بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Please don't blame the religion “Islam” just on the basis of media and talks. I will request you all to go through the Holy Quran and the life of Prophet Muhammad (May peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) once and if wish more then to his companions like (Hadhrat Abu Bakr Siddique (R), Hadhrat Umar Farooque (R), Hadhrat Uthman (R) and Hadhrat Ali (R)) to know Islam deeply."
Thank You.
Why Islam?
The question "why?" demands a rational answer.
However, many people think that it is not possible to give rational answers to
ideological commitments (by ideology, we mean a system of thought). They believe
that a commitment to any theistic ideology is an irrational act. One cannot
deny the fact that many people do commit themselves illogically to
various ideologies and continue to hold onto them only because they find
themselves to be raised up in particular communities. They accept such
ideologies in just the same way as they would accept a traditional form of
dress handed down to them through the generations. For example, a person might
be deeply committed to a nationalistic ideology simply because it may be the
best way to win the support of the masses and thereby gain personal political
power.
Let us analyze two commonly found views regarding
ideological commitments:
· 1. The first states that a commitment to any ideology which involves some type of deity must necessarily are irrational.
The premise of those who say this is that the fundamental
claims of all such ideologies are beyond the comprehension of the human
mind. Those who have accepted such a premise have concluded that all types of
such 'belief' must be based on irrational and imaginary thoughts rather than on
reality.
2. The opposite view is held by people who seek to justify their 'belief' in certain irrational ideas by claiming that reason is limited.
In fact, the followers of this ideology state that people
should commit themselves to such ideas by simply having 'faith'. The conclusion
of these people is that ultimate reality must be irrational in essence and
therefore incomprehensible to the human mind. They go on to say that their
ideology must be accepted or 'believed' without reason, in order to attain some
type of 'salvation'.
This kind of argument is very
difficult to accept because as human beings, we may ask: What do we have
other than the usage of our minds for acquiring knowledge? If we are told
to 'believe' in something that is irrational (i.e. beyond all reason), such as
a type of being which is both mortal and immortal, we cannot possibly
digest such an idea. Therefore it does not seem unnatural for us to demand that
our way of thinking and living be based solely upon those concepts which can be
verified as being true.
Going back to the first view regarding ideological
commitments, we see that this view contends that we cannot and should not
believe in that which we cannot comprehend. The emphasis lies on the
word comprehend, and so it must be defined. It is true that one cannot have an
adequate mental picture of some mathematical and scientific facts. For example,
one cannot have an adequate mental or visual picture of the curvature of space,
or one of the mathematical concepts of infinity. Nor can we really have an
adequate mental picture of the way in which certain animals experience things,
such as the way in which bats 'see' by using ultrasonic waves. However, know
these concepts to be true because of solid evidence and not because of some
non-rational ideas. Therefore we can say that we do indeed comprehend
them.
Now what about the concept of a singular, all-knowing entity
which has created the universe. It is impossible to have any mental or visual
picture of such an entity, for evidence tells us that this entity must be
unlike anything in the universe because this entity must be independent of
space and time. The evidence for the existence of this single intelligence lies
in the design of nature itself, which we can freely examine; hence, such an
ideology is rational. If one realizes this - through confirmation - then one
can proceed to answer the question: Why Islam?
One of the main problems with an atheistic ideology is that
it cannot explain intelligence in the processes of the universe. Another
problem is that it tends to deprive life of meaning. Furthermore, we know that
human beings are naturally inclined to be honest; however, in atheism there is
a denial of an ultimate originator and of anything beyond death, which creates
a contradiction and leads to an inconsistency in behavior – on the one hand a
person would be inclined to be honest, and on the other to be dishonest 'to
make the most of this world'. [If everyone insisted on 'making the most of this
world', society as we know it would not exist. As a case in point, let us
suppose that all those who wanted to 'make the most of this world' resorted to
thievery. If this happened, no one would be producing the goods (growing food
for instance) that the rest of us could steal. Hence it seems that 'making the
most of this world' as system of action is doomed to failure. Could it then be
a viable system of belief?
Broadly speaking, with regard to theistic ideologies we have
the revealed, the distorted and the man-made. One can easily say that a way of
life communicated to humankind by the creator of this universe is preferred to
man-made ideologies. If one wants to follow the advice of that which has made
the universe and all that it contains - regarding what is beneficial or harmful
- then it is better to refer to pristine communication from this originator,
than to that communication which has been fabricated or distorted by man.
Those ideologies claiming to be based on revelations can be
subjected to a number of tests, the first and most important of which is that
of consistency. We must look for two types of consistency: internal and
external. Internal consistency means that a statement made in a book
must not contradict another statement in the same book. External consistency
means that a statement made in a book must not contradict facts as we know, be
they psychological, physical, chemical, historical, geographical, and
biological and so on. Applying these tests, considers the most important truth
that all the supposedly revealed ideologies proclaim, that is, the existence
and perfect attributes of God. God for all ideologies, that claim to be
revealed, is supposed to be all knowing, all merciful, everlasting etc.
However, some books imply that God's knowledge is limited and imperfect by
saying that, for example, God was deceived by a human. In contrast, the Quran
provides the perfect concept of an all-knowing, singular originator of this
universe.
This leads us to the next test - that of authenticity.
The question that should be asked is whether the scriptures that we have today
are indeed a communication from the originator to humankind. A study of the
history of Islam would show that the present Quran is exactly the same as that
which was communicated about one thousand four hundred years ago. During its
revelation it was committed to memory by a large number of people and also
written down.
Yet another test is that of comprehensiveness. A
truly comprehensive ideology, revealed to humankind by the designer of the
universe, would describe the most beneficial system in all spheres of life
including the political, economical, social, medical and environmental spheres.
Lastly, we might look at the test of universality.
Clearly, an ideology which is historically or graphically bound is not as good
as that which applicable to all human beings, irrespective of the time and
place of their origin.
In conclusion, if one uses the criteria of universality,
comprehensiveness, authenticity and above all, consistency, one would find the
Quran unique and worthy of investigation. It is interesting to note that the
Quran itself stresses the above-mentioned approach. For example, in verse 82 of
chapter 4, it is said, "Will they not ponder about the Quran? If it had
been from other than God, then they would have surely found in it many
inconsistencies."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
