Title: A Silencing Reply to Atheism

First Edition: 2018

Published by: Madrasah Arabia Islamia, Azaadville

 2 Who is the Monkey?

Contents
Introduction..............................................................................4
Belief of a Divine Being ........................................................4
Comments ..................................................................................7
Previous Titles to This Booklet.........................................8
A Reasoned and Level-Headed Response to an
Atheist .........................................................................................9
Additional Notes: ................................................................. 37
The Creed of the Atheists ................................................. 37
What Led to the Success of the Evolutionists? ........ 38
What Proof is there that Muslim Lands were
Greatly Advanced? .............................................................. 39
Why do people still deny the existence of a
Supreme Being? ................................................................... 40
Scientific Racism .................................................................. 43
Appendix 1 ............................................................................. 44
What is Science? ................................................................... 44
Philosophy of Science Yields Uncertain Knowledge
..................................................................................................... 53
Appendix 2 ............................................................................. 59
 3 Who is the Monkey?

Interesting Quotations from Scientists on

Evolutionism ......................................................................... 59
Brief Answers to A Few of the Common Arguments
Used To Support Evolutionists ...................................... 65
Introduction........................................................................... 65
Eohippus ................................................................................. 66
Vestigial Organs ................................................................... 66
Peppered Moths ................................................................... 67
Archaeopteryx ...................................................................... 67
"Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny" ......................... 68
The Miller-Urey Experiments......................................... 68
The Fossil Record ................................................................ 69
Why are Scientists Evolutionists? ................................ 70
Appendix 3 ............................................................................. 74
Moral Foundations.............................................................. 77
 4 Who is the Monkey?


Introduction
All praises are only due to Allaah , who created, sustains
and nourishes all of creation. Salaat and Salaam (Blessings
and Peace) be upon His  chosen Messengers, who
informed us of the origin of life, the object of life and the
destination which we are headed to, particularly our Master,
Muhammad .

Belief of a Divine Being

It is clear from history and from the religious literature of

different groups that belief in the existence of a Supreme
Being has always existed in the people. In every age, and in
every people, it has been accepted that this world has a
Creator, and that He has great power. Therefore, the call and
teachings of the messengers who were sent to different
people at different times, stressed the Oneness of that Deity.
They did not feel the need to stress the actual existence of a
Supreme Deity. The reason for this is that for almost the
whole of mankind, His  actual existence is an accepted fact,
and the existence of a Creator of the universe is as natural
and self-evident a fact as a person’s own existence.
Therefore, this error has never been very widespread
 5 Who is the Monkey?

among mankind. However, in recent times, the atheistic

movements have been very successful in promoting their
ideologies. An immense change is occurring on university
campuses. The popularisation of atheistic publications and
propaganda through social media, combined with fervent
activism, have increased an environment of intellectual
challenge and peer pressure. Any Muslim who is not
equipped with the adequate spiritual, intellectual and
theological tools to address these challenges can be
misguided onto the irrational path of denying the Divinity.
Atheism is not merely a figment of imagination, which is not
based on any proof whatsoever, but a sinister tool of
Shaytaan to lure people away from the truth.

Allah  says in the Quran, “Allah  created the heavens and

the earth as required, and so that each soul may be
rewarded for its earnings, and they shall not be wronged.
Look at the one who has made his own lust his deity. And
Allah , knowing him as such, led him astray and set a seal
upon his ears and his heart, and cast darkness over his eyes.
So now who will bring him onto the path beside Allah ? Do
you not ponder? They say, “There is nothing but our life of
this world. We die and we live, and nothing but time
destroys us.” They have no knowledge thereof. They are
merely guessing. When Our clear verses are recited to them,
they have no proof except that they say, ‘Bring forth our
forefathers if you are truthful.’” (Surah Jaathiyah)
 6 Who is the Monkey?

It should not be necessary to make a case for the existence

of a Divine Being, who created the heavens and the earth,
and everything in it, including mankind. The evidence is so
obvious, that one is amazed that anybody could think
otherwise. Unfortunately, many people are still in denial,
despite all the evidence being presented to them. The
evidence is basic common sense, logic and is also backed by
solid scientific material. That all this be rejected, should be
something to be amazed at. From the inception of mankind,
there has been a battle between truth and falsehood. This
battle will continue. Many people get swayed by the
arguments put forward by those who reject the existence of
a Divine Being, and argue that mankind came into existence
through a process of evolution. Many of these adherents are
scientists (who ought to know better). They are so
enthralled by scientific “progress!!!” that they refuse to
acknowledge the Divine Hand behind the running of the
universe.

A parable narrated by Maulana Rumi  illustrates the

position of the scientists accurately. It is being reproduced
here, with slight modification:

“Once an ant saw an artist draw a beautiful sketch on paper

with his pen and pencil. The ant said in admiration: ‘What
beautiful figures!’ Another ant came and said: ‘It is the pen
 7 Who is the Monkey?

that has to be praised. It is the pen that is making those

beautiful figures.’ Another ant came and said: ‘That pen is
held in the fingers, so the fingers are creating those
wonderful figures. The pen is merely its instrument.’ A
fourth ant remarked: ‘Don’t you see the arm? These control
the fingers which merely carry out the actions through the
power of the arm.’ The dispute was referred to the queen of
ants and she said: ‘These figures do not proceed from the
pen, the fingers or the arm. These proceed from the mind.
The mind controls all of these.’”

Comments

• The first ant is like those scientists who see only as far as
their noses, and are not prepared to consider anything that
exists beyond that.
• The other ants represent those individuals who can see a
bit more, but are still deprived of Reality.
• The queen ant appears to be the most correct in her
assessment.
• However, there is a higher level of understanding: to
realise that the mind of the artist is also controlled. This
Control is by the Hand of the Almighty. He is in Control of
everything. He gave the understanding and intelligence to
 8 Who is the Monkey?

the artist to be able to use his senses and talent to draw the
figures.
Atheists, playing on the ignorance and impressionability of
young people, try to exert their influence over them by
pseudo-scientific arguments. These ideologies are ingrained
in the school syllabus and propagated by mass media. In
universities, these ideas are given further impetus. The
youth, through lack of information and lacking in skills to
answer those who believe in evolution, are often left
confused. This booklet is meant to provide some answers to
rebuff some of the baseless arguments put forward by the
atheists with their belief in the theory of evolution.
Hopefully, in-sha-Allah, it may help the reader to be better
informed when he/she does come across material that
promotes the baseless theory of evolution.”

Previous Titles to This Booklet

Previous titles to this booklet were, “Why pseudo-scientists
fail to explain God?”, “Who is the Monkey?” and “A reasoned
and level-headed response to an atheist.” The original
article did its rounds over the Internet some time back.
Different versions of the article exist. It is difficult to assess
who wrote the original article and when it was written.
Additions and deletions were made resulting in this copy,
which is now before your hands.
 9 Who is the Monkey?

Note: Obviously, with all the changes made to the original

article, the “students” depicted here are fictitious.

A Reasoned and Level-Headed

Response to an Atheist
(The following scenario takes place at an educational
institute.)
"Let me explain the problem science has with God..." The
atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class, and
then asks one of his new students to stand. "You're a
Muslim, aren't you, son?"
"Yes, sir."
"So, you believe in God?"
"Absolutely!"
"Is God good?"
"Sure! God's good!"
"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"
"Yes."
The professor grins knowingly and considers for a moment.
"Here's one for you: Let's say there's a sick person over here
and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him?
Would you try?"
"Yes, sir. I would."
"So, you're good...!"
"I wouldn't say that."
10 Who is the Monkey?

"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed
person if you could... In fact, most of us would if we could...
God doesn't."
[No answer.]
"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Muslim who died of
cancer, even though he prayed to God to heal him. How is
this God good? Hmm? Can you answer that one?"
[No answer.]
The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?"
He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the
student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy
with the new ones.
"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"
"Er... Yes."
"Is Satan good?"
"No."
"Where does Satan come from?"
The student falters.
"From... God..."
"That's right. God made Satan, didn't He?"
The elderly man runs his fingers through his thinning hair
and turns to the smirking student audience. "I think we're
going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and
gentlemen."
He turns back to the Muslim. "Tell me, son. Is there evil in
this world?"
"Yes, sir."
11 Who is the Monkey?

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"

"Yes."
"Who created evil?"
[No answer.]
"Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred?
Ugliness? All the terrible things - do they exist in this
world?"
The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."
"Who created them?"
[No answer.]
The professor suddenly shouts at the student. "WHO
CREATED THEM? TELL ME. PLEASE!" The professor closes
in for the kill and climbs into the Muslim's face. He speaks in
a small, deadly voice, "God created all evil, didn't He, son?"1
[No answer.]
The student tries to hold the professor's steady, experienced
gaze, but fails.

1 Things are recognized by their opposites. If there was no disease, how

would one recognize health? If ugliness had not been created, how
would beauty be understood? If there was no injustice, how would one
explain justice? Without death, one would have never understood the
value of life. Evil has to be in existence so that good can be recognized
and valued. (Refer to Moral Foundations on page 34 as well as the
answer given by the student on page 12)
12 Who is the Monkey?

Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the

classroom like an ageing, confident panther. The class is
mesmerised. "Tell me..." he continues, "How is it that this
God is good if He created all the evil throughout all time?"
The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the
wickedness of the world. "All the hatred, the brutality, the
pain, all the torture, all the needless deaths and ugliness,
and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the
world - isn't it, young man?"
[No answer.]
"Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?" The professor
pauses. "Don't you?" The professor leans into the student's
face again and whispers, "Is God good?"
[No answer.]
"Do you believe in God, son?"
The student's voice betrays him, and in a cracked voice he
mutters, "Yes, professor. I do."
The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have
five senses that you use to identify and observe the world
around you. You have never seen God, have you?"
"No, sir. I've never seen Him."
"Then tell us if you have ever heard your God?"
"No, sir. I have not."
"Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, or smelt your
God? In fact, have you any sensory perception of your God
whatsoever?"
[No answer.]
13 Who is the Monkey?

"Answer me, please."

"No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't."
"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"
"No, sir."
"Yet, you still believe in Him?"
"Yes..."
"That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the
underling. "According to the rules of empirical, testable,
demonstrable protocol, science says that your God doesn't
exist. What do you say to that, son?
Where is your God now?"
[The student does not answer.]
"Sit down, please!"
[The Muslim sits, browbeaten into apparent defeat.
However, 'the Help of Allah  is at hand, and victory is
imminent.']
Another Muslim, wearing a religious cap, having a beard and
easily identified as a Muslim by his dress, lifts his hand up.
“Professor, may I address the class?"
The professor turns and smiles. "Ah! Another Muslim in the
vanguard. A “Fundamentalist”1, I see. Come, come, young
man! Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering!"

1 Today this word has an evil connotation. Actually, this is a term of

honour, because it refers to a person who adopts and abides by the
fundamental and basic principles of his religion.
14 Who is the Monkey?

The Muslim ignores the sarcasm in the tone of the professor.

He looks around the room, waits for the attention of the
students, and turns to the professor. "Sir, you have made
some interesting points. With your permission, sir, I would
like to tackle each point individually. This subject has to be
tackled logically and scientifically, and not emotionally. The
first point is your basic doctrine that God does not exist. The
universe, therefore, started with the doctrine of 'The Big
Bang' and through a process of evolution, Man finally came
into existence. Is that not your belief, professor?"
"My son, it goes without saying. There is enough scientific
evidence for this. What are you getting at?"
"Let us not be hasty. Let us use logic and reason and proper
scientific argument. As a preamble, I wish to point out that I
use the word 'doctrine' knowingly, for the priests of pseudo-
science are, in fact, merely promoting atheism as a religion.”
“Coming to the question of the origin of the universe: Firstly:
I have a question for you, professor. We have in this world
millions upon millions of fireworks, ammunition and bombs.
Have you heard of any going off spontaneously, or do you
admit that, although the ingredients may be in existence in a
container, there is required a detonating mechanism to set
off the explosions? Two factors have to be present: firstly,
the correct ingredients in correct amounts in a suitable
environment; and, secondly, somebody to set off the
explosion, whether it be by means of a match stick, or the
hammer of a pistol, or some electrical spark. For example, if
15 Who is the Monkey?

somebody said that he had a bullet in his hand and it went

off on its own and killed somebody sitting nearby, would
any scientist accept such a ludicrous statement?"
"Of course not. What are you trying to say?"
"Surely, then, if you want us to believe in the ‘Big Bang’, that
a massive explosion took place on its own without anybody
there to 'pull the trigger' or 'light a match' or set off an
'electrical spark', then explain to us how smaller bangs are
not taking place all over the world without any external
agency? Any scientific claim has to be reproducible for it to
be accepted.
Secondly, it is also common knowledge that when a bang
takes place, things break, shatter or explode. It is amazing
that a bang of such power and energy, instead of causing
destruction and chaos, brought everything together with
such precision and perfection that boggles the mind. Just
one example: if the sun was slightly further away in its orbit,
we would all freeze to death. If, on the other hand, the sun
had to be closer to the earth in its orbit, we would all be
burnt to cinders. That this has been so for countless years is
in itself a miracle and proof of a Divine Being in Control of
the Universe.”
The professor's mouth opens, but no words come out.
"Thirdly, we know that it is scientifically impossible for
matter to create itself. Take this wooden desk. It did not
come into existence by itself. Some external agency had to
make it. Even the wood did not come into existence by itself.
16 Who is the Monkey?

It came from a seed that was planted and nourished. The

seed itself came from some source and could not come into
existence by itself. Can you explain to us how the original
matter came into existence - matter that the priests of
pseudo-science state was ignited by the mysterious ‘Big
Bang’ to produce the first matter? (See page 81 for more
details)i Also, why are your priests not able to reproduce
this phenomenon in the laboratory?1 Professor, you must
know that any scientific argument must be reproducible for
it to have any scientific credence."
"Son, it is naive to think that we can do such a thing. The
energy that was unleashed with the ‘Big Bang’ was such that
we do not have access to, otherwise we would also have
reproduced the same phenomenon."
"Professor, you have not told us who provided the basic
ingredients, and you are unable to tell us who it was who

1 People like Oparin, Haladine and Miller tried to prove the existence of
life by itself in their laboratories. Miller tried to prove that amino acids
could have come into existence “by chance” on the lifeless earth billions
of years ago. In fact, by his experiment, Miller only proved that amino
acids can only be produced in a controlled lab environment where all
the conditions are specifically designed by conscious intervention.

Numerous experiments confirmed that Oparin-Haldane theory is

invalid. See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 300203242
_Invalid_Oparin-Haldane's.. for more details on the subject.
17 Who is the Monkey?

pushed the button or pulled the trigger or lit the matches for
the ‘Big Bang’ to take place. Where did this tremendous
energy that you are speaking about, originate? Come, come,
professor! Let us be scientific about it. Yes, professor, it
takes a lot of FAITH in the doctrinal teachings of the priests
of pseudo-science to believe in their version of the creation
of the universe. Do you expect us to discard proper scientific
principles and believe in all this hocus-pocus on blind faith
in the face of definitive scientific principles?"
[No answer.]
Fourthly, the claim that non-living materials can come
together to form life is an unscientific one that has not been
verified by any experiment or observation. Life is only
generated from life. Each living cell is formed by replication
of another cell. No one in the world has ever succeeded in
forming a living cell by bringing inanimate materials
together, not even in the most advanced laboratories.
Nowadays, we know that the cell is the most complex
system mankind has ever confronted. Never mind the cell,
evolution cannot account for the building blocks of a cell.
The formation of just one single protein out of the
thousands of complex protein molecules making up the cell
is impossible.
"Fifthly, according to the second law of thermodynamics,
any system left on its own deteriorates. For example, if you
leave a car outside in natural conditions, it will eventually
rust and decay. This would also have happened if, over the
18 Who is the Monkey?

‘billions’ of years, the universe came into existence ‘by

chance’. Scientists have not seen this. Instead, they have
seen a wonderful, highly complex and well-balanced
universe remain in existence.
"So professor, modern scientific research is showing just the
opposite of what the atheists are claiming. In other words,
there has to be a Divine Being: One Who Created the whole
universe and everything in it to such a degree of perfection
that the human mind cannot comprehend! Can those who
reject this provide us with an alternate explanation? "
[No answer.]
"If you don't mind, professor, I will now go on to the
doctrine of evolution as promulgated by the priests of
pseudo-science. You are aware that no fossils have been
shown that would directly link the descent of Man from the
ape-like ancestors and that there is a constant search for
what is termed, the 'Missing Link'?"
"Yes, but there is so much other evidence..."
"Sorry to interrupt, professor. You admit there is no direct
link. You must also admit that there are no fossils showing
definite intermediary steps in the transition from ape-like
ancestors to Man.1 In fact, the fossil record clearly indicates

1 Eldredge and Gould 1972 proposed the “punctuated equilibrium”

theory. This theory seeks to explain why there is a lack of missing
links/transitional fossils. Two basic hypotheses are accepted by
accepting this: a.) macro-mutations bring advantages and produce new
19 Who is the Monkey?

that living things did not evolve from primitive to advanced

forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden in a fully formed
state. This provides evidence for saying that life did not
come into existence through random natural processes, but
through an act of intelligent creation. According to recent
findings, all animal phyla known today emerged at the same
time, in the middle of the geological period known as the
Cambridge Age. The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belong
to very different creatures, such as snails, trilobites, jellyfish,
starfish, etc. most of the creatures in this layer have complex
systems and advanced structures, such as eyes, gills, and
circulatory systems, exactly the same as those in modern
specimens. Till now, evolutionists have been unable to
answer how the earth came to overflow with such a great
number of animal species all of a sudden, and how these
distinct types of species with no common ancestors could
have emerged at a similar time.
And I'm sure you are also aware of the Piltdown Forgery as
well as the Nebraska man, professor?"
"Piltdown...? Nebraska...?"

genetic information – However this conflicts with known facts of

genetics. b.) Small animal populations have greater potential for genetic
change - Scientific discoveries do not support this claim. This claim is
actually less valid than the model of evolution proposed by mainstream
Neo-Darwinists.
20 Who is the Monkey?

"Let me refresh your memory, professor. Some fossils were

discovered in a place called Piltdown in England. These
fossil-remains showed all the features that all the priests of
pseudo-science and atheism were searching for as the
'Missing Link' in the chain of evolution. The whole world
was led to believe in it, and even the sceptics were
convinced - until it was found, some forty years later, that
someone from the scientist-priest fraternity had 'doctored'
the fossils to make them appear to be the missing link (it
had the cranium of a human and the jaw of an orangatang
attached). It was a big lie, a massive forgery that your
priests had forged to try and convince the world that the
religion of atheism was true and Man had descended from
the apes! If you want more enlightenment on it you can read
the works of Professor Tobias1, of South Africa, and others
on the details of the forgery.
In 1922, a person by the name Osborn found a fossil molar
tooth. This was named the Nebraska man. Some claimed it
belonged to a species of an ape, whilst others claimed it
appeared to be closer to human beings. Based on this tooth,
reconstructions of Nebraska man’s head and body were
drawn. He was even pictured along with his wife and
children. Eventually it was realized that the tooth belonged

1 Although a Darwinist himself, Professor Tobias found the forgery to be

too much to swallow.
21 Who is the Monkey?

to an extinct species of a wild American pig. All the drawings

were quickly removed thereafter."
The professor's face goes an ashen white. Still no comment.
"Speaking about forgeries - professor, do you know what
plagiarism is? Can you explain to the class what plagiarism
is?"
Rather hesitantly, the professor speaks, "Plagiarism is to
take somebody else's work and pass it off as one's own."
"Correct. Thank you, professor. If you were to take the
trouble of doing a bit of honest and truthful research you
will find that the Western nations had plagiarised all the
TRUE scientific works of the Muslims and then built on it
and passed them off as their own 'discoveries', which led to
modern scientific progress. Great Muslim personages made
scientific discoveries while Europe was still in the Dark
Ages. Their teachings were taken to Europe, and provided
the stimulus for the Renaissance. The relevance of this is
that, unlike in the West, there was no conflict between
religion and science in the Muslim countries. Islam proved
to be a boost for genuine scientific research, as borne out by
the contributions of Muslims to science, astronomy, biology
and other fields. Scientists who had a firm belief in a Divine
Creator were inspired to make great advances in all
branches of knowledge. "
By now the class is fully attentive to the Muslim student's
words and they hastily jot down notes.
22 Who is the Monkey?

"Let us come back to the doctrine of evolution which the

priests of pseudo-science have fostered on the world. The
back-bone of all their doctrines is the concept of 'natural
selection'.1 This means that species adapted to the changes
in the environment by a change in morphology and
physiology, changes which they then passed on to
succeeding generations, enabling them to survive; while
those which did not adapt, became extinct, put forward as
‘Survival of the fittest’. The classic example given is that of
giraffes, who evolved from short necked antelopes who
struggled to eat the leaves of high trees till their necks
extended from generation to generation, or the example of
bears evolving into whales over time by going into water to
find food. Also, during the course of evolution, what was of
no use anymore, disappeared, like tails and claws, being
replaced with tail-less species with hands which could hold,
the final result being Man. You do subscribe to this doctrine,
don't you, professor?" (See page 86 for more details)ii
The poor professor is unsure whether to nod or not, as he is
uncertain from which angle the next salvo is coming!
"Come, come, professor! This is the cornerstone of the
doctrine of evolution which you priests have been
brainwashing the unwary masses with. Let us challenge this

1 Note: The laws of inheritance discovered by Mendel and verified by

the science of genetics disproved this theory.
23 Who is the Monkey?

pseudo-science with true science. Professor, has any

scientist ever produced any new species of life in his
laboratory by controlling and changing the environment?
Remember, science can only accept material doctrines if
they are reproducible."
[No answer.]
Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex
organ existed, which could not have been formed by
numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory
would absolutely break down.” Today, science has shattered
the basis of this theory. Key branches of science, such as
palaeontology, biochemistry, population genetics,
comparative anatomy, and biophysics, indicate one after
another that natural laws and chance effects proposed by
the theory cannot explain the origin of life. Life turns out to
be infinitely more complex than Darwin imagined in his
time, demonstrating that his theory has absolutely ‘broken
down.’

The Muslim student continues. Turning to the professor, he

says, "There are so many holes in the doctrine of evolution
that it leaks like a sieve. However, time is running out - I
have to rush for prayers shortly - so we will not deal with all
the myths now. Let us go on to the topic of morality that you
raised.
24 Who is the Monkey?

But, before that, let us look at the point you made about
your brother dying of cancer. If you are upset that he died,
then you are absolutely foolish. That human beings, as well
as all living matter, will certainly die is such an established
fact, that it is believed in by all people, irrespective of
whether they believe in God or not, and nobody can really
object to the process of death.
"Secondly, you cannot be so naive as to object to the process
of illness - whether it being cancer, or any other illness, or
an accident, etc. - as a prelude to the process of death. Your
objection stems from your misconception that 'goodness' is
to relieve suffering, and to cause suffering is being 'cruel'. If
this was so, then, professor, you have no choice but to agree
that the cruellest people in the world are the medical
research-scientists who use animals for all their horrible
experiments. Surely you must be aware of the thousands
upon thousands of animals that are tortured in different
ways and made to suffer a million agonies, to prove, or
disprove certain scientific and medical claims? Are these
experimenters not cruel? You're still with me, professor?"
The professor looks quite ill. The Muslim student goes
across and gives him some water to drink.
"Professor, I'm going to ask you another obvious question.
You are aware of examinations - tests that are given to
students in order for them to pass and be promoted to the
next grade?"
The professor merely nods his head.
25 Who is the Monkey?

"A student has to make certain sacrifices, and even live away
from home, to attend a university or college; he has to
deprive himself of all home comforts; he is loaded with
work; he has to give up his leisure time, and his sleep in
order to get ready for the examinations; then he is faced
with horribly difficult questions to answer in the
examination, and he may also be grilled in his oral
examination - and he still has to pay the institution for
putting him through this torturing process! - You do not
consider all this to be cruel? Is the professor a 'good' person
for all the mental and physical suffering he is putting the
student through?"
"I do not see your point. Of course, the institution and the
professor are doing the student a favour by putting him
through a training process in order for him to qualify in his
particular field. Only a very short-sighted person would
object to students having to write examinations,
irrespective of the sacrifices they have to make."
The Muslim student sadly shakes his head. "Professor, it is
amazing how you can understand the need for tests and
examinations when you have to set them, but you can't see
the same wisdom when God sets tests and examinations for
His Creatures. Take your brother - if he withstood the test of
his illness and he died with faith, what we term as Imaan -
he will be rewarded abundantly in Paradise for the suffering
that he underwent here. So much so, that he would wish
that he had suffered a hundred times more, so that his
26 Who is the Monkey?

reward would be so much greater, a reward that no eye has

seen and no mind has imagined! Unfortunately, 'only a very
short-sighted person' - and an ignorant one - would object
to the tests placed on His Creation by God, bearing in mind
the everlasting rewards awaiting those who are successful."
"Paradise? Huh! Have you seen Paradise, touched it, smelt it,
tasted it, heard it? According to the rules of empirical,
testable, demonstrable protocol, science says that your
Paradise doesn't exist."
"We will come to that point also, God willing. We say that
God is all Mercy and Goodness. He has not enjoined evil, but
allowed its existence for a wise purpose. God only enjoins
justice, forbearance and benevolence. Why then does He
permit the unjust, the murderers and the thieving to
perpetrate their deeds? "
The Muslim student continues. "If there is evil in this world,
professor - and we all agree that there is - then God must be
accomplishing some work through the agency of evil. What
is that work that God is accomplishing? Islam tells us it is to
see if each one of us will choose good over evil."
The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't
view this matter as having anything to do with any choice.
As a realist, I absolutely do not recognise the concept of God
or any other theological factor as being part of the world
equation, because God is not observable."
"I would have thought that the absence of God's Moral Code
is probably one the most observable phenomenon going,"
27 Who is the Monkey?

the Muslim student replies. "Newspapers make billions of

dollars reporting on it every week. Professor, you have tried
to put the blame of the evil in this world on the shoulders of
God - in whom you don't believe - which is an obvious
contradiction. However, let us analyse who is really
responsible for the spread of evil - those who believe in God,
or those who don't? A fundamental belief that a Muslim has
is that of being resurrected on the Day of Judgement and
answering for his actions in this world. For every good that
he did, he will be rewarded; and for every evil that he
committed, he will be held responsible. Every Muslim has to
believe that he/ she is responsible for his/her actions and
that nobody else will bear his/her burden on the Day of
Judgement. The concept of Paradise being a reward for the
believers, and that Hell will be the abode of the disbelievers,
the infidels, is also a fundamental belief; as well as the belief
that even Muslim wrongdoers will be punished for their
misdeeds. Professor, these concepts have stopped countless
millions of Muslims from committing wrong. We all know
that punishment is a strong deterrent for committing
crimes. Without this concept we would not be able to run
our worldly affairs: fines, penalties, jail sentences are part
and parcel of any civilised system.
On the other hand we have the priests of atheism who do
not believe in these concepts, when they are mentioned in
relation to moral issues. To them there is no Day of
Judgement, no accountability, no reward, no punishment.
28 Who is the Monkey?

The message to the masses is quite clear, that 'if you can get
away with it, then you are O.K. You have nothing to worry
about'. Also, seeing that they state that there is no such thing
as sin - sin, in our context, means going against the Laws of
God - each individual is free to do anything he wishes, and
no action can be labelled as 'wrong'. Let me put it this way:
The atheist priests maintain that God does not exist. If He
does not exist, then He can't have set down any rules of
what is right and what is wrong - thus there can't be sin, sin
means going against the wishes of God. So, man is free to
make up his own rules, his own code of 'morality'. Thus men
get 'married' to men; women get 'married' to women; to
spread AIDS and other diseases is O.K.; there is nothing
sinful with adultery and fornication, as long as those
involved are 'consenting adults'; according to the logic of the
atheists, even incest would not be sinful, if the parties are
'consenting adults', seeing incest is a sin based on a code of
morality with its basis being religion, whereas the professor
has categorically stated that he 'absolutely does not
recognise the concept of God or any other theological factor
as being part of the world factor'; to kill infants in their
mothers' wombs is fine - it is exercising the 'rights' that the
woman has; and so forth. The list of 'rules' passed by the
atheist social pseudo-scientists priests is endless.
The height of intellectual dishonesty is to place the blame
for the spread of this immorality and filth on God! Let us be
scientific about the whole issue, professor. Take a group of
29 Who is the Monkey?

people who are God-conscious - who believe in Him, as he

should be believed in - and take a group of people who are
adherents to your atheistic creed. Assess, objectively, who is
spreading evil. I don't wish to labour the point, but any
objective observer will immediately see that the group of
God-conscious people who use the Laws of the Almighty as
their code of morality, are in fact, spreading goodness;
whereas the those who make up their own rules of 'relative
morality' are, in fact, the ones spreading evil throughout the
world." (See page 89 for the reason behind the Creation of
Heaven and Hell)iii
The Muslim student pauses for these important remarks to
sink in. The eyes of the students in the class light up as they
see these issues in a clearer light. Nobody had ever
explained these important issues to them before, having
being brought up on the diatribe spewed forth by the mass
media.
"Professor, I am amazed, but not surprised, at your
unscientific attitude to morality. I am amazed that, even
though you believe that Man evolved from ape-like
ancestors, he will not behave like an animal! I am amazed
that, even though you do not believe in angels, you expect
Man to behave like one on his own accord, without the
assistance of a Divine Moral Code. The reason that I'm not
surprised is that such muddled thinking is to be expected
from those who are adherents of the false creed of atheism!"
There is a burst of spontaneous applause from the class.
30 Who is the Monkey?

"We have already discussed evolution, professor. Have you

ever observed speciation (formation of a new species) with
your own eyes, sir?"
The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and
gives the student a silent, stony stare.
"Professor, since no one has ever observed the process of
speciation at work and cannot even prove that this process
is an ongoing endeavour, are you not teaching a doctrine - a
doctrine that leaks like a sieve and has less merit to it that
any theological teachings? This is pseudo-science, not
science, and its proponents are nothing but its ignorant
priests!"
The professor goes blue in the face. "What impudence!" He
huffs and puffs and strides up and down in front of the class,
finally managing to regain some of his self-control. "In the
light of our philosophical discussion, I'll overlook your
impudence, son. Now, have you quite finished?" The words
come out as a hiss.
"Sir, you don't accept God's moral code to do what is
righteous?"
"I believe in what is - that's science."
"Sir, with due apologies, what you believe in is not science,
but pseudo-science - and your pseudo-science is also
flawed!"
"PSEUDO-SCIENCE.....? FLAWED...?" The professor looks as if
he is going to have a fit. The class is in an uproar. The
31 Who is the Monkey?

Muslim student stands cool and calm, that wisp of a smile

back on his face.
When the commotion subsides, he continues, "You see,
professor, TRUE SCIENCE is to discover the laws and
designs that the Creator of the universe has put into the
system of the running of the universe, from the mega to the
micro, from the measurable to the immeasurable. Pseudo-
science is an atheistic religion that tries to oppose this
concept by forgeries, manipulation of statistics, half-truths,
etc. Pseudo-science postulates a mythical unnamed force -
their own, man-made, false deity - caused a “Big Bang” and
then started a process of evolution that is contrary to what
actually happened. The priests of this atheistic religion are
the ones that try to justify the gibberish that must
accompany such falsehood, by means of forgeries, half-
truths and manipulation of data. Truth must win - the truth
of the logical conclusion anybody with any sense can
deduce, that there is one God (Allah)  who is the Creator of
the whole universe. He created the whole system whereby
the whole universe has been running smoothly from time
immemorial. Let us go back to the point you had made
earlier to the other student, and which I said I will deal with
later. You postulated that ‘the rule of empirical, testable,
demonstrable protocol’ is the principle you go on. This rule
is flawed. Let us apply it: Is there anyone in the class who
has seen oxygen? Is there anyone here who has heard it, felt
it, or tasted it? Nobody has. Yet we know, based on the
32 Who is the Monkey?

evidence of reliable scientists, that oxygen exists and can be

demonstrated indirectly by the effects of its presence or
absence. Let us apply this rule to another situation. Is there
anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt
it, smelt it or tasted it? Because no one here has had any
sensory perception of the professor's brains whatsoever, we
cannot conclude that the professor has no brains. To the
contrary, we can see the effects of the functioning of the
brain, and this is sufficient to indicate that the professor has
a brain. (See page 91 – Points to consider.)iv
The professor buckles into a chair. The class again applauds
spontaneously.
The student goes and ministers some water to the professor,
who recovers slowly. He glares at the student. "Your insults
in no way proves the existence of God."
The Muslim student replies. "Professor, I'm really surprised.
I would have thought that you would have conceded defeat.
But, it seems that you want further arguments."
He pauses, looks very thoughtfully at the class, and then at
the professor. With a heavy sigh and obvious reluctance, he
addresses the professor again. "Sir, you have parents - you
have a father and a mother?"
"Another of your stupid questions. It is obvious that we all
have parents."
"Be patient, sir. Are you certain that your father is your
father, and that your mother is your mother?"
33 Who is the Monkey?

The professor goes livid. "How preposterous! OF COURSE,

MY FATHER IS MY FATHER, AND MY MOTHER IS MY
MOTHER!" He is shouting.
The Muslim student pauses. The pause becomes lengthy.
There is an eerie atmosphere suddenly as the students sit on
the edge of their chairs. With a quiet well controlled voice,
the Muslim student says, "Prove it to me!"
The atmosphere is electric. The professor is unable to
control himself. His face changes to a purple hue. "HOW
DARE YOU!" He is shouting even louder, quite beside
himself. "I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF YOUR INSULTS..! GET OUT
OF MY CLASS..! I'LL REPORT YOU TO THE RECTOR...!"
The class sits petrified at the outburst. Is the professor
heading for a fit or a stroke?
The Muslim student stands his ground, unruffled. Facing the
class he lifts his hand up, reassuring them that there is
nothing to worry about. He then turns his compassionate
eyes on the professor. A force appears to emanate from his
eyes, directed at the professor. The professor cannot
maintain his stare. His gaze drops. His anger subsides. He
flops back into his chair and holds his head in his hands.
After a few minutes, the Muslim student speaks, very gently.
"Dear professor, I am not implying that your parents are not
your parents. All I am trying to point out is that neither you,
nor me, nor any of us in this class can prove that our parents
are our parents or not."
Complete silence.
34 Who is the Monkey?

"The reason is that we did not witness the act of intercourse

between our parents when we were conceived. We were not
present to identify whose sperm it was that fertilised the
ovum in our mother's womb. We take our parents word for
it that they are our parents. We consider our parents to be
honest and truthful in the matter. We do not question them
their integrity. In the same way, your children will have to
take your word that you are their father, and that their
mother is really their mother. Is that not so, professor?"
The professor lifts up his head. He looks up at the Muslim
student. One can see his face clearing up as some
understanding dawns on him. The anger is gone. Very
slowly he repeats, "We take the words of our parents... We
take the words of our parents..."
"Yes, professor. We have to accept the word of our parents,
as in many other things.”
“But,” the professor thinks he has found a flaw in the Muslim
student’s argument, “there are other sources of information
besides the words of our parents, like DNA tests, to prove
parenthood.”
“You are wrong again in your reasoning, professor. Yes,
there are laboratory tests to validate claims of parenthood.
However, can anybody go to a laboratory and instruct the
technician, ‘Here, take some blood samples, and tell me who
my parents are.’ He will be told not to be foolish. The
laboratory can only compare samples of DNA from the
parents, as well as the offspring to verify whether the
35 Who is the Monkey?

parents are telling the truth or not. In other words, the tests
do not tell you who your parents are, but they merely
confirm or reject the claims of parents with regard to
parenthood.
Even then, we have to take the word of the technician, as
well as have enough FAITH in his technical skill to accept his
findings. You see, professor, there are so many things that
we have to take the word of others. The existence of air, of
oxygen, of molecules, of atoms, and so forth.
So, when it comes to matters that are metaphysical, from
our real scientific research we know that there have been no
persons existing in the world more honest and reliable than
those who are termed Messengers (Rasools). We Muslims
are prepared to stake our lives on the fact that Muhammed
had an absolutely flawless character. He never lied to
anybody. His integrity was such that even his avowed
enemies called him 'Al-Ameen' (the Truthful). If he said that
God (Allah ) exists - and we are prepared to accept the
word of our parents that they are our parents- then, in all
sincerity and honesty, we have to accept his word for it, as
we have to accept many other things - the existence of
Paradise and Hell; the existence of angels; the coming of the
Day of Judgement; accounting to God for our deeds in this
world; and many other concepts.
Besides this one point, there are many other pointers to the
existence of God (Allah ). The Revelation called 'Al-Quran'
is there for anybody to study. It has certain specific
36 Who is the Monkey?

challenges for anybody who has any doubts. These

challenges have not been met in the fourteen hundred years
of its existence. If one is not prepared to believe in such a
Messenger - peace be on him - then it is pure hypocrisy to
accept the word of scientists, whose doctrines keep on
changing, and even to believe in the word of our parents.
Judging from the number of law-suits that take place every
year in our courts, where parents deny parentage of their
offspring, and also taking into account that there are
innumerable babies conceived from donor sperms of men
who are strangers, and also the fact that innumerable
infants are adopted in infancy by childless couples, and
brought up as their own children, statistically there is room
for a large degree of error in any person's claim that his/her
parents are really his/her biological parents."
Turning to the class the Muslim student concludes. "It is
every individual's duty to learn more about Islam. Al-Quran
is there for everybody to study. Enough literature is also
available on Islam. It is my duty only to inform you that the
only Truth is Islam. “There is no compulsion in religion.
Clearly the right way has become distinct from error; And he
who rejects false deities and believes in Allah  (God), has
grasped a firm handhold which will never break; And Allah 
is All-Hearing and All-Knowing.” Having informed you, it is
also my duty to invite you to join the brotherhood of
Muslims by embracing Islam. “Allah  is the Protecting
Guardian of those who believe. He brings them out of darkness
37 Who is the Monkey?

into the light. As for those who disbelieve, their guardians are
false deities. They bring them out of light into darkness...”
These are verses from Al-Quran - Words of the Almighty -
which I have quoted to you."
The Muslim student looks at his watch. "Professor and
students, I thank you for having giving me the opportunity
to explain these issues to you. If you would kindly excuse
me, I have to go for my prayers. Peace on those who are
rightly guided."

Additional Notes:

The Creed of the Atheists

Atheists have been in existence since time immemorial.

Each time they lifted their heads up they were adequately
defeated. However, in the late 1800’s, Europe experienced
an upsurge of those who did not believe in the existence of a
Divine Being. Some of the factors which played a part in this
are:
 The exploitation of the masses by the Church and state.
 The economic exploitation of workers, especially in the
wake of the industrial revolution.
 The clash between the Church and men of science.
38 Who is the Monkey?

As a result the antipathy to religion became such that

religion was referred to as “the opium of the masses”. It was
in this fertile ground that Lamarck and then Darwin put
forward the theory of evolution. They stated that the
universe was not created by a Divine Being but came into
existence by itself. Some matter combined to form life, and
these rudimentary cells then went on to develop into more
and more sophisticated forms of life. Marine life then
evolved into terrestrial life and so forth, until evolution
resulted in the vegetable, animal and human life coming into
existence as we see now.

What Led to the Success of the

Evolutionists?
The factors mentioned above were crucial. However, the
evolutionists’ success could also be attributed to the
ignorance of the masses. Scientific knowledge in the West
was very rudimentary, and the masses were kept in
ignorance. The conclusions of “scientists” were looked upon
as Gospel. Their theories found acceptance, especially when
the masses were led to believe that their miserable
conditions would improve if they turned to the god of
materialism, especially by adopting communism.
It should be noted that this phenomenon took place largely
in Christian Europe, and only later spread to China. The
39 Who is the Monkey?

point is that Muslims were by and large unaffected. There

was no conflict between Islam and science. On the contrary,
Islam proved to be the catalysts for scientists to soar high
into the different sciences, causing Muslim lands to enjoy a
very advanced society, when Europe was still experiencing
the Dark Ages.

What Proof is there that Muslim

Lands were Greatly Advanced?
There are numerous proofs, recorded by Muslims and by
non-Muslims. Details of the contributions of Muslims to
science in general, and medicine in particular, may be found
at: http://www.1001inventions.com/; muslimheritage.com
(and many other sites.)
While many attribute these achievements to be purely
materialistic, they ignore the religious training and thinking
that went before it. If it was simply a question of academic
and material exercises, Europe would have also flourished
by simply importing the institutions that existed in Muslim
lands. The Europeans tried this, but failed dismally. It was
only after they had studied Islam thoroughly, and tried to
understand the underlying ethos, that they experienced
what they call the Renaissance.
40 Who is the Monkey?

Why do people still deny the

existence of a Supreme Being?
One would have thought that with the great strides made in
scientific fields and the obvious fact that stares us all in the
face that there is a Supreme Designer and Creator, atheists
would have ceased to exist. However, we do not see this.
Some of the reasons that come to mind are:
 People are in denial. For example: If a person does not
want to accept that he/she has cancer, despite all the
evidence, nothing will convince that person. Some atheists
are the same.
 People who lack proper knowledge are easily led astray by
die-hard atheists. These use forgery and lies to prop up a
view that is just not sustainable. The famous Piltdown Hoax
is the classic example. Not only ordinary people but even so-
called “scientists” were fooled by the deceit. That one of the
scientists was given the great honour of knighthood by the
Queen must have removed any doubts that ordinary people
may have had concerning the discovery of the “missing
link”. Even more amazing is the fact that for 40 years
nobody questioned the findings and many “scholars” even
obtained post-graduate degrees on further studies of the
forgery!
 That mutations cause progressive, improved development
in species, is a blatant lie peddled by atheists. Mutations
41 Who is the Monkey?

usually cause disfigurements as can be seen by the great

upsurge of abnormal births witnessed after exposure to
radiation, as in Hiroshima and, more recently, in Iraq.
 If, for arguments’ sake, mutations caused man to evolve
from ape-like ancestors, for this to take place thousands of
mutations must have taken place simultaneously and
overnight for the infant of an ape to have been born with
complete human features. A “gradual” evolution would
imply somebody being in charge and directing the gradual
progress. Gradual progressive evolution is impossible to
occur “by chance”.
 Another important aspect not brought to peoples’
attention is: in addition to the miraculous and simultaneous
mutations of thousands of genes that need to take place
overnight, an exact similar set of mutations have to take
place in a short span of time within a certain radius. Yes,
there has to be one difference: if the first “human” was a
male, this second must be a female; or vice versa. If both
mutations resulted in the same sex of the infants, there
would be no further descent. One also has to look at them
finding one another, mating, the female not being infertile,
etc. That all this took place at all by chance is statistically
impossible.
 One obvious fact glossed over by evolutionists is, that they
cannot account for failed models. If evolution took place “by
chance” there would have been millions of fossils that had
failed to survive, because they were not perfect. No such
42 Who is the Monkey?

fossils exist. All fossils found are “perfect specimens.” This is

such an obvious argument against the theory of evolution,
that one is surprised that so few people pay any attention to
it.
 If left to “chance” the number of defective models that
would need to arise before the perfect model, would be
astronomical. Put simply, if the chance of a perfect model
was one in ten, one would expect nine imperfect or failed
models. If the chance was one in hundred, than there would
be ninety-nine imperfect or failed models per one perfect
model. But the chances of human genes being formed as
such, are so remote that – in the words of Professor David L.
Block – “no sane biochemist would argue that a single gene,
let alone a human genome, was spontaneously formed.”

 A single protein has totally demolished evolution

• Darwinists HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE A
SINGLE EXPLANATION OF HOW JUST ONE PROTEIN
CAME INTO BEING
• DNA is essential for a single protein to form
• DNA cannot form without protein
• Protein cannot form without DNA
• Protein cannot form in the absence of protein
• Protein cannot form in the absence of any one of the
proteins which serve in the manufacture of protein
• Protein cannot form without ribosome
• Protein cannot form without RNA
43 Who is the Monkey?

• Protein cannot form without ATP

• Protein cannot form without the mitochondria to
manufacture ATP
• Protein cannot form without the cell nucleus
• Protein cannot form without the cytoplasm
• Protein cannot form in the absence of a single
organelle in the cell
• And proteins are necessary for all the organelles in
the cell to exist and function
• There can be no protein without these organelles.

Scientific Racism

“This is the use of scientific or pseudo-scientific techniques

and hypotheses to support or justify the belief in racism, racial
inferiority, or racial superiority, or alternatively the claim of
classifying individuals of different phenotypes into discrete
races or ethnicities.”
Darwinists will quote Darwin’s “The Origin of Species”.
However, they studiously avoid mentioning that he also
wrote a book “The Descent of Man” in which he expresses
his racist views. While proposing a sole human species,
Darwin contrasted the “civilized races” (white) with the
“savage races” (non-white).
44 Who is the Monkey?

Appendix 1
What is Science?

Science is a name applied to the endeavour to discover, and

understand the world we live in, through a combination of
observation, and reasoning based there-on; for instance, the
attempt to discover the properties of water (when it boils,
freezes, evaporates, etc.) by observing the changes that take
place under specific circumstances, and then forming
conclusions as to how this piece of information relates to
other information we already know, is called science.
Science consists of two parts: a.) A METHODOLOGY b.) A
PHILOSOPHY

Grasping the significance of both are crucial to

understanding the limitations of science as a discipline.
Hence we will provide a brief description of them both
below.

1. METHODOLOGY OF SCIENCE: The Scientific Method is the

process used in carrying out the activity of science. This
includes stipulating the subject matter and questions, as
well as the means of verifying those answers.
45 Who is the Monkey?

The above explanation can be simplified in the following

way:

The Scientific Method Focuses On The Material World:

Science only deals with the material world. “Material” refers
to those things in the world which are generally perceived
through the five senses, rather than through the mind. Heat,
light, human behaviour, ecosystems, planetary movements,
chemical substances, all fall under the direct umbrella of
science due to the fact that they are perceivable, directly or
indirectly. On the other hand, questions such as; “What is
the meaning of life?”, “What constitutes morality”, “Does the
soul exist?”, “Does God exist?’’ do not fall under the scope of
science, either because they are not of a physical nature, and
hence, are not perceivable nor falsifiable via our perception,
or exists outside the limitations of time and space.

It Seeks To Explain The Material World: Science tries to

specifically explain: how the natural world works, what it is
made out of and how it came to be as we see and experience
it today. Questions such as, “What is soil made up of?’’; “How
does the heart pump blood?”; “How did rocks from outer
space get here?’’ are all part of the scientific process.

Its Ideas Must Be Testable: The questions and hypotheses

that science deals with, must be testable. What is meant by
testable is that the question or hypothesis must be able to
produce;
46 Who is the Monkey?

a) A specific set of results if it is correct

b) A different set of results if it is incorrect
For example: if a hypothesis claims that the heart beats
faster when a person is in love, the claim should be
verifiable by conducting an experiment that can produce
either one of two results. If an increase in heart rate is
detected, the hypothesis will be correct. If an increase is not
detected, the hypothesis will be null and void. The idea is
thus scientifically valid, because of its ability to produce a
specific set of results that can be used to either verify or
falsify the claim.

It must be noted however that to rely on a single set of

results is not the preferred option. The more times an
experiment is repeated by different scientists, at different
times, the more authentic the science, and the more reliable
the results are considered to be.

Science Relies On The Information Acquired Through Testing:

It is not enough to merely predict the results of a claim, but
must be practically tested. The subsequent information
obtained, must then be analysed in order for a conclusion to
be reached.

This is where the scientific process stops, and the

philosophy of science begins. After the necessary data is
obtained, it has to be interpreted in a way that it makes
sense. This understating is achieved by applying notions
47 Who is the Monkey?

from the philosophy of science. However before an

elaboration of the philosophy of science is presented, the
limitations of the methodology of science must be
mentioned.

Limitations of the Scientific Process: The scientific

method is limited. This places certain topics beyond the
reach of scientific discussion. Therefore, the method cannot
be used to form an accurate understanding of such issues.
This does not mean that the truth and nature of such
matters are unknown (this would be committing the fallacy
of scientism, which will be discussed later). We must simply
resort to other existing modes of acquiring knowledge other
than the scientific method.

These limitations are due to a number of reasons. Some of

them are as follows:
1.) Sensory perception: Science can only address issues
which can generally be experienced. If a thing cannot be
perceived, then it will be considered an issue outside the
scope of scientific inquiry. So, matters such as the existence
of God, are technically outside the purview of science, since
a God, by definition, exists outside of the created universe,
and thus is not subject to our sensory experience.

2.) Morality: As mentioned earlier, the study of science

concerns itself with observable and physical phenomena. It
cannot comment on abstract concepts. It cannot delve into
48 Who is the Monkey?

the nature of things which do not possess an observable

form, such as one’s personal experience, and notions of
morality. In other words, we cannot conclude on how we
should act as good moral beings, based on our observations
of the physical world. A detailed understanding of the rain
cycle, mating habits of pink salmon, cellular biology, solar
flares and the like will not help us answer questions like “Is
killing an innocent person bad?”, “Is giving charity to the
poor good?”, “Is war ever justifiable?”, “How do we settle a
monetary dispute?”, “Is homosexuality wrong?” etc. Science
is compelled to remain silent on such matters.

3.) Time: Science cannot directly delve into the nature of

past events. For example; questions such as “What was the
first living organism?” “What was before the Big Bang?” etc.
are technically outside the realm of science. This is because,
- as mentioned earlier - science relies on conducting
experiments to confirm its claims. Since experiments can
only be possibly carried out in the present, past events
remain untestable.

Science can, at best, suggest plausible explanations based

on indirect reasoning, but can never confirm them as being
true.

4.) Metaphysics: Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy

that considers the ultimate nature of reality. If epistemology
is concerned with what is knowledge, and how we can
49 Who is the Monkey?

obtain and justify it, then metaphysics is concerned with the

question of what exactly it is that we can have knowledge of.
Examples of such questions may be: Are there universal
ideas that we can have access to? Laws that we can
discover? How many substances does the universe consist
of? Is there a self? If so, how does it maintain identity
through change and time? What is time? What is the nature
of space, and the objects that exists within it? Is there a
purpose to existence? If so, what is the purpose?

Metaphysical questions are, therefore, of a deep and

fundamental nature, and consequently, very difficult to
answer. Science can attempt to address some metaphysical
questions. For example: the issue of the beginning of the
universe can be investigated through the field of cosmology,
or take for instance Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity,
which presented a picture of space-time wherein space and
time were fused in a continuum, which challenged the
traditional assumption that that the two are separate
aspects of reality. However, these are the few metaphysical
questions that may be empirically addressed. Arguably,
most metaphysical assertions are not testable, but must
either be taken as assumptions (e.g. the world only consists
of physical things) or as a matter of logic (e.g. things with
identical properties must, in fact, be the same thing). The
reason that science cannot address these questions, is
because they are not observable phenomenon.
50 Who is the Monkey?

5.) Necessary Truths: A necessary truth is a statement that

cannot be wrong without leading to a contradiction in
reality. It has to be true. For example; 1. All humans will
die. 2. Person A is a human. Conclusion: Person
A will die.
Or take for instance; 3 + 3= 6 or 6 - 3 = 3
In all the above examples, the answer must be true in light
of their two preceding statements. There cannot possibly be
any other answer. This structure of reasoning is also known
as a deductive argument.

Now, the point being made here is, that necessary truths are
not considered to be true or valid based on scientific
observations, but are deemed true in light of the inner logic
present in our minds. No form of observation is needed to
justify the logical necessity of the conclusion.

One does not come to the conclusion that two smart phones
plus another two smart phones equals to four smart phones
after obtaining the relevant number of phones and then
conducting an experiment. Even a person who has never
even seen a smart phone will easily formulate a conclusion,
due to the necessity of such an answer.

A brief explanation of the scientific methodology has been

provided. The sum total of this discussion is that the
methodology of science, is subject to certain limitations.
These limitation render science incapable of commenting on
51 Who is the Monkey?

a wide range of issues. Having said that, we will now turn

our attention to the second part of science; the ‘philosophy of
science’.

2 .THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE:

Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned

with the foundations, methods, and implications of science.
It deals with a wide range of questions and issues ranging
from, “Can knowledge ever be wholly objective?” to “Can a
gene be copyrighted?” Broadly speaking, some of its central
questions are concerned with what exactly qualifies as
science, the reliability and construction of scientific
theories, and the ultimate purpose of science.

What is of particular concern to us, is that the philosophy of

science provides a frame work of ideologies and
assumptions, which are used to interpret and understand
the data accumulated via the scientific method. There are
two key points with regards to the nature of these
ideologies which are largely ignored:

1. These assumptions are pre-supposed: Meaning that they

are not adopted after extensive scientific endeavours, but
are already accepted as true beforehand by the larger
scientific community. The adoption of many of these
assumptions are due to the contributions of a number of
individuals’ philosophical reactions to specific historical
experiences.
52 Who is the Monkey?

2. Different assumptions yield different interpretations:

Depending on which ideology a scientist chooses to adhere
to, a different understanding will be obtained, even if the
data in question remains the same. These ideologies can be
likened to a pair of lenses through which observations are
made. Yellow tinted lenses will yield a yellow tinted world.
Likewise green tinted lenses will yield a green tinted world.
The subtleties of these varying implications can be
demonstrated by going back to our ‘increase in heart rate
experiment’. Once we have conducted the experiment and
collected the data, our understanding of that data will
depend on the assumptions that we apply to it.
For those who adhere to the doctrine of materialism: that all
that exists in the universe consists solely of physical matter
and nothing else, will explain that when a person falls in
love, the body releases the chemicals adrenaline and
norepinephrine into the blood stream, which increase the
heart rate. Simply put, the phenomenon is explained
entirely in terms of physical matter. Materialism as a
presumption, is now firmly entrenched in modern scientific
thought. However this was not always the case.
In the past there were those, such as Socrates, Aristotle,
Plato, St. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, who adhered to
dualism, an ideology that asserts that the world consists of
two substances: physical matter and mind stuff. Dualists
may explain the increased heart rate to be caused by
53 Who is the Monkey?

nonphysical phenomena such as those pertaining to the soul

or intellect.
These are two opposing ideas that affect the interpretation
and understanding of the world, and specifically, the
scientific data at hand.

Philosophy of Science Yields

Uncertain Knowledge

When we delve further into the Philosophy of Science, it

comes to light that many of its assumptions suffer from
inconsistencies, which render scientific claims, as a whole,
uncertain in its pronouncements. What this means is that
the philosophy of science cannot - for the most part -
produce certain knowledge. Its claims are highly tentative at
best.

The uncertainty of scientific claims are due to a number of

problems with its philosophy:

Validity of Induction: Induction and inference is used to

understand scientific data, whether it concerns fossil
evidence, human behaviour, plant growth, etc. It is a form of
reasoning, wherein conclusions are based on a limited
sample of observations. A general statement is based on
specific instances. For example: I have observed that ten
54 Who is the Monkey?

sheep are white. Therefore, based on this limited set of

examples I conclude that all sheep must be white.

Although a useful thinking process, the problem with

induction is that the process cannot guarantee the
conclusion. My observation of ten white sheep does not rule
out the possibility of the existence of black sheep.
Arguments based on induction can range from a probability
of 0% to 99%, but can never reach 100%. The number of
potential observations, or examples, will always exceed the
number of available examples. Therefore, the problem of
induction is that it can never yield certainty.

Empiricism: Empiricism is a nuanced philosophical school

of thought opposed to ‘rationalism’. Its adherents disagree
on numerous points, but they all share the belief that
knowledge is ultimately derived from, and justified by sense
experience. This means that we have no other source of
knowledge on a subject, other than that which our five
senses of touching, tasting, smelling, hearing and seeing
provides us with. Our minds are like a blank sheet upon
which the senses leave imprints of knowledge.

For an empiricist, if a statement or theory is consistent with

reality, direct verification is the only means of ascertaining
its truth. Otherwise, it is not rationally obligatory to accept
its claim. For example: the existence of the sun is rationally
tenable for an empiricist due to its sensory verifiability (its
55 Who is the Monkey?

heat, light etc.). On the other hand, the concept of God is not
rationally tenable (according to an empiricist), due to a lack
of sensory verifiability.

Empiricism suffers from a number logical problems and

limitations. The main problem being that this sort of
thinking only allows conclusions about observed realities to
be made, and not conclusions about unobservable realities.

For example, a person looking at the full moon in the night

sky observes it slowly being enshrouded by thick black
clouds. Does the person now deny the existence of the moon
since it is no longer subject to sensory verification? The
empiricist will of course dismiss such a denial as absurd, but
the point being made here is that the belief in the existence
of the moon is no longer based on sensory experience, but
on logical deduction, which is another root to knowledge
distinct from the five senses. This brief example exposes one
of the many inconsistencies of empiricist view point.

Materialism: This ideology has already been briefly

discussed. It posits that all existing things in the universe
solely consist of physical matter. This is a central belief of
contemporary scientific thought that has endured, despite
its many inconsistencies. Among its many problems is what
is known as a ‘recalcitrant fact’. A recalcitrant fact is a fact
that resists a specific theory or statement.
56 Who is the Monkey?

For example, Person A stands accused of murdering Person

B. However Person A has proven that he was not present at
the crime scene during the murder. Person A’s absence
serves as a recalcitrant fact to the accusation of murder.

One of the recalcitrant facts that resist materialism, is the

existence of human consciousness. When I undergo a human
experience, for instance, pain, a scientist may be able to
track neuro-chemical activity in the brain associated with
my experience. What these trackings merely show is that
something is happening. It cannot explain what my personal
experiences is actually like. It is possible for two people
afflicted with the same injury to feel two different levels of
pain, whilst their neuro-chemical reactions in the brain
remain identical.

Experiences are an extension of our consciousness. If

consciousness was solely comprised of physical matter, it
would have been possible to track and explain the variations
in the different personal experiences of pain. The absence of
such a detection indicates that consciousness consists of
non-physical matter (as suggested by a number of leading
neurobiologists such as David Chalmers). Therefore, the
sweeping assumption of materialism is exposed as
inconsistent.

Scientism: Scientism is an assertion that claims that

statements that cannot be scientifically proven, are not true.
57 Who is the Monkey?

This assertion is implicitly presumed in most scientific

discussions rather than being explicitly stated. However,
scientism is simply not true due to the wide range of issues
in which science is descoped. The answers to metaphysical
questions, moral truths and necessary truths, are all sought
through other avenues.

Most importantly, the incoherence of scientism is best

illustrated in the contradiction of its own assertion. The
sentence that “all statements that are not scientifically
verifiable are untrue” cannot be scientifically verified. It’s a
self-defeating statement! Much like the statement “there are
no sentences in the English language longer than three
words”. Despite this obvious flaw in the logic of scientism, it
continues to persist in modern scientific debates and
discussions in the form of presumptions.

In light of the brief descriptions of certain key philosophical

underpinnings of science listed above, it becomes evident
that science cannot produce certain knowledge. Its claims
are, for the most part conjectural and probabilistic, ranging
from 0% to 99%.

Conclusion: After a brief analysis of the two basic

components of science. It can be concluded that:

1. The scope of science is restricted, due to the limitations

inherent in its methodology.
58 Who is the Monkey?

2. The claims of science are not certain, due to the inability

of the philosophy of science to produce certainty.

What this means is that in the event of a scientific narrative

coming into conflict with the claim of another discipline or
tradition, the claim with higher epistemic value must be
given precedence. It will be assumed that the relevant
science to the issue at hand is either wrong in its claim, or in
need of further scientific enquiry to arrive at a more
coherent explanation.

We know that we have sufficient evidence (to be expounded

in another article in-sha-Allah) to believe in the absolute
validity of Quranic claims, that the knowledge conveyed to
us through the medium of the Quran, yields certain
knowledge.

When the claims of science (say evolution), a discipline with

relatively lower epistemic value, comes into an
irreconcilable conflict with the Quranic narrative (creation
of Adam ), precedence will be given to the claim with the
higher epistemic value (in this case the Quran).

Science is a wonderful tool granted to us by Allah . But it is

limited in its authority and scope. Understanding the nature
of this discipline, and the historical context in which it arose,
will help keep things in its correct perspective. (Article
prepared by Ml. Shibli Rahmani with minor changes)
59 Who is the Monkey?

Appendix 2
Interesting Quotations from
Scientists on Evolutionism
Here are some quotes by scientists speaking on the subject of
evolutionism. Note that many of these scientists are evolutionists
themselves, in spite of their comments. I suppose that they would
maintain that to admit that "God did it" would not be "intellectually
satisfying!" Such a confession, of course, flies in the face of their
naturalistic pre-suppositionalism.

#"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not

founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This
museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this
great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the
transmutation of species." (Dr. Etheridge, Palaeontologist of the
British Museum)

# "I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the

knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology,
cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its
basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the
evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long-
deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so
deep-rooted in the hearts of man." (Dr. Albert Fleischmann,
University of Erlangen)
60 Who is the Monkey?

# "By the late 1970s, debates on university campuses

throughout the free world were being held on the subject of
origins with increasing frequency. Hundreds of scientists,
who once accepted the theory of evolution as fact, were
abandoning ship and claiming that the scientific evidence
was in total support of the theory of creation. Well-known
evolutionists, such as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould,
were stating that, since the creationist scientists had won all
of the more than one hundred debates, the evolutionists
should not debate them." (Luther Sunderland, "Darwin's
Enigma", p.10)

# "The more one studies palaeontology, the more certain

one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly
the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one
encounters the great mysteries of religion... The only
alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be
true, but is irrational."(Dr. L.T. More)

# "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a

testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research
programme... (Dr. Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of
science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter Medawar,
"incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has
ever lived.")

# "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and

biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science
61 Who is the Monkey?

founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or

faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel
to belief in special creation..." (Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, in
the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of
Species")

# "What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it

seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the
probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of
events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge
available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the
origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle... (Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, codiscoverer
of DNA)

# "Once we see, however, that the probability of life

originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it
absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable
properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every
respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that
our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher
intelligences... even to the limit of God." (Sir Fred Hoyle,
British mathematician and astronomer, and Chandra
Wickramasinghe, co-authors of "Evolution from Space," after
acknowledging that they had been atheists all their lives)

# "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in

this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado
62 Who is the Monkey?

sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747

from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand
biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to
me to be obvious." (Sir Fred Hoyle)

# "I don't know how long it is going to be before

astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial
arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of
biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived
at by natural processes here on the earth. Astronomers will
have a little difficulty in understanding this because they
will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists
having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so.
The 'others' are a group of persons who believe, quite
openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief
that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there
is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are
in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a
profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up
with logical explanations of biblical miracles... It is quite
otherwise, however, with the modern miracle workers, who
are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of
thermodynamics." (Sir Fred Hoyle)

# "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no

support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous
Harvard Professor of Palaeontology)
63 Who is the Monkey?

# "I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the
textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most
famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American
Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared
perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal
truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is
lamentable, particularly because the people who propose
these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the
speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it
filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and
we've got a problem." (Dr. Niles Eldridge, Curator of
Invertebrate Palaeontology at the American Museum)

# "The fundamental reason why a lot of palaeontologists

don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record
doesn't show gradual change and every palaeontologist has
known that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that
you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record.
Every palaeontologist knows that most species, most
species, don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained
to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it
virtually precludes your studying the very process you went
into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that
brings terrible distress." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould)

# "To postulate that the development and survival of the

fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems
to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable
64 Who is the Monkey?

with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a

gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and
intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are
swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long
time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest." (Sir
Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner)

# "Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can

be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, 'special
creation,' is clearly impossible." (D.M.S. Watson, Professor of
Zoology, London University)

# Henry Gee points out that all the evidence for human evolution
‘between about 10 and 15 million years ago – several thousand
generations of living creatures – can be fitted in a small box.” He
concludes that conventional theories of the origin and
development of human beings are “a completely human invention
created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.”
He adds, “To take a line of fossils and claim they represent a
lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an
assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story –
amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific. “In Search of
Deep Time”(page 126-127)
65 Who is the Monkey?

Brief Answers to A Few of the

Common Arguments Used To
Support Evolutionists
Introduction
It is common for an introductory biology textbook to be
written from the evolutionary perspective. Often
"evidences" for the reasonableness of the theory of
evolution are presented in such a manner that the whole
thing appears to be conclusive and beyond reasonable
doubt. Phrases such as "All scientists agree..." or "It is
universally accepted..." (which are patently untrue--there
are thousands of scientists who reject the theory of
evolution) tend to intimidate many who have not closely
studied the issue. The unsuspecting are led to believe that
only "backwoods yahoos" and "illiterate bigots" would dare
question the veracity of evolution.
Upon closer inspection, many of these evidences are found to come
up short. In fact, many evolutionists disagree quite vehemently
among themselves in regard to the significance of these evidences.
The following observations, presented only as brief notes, are
offered merely in a small attempt to communicate that some of the
evidences for evolution are not really as conclusive as many had
thought them to be. If these brief comments "whet your appetite,"
there are many excellent articles and books which provide detailed
studies.
66 Who is the Monkey?

Eohippus
Two modern-day horses have been found in the same fossil
stratum as Eohippus. (If they evolved from Eohippus, they
should appear in strata that are "millions of years"
younger.)
No evolutionary intermediates have been found between the
"horses." Each appears abruptly in the fossil record.
There is no complete series to be found anywhere in the world.
The series jumps from North America to Europe and back to
North America.
There is no more evidence to conclude that these fossils indicate
the evolutionary progression of the horse than that fossils of a
chihuahua, a terrier, a german shepherd, and a great dane
indicate the evolutionary progression of the dog.

Vestigial Organs
Organs that were once thought to be vestigial have been
discovered to serve useful (and even essential) purposes.
(For example, the thyroid and pituitary were once
considered to be vestigial.)
Lamarckism (the idea that organs develop or degenerate
according to use or disuse) was discarded many years ago.
Organs do not develop or degenerate according to need. The use
67 Who is the Monkey?

or disuse of an organ has no effect on subsequent generations.

Only a genetic change can result in a different organ.
If vestigial organs existed, so should "nascent" organs (those "on
the way in"). They do not.

Peppered Moths
They have always existed in light and dark varieties. Before
the industrial revolution, dark moths on white tree trunks
were easily found and eaten by birds. Thus the white moths
were predominant. After the industrial revolution, the
trunks were blackened by pollution, and the white moths
were more easily found and eaten by birds. Thus the black
moths became predominant.
In any case, there is certainly no evolution of a simpler organism
being transformed into a more complex one.

Archaeopteryx
Archaeopteryx is famous for being a transitional fossil
between reptiles and birds with features of both. Most
modern palaeontologists classify it as a true bird.
Fossils of true birds have been found in the same rocks as the
Archaeopteryx (implying that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestor of
birds). Two bird species living today, the touraco and the hoatzin,
have claws at the end of their wings, which allow them to hold onto
branches. Other toothed-birds are also known to have lived in the
68 Who is the Monkey?

same period. Asymmetrical feathers also prove that it was capable of

flying like modern birds

"Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny"

Evolutionists themselves have discarded this older

argument (first proposed by Ernst Haeckel in 1866) and no
longer advance it as evidence for evolution. Scientists now
recognize that the stages of an embryo are specifically
programmed by the DNA of the organism involved and have
nothing to do with developmental stages of other
organisms.

The Miller-Urey Experiments

The complexity of amino acids does not even remotely
compare to the degree of complexity necessary for self-
replicating life forms.
There is no evidence that earth's early atmosphere was methane-
ammonia (and considerable evidence that its atmosphere has
always been an oxidizing one).
These experiments involved conditions carefully arranged by
purposeful scientists.
The mild spark discharges were poor simulations of lightning.
Real lightning would have destroyed any complex molecules that
might have been present.
69 Who is the Monkey?

Complex molecules (even DNA and RNA) do not in and of

themselves mean life anyway. Dead organisms have lots of DNA,
etc. that cannot be made to reproduce itself.
(For more information in this area, see The Second Law of
Thermodynamics and Evolution)

The Fossil Record

Often complex fossils are found alongside simple organisms.
Layers thought to be "older" are found on top of "younger"
layers.
After 130 years of digging up over 100 million fossils (of 250,000
species), the gaps between major groups of organisms are
undeniably clear. One would think that by now fossils would have
been found to begin to close up these gaps. They have not.
Dr. George Gaylord Simpson (noted evolutionist) has called the
sudden appearance of many types of complex life forms in the
Cambrian rocks the "major mystery of the history of life."
At one place or another in the world, rocks of every geologic
period lay directly on basement rocks below which there are no
fossils.
Interesting quote by Dr. Stephen Gould (world famous
evolutionist and professor at Harvard University who has spent a
lifetime studying the fossil record): "...the fossil record doesn't
show gradual change and every palaeontologist has known that
ever since Cuvier....Every palaeontologist knows that most
species, most species don't change. That's bothersome if you are
70 Who is the Monkey?

trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it

virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into
the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings
terrible distress." (Question and answer session following a
lecture at Hobart College on February 14, 1980)
Dr. Gould wrote in the June-July 1977 issue of Natural History
magazine, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no
support for gradual change..."
(Incidentally, fossilization is not found to occur today. After death,
organisms go through the process of decay. This seems to indicate
that fossilization is the result of catastrophic events.)
Steve Hall

Why are Scientists Evolutionists?

There are additional mechanisms that force scientists to be
evolutionist and materialist. In Western countries, a
scientist has to observe some standards in order to be
promoted, to receive academic recognition, or to have his
articles published in scientific journals. A straightforward
acceptance of evolution is the number-one criterion. This
system drives these scientists so far as to spend their whole
lives and scientific careers for the sake of a dogmatic belief.
American molecular biologist Jonathan Wells refers to these
pressure mechanisms in his book Icons of Evolution
published in 2000: ...Dogmatic Darwinists begin by imposing
71 Who is the Monkey?

a narrow interpretation on the evidence and declaring it the

only way to do science. Critics are then labelled unscientific;
their articles are rejected by mainstream journals, whose
editorial boards are dominated by the dogmatists; the critics
are denied funding by government agencies, who send grant
proposals to the dogmatists for "peer" review; and
eventually the critics are hounded out of scientific
community altogether. In the process, evidence against the
Darwinian view simply disappears, like witnesses against
the Mob. Or the evidence is buried in specialized
publications, where only a dedicated researcher can find.
Once critics have been silenced and counterevidence has
been buried, the dogmatists announce that there is scientific
debate about their theory, and no evidence against it. This is
the reality that continues to lie behind the assertion
"evolution is still accepted by the world of science".
Evolution is kept alive not because it has a scientific worth
but because it is an ideological obligation. Very few of the
scientists who are aware of this fact can risk pointing out
that the king isn't wearing any clothes.

This dogmatic materialistic point of view is the reason why

many prominent names in the scientific community are
atheists. Those who free themselves from the thrall of this
spell and think with an open mind do not hesitate to accept
the existence of a Creator. American biochemist Dr Michael
J. Behe, one of those prominent names who support the
72 Who is the Monkey?

movement to defend the fact of creation that has lately

become very accepted, describes the scientists who resist
believing in the creation of living organisms thus: Over the
past four decades, modern biochemistry has uncovered the
secrets of the cell. It has required tens of thousands of
people to dedicate the better parts of their lives to the
tedious work of the laboratory… The result of these
cumulative efforts to investigate the cell- to investigate life
at the molecular level-is a loud, clear, piercing cry of
"design!". The result is so unambiguous and so significant
that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements
in the history of science… Instead a curious, embarrassed
silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. Why does
the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling
discovery? This is the predicament of the atheist or some
people the theory of evolution or Darwinism has only
scientific connotations, with seemingly no direct implication
in their daily lives. This is, of course, a common
misunderstanding. Far beyond just being an issue within the
framework of the biological sciences, the theory of evolution
constitutes the underpinning of a deceptive philosophy that
has held sway over a large number of people: Materialism.
Materialist philosophy, which accepts only the existence of
matter and presupposes man to be 'a heap of matter',
asserts that he is no more than an animal, with 'conflict' the
sole rule of his existence. Although propagated as a modern
philosophy based on science, materialism is in fact an
73 Who is the Monkey?

ancient dogma with no scientific basis. Conceived in Ancient

Greece, the dogma was rediscovered by the atheistic
philosophers of the 18th century. It was then implanted in
the 19th century into several science disciplines by thinkers
such as Karl Marx, Charles Darwin and Sigmund Freud. In
other words science was distorted to make room for
materialism. The past two centuries have been a bloody
arena of materialism: Ideologies based on materialism (or
competing ideologies arguing against materialism, yet
sharing its basic tenets) have brought permanent violence,
war and chaos to the world. Communism, responsible for
the death of 120 million people, is the direct outcome of
materialistic philosophy. Fascism, despite pretending to be
an alternative to the materialistic world-view, accepted the
fundamental materialist concept of progress though conflict
and sparked off oppressive regimes, massacres, world wars
and genocide. Besides these two bloody ideologies,
individual and social ethics have also been corrupted by
materialism. The deceptive message of materialism,
reducing man to an animal whose existence is coincidental
and with no responsibility to any being, demolished moral
pillars such as love, mercy, self-sacrifice, modesty, honesty
and justice. Having been misled by the materialists' motto
"life is a struggle", people came to see their lives as nothing
more than a clash of interests which, in turn, led to life
according to the law of the jungle. Traces of this philosophy,
which has a lot to answer as regards manmade disasters of
74 Who is the Monkey?

the last two centuries, can be found in every ideology that

perceives differences among people as a 'reason for conflict'.
That includes the terrorists of the present day who claim to
uphold religion, yet commit one of the greatest sins by
murdering innocent people. The theory of evolution, or
Darwinism, comes in handy at this point by completing the
jigsaw puzzle. It provides the myth that materialism is a
scientific idea. That is why, Karl Marx, the founder of
communism and dialectical materialism, wrote that
Darwinism was "the basis in natural history" for his
worldview. However, that basis is rotten. Modern scientific
discoveries reveal over and over again that the popular
belief associating Darwinism with science is false. Scientific
evidence refutes Darwinism comprehensively and reveals
that the origin of our existence is not evolution but creation.
The Almighty has created the universe, all living things and
man.

Appendix 3
No system of life can work successfully, unless it is backed
by sound knowledge. Man has been bestowed with certain
sources of knowledge, each source possessing a specific
jurisdiction. Beyond its jurisdiction, it becomes ineffective.
75 Who is the Monkey?

1.) The five senses – Each of these senses provide a person

with knowledge, but are limited. For example, the eye can
see, but cannot hear. The ear can hear, but cannot see. The
nose can smell, but can neither see nor hear.
2.) The intellect – At a certain stage, the senses become
ineffective and helpless. Where the senses terminate, man
has been bestowed with intellect to continue acquiring
knowledge. For example, there is a gun before me. I know its
colour by seeing it with my eyes. I can know by touching it
that it is made of steel. Yet none of these senses helps me to
know how this gun came into existence, because the process
of its manufacture did not take place before me. In such a
situation, the intellect guides a person to understand that
the gun was made by an expert engineer.
However, this source of knowledge is also limited. This
source of knowledge cannot provide me with guidance as to
how to utilize this gun.
3.) Revelation – The third source of knowledge, which
functions where the intellect ends, is Divine Revelation.
Divine Revelation teaches a person the object of his life, the
abode from where he has come, and the abode to which we
will finally return. These concepts can neither be
understood by the intellect, nor discerned by one of the five
senses.
Using the intellect in the presence of Divine knowledge, is
like trying to see things with the ears. This does not mean
that the intellect is useless. It is highly functional and
76 Who is the Monkey?

indispensable to man, but within its jurisdiction, and not

beyond that. Ibn Khaldoon  has written that the intellect is
very useful and valuable, subject to the condition that it is
used within its jurisdiction. It may be compared to a delicate
scale which is used to weigh gold. If anyone uses it to weigh
a large block of stone, it will break. Now if any person says
that the scale is useless, as it could not weigh the block of
stone, the person will be declared to be a fool. The truth is
that the scale was used for something which did not fall
within its jurisdiction, so it broke.
If a person does not accept this third source, and regards
only the first two sources of knowledge as correct, then how
will one judge right from wrong, etc. If left to the intellect,
then people will fall into great evils. A few examples of these
are:
1.) What is wrong if a person gets married to his sister or
daughter as they know the person better than any other
stranger? Incest is not wrong, but actually more in
accordance with logic.
2.) What is wrong with eating dead human beings? Instead
of burying them, it is more viable to consume them.
3.) Why can people not kill the aged, sick and disabled as
they are of no use to society?
4.) What is wrong with eating excreta and drinking urine?
This will save a person so much of money on food. If one
argues that their taste is not right, then one could argue that
he will add some seasonings to alter their taste.
77 Who is the Monkey?

(Extracted and abridged from Limits of reason by Mufti Taqi

Uthmani. A few additions have been made.)

Moral Foundations

A Divine Being can be the only rational anchor for morality,

because Allah  is the only Being that transcends human
subjectivity. Without the concept of a Divine Reality, morality
is reduced to something as relative as fashion. What‟s
considered moral or immoral today may not hold true for
tomorrow, and vice versa. Simply put, without Allah  (a
Divine Being), there can be no absolute definition for what
constitutes good and bad. It becomes a matter of mere personal
preference.

Normal justification for the atheist‟s moral views are one of the
following:

1) Social consensus 2) Ethical humanism 3) Biology 4) Moral

realism.

1) Social consensus: This is in essence the spirit of democracy.

Whatever the majority of society deems to be good, is good.
This cannot be an adequate determinant for morality because of
its relative nature. An example to explain our point is Germany
in 1935. There was a general agreement on the measures
78 Who is the Monkey?

adopted to rid the country of undesirables (Jews, Gypsies, the

physically impaired etc.). Were their actions justified? The
modern atheist will mostly likely reply in the negative, to which
it can be asked “On what basis? Social consensus?” This
effectively highlights the dilemma that an adherent of this moral
view is faced with. Further, human beings are fickle in nature,
and opinions are easily swayed by propaganda.

2) Ethical Humanism: The Oxford companion to Philosophy

defines ethical humanism as follows: “…placing the end of
moral action in the welfare of humanity, rather than in fulfilling
the Will of God” (Pg.376 print 1995). In other words, only such
actions that are of potential benefit to mankind, and do not
result in harming others, are considered morally acceptable.
God has nothing to do with the picture. This moral ideology
rules out the promiscuity of homosexuality, fornication, alcohol
consumption, and the like. Our contention is that the very claim
of ethical humanism (i.e. to be altruistic, and to refrain from
harming others as the only criterion for good) is in itself a moral
claim. One may ask for the justification of this claim as well.
On what logical grounds was this set as the only basis for good
and evil?

(A note on ethical humanism: This viewpoint is antithetical to

the Islamic concept of „‟Ikhlaas (sincerity)‟‟, which means to
perform all good actions solely for the Sake of Allah .
79 Who is the Monkey?

Unfortunately quite a large number of Muslims have both

consciously and subconsciously subscribed to this ideology.).

3) Biology: Some atheists (such as the late 19th century

evolutionist and philosopher, Herbert Spencer, and famous
science popularizer, Sam Harris) maintain that biology forms
the foundation of morality. In response to this stance, Hamza
Tzortzis quotes Charles Darwin, “If men were reared under
precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a
doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker bees,
think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would
strive to kill their fertile daughters, and no one would think of
interfering”. To put it simply, if our moral instinct were truly a
product of the biological changes that we, as a species
supposedly underwent during the evolutionary process, then our
morals would be subject to those changes. If for instance, we
were reared according to the same conditions as an ocean
salmon, the males among us would consider it okay to consume
our own babies! This exposes the relative nature of this
particular moral viewpoint. Furthermore, the most that this
theory can provide us with are rules for morality, and not a
basis. It can tell us what we consider to be moral, but not what
ought to be moral.
80 Who is the Monkey?

4) Moral Realism: Another opinion that some atheist have

adopted, is Moral Realism. That there are indeed such concepts
as objective morals, but it‟s not subject to anything. It just is.
Period. In truth, this viewpoint does not have a leg to stand on.
On these very same grounds, any group can also make assertive
claims on the validity of their moral stance, and get away with
it.

It should be noted that there are a few atheistic thinkers, who

admit that only a concept of a Divine Being can possibly serve
as a basis for morality. The late atheist philosopher J.L. Mackie
held that (since according to him there is no God) there is no
such thing as an objective morality. If an atheist happens to hold
this view, he automatically forfeits his right to dictate what‟s
good and evil.

In summary, differences in moral views stem from the

various paradigms upon which each group base their ethical
concepts. Therefore, a thorough analyses of these
foundations are necessary. Muslims believe that the only
possible rational criterion for defining morality is the Divine
Being, since only Allah  can transcend human subjectivity.
All other assertions, whether social consensus, biology,
ethical humanism, or moral realism, are invalid, due to the
lack of objectivity and constancy in their claims. (The above
 81 Who is the Monkey?

article, ‘Moral foundations’, was prepared by Ml. Shibli

Rahmani. It has been reproduced here with minor changes
an

i This is referred to as spontaneous generation: By coincidence, the first

single living cell came into existence 3.8 billion years ago. Inanimate
matter produced it by chance. All living beings in the entire world
around us are products of this cell. (Five years after? Darwin’s book ‘The
origin of species’, was written, Louis Pasteur disproved ‘spontaneous
generation’, after numerous studies and experiments. In his lecture in
Sorbonne in 1964, he said, “Never will the doctrine of spontaneous
generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple
experiment.”).

This means that the first cell on earth was formed "all of a sudden"
together with its incredibly complex structure, along with enzymes
(specialized proteins) which it is dependent upon, and which depends
upon the information encoded within the DNA. So, if a complex structure
came into existence all of a sudden, what does this mean?

Let us ask this question with an example. Let us liken the cell to a high-
tech car in terms of its complexity. (In fact, the cell is a much more
complex and developed system than a car, with its engine and all its
electronic equipment.) Now let us ask the following question: What
would you think if you went out hiking in the depths of a thick forest,
and ran across a brand-new car among the trees? Would you imagine
that various elements in the forest had come together, by chance, over
millions of years, and produced such a vehicle? All the parts in the car
are made of products such as iron, copper, and rubber-the raw
ingredients for which are all found on the earth - but would this fact lead
82 Who is the Monkey?

you to think that these materials had fused "by chance", and then, come
together, and produced such a car? There is no doubt that anyone with a
sound mind would realize that the car was the product of intelligent
design - in other words, a factory - and wonder what it was doing there
in the middle of the forest. The sudden emergence of a complex
structure in a complete form, quite out of the blue, shows that this is the
work of an intelligent being. A complex system like the cell is, no doubt,
created by a Superior Will and Wisdom. In other words, it came into

Believing that pure chance can produce perfect creations, goes well
beyond the bounds of reason. A single plant, or animal, would require
thousands and thousands of co-incidental events. Thus, miracles would
become the rule: events with the most unlikely probability, could not fail
to occur. Pierre-Paul Grasse (a French zoologist) summarizes what the
concept of "coincidence" means for evolutionists: "...Chance becomes a
sort of Providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named, but
which is secretly worshipped."

Evolutionary theory claims that life is formed by chance: According to

this claim, lifeless and unconscious atoms came together to form the cell,
and then, they somehow formed other living things, including man. Let
us think about that. When we bring together the elements that are the
building-blocks of life such as carbon, phosphorus, nitrogen and
potassium, only a heap is formed. No matter what treatments it
undergoes, this atomic heap cannot form even a single living being. If
you like, let us formulate an "experiment" on this subject, and let us
83 Who is the Monkey?

examine on behalf of the evolutionists what they really claim, without

pronouncing loudly under the name "Darwinian formula":
Let evolutionists put plenty of materials present in the composition of
living beings, such as phosphorus, nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, iron, and
magnesium into big barrels. Moreover, let them add in these barrels, any
material that does not exist under normal conditions, but as they
consider necessary. Let them add in this mixture as many amino acids -
which have no possibility of forming under natural conditions - and as
many proteins - a single one of which has a formation probability of
10950 - as they like. Let them expose these mixtures to as much heat and
moisture as they like. Let them stir these with whatever technologically
developed device they like. Let them put the foremost scientists beside
these barrels. Let these experts wait in turn beside these barrels for
billions, and even trillions of years. Let them be free to use all kinds of
conditions which they believe to be necessary for a human's formation.
No matter what they do, they cannot produce from these barrels a
human, never mind a professor who can examine his cell structure
under the electron microscope. They cannot produce giraffes, lions,
bees, canaries, horses, dolphins, roses, orchids, lilies, bananas, oranges,
apples, dates, tomatoes, melons, watermelons, figs, olives, grapes,
peaches, pea-fowls, pheasants, multi coloured butterflies, or millions of
other living beings such as these. Indeed, they could not obtain even a
single cell of any one of them.

Briefly, unconscious atoms cannot form a cell by coming together. They

cannot take a new decision, and divide this cell into two, then take other
decisions and create the professors who first invented the electron
microscope, and then examine their own cell structure under that
84 Who is the Monkey?

microscope. Matter is an unconscious, lifeless heap, and it comes to life

with Allah’s Superior Creation. Thinking even a little bit on the claims of
evolutionists discloses this reality, just as in the above example.

The famous physicist, Sir Fred Hoyle, makes a very striking observation
about the origin of life. In his book, ‘The Intelligent Universe’, he writes:
“The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (by
coincidence) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping
through a junk-yard, might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials
therein.” Just as a hurricane cannot produce an airplane as a result of
coincidences, neither is it possible for the universe to have come into
being as a result of unanticipated happenings, and moreover, to harbour
extremely complex structures therein. In truth, the universe is furnished
with myriad systems of an infinitely greater complexity than those of an
airplane.

A few incidents:
1.) An atheist once approached the Muslim ruler and said, “O leader of
the Muslims, scholars of your age have reached consensus that the
world has been created by a Divine Being. Please invite one of your
leading scholars to debate this matter with me, as I do not believe that
the world has been created by a Divine Being.” The Muslim ruler
immediately sent a message to a great scholar, “O Scholar of the
Muslims, be informed that an atheist has arrived in my court. He denies
that the world has been created by a Divine Being, and wants to debate
the matter with you.”
85 Who is the Monkey?

The scholar replied that he would arrive at a certain time. At the

appointed time, the Caliph, his courtiers and the atheist waited, while
the scholar arrived a few minutes late.
After greeting, the scholar was seated, and the atheist asked, “Why did
you arrive late?” The scholar replied, “An amazing incident delayed me.
My home is on the other side of the Tigris River. When I arrived at the
bank of the river, I noticed an old boat, which had been broken in pieces.
As my gaze fell on the scattered pieces of wood they began to move by
themselves. Each piece attached itself to the others, and soon the boat
was formed. All this happened without the aid of a builder. I boarded the
boat, crossed the river and arrived here.”
The atheist remarked, “Courtiers, have you ever heard such a lie as the
one just told to us by your scholar and great leader? This is completely
false.”
The scholar then explained, “Do you think that I am speaking lies?” The
atheist replied, “Definitely! Never was a boat ever constructed without
the skills of a builder.”
The scholar continued, “Now, listen! If a boat cannot be built without a
builder, how is it possible that the universe came into existence without
a Creator?”
2.) Someone once asked a high-ranking scholar for the proof of a
Creator. He replied by indicating towards the face and said that the face
of a man is small, and yet it consists of eyes, nose, tongue, cheeks, lips,
etc. Notwithstanding this, no two person’s faces are the same. The voice,
mannerisms and habits of each person are unique. In short, the fact that
every person’s features and profiles are not alike, nor are their voices,
tones, habits and characters alike, proves that this is definitely the work
of a Supreme Creator, who has blessed each person with his own
 86 Who is the Monkey?

uniqueness, which differs from others. This can never be the work of
matter or molecules, nor can it be pure coincidence.
3.) An atheist asked an academic for the proof of a Creator. He replied
that one must look at the leaves of a mulberry tree. The taste, colour and
smell of all of them are alike, but when a silkworm eats therefrom, silk is
produced; when a bee takes pollen therefrom, honey is; when a sheep
eats therefrom, it ejects it as droppings; and when a deer eats therefrom,
musk is produced. All these different things are made from one and the
same source. It is obvious that all these different products are the result
of an All-Knowing, Most Powerful Creator. These are certainly not the
result of ‘natural occurrences.’ If it were, then the result would have all
been the same.

ii According to this theory, the transformation of a species into another

takes millions of years. Numerous intermediary species, or ‘transitional
forms’ ought to have existed, for e.g. half-fish/half-reptile, half-
reptile/half-bird. Had such creatures existed, there would be millions of
them, the fossils of which should be easily found. Why then has many
such fossils been found? A few like the archaeopteryx are claimed to
have existed, but some scientists have declared them to be forgeries.
Remember that those who want to prove something will do so, even
with lies. Regarding the Piltdown forgery, the following has been noted,
“The dualist arguments were there right throughout the sorry history of
one of palaeontology’s greatest and most notorious hoaxes, yet were
ignored or waved away by several prominent workers who held
influential positions. Piltdown’s proponents (like Pycraft) used the
weight of authority and special access to the material to dismiss or
quash the dualist’s arguments. This is despite the fact that those who
87 Who is the Monkey?

made the dualist arguments were actually more qualified, more

experienced, and more ‘relevant’ (as goes their qualifications and areas
of expertise) when compared to the proponents. Dualism is discussed at
length in all the good books on Piltdown and also formed the focus of
one of Stephen Gould’s essays. I would say the same as Gould and other
commentators: if leading workers in England, the USA and elsewhere
had not been so invested, so committed, in the supposed authenticity of
Piltdown man, if only they had listened to their detractors – to
Miller, Hrdlička and others – they might well have accepted and
understood the very reasonable, very well supported arguments of the
dualists. Alarm bells were ringing right from the start.”
(https://blogs.scientificamerican.com)

Human evolution- According to evolutionists, man evolved from ape-like

ancestors. This supposedly started 4-5 million years ago. The ape passed
through four major stages (many more including Sahelanthropus, and
Ardipithicus are part of evolutionary doctrine) to finally become a
human:
1) Australopithecus (Southern African ape). (They were actually just
from an ordinary ape species that became extinct and bore no
resemblance to humans, however share bear great resemblance with the
orangutan today.) 2) Homo Habilis (‘homo’ means man). 3) Homo
Erectus. 4) Homo Sapiens (the human being)

(Apart from the fossil record, unbridgeable anatomical gaps between

man and apes invalidate the fiction of human evolution. One has to do
with the manner of walking. Evolutionist claim similarities related to
bipedalism, (i.e. walking on two legs seen from similar hip, spine and
foramen magnum position) Research has now shown that the evolution
88 Who is the Monkey?

of bipedalism never occurred, nor is it possible to have done so. Firstly,

bipedalism is not an evolutionary advantage. Apes movement are much
faster, easier and efficient than man’s stride. According to the logic of
evolution, humans should have evolved to become a quadruped (i.e.
becoming bipedal would be de-evolving). Another problem is that
bipedalism does not serve the ‘gradual development’ model of
Darwinism, which requires that there be a compound stride between
bipedalism and quadrupedalism. However computerized research in
1996 showed that a compound stride was impossible. (Ruth Henke
“Aufretch aus den Baumen” Focus vol. 39, 1996, pg. 178) A half-bipedal
being cannot exist. The immense gap between man and ape is not
limited to this. Many other issues still remain unexplained, such as brain
capacity, the ability to talk, and so on.)

Points to consider: 1) No fossils have been shown that would directly

link the descent of Man from the apes, and that there is a constant
search for what is termed, the 'Missing Link'?"
2) Actually, recent findings of paleoanthropologists have shown that 1, 2
and 3 all lived in different parts of the world at the same time. Stephen
Jay Gould (a palaeontologist from Harvard) admits, “What has become of
our ladder if there are three co-existing lineages of hominids (A.
Africanus, the robust australopithecines and H. Habilis), none clearly
derived from one another. Moreover, none of the three display any
evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth.” There is proof to
show that 3 co-existed with 1 and 2, as well as with 4. Homo Erectus
were just human beings. Note there is great diversity in the appearance
of humans. Australian Aborigines have pronounced brow ridges
associated with earlier Homo and Australopithecus species. The pigmies
 89 Who is the Monkey?

of central Africa are very small in body size however, they are still
Humans.

3) The biggest proof against this theory is that it cannot be reproduced

or demonstrated, whereas they claim that they disbelieve in God
because He is not testable, demonstrable, etc. The following is a logical
question, “If one ancestor could become a human (while no other human
existed), why cannot other ancestors turn into a human (whereas
natural selection, i.e. development due to new circumstances and
environment, ought to be more common in the presence of men already,
as the present apes certainly need the new traits, which the first ones
needed far more desperately, to survive).”

iii The reason behind the creation of heaven and hell: There are
many people in this world who pass their lives in evil; robbing,
terrorizing, usurping, oppressing, raping and hurting others.
Nonetheless, they live a life of apparent happiness (although not
spiritually) and luxury, and finally die in this condition. Similarly, there
are those who pass their lives in piety and good works; being just, fair,
honest, spending their time in the worship of Allah  and working for
the welfare of His  creation. Despite this, they pass their lives in
poverty and difficulty, afflicted with sickness, calamities and distress,
and finally pass away in this condition.
We have proven above the existence of Allah , who, obviously, sees all
man’s actions - good and bad - yet does not reward and punish in this
world. It logically follows that Allah  will surely reward or punish man
for his actions in some other life, since it is not possible to assume that
Allah  would be unfair as to not reward the good people for what they
have carried out, and not take to task those who committed evil, or that
90 Who is the Monkey?

the good and bad all receive an equal treatment. Allah  states, “Should
We treat the obedient ones in the same manner as the disobedient ones?
(Certainly not!) What is the matter with you? How do you judge? (Surah
Qalam v.35-36)
“Do those who perpetrate sins imagine that We will treat them like
those who believe and perform good deeds, that they will be equal in life
and death? (They are totally wrong.) Evil indeed is the judgement they
make. (After death, their condition will be totally different, one group in
Paradise and the other in Hell)” (Surah Jaathiyah v.21)
It is the very nature of humans to work towards rewards and to avoid
punishments. We find that for little school children, there are
punishments for misbehaviour; detention; etc. and awards are given to
encourage them. In workplaces, bonuses are granted to those who excel,
and those who are a liability are often demoted.

Why is reward and punishment not given in this world? Had it been
given in this world, life would cease to be a test, as the recompense and
repercussions would be clearly visible. People would then avoid evil just
like they avoid jumping into a fire, and all would do good, just like they
eat and drink. The test, for which Allah  has sent us into this world,
would then be useless, as the results would be in front of us. There
would therefore be no sincerity in deeds.

What is the effect of this belief on human life? Any person who has
some knowledge of history, or some common sense, will never be able
to deny that there is nothing in this world, no human system,
government law, social progress, personal honour, or awareness
campaigns which saves people from evil and misconduct to the extent
91 Who is the Monkey?

that the belief in the Hereafter can, and does. Experience proves that
societies in which evil and moral corruption are widespread, are those
which are devoid of the belief in the Hereafter. History has proven that
the most pure, clean and civilized lives have been those of the servants
of Allah  who were convinced of the Hereafter, and the reason for this,
is that this conviction prevents a person from evil, even in those
situations in which there is no one to see him and there is no danger of
being held responsible in this world.

iv Points to consider: A person looks at a book which is beautifully

penned i.e. the book is extremely beautiful and the language there-in
very eloquent. Logically, he will realize that this is not the result of ink
and its coincidental and accidental movements, but the work of an
experienced and expert author and calligrapher.
A person looks at a beautiful palace, which has numerous spacious and
impressive rooms, extremely beautiful carpets and lights, as well as
equally attractive springs and fountains. Only a foolish person will claim
that this is the result of the co-incidental mixing of sand and water. Any
intelligent person will be forced to exclaim that this is the work of expert
engineers and builders.
When looking at a watch, one observes all the intricate parts within it.
He then notes the accurateness of its movements and its meticulous
functioning. The obvious conclusion will be that the watch has been
constructed by an expert watch-maker. If someone claims that a blind,
deaf and dumb person, who has no knowledge or understanding of
watch-making, is the one who constructed this watch, then no sane
person will accept this conclusion. Alternatively, if some-one claims that
it is a result of co-incidental and accidental movements of matter which
92 Who is the Monkey?

gave rise to the form of the watch, and then, after further movements of
this matter, all the intricacies of this watch were formed, all these parts
got together by themselves and started functioning, giving correct time,
he will be regarded as insane.
The perfect movement, functioning and existence of the entire universe
all point to the existence of a Most Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Seeing,
All-Hearing, Most Wise Being.
Imagine a house whose rooms are well provisioned with luxurious
furniture, standing on a high mountain surrounded by a thick forest;
suppose that a man came across this house, but could not find anybody
nearby. Suppose that he thought that the rocks from the mountain had
been scattered around, and then automatically collected together to take
the shape of this splendid palace with its bedrooms, chambers,
corridors, and fittings, that the trees in the wood had split of their own
accord into boards, and formed themselves into doors and beds, seats
and tables, each taking its place in the palace; that the fibres from the
plants and wool and hair of the animals of their own accord had changed
into embroidered cloth, and then were cut into carpets, pillows, and
cushions, and dispersed about the rooms and settled onto sofas and
chairs; that lamps and chandeliers by themselves had fallen into this
palace from all directions and fixed themselves into the ceilings,
individually and in groups; would you not conclude that this must be a
figment of imagination, or the reasoning of someone disturbed in his
mind?

What, then, do you think of a palace whose ceiling is the sky, whose floor
is the earth, whose pillars are the mountains, whose ornamentation is
the plants, and whose lamps are the stars, moon, and sun? In the correct
judgment of the intellect, can it be of lesser importance than this house?
93 Who is the Monkey?

Is it not more likely to direct the attention and mind to a Shaping

Creator, Alive, Self-Subsistent, Who Created and Shaped, and Who
Determined and Guided?

And do you think that if a man brought millions of letters and began to
move them around day after day, week after week, year after year, that
he would obtain from them, by chance, a composition which is a book of
literature, philosophy, or mathematics?

As the Orientalist David Santillana said, even after moving them around
for generations, after all his toil he would still be left with individual
letters. If this is so, as Santillana continues, how can we imagine that this
universe, with the perfection and harmony between its individual parts,
and their amazing compatibility with each other, could ever have come
about through random movement in a limitless void, as the materialists
imagine? There is no doubt that rational people would agree with
Aristotle that ‘Every order bespeaks the intelligence behind it.’

The above manner of demonstration [that is, the cosmological proof] is

the method which Kant, the philosopher of Germany, declared to be the
clearest and strongest proof of the Existence of God.

Fundamental Beliefs for Muslims

From the Quran, we learn that the most valuable treasure is
imaan and the greatest calamity is kufr (disbelief).
Everlasting success is the result of imaan while everlasting
loss is the consequence of kufr (disbelief).
94 Who is the Monkey?

Righteous deeds are only acceptable to Allaah  if imaan is

present. Without correct beliefs, righteous deeds are not
accepted for reward in the hereafter. Allaah  states,
“Whoever practises righteous deeds, be it male or female,
while he (or she) is a believer, verily they will enter Jannah.”
(Surah Nisaa verse 124) The first question posed to a
person in the grave will be regarding beliefs.
As far as those whose beliefs are not correct i.e. the
disbelievers, their righteous deeds will not be acceptable in
the court of Allaah  in the hereafter.
Beliefs are like roots and actions are like the branches. Just
as how branches grow because of the roots, similarly beliefs
are the source of actions. Thus the greatest and most
imperative obligation on man is to correct his beliefs and to
cleanse himself of wrong ideologies. He should adorn
himself with good actions and try to earn Allaah’s pleasure,
which in fact is the prime object of coming into this world.

One has to understand what the beliefs of the Ahlus Sunnah

wal Jamaa’ah are. Their beliefs are those which Nabi 
taught to the sahaabah , and all of them remained
steadfast on these beliefs without any difference. Later on,
people introduced new beliefs and divided into many
factions and groups. Nevertheless, the Ahlus Sunnah wal
Jamaa’ah remained staunch on the beliefs of the sahaabah 
and did not devise their own belief structure. These are the
same beliefs found in the Quran and ahaadith.
95 Who is the Monkey?

These basic beliefs are:

1.) Belief in Allaah : This entails in believing in the
existence of Allaah e as well as He being unique in His Being,
qualities and actions. He has no partner. He is the Creator,
Sustainer and Nourisher of everything. Only He  is worthy
of worship. To worship anyone besides Him is severe
rebellion which is referred to as shirk (polytheism). Nothing
happens without the will of Allaah. Not a single leaf can
move without His will. Allaah  knows everything. No atom
or speck in the universe is concealed from His knowledge.
Allaah  is free from the qualities of the creation. He 
possesses all qualities of perfection. He  is pure and free
from all faults and deficiencies.
2.) Belief in the angels: Allaah  has created a certain
creation from light. They are concealed from our gazes. They
are known as angels. We have not been informed whether
they are masculine or feminine. They neither eat nor drink.
They are free from urinating and defecating. They have been
entrusted with many duties. They never do any action
contrary to the command of Allaah . They are constantly in
the worship of Allaah  in different forms and never weary
of worship.
3.) Belief in the divine books: Allaah  had sent many divine
scriptures and booklets from the heavens via Jibreel , to
the messengers, so that they could convey to their people
the divine commands. Four of these books are famous: The
Tawrat was revealed to Moosa . The Zabur was revealed to
Dawood. The Injeel was revealed to Isaa . All these
96 Who is the Monkey?

scriptures were revealed for a specified time. The Quran

was revealed to our messenger, Muhammad . The Quran
bears testimony that these books were the true revelations
of Allaah , and that they were changed by people. It is
necessary to believe in the truthfulness of all the divine
books in their original form (and not in the altered form
they are presently in). The Quran is the final scripture. It has
cancelled and abrogated the other divine books. No new
scripture will be revealed. It is the best of all heavenly
scriptures and a miracle of Nabi . The rulings of the Quran
will remain till Qiyamah. Allaah  has promised to preserve
the Quran, which entails its words and meanings. No
additions, subtractions or changes can appear in it.
4.) Belief in the Messengers of Allah: The messengers are the
pure and chaste servants of Allaah , who were sent by
Allaah  to guide His servants, so that the creation be
brought closer to Allaah  and onto the straight path, and
they be saved from deviation. They were human beings and
possessed all human propensities and qualities. They
possessed the greatest knowledge in their times and
amongst their people. They were sinless. The final and most
honourable of all messengers was Muhammad . He  is the
messenger to all man and jinn till the Day of Judgement. His
message is general and for the entire universe. After his
coming, all other divinely revealed religions and missions of
the past messengers are abrogated and cancelled. It is
obligatory to act in accordance with the Shariah (code of
97 Who is the Monkey?

law) of Sayyiduna Muhammad. Salvation in the hereafter is

based on accepting the messengership of Muhammad .
5.) Belief in the Last Day: A time will come when the whole
world will be destroyed. This is called Qiyamah.
6.) Belief in Taqdir (predestination): Belief in Qadr means to
believe that whatever happened, happens or will happen
(good or bad) is in the knowledge of Allaah  and happens
by His command and will.
7.) Belief in the Hereafter: This means that one must believe
in the life of the grave, reckoning on the Day of Judgement,
and then entry into Jannah or Jahannum.

Besides these beliefs, one should possess love and entertain

good thoughts regarding every one of the companions of
Rasulullaah . To think or talk evil of them is open
transgression of the law of the Quran. There is fear of kufr
regarding such a person.

Mocking any part of Islam, denying the dharuriyat of din

(those aspects known generally by all Muslims), and having
doubt in the basic beliefs of Islam renders a person out of
the fold of Islam. It is of utmost importance that a person
learns and corrects his beliefs. He should consult the ulama
and study authentic literature on this subject. May Allah 
let us live with imaan, die with imaan, and be resurrected
with imaan.