Ayesha Siddiqa’s article ‘The Tariq Jameel problem and our search for the right kind of Islam ‘published in nayadaur.tv only reveals Ms. Siddiqa’s fatuity and intellectual vacuity.
As I mentioned in my article ‘ One can either be a Mullah or modern, one cannot be both ‘ published in nayadaur.tv, science, and religions are poles apart. While religion relies on faith and divine revelation, science relies on observation, experiment, and reason. Religion believes that there is an all-powerful permanent supernatural entity called God. Science does not believe in any supernatural entity, and does not regard anything as permanent, but believes that the only entity in the Universe is matter ( or rather matter-energy, as Einstein proved by his formula e= mc2 ) which is constantly in a state of flux and changing its forms according to certain laws which can be discovered by scientific research.
Ms. Siddiqa writes that Rafiq Akhtar’s “ presentation and style make his audience which is caught in the dilemma of material modernity vs religious ethos, comfortable in their skin. Rafiq Akhtar or even Javed Ahmed Ghamdi have indeed become more relevant in the post 9/11 era for representing the elite and middle class’s search for an Islam that can be presented as peaceful and modern”. She also writes, “In the past few decades, there is a struggle in Pakistan to find an Islam that one can live with”.
As I mentioned in my article referred to above, modernity is the antithesis of religion, it is its reverse, and is incompatible with it. So to talk of a ‘modern’ religion is an oxymoron. In Western countries, the Bible is nowadays not understood literally. Few people in America or Europe today believe that Christ could walk on the sea, cure sick or invalid people, or perform other miracles mentioned in the New Testament. They only accept the ethics taught by Jesus, and reject the metaphysics in the Bible. But even ethics keep changing with changes in society. So the reality is that even regarding the Christian ethics only lip service is paid to it, and the dollar is the real god, to be worshipped.
Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica and Summa contra Gentiles, and Udayanacharya in his Kusumanjali tried to prove the existence of God by reason. Theists mostly rely on the Creationist theory for this purpose, which I have discussed in my article to show its errors.
Moreover, there is no answer by theists to the question which the great Russian writer Dostoevsky poses in his famous novel ‘Brothers Karamazov’: if there is a God, why do children, who have done no harm to anyone, suffer? There are millions of children in the world who are hungry, ill-clad, and shivering in the cold, homeless, or abused in various ways by adults. Why does not God help them?
In his play King Lear, Shakespeare says ( through Gloucester ) “ As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods, they kill us for sport “ ( quoted by Thomas Hardy in his great novel Tess of the D’Urbervilles ).
If there is a God why does he not eradicate the novel coronavirus which is creating havoc in the world today? Let Ms. Siddiqa respond to the above instead of uttering inanities.