Introduction
In February 1955, a programme was organized by the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind at Amin ud-Daulah Park in Lucknow. On the occasion, I delivered a speech on a rational affirmation of Islam. After the speech, it was announced that the text of the speech was available in printed form at a bookstall. People rushed to the stall to pick their copy of the pamphlet. It sold like hot cakes. The speech was later published in Urdu under the title Naye Ahad Ke Darwaaze Par, in Hindi as Nav Yug Ke Pravesh Dwaar Par and in English On the Threshold of a New Era.
Later, with this experience, I came up with the idea that a book should be prepared in a contemporary idiom in response to modern atheism. The study and collection of material for it began. Work on the compilation of the collected material started in 1963 and was completed in August 1964. Some portions of it were published in various monthly magazines. The book was first published in 1966 by the Institute of Research and Islamic Publications (Lucknow) under the title The Challenge of Modern Science. An Arabic translation of the book was first published in 1970 by a Kuwaiti publisher, Dar Al-Bahooth Al-Alamiya, under the title of Al-Islam Yatahadda. After that, it was regularly published from Beirut and Cairo and became part of the curriculum in half a dozen Arab universities. The book has also been translated into many other international languages. So far, a number of editions of the book have appeared. Hundreds of reviews of the book have been published in various international journals. In a review of the book that appeared in the columns of the Cairo newspaper Al-Ahram (July 2, 1973), the well-known Egyptian writer Ahmed Bahjat wrote:
In the fourteen hundred years of Islamic history, innumerable books on Islam have appeared. There are just a few books calling mankind to God which are clearly distinguishable from the rest because of the clarity and force with which they make their appeal. Without doubt, this book is one of that kind.
The modern age is regarded as anti-religious. That is why it is called the Age of Atheism. In line with the modern scientific interpretation of phenomenon, it could be said to be merely a method of study that does not include the God dimension in seeking to study and explain things. This method of study does not mean the denial (or affirmation) of anything transcendental, including God. Be that as it may, it is true that some modern thinkers have misused this method of research to seek to invalidate religion itself.
Here I will quote the words of T.R. Miles (1923-2008):
“The current trend is towards a technique, a method of studying questions, rather than wanting to find a definitive answer to problems. This is a significant change that has taken place in the world of philosophy over the last half century. This situation is still going on and there is no sign of abating for a long time.” Religion and the Scientific Outlook, (1959) p.13
On their part, owing to their aversion to religion, when these thinkers failed to find a material justification of the universe, they took refuge in atheism. Accordingly, they sought to explain or interpret religious phenomena with claims and arguments that resonated with their atheistic outlook.
For example, in our writings on the subject of affirmation of the Prophethood, we assume that the claim of the present age is that “Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a false messenger.” In response to this stand, we begin to collect material to prove him to be a true prophet. Calling someone a false prophet implies the existence of true prophets, hence they begin to work on proving his veracity. In fact, false prophet is an old objection of the Jews and Christians, who believed in the prophethood of their own prophets but denied the prophethood of Muhammad. So far as modern atheist minds are concerned, the real question to them does not relate to the credibility or incredibility of his prophethood, rather the question before them is as to what is the source of his prophecy. Inferring their known sources they come to this conclusion that the source lay in the unconscious mind of the person whom believers regard as a prophet. In line with this interpretation they claimed that such words as revelation and inspiration were metaphors rather than revealed words in actuality. In this way, they sought to provide a materialistic, non-religious or atheistic interpretation for religious facts.
The proper response of modern Muslim scholars to the above example would need to scientifically prove that the Divine inspiration that prophets received was indeed something real, that revelation is indeed made to certain human beings, and that, accordingly, Prophet Muhammad was indeed a Messenger of God. That is to say, it would be necessary, first of all, to prove the reality of revelation and inspiration. That is, the reality of the concept of prophethood itself has to be proved.
This is an example of how to respond to atheists’ critique of religion and of the concept of God. If the atheists’ stand is critiqued without properly engaging with questions that are central to modern thought, it will have no appeal to the modern mind.
Some Muslim scholars, despite being familiar with modern thought, fall into another kind of error. Under the influence of some Western scholars, these people think that the ideas that have received general acceptance in the modern West as ‘scientific knowledge’ must be accepted as proven scientific axioms. Therefore, they believe that the way to prove the veracity of Islam lies in proving the supposed compatibility of those axioms with Islamic concepts. In this way, they think that they can respond to critics of religion and prove the truth of Islam.
To me, this attempt at establishing compatibility between Islamic and secular concepts serves no purpose. Hoping to bring about any transformation in people’s attitudes in this way is mere wishful thinking. Removing misconceptions about Islam requires such literature as may transform people’s minds, rather than literature which focuses simply on seeking to demonstrate the claimed compatibility between Islam and certain secular concepts.
This search for compatibility becomes all the more harmful when an attempt is made to find compatibility with some fundamental concepts that affect the very structure of religion itself. If the research findings of modern astronomers regarding, for instance, meteors is different from what we had believed earlier and if someone attempts to interpret Quranic verses accordingly, such interpretation will not result in any great harm. This is because meteors do not relate to the concept of religion. But if some such concept as is directly related to some fundamental religious belief, is sought to be integrated into a religious framework, whole philosophy of religion will be affected by it. We find a clear example of this in the case of those educated Muslims who have accepted the theory of evolution by natural selection and random mutation on the basis of the claims of modern Western scholars who believe in its veracity. Having accepted this theory, they needed to come up with an understanding of creation, including of man, in line with the evolution theory. For this purpose, they tried to mould or adapt Islam to this theory of evolution, and thus came up with a new interpretation of the religion.
For example, the theory of “evolution” wants that man should continue to evolve as a species and enjoy a higher position/state at the end of life. According to this viewpoint, the undesirable or inferior state is envisaged in the past, that is, in this present life; whereas in the future (after death) only the desirable situation should remain in existence. Apparently, in this philosophy of evolution, the life of heaven seems appropriate, while the existence of hell seems ununderstandable. To solve this problem, those under the influence of the theory of evolution had to say that the hell was not a place of punishment, rather it was a place of training. They believed that life always moved forward by struggling against obstacles. That those who are trapped in the obstacles of sin in this world could not move forward to a better state. The purpose of putting them in difficult conditions of Hell was actually to give them time to continue to go through their evolutionary struggle in the next world. Hell was the name of this “difficult struggle”. Thus, the religious conception of hell had to be misinterpreted, not just justified, rather it was a complete denial of hell.
This example illustrates the shortcomings of some of the work that has been done by Muslim scholars in response to modern challenges.
***
There are two different approaches to defending religion at the intellectual level. One is hypothetical, and the other is experimental, or in other words, the philosophical and scientific (if it can be called ‘scientific’, strictly speaking) approaches. The latter approach has largely been taken into consideration in this book. The main reason for this is that a lot of work is already available on the philosophical approach, in the corpus of both ancient and modern writings, while relatively little work has been done on the scientific approach. In particular, the vast field provided by modern scientific research for the empirical proof of religion seems to me to be an application of the meaning of “سَيُرِيكُمْ آيَاتِهِ فَتَعْرِفُونَهَا” (Quran 27:93), that is, ‘He will show you His signs, and you will recognize them’. The present book is, in a sense, an attempt to systematically use this newly created possibility.
According to the modern classification of writings, this book does not come under the category of objective study. Rather, it is written in a subjective manner. To the modern mind, this might seem like a book voting against itself. In response, I will quote the Austro-Hungarian-born scholar Muhammad Asad (d. 1992), who describes this style in his book Islam at the Crossroads:
It does not pretend to be a dispassionate survey of affairs; it is statement of a case of Islam versus western civilization.
In other words, this book does not use the method of a supposedly impartial survey. Rather, its style is like a case—the case of Islam versus Western civilization.
The word “religion” often used in the book, should not be misunderstood by anyone. Since this book is on a general subject, the general word was more appropriate. The author’s mind is very clear that religion is not something imaginary or vague, but it is only that which is established in the eyes of God as a religion today – that is, Islam. If a citizen of India is told to follow the law, it does not mean that it suffices for him to follow any set of words to which the law or the law of India may apply. Rather, it simply means obeying the accepted law for the Indian people. In the same way, today, in practice, religion refers only to Islam. Although lexically, it applies to everything known as religion, that is, whatever is considered religion in the historical classification. But Islam is the only religion preserved today by which we may lead our lives in accordance with God’s will. Therefore, the salvation of the Hereafter lies in following Islam alone.
***
Once, after reading a paper at a programme organized by a university students’ union, I was asked a question. In my paper, I had quoted Sigmund Freud, and a professor of psychology was also present on the occasion. He raised the objection that I had quoted Freud in support of a religious discussion while Freud was someone who was totally against the religious point of view that I represented.
The same question can be asked on a larger scale about the present book, for I have quoted many such authors as do not agree with the theme of this book. But this objection is not correct. The excerpts and quotations in the book are not meant to seek confirmation or verification of some theory. Rather, their purpose is to explain a scientific argument. I present an argument sometimes in my own words and sometimes in the words of some other author. The quotations in the book in general do not relate to a person’s personal thoughts, but, instead, refer to some scientific discoveries. Atheist thinkers have interpreted these scientific discoveries differently, while I have construed the same discoveries in favour of religion. In support of religion, I have also quoted some Christian scholars who believe in God.
As its title suggests, the subject of the book is the affirmation of religion as opposed to modern materialism. There are two ways to seek to do this. One is to seek to prove that religion is an immaterial thing and that, therefore, it is beyond the reach of the material sciences. This being the case, one might claim that the material sciences do not have the right to object to the claims of the authenticity or veracity of religion.
This method of affirmation has been used extensively by religious people. In the twentieth century, this argument became more powerful from growing confessions from the scientific community that science provides only a partial knowledge of reality. This means that, according to the self-confession of the material sciences itself, there may be some facts that are beyond the scope of material investigation.
The second way to seek affirmation of religion as opposed to modern materialism is to prove religion through the same sources of knowledge by which something is sought to be proved in the material sciences. The book is mostly an attempt to adopt this method, in a simplified way. It seeks to prove religious truths by the same method that is used to prove material realities.
One more issue needs to be clarified here. The manner in which religion is sought to be supported and intellectually defended in this book might seem strange or inappropriate to some religious minds. If so, I would say that this book should be viewed in the light of the fact that it is written as a theological requirement, and not as an interpretation of religion. There is a certain way of interpreting religion with the religious-minded, but as far as those people who think that religion is just a kind of deception are concerned, the approach would naturally need to be different. In such a case, it becomes necessary to keep the atheist or materialist in mind and to speak to them in their own language, using their terminology. It should be borne in mind that the way of thinking and reasoning has totally changed in the present age. Therefore, the theological reasoning of the present age will also be much different than before in some respects.
If these issues are kept in mind, there ought not to be misunderstandings about the presentation of arguments in this book.
