Imam Al-Ghazali: The Alchemy of Happiness

Link to the pdf version of one of the chapters in Imam Al-Ghazali's Ihya Ulum Al-Din (The Revival of the Religious Sciences): The Alchemy of Happiness.

Some other stuff E says or asks

I forgot when E said these things, but within a couple of months to a year ago. So these were about when E was 4+ y.o. I better jot them down now before I forgot about all these things later on when E got older.

Why People Die?

We were looking out our kitchen window when there were some huge march in front of our house. They were marching towards a nearby Sikh's temple for a funeral. The march were huge, I mean really huge with horse carriage carrying the casket, 3 large luxurious buses, 10 extra-expensive black Mercedes and BMWs. I guess the guy/gal was some really important person in their community.

So E asked,

E: What's happening out there, B?
B: Somebody just died. They were bringing the body to their special place.
E: Why did he die?
B: I think maybe he's really old. When people get really old, one day they will die.
E: Everybody will die when they got old?
B: Yes E. Everybody will die when they got old.
E: Are you and M going to die when you got old?
B: Yes. But don't worry. We are not old yet. It will be along long time before we got old.
E: Then I don't want you to get old yet. Because if you are old and you die, I will be alone and nobody will take care of me. I will be all by myself and I will be sad then.
M: Don't worry E. When we are old long time from now and we die, you will become big like me and you will marry and have children so you won't be alone.
E: So I will have children like me when I get bigger?
M: Yes. And you will take care of them so you won't be sad and be all by yourself. But it will be a long long time from now before we get very old. So you don't have to worry.

(After a moment of pause)

E: B, why do people die?

I was like, damn, how do I answer this question. It's not an easy one. Probably one of the toughest one considering you have to explain it to a 4 y.o., and make them understand realistically, than just tell them so bogus stuff that's not true or make up some stupid excuses to avoid the question.

After some thinking, I then thought I've got a perfect answer that tops it all. We're muslim and I've told a few things about Allah the Almighty and that He's the God and that He's the one that we pray to if we need help. So I said:

B: Everybody will die when they become old because we will go to see Allah. That will be a good thing and we will go to a beautiful place if we always pray to Allah. So we don't have to worry.
E: Then I don't wont to see Allah because I don't want to die.

Me and M were loughing out loud, not that it was funny, but because the logic follows perfectly and it was just something totally not right to say but a perfectly innocent thing to say by a 4 y.o.

Me and M were just clueless what to say next. We simply said that it's not good to say that and that E will learn more about it as E grows. But honestly, it wasn't really a good answer because we didn't have a good one based on reason and logic that'll make her understand more. We don't want to simply just give a factual answer without E seeing the logic clearly. That won't help E much.

Some people with our faith might say that we should be firmer to correct the answer by E and tell E right off that that's a wrong thing to say and that the truth is bla bla bla. But the thing is, I think, there's no point to come straight out about the issue with a kid that age. Their brain develops in phases and that it's best for them to learn complex and abstract concepts gradually. That way they'll understand better.

If you just tell them straight out about this fact and that fact and except them to take it as it is, it might seem that you've done your job. But it might make things worse. You limit their ability to reason and just force them to memorize this and that or to just take 100% of whatever you say as true. If you keep doing this on and on to them, there's a big chance that they'll just become another person that have the ability to absorb anything they hear, but don't really have the capacity to exercise their brains to think logically and rationally. I don't want to do that to them!

Okay, another group of people might say that there are things you can use your rational thinking and there are things that you just have to take it as it is. The issue of religion and believe in God for example. You might say that it's best to keep reasoning in these matters limited, because to much logical thinking would lead to disbelief or blasphemy and you might say: "just look at them western people and Darwin theory that says God doesn't exist". So you say: "just follow the experts and don't ask too many questions!"

I only have 2 things to say about this:

Point #1:

We're human and we're different from the rest of the living things in the world because we have brains with the capacity to think, to reason, to rationalize, and to make sense of our senses. If you're a man of faith, then you should believe that the brains are there for a reason. Ultimately, we should be responsible on how we use our brain in believing what we believe in. There's a powerful quote on this issue:

"Do not follow blindly any information of which you have no direct knowledge. (Using your faculties of perception and conception) you must verify it for yourself. In the Court of your Lord, you will be held accountable for your hearing, sight, and the faculty of reasoning" - Al-Quran, 17/36.

Point #2:

If you say just follow the right people and stop asking questions, then who's to say who's right? On the issue of religion, if you're born in Saudi you might be a Muslim; if you're born in UK, there's a chance you're a Christian; if you're from Israel, big chance you might be Jewish; born in India, maybe you're a Hindu, and so on and on. So, what's the end of this then, if you blindly follow the 'right' people, which depends on who you are, where you're from, what school you go to, who your parents are, who your friends are, etc etc etc?

The thing is, I think you do have to develop some capacity of rational thinking. Rational thinking doesn't necessarily mean not believing in God simply because we can't see Him. The fact is that what we can really see using our eyes is an immensely small scope of the reality. Our visible light (electromagnetic EM wave) extends from only 400 to 700 nanometer of wavelength, but the whole EM spectrum goes far beyond what we can actually see; the wavelength goes from 0.0000001 nanometer to 100 000 kilometeres.

Plus, those who don't believe in God says that everything that they know about science in the universe tells them they shouldn't believe in one. Especially those guys who think too much of Darwin (guys like Richard Dawkins who's real expertise is more on manipulating words than about molecular biology or genetic evolution). The fact is that what we know about science (if we combine all those knowledge and all the people on planet Earth know) is only a small part of the reality of the entire universe that we can see. The fact is, a large part of what we don't know amounts to more than 95% of the entire universe (70% of them are dark energy and 25% of them are dark matter, which we don't know anything about, even the smartest guy you can find in the world). Imagine that, everything that we ever know about the universe, everything that we ever can see, even with the most sophisticated scientific device ever built, is only about 5% of the entire universe.

So with all that 5% that all the smartest people in the world ever know, how can you let people tell you that God doesn't exist? To the guys who proudly claim that they are atheist simply because all the facts in the world tell them that that is so, their case is even more pitiful than the case of a kid who says that a rainbow is a stairway to the sky. Not knowing so much about the science of rainbows, a kid would innocently say things that they've heard somewhere. But, not knowing that there's only 5% of the entire universe that they know (if they somehow have the capacity to absorb and understand all the scientific knowledge ever produced by man), a proud self-proclaimed intelligent atheist (the likes of Richard Dawkins, again) would write hundreds of books telling people there's no logic in claiming that God exist.

I've read books by atheists that claim that belief in God is absurd because it needs a leap of faith, which contradicts logical reasoning. The fact is, knowing that we only know at most 5% of the entire universe, not believing in God is as much as a leap of faith as believing in God is.

Also, if you still think that science is not compatible with faith, just go around and pick up some books about all that you can think of or doubtful about. Top of the list would be the Darwin theory of evolution - pick up a couple of books about it and try to see for yourself what arguments do they actually have that makes people conclude that Darwin theory makes religion obsolete. Pick up also books written by scientists (e.g. Collins or Denton) on the complexity of our DNA and genetic make-up and how they lead to faith in God (faith in specific religion is a different matter and now what I'm trying to point out here). Read both sides and form your own opinion rather than just follow what people say. Also read good books by scientist that writes about faith (e.g. Jeffrey Lang).

For the fun of it, read also books by prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins to see their side of views and find out for yourself that their arguments are extremely weak and childish and circulatory, relying so much on building people's hatred towards faith by showing extreme examples (or even badly simplistic hypothetical case) rather building up their case clearly and rationally on established scientific grounds. Even worse, his scientific background itself is not strong enough for him to make a case for Darwin theory against faith. If he's some kind of prominent molecular or DNA scientists, maybe you could give a thought or two about the things he has to say about evolution.

The thing is, if your doubtful or curious about something, build up your stand by first building up your knowledge about it, reading different sides of views, pros and cons. If you're just building your stand based on what other people say about this without really looking deeper into it, then you don't really have much to say about it.

--------------------------

Man, I've been babbling for close to two hours now. Better stop now...

Some insights on the use of 'Allah' issue

Original article on The Malaysian Insider: A Letter to a Muslim Friend.

It's a letter written to highlight some historical facts relevant to the issue. Based on these, it's clearly obvious what kind of politicians we have running the country, who are trying to split people apart on skewed/twisted religious grounds - those who think more with their chaotic emotions, misplaced gut feelings, baseless presumptions, personal/private interests rather than with reasons, rationality, books, knowledge, history, established facts, valid evaluations, etc.

Here's the article in its entirety:

JAN 19 — Recently, someone whom I consider a very close and trusted friend, and who is a Muslim, wrote an email to me with a very simple question: “What was The Herald asking for exactly?”

As someone who knew what the issue was from the start, having once been a freelance contributor to The Herald, I gathered my thoughts and spoke to a few relevant people and started writing down the facts of the whole issue.

Instead of the creative and open writing style that is normally employed in any article, I decided to keep it strictly to the point with the facts itself, following the style of a former prime minister whose blog name is one letter short of the anagram for the word “CHEATED”, which is rather ironic since many of us still feel that way over events of the past 28 years.

Anyway, this was my letter to that Muslim friend.

Dear brother Malaysian,

I wish all Muslims (and even some non-Muslims) were like you, stopping to ask what the issue was instead of playing straight into the tactics of people (and some media) who have personal and political agendas. Here are the facts of the issue, which I am sure will answer your question easily.

1. The Herald has been around for more than 15 years.
2. The Herald was first published in English only.
3. By the late 1990s, there already was a Bahasa Malaysia edition, which occasionally contained the term “Allah”.
4. Upon request, and to meet growing demand, Tamil and Chinese editions were added simply to allow Catholics who were more familiar with those two languages to have their community news and spiritual guidance explained for their better understanding. These editions covered a few pages respectively.
5. Likewise, the thousands of East Malaysian students in government universities in Peninsula Malaysia, who are active in the Catholic Students Society in their respective universities, had requested to have pages added in Bahasa Malaysia (BM).
6. These East Malaysians students over the past 15 years were naturally those who were educated completely under the Bahasa Malaysia medium and with little exposure to English (for the majority of them).
7. In addition to the students, thousands of East Malaysians have been flocking to the Klang Valley for better prospects and simply to “cari makan”, just like other Malaysians from all over the peninsula. Again, the majority would be BM-educated and more comfortable worshiping in Bahasa Malaysia than in English.
8. Like for the Tamil and Chinese editions, the East Malaysians naturally wanted the Bahasa Malaysia edition to be about their own community news, besides some local and global Catholic church news translated from English to Bahasa Malaysia.
9. Bahasa Malaysia was, after all, their common denominator, i.e. the national language, propagated by the government themselves over all other languages since the late 1970s (hmmm . . . I wonder who was the education minister who started it all).
10. The East Malaysians themselves wrote the original content and translated some of the English pages in The Herald to Bahasa Malaysia. One can easily surmise this from the writers’ by-lines as well as from the “Letters to the Editor” in the Bahasa Malaysia edition since its beginnings, around 12 years ago.
11. If these East Malaysians used “Allah” in their praise and worship all their lives — as did their parents, grandparents and the generations before them — it would only be natural that they would write their articles and reflections, as well as do translations, using the only word they know for the “Lord our God”, the God of Abraham and Moses. The one Almighty God.
12. The word “Allah” was never and will never be used to refer to Jesus in any Bahasa Malaysia translation. That is one blatant piece of misinformation that so many peninsula Malaysian Muslims have been wrongly led to believe.
13. When former Home Minister Datuk Syed Hamid Albar imposed a blanket ban on the use of the word “Allah” in The Herald, as well as on imported Christian Bibles and other literature in both print and multimedia formats from Indonesia, the church appealed.
14. After appeals and all other avenues failed, the Catholic Church had no choice but to go to court because it is a basic deprivation of human rights in not allowing East Malaysian Christians the right to worship God in a manner they have used to worship Him all their lives and for generations past.
15. The Herald just wants the right for their Klang Valley-based East Malaysian readers to practise their faith, and share their community information, while learning about their own faith, in the only language they share, being as they are from various Bumiputera groups, and as how they have been practicing it all these years.
16. The Herald is only sold within church grounds, and has also complied with government requests to have “TERHAD (restricted)” and “FOR NON-MUSLIMS ONLY” on the cover, even if it was never to be sold or distributed outside church grounds in the first place.
17. The greatest lie being repeated over and over again, by ministers, morally-corrupt politicians, some Muslim scholars, some government-controlled media as well as misinformed members of the public is that the church started using the term “Allah” in The Herald since only a few years ago.
18. The other great lie is that the term is also intended for use in the English edition.

Thanks again for asking your very important question, my brother.

Please do enlighten your fellow Muslim brothers and sisters on how it all started and why it was a non-issue, then made into an issue by the government, and now has become the biggest possible threat to Malaysian unity, peace and harmony, after more than 50 years of independence.

Thanks.

Take care and God bless.

Look also at this article by Marina Mahathir to get other rational perspective.

On the isue of using "Allah" in Malaysia...

I found commentaries by Marina Mahathir to be the most apt in what our response should be on this issue.

Excerpt from Marina Mahathir in The Malaysian Insider:

While some idiots are mourning over the “loss” of the word “Allah” and therefore basically telling the world that they are people easily confused by nomenclature, and others are predicting riots over what is basically a “copyright” issue, let me define what I think a confident Muslim should be:

1. A confident Muslim is unfazed by the issue of God's name. God speaks to all of humankind in the Quran and never said that only Muslims could call him by the name Allah.

2. A confident Muslim has 99 names to choose from to describe that One God. My favourites are Ar-Rahman (The All-Compassionate) and Ar-Rahim (The All-Merciful).

3. A confident Muslim never gets confused over which is his/her religion and which is other people's. For instance, a confident Muslim knows exactly what the first chapter of the Quran is. And it's not the Lord's Prayer.

4. A confident Muslim will not walk into a church, hear a liturgy in Malay or Arabic where they use the word “Allah” and then think that he or she is in a mosque. A confident Muslim knows the difference.

5. A confident Muslim is generous, inclusive and doesn't think that his or her brethren is made exclusive through the use of a single language. The confident Muslim is well aware that in the Middle East, all services of ANY religion are in Arabic because that's what they all speak.

6. A confident Muslim knows the basis of his/her faith are the five pillars of Islam and will not be shaken just because other people call God by the same name.

7. A Muslim believes in only One God. Therefore it makes sense that other people should call God by the same name because there is no other God.

ART THOU NOT aware that it is God whose limitless glory all [creatures] that are in the heavens and on earth extol, even the birds as they spread out their wings? Each [of them] knows indeed how to pray unto Him and to glorify Him; and God has full knowledge of all that they do: (Surah Nour, Verse 41) (Asad).

So I would ask those people demonstrating against the court decision, have you no pride? Are you saying you're easily confused?

One of the biggest idiot refererred to in her article must obviously be Khir Toyo per his comment in The Malaysian Insider. Touche...

Good scholarly books on Abrahamic religions

About the author of these books, Dr. Laurence Brown:

A product of Christian-American ancestry dating back to the year 1677, up until his conversion to Islam in April of 1994, Dr. Brown easily could have passed as an example of a man who lived the stereotypical American dream. A graduate from two Ivy League universities with subspecialty training in ophthalmology, Dr. Brown served as a respected ophthalmologist in the U.S. Air Force for a period of eight years.

Midway through his Air Force career, Dr. Brown's ‘ideal American family' included a wife, two children, and the requisite two cars and a dog. His country home was crowded with the full array of comforts and toys which clutter the lives of those preoccupied with materialism. Yet Dr. Brown ended up sacrificing virtually everything he had worked for when he faced a religious conviction that overturned his lifelong priorities. Following a personal miracle through which the life of his daughter was saved, Dr. Brown redirected his focus to religious study in an attempt to make good on a promise made to God. In the process, Dr. Brown followed the chain of revelation through the Abrahamic religions from Judaism to Christianity and, in the end, to Islam. It is the result of that study that he relates in this series of thought-provoking books. In the same manner that Dr. Brown's choice of religion confronted his slice of the American dream, so too do his religious conclusions challenge the Western religious establishment.

Laurence Brown received his B.A. from Cornell University, his MD from Brown University Medical School, and his ophthalmology residency training at George Washington University Hospital in Washington, DC. His immediate family presently consists of his wife, three daughters, and an ever changing assortment of parrots and hamsters.

He's written a number of well-researched books about Islam, Christianity, and Judaism - specifically on the continuity of their revelations and the differences/similarities between these three Abrahamic religions. A must read-read for all who's a genuine seeker of truth. More about these books on his website: www.leveltruth.com.