1

Why I am Muslim

Two years ago
1
, I came to Stanford University for my PhD. At Stanford, I met
numerous people with different cultural and religious backgrounds. After living all
my youth among a predominant Muslim population in Egypt, I encountered
different ideas, values, practices, and beliefs. Since ones ideas and principles
constitute the most important component of his identity, and since my ideas and
principles were based on Islam, I set about an attempt to fully understand my
religion, its message, and before everything, its validity. I was stimulated to think
why I am Muslim in the first place.

My main concern, while embarking on this enterprise, was result-oriented
investigation  the known human attempt to determine the result first, and then
go back hunting for confirmation and turning a blind eye to any falsifying
evidence. I tried my hard to be objective and my character helped me, for I am by
nature skeptical. Of course, no one can be fully objective. We are often
overwhelmed by our predilections. We cannot often see through the fog of our
own biases and pre-existing ideas and concepts. Full objectivity is a myth.
Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent one from trying, as far as he can, to
transcend his cognitive map and bypass the lens through which he perceives
reality. One of the distinct features of humans is self-awareness  the intrinsic
capability of thinking about the very process of thinking itself. The exercise is not
easy but the attempt is worth it and the result is amazing.

The first question that was in my mind, before comparing Islam with other
religions or doctrines, was how to discern the existence of God. All the
philosophical arguments, taken independently, for or against the existence of
God can be rebutted. The reason lies in the structure of the axiomatic system of
reasoning. One starts with a set of assumptions or taken-for-granted axioms.
Then the rules of logic are applied to these axioms to infer theorems and models.
If the rules are faithfully executed, one reaches consistent results. Yet, the
problem lies in the axioms. Since axioms are assumed to be correct by those
adopting a certain proof, others, rejecting the proof, could challenge the
soundness of the axioms or provide other axioms that appeal to their way of
thinking. That is exactly how the proofs for the existence or the inexistence of
God are challenged. The refuters of some proof concentrate their attack on the
axioms. This is the reason why depending only on unrelated philosophical
arguments, leaves one as an agnostic.

The approach I adopted, to answer my main questions, was similar, in
principle, to randomized algorithms in which conviction is incrementally built
along the way. It entailed the use of mathematical and scientific knowledge, in
addition to philosophical arguments and scripture analysis. Instead of confining

1
That was 2001.
2
the search to only one perspective, I tried, as far as I could, to think about the
evidence comprehensively and exhaustively.

Here is an example of how randomized algorithms work. Assume we have a
huge checkerboard, say 10000u10000 squares, which can be either totally white,
or half the squares are black and the other half is white, with black and white
randomly distributed on the board. Now assume, due to limited capacity, we can
only make 100 tests to determine whether the board is totally white or half black,
half white. Each test is a question about the color of a specified square (only
one square can be accessed at a time). How can we deal with this problem? The
solution goes as follows. Choose a random square and examine its color. If it is
black, then the board is half black and half white, because the other possibility is
a wholly white board with no single black square. If it is white, there is a
probability that the board is all white and a probability that it is half black,
half white. Why? Because the mixed board has half its squares black and the
other half white. So there is a chance 1 in 2 that a chosen square from this board
is white. Now we choose another square and examine its color. If it is black, then
the board is half black, half white. If it is white, then the probability that the board
is half black, half white becomes = u . The reason is that from a board that
is half white, half black, the probability that one chooses 2 consecutive white
squares is (from the first trial) multiplied by (from the second trial
2
) = , the
same as the probability of getting 2 consecutive heads or 2 consecutive tails in a
fair coin tossing. Now we choose a third square. If it is black, then the board is
half black, half white. If it is white, the probability of being half black, half white
becomes u u = and of being of completely white becomes (1 - ) = .
After one hundred test, if all the squares are white, then the probability that the
board is half black, half white becomes ()
100
, i.e. multiplied by itself 100 times
which is less than 10
-30
(1 in the thirtieth position after the decimal point). In
other words, the probability that the board is all white becomes more than
.9999999999 (thirty nines). So, although only 100 squares are examined in a
board of 100 million squares, having 100 randomly chosen squares that are all
white means that the board is white with a virtually nil probability of error. The
trick is that our doubt that the board is totally white is halved at each step, to the
extent that after 100 inquiries that yield the result white square, we become
pretty sure, for all practical purposes, that the board is white. (Two practical
applications of randomized algorithms are given in Appendix A)

I used an approach similar to randomized algorithms to tackle the question
of the existence of God, and finding the way to Him if He exists. By making a
journey in physics, biology, and scripture, I tried to find a coherent answer to
these fundamental questions. I started with physics, and more specifically with
the apparent fine-tuning of the universe, i.e. the delicate relationships between

2
If M is the total number of squares in the half black, half white board, then the probability for
choosing another white square equals (M - 1) divided by M. The reason is that the sample
space, after the first trial, which yielded a white square, becomes M black squares and M 1
white squares. If M is large (as100000000 in our case), (M - 1) divided by M is almost .
3
many of its physical parameters and constants, which if slightly changed, would
have resulted in a universe incapable of supporting life.


The Fine Tuning of the Universe:

I will quote Paul Davies
3
in length. The important statements relevant to
subsequent analysis are in bold
4
.

Equally dire consequences would ensue if the nuclear force were very
slightly stronger. It would then be possible for two protons to overcome their
mutual electric repulsion and stick together. During the big bang protons were
much more abundant than neutrons. When the primeval material cooled, the
neutrons sought out protons to stick to. The resulting deuterium soon underwent
further synthesis to form the element Helium. But the residue of unmatched
protons remained unscathed to form the raw material of stars. If these protons
could stick together in pairs, one member of each pair would decay to a neutron,
converting the di-proton into deuterium and thence helium. So in a world where
the nuclear force was a few percent stronger, there would be virtually no
hydrogen left over from the big bang. No stable stars like the sun could
exist, nor could liquid water. Although we do not know why the nuclear
force has the strength it does, if it did not the universe would be totally
different in form. It is doubtful if life could exist.

What impresses many scientists is not so much the fact that alterations
in the values of the fundamental constants would change the structure of
the physical world, but that the observed structure is remarkably sensitive
to such alterations. Only a minute shift in the strengths of the forces brings
about a drastic change in the structure.

Consider as another example the relative strengths of the electromagnetic
and gravitational forces in matter. Both forces play an essential role in shaping
the structure of stars. Stars are held together by gravity, and the strength of the
gravitational force helps determine such things as the pressure inside stars. On
the other hand, energy flows out of the star by electromagnetic radiation. The
interplay of these two forces is complicated, but reasonably well understood.
Heavy stars tend to be brighter and hotter, and have no difficulty in transporting
the energy generated in the core to the surface in the form of light and heat
radiation. Light stars, however, are cooler, and their interiors cannot divest
themselves of energy fast enough by means of radiation alone: they must be
assisted by convection, which causes the surface layers to boil.

3
The author of God and the New Physics, About Time, and The Accidental Universe. Davies
appears, from his books, articles, and talks, to be with neither a religious nor an atheist agenda.
4
Fully understanding the quote is not necessary for the flow of arguments in this article. Its basic
idea is discussed afterwards
4
These two types of stars hot and radiative or cool and convective are
known respectively as blue giants and red dwarfs. However, as pointed out by
Brandon Carter, this happy circumstance is entirely the result of a remarkable
numerical coincidence between the fundamental constants of nature. And
alteration in, say, the strengths of the gravitational force by a mere one part
in 10
40
would be sufficient to throw out this numerical coincidence. In such
a world, all stars would then either be blue giants or red dwarfs. Stars like
the sun would not exist, nor, one might argue, would any form of life that
depends on solar-type stars for its sustenance.

The list of numerical accidents that appear to be necessary for the
observed world structure is too long to review here. Opinions differ among
physicists as to the significance of these coincidences. As with the apparently
contrived initial conditions of the universe, recourse could be made to anthropic
considerations and hypotheses of multiple-universes in which, for some reason,
the fundamental constants assume different values. Only in those universes
where the numbers come out just right would life and observers form.

Alternatively the numerical coincidences could be regarded as evidence of
design. The delicate fine-tuning in the values of the constants, necessary so that
the various different branches of physics can dovetail so felicitously, might be
attributed to God. It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of
the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in the numbers, has
been rather carefully thought out. Such a conclusion can, of course, only be
subjective. In the end it boils down to a question of belief. Is it easier to believe
in a cosmic designer than the multiplicity of universes necessary for the
weak anthropic principle to work? It is hard to see how either hypothesis could
ever be tested in the strict scientific sense. As remarked in the previous chapter,
if we cannot visit the other universes or experience them directly, their possible
existence must remain just as much a matter of faith as belief in God. Perhaps
future developments in science will lead to more direct evidence for other
universes, but until then, the seemingly miraculous concurrence of numerical
values that nature has assigned to her fundamental constants must remain the
most compelling evidence for an element of cosmic design.
5


The constants of physics, and many other features of the universe appear
delicately balanced to allow for the possibility of life. Even very slight alterations
in the values of many factors, such as the expansion rate of the universe, the
strength of gravitational or electromagnetic attraction, or the value of Plancks
constant, would render life impossible. Physicists have discovered more than
thirty separate physical or cosmological parameters that require precise
calibration in order to produce a life-sustaining universe
6
.

5
God and the New Physics, pp. 187-189.
6
Refer to the book Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe by Michael J. Behe,
William A. Dembski, and Stephan C. Meyer, for a good discussion of the subject. I depended
extensively on Meyers article, Evidence for Design in Physics and Biology: From the Origin of
5

There are three explanations regarding these extremely improbable
coincidences. The first one is a form of the principle of mediocrity, which in fact
is no explanation at all. We, humans, should not be surprised by the stupendous
fine-tuning of the universe. The universe is the way it is, because we exist. If the
conditions and laws of nature were different, then there would not have been
intelligent observers to ponder over the delicate fine-tuning in the first place.
Thus, the fine-tuning does not require explanation. The problem with this
argument is that it wrongly asserts that the statement of a necessary condition of
an event eliminates the need for a causal explanation of that event. Imagine a
blindfolded man who has discovered that, against all odds, he has survived a
firing squad of one hundred expert marksmen
7
. Though his confirmed existence
is certainly consistent with all the marksmen having missed, it does not explain
why the marksmen actually did miss. Similarly, the fine-tuning of physical
constants of the universe is a necessary condition for the existence of life, but
that does not explain, or eliminate the need to explain, the origin of fine-tuning
8
.

A more sophisticated version of this there is nothing special about our
universe hypothesis, is to say that the analogy with the firing squad is wrong. A
better analogy would be: Suppose ten dice are rolled and we count the sum of
them that comes up. It will be a number from 10 through 60. We want to maintain
that whatever number it turns out to be, that number will not only be unlikely to
have come up but it will have at least one unique and interesting property, not
possessed by any of the other fifty numbers. For example, if it is, say, 25, then
that number would be the only perfect square which is itself the sum of two
different squares (9 & 16) and is also the only odd number that is the square of
its last digit. The number 27 is the only perfect cube of all of them, and so on and
so forth
9
. We can claim that every number from 10 through 60 has at least one
unique and interesting property. In light of this fact, no matter what number
comes up as the sum of the ten dice, we could say, How amazing: not only is
that number highly unlikely to have come up but it is the only number such that...
and proceed to specify the interesting property or properties uniquely possessed
by that number. Then we could ask: "What is the explanation for the fact that that

the Universe to the Origin of Life, pp. 53-111. Not all arguments presented in the book are
convincing and coherent. Yet, in addition to providing very useful information, it can also serve as
a pointer to many other important references. Personal view on Intelligent Design is given in
Appendix B.
7
John Leslie, Anthropic Principle, World Ensemble, Design, American Philosophical Quarterly,
vol. 19, no. 2, 1982.
8
Refer to Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe.
9
Other examples: the number 28 is the only one that is the sum of all its divisors smaller than
itself (1, 2, 4, 7, 14). The number 30 is the largest number X such that all numbers smaller than X
with no divisor in common with X (other than 1) are themselves prime numbers. The number 32 is
the smallest power of 2 such that the next number after it is not a prime (since the next number
after 16 is a prime). The number 36 is the only one that is the product of two squares (4 & 9) and
is the only even number that is the square of its last digit. The number 11 is the smallest
palindromic number and 55 is the largest. The number 59 is the largest prime number. And 60 is
that number which can be factored in more ways than any smaller number.
6
number came up rather than some other number?" The answer could be that it is
just a coincidence (or brute fact) that that number came up, and whatever
number had come up, it would have been unlikely to have done so and, further,
there would have been some interesting property or properties possessed only
by that number. It may be the same with our universe. It is simply a brute fact
that it has the laws and physical constants that it has. And although it may be
true that no other conceivable universe, with different laws and constants, would
have permitted the development of life as we know it, whatever universe might
have come about, it would have had some other unique feature(s) at least as
interesting as the property of permitting life as we know it
10
.

One can make the argument that this is a faulty analogy because it is
completely dependent on having a limited range of integers from 10 to 60. If the
range is expanded, or if real numbers come into play, all the uniqueness claims
will fall apart. What is unique about Plancks constant= 6.6260755e-34
11
?
Actually, all physical constants have different values in different systems. All
equations of Quantum mechanics can be written with Plancks constant set to
one. But then, all the other physical constants will change accordingly. In other
words, it is the relation of these independent numbers to each other that is of
paramount importance.

The brute fact argument is similar in principle to the pebble argument. If you
pick up a pebble on a beach at random and measure its dimensions, you could
conclude that it is highly improbable that you had selected a pebble of those
exact dimensions. But you would not be justified in claiming that your choice was
a miracle, because you could say the same regarding any chosen pebble. But
this is not completely convincing. If the selected pebble turned out to be an exact
sphere, amazement would have been justified, even if the spherical property had
not been specified a priori. As Paul Davies said, A sphere is a very special sort
of shape with the property that it is mathematically highly regular. Even after the
event, the random selection of an exactly spherical pebble would be regarded as
a remarkable circumstance deserving some sort of explanation.
12


The second explanation is mainly naturalistic. Though not necessarily
atheistic, it tries hard to evade the idea of God as the Creator. Its proponents
advocate the idea that the universe does not need an external factor to explain
its existence and intricacy. Instead, the multiverse
13
or the many-universes
hypothesis stands as an alternative naturalistic explanation to circumvent the
highly improbable universal configuration. Some scientists have postulated the
existence of a quasi-infinite number of parallel universes, or universes budding

10
From the article The Fine-Tuning Argument by Theodore M. Drange.
11
In units of joule-seconds.
12
God and the New Physics, p. 170.
13
The word multiverse is derived from the word universe by changing the prefix uni to multi.
7
off from one another such as Andr Lindes self-replicating universes scenario
14
.
By doing so, they increase the amount of time and number of possible trials
available to generate a life-sustaining universe and thus increase the probability
of such a universe arising by chance
15
. In these many-universes scenarios, any
event that could happen, however unlikely it might be, must happen somewhere
in some other parallel universe
16
. So long as life has a positive (greater than
zero) probability of arising, it had to arise in some possible world. Therefore,
sooner or later, some universes had to acquire life-sustaining characteristics.
Clifford Longley
17
explained that according to the many-universes hypothesis,
There could have been millions and millions of different universes created each
with different dial settings of the fundamental ratios and constants. So many in
fact that the right set was bound to turn up by sheer chance. We just happened
to be the lucky ones.

The third explanation is to believe that God, or a superintellect in general, is
responsible for the existence and fine-tuning of the universe. It is quite clear
from the books, lectures, public talks, etc. of those who accept the multiverse
hypothesis that they speak more to an impeachable commitment to naturalistic
philosophy than to any compelling merit for the idea itself. It appears that the
many-universes idea reflects a kind of metaphysical desperation. There are
several problems to the multiverse hypothesis and the assertion that the universe
is self-contained, and thus can be only explained by its own intrinsic laws. The
first is that this hypothesis relies on a universe generating mechanism, a
mechanism that itself would be extremely complicated, and thus requires
explanation of its own. In other words, if scientists succeed in coming up with a
theory of everything that will fully explain why nature is the way it is, a question
will emerge about the origin of the theory of everything itself. It should be
something that is just out there, transcending space and time. It should be
something that is eternal and infinite. This universe-generating mechanism or
theory of everything will have attributes that some people prefer to ascribe to
God. If someone rejects the idea of God because, for example, He is supposed
to be eternal and eternity is an incomprehensible counter-intuitive thing, he has
no escape
18
.

The second problem is that though the other worlds and God can only be
indirectly ascertained, the God hypothesis is simpler and is consistent with our
human experience. To insist otherwise is, as Clifford Longley
19
argued, like
insisting that Shakespeare was not written by Shakespeare because it might

14
Linde uses inflation theory, which relies on quantum fluctuations as the basis of the
emergence, out of nothing, of a super-compact Planck-sized universe, which then entered a
phase of exponential expansion.
15
Refer to Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe.
16
A. Linde, The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe. Scientific American, pp. 48-55,
November 1994.
17
C. Longley, Focusing on Theism, London Times, January 21, 1989, p. 10.
18
I will talk about this later in the conclusion section.
19
Ibid.
8
have been written by a billion monkeys sitting at a billion keyboard typing for a
billion years. Atheists do insist otherwise. They argue that we have never directly
witnessed the work of God. Thus, Gods design could not be considered
consistent with human experience. What I mean with human experience here, is
not seeing God creating something (to which atheists can be right), but that we,
humans, when we see something so complicated, our experience tells us that
there is a designer. Assume someone who entered his office to find that a bottle
of ink spilled onto a sheet of paper. If the resulting inkblot clearly displays the
sentence nemo me impune lacessit
20
, he would surely ascribe what he saw to a
human act. The overwhelming majority of humans walking in the desert would
attribute sand dunes to the effect of wind but they would immediately evoke
intelligent agency in case they see a huge sand castle. Of course what is
complicated to someone may not be complicated to another. Yet, probability
theory provides a rigorous framework for ascertaining whether something is
reasonably probable or virtually improbable. The third problem is that the
multiverse hypothesis requires an infinite number of universes so that one of
them would have the correct parameters for the emergence of life. Existing
theories such as Andr Lindes model, fail to generate an exhaustively random
set of physical parameters required to render probable the life-sustaining fine-
tuning.

The arguments, which I present here, constituted the first step towards
upholding the theistic explanation and thus the existence of a superintellect who
has masterminded the universe. The result was not conclusive but the belief,
neither equal to blind imitation nor to fanciful imagination and mere conjecture,
was built incrementally. The next step was biology.

Biology:

Diversity is the hallmark of life. The complexity of life forms is striking. Even a
bacterium displays an intricacy and fidelity unmatched by any product of human
ingenuity. The bacterium may interact with its environment in a variety of ways,
propelling itself, attacking enemies, moving towards or away from external
stimuli, exchanging material in a controlled fashion. Its internal workings
resemble a vast city in organization
21
.

The naturalistic explanation of this extraordinary diversity and complexity
relies mainly on Darwinian evolution. Changes take place in a living organism.
Natural selection acts on these changes, promoting them if they are beneficial,
i.e. give the organism better chances in the struggle for survival and
reproduction, and demoting them if they are harmful. Changes accumulate along
generations and new species are produced. The question of the origin of life lies
outside the scope of evolution but is, in some sense, considered its logical

20
A Latin term that literally means, no one offends me with impunity.
21
From Paul Daviess God and the New Physics, p. 59.
9
extension. Since species can arise from a unicellular organism with mere natural
forces, there is no need to evoke supernatural agency in the emergence of life
itself. Many scientists undertook the task of finding scenarios of how life can arise
spontaneously from inanimate matter. However, the first molecule, whether it is
DNA or RNA or protein
22
is disputable. Building proteins requires instructions
from DNA, but information on DNA cannot be processed without many specific
proteins and protein complexes. This poses chicken-or-egg dilemma. Some
scientists advocate the RNA world scenario because RNA possesses some
catalytic properties and thus relying on it as the first molecule makes the
functional interdependence of DNA and proteins unnecessary to the first living
cell. Yet, the limited catalytic properties of RNA and how it arose in the first place
are but two unsolvable questions.

Some origin-of-life biologists propose the idea that these biological molecules
(DNA, RNA, or protein) arose by chemical necessity, i.e. the existing building
blocks were predestined to form into these molecules according to the laws of
chemistry. For example, just as electrostatic forces draw positive sodium ions
and negative chloride ions together into highly ordered patterns within a crystal of
salt
23
, so too might amino acids with special affinities for each other arrange
themselves to form proteins. Put simply: life might have been biochemically
predestined by the properties of attraction that exist between its constituent
chemical parts, particularly the amino acids in proteins.
24


The chemical necessity scenario has its problems. It does not explain the
origin of the strict chemical laws that render the emergence of molecular
complexity, not only plausible, but also inevitable. This question is related to the
problem of the fine-tuning of the universe. Another problem is that although
empirical studies have shown some differential affinities between various amino
acids (the building blocks of proteins), these affinities do not correlate to actual

22
The DNA (deoxyribonucleic-acid) molecule is a polymer (a chain) whose elements are
nucleotides. A nucleotide is made up of a phosphate group and a nucleoside. The nucleoside is a
combination of a sugar and a base. There are 4 kinds of bases: adenine, thymine, cytosine, and
guanine. The DNA contains the information that tells the cell how to make proteins, another large
molecules that are made of amino acids. The amino acids on the protein are encoded in the DNA
in the same order in which they appear on the protein. The DNA encodes each amino acid with a
string of three bases. A triplet of bases that encodes an amino acid is called a codon. There are
64 codons corresponding to the 4u4u4=64 ways of forming a triplet of DNA symbols. These 64
codons encode the 20 amino acids that make up proteins. More than one codon can therefore
encode the same amino acid. The RNA (ribonucleic-acid) molecule is similar to DNA but has
uracil instead of thymine. When a protein is synthesized from DNA, the DNA encoding the protein
is first transcribed into RNA
23
The confusion between order and complexity is used consciously or unconsciously by
naturalists to bolster their position. If we go back to the desert example, sand dunes represent
order while a sand castle represents complexity. The sequence ABABABABABAB is an ordered
sequence but its complexity, or information content, is very low. This highly repetitive sequence
cannot explain the tremendous diversity of living organisms.
24
D. Kenyon and G. Steinman, Biochemical Predestination, pp. 199-211, 263-266.
10
sequencing in large classes of known proteins.
25
The problem is more evident in
DNA.

The structure of DNA depends on a number of chemical bonds between its
various parts. Interestingly, there are no chemical bonds along the vertical axis of
the DNA molecule. Yet, it is this axis that bears the genetic information of the
species. In fact, if there were chemical bonds along the message-bearing axis of
DNA, the result would be useless deterministic DNA sequences that may have
order (like a crystal of salt) but no complexity at all, i.e. DNA would fail to encode
the vast array of biological structures observed in living organisms.

Since, the complex DNA, RNA, or protein sequences cannot arise completely
by chemical necessity because this, as explained above, would preclude
diversity, we should resort to chance to explain, for example, the existing DNA
sequences. Here, the theory of probability can help us in estimating the likelihood
of a specific sequence forming by chance. It is useful in this regard to start by
Richard Dawkinss methinks it is like a weasel example,
26
which attempts at
showing that natural selection acting on random changes can generate
complexity in a plausible time period. In other words, the whole process of
evolution can reasonably take place over the Earths age of 4.5 billion years.

Dawkins started by a randomly selected sequence of 28 symbols, the same
number of symbols in the phrase methinks it is like a weasel. Considering only
capital Roman letters and a space, there are 27 possibilities (26 letters and a
space) at each location in a symbol string. He then altered all the letters and
spaces in this initial randomly generated sequence. Whenever an alteration
happens to match a corresponding letter in the target sequence, he left it and
randomly altered only those remaining symbols that still differ from the target
sequence. An example of his simulations starts with:
WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P
After 10 generations he got
MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRSZREZ MECS P
after 20 generations he got
MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL
after 30
METHINKS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL
after 40
METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL
and at the 43-rd generation he got his target string
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
The conclusion: cumulative selection process acting on chance can generate
complexity after relatively small number of iterations.


25
R. A. Kok, J. A. Taylor, and W. L. Bradley, A statistical Examination of Self-Ordering of Amino
Acids in Proteins, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, vol. 18, pp. 135-142, 1988.
26
Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker.
11
From elementary probability theory, it is well known that the expected
number of steps required to produce one letter of such a sequence is 27, which
is the number of symbols. Let us assume for simplicity that since the letters are
changed in parallel, the average number of iterations required to reach the
desired string is also 27
27
. Dawkinss result is not surprising given his algorithm.
His target sequence was pre-specified. This represents an important discrepancy
between his simulation and the way Darwinian evolution works. In general, there
are huge differences between computer programs that mimic evolutionary
processes in nature, like genetic algorithms
28
, and evolution. These differences
actually highlight the problems with evolution:

1) In Genetic algorithms, a long-range goal is pre-specified, i.e. the objective
is known a priori
29
. In Darwinian evolution, on the other hand, changes take place
with no forethought to the eventual needs of the living organism. Evolution, in
other words, is devoid of teleology. Changes occur and, then, acted upon by
natural selection to promote what gives advantage to the individual over his or
her peers. Changes that result in incompetent individuals are eliminated because
those individuals will lose in the competition for transferring their genetic material
to subsequent generations. This difference is evident in Dawkinss simulation.
The target string is specified. If evolution is really to be simulated, he should have
generated a random 28-symbol long sequence and then see if it matches his
desired target. The probability of getting his target string is (1/27)
28
= (1/27)
multiplied by itself 28 times
30
, which is less than 10
-40
. Even assume that we
generate a 28-symbol sequence and accept any resulting correct English
sentence. We can estimate the probability of such by multiplying the above

27
The expected number of iterations is actually the average of the random variable defined as the
maximum of t
1
, t
2,
, t
k
, , t
28
, where t
k
is the required number of iterations required to reach the
correct letter in the kth position in the 28-letter string. Based on this, the actual expected number
of iterations is about 104.56. The point here is that Dawkinss result is predictable using
probability theory. Amazement is not justified!
28
Holland proposed genetic algorithms in the early 1970s as computer programs that mimic the
evolutionary processes in nature. Genetic algorithms manipulate a population of potential
solutions to an optimization (or search) problem. Specifically, they operate on encoded
representations of the solutions, equivalent to the genetic material of individuals in nature, and
not directly on the solutions themselves. Hollands genetic algorithm encodes the solutions as
strings of bits from a binary alphabet. As in nature, selection provides the necessary driving
mechanism for better solutions to survive. Each solution is associated with a fitness value that
reflects it is, compared with other solutions in the population. The higher the fitness value of an
individual, the higher its chances of survival and reproduction and the larger its representation in
the subsequent generations. Recombination of genetic material in genetic algorithms is simulated
through a crossover mechanism that exchanges portions between strings. Another operation,
called mutation, causes sporadic and random alterations of the bits of strings. Mutation too has a
direct analogy from nature and plays the role of regenerating lost genetic material. IEEE
Computer, p. 17-26, June 1994.
29
For example, if a controller is to be designed using genetic algorithms, ranges of the accepted
performance measures, such as delay, settling time, overshoot, and steady state error are pre-
determined. If we want to design an antenna array using genetic algorithms, the desired radiation
pattern is known before commencing the algorithm.
30
(1/27) is the probability of the symbol and 28 is the number of symbols in the required string.
12
number (1/27)
28
by the valid number of 28-symbol long English sequences.
Taking the entropy of English as 1.5 bits
31
, we effectively have 2
1.5
| 2.83
symbols instead of 27. A reader who is not familiar with binary encoding and the
concept of entropy may simply assume that the effective number of symbols in
English is much less than 27 due to the lexical, syntactic, and semantic
constraints of the language. The number of valid 28-symbol length English
strings is consequently 2.83
28
= 4.4u10
12
, and thus the probability of randomly
generating any 28-symbol length valid English sentence is 10
-40
u (4.4u10
12
) =

4.4u10
-28
(less than 10
-27
), still a very small probability. This means that one
needs approximately 10
27
(1 followed by 27 zeros) iterations and not just 27 to
produce any meaningful 28-symbol length English sentence. This calculation
underscores the difference between a goal-oriented process (goal reached on
the average in 27 steps) and an accidental process (goal reached on the average
in 10
27
steps). Similarly, the probability of random assembly of a protein, RNA, or
DNA, taking into account that many sequences are valid, can be estimated. The
results are vanishing small
32
.

2) In genetic algorithms, the mutation rate, i.e. the probability that a symbol is
randomly altered, is often orders of magnitude
33
larger than biological mutation
rates. Considering nucleotide
34
substitution during DNA copying as the source of
mutation, copying is a high fidelity process that is followed by proofreading to
reduce the error to one in one billion on average in the case of bacteria, and one
in ten billion on average in the case of large mammals. Even if we assume that
the biological mutation rate decreased over time, it could not have been so high
else mutations would have disrupted the existing genomes. Also as the mutation
rate gets higher, the probability of the occurrence of convergent evolution
which means two species evolving in the same way because of similar selective
pressures - diminishes. In other words, if someone postulates high mutation rates
to boost the speed of the evolutionary processes, he will face a big trouble
explaining how convergent evolution could take place. Calculating the probability
of convergent evolution can be done by imagining 2 mazes at each step of which
is a number of options. The probability of convergent evolution is the probability
that 2 players will always choose the same route in the maze. If the number of

31
If we completely ignore the structure of the English language and assume the 26 English letters
and a space, the required number of bits (the entropy) required to represent one of its symbols =
log
2
27= 4.75 bits/symbol. If the linguistic constraints are taken into account, the required number
of bits will decrease. Shannon estimated that the entropy of English, taking into account all the
preceding text, is between 0.6 and 1.3 bits/symbol.
32
Even if we estimate for short sequences under the assumption that life, in the beginning, was in
no need for the degree of molecular complexity we have today. Remember, Dawkinss sequence
was only 28 symbols long. The number of symbols in DNA or RNA is 4 corresponding to the 4
bases, adenine, thymine or uracil, guanine, and cytosine. There are some redundancies as
mentioned in footnote 22. The number of symbols in protein is 20 amino acids. In addition to
redundancies, there are additional constraints such as having peptide bonds and left-handed (L-
form) amino acids.
33
An order of magnitude is a factor of 10.
34
As stated in footnote 22, nucleotides are the building blocks of DNA. What differs nucleotides is
the nitrogenous base.
13
options at each step increases, it will be highly improbable for something like
convergent evolution to take place. There will always be probabilistic problems
with high or low mutation rates.

3) A bad solution is eliminated without complication from a genetic algorithm.
In biology, a harmful gene can persist such as when a disease is carried by one
sex and affects the other.

4) Good changes can actually be wiped out before the individual becomes
capable of transmitting it to posterity. There are no fires, famines, floods,
droughts, or predators preying on the numerical genes of a genetic algorithm.
The bottom-line of points 3 and 4 is that natural selection is not a process that
instantaneously promotes new good traits and eliminates the bad ones.

5) Mutations must take place in bulk DNA that represents a few percent of
the whole DNA. Mutations must take place in the gametes and not somatic cells
and they must produce a phenotype with selective advantage. In genetic
algorithms, the whole genome is open to modification and evolution.

6) Genetic algorithms use mutation and crossover as a means of generating
new more optimal individuals. These processes are very simple on a digital
computer. Crossover, in nature, is a highly complicated process served by an
array of enzymes and other molecules. Genetic algorithms tell nothing about the
emergence of such complicated mechanisms.

7) The speed and efficiency of genetic algorithms is enhanced by adopting
strategies for crossover and mutation that has no natural counterpart.

The first point is the main point of how genetic algorithms cannot be
considered in principle, a true implementation of Darwinian evolution. Points 2 to
7 show that even if we forget about point 1, the speed of genetic algorithms is not
an indication at all of the anticipated speed of natural evolution.

Another challenge to Darwinian evolution is Michael Behes idea of
irreducible complexity. It was number 15 on the Scientific Americans 15
answers to Creationist Nonsense.
35
The idea is that, there are structures in all
organisms that could not have evolved step by step. The reason is that these
structures are comprised of highly interdependent components, the absence of
any of which cause the structure to malfunction or not to function at all. Take, for
example, the bacterial flagellum, a whip-like cellular organelle used for propulsion
that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are
uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures
like those a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array
could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, and that

35
June 2002.
14
bespeaks intelligent design as Behe argues. He makes similar points about the
bloods clotting mechanism and many other molecular systems.

The Scientific Americans reply to what they called the battle cry of Michael
Behe was the least convincing. Some scientists tried to demonstrate that what
Behe deems as irreducibly complex is in fact not irreducible at all. Yet, in all their
arguments there remains one problem even if they were able to reduce what
Behe claims to be irreducible. This problem is that there is a level at which
complexity cannot be reduced anymore. This is the core of Behes thesis.
36
The
probability of the emergence of these complex structures and organs, even at the
level beyond which there can be no reduction, is infinitesimally small
37
. To claim
otherwise, biologists should provide complete scientific
38
evolutionary scenarios
for all the complex structures, organs, and even behavior that exist.

The bottom-line is that there are serious problems for abiogenesis
39
and
evolution
40
. Chemical necessity can produce salt but not information-carrying
molecules like DNA. Recourse to chance requires huge number of steps that
require a time orders of magnitude greater than the estimated age of the
universe
41
. This applies not only to DNA but also to the complex structures and
organs found in all life forms. The next step was scripture.

The Quran:

After physics and biology, I resorted to scriptures, books that are claimed to
be Divine. Physics and biology point to the presence of a superintellect. The
Talmud, the Bible and the Quran, for example, claim to offer messages from that
superintellect. The question was: do these books carry signs of the Divinity? For
the sake of brevity, I will only state my findings regarding the Quran. I will allude
to other scriptures and sacred books in the conclusion section.

I tried to focus on the Quranic Weltanschauung. Specific details of law were
irrelevant for my quest. The most important thing was the question of divinity of
the Quran, its worldview, its general principles and ideals, and how they compare
to other religions and ideologies.


36
For more information about Behes thesis, refer to his book, Darwins Black Box.
37
This is similar, for example, to tossing 100 (which is a very optimistic number) coins and getting
all heads (or tossing one coin 100 times and getting all heads).
38
By complete and scientific, I mean, with rigorous and reasonable details, not simplistic
stories.
39
The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter.
40
The book Not by Chance, by Lee Spetner is helpful in this regard. Lee focused on a
probabilistic study of evolution, rather than arguing whether or not evolution is compatible with the
second law of thermodynamics, or whether transitional fossils exist or not. Nothing is convincing
like mathematical truths, so long as they are applied correctly.
41
So even postulating that DNA was formed extraterrestrially will not help. The universe is less
that 14 billion years old, not so much older than the Earth which is 4.5 billion years old.
15
Here are my findings:

1) The Quran teaches absolute uncompromisable justice
42
. Verses (4:105-
106) clearly underscore the position of justice in Islam. They say, We have sent
down to you the Book in truth, that you must judge between people as guided by
Allah: so be not used as an advocate by those who betray their trust. But seek
the forgiveness of Allah for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. The agreed-
upon occasion of revelation of these verses was that a Jewish man was accused
unjustly with stealing some property from a Muslim. The real thief was a Muslim
from the Helpers (al-Ansar) and he faked evidence to incriminate the innocent
Jew. These verses were revealed promptly to uphold justice by exculpating the
non-Muslim and castigating the Muslim. The Prophet was instructed to realize
justice between all people and not only between Muslims. Al-Ansar were the
ones who supported the Prophet and dedicated all their resources to support his
Prophetic mission. The Jewish people of the city-state of Medina were the ones
who often violated their treaties with the Prophet, and even conspired to
assassinate him. Despite the fact that understanding this verse requires referring
to the books of exegesis, the Quran is replete with other verses that cement this
same concept: justice for all without any form of discrimination even on the basis
of religion. For example, the Quran teaches to uphold justice even against our
closest family or ourselves. Verse (4:135) says, O you who believe: Stand out
firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even against yourselves, or your parents,
or your relatives. Be that against the rich or poor, for God will deal with both as
they deserve. Verse (5:8), O you who believe! Be upright for Allah, bearers of
witness with justice, and let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably;
act equitably, that is nearer to piety, and he careful of your duty to Allah; surely
Allah is Aware of what you do, is a clear conclusive text on the utmost
importance of dealing justly even with ones enemies.

2) The Prophet himself is admonished in the Quran several times. Verses
(4:105-106), mentioned in point (1), are but one example of this theme. Surah
(chapter) 80 starts by gently reproving the Prophet when he frowned and turned
away because there came to him a blind man while he was talking with the
notables of Mecca. If the Prophet were the author of the Quran, why did he
include criticisms of himself? Someone may argue that these verses may have

42
This investigation assumes that the human intellect is capable, independently of revelation, to
know the basics of morality---for example, that justice is morally good, and that injustice is morally
evil. This allows the investigation of the main themes and the moral spirit of the Quranic text. This
assumption is in harmony with the Quran itself. For instance verse (16:90), Surely God enjoins
the doing of justice and the doing of good to others and the giving to the kindred, and He forbids
indecency and evil and transgression; He admonishes you that you may be mindful, appears to
imply that the people to whom the speech is addressed already know the meaning and the moral
value of justice, etc. The problem, of course, is when people approach the Quran, or any other
text, assuming that they know everything about what is right and what is wrong. Unwarranted
moral judgments---often personal sentiments masqueraded as universal truths, and usually
induced by social conditioning---would surely interfere with any attempt at an objective
investigation of scripture.

16
been an attempt to furnish the Quran with a Divine touch. Yet, a cunning person
as such should have worked to indulge in power and worldly gains---an assertion
that has no evidence from the life of the Prophet. Why would the Prophet
admonish himself for the sake of a poor blind man? Should not he concentrate
his efforts on the possessors of power in society? Why would he admonish
himself for the sake a Jewish man and put his relationship with the Helpers at
stake?

3) Verse (4:25) gives a specific detail of law, and an interesting general
principle. The verse says, then if they (slave girls) are guilty of indecency, they
shall suffer half the punishment which is inflicted upon free women. Throughout
history, the norm was to inflict severe punishment on slaves. In this verse, and in
the context of the sin of fornication or adultery, slave girls suffer only half the
punishment of free women. The Quran does not seem to adopt a position of
social or environmental determinism, where the situational and contextual factors
fully determine personal behavior. The slave girls are held morally responsible for
illicit sexual behavior. However, it is amazing to find the Quranic jurisprudential
system paying close attention to the plight and the violability of this specific group
of oppressed and hard-pressed people, and commanding a lenient treatment for
them in case they sin. This balance between the two extremes of fully
exonerating people because of their conditions, and completely ignoring context
(or, in fact, severely and, at times, unjustly punishing people because of their
social status) is striking.

4) Verse (2:219) talks about wine and gambling, They ask you about
intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and
means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit. In another verse
in the Quran, the consumption of wine is completely prohibited. What is
impressive in this verse is its rational approach to the problem of wine and
gambling, and, by analogy, the other issues of life. Except for very few things
(such as justice and injustice), there is nothing that is absolutely good or
absolutely evil. Despite the fact that wine is forbidden, the Quran does not try to
say that wine is absolute evil. The Quran does acknowledge some benefits for
wine. Nevertheless, and as rational people should do, the Quran balances the
merits of wine and weighs them against its demerits. Since the demerits and
harms prevail, then wine is to be avoided. This verse teaches people that in
almost everything there can be benefits and harms. The question of whether to
do or to avoid depends on a balance analysis to determine whether the benefits
or the harms are preponderant. The commandments and the prohibitions in the
Quran are not, in other words, haphazard, and appear far from being based on
the capricious whimsies of some deity or an impostor.

5) When the Quran tackled Muslims' defeat in one battle, it engaged in
explicit self-criticism---another recurring theme in the Quran. What! When a
misfortune befell you, and you had certainly afflicted the unbelievers with twice
as much, you began to say: Whence is this? Say: It is from yourselves; surely
17
Allah has power over all things, (3:165). It is from yourselves, the verse says.
Even in a battle when the Muslims were victorious, some deficiencies were
highlighted, Even as your Lord caused you to go forth from your house with the
truth, though a party of the believers disliked it. They disputed with you about the
truth after it had become clear, and they went forth as if they were being driven to
death while they saw it. And when Allah promised you one of the two parties that
it shall be yours and you loved that the one not armed should he yours and Allah
desired to manifest the truth of what was true by His words and to cut off the root
of the unbelievers, (8:5-7). The Quran does not leave any important event,
whether victory or defeat, but uses it to rectify Muslims behavior. The correction
process does not involve blaming the other or nurturing grievances against
fictitious outsiders, it stems from within the individual and the community.

6) The Quran teaches the equality of people of all races: All humanity is one
family, no chosen people, no lower castes, only the deeds of people matter.
Verse (49:13) says, O Mankind: We created you from a single pair of a male and
a female, and made you into nations and tribes to know each other. Indeed, the
most honored of you in the sight of God are those who are most righteous.
Indeed God is aware of all things. Verses (4:123-124) abort any claim that
Muslims, by the virtue of being Muslim, will escape punishment if they sin, This
shall not be in accordance with your vain desires nor in accordance with the vain
desires of the followers of the Book; whoever does evil, he shall be requited with
it, and besides Allah he will find for himself neither a guardian nor a helper. And
whoever does good deeds whether male or female and he or she is a believer--
these shall enter the garden, and they shall not be dealt with a jot unjustly. Not
only the Quran teaches equality, it also presents Islam as an uncompromisingly
universal religion, O mankind! Adore your Lord Who created you and those
before you so that you may guard against evil, (2:21). The message is not
confined to a special race or group of people. It is to all humankind.

7) The Quran vehemently attacks blind imitation. And when it is said to
them: Follow what Allah has revealed, they say: Nay! We follow what we found
our fathers upon. What! And though their fathers had no sense at all, nor did they
follow the right way, (2:170). The Quran calls for rational inquiry away from
docile surrender to long-standing traditions. Abraham is hailed in the Quran
because he, while a teenager, discovered the senselessness of the worship of
his people. He, then, challenged all his community, When he said to his father
and his people: What are these images to whose worship you cleave? They said:
We found our fathers worshipping them. He said: Certainly you have been, both
you and your fathers, in manifest error. They said: Have you brought to us the
truth, or are you one of the triflers? He said: Nay! Your Lord is the Lord of the
heavens and the earth, who brought them into existence, and I am of those who
bear witness to this, (21:52-56).

8) The Quran teaches accountability for all peoples actions before God.
Verses (99:6-8) say, On that Day all mankind will come in multitudes, to be
18
shown all their deeds. Then whoever has done even an atoms weight of Good
shall see it. And whoever has done even an atom's weight of Evil shall see it.
The Quran puts it clear, And a burdened soul cannot bear the burden of another
and if one weighed down by burden should cry for another to carry its burden, not
aught of it shall be carried, even though he be near of kin, (35:18). No one will
be punished for a sin he did not commit or advocate. Following someone or
some group does not absolve the individual from his responsibility and
accountability before God. There is no original sin. There is no clergy or
priesthood that lay exclusive claim on the way to God.

9) The Quran teaches freedom of religion: the most fundamental of all
human rights. Verse (2:256) says, Let there be no compulsion in religion.
Indeed, Truth stands out Clear from Error. So whoever rejects Evil and believes
in God has indeed grasped the most firm holding. And God hears and knows all
things. And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and
let him who please disbelieve, (18:29).

10) The Quran teaches modesty and honesty: Arrogance and hypocrisy are
the worst character traits. Verse (40:76) says, Enter then the Gates of Hell,
forever residing in it, and evil indeed is the final residence of those who are
arrogant. Verse (4:145) says, Indeed the Hypocrites will be in the lowest depths
of Hell, and you will find none willing help them.

11) The Quranic principle for dealing with the other is clear from verses
(60:8-9), Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war
against you on account of your religion, and have not driven you forth from your
homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah
loves the doers of justice. Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war
upon you on account of your religion, and drove you forth from your homes and
backed up others in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and
whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust. The Quran does not
present Islam as a religion of unquestionable peace or relentless aggression.
Those who do not transgress should be treated humanely and benevolently.
Those who transgress should be fought, And fight in the cause of God those
who fight against you, and do not commit aggression. Indeed God does not love
those who are aggressors, (2:190).

12) Although the Quran scolds the Christians and Jews, it does not demonize
them all. Verses (3:113-115) are clear in this regard, They are not all alike; of
the followers of the Book there is an upright party; they recite Allah's
communications in the nighttime and they adore Him. They believe in Allah and
the last day, and they enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and they strive
with one another in hastening to good deeds, and those are among the good.
And whatever good they do, they shall not be denied it, and Allah knows those
who guard against evil. Reason dictates that there exists no group of people
19
who are all good or who are all evil. The Quran agrees with this, even when it
comes to its theological opponents.

13) The Quran presents four methods to deal with ones own opponents.
Verse (3:134) gives three methods, and those who restrain their anger and
pardon men; and Allah loves the doers of good to others. The three methods
given here are, a) to restrain ones anger and not respond, b) to pardon the one
who wrongs you, and c) to do good to the one who transgresses against you.
According to verse, method (c) is the most beloved one by God. This is the same
as the purport of verse (41:34), Goodness and evil are not the same. So repel
evil with goodness, then the one who had enmity between you becomes as a
trusted and dear friend. So the Quran teaches that responding to evil with
goodness is better. Nevertheless, the Quran also grants a fourth method:
retaliation. Verse (2:194) is clear on this, whoever then acts aggressively against
you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you. Verse
(16:126) gives the same meaning, And if you take your turn, then retaliate with
the like of that with which you were afflicted. It makes retaliation permissible
and, at times, obligatory on the condition that it does not exceed the limits. It
would have been preposterous if the Quran has just advocated forgiveness. A
main theme in the Quran is that it instructs people to do things that are consistent
with their nature. The Quran appears very well to know the spectrum of human
psychology, motives and desires, and the complexity and diversity of human
reality.

14) The Quran answers the question of the apparent inequality of peoples
shares in life. Verse (6:165) says, And He it is Who has made you successors in
the land and raised some of you above others by various grades, that He might
try you by what He has given you; surely your Lord is quick to requite evil, and
He is most surely the Forgiving, the Merciful. Verse (102:8) says, Then on that
day you shall most certainly be questioned about the boons. The Quran explains
that some people are raised above others by having more joy, health, power, or
wealth in their lives. Yet, this is not inconsistent with absolute Divine justice.
People in the Hereafter will be asked about the blessings they enjoyed in their
lives. Put simply: having something more in this life means more responsibility
and accountability before God in the Hereafter. Life is a test for everyone. The
Quran says, Who created death and life that He may try you---which of you is
best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Forgiving, (67:2). And, Every soul shall
have a taste of death: and We test you with calamity and prosperity, by way of
trial. And to Us you shall be brought back, (21:35). Some people are wealthy,
some people are poor; some people are healthy, some people are sick; some
people have many opportunities, some people are trapped in their dismal
conditions. All these are being tested. The have-nots are required to patiently
persevere. The haves are required to use all their means, powers, and privileges
to help those who suffer and to alleviate their suffering. In the Hereafter, all
suffering will be compensated without measure (39:10). Everyone will be asked
20
about the blessings he enjoyed, whether these were used to oppress others, to
indulge oneself with complete indifference to others, or to help the sufferers.

15) The Quran teaches that killing one soul unjustly is tantamount to killing all
humanity. Verse (5:32) says, For that, We ordained for the Children of Israel that
whoever kills even one person, except as punishment for murder or major
crimes, it would be as if he has killed all of humanity. And whoever saved one
innocent life, it would be as if he saved all of humanity. This is the Quranic view
of human life and its sacredness.

16) Again the Quran reveals deep understanding of human nature by its
gradualism in legislation. Before consumption of wine was completely prohibited,
people were stimulated to think of its harms in comparison with its benefits, and
then it was forbidden to drink before prayers. Although slavery was not banned in
the Quran, emancipating slaves is presented as a benevolent deed that merits
reward and grants salvation, It is the setting free of a slave, or the giving of food
in a day of hunger to an orphan or to the poor man lying in the dust, (90:13-16).
Freeing slaves was considered the expiation for many sins. More importantly is
that the Quran emphasized the equality of humans, and that only their deeds
matter. In other words, the Quran, besides encouraging the emancipation of
slaves, tried to free them first in the minds of the society. People are taught by
the Quran that slaves are their brothers and sisters, sons and daughters. It is
insightful to contrast the Quranic method to the way slavery was disestablished in
the United Sates. Slavery was abolished by force and the result was that the
White ex-masters treated the emancipated Blacks as slaves though they were
officially free men and women. The plight of the Blacks is but one example of
how ineffective the application of force can be, especially when the objective is
social reform. The Quran, obviously more knowledgeable of human nature, tried
to solve the problem of slavery without severely disrupting the society. The focus
was on convincing people that they are all equal and inducing them to set slaves
free voluntarily. The abolition of slavery was a natural consequence without any
form of residual racism and claims of supremacy.

17) A lecturer of the Problems of Philosophy MIT course asked a question
about the very profound problem of evil and suffering, If God is not a deceiver,
why does He not reveal Himself and his plan more clearly to us?
43
The Quran
tackles this question with provocative explicitness. The intentions of God are
clearly stated, And We will most certainly try you with somewhat of fear and
hunger and loss of property and lives and fruits; and give good news to the
patient, (2:155). Suffering is an integral part of the test of life as mentioned in
point (14). Verses (29:2-3) say, Do men think that they will be left alone on
saying, we believe, and not be tried? And certainly We tried those before them,
so Allah will certainly know those who are true and He will certainly know the

43
Available from: http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Linguistics-and-Philosophy/24-00Problems-of-
PhilosophyFall2001/F3C2D0C3-6209-4052-A398-5353C3686BC5/0/fa01lec03.pdf.Last Accessed
on 01/04/06.
21
liars. In the Quran, God does reveal his plan clearly to us. Since people differ in
how they are tried, their reckoning will be different in the Hereafter. Justice is
realized in life and afterlife taken together. As for evil emanating from humans,
and this is certainly the most dominant type of evil on Earth, it is their choice, not
Gods will, These are the signs of Allah which We recite to you with truth, and
Allah does not desire any injustice to His creatures, (3:108). The Quran puts it
clearly: when someone does evil, it is absolutely his responsibility, This is due to
what your two hands have sent before, and because Allah is not in the least
unjust to the servants, (22:10).

18) The Quran calls for self-discipline. The most remarkable manifestation of
this is the daily prayers, Attend constantly to prayers and to the middle prayer
and stand up truly obedient to Allah, (2:238), and fasting in Ramadan, O you
who believe! Fasting is prescribed for you, (2:183). One wonders why a
fabricator of a religion repulses people by imposing demanding rites on them.
Prayers, for example, are not arbitrary, and they follow a strict schedule, surely
prayer is a timed ordinance for the believers, (4:103). Even the Quran admits the
hardness of prayer except on the most pious, And seek assistance through
patience and prayer, and most surely it is a hard thing except for the humble
ones, (2:45). The Quran does not compromise its basic tenets, like monotheism,
or its required obligations, none of which were of direct benefit to the Prophet.

19) The Quran makes a balance between the role of the individual and the
role of the society. Although each one is individually accountable, there are
duties that are to be discharged by the whole community, And as for the
believing men and the believing women, they are guardians of each other; they
enjoin good and forbid evil, (9:71). The Quran calls for a society in which people
aid each other in developing their moral character and religiosity, I swear by the
time, Most surely man is in loss, Except those who believe and do good, and
enjoin on each other truth, and enjoin on each other patience, (103:1-3). Once
again, the Quran reveals deep understanding of human nature. Humans rarely
live alone, and their interaction with their societies should be positive and
designed for the benefit of both the individual and the community.

20) The Quran makes a balance between material life and spiritual life. The
Quran emphasizes that the way to spiritual comfort is the worship of the Creator
and seeking refuge in Him, Who have believed and whose hearts have rest in
the remembrance of Allah. Verily in the remembrance of Allah do hearts find
rest, (13:28). At the same time, the Quran tackles various aspects of material
life with deep understanding of human needs and desires. For example, the
Quran talks about marriage, divorce, inheritance, criminal law, financial
transactions, peace and war.

21) The Quranic approach to history is balanced, perspicacious, and rational.
The historic stories in the Quran ignore distracting details. For example, the
name of Mosess Pharaoh is not mentioned. The concern is not about this
22
specific Pharaoh. The timeless concern is about oppression and tyranny. This is
a recurring theme when the Quran deals with history. Verse (2:134) says, This is
a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall
have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they
did. The Quran immerses the reader in history but, at the same time, liberates
him from history. This is consistent with the principle of individual responsibility.
The reader should learn from what had happened to previous nations. Yet, he
has nothing to do with their fate. He is only responsible for his own deeds.

22) The Quran contains many scientific indicators that are consistent with
modern scientific knowledge
44
. For example, verse (21:30) talks about the
primordial condition of the universe, Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens
and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove
them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then
believe? Verses (23:12-14) describes the stages of embryonic development,
And certainly We created man of an extract of clay, Then We made him a small
seed in a firm resting-place, Then We made the seed into a leech-like structure,
then of that leech-like structure We made a chewed lump, Then We made out of
the chewed lump, bones, and clothed the bones in flesh, then We caused it to
grow into another creation, so blessed be Allah, the best of the creators. Verse
(16:68) addresses bees as females (evident only in Arabic), And your Lord
revealed to the bee saying: Make hives in the mountains and in the trees and in
what they build. Verse (24:40) mentions the internal waves below the sea or
ocean surface, Or like utter darkness in the deep sea: there covers it a wave
above which is another wave, above which is a cloud, (layers of) utter darkness
one above another; when he holds out his hand, he is almost unable to see it;
and to whomsoever Allah does not give light, he has no light. Verse (41:11) talks
about the initial nebulous nature of skies, Then turned He to the heaven when it
was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or
unwillingly. They said: We come, obedient. Last, but not least, verse (51:47)
talks about the ever-expanding universe, We have built the heaven with might,
and We it is Who increases its vastness. This verse is interesting because
Einstein, in his general theory of relativity, discovered that his theory predicted an
unstable universe -- one that would either expand or contract, but would not
remain stationary. But since almost all scientists at Einsteins time believed in a
stationary universe, he inserted a fudge factor (the cosmological constant) into
his equations to make them predict a stationary, eternal universe. When
astronomer Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding, Einstein removed

44
I mean knowledge that is based on compelling evidence and numerous observations, and not
tentative theories and incomplete understanding. Science has its assumptions, its metaphysics,
its beliefs, such as the belief in the uniformity of nature, the intelligibility of the universe, and
causality. These are very reasonable beliefs. They cannot be proved in a strict sense, however.
Our scientific knowledge changes over time. Even theories that persist for centuries can be
overturned. This is exactly what happened to Newtonian physics when a considerable number of
observations could not be incorporated within the framework of the theory. The anomalies led
eventually to the development of quantum physics, and the theory of relativity---both, until now,
are conceptually and mathematically incompatible.
23
the fudge factor and admitted that it was the biggest blunder of his life. The
expanding universe was mentioned in the Quran more than 14 centuries ago.

23) Interestingly the Quran urges people to study, rather than blindly accept,
it, Do they not carefully analyze the Quran. If it had been from other than Allah
then surely they would have found many discrepancies therein, (4:82). The
Quran praises the people who free themselves from imitation and self-indulgence
and use their reason, Thus do We make the communications distinct for a
people who use their reason, (30:28) and most surely there are signs in this for
a people who think, (39:42).

In addition to superb language unmatched by any piece of ancient or
contemporary Arabic literature, the Quranic worldview is rational, reasonable,
and coherent. The Quranic code of ethics resonates with my visions of a just and
equitable world. The Quranic theology is simple and based on duality: there is
the Creator and the created. The Quran is free from illogicalness, myths, and
superstitions. Without going to extremes, or indulging in unreality, the Quran
reveals deep knowledge of humans and their material, emotional, and spiritual
needs. The Quran does not shrink from criticizing the Prophet himself and the
community. The Quran pays attention to the poor hard-pressed people, entitling
them to a share in the property of the wealthy, and even decreeing lenient
punishment for them when they transgress the law. The Quran emphasizes the
notions of self-discipline and individual responsibility, fights imitation, and calls
upon people to use their intellect.

Conclusion

The result of this wandering from physics to biology to scripture was a deep
belief in the existence of God and the divinity of the Quran, and thus the
truthfulness of Islam. Conviction and belief in and about God was built step by
step along the way. In my journey, I discovered that one has 2 options, either to
believe in an eternal God, or to believe in an eternal something else! There is no
escape from the unfathomable concept of eternity. If there is no god, then the
universe, or a universe-generating entity, or a set of natural laws are eternal. I
found that atheists, for whom I read a lot during my search, find refuge in the idea
of some laws out there governing the universe. I prefer now to use the term
theology of immanence rather than atheism, though it is wider in scope. It is the
theology of those who believe that God, as a force, is completely immanent in
man and nature, or in either, and therefore has no separate existence apart from
them. It is the pantheistic theology of the unity of being. In this theology, the
universe is self-existent, self-subsisting, self-contained, and self-referential. In
other words, what theists attribute to God; they attribute to the universe or nature.
Although atheists are apparently de-metaphysicalizing the concept of God, they
are still caught by inaccessible metaphysical entities. Atheism is a religion of its
own, having its beliefs, values, and practices.

24
My experience started by the 2 competing hypotheses: eternal God or
eternal something else (as in the introduction: a white board, or a half black, half
white board). I was fully cognizant of the fact that human knowledge is limited
45
.
Yet, as we were able to reach compelling belief about a huge checkerboard, that
was inaccessible to us, from examining only 100 squares, we could go along and
use what is available to us to find compelling answers to fundamental questions.
Even if not all the answers are known, the intellectual exercise protects us from
being benighted, and gives our lives superb meanings. By only examining the
physical world, the elegance of its laws and the stupendous diversity of its forms,
a belief could be built about the existence of a superintellect. Then came a
scripture like the Quran, carrying in it numerous supra-human indicators, to
confirm unequivocally the presence of God the Creator.

I have finally understood verse (31:13), O my dear son! Ascribe no partners
unto Allah. Lo! To ascribe partners unto Him is a tremendous injustice. Fair
humans find it abhorrent to take the work of someone and ascribe it to another.
Saying that, this elegant universe or this rich life is the pure product of some
natural laws, is tantamount to committing immense injustice to the Creator, who
reveals Himself in the wonders of nature, the miracles of life, and the style and
content of scripture. Ignoring the fundamental questions in the first place is utter
mental ossification. In the Quran, people are exhorted to think about their
existence and their fate. Using the intellect to reach true belief is a hallmark of
the Quranic text. Contrary to what some claim that belief is not ratiocinative, my
personal experience testifies to a possible belief built on methodical, logical, and
even mathematical reasoning.

No one can deny that other scriptures and religious books share some of the
Quranic worldview. Nonetheless, the Quran does not say that someone pays for
the sins of another. It does not declare the presence of a chosen people. It does
not say that some people are created from the head of God and others from his
feet. It does not talk about a god dwelling in man and nature or in either. It does
not ignore the material needs of humans nor neglect their spiritual demands. It
does not become mere dogmatism, legalism and ritualism; or emphasizing the
spirit only and recommending life negation and flight from reality. It does not treat
humans as pure angels or as complete devils. It speaks for a religion that is
simple and intelligible, and Its Weltanschauung is comprehensive, multi-
dimensional, and holistic

After reaching the belief that there is God and that the Quran is divine, the
Quran becomes my source of knowledge about the Divinity. My intellect
surrendered to the definitives of the Quran, i.e. what is stated with clear self-
evident language upon which not two persons of sound intellect and proper
understanding of Arabic language could disagree. These definitives are
concerned with the absolute oneness of God, the prophethood of Muhammad,

45
This is not a metaphysical position. This is evident from Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle and
Gdels incompleteness theorem.
25
the concept of life after death, a set of norms and uncompromisable ideals, and
several obligatory acts and ritual performances. The amazing thing is that after
belief, and though the intellect is apparently restrained by the text, it is
nevertheless granted a wide scope of innovation. I finally felt the intellectual joy
of being a Muslim.

We will soon show them Our signs in the Universe and in
their own souls, until it will become quite clear to them that it is
the truth. Is it not sufficient as regards your Lord that He is a
witness over all things?(41:53)




Appendix A

Randomized algorithms are not science fiction. They have many
applications. A randomized algorithm can be used to check whether a given
large integer is a prime (a positive number is called prime if it has exactly two
divisors itself and 1). Large prime numbers play critical roles in many modern
algorithms having to do with cryptography and security. To produce a large
prime, we can randomly generate a large integer n and then test its primality. But
can such testing be done efficiently? The straightforward way to test a large
positive integer n is to divide it by successively larger integers and see whether it
has any divisors other than 1 and n. (In fact, it is not necessary to divide it by all
the integers; dividing by primes alone will do the job) However, when n is about
100 decimal digits long not an unusual size for numbers that crop up in some
applications this becomes an impossible job. Testing all the possible divisors
would take more time than our planet is expected to last. Faster methods exist,
but even the best of them cannot factor number of 200 decimal digits without a
human lifetime. A randomized algorithm can do the trick. Choose at random a
positive integer a and use it to perform an easy computation that, for some
values of a, can show with certainty that a is not prime. When the computation
gives such a definite result, a is called a witness for ns nonprimality. It turns out
that if n is indeed non-prime, at least half of the positive integers between 1 and n
are witnesses for ns nonprimality. Therefore, if you choose at random an integer
a within that range, and if n is not prime, then with probability or higher a is a
witness to this fact. In other words, at least half the time the test will smoke out a
non-prime on the first try. If you pick two numbers at random, the chance that
neither will be a witness is at most u , or . If you repeat this test N times,
the probability of being fooled into believing a non-prime n is a prime is no more
than ()
N
. Even with modest Ns, like 50, the probability of calling a non-prime a
prime is infinitesimal.
46


46
IEEE Spectrum, p. 35-36, May 1998.
26

Another application of the idea of randomized algorithms is zero knowledge
proofs, which play an important role in applications that require authentication.
Abstractly, a zero knowledge proof is an interactive proof with a prover and a
verifier, where the prover convinces the verifier of a statement (with high
probability) without revealing any information about how to go about proving that
statement. An example of how zero knowledge proof works is as follows (A is a
prover, B is a verifier, C is a impostor, D is an eavesdropper, and E is another
prover):
Assume that A knows a square root w of x modulo y, i.e. x = w^2 mod y. If y
is the product of two unknown big prime numbers (for example, 200 digits), it is
intractable to find the square root w given x. Our zero knowledge proof will
consist of rounds of interaction which shows that the prover A knows a square
root w of a published number x, where no information is revealed about the
square root. It is known that there exists a square root to this number (public
knowledge). The factors of the modulus y should be entirely secret. When the A
wishes to prove his knowledge of w to the verifier, B, A runs several rounds of
interaction. In each round, A choses a new random number r and sends v = r^2
(mod y) to B. Now, B chooses a random bit b, and sends it to A. A replies with z
= ruw^b (mod y). To verify A's claim, B computes z^2 and compares it with xuv^b
(mod y).
Now, let's do the analysis. The first claim is that only A can successfully
complete the protocol for both possible values of b. This is clear since knowing
ruw when b = 1 and r when b = 0 means you also know w. The second claim is
that an imposter C who does not actually know w can succeed with a probability
of exactly each round: to see this, notice that if C guesses correctly that b = 0,
then he can just follow the protocol and succeed; on the other hand, if C guesses
that b = 1, C can generate v by choosing a random number t and setting v = t^2 /
x (mod y). Afterwards he sends z = t (mod y), which, when squared, gives xu v
(mod y). The third claim is that no new information is released. To see this,
consider what an eavesdropper D hears. In the case of the random bit b = 0, D
sees a random number r and its square v; in the case of b = 1, D sees the
numbers z = r u w (mod y). and v = (r u w)^2/x (mod y). By no means, w can be
known from r u w. Each round of the proof shows that there is a chance that
a prover E might not actually know w. Iterating 20 times gives a probability of less
than ()
20
or .0000009536 that E does not actually know w.



Appendix B

Below is my view on Intelligent Design (ID) after finishing my intellectual
exercise. Though ID is very friendly to religion, it is dangerous to accept it
unquestionably just because of this inclination. Objectivity is required to preserve
the integrity of both religion and science.
27

-ID is a type of Fisherian inference where a hypothesis is rejected if the outcome
lies in a region in the space of possible outcomes that has a very small
probability given the hypothesis under investigation. The outcome here may, for
instance, be a biological organ, structure, or mechanism. The hypothesis is a
scientific combination of chance and necessity that explains the outcome. By
very small probability the ID researchers refer to a universal probability bound
that takes the whole probabilistic resources of the universe into account. Given
the age of the universe, the quantum requirement that the smallest possible time
step is the Planck time, and the number of particles in the universe, the ID
researcher Dembski argues that 10^(-150) is a plausible, and highly
conservative, probabilistic bound.

-ID is not a scientific theory despite the claims of its proponents. It lacks the
features that make it an acceptable scientific theory including the ability to make
predictions to be verified by experiment.

-The name ID is in itself biased and contradicts the methodological naturalism on
which science is based. Science uses necessity (law), chance, or a combination
of both to explain different phenomena. I, personally, am a believer in
methodological naturalism. However, I also came to believe that there is more to
the universe than chance and necessity, and that the capabilities of science,
albeit huge, are limited. That is the reason I have rejected metaphysical (or
ontological or anti-teleological) naturalism. The belief in the latter form of
naturalism assumes that there is nothing in the universe and the whole existence
but chance and necessity.

-I do believe that ID, maybe after changing its name, is a very elegant theory,
however. In its best formulation, it can be a theory that tells us whether a
proposed scientific explanation is plausible to explain a phenomenon or not. The
ID theory is an excellent paradigm to define the adequacy of a set (or superset)
of existing hypotheses.

-If ID proves that the probability of a proposed explanation is below the universal
probability bound, the best that can be said is that science, till now, cannot
explain the phenomenon. Assuming, of course, that the calculation is correct.
The next step is basically metascientific. If one trusts the calculation and thinks
that it covers a whole set of hypotheses, then the conclusion may be that no
scientific theory would be able to account for the observed phenomenon. But one
can make the claims that: (a) the probabilities were not correctly estimated, (b)
the known mechanisms are operating in unknown ways, or (c) unknown
mechanisms may be operative. This type of debate, unless there is a clear
miscalculation, will often be subjective and somewhat dependent on ones views
on the scope of scientific inquiry and investigation.

28
-Two arguments can be made here. The first is that ID is an impediment to
science as it moves from the inadequacy of the current hypotheses to a
statement of we will never succeed in explaining the phenomenon scientifically.
However, another argument can be made. ID, by showing the inadequacy of
current explanations, may help awaken the scientists from their intellectual
slumber, something that often takes place given the inertia of the scientific
culture (and other cultures). ID here can be a motivator for scientists to think
outside the box and try to propose alternative hypotheses. I think it is extremely
unlikely that all the scientists will take an ID result and stop hunting for
naturalistic explanations. My point is that ID may harm science, but ignoring it
may also harm science. After all, everything has its share of merits and demerits.