You are the Bestower." (3: 8)<br />Imrannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-3462798247342304732013-01-21T17:18:02.546-05:002013-01-21T17:18:02.546-05:00Continued....
You see, I have repeated several tim...Continued....<br />You see, I have repeated several times the importance of recognising how researchers can arrive at different conclusions based on the same data set. There is this allusion that scientists are like non-human agents interpreting data objectively and not tainted or affected by personal belief or conviction. They “go wherever the evidence takes” them except for the proponents of intelligent design that is, who are guilty of pseudo-science while the true scientists on the side of common descent are the only flag bearers of “scientific truth”. I am not sure that is a productive dichotomy in which to frame this discussion. You certainly seem to be convinced that common descent is the only explanation. There are others however, who are not so convinced and I shall continue to read arguments on both sides to further my understanding on the subject. In doing so, I would appreciate the civility not to be accused of failing to look at the evidence objectively because of a perceived threat to my faith in your view. Looking at the evidence objectively doesn’t mean that I have to look at the evidence from your point of view. <br /><br />And since we are on the subject of objectivity, why have you accepted this completely subjective premise that we as Muslims will lag behind in the Natural Sciences if we do not accept common descent. So is this your equation?<br /><br />Acceptance of common descent = Muslim progression in the natural sciences.<br /><br />That is quite simplistic an idea isn’t it, failing to mention that maybe there are economic and social factors in the Muslim World that hinder us from scientific progress but that is a completely separate discussion.<br /><br />Finally, my dear brother and I think this question is important and relevant for the sake of transparency and integrity. Why is it so problematic to share your belief so it is clear for everyone to know from what perspective you are coming from? You see, the idea that belief is personal is actually not an Islamic phrase but inherited from Western secular ideology where belief is relegated to the private. However, belief in Islam is both an internal and an outward expression of one’s faith so I am struggling to know why you seem to be so evasive on this issue.<br /><br />Now it has been repeatedly asserted throughout this Blog (including yourself) that evolution does not mean atheism. I can certainly accept that. However, the underlying impression given is that you as Muslims within the faith want to foster discussion about evolution and what that means for Muslims. <br /><br />Although I can not claim to know your motives, your evasiveness in expressing your Islamic faith does trouble me somewhat. Nevertheless, it is not in the character of a Muslim to harbour suspicion without evidence. So I regard you as my brother in faith and I would sincerely encourage you to seek knowledge of the Quran as some of the conclusions you have drawn from it are flawed.Imrannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-7302850346055596412013-01-21T17:16:55.735-05:002013-01-21T17:16:55.735-05:00Dear Naveed
I am somewhat surprised as to why you...Dear Naveed<br /><br />I am somewhat surprised as to why you now think my name is not what I say it is, considering you asserted in a previous post that it was refreshing to have a conversation without either side resorting to name calling and questioning the others motives.<br /><br />By Allah, ‘Imran’ is the name that my Parents chose for me so this should be sufficient evidence for any Muslim to accept, as a Believer does not take an oath in Allah’s name lightly.<br /><br />In any case, I fail to see why you might think my name has any bearing on the discussion and yet you see personal belief as completely irrelevant in all of this. Nevertheless, in the interest of fruitful discussion, I think it is important to address some of the points that you have raised without resorting to name calling. It is after all, from the teachings of our religion to respond with courtesy and decorum.<br /><br />“Call people to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good teaching, and argue with them in the most courteous way” (16:125).<br /><br />On the contrary, I think that personal belief is important in this discussion as it is not simply a question of evidence when the very title of this blog is “The importance of Evolution and Islam”. So you can not escape from the fact that personal belief does have every bearing on this debate when we are discussing the very relationship between evidence and belief.<br /><br />Even in the works of Miller and Dawkins, their personal beliefs do have a bearing that shapes their world view. Miller regards evolution as doing nothing to weaken the power of God while Dawkins simply rejects the idea of a God, seeing the world as having no intrinsic purpose but cruel, bitter indifference. This stark difference in outlook is not simply based on the evidence but influenced by personal belief.<br /><br />And by the way, I have gone through the link you posted of Ken Miller’s lecture regarding the apparent fusion of Chromosome 2 in the human genome. However, I don’t believe he said common descent was “the only possible explanation”. He actually states (and I am paraphrasing here) “that you may argue that God designed it that way but I cannot accept that as an explanation because I don’t believe God would be deceptive in tricking us in that way”. <br /><br />So it would actually be more accurate to say that he regards the reason for this to be common descent as more compelling (based on his personal rationale). Not that there is no other explanation for it. His interpretation of the evidence is actually based on his personal view and we can all choose to either agree with him or disagree. However, rejection of his personal view should not be interpreted as rejection of the evidence. We can all agree with the nature of the human chromosome 2 but differ in what it actually tells us.<br />Imrannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-31008213786531552282013-01-21T05:38:09.557-05:002013-01-21T05:38:09.557-05:00@ Naveed
"But muslims will continue to lag b...@ Naveed<br /><br />"But muslims will continue to lag behind in the natural sciences, if at every point they feel that their beliefs are threatened, they stop objectively looking at the evidence and start playing defence. Today, its evolution theory, tomorrow it will probably be determinism and cognitive neuroscience."<br /><br />Dearest brother, this is a highly ignorant and somewhat stuck up statement to make. <br /><br />The Islamic beliefs are more solid then the principles you are utilising to make your statement. As a Muslim, it is our belief that we take anything which complies with the Quran, reconcile anything which is ambiguous and dismiss that which explicitly juxtaposes the Quranic paradigm.<br /><br />You seem to posit scientific evidence as the be-all and end-all of knowledge and the attainment of "facts" when the limitations of the scientific method and empiricism are well-known. However lets not get all schrodinger about this.<br /><br />The principle as I have mentioned above is clear. You have skirted Imran's contention about explaining other aspects which the Qur'an alludes to (parting of the seas, the miraculous birth of Jesus). What are your convictions brother? Are you prepared to deny these aspects of the Quran also because your limited knowledge, ability and intellect cannot find the evidence for them?<br /><br />CoolnessofHind<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-31795006869078802772013-01-21T01:32:05.186-05:002013-01-21T01:32:05.186-05:00Imran,
(Though I highly doubt that that's you...Imran,<br /><br />(Though I highly doubt that that's you're true name).<br /><br />We disagree here, respectfully. By your example alone, just the fact that Ken Miller and Richard Dawkins, coming from two completely diverse world views, both accept completely the position of common descent, is an example of how personal beliefs are not really relevant in this discussion. Its an discussion about evidence. Not all muslims are created equal, not all atheists are created equal, and Richard Dawkins does not equal evolution. It's an argument that's cliched and been done to death. There are vocal extremists on both camps, atheist and ID, but it doesn't mean that the rest of us have to answer for their views.<br /><br />Regarding the genetic similarity, yes you're right. The similarity is within the introns and exons (coding region) of the genome, that primarily codes for the proteins which carry out cellular function. This comparison was carried out in protein coding regions because sequencing technologies were expensive. Now that they are orders of magnitude cheaper, full comparisons will probably be made soon. Though pilot studies have shown that dissimilarities in the non-coding regions are also below approximately 2.5%. <br /><br />The newspaper reporting of science is a big problem. If you read the actual papers, its clear that the similarity is qualified to mean the coding regions. But often, journalists are lazy. Which is why every so often you'll find a sensationalist headline proclaiming a breakthrough cure, which is not at all what the research paper talks about. Ergo, the only people who claim its deceptive are the people who never read the actual source articles and go by broad headlines. <br /><br />The chromosome 2 problem as actually a very big deal to reconcile with ID. Do go over the link that I sent you in my last post. It's from a lecture by Ken Miller, a roman catholic, where he explains the problem and why common descent and not ID is the only explanation possible.<br /><br />Sure, ID and common descent will always be at loggerheads. But they don't stand at equal footing. Common descent is based on scientific evidence, whereas ID has been repeatedly shown, by way of legal proceedings, to not be based on any peer reviewed research (see my post on the Dover trial and its transcript).<br /><br />As per reconciling evidence with the Quran, I really am no authority to point towards a particular understanding. Everyone is welcome to believe in what they chose, it is their right. But muslims will continue to lag behind in the natural sciences, if at every point they feel that their beliefs are threatened, they stop objectively looking at the evidence and start playing defence. Today, its evolution theory, tomorrow it will probably be determinism and cognitive neuroscience.<br /><br />Anyways, thank you for the discussion. It's already gone on too long. I'm sure anyone reading it will have a very good idea about the arguments on either side, so they can make up their mind.<br />Naveedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08576156589906730351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-34251750905001345562013-01-20T16:41:45.015-05:002013-01-20T16:41:45.015-05:00@ Imran
Your comments are most illuminating, I do...@ Imran<br /><br />Your comments are most illuminating, I do feel brother Salman is slightly taking an apologetic stance in attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable. <br /><br />The Qur'an has been emphatic on this issue. Any student of Islamic knowledge can muster numerous tafaasir to support the position as espoused by yourself. <br /><br />May Allah have Mercy on all our brothers and guide us all to the Truth. Ameen <br /><br />CoolnessofHindAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-21541711956831853142013-01-20T12:28:03.910-05:002013-01-20T12:28:03.910-05:00continued....
The quran is the first source of evi...continued....<br />The quran is the first source of evidence in Islam. While I do not expect that to hold any weight for atheists, one would expect it to be a fundamental premise for Muslims to accept so that includes yourself and the likes of Salman Hameed.<br /><br />The quran is explicit in the creation of Adam and the creation of Hawa from Adam. <br /><br />O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women. (4:1)<br /><br />In the absence of common descent being observable, there is little room to interpret these countless verses as symbolic. We believe in the story literally. <br /><br />As for the idea of reconciling the quranic narrative with human common descent, you may find some dissenting voices like Osama Hasan but his theological arguments were extremely weak quoting selective passages and failing to address other verses that simply don't support such a view. As Yasir Qadhi put it, it was nothing but a fanciful case of "hermeneutical gymnastics". <br /><br />And why do we assume that our understanding of the quran needs to change? Is our conviction in the words of Allah so weak that we feel that this exercise must occur in the realm of scripture?<br /><br />And where do we end if I as a Muslim allow myself to do this? What would I say about the birth of Jesus without a father, the splitting of the sea for Moses and so on? Nothing can be taken as literal. Piece by piece, I am being invited to undermine the Quran based on evidence that could equally be viewed in terms of common design and thereby removing the apparent inconsistency with revelation.<br /><br />One may argue that to deny common descent is ignoring the overwhelming evidence and to view it otherwise in terms of common design is simply explaining it away.<br /><br />I do not agree but that is exactly the way I feel when you are asking Muslims to reinterpret Adams explicit creation in the quran as symbolic. You are simply explaining it away and one see's no difficulty in doing this with the words of Allah but see's every difficulty with those who view evidence of common descent as common design.<br /><br />Although this should have no sway in convincing avid atheists, I would expect it to be a compelling argument for Muslims who believe in the quran and the unseen.<br /><br /> Alif. Lam. Mim.This is the Book of Allah: there is no doubt in it. It is a guidance to Godfearing people,who believe in the unseen, establish the prayer and expend (in Our way) out of what We have bestowed on them, who believe in the Book We have sent down to you (i.e. the Qur'an) and in the Books sent down before you, and firmly believe in the Hereafter. (2:1-4).<br /><br />Imrannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-83991796491843659532013-01-20T12:26:35.010-05:002013-01-20T12:26:35.010-05:00Continued......
Clearly, there is much for us to ...Continued......<br /><br />Clearly, there is much for us to still learn and islam does not hinder enquiry. Rather, what I am trying to get at is how the evidence can be interpreted to fit your point of view. I can see how both sides could potentially use recent research that this so called 'junk dna' is actually useful as evidence for themselves. So I am not sure that evolutionists are not equally susceptible to shifting their view of evolution when required just as they accuse their opponents of doing with intelligent design.<br /><br />No doubt, Casey Luskin from the discovery institute will post articles on how these findings confirm the predictions of Id while evolutionists who accept common descent will rebut this with interpretations of their own dismissing Id as pseudo science. I'm not sure if we are ever going to get past this cycle.<br /><br />Finally, can you really blame muslims for thinking that this is not yet another means to attack and vilify their religious beliefs. So its not going to be easy to distinguish evolution from atheism when some of its most vocal proponents are so anti-religion.<br /><br />Let's make no mistake, PZ Myers states Islam is stupid and Richard Dawkins has openly claimed that his aim is to "kill religion". He encourages the use of ridicule and sarcasm to dismiss in his view the "absurdity of religion". His arrogance is evident when he claims that the evidence is on his side and anyone who questions it is dismissed and mocked as a creationist nut. The same tactic of ridicule is also evident in some of the posts on this blog.<br /><br />However, I take solace in the words of my lord who reminds us again and again that there have always been people who mocked god and his messengers.<br /><br />O you who believe! do not take for guardians those who take your religion for a mockery and a joke (5:57)<br /><br />The life of this world is made to seem fair to those who disbelieve, and they mock those who believe (2:212)<br /><br />And if you should question them, they would certainly say: We were only idly discoursing and sporting. Say: Was it at Allah and His communications and His Apostle that you mocked? (9:65)<br />Imrannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-77360102596331893972013-01-20T12:23:08.545-05:002013-01-20T12:23:08.545-05:00Naveed
A topic such as this is bound to lead to p...Naveed<br /><br />A topic such as this is bound to lead to passionate debate which can spill over on both sides. <br />I have no insight into another's motives but I think it is a reasonable question to ask what a person's religious beliefs are in such a discussion.<br />If we were discussing cricket, then one may say faith is personal as this would have no bearing on the debate. But with a discussion of this kind, it is unavoidable. <br />I think it is dishonest to engage in this discussion and then be pervasive about your own religious beliefs.<br />Ken miller and Richard Dawkins both agree on common descent yet the first is open about his Catholicism while the latter is a devout atheist.<br /><br />Coming back to the evidence of common descent, I can concede why many regard the genetic similarity between chimps and humans as compelling. The fusion of chromosome 2 in humans is something I am aware of. However, my question is why should common descent be the only explanation for this as again, I see no reason why this can not be viewed in terms of common design. <br /><br />Also (and please correct me if I'm wrong in the science) the similarity only includes the small 2% of protein-coded genes and not the remaining 98% historically coined as 'Junk DNA' or 'non coding DNA' which is more 'species-specific'. Evolutionists would often claim this to be an evidence against design as why would there be large strings of non functional DNA if there was engineered design for life. <br /><br />However, the recent Encode project announced that most of our DNA once regarded as junk is actually useful. <br /><br />Now I am not claiming by any means that this is a smoking gun against evolution as it is robust and sophisticated enough to modify its claims while maintaining the premise of common descent. However, it does question the misleading statistic that we are genetically 98% similar to the chimpanzee when this does not account for non coding DNA. I may go so far as to claim that it is actually quite deceptive. <br /><br />Imrannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-39774505709679933852013-01-20T01:49:27.922-05:002013-01-20T01:49:27.922-05:00Imran,
First off, its really refreshing to have ...Imran, <br /><br />First off, its really refreshing to have a conversation about evolution and religion without either side resorting to name calling and questioning the others motives. So thank you!<br /><br />It is important to recognize that during the conference, Yasir Qadri stated that he was not going to argue against the scientific evidence and was only speaking as a theist. So his rejection of common descent was not because he thought that a different narrative could be put on the evidence, it was because he thought that since the Quran was explicit in stating for creation, therefore he as a muslim was not prepared to accept it.<br /><br />Regarding your comments, the layman definition of theory and the scientific term theory are two very different things (I explained that in an earlier thread). In terms of evolution, the evidence does point very strongly towards the concept of common descent, and makes the creationist argument weaker.<br /><br />To understand why, we'll have to get a little technical and understand the genetic evidence for common descent.<br /><br />The information carried by all life forms known to us is done so by structured DNA or chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24 pairs. You can think of chromosomes as pieces of shoe string. At the end of every shoe string is a piece of plastic which prevents the shoe string from fraying. The equivalent piece of plastic in the chromosome is called the telemore and is used to protect the chromosome during events like cell division. Sometimes a phenomenon called chromosomal fusion occurs, wherein two pairs of chromosomes fuse in a way that there are no harmful effects for the life form. Many healthy people carry fused chromosomes.<br /><br />Now the theory of evolution tells us that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. The discrepancy between the number of chromosomes between chimps and humans can only be explained by the theory if the common ancestor had 24 pairs which fused during evolution for humans but did not fuse for our cousins the chimps. If you compare chimp and human genomes, you will find that human chromosome 2 is the result of chromosomal fusion of two of the chimp chromosomes. Furthermore, the telomeres on human chromosome 2, instead of being at the ends, are now - due to fusion - also found in the middle, where it should not belong. This is extremely important evidence for common descent.<br /><br />Better explanations of this phenomenon can be found at the following links:<br />http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/07/19/the-mystery-of-the-missing-chromosome-with-a-special-guest-appearance-from-facebook-creationists/#.UPuNsKFwalo<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oweUN-GaN3M<br /><br />ps: I just saw the video Salman (thanks!) posted regarding the historical and current neurological understanding of the soul. It's worth going over.<br />Naveedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08576156589906730351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-8519195291750554052013-01-19T16:40:26.891-05:002013-01-19T16:40:26.891-05:00Naveed
So is evolution a theory in your view or i...Naveed<br /><br />So is evolution a theory in your view or is the idea of modification from common descent an indisputable fact?<br />If you take the latter position to include humans then undoubtedly this presents a serious problem in reconciling with the quran? <br /><br />Unlike other verses that can be interpreted metaphorically, the quran and authentic Hadith are explicit in the creation of Adam as explained by shaykh Yasir Qadhi which does not allow for an alternative or metaphorical meaning. <br /><br />Now, the example of the sun where some scholars claimed it was in orbit based on the quran is different. That particular verse "the sun proceeds" (36:38) is not interpreted as being in orbit any longer as the fact that the sun does not orbit can clearly be observed. So the erroneous interpretation is abandoned based on observable fact which is a principle of usul-tafsir. <br /><br />However, this condition can not be satisfied for macro evolution because of the millions of years required for this to occur. So essentially, it can't be witnessed. But as I have explained, I am not a scientist so please feel free to correct me if any of the above is incorrect. <br /><br />Richard Dawkins often cites an example in response to the above objection by stating that if you arrive at the site of a crime scene, the evidence is there to infer that a crime has taken place. You do not have to witness the crime to know that it happened.<br /><br />But is it not fair to claim that the interpretation of that evidence is subject to the point of view of the investigator? An atheist views the glory of life and see's the marvel of random modification with no design. A theist views the same and sees signs of god's design.<br /><br />So without rejecting the ample evidence I am sure you can provide in terms of genetics, comparative anatomy, palaeontology and so on, what prevents me from viewing all of this in terms of common design? <br /><br />Why must one be forced to interpret all of this within the prism of common descent? I see no reason for why it can't be viewed in terms of common design by an omnipotent god who is the supreme creator. It therefore follows that elements of his design will display similarities between different species of life.<br /><br />I am sure you can agree that we can all arrive at different conclusions from the same set of evidence.<br />Since I cited the example of a crime scene, I leave you to ponder and consider the following:<br />“evidence is a very tricky thing. It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different” <br />― Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes<br />Imrannoreply@blogger.com