[lapInsalm]

As in Hamza Andreas Tzortsis and Pervez Hoodbhoy.
Hamza says that Muslim world is suffering from a crisis and the crisis is not Islamization but the disease of liberal capitalism combined with the frame work of secularism.
And want to talk to Professor Pervez Hoodbhoy.
He even tries Urdu - aao yaar bethein - baat karein, Come dear friend - let us talk.
Apparently the talk has already taken place - itchy people call them debates. According to Hamza:

It has been a busy and exciting few days. Yesterday I gave a talk at UCI in Islamabad on the purpose of life. Straight after the talk we had to drive down to Lahore to participate in the debate on religion and rationality with Professor Hoodbhoy at LUMS. I presented the rational foundations for Islam while expressing empathy on valid concerns the Professor has written about concerning religion and science. However, the Professor's presentation lacked any substance, his content was full of logical fallacies and misrepresented my arguments. He did not breakdown any of my arguments and he continued his monologue even though I had addressed and clarified his contentions multiple times. Towards the end of the discussion he walked out of the lecture theatre, most probably due to the fact that he had no substance and was exposed for his irrational and fallacious thinking. Today I gave a talk at an Islamic university in Faisalabad presenting the need to engage and how to respond to key atheist/secular contentions. I also delivered a workshop at a mosque. The day ended with a private dinner with over 20 of the leading medical doctors in Faisalabad. I delivered the dinner speech and discussed the need for intellectual engagement, and what we can do to counter secular and atheist narratives emerging in the Muslim world, specifically Pakistan. Tomorrow is another busy day. I'll update you later.

Professor Hoodbhoy is has a leftist inclination. He has been mulling over the science versus faith issues for quite some time and had got the prestigious Kalinga Prize of UNESCO (given in India) for science popularization. He has written a book also in the context of science and religion as well as a few years ago he wrote a very popular article in the magazine Physics Today. His attitude towards these issues is sort of the majority view in the scientific circles and this interaction between Hamza and him will be sort of path breaking. A physicists had written a rejoinder to Professor Hoodbhoy after his Physics Today article but the present discussion has some potential to bring the issue to the fore.

As of writing the video of the talk and the transcript is not available. But some internal reports are scattered here and there. There is excitement of anticipation. Professor Hoodbhoy apparently kept trying to bring the debate to his pet grounds and brother Hamza did not allow that luxury and his assertion that Professor Hoodbhoy hates Islam or Islamic world really cracked him - he staged a walk out.

Internet commentators are adding their own perspective. Someone pointed out that Muslims consist either of Mullah ignorant about modern world or modern educated Muslims hating Islam. Some one else pointed out that most of the Muslims are in the middle of these demarcations. Another comment was that universities in Muslim world are producing western influenced class.

Source : AAA

[Olphander]

good to see someone owning mr hoodbhoy. may Allah give hidayat to him.

i wonder why people like mr hoodbhoy get these so called prestigious prizes all the time from all over the world.... i guess getting these prizes is the only ultimate achievement for them. the mega priority for their intellectualism. how pity...

[GEAntonio]

The influential American journal The Foreign Policy (this is the journal that published the Clash of Civilization article by Samuel Huntington) declared, in 2011, that Professor Pervez Hoodbhoy is number 85 in Most Influential Global Thinkers. The reason? According to FP:
Hoodbhoy has written, "Muslims need freedom from dogmatic beliefs and a culture that questions rather than obeys." But when Hamza Tzortsis asserts that :
Hoodhboy hated the Muslim world ... then he says that it is not true. Islam is all about complete submission. You do not want that. You want to question everything and then you think that people will believe that you do not hate Islam.

The reality is that in all probability he is hearing the counter view for the first time. Muslims have so much of inferiority complex that even the Physics PhDs amongst Muslims never gathered enough courage to tell liberals that there is a Muslim point of view also and it does not agree with their view.

[denyffishh]

brother Maripat this is the problem with the Western education system. Everything has to be looked critically and questioned. 'To listen and obey' or 'submit' is totally out of the question. Always something new has to said or written and this is progress. These intellectuals claim islamists are intolerant etc when in fact the most intolerant people are such people. They claim mullas hate people when in fact these very same people spend their time scorning at and looking down on religious people.

[Mr Andrews]

akhi.
What I find curious is that why so few of us are doing anything to take the things into the right direction.
Hamza Tzortsis came to Islam only nine years ago and he is already talking to PZMyers and Richard Dawkins. The debate with Professor Hoodbhoy too, I fear, was a demolition. So the question is why we have waited for so long?
Wassalam

[GlarlraTpople]

akhi.
What I find curious is that why so few of us are doing anything to take the things into the right direction.
Hamza Tzortsis came to Islam only nine years ago and he is already talking to PZMyers and Richard Dawkins. The debate with Professor Hoodbhoy too, I fear, was a demolition. So the question is why we have waited for so long?
Wassalam

I think because it hasn't been a serious issue in the Muslim world until recently. Although this confrontation between atheism and Christianity has been going on in the West for centuries, the same wasn't true in the Muslim world. Now, however, you have some half-educated Muslims going to Western-style educational institutions and coming away with these ideas, without ever really studying logic. That's the problem with most "intellectuals" these days- they have no idea what constitutes a logical argument. Logic is not even a mandatory subject anymore (the only thing that is taught is a brief overview of propositional logic, usually as part of math class). Is it any wonder the atheists have such an easy time swaying these "educated" people?

On the flip side, these atheists are none too familiar with Islam, so when confronted with it, they are unable to respond with actual arguments. Instead, they just parrot the same false notions of Islam that they inherited from their Crusader ancestors. It is baffling to them, because they have such an easy time poking fun at nonsensical Christian doctrines.

In the end, though, people like Dawkins and Hitchens- you can't argue with them because they will not be fair nor will they argue logically. Their "arguments" are full of ad hominem attacks, red herrings and straw men. You can't win an argument with a fool.

May Allah reward Hamzah for his good work. I hope he can perhaps get a book published someday, and put some major marketing effort behind it. If he can write a book, for example, where he takes apart all of Dawkins' arguments, then Dawkins will either have to respond with a book of his own, or admit defeat. Hamza already has a lot of good material to work with (although I think he is better off sticking with pure philosophy, and not bringing biology into it).

EDIT: This and related videos of John Lennox are very good. Although a Christian, he is an excellent orator and delivers some strong arguments. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY1uT...a6ALTxb3lwAKAA

[Navzrrqt]

I think because it hasn't been a serious issue in the Muslim world until recently. Although this confrontation between atheism and Christianity has been going on in the West for centuries, the same wasn't true in the Muslim world.

I personally look at the problem from the perspective of Muslim neglect of science. I feel that we are still doing that. It is not so difficult to take up the challenge posed by the west because Islam and science are not antagonistic at all. Even then we Muslims are not taking up the challenge in spite of that fact that there are enough of us there to do the needful. There are Muslim scientists in every field of science in India, Pakistan, the Europe, the US, the Gulf, Australia and other places. Whole world is booing at Islam and Muslims as if this is a group of ignorant folks. Even without military power Muslim point of view will be taken seriously, people will start taking it seriously, only if we start opening our mouths. We are not doing that.
I'll give you an example of a related problem. Maulana Raba'ey Hasani Nadawi Sahab (DB) said a few years back that Muslims should come into the field of Media (and business). We already had a Department of Mass Communication. By now its products are already making their presence felt. But do you know what they are doing? They are trying to teach the Muslims how to be modern and how backward is Muslim thinking. In short they are trying to teach the Mullas a lesson and condescending the Muslim masses. But this still leaves out the silent majority of scientists who are Muslims and have some modesty to accept that with dignity. These are the ones who got to open their mouth.

May Allah reward Hamzah for his good work. I hope he can perhaps get a book published someday, and put some major marketing effort behind it. If he can write a book, for example, where he takes apart all of Dawkins' arguments, then Dawkins will either have to respond with a book of his own, or admit defeat. Hamza already has a lot of good material to work with (although I think he is better off sticking with pure philosophy, and not bringing biology into it). His specialization is Psychology. And again if the biologists amongst us were doing our job of debunking Darwin and Dawkins then Hamza could focus on Psychology where enormous work has to be done because religion is taken as a disease in Freud brain washed Psychology community.
EDIT: This and related videos of John Lennox are very good. Although a Christian, he is an excellent orator and delivers some strong arguments. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY1uT...a6ALTxb3lwAKAA for the link. This is good one.

Coming back to the atheism debacle. Look how they are feeling:
Craig is sufficiently good at debating that atheists are now advising each other to stay away from him for fear of looking bad — e.g. here and here. This is because a person called Craig is using Kalam argument - I thought we we have something to do with that. Craig is using Kalam Cosmology argument to demolish the atheistic empire in the west.

PS: A Psychology person debunking the revolution game has the advantage that he does not have to fear the peer backlash. The current scientific establishment is completely atheist dominated and I can tell you that they do hit back severely in terms of career prospects and their strikes are not always in the open.

[CenICrerflind]

I personally look at the problem from the perspective of Muslim neglect of science. I feel that we are still doing that. It is not so difficult to take up the challenge posed by the west because Islam and science are not antagonistic at all. Even then we Muslims are not taking up the challenge in spite of that fact that there are enough of us there to do the needful. There are Muslim scientists in every field of science in India, Pakistan, the Europe, the US, the Gulf, Australia and other places. Whole world is booing at Islam and Muslims as if this is a group of ignorant folks. Even without military power Muslim point of view will be taken seriously, people will start taking it seriously, only if we start opening our mouths. We are not doing that.

A major factor is money. Muslim scientists need to have private funding from Muslims. Otherwise they will always be under pressure to conform to the prevailing (atheist) dogma in scientific circles. I only know one brave PhD professor personally (an endocrinologist) who openly questions evolution. He is mocked and derided all the time.

Unfortunately, Muslim societies do not encourage people going into academia and research. In their minds, studying 7-10 years only to do research and teach, and not earn much money, is not a smart thing to do. This is why you will find plenty of Muslim doctors and engineers, but not nearly as many biologists and theoretical physicists. But we need academics who can devote time to understanding and interpreting information theory, higher level math, probability theory, genomics, cosmology and philosophy, etc. So there needs to be a financial and societal incentive for that.

[SobiquYo]

aoa,

what a great thread. brother maripat what are your academic qualificatiosn may i ask?you can reply then delete the post if you wish for it to remain private.
i'm pursuing higher education in engineering and in sha Allah a PhD. i agree with what the brothers are talking about for academia are treated with respect and people listen to them.
i am thinking of writing a blog which takes secularism apart. i have material, and help in that matter would be great!

[Spalax]

Unfortunately, Muslim societies do not encourage people going into academia and research. In their minds, studying 7-10 years only to do research and teach, and not earn much money, is not a smart thing to do. This is why you will find plenty of Muslim doctors and engineers, but not nearly as many biologists and theoretical physicists. But we need academics who can devote time to understanding and interpreting information theory, higher level math, probability theory, genomics, cosmology and philosophy, etc. So there needs to be a financial and societal incentive for that.

aoa,

alhamdulillah there is financial and social incentive for that in pakistan. very stable jobs alhamdulillah though few opportunities for research as there are lack of funds. many people are turning towards this because it is a very respectful employment

[Solo3uc4]

aoa,

what a great thread. brother maripat what are your academic qualificatiosn may i ask?you can reply then delete the post if you wish for it to remain private.
i'm pursuing higher education in engineering and in sha Allah a PhD. i agree with what the brothers are talking about for academia are treated with respect and people listen to them.
i am thinking of writing a blog which takes secularism apart. i have material, and help in that matter would be great!

My good wished for your doctoral work.
And the blog idea is good one. Let us talk about it here.
Wassalam

[TorryJens]

And the blog idea is good one. Let us talk about it here.
Wassalam

aoa,

ofcourse. i dont mean to divert this thread so yeah

[Pynctyncroast]

I think because it hasn't been a serious issue in the Muslim world until recently. Although this confrontation between atheism and Christianity has been going on in the West for centuries, the same wasn't true in the Muslim world. Now, however, you have some half-educated Muslims going to Western-style educational institutions and coming away with these ideas, without ever really studying logic. That's the problem with most "intellectuals" these days- they have no idea what constitutes a logical argument. Logic is not even a mandatory subject anymore (the only thing that is taught is a brief overview of propositional logic, usually as part of math class). Is it any wonder the atheists have such an easy time swaying these "educated" people?

On the flip side, these atheists are none too familiar with Islam, so when confronted with it, they are unable to respond with actual arguments. Instead, they just parrot the same false notions of Islam that they inherited from their Crusader ancestors. It is baffling to them, because they have such an easy time poking fun at nonsensical Christian doctrines.

In the end, though, people like Dawkins and Hitchens- you can't argue with them because they will not be fair nor will they argue logically. Their "arguments" are full of ad hominem attacks, red herrings and straw men. You can't win an argument with a fool.

May Allah reward Hamzah for his good work. I hope he can perhaps get a book published someday, and put some major marketing effort behind it. If he can write a book, for example, where he takes apart all of Dawkins' arguments, then Dawkins will either have to respond with a book of his own, or admit defeat. Hamza already has a lot of good material to work with (although I think he is better off sticking with pure philosophy, and not bringing biology into it).

EDIT: This and related videos of John Lennox are very good. Although a Christian, he is an excellent orator and delivers some strong arguments. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY1uT...a6ALTxb3lwAKAA

This post is spot on, 100% correct. None of these people study logic, they are adverse to it otherwise they'd have to submit and their arguments are full of flaws.

Hamza did write a book and contributed to another (I think) but tbh, books like these won't ever get picked up by mainstream stores. He hasn't written one specifically regarding dawkins though, although he has refuted him in articles found on his website. Dawkins would never admit defeat or even try and rebut a book (there are some by other theists out there, such as the Dawkins Delusion which he has never mentioned as far as I'm aware) for the same reason he avoids debates; he says he doesn't want to give theists a platform

[uaodnabnjz]

Hamza did write a book and contributed to another (I think) but tbh, books like these won't ever get picked up by mainstream stores.

You are absolutely on the dot.
But the things should start changing when these engagements become little bit more common.
In the embryology case PZMyers was forced to take notice and Insha Allah same will happen in other matters.
Wassalam

[craditc]

The debate video has been released here.
Even before that there was a rejoinder here.
After the debate people are making their own conclusions. It is difficult to gauge from the comments as to who won the argument. Probably neither he nor he. One already gets the feeling that Hamzah T's approach does not present a shining example of Islamic conduct. It is not sufficient to through lots of philosophical terminology in an attempt to overwhelm your interlocutor - the audience is certainly overwhelmed if not the opponent. Consequently some people became sympathetic to Professor Hoodbhoy who were initially on Hamzah's side.

But it also perceive a thrust in the direction where arguments of of the type presented by Professor Hoodbhuy will not be the defining prepositions of scientific profile of Islam and Muslims in modern times.

[DariushPetresku]

I think the debate lost its direction right in the start and the focus was lost. Brother Hamza treated the guy like an atheist and he seemed Hoodbhoy seemed uninterested in defending the atheistic perspective. The issues on which Br Hamza should have pressed him would be the limitations of science and the concept of properly basic beliefs. The bubble of evidentialism of Mr Hoodbhoy would have blasted if he were asked some simple questions.

On the empiricist point of view , the out world which the sciences inquire through our empirical senses breaks down to elector-chemical waves. What a person calls the outer world is infact naming a process incitement of rods and cones in the retina of the eyes which result in the origination of an elector-chemical wave (no different from the normal electric current but with a low magnitude ) and this ECV travels to the optic center of the brain through the optic nerve and thats it.If asked , it would have been more scientific for Mr Hoodbhoy to claim that the room was inside him and he was not inside the room. There is no scientific evidence for any existence in the outer world but still no one questions its existence. Similarly there is no scientific proof to assert that there are other minds in this world. There is no evidence for the reality of the past as well. It will be scientifically impossible to refute the person who claims that the present world was created some 10 seconds back including our memory. No matter how radical this claim may sound but on such reductionist scientific perspective of proof and evidence , its impossible to prove the past.

However , one sees that these "skeptics" almost never get skeptic about these issues and they digest these issues like the rest of us on pure belief. This is known as the "concept of properly basic belief" and same is true for God. Belief in God is a part of the properly basic belief so Hoodbhoy sahib was doing "special pleading" all the way in this discussion when he was talking about the necessity of proof and evidence.

The present Newtonian model of science is based on observation , prediction and experimentation (though these foundations are under threat these days due to the approach of physicists like Brian green and Jimmy gates etc towards the string theory .The famous theoretical physicist Lee Smolin has recently published a book "The trouble with physics" which shall be a good read on this issue) However the very notion which is the starting point of scientific method that is "1 Observe some part of the universe 2. Make some predictions about your observations 3. Run experiments over the predictions 4. Those which qualify , take them as scientific facts" can not be proved scientifically. How on earth can a person prove in a lab that this particular method of inquiry is "science" . This base of science is belief as it can not be verified by the very same scientific rules. Along with these lines , another question to ponder for Hoodbhoy will be that what scientific or experiment based evidence is there to conclude that only this method of inquiry is the "correct" method? I am sure there is none.

What about Maths then? Mathematics happen to be all internal and has absolutely nothing to do with laboratory. Where do the numbers exists and what experiment was carried out to conclude 2+2=4? Its all this internal (or apriori) of maths which corresponds so well to the natural world though the numbers have never traveled in the natural world. Kurt Godel had the right words for it. He said " What we call nature is not nature but an aspect of nature exposed to our method of questioning".

[SkapySisy]

I think the debate lost its direction right in the start and the focus was lost. Brother Hamza treated the guy like an atheist and he seemed Hoodbhoy seemed uninterested in defending the atheistic perspective. The issues on which Br Hamza should have pressed him would be the limitations of science and the concept of properly basic beliefs. The bubble of evidentialism of Mr Hoodbhoy would have blasted if he were asked some simple questions.

On the empiricist point of view , the out world which the sciences inquire through our empirical senses breaks down to elector-chemical waves. What a person calls the outer world is infact naming a process incitement of rods and cones in the retina of the eyes which result in the origination of an elector-chemical wave (no different from the normal electric current but with a low magnitude ) and this ECV travels to the optic center of the brain through the optic nerve and thats it.If asked , it would have been more scientific for Mr Hoodbhoy to claim that the room was inside him and he was not inside the room. There is no scientific evidence for any existence in the outer world but still no one questions its existence. Similarly there is no scientific proof to assert that there are other minds in this world. There is no evidence for the reality of the past as well. It will be scientifically impossible to refute the person who claims that the present world was created some 10 seconds back including our memory. No matter how radical this claim may sound but on such reductionist scientific perspective of proof and evidence , its impossible to prove the past.

However , one sees that these "skeptics" almost never get skeptic about these issues and they digest these issues like the rest of us on pure belief. This is known as the "concept of properly basic belief" and same is true for God. Belief in God is a part of the properly basic belief so Hoodbhoy sahib was doing "special pleading" all the way in this discussion when he was talking about the necessity of proof and evidence.

The present Newtonian model of science is based on observation , prediction and experimentation (though these foundations are under threat these days due to the approach of physicists like Brian green and Jimmy gates etc towards the string theory .The famous theoretical physicist Lee Smolin has recently published a book "The trouble with physics" which shall be a good read on this issue) However the very notion which is the starting point of scientific method that is "1 Observe some part of the universe 2. Make some predictions about your observations 3. Run experiments over the predictions 4. Those which qualify , take them as scientific facts" can not be proved scientifically. How on earth can a person prove in a lab that this particular method of inquiry is "science" . This base of science is belief as it can not be verified by the very same scientific rules. Along with these lines , another question to ponder for Hoodbhoy will be that what scientific or experiment based evidence is there to conclude that only this method of inquiry is the "correct" method? I am sure there is none.

What about Maths then? Mathematics happen to be all internal and has absolutely nothing to do with laboratory. Where do the numbers exists and what experiment was carried out to conclude 2+2=4? Its all this internal (or apriori) of maths which corresponds so well to the natural world though the numbers have never traveled in the natural world. Kurt Godel had the right words for it. He said " What we call nature is not nature but an aspect of nature exposed to our method of questioning".

aoa,

for the love of God start writing a blog.and make sure it has nothing to do with tasawwuf.

regards,
sunniforum bloggers

a good place to start writing is:

http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/page/submit-your-blog/

(ignore the pictures)

or whatever suits you. the secular juggernaut has to be tackled with people like you.i have already stepped in with a rather controversial blog of my own which requires me to be anonymous but i am thinking of taking it directly to tribune. fight them at their own stronghold. i would appreciate if you could find time to do the same.

Jazak Allah

[IronpumpedLady]

aoa,

for the love of God start writing a blog.and make sure it has nothing to do with tasawwuf.

regards,
sunniforum bloggers

a good place to start writing is:

http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/page/submit-your-blog/

(ignore the pictures)

or whatever suits you. the secular juggernaut has to be tackled with people like you.i have already stepped in with a rather controversial blog of my own which requires me to be anonymous but i am thinking of taking it directly to tribune. fight them at their own stronghold. i would appreciate if you could find time to do the same.

Jazak Allah

I second this advice.

I think, it is time now that our focus be shifted towards engaging in discussion with secular forces and taking their onslaught head-on. There is certainly no benefit in wasting our energy on issues that only cause division and develop hatred amongst Muslims.

Assalaam'aaleykum!

[Imampaictjg]

The debate video has been released here.
Even before that there was a rejoinder here.
After the debate people are making their own conclusions. It is difficult to gauge from the comments as to who won the argument. Probably neither he nor he. One already gets the feeling that Hamzah T's approach does not present a shining example of Islamic conduct. It is not sufficient to through lots of philosophical terminology in an attempt to overwhelm your interlocutor - the audience is certainly overwhelmed if not the opponent. Consequently some people became sympathetic to Professor Hoodbhoy who were initially on Hamzah's side.

But it also perceive a thrust in the direction where arguments of of the type presented by Professor Hoodbhuy will not be the defining prepositions of scientific profile of Islam and Muslims in modern times.

In general what do you make of Br. hamza and his arguments put forward

[cialesxtr]

aoa,

for the love of God start writing a blog.and make sure it has nothing to do with tasawwuf.

regards,
sunniforum bloggers

a good place to start writing is:

http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/page/submit-your-blog/

(ignore the pictures)

or whatever suits you. the secular juggernaut has to be tackled with people like you.i have already stepped in with a rather controversial blog of my own which requires me to be anonymous but i am thinking of taking it directly to tribune. fight them at their own stronghold. i would appreciate if you could find time to do the same.

Jazak Allah

Walaikum as sallam wr wb brother. How are you doing brother? I have started my blog after reading Pir-o-Murshid Maripat's thread but i have not worked on it much due to the lack of time and i have not advertised it as well due to this factor. I shall be adding new content to it as i get some time. It can be read here. http://dratifyousafzai.blogspot.com/

As far as Sufis are concerned , they are my best friends. They go with me wherever i go.(kidding)