I was born in Toronto Canada on September 7th or 8th 1990 (my mother is unsure of my birth date  but she does not really care.) My mother is Canadian/Anglo and my father was indigenous Mexican. I was raised by my mother who is a non Muslim, now my father and mother met in Detroit and spent some time together, my mother was with another Canadian man at the time so you can imagine what happened when the Hispanic baby came out.

I attended 7 Separate Schools in order to receive my 8th grade education. I also loved the study of the intricate enigma above us, and apparently was recognized as a prodigy in the field of cosmology and earned the favor of the local teachers, hence I received a grant for university however an altercation ended this great opportunity. Heeding the advice of my elders I have agreed to complete the High School curriculum and then enter into university to earn my doctorate in cosmology.

Now my Canadian side never liked me especially my mom although she raised me she was always hostile, however I was close to my stepsister. My Mexican family is spread out throughout Mexico and L.A and they love me so it was really growing up in between extremes. My Father was a convicted heroin pusher who was incarcerated in no less than three American cities. He was convicted and put on Death-row however he died of natural causes before he could be executed (My uncle carries on the disgrace trade in East Los).

I found out that my Father had embraced Islam such a peculiar move I was indeed perplexed. But I originally pushed the interest aside smoked weed, drank, got in fights, disrespected women immensely which is why I feel like I owe women a million times over. Soon I had a police record the size of my arm thus my mom had me removed from my home. I was originally drinking and sleeping on trains and spending most of my time with my "homies" while disrespecting innocent women at the Foreshore and 13th Ave.

However I was then moved into public housing and upon seeing some of my fathers poetry I decided I needed to change my life. With a Bible in one hand and a copy of the Holy Quran in the other I embarked upon my journey. Soon after studying the Holy Quran it was obvious from comparing with the Old Testament that they had come from the same Source, however the Holy Quran had corrected the latter; in such a way that made me feel as if I did not embrace Islam it would be too late.

I became Sunni and started debating and learning. However I was always attracted to Shi'ism. I started to read into it and I found a Wahabi site that put me off Shi'ism for a fair amount of time. However I have never been one to accept something with out proof Alhamdulillah that is what I love about Islam the Din ul Haq is established on empirical evidence. Thus I studied Shi'ism especially the Sunni/Shia Hadith dispute. Upon studying the two I was shocked to learn that the Shia Hadiths pre-date the Sunni furthermore the science was way better. Alas the Shia Hadiths where inspiring and simply more logical than the Sunni hence I embraced Shia Islam.

That was not the end of my journey, although I do not wish to elaborate on what has transpired thus far since all of the aforementioned. However I have decided to explain my reasons from remaining a Muslim. Insha'Allah.

This paper was originally published on Bismika Allahuma and is still available online in the responses to Faith Freedom International section of the Bismika forum.

Bismillah Ar Rahman Ar Raheem

Alhamdulillah, La Ilaha Ilallah Muhammad Rasullah, Ali Yan Wali Yullah

May Everlasting Peace and Blessings be upon the Holy Prophet Muhammad and his holy and pure Ahlul Bayht as well as his true companions. And may peace and Blessings of Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa be upon all of those who follow the Guidance and May Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa keep us Guided aright. And may Guidance descend upon those who have yet to open their hearts and receive it. And may this paper serve to help others on their spiritual journey. I have prayed thus in the Name of the Most High, the One Sublime Creator Who hath no equals nor partners.

To Proceed; In this paper I address some vital issues pertaining to the topic of cosmology; and seek to address the fundamental question that is constantly presented to mankind and that is does God exist? Which is followed by I think a few more primary questions that can be structured as such; if God does exist does He need to reveal a religion? And if I can demonstrate that one must answer in the affirmative, then which religion is God's religion for mankind? I myself have had a painstakingly rough journey in answering the aforementioned questions; I confused myself through my actions and my desires. However there is no excuse worthy, no evidence strong enough nor a single line of defense that can alleviate the shame that I have brought upon myself; I can only be content with the fact that Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa is the Most Merciful and that He accepts the repentance of the sincere. 'Thumma tawallaytum min badi thalika falawla fadlu Allahi alaykum warahmatuhu lakuntum mina alkhasireena.' "But ye turned back thereafter: Had it not been for the Grace and Mercy of Allah to you, ye had surely been among the lost." The first question has a variety of answers posited by a vast array of finite beings who are thus limited in knowledge as such formulating an answer can be simple and or difficult.

For example; I truly believe that I can feel Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa affect my life for the better, that He can raise my spirits and increase my knowledge as well as remove my internal pain. I can thus personally feel and interact with Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa and grasp His Existence through prayer and deep thought. In the skeptical lens this is nothing but my own personal desires for such a Beings existence, thus they feel that it is merely my own psychological interpretation of certain emotions that serve the purpose of comforting my internal anguish. Okay I am willing to set aside the personal experience for on face value it does seem to be little more than my own hopes and desires.

So how can we infer that a Creator is a rational conclusion via evidence in order to support the personal interaction with Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa? I mean according to most biological evolution accounts for our existence and cosmic evolution accounts for the existence of the enigma that is above us hence we need not infer a Creator. On face value the theist can make the simplest argument in the book; if there is no evidence that God did not create our universe and mankind whether through successive stages or instant creation, then we can rationally fit such an Infinite Creator into the picture. This was good enough for most the rest was left to sheer faith, however the problem has intensified. Mankind has an everlasting urge to understand his surroundings and thus as science progressed, certain religions made a swift retreat and condemned the latter; science responded like wise to religion. For example who could forget the case of Galileo?

In 1609 he turned his telescope skyward and noted that the moon had craters and mountains, refuting the myth that the moon was a perfectly smooth sphere. His observations soon provided ample evidence in favor of the heliocentric model; his strongest evidence is usually considered to be the fact that he proved Jupiter had its own miniature system. He wrote his work down and penned an entire book titled “The Starry Messenger” he wrote it in Italian as opposed to Latin so as to ensure that all people rather than just scholars could read of his discoveries. In 1632 he wrote a book titled “Dialogues concerning Two chief world systems” in which he explained how his observations supported the Copernican system. In 1633 he was brought to trial by the Church accused of “heresy” and was sentenced to a permanent house arrest however he was exonerated eventually. Indeed it seemed as though science and religion were in the midst of an unavoidable divorce and science was getting the house and children.

However in 1917 Albert Einstein applied his General Theory of relativity to the intricate cosmos, he found that his theory did not permit a static universe he also had to revise Newtons equations of mechanics and even more troubling still; he had to discard the idea of absolute space as well as time. However because they followed the correct invariance law; he did not need to alter Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. In the 1920s Alexander Friedmann formulated solutions to the field equations, which predicted an expanding universe. So it was known that the universe is not static in fact, the total entropy of the universe is constantly increasing as it of course expands; hence we needed a metric for an expanding universe. R(t) is known as the scale factor the notation means that R is a function that depends solely on the time t; with the scale factor we can make space expand or contract by quite simply just adjusting the scale factor. In order for us to introduce other types of isotropic and homogeneous geometries we needed a new means to do so; and in 1936 one was formed by Howard P. Robertson and Arthur G. Walker. So the Robertson-Walker metric describes a homogeneous and isotropic space time, and in the case of a universe described by the Robertson-Walker metric the Friedmann equation governs the overall evolution the scale factor R(t).

Now the theory of general relativity underwent various tests in order to distinguish its overall accuracy. GTR recognized that space-time near a massive object is curved as opposed to the older hypothesis that dictated that it would be flat. Arthur Eddington confirmed this within experimental error in 1919. Newtonian gravity had a discrepancy within its claims in regards to the planets orbits; the discrepancy laid in the orbit of Mercury which had mysterious deviations. Einstein was happy to hear that his proposal of curved space time on orbits successfully accounted for Mercurys orbit deviations within a mathematical certainty. (1) GTR has yielded vast amounts of information in regards to the universe, it has predicted wonderful new phenomena and in turn altered our overall perception of the universe in its entirety. One of the peculiar aspects of GTR as I mentioned before; was that it predicted an expanding universe, this would be another prediction confirmed. Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa Says 'Waalssamaa banaynaha bi-aydin wa-inna lamoosioona' “And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it.” (2) For a brief discussion on Denis Girons objection please see note two.

Soon observational evidence testified to the fact that the universe is steadily expanding, so if a cosmic source is approaching an observer he/she will see a “blueshift”; that is when light waves bunch up and are thus shifted to higher frequencies. Hence if the source is moving away from the observer light waves shift to lower frequencies thus resulting in what we call a “redshift”. Edwin Hubble measured the redshift in the light from distant galaxies; his measurements proved that the universe was expanding. (3)

This proved that space itself was expanding which means if we backtracked our way in time we would reach a singular point at which the laws of science break down; worse still the atheist has no explanation as to where this singularity which is the ontological equivalent of nothing, came from since there was nothing prior to the big bang. The universe thus has a finite past and as Dr. Craig says “On such a model the universe originates ex nihilo in the sense that at the initial singularity it is true that There is no earlier space-time point or it is false that Something existed prior to the singularity.” (4) This is a rather troubling proposal indeed as Quentin Smith stated it seems to be tailor made for the theist. Sir Fred Hoyle stated “To many people this thought process seems highly satisfactory because a 'something' outside physics can then be introduced at t = 0. By a semantic maneuver, the word 'something' is then replaced by 'god,' except that the first letter becomes a capital, God, in order to warn us that we must not carry the enquiry any further.” (5)
On the standard big bang model it comes down to a choice between two simple concepts:

A. One agrees that there has to be a source for the big bang which is plausibly God and with some philosophical consideration an Infinite and Personal Creator.

Or

B. The universe came into existence from nothing; point blank period.

Needless to say no seriously rational atheist could accept B, nor will they wish to accept A as such they seek to change the game. Because if I am correct that the above concepts are more or less the only two possible choices; then B requires far more faith than A, hence there has been various quantum gravitational models posited in an attempt to eliminate any and all singularities where the laws of science would break down as well as giving a plausible explanation of the cosmic evolution in strictly natural terms, a worthy endeavour indeed considering there is no complete theory of quantum gravity to date. The correct formulation of quantum cosmology is seriously lacking on various levels for example the use of imaginary numbers as a time variable, and then failing to convert the imaginary numbers into real numbers; which is of course mathematically how we obtain a physically meaningful result.

Some models are just ad hoc(the Black hole origin theory proposed independently by Smith(1990, 2000) and Smolin(1992), the ekpyrotic model as proposed by N. Turok, J. Khoury, B.A Ovrut and P.J Steinhardt) other models are just replete with dubious flaws and irreconcilable “gaps” so to speak. I myself was infatuated with the Hawking-Hartle no boundary proposal and was more than happy to shovel aside its weak points in my zeal. The first problem is its basis, the wave function of the universe which is just a wave function that treats the scale factor as a quantum variable and describes for us its evolution in quantum terms cannot give us any real sound basis. There is no normalisation procedure for the wave function so at best any probability derived from the wave function can be considered as; a “relative probability for evaluating various solutions.” (6)

The spurious use of imaginary numbers and time as mentioned before (7) along with the fact that it predicted that the universe would be closed; which is now considered to be false according to the majority of serious cosmologists due to the WMAP which was launched on June 30th 2001 and clearly provided ample evidence for an open universe that will not contract in on itself. The WMAP also proved that the universal expansion rate is accelerating rather than slowing down once again this contradicted Hawkings views he himself stated “I was sure the observers had missed something, and there really was enough matter to close the universe.” Needless to say the observers were not at fault this time, this forced Hawking to alter his model with the help of Neil Turok however the same aforementioned flaws; minus the closed universe still affect his theory. Neil Turok himself moved on to help propose the ekpyrotic model. (8.)

Well what about the SEC model that has been proposed with the fantastic premise that the big bang did not take place? I am of course referring to the scale expanding model; I will not get to deep into this as I will offer an in depth critique of the proposal in the near future Insha'Allah. The idea is that the big bang is completely erreneous and all the empirical, mathematical, and metaphysical evidence in favour of the big bang theory is just an illusion. So rather than an initial big bang according to the zealous SEC supporters the universe expands by changing the scale of space and time; thus the universe has no beginning nor end. First of all this is just an absolutely flawed outlook that is the ridiculous idea that existence rules out non-existence; when can this possibly be observed? Out of nothing, nothing comes this is so obvious that it does not require much thought before one laughs at the idea that the universe will neither begin nor end. When was the last time anyone saw a chair that has simply always been there and will always be there? Or a human that was not conceived? Perhaps a train that was never built, or an explosion without a cause(hint)? The entire claim is a cocky oxymoron and contrary to the proponents statements; there is not a single observation that supports such a hypothesis. Second; the observational evidence from the WMAP proved that the universal expansion rate is accelerating which implies that the universe will expand until the average energy and matter densities drop to zero. Stars burn out and eventually no useful energy will be exerted from anything, Game Over.

The SEC model presupposes that the expansion rate of the universe and time itself will slow down and with regards to the universal expansion; it should be slowing down hence on two counts empirical evidence from the WMAP invalidates the SEC model. The alternative is according to Andrei Linde and colleagues that the universe will contract to its own destruction before the universe even reaches twice its current age (And they do not deny the big bang): http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0208/0208156.pdf The fact still remains that a contraction of k = +1 back to R = 0 remains in sharp contradiction with the concept of an SEC “eternal universe”, furthermore such a contraction is just the universe returning rapidly to its initial minute point which according to SEC proponents does not even exist. SEC supporters don't even understand the standard big bang model let alone refute it; and last of all we have no complete theory of quantum gravity hence we cannot utilize the concept of quantum cosmology to any great extent as of yet and even when we have utilized quantum cosmology it remains consistent with the standard big bang model i.e the self reproducing inflationary universe, the ekpyrotic model etc etc.

The reason why no serious cosmologists or physicists want to touch the SEC model; is not because the proponents actually do arrogantly enough scrap Newtons first law of motion (the law of inertia) which is for those of you who do not know; a body at rest or in a state of uniform motion will remain at rest or in uniform motion, unless acted upon by a net external force, they reject this fact for no reason other than it is a glaring contradiction to their theory. The law of inertia is so easily proven for example if one drives on ice where friction between the street and the cars tires are drastically reduced; one will feel the truth of the law of inertia, that is the uniform motion will persist until some solid object acts upon the car.

Even with above fact in mind that is not solely why the SEC model has been largely ignored this is due to the fact that it is just not correct, it misrepresents the standard big bang model and ignores almost every single piece of observational evidence in favour of it and the SEC model is not even nomologically nor physically possible. Far from a new “Copernican revolution” the future of this model is to be the biggest dud since the steady state theory and that I think is giving it far too much credit. That is the main difference between Nicholas Copernicus' model and Masreliez', Copernicus was right Masreliez is not.

In other words there is no real alternative to the fact that the universe has a finite past, a beginning, as well as a cause which is more likely than not God. Surprisingly even atheistic scholars agree that cosmology has reached a “real science” limit; which means that one persons guess is as good as the next mans so long as it conforms with the empirical data.
To quote famous atheistic philosopher Quentin Smith; “Roughly, the idea is that there are now and will be many competing cosmological theories, all of which are both observationally equivalent and underdetermined by the observational evidence. One reason for thinking this is that crucial observational tests will pertain to the Planck era, whose smallness and whose nature preclude it from being observed....I assume no complete and definitive theory of quantum gravity will be developed, merely proposals for parts of such a theory or proposals for theses that approximate such a theory. We have the Hartle-Hawking proposal, the Vilenkin propsal, and numerous proposals of string theory, superstring theory, Membrane theory, etc. I assume (I of course cannot prove this assumption, since I cannot forsee the future) that the era of hard science in physical cosmology is over (if there ever was such an era--perhaps the observations leading to the belief we live in a Friemandman universe in the late 1920s was an era of apparent, hard, cosmological science).” (9, however it is known that natural laws and mechanics quite simply cannot account for everything, this is especially true in cosmology. Keeping this in mind is it really rational to assume that there is no force beyond nature that created nature? Atheists agree that there is an extent to which we can study the universe, however sooner or late faith comes into the equation. One can of course have faith in the hypothesis that only natural laws and mechanics can account for the cosmic evolution however; the claim is entirely unjustified the laws of science break down at the initial cosmic singularity and in order to eliminate this peculiar singularity one must go to quite unreasonable lengths. Which means that naturalism is not only empirically invalid; it is intuitively false. Naturalism is thus precisely what naturalist's have the audacity to label the world religions; a dogma point blank period. 

Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa Says 'Inna alddeena inda Allahi al-islamu wama ikhtalafa allatheena ootoo alkitaba illa min badi ma jaahumu alilmu baghyan baynahum waman yakfur bi-ayati Allahi fa-inna Allaha sareeu alhisabi.' “The Religion before Allah is Islam (submission to His Will): Nor did the People of the Book dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the Signs of Allah, Allah is swift in calling to account.”)

Naturalism entails a belief system that claims that only natural process' (just see the Infidels.org home page) can account for the universe

The fact is inescapable, the universe had a beginning which could not be naturally instantiated unless we of course look at the universe solely through the lens of imaginary time; which is just preposterous even atheists concur that we live in real time and real time relates to the physical not imaginary time. The universe was instantiated by something due to the fact, “out of nothing, nothing comes” the source due to the nature of our universe must be intelligent and independent of time i.e infinite and uncaused that is uncreated. I will once again borrow Craigs premise for a Personal Creator; “The universe was brought into being either by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent. The universe could not have been brought into being by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions. Therefore, the universe was brought into being by a personal, free agent.” God is more plausible than atheism at this point in time, as such Pascals wager is now glaring the atheist straight in the face. (10) Thus I think a Personal Creator is a rational conclusion in light of the data I guess I just do not have enough faith to be an atheist.

Now onto the second question that I posed and it is a tough one, if God does exist does He need to reveal a religion? I already posed the premise for the fact that God is indeed Personal, the pantheistic view point seems perfectly absurd to say the least. That a Creator Being would compose the heavens, the earth, and human beings followed by promptly leaving them forever, thus abandoning mankind without giving any laws or guidance so as to make sense of their existence. On this view we are worse off than a nihilist because it would seem that God is not good at all, He would not be considerate, He would not love us, nor would He care what we did on the earth.(astighifirullah!) How can we be moral knowing that God doesn't even care? The few pantheists that I have spoken with seem to feel that we are moral because it is better for mankind, does this really eliminate the problem? On this view the L.A dope pusher can find ample justification for his actions not only in the theory of subjective morals, i.e him selling drugs is better for his family hence it is moral regardless of how many lives are ruined by the drugs that he ensures infest the neighbourhood. And worse still such a human being would literally find justification of his actions in God Himself (astighifirullah!). If God does not feel that anything is wrong, then it follows that everything is right! The very existence of the human conciousness and our moral awareness i.e our natural disposition towards moral behaviour I think rules out the possibility of a pantheistic deity. As I have argued elsewhere (11)  We are born with inclinations of kindness and compassion. I mean just think back, as a child when you would see someone crying naturally you want the person to feel better; when one child didn't have a toy for show and tell you would share your toy with them and make a new friend. These acts of kindness are natural we can affirm these realities, we can also affirm that objective evil exists. We know and whince at abhorrible actions, this leads us to the conclusion that we are created with a built in sense of moral values; thus God Created us to Submit to His Will which entails good actions for the betterment of mankind.

So I think we can formulate a two fold argument for the fact that God would need to reveal a religion to mankind or at least it seems more plausible that He would; that is if He is a Kind, Caring and Loving Creator.

A. God is Personal as demonstrated before, thus His Creating us was a Personal action. He Personally gave us a natural disposition towards doing good. It thus follows that He wants us to do good actions, however over time we can pollute our natural disposition just like we are naturally born with eye sight, yet if we stab out our eyes we will logically lose this natural Blessing. So God does not want us to go about and decide to incline towards evil for personal pleasure etc which would cancel out our natural inclination towards good. Thus God would need to give us certain Rules and Criteria to live by and thus we could retain our natural disposition and please God Who Created us for this purpose; that is to Submit to His the Exalteds Will, perform Good deeds and thus pass the test that is life.

B. The above logically leads us to the conclusion that God Will give us a set of laws and a criteria to live by; such a system is what we commonly refer to as a religion.

Now we reach that third question that I posed, so which religion is God's religion for mankind? With so many competing doctrines, all of which promise salvation in one way or another; how can we possibly conclude which religion is correct? Now I will structure a four point case for Islam.

1.The ontological argument.
2.The rational argument.
3.The historical argument.
4.The empirical argument.

So lets get to that ontological argument; for example as I hear the Holy Quran being recited in the masjid I am completely beside myself in awe at the beauty of the Holy Book's Words. All polemics melt away as I hear my Creator's Words to me being recited Alhamdulillah. 'Rabbana innana samina munadiyan yunadee lil-eemani an aminoo birabbikum faamanna rabbana faighfir lana thunoobana wakaffir anna sayyi-atina watawaffana maa al-abrari' “Our Lord! we have heard the call of one calling (Us) to Faith, 'Believe ye in the Lord,' and we have believed. Our Lord! Forgive us our sins, blot out from us our iniquities, and take to Thyself our souls in the company of the righteous.” It is intuitively obvious that Islam is correct if you do not  develop a bias towards it. Imam Ali (a.s) said "But they preferred a speedy gain to a later one, forsaking a pure well to drink from an impure one,"

 The rejection of Guidance does not mean that a person does not read the Holy Quran or the Hadith literature; it simply means that they refuse to heed it and or benefit from the Guidance for one reason or another usually to enjoy this world and thus gain as much as possible as quickly as possible. So for example if one is diagnosed with a skin disease that is amplified by the sun, and the doctor warns them to simply stay out of the sun. Well if the person in question leaves the doctors office and then heads to the beach to try and pick up when the temperature exceeds forty degrees they did not heed the guidance of the doctor even though it was pretty obvious that the doctor was correct. Thus I feel that anyone who truly opens their heart and reads the Holy Quran and the Hadith literature; will honestly know that Islam is the Din ul Haq so you do not need to be a historian or a scienticist in order to understand that Islam is indeed the Din of Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa. Belief in Islam is a properly basic belief it is rationally warranted if one approaches Islam with an open heart and mind and I truly believe that this can be confirmed by anyone; including yourself dear reader. (12)

Now for that rational argument, to follow up your awareness that Islam is correct one can confront some of the basic facts of Islam and rationally conclude that their belief in Islam is sound; that is one can rationally conclude that Islam is true via critical thinking. For example the origin of the Holy Quran idiosyncratic in all respects and with such beautiful wisdom, logic, Praises of the Lord and practical Guidance for mankind; all with such an unmatchable composition. (13) How could an illiterate Arab compose such a book? His peers where illiterates also (14) thus it is clear that regardless of how many of them tried it is just preposterous to assume that they composed the Holy Quran. Furthermore his peers who could have aided him in this scandal, believed sincerely in the Prophethood of Muhmmad (S) to the point that some of them followed the Prophet (S) to do battle with a force of over 3,000 pagans when they were just barely an army of 300 aswell as being underarmed. This causes more problems because such incidents prove that the Prophet (S) sincerely believed in his own prophethood hence he would not plagarize or lie. 

There was no Arabic Bible at the time, no teacher nor partner was ever spotted (considering the fact that the Prophet (S) had nine wives I fail to see how this would ever go unoticed), and the Prophet (S) underwent vast amounts of persecution. At the beginning of his prophetic mission it was more likely that the sun would turn into a duck, than it was for the Muslims to live long enough to establish an Islamic Government. There was no large gains of wealth, the Prophet (S) slept on the floor, mended his own shoes, fasted most days, and spent most nights in sincere prayer and Quran recitation. So we can rationally say that on face value the ontological argument is confirmed via the most basic rationally reasoning with regards to the most basic of historical facts pertaining to Islam. It takes quite an irrational voice to chime in any serious criticism most of which is nothing but ad hoc assertations, composed to try and convert Muslims to their particular ideology.

Now unlike most religions history lends aid to the Islamic cause as opposed to raising issues against it. For example the fact that the Bible was written 35 to 65 years after Jesus (a.s), by Greek speaking scholars as opposed to Jesus' (a.s) Aramaic speaking disciples (i.e the Gospels are not eye witness'), the fact that if you seriously study the New Testament you find ample contradictions and even Christianity's top apologists admit that not all the New Testament books have as much a claim to historical reliability as the others. (15) (So much for the inerrant Word of God Craig?). We have a copy of the Holy Quran from the time of Uthman (16) which was compiled from the personal copy of the wife of the Prophet (S) Hafsa which was from when the Prophet (S) was alive, furthermore the Holy Quran's order and sequence was Divinely Revealed to the Prophet (S) who supervised the writing of the Holy Quran. These are historical facts that place Islam head and shoulders above other religious doctrines in regards to historical support.

The Holy Prophet Muhammads (S) life was so well recorded that only the most ignorant challenge his virtue, from his letters to the Leaders of his time, to the Prophetic traditions he left for mankind; Islam has such strong historical grounds that very rarely are polemics formulated upon the grounds of history in fact most of the anti-Islamic polemics require that Islam's historical documents are sound. One of my favourite examples of the Holy Qurans historical accuracy is the distinction made between the words “king” and pharoah, see my source for a more detailed explanation Insha'Allah. (17)

And last of all there is the empirical approach, can we confirm that Islam is true via observational evidence? The answer is yes, this is not miraculous considering the three aforementioned points in favour of Islam. For example Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa explained that the Romans were defeated in the “lowest land”. Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa Says 'Alif, Lam, Mim Ghulibati alrroomu  Fee adna al-ardi wahum min badi ghalabihim sayaghliboona Fee bidi sineena lillahi al-amru min qablu wamin badu wayawma-ithin yafrahu almu/minoona.' “Alif, Lam, Mim. The Romans have been defeated in the lowest land, but after their defeat they will be victorious within three to nine years. The affair is Allah's from beginning to end.” (18) Now man has free will thus the Romans had a maximum of nine years before one way or another they would be victorious. This topic could instantiate a full fledged discussion on Omniscience, however I will just say that Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa Knows which set of events will obtain certain results thus man is never compulsed into the action but in the event of a certain change of habitat or something of the like; Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa Knows which change will bring about a certain end result without ever compulsing men into an action that obtains the desired result. The Romans were crushingly defeated hence the non-Muslims mocked the Holy Ayaah, because it just was not within the realm of logic that the Romans could come back and triumph; however they did. Furthermore the Romans were literally defeated in the lowest land on earth that is the dead sea basin, which at 399 metres below sea level is the lowest land on earth. (19)

The Holy Quran also has a very peculiar mathematical balance; as a young student I am infatuated with this aspect. If the Prophet (S) was illiterate or insane(depends which anti-islamist you are speaking with)then either way the Holy Quran should just be random verses slapped together. The extreme opposite is true, it seems that the Holy Quran has a teleological argument behind It, because the Quran is finely balanced out from a mathematical perspective. “Say” and “they said” are both used in the Holy Quran 332 times, the words “satan” and “angels” are both employed in the Holy Quran 88 times. The words “Paradise” and “Hell” are both used 77 times, the words “reward” and “action” are both used 107 times, “right guidance” and “mercy” are both used 79 times and the words “man” and “woman” are both employed an equal amount of times at 23 instances.  We can continue this mathematical approach and come up with some very unusual results, for example Surah 13 is named “the Thunder”, now thunder is mentioned in the Surah in the thirteenth Holy Ayaah and in this particular Holy Ayaah there are 19 words in total that make up a total of 83 letters. Now there is only one other place in the Holy Quran that mentions “thunder”, and that is in Surah al Baqarah Holy Ayaah 19; complete with a total of 19 words which make up a total of 83 letters remind you of a certain Holy Ayaah? Now lets examine Surah 27 that is Surah An-Naml, this Surah begins with the imfamous “initial letters” of the Holy Quran in this Surahs case “Tah, Sin” “tah” occurs in this Surah precisely 27 times keeping in mind that we are reading from Surah 27, and now if we count up how many times “sin” is employed in this Surah we find that “sin” is used 83 times and of course there are exactly 83 Holy Ayaats in this Surah.

Thus we can concur that the Holy Quran is not a book composed by an illiterate man nor several illiterate men. Some may say the literate scribes may have inserted these instances in as the Holy Quran was being written; this is an untenable hypothesis because the oldest manuscripts of the Holy Quran show that the scribes did not even space out the Holy Ayaats let alone count them and then insert certain words and letters so as to make the Holy Quran seem more Divine. Worse still the early Muslims would have died before allowing the Holy Quran to be altered in the slightest shape or form. One can go beyond the fufilled prophecies of the Holy Quran and the mathematical approach and find that the Holy Quran is in concordance with any subject that It speaks on. I will leave my case as it is so far so as to ensure that this paper does not become a burden upon the readers. Thankyou for reading and May Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa Bless you.

Wasalam

Sources/Notes:

1. Professor John F. Hawley and Katherine A. Holcomb “Foundations of Modern Cosmology”, Oxford University Press 2006; Page 238.

2. Holy Quran 51:47. Some say this Holy Ayaah is merely paraphrasing the Bible, the objection however I think is just an ad hoc assertation; although I will not pretend to understand the semmantics argument proposed by Mr. Giron(If your reading this Denis Pax Vobis!)which was blindly accepted by Carrier. I will just say he is stealing and then on the same note condemning the thief if you'll pardon the pun, his attack on certain Muslims re-interpertation of the Quran in light of modern science(see his paper “The Miracle of Re-interpertation”) can be viewed as substantial, yet when he himself takes liberty to re-interpert the Bible which pre-dates the Holy Quran by over a thousand years; I think we have to call his motives into question.

It is clear that all Biblical translators and Jewish commentators on the Tanakh agree that Isaiah was describing a stretching of the universe, not a continual expansion within the present time frame. If he wants to carry the objection he would need to drop his criticism on the Islamic re-interpertation of the Quran; and since he is more likely to announce an over-night conversion to scientology I think we can rest assured that his objection is just as poor as certain Islamic re-interpertation techniques; to name names Osama Abdallahs. Some have denied that the Holy Ayaah means that the universe is currently expanding, all objections lodged have been answered here http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/does-musiun-means-expanding/ my use of the Holy Ayaah is not a re-interpertation it is quite simply what Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa stated. I do not proclaim this to be “miraculous” and it is ridiculous how some Muslims scower through the Holy Quran and take certain Holy Ayaats out of context in order to claim that it is evidence for the Holy Qurans divinity. Muslims display ample insecurity by doing this, I mean is it honestly that amazing that the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth Knows that He is expanding the universe which He Himself Created? It should be expected head up; not miraculous to be contained therein.

3. Edwin Hubble “A Relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 15 (1929): Pages 168-73.

4. http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/ultimatequestion.html

5. Fred Hoyle, “Astronomy and Cosmology: A Modern Course” (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1975),  Page 658.

6. W. G. Unruh from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of B.C. Vancouver, Canada agrees with me as do Professor John F. Hawley and Katherine A. Holcomb who agree that at the present time the wave function is more or less “untenable” in some respects to cosmology.

7. I recommend reading Dr. William Lane Craigs critique of the Hartle-Hawking no boundary proposal; he pays a lot of mind to Hawking and Hartles use of imaginary time and numbers. http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/cosmos172.htm

8. You can read Andrei Lindes critiques of the ekpyrotic model here http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0205259 and here http://xxx.soton.ac.uk/pdf/hep-th/0104073

9. Quentin Smith 2000, “The black hole origin theory of the universe: Frontiers of speculative, current physical cosmology”. Paper Read at Internal Conference on Physical Cosmology, Santa Barbara. A. Vilekin agrees see; the Physical Review D, "Has Physical Cosmology Become Metaphysics?" aswell as Tim Maudlin's article in The Journal of Philosophy 1994. Andre Linde has also stated that what if anything before the singularity lies “somewhere at the boundary between physics and metaphysics.” please see his paper "Inflationary Universe," Page 976.

10. I truly do not believe that Richard Carrier has refuted Pascals wager, just because an atheist truly seeks knowledge and formulates an incorrect conclusion that does not make him exempt from due punishment. First and foremost if you do not have the means to become a Muslim i.e you have never heard of Islam or the Holy Quran then depending on your actions you will be forgiven and entered into Paradise Insha'Allah. If you are like Richard Carrier; that is with all the sources and capabilities to come to the correct conclusion yet you decide to accept other peoples points of view rather than conduct a serious study for your own good; then no that is not a valid excuse. Carrier himself does not seem to check the arabic meanings of Holy Ayaats, he does not seem to read them in context and he is skeptical to the point where once again if you'll pardon the pun, he would challenge the existence of his right hand if it favoured theism. Imagine having a child, and raising that child with love and care.

Now imagine that the child completely rejects not only the fact that you raised him/her but rather it openly rejects your existence entirely! The child ignores your letters, phone calls, and e-mails and persists to claim that he/she rationally tried to conclude that you exist. How would you feel? Pascals wager stands firm especially because I think that the existence of God is much more probable than the minimum 50% range that Pascal prescribed. Hence it comes down to crunch time, if you die as an atheist and thus bet on atheism and your wrong; you lose it all....Keeping in mind that your next breath is quite simply not promised. Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa Says 'Wama alhayatu alddunya illa laibun walahwun walalddaru al-akhirati khayrun lillatheena yattaqoona afala taqiloona' “Naught is the life of the world save a pastime and a spot. Better far is the abode of the Hereafter for those who keep their duty(to Allah). Have ye then no sense?” Holy Quran 6:32.

11. My paper “The Art of Fictional Integrity” published on Bismika Allahuma in April 2006 and can still be read here http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org/viewtopic.php?t=7442 I know Mr. Sina has read the paper and although he is not as bad of a guy as I originally thought, I do still doubt that he has a doctorate, that he was ever really a Muslim and that he rationally concluded that Islam is wrong. I do believe however that he honestly believes in his arguments.

12. Just a fun note : ) I bet almost all readers who are familiar with polemically concieved sites against Islam instantly started assuring themselves that they had evidence against Islam. This what I mean by a closed mind, I know of very few people who have seen for example FFI and Answering-Islam and on the same note conducted a study themselves, and agree with the sites conclusions. Perhaps they may not be Muslims, however they see as clearly as the rising sun that the aforementioned sites are replete with deceptive tactics and or lies. And with regards to my ontological argument; Alvin Plantinga, Hick, Mascall, and others have proposed similar arguments for the existence of God in general.

13. The Challenge of the Holy Quran with regards to Its eloquence http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Miracle/ijaz.html To date no seriously educated arabic speaker claims that the Holy Challenge has been met; there are various sites where you can watch kitties claim to be lions including the most popular missionarie attempt “the True Furqan”; indeed the authors where so insecure that they ensured Muslims would be duped into buying the book. I have personally read some of the english version and was not impressed to any great extent. I also have a little tale about one of the pages of this peculiar book, my friend brought a page to the Shaykh at the local Wallsend Masjid.

Farooq(my friend)chose wisely so that the page would not give away its Christian origin and did not tell the Shaykh that it wasnt from the Holy Quran. The Shaykh who earned his degree in Fiqh in al-Medina read the page bemused, before starting to chuckle politely at a few of the lines which were what could be expected of a missionarie attempt to outdo the Holy Quran. He explained that the page contained grammar errors aswell as having some absurdly structured sentences kind of like me saying “I likes da basketball very much good.” The Shaykh then explained to our surprise that books/papers such as these are a dime a dozen in the Middle East, the Ulama ceased paying attention to the challenges because the 7 Ahrufs of the Holy Quran can never be imitated as the arabic dialects changed to match Quranic Arabic. The challenge is now historically impossible in the absence of a time machine which is not nomologically possible.

14. Any orientalist book in existence.

15. Dr. Wlliam Lane Craig in his debate with Dr. Ehrman; responded to the Gospels differences(lay language for irreconcilable contradictions) with these words; “......you’d have to show that all of the documents have an equal claim to historical credibility, since inconsistencies in a later, less reliable source don’t undermine the earlier, more credible source.” So God gets less reliable as time goes on in Christianity?

16. http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/

17. http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/josephdetail.html

18. Holy Quran 30:1-4.

19. “Dead Sea,” World Book Encyclopedia, 2003, Contributor: Bernard Reich, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, George Washington University. Others render it at 400 meters below sea level either way it is indisputably the lowest land.