Thursday, July 26, 2012
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Al-Iftitah - An Ocean of Lights
Al-Iftitah - An Ocean of Lights
Shaykh Dr Mohammad Ali Shomali
Part 1 of 4 - Excerpts from the commentary of Dua al-Iftitah
Dua al-Iftitah is a well-known supplication and is generally recited during each night of the month of Ramadan. It is called 'Dua al-Iftitah' because it begins with:
اَللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي افْتَتِحُ ٱلثَّنَاءَ بِحَمْدِكَ
Thus we say that we begin or open praising Allah (swt) by remembering all the great qualities that He (swt) possesses and all the many favours that He (swt) has bestowed upon us.
There are several points that have been emphasized in this du'a, the first and foremost of which is praise of Allah (swt). Praising God the Almighty is perhaps the most important thing mentioned in this du'a. Obviously praising Allah (swt) is not the same as thanking Him (swt). There is a difference between hamd (praising) and shukr (thanksgiving). Praising Allah (swt) requires remembering and mentioning the good qualities that He (swt) possesses and all the good things that He (swt) has done for us, whether they relate to oneself personally or not. However, thanksgiving is about those things that in a way or another actually relate to oneself.
For example, an artist may produce a beautiful work of art and then someone who sees this work of art may praise the artist but would not thank the artist, unless the work had been produced specifically for this person or for someone who relates to this person. Therefore, in general, when Allah (swt) does something good for other people, or even other creatures such as animals, we can praise Him (swt) for this. Indeed the performance of an action by Him (swt) is not even necessary in order to praise Him (swt) as we can praise Him (swt) simply for the qualities He (swt) possesses.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Friday, July 20, 2012
Don't forget the needy right in front of you!!!!
Login with Facebook to see what your friends are reading- i
React
Follow
For faithful Muslims in Los Angeles, Ramadan is in exercise in empathy for the more than 2 billion people in the world who live on less than $2 a day. It's also a lesson in gratitude.
Abstaining from food and water from the break of dawn until sunset gives those of us living in the world's most obese country a figurative taste of extreme poverty. In fact, back in 2008, when Rory Caroll broke the story to the world about mud cakes -- yes, cakes of dried dirt mixed with sugared water -- becoming a staple food in Haiti because of soaring global food costs, I counted my blessings. Having fasted every Ramadan since fourth grade, I was reminded of not just the hunger but the dizziness, headaches and fatigue that resulted from 15 or so hours of depriving my body of nutrition. The idea that this is a perpetual reality for people in Haiti in particular leaves me in sheer awe of how lucky I am. My fears and insecurities over one mundane thing or another diminish with the knowledge that I don't have to eat mud to survive.
Last summer when the East African drought, which led to the loss of tens of thousands Somali lives, coincided with Ramadan, the entire Muslim community rallied around aid efforts. Muslim organizations like Helping Hand for Relief and Development and Islamic Relief launched dynamic fundraising campaigns, imams dedicated Friday sermons to raising awareness of the issue, and youth groups held basketball tournaments and bake sales benefitting Somali relief.
Last July when our Center offered the pulpit to an international Muslim relief organization to make an urgent appeal for funds for the needy of Africa, a woman interested in learning more about aiding the poor approached me. As a staff member of the Islamic Center of Southern California, I can often be found in the lobby after prayers interacting with congregants and appealing for their support around one cause or another. When she approached me, I assumed she was interested in learning more about how to help needy in developing countries.
"I heard the announcement about helping needy people," she said. I launched into an appeal about how much a small contribution can accomplish; x amount can subsidize the feeding of a child, y amount can nourish an entire family for a week...
She listened until I had finished my impromptu sermon before replying. "I understand this, sister, but my two daughters and I are homeless and I want to know how we can get help." The irony was that our community was looking the other way with regards to the needy in our backyard.
I have seen this woman almost every Friday since then. Sometimes I check in on her to see how she's doing; had she called the emergency social service hotline whose number I gave her last week, had she met with the Zakat (alms) Committee at the mosque for charitable assistance, had she still been sleeping in the park at nights. Her response is always that she had recently received some piecemeal help, a grocery coupon here and emergency boarding there.
Her situation is as tragic as any story: partially caused by her inability to change her condition and partially due to simple bad luck. Confounding this is the impact of state budget cuts toward programs providing shelter, housing and services to homeless in Los Angeles City and County.
Since last July, I have met other Muslims who silently suffer with poverty and homelessness in our community -- people who have often gone completely unnoticed by those of us who pray alongside them. As Ramadan 2012 approaches, I am thinking about what is needed from me, the American Muslims of Southern California and society at large to offer more than mere bandages to gushing wounds, but transformative change to the lives of the those with whom we pray. How can this Ramadan be more than a symbolic exercise in sympathy? How can we be more than actors playing the part of the hungry?
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Feeding the Fasting
| ||||
| ||||
Start your Shahr Ramadan guilt free
From: http://www.ezsoftech.com/ramadan/ramadhan.asp
| ||
 | ||
| ||
| ||
|
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Simple one-month fitness plan
Here is a one-month fitness plan that could easily be done in the month of Ramadan with great results. No equipment needed except perhaps shoes.
http://www.gymjunkies.com/home-workout-for-beginner/
http://www.gymjunkies.com/home-workout-for-beginner/
Monday, July 9, 2012
2012 planner
I came across a 2012 planner that is a free pdf download. It is Sunni but easily customizable for Shia use or however you want to use it.
Here we go!
Here we go!
Sunday, July 8, 2012
How to benefit from Ramadhan even when you are not fasting
Contributed by sister Jennah J'amy McCracken
REMEMBER! Ramadhan is not primarily about abstaining from food and water nor is it about what you get to eat in the evenings. The root for the word siyam/sawm is “sama” - it means to restrain. You are teaching yourself restraint in the month of Ramadhan, that is delayed gratification and dilberately turning away from sin so that your TAWQA will improve and take you closer to Allah SWT.
“… that you may become al-muttaqoon (the pious).” [al-Baqarah 2:183]
If you cannot physically fast this does not mean that you lose the benefit of Ramadhan! there are many other things you can do.
1.) On the Eve of Ramadhan you can still make the niyyat to observe Ramadhan and perform the accompanying du’a/amal.
2.) First of all, eat and drink only what is required of you. That means smaller portions without harming your condition which is preventing you from fasting. Delay your food and water if it is safe for you.
3.) Do not eat pleasurable things during the fasting portion of the day - no teas, coffee, smoking, cookies, candies, etc. Eat a very small and very simple meal - only what your body requires.
All the other behaviours apply:
4.) Fasting of the tongue. Do not speak haraam: no lying, backbiting, cheating, obscenity conceal your anger or irritations. do not lose your emotions!
5.) Fasting of the ears - Do not listen to lying, backbiting, obscenity, or other forms of spiritual trash. Listen to Qur’an, Du’a, Dhikr, lectures, listen to your loved ones and the speech of other believers.
6.) Fasting of the eyes - do not look at haraam things (TV, people poorly dressed (summertime!), and fix your eyes on the most halaal (Qur’an, books, cooking, the faces of other believers)
7.) Fasting of the privates - refrain from sexual activities (and even thoughts as much as possible).
8.) Keep focused on the Dhikr of Allah by learning something to improve your Deen. Learn the Arabic alphabet, read the Qur’an daily, memorize a new surah, recite du’a.
9.) Breaking the fast of others by offering food at iftar is HIGHLY recommended and earns you a lot of reward.
10.) Give lots of Sadaqa. Clean out your clothes of what you are not using and donate it to the needy with the INTENTION to please Allah. You can do the same with your food pantry, and other areas of your life. Ask Allah to bestow His Mercy/Generosity on you for being merciful/generous with others.
11.) Feed the poor.
12.) Observe the nights of Qadr
13.) Pray the night prayers every night (Salaatul Layl)
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Eid brings a sense of loss
Posted from Spirit 21.
Anticipating the first coffee of Eid, and the pleasure and sadness it brings
This is my weekly newspaper column at The National, in anticipation of Eid this week.
Eid celebrations will be taking place around the Muslim world this week. It’s a time, rightly or wrongly, of indulgence and pleasure: fine clothes, good food, high-fat, high-carbohydrate sweets. It’s a day when the spiritual focus of the previous 30 days is mostly forgotten, even though Eid is supposed to be a celebration of spiritual renewal, a cleansing of sins and of a fresh start.
Dear cappuccino, let me count the ways I love you
I confess that although I aim to uphold this sacred meaning of Eid, I’m not immune to engaging once more in the pursuit of pleasure in the daytime. The first exciting thing about the day of Eid for me is my morning cup of coffee. Its consumption is a celebratory ritual. My husband and I will usually go to our favourite cafe and breathlessly order a cappuccino, excited at its return to us after 30 days of daytime exile.
The cappuccino – above other kinds of coffee – offers us the opportunity for a beautifully decorated reintroduction to the flavourful morning shot of caffeine. The froth is elegantly smoothed over, like the icing on a birthday cake, and freshly ground cocoa is sprinkled on it in the shape of a pretty heart or coffee bean.
We normally stare at the coffee, then at each other, then back at the coffee. After a month of absence, our hearts have grown fonder, and we are enraptured by the return of the beloved. Lifting the coffee cup to my lips after a month of daytime separation, I experience the reunion of lost lovers.
Even now as I write this in anticipation of Eid morning, I feel mixed emotions about my longing for that first sip of coffee. The shiver of delight as the first warm drops slide down my throat. The disappointment in myself that, having given up coffee for a month, I should so easily return to my (mild) addiction. The sadness at the loss of Ramadan’s intense spirituality.
What my cappuccino also reminds me of is the distinction that each human being faces between the pursuit of contentment and the pursuit of pleasure. These are clearly different things, although at times we may confuse them. Pleasures need not be shameful or sinful. My coffee is neither, and gives me intense pleasure, and pleasure is rightly a part of the human experience. But as the coffee warms my mouth, I can’t help but recall the preceding month of Ramadan where it was the pursuit of contentment that was paramount.
Contentment is a funny beast. Talking of its pursuit is perverse – you cannot chase it, rather it must come to you. Sometimes you don’t know you were contented till the moment has passed. That is the essence of Ramadan. The emptiness of the belly, the lightheadedness of the body, when first experienced, feel like physical torture. But slowly – and often in hindsight – we learn to identify that the absence of pleasure has created a space and a stillness that allows contentment to settle, despite its elusiveness.
Rumi says: “There is an unseen sweetness in the stomach’s emptiness. We are lutes. When the soundbox is filled, no music can come forth. When the brain and the belly burn from fasting, every moment a new song rises out of the fire.”
Eid is a day of transition where we learn to reintroduce the pursuit of pleasure into our daylight hours. Will I still be able to hold on to the slippery creature that is contentment? I’ll let you know after I’ve enjoyed my first cup of coffee.
Anticipating the first coffee of Eid, and the pleasure and sadness it brings
This is my weekly newspaper column at The National, in anticipation of Eid this week.
Eid celebrations will be taking place around the Muslim world this week. It’s a time, rightly or wrongly, of indulgence and pleasure: fine clothes, good food, high-fat, high-carbohydrate sweets. It’s a day when the spiritual focus of the previous 30 days is mostly forgotten, even though Eid is supposed to be a celebration of spiritual renewal, a cleansing of sins and of a fresh start.
Dear cappuccino, let me count the ways I love you
I confess that although I aim to uphold this sacred meaning of Eid, I’m not immune to engaging once more in the pursuit of pleasure in the daytime. The first exciting thing about the day of Eid for me is my morning cup of coffee. Its consumption is a celebratory ritual. My husband and I will usually go to our favourite cafe and breathlessly order a cappuccino, excited at its return to us after 30 days of daytime exile.
The cappuccino – above other kinds of coffee – offers us the opportunity for a beautifully decorated reintroduction to the flavourful morning shot of caffeine. The froth is elegantly smoothed over, like the icing on a birthday cake, and freshly ground cocoa is sprinkled on it in the shape of a pretty heart or coffee bean.
We normally stare at the coffee, then at each other, then back at the coffee. After a month of absence, our hearts have grown fonder, and we are enraptured by the return of the beloved. Lifting the coffee cup to my lips after a month of daytime separation, I experience the reunion of lost lovers.
Even now as I write this in anticipation of Eid morning, I feel mixed emotions about my longing for that first sip of coffee. The shiver of delight as the first warm drops slide down my throat. The disappointment in myself that, having given up coffee for a month, I should so easily return to my (mild) addiction. The sadness at the loss of Ramadan’s intense spirituality.
What my cappuccino also reminds me of is the distinction that each human being faces between the pursuit of contentment and the pursuit of pleasure. These are clearly different things, although at times we may confuse them. Pleasures need not be shameful or sinful. My coffee is neither, and gives me intense pleasure, and pleasure is rightly a part of the human experience. But as the coffee warms my mouth, I can’t help but recall the preceding month of Ramadan where it was the pursuit of contentment that was paramount.
Contentment is a funny beast. Talking of its pursuit is perverse – you cannot chase it, rather it must come to you. Sometimes you don’t know you were contented till the moment has passed. That is the essence of Ramadan. The emptiness of the belly, the lightheadedness of the body, when first experienced, feel like physical torture. But slowly – and often in hindsight – we learn to identify that the absence of pleasure has created a space and a stillness that allows contentment to settle, despite its elusiveness.
Rumi says: “There is an unseen sweetness in the stomach’s emptiness. We are lutes. When the soundbox is filled, no music can come forth. When the brain and the belly burn from fasting, every moment a new song rises out of the fire.”
Eid is a day of transition where we learn to reintroduce the pursuit of pleasure into our daylight hours. Will I still be able to hold on to the slippery creature that is contentment? I’ll let you know after I’ve enjoyed my first cup of coffee.
The Nature of Knowing God
Science is a human exercise in making sense of that which exists through the use of reasoning and gathering evidence. The scientific process is generally agreed to be one of positing of a conjecture, gathering and analyzing evidence to test the conjecture, and then drawing a conclusion about the conjecture based upon that evidence. The nature of conclusion that can be drawn from this process has some limitations. Some limitations arise from the methods of gathering evidence. For example, if the evidence is gathered from a study on 100 people, there are limitations on how far any conclusions can be said to apply to other individuals outside those 100 people in the study. Yet, since testing every person is impossible and ridiculous, guidelines are developed from probability theory to make a prediction about how well the study results might apply to other individuals, and decisions are made based on that prediction. This prediction in reality is one that is rarely if ever testable - we do not have means to know if the prediction is right or wrong, but we must act on it anyway. Limitations arise due to the psychology of the scientific process as well - even scientists, trying to be objective, are more likely to report, publish and be swayed by evidence that conforms to their existing beliefs.
Limitations also arise due to the nature of evidence itself. Consider the example of planetary motion. Most people may laugh today at the idea that the Sun moves around the Earth instead of vice versa. Yet, it is not such an unreasonable idea given the evidence that most people understand and have access to even today let alone in the past. When a human looks to the sky, it certainly appears as if the Sun is rising in the East and setting in the West and thus moving around the Earth. And, if a person lives his life under such a belief, his quality of life or ability to function and thrive are unlikely to be affected. Yet today's world would not be as it is if we as a society still held such a belief. A person might think that the Sun's motion around the Earth is a "fact" because it seems so obviously true given the evidence. In reality, it is not a fact, but is instead a conception or explanation that humans constructed in order to make sense of that of which exists. At some point, people made some observations that are at dissonance with this "fact". Eventually, as more observations were made and more evidence was gathered, the preponderance of evidence no longer seemed to support the conception that the Sun moves around the Earth and so most people changed their conception to a new idea that does seem to be in accord with the evidence - the Earth revolves around the Sun. Yet, this construct is not conclusively proven "fact", either. That is, it is impossible to absolutely and completely be certain that there might not be some other explanation for what is observed or that some evidence in the future might not come to light that would again lead to a further revision of our conception of planetary motion. Even interplanetary travel and imaging is not 100% proof of our conception. One might say that it is extremely powerful evidence against the former conception, and the current conception is in accord with the evidence much better, but we do not know for sure that future evidence might not modify our conceptions even further.
Actually, we rather hope that there will be further revisions to our conceptions, because increased and refined sense-making of what exists tends to have benefits. As we learn more, we are able to do things such as send craft to other planets, treat diseases, and communicate with each other across vast distances nearly instantaneously. Science provides models, and models are very useful even if they might not ever be 100% correct, or even if we can never truly know just how correct they are. We do not prove things in science, per se. We make a decision to believe or adopt a certain model to explain things and operate by, given a preponderance of evidence one way or another.
Even outside of the realm of formal science, people constantly engage in the act of sense-making in order to function. If we see a shadow, we naturally seek an explanation for the shadow. Barring an "obvious" or "natural" explanation, we tend to make up explanations, such as an unseen person, or even a creature made of shadow, or a ghost. Once we adopt such a conception, whenever we see a similar shadow, we interpret it as evidence in support of what we believe, even if it might not really be evidence in favor. The shadow is just continuing to be whatever it is, but we are interpreting it as evidence in support of what we believe or have decided it is. This psychology extends well beyond the physical realm and plays into everything we do, such as politics. Once someone develops a political belief, such as "Obama is a good leader", he or she will interpret events as supporting that conception the vast majority of the time, while someone else with the belief "the Tea Party is right" will interpret the very same evidence in favor of his own belief. It will take extraordinary evidence to cause someone to change his established conception, and in some cases no matter the strength of evidence, he will not change. This kind of sense-making, although sometimes faulty, is key to our survival, because it allows us to make decisions such as avoiding something that sounds like the rattle of a rattlesnake even though we haven't actually seen the snake.
A skeptic is someone who demands a higher threshold of evidence than most people in order to firmly adopt a conception. A skeptic will look for alternative explanations for events, especially in cases when a "natural" explanation does not seem to be at hand. Just exactly what is "natural" and what isn't, however, is in itself a construct that is determined by many factors such as education, culture, history, personality, and more. Generally speaking, it is wise to be a skeptic and to demand a high threshold of evidence. This critical thinking improves the societal process of sense-making and can prevent victimization from intentional deception or misguidance. For example, skepticism and the scientific process has enabled us to learn that what people may be inclined to interpret as a paranormal ability for fortune-telling can be accomplished through skillful employment of flattery, double-headed statements, vagueness, interpreting body language and facial expressions, redirection, misdirection, and so on. Even someone who genuinely believes in his own ability to tell fortunes may subconsciously employ these techniques. Further, we have learned that so far, no tested example of fortune-telling could be shown to not be explainable by these means. Similarly, other paranormal phenomena such as out-of-body experiences, telekinesis, talking to the dead or spirits, seeing ghosts, hypnotism or mind control, and prophecy can be shown to have "natural" explanations, and no examples that could not be explained "naturally" have come to light in tested conditions. (If you have interest in this area, you might enjoy reading Paranormality by the famous British skeptic Richard Wiseman.)
Therefore, it seems perfectly reasonable to reject these phenomena as paranormal, but it must also be understood that science has no means of proving that every single instance of any of these phenomena can be explained "naturally". That is, just because 1000 instances of some type of event can be explained a certain way, one cannot know absolutely that the 1001st instance will be the same. However, we call it "likely" that the 1001st instance will be like the others and "reasonable" to adopt a construct or belief and behavior in accordance with the 1000 known instances.
As we have seen so far, all of our constructs, even those we typically consider "facts", are really things that we have simply decided to believe, usually based on interpretation of evidence of some kind. No construct or belief is proven or disproven by science or any other means, but its likeliness can in some cases be gauged and we are often comfortable saying evidence is so convincing as to enable us to reject certain ideas with a sense of "certainty". All of these constructs we develop constitute one kind of knowing. But, many people claim that there is another type of knowing, one that might be compared to one of recognition rather than one of learning. This second type of knowing, if it exists, is not so easily tested. This cognizance or recognition knowledge is cited in matters of religion such as the existence of God or the soul. Religious texts or scholars may say that people cognize God. But if one wants to test the existence of God or soul or life after death, no one has come up with a way to do so.
What we can do is test what people claim is evidence of any of these. If someone claims that an Out of Body Experience (OBE) is evidence of the soul, we can scientifically investigate OBEs to search for a "natural" explanation for them. And, we should not be surprised to find a "natural" explanation if we have the appropriate tools, conditions, and means to carry out appropriate tests. But, whatever results we get tell us nothing about the soul, but only about OBEs. If OBEs have a natural explanation, this does not prove or disprove the existence of the soul. And if OBEs do not have a natural explanation, this also does not prove or disprove the existence of the soul. Neither result provides any evidence either way about the soul, but may only serve to advise people that the phenomenon of OBEs does not prove the existence of soul (which could have been concluded without conducting the studies anyway.) But we must also say that the fact that OBEs may be naturally explained does not even prove that OBEs have nothing to do with the soul, either.
Muslims believe, according to the Qur'an, that God creates through His "wish" (mashiah). Some things or events are created directly, in which case the Qur'an uses first person singular "I" in describing the Conductor of the action. But generally, things or events are created through means or causes, and the Qur'an uses the plural "We" to indicate the Conductor. Thus, we expect what we observe in our existence to have explanations, to make sense, and to have natural causes, because that is the nature of their creation or existence. So, a Muslim should believe as skeptics do, that "paranormal" phenomena most likely have natural causes that we can gather evidence about and learn from and that can aid in our sense-making of the existence. We should not expect "paranormal" phenomena to prove the existence of things that fall into the realm of recognition knowledge rather than testable knowledge. Yet, the Qur'an is made of and speaks often of a large variety of ayahs, or signs, of things that fall into the recognition category. These signs aid in recognition and some people may interpret some of them as "evidence", but as we have already seen, science cannot speak to this one way or the other.
This is indeed a discomfiting situation for the particularly hard core skeptic, because his high standard of evidence that he prefers to operate by and which usually serves him exceedingly well is not functional or usable for decision making for recognition knowledge, if it is exists. Many atheists reject God and whatever else must be cognized rather than learned because they decide that if is untestable it cannot exist, or they mistakenly believe that tests involving "paranormal" phenomena disprove God if the results suggest "natural" explanations.
In conclusion, critical thinking and reasoning are essential tools of sense-making that advance society. The scientific process develops our understanding and level of functioning in this existence. However, not all types of questions can satisfactorily be answered through this method, even though many wish it were so. Every thing we think we "know" is really a decision to adopt a certain construct or belief. In every day life, people routinely adopt some constructs as "true" even though they are improbable in light of evidence, but skeptics tend to demand higher probability for certain constructs. In the case of the learning type of knowledge, scientific reasoning helps us choose useful constructs. In the case of recognition knowledge, ayahs or signs can guide what we believe but scientific process is of little use. If you believe in God, you know Him through recognition.
Limitations also arise due to the nature of evidence itself. Consider the example of planetary motion. Most people may laugh today at the idea that the Sun moves around the Earth instead of vice versa. Yet, it is not such an unreasonable idea given the evidence that most people understand and have access to even today let alone in the past. When a human looks to the sky, it certainly appears as if the Sun is rising in the East and setting in the West and thus moving around the Earth. And, if a person lives his life under such a belief, his quality of life or ability to function and thrive are unlikely to be affected. Yet today's world would not be as it is if we as a society still held such a belief. A person might think that the Sun's motion around the Earth is a "fact" because it seems so obviously true given the evidence. In reality, it is not a fact, but is instead a conception or explanation that humans constructed in order to make sense of that of which exists. At some point, people made some observations that are at dissonance with this "fact". Eventually, as more observations were made and more evidence was gathered, the preponderance of evidence no longer seemed to support the conception that the Sun moves around the Earth and so most people changed their conception to a new idea that does seem to be in accord with the evidence - the Earth revolves around the Sun. Yet, this construct is not conclusively proven "fact", either. That is, it is impossible to absolutely and completely be certain that there might not be some other explanation for what is observed or that some evidence in the future might not come to light that would again lead to a further revision of our conception of planetary motion. Even interplanetary travel and imaging is not 100% proof of our conception. One might say that it is extremely powerful evidence against the former conception, and the current conception is in accord with the evidence much better, but we do not know for sure that future evidence might not modify our conceptions even further.
Actually, we rather hope that there will be further revisions to our conceptions, because increased and refined sense-making of what exists tends to have benefits. As we learn more, we are able to do things such as send craft to other planets, treat diseases, and communicate with each other across vast distances nearly instantaneously. Science provides models, and models are very useful even if they might not ever be 100% correct, or even if we can never truly know just how correct they are. We do not prove things in science, per se. We make a decision to believe or adopt a certain model to explain things and operate by, given a preponderance of evidence one way or another.
Even outside of the realm of formal science, people constantly engage in the act of sense-making in order to function. If we see a shadow, we naturally seek an explanation for the shadow. Barring an "obvious" or "natural" explanation, we tend to make up explanations, such as an unseen person, or even a creature made of shadow, or a ghost. Once we adopt such a conception, whenever we see a similar shadow, we interpret it as evidence in support of what we believe, even if it might not really be evidence in favor. The shadow is just continuing to be whatever it is, but we are interpreting it as evidence in support of what we believe or have decided it is. This psychology extends well beyond the physical realm and plays into everything we do, such as politics. Once someone develops a political belief, such as "Obama is a good leader", he or she will interpret events as supporting that conception the vast majority of the time, while someone else with the belief "the Tea Party is right" will interpret the very same evidence in favor of his own belief. It will take extraordinary evidence to cause someone to change his established conception, and in some cases no matter the strength of evidence, he will not change. This kind of sense-making, although sometimes faulty, is key to our survival, because it allows us to make decisions such as avoiding something that sounds like the rattle of a rattlesnake even though we haven't actually seen the snake.
A skeptic is someone who demands a higher threshold of evidence than most people in order to firmly adopt a conception. A skeptic will look for alternative explanations for events, especially in cases when a "natural" explanation does not seem to be at hand. Just exactly what is "natural" and what isn't, however, is in itself a construct that is determined by many factors such as education, culture, history, personality, and more. Generally speaking, it is wise to be a skeptic and to demand a high threshold of evidence. This critical thinking improves the societal process of sense-making and can prevent victimization from intentional deception or misguidance. For example, skepticism and the scientific process has enabled us to learn that what people may be inclined to interpret as a paranormal ability for fortune-telling can be accomplished through skillful employment of flattery, double-headed statements, vagueness, interpreting body language and facial expressions, redirection, misdirection, and so on. Even someone who genuinely believes in his own ability to tell fortunes may subconsciously employ these techniques. Further, we have learned that so far, no tested example of fortune-telling could be shown to not be explainable by these means. Similarly, other paranormal phenomena such as out-of-body experiences, telekinesis, talking to the dead or spirits, seeing ghosts, hypnotism or mind control, and prophecy can be shown to have "natural" explanations, and no examples that could not be explained "naturally" have come to light in tested conditions. (If you have interest in this area, you might enjoy reading Paranormality by the famous British skeptic Richard Wiseman.)
Therefore, it seems perfectly reasonable to reject these phenomena as paranormal, but it must also be understood that science has no means of proving that every single instance of any of these phenomena can be explained "naturally". That is, just because 1000 instances of some type of event can be explained a certain way, one cannot know absolutely that the 1001st instance will be the same. However, we call it "likely" that the 1001st instance will be like the others and "reasonable" to adopt a construct or belief and behavior in accordance with the 1000 known instances.
As we have seen so far, all of our constructs, even those we typically consider "facts", are really things that we have simply decided to believe, usually based on interpretation of evidence of some kind. No construct or belief is proven or disproven by science or any other means, but its likeliness can in some cases be gauged and we are often comfortable saying evidence is so convincing as to enable us to reject certain ideas with a sense of "certainty". All of these constructs we develop constitute one kind of knowing. But, many people claim that there is another type of knowing, one that might be compared to one of recognition rather than one of learning. This second type of knowing, if it exists, is not so easily tested. This cognizance or recognition knowledge is cited in matters of religion such as the existence of God or the soul. Religious texts or scholars may say that people cognize God. But if one wants to test the existence of God or soul or life after death, no one has come up with a way to do so.
What we can do is test what people claim is evidence of any of these. If someone claims that an Out of Body Experience (OBE) is evidence of the soul, we can scientifically investigate OBEs to search for a "natural" explanation for them. And, we should not be surprised to find a "natural" explanation if we have the appropriate tools, conditions, and means to carry out appropriate tests. But, whatever results we get tell us nothing about the soul, but only about OBEs. If OBEs have a natural explanation, this does not prove or disprove the existence of the soul. And if OBEs do not have a natural explanation, this also does not prove or disprove the existence of the soul. Neither result provides any evidence either way about the soul, but may only serve to advise people that the phenomenon of OBEs does not prove the existence of soul (which could have been concluded without conducting the studies anyway.) But we must also say that the fact that OBEs may be naturally explained does not even prove that OBEs have nothing to do with the soul, either.
Muslims believe, according to the Qur'an, that God creates through His "wish" (mashiah). Some things or events are created directly, in which case the Qur'an uses first person singular "I" in describing the Conductor of the action. But generally, things or events are created through means or causes, and the Qur'an uses the plural "We" to indicate the Conductor. Thus, we expect what we observe in our existence to have explanations, to make sense, and to have natural causes, because that is the nature of their creation or existence. So, a Muslim should believe as skeptics do, that "paranormal" phenomena most likely have natural causes that we can gather evidence about and learn from and that can aid in our sense-making of the existence. We should not expect "paranormal" phenomena to prove the existence of things that fall into the realm of recognition knowledge rather than testable knowledge. Yet, the Qur'an is made of and speaks often of a large variety of ayahs, or signs, of things that fall into the recognition category. These signs aid in recognition and some people may interpret some of them as "evidence", but as we have already seen, science cannot speak to this one way or the other.
This is indeed a discomfiting situation for the particularly hard core skeptic, because his high standard of evidence that he prefers to operate by and which usually serves him exceedingly well is not functional or usable for decision making for recognition knowledge, if it is exists. Many atheists reject God and whatever else must be cognized rather than learned because they decide that if is untestable it cannot exist, or they mistakenly believe that tests involving "paranormal" phenomena disprove God if the results suggest "natural" explanations.
In conclusion, critical thinking and reasoning are essential tools of sense-making that advance society. The scientific process develops our understanding and level of functioning in this existence. However, not all types of questions can satisfactorily be answered through this method, even though many wish it were so. Every thing we think we "know" is really a decision to adopt a certain construct or belief. In every day life, people routinely adopt some constructs as "true" even though they are improbable in light of evidence, but skeptics tend to demand higher probability for certain constructs. In the case of the learning type of knowledge, scientific reasoning helps us choose useful constructs. In the case of recognition knowledge, ayahs or signs can guide what we believe but scientific process is of little use. If you believe in God, you know Him through recognition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)