by Salman Hameed

A new website has been launched with a focus on Islam and Science: An Educational Approach (thanks to Abdelaziz Gillali for sending the link). The effort is led by Nidhal Guessoum (he used to contribute to Irtiqa as well) and is a collaboration between the American University of Sharjah and the

Interdisciplinary University of Paris (though there are many more individuals from different institutions involved in it). This is an important addition to the discourse over science and Islam and I think it will be good counter to sites propagated by people like Zakir Naik,  Harun Yahya, etc. While I'm a proponent of a strong separation of science and religion, this website/project will also provide a platform for those who are seeking a synthesis and integration between science and Islam. Go check it out.

Here are its Vision and Objectives:

• Pursue the elaboration of a new synthesis between modern scientific knowledge and Muslim traditions, approaches which are removed both from easy concordism and the view according to which it is impossible to reach a fruitful harmony between those fields.
• Contribute to open a high-level dialogue between Islam and modernity, thus allowing the development of a unified and coherent understanding of the world, without conflict or dissonance.
• Propose an education and training program to Muslim scholars, who would be able to develop a modern and sophisticated Science-Islam discourse and to present these points of view in international arenas.
• Develop and broadcast, on a large international scale, a well-informed discourse on  Islam & Science, one which is reasoned and scientifically solid.
• Delineate the fruitful pathways for the development of scientific culture in the Arab/Muslim World and popularize certain philosophical implications of contemporary science towards/aiming at the elite as well as the public at large.
• Show how the Muslim tradition can be a factor of dialogue and peace.
• Particpate to a high-level inter-religious dialogue and contribute to the emergence of a “common discourse” among the world’s major religions, that can be the basis of a new form of dialogue among cultures.
• Construct a process for delineating the role of science in the search of meaning in a more and more complex globalized world, a world full of promise but one which also carries dangers and threats for future generations.
• Contribute in a spirit of dialogue and openness to reopen the question of the meaning that modern societies are facing.

Go check out and explore their website.

Read More »

Salman Hameed

Ehsan Masood has an article in this week's Nature that talks about the promise of scientific development by the Muslim League, that won the recent elections quire handily. I did not know that, but the Muslim League explicitly placed science at the center of their governing strategy. Alas, the reality has turned out to be a bit different:

Few general-election manifestos devote an entire chapter to promises in science and technology, so the campaign documents from the centre-right Pakistan Muslim League

stood out. In its bid for power earlier this year, this party of landowners and industrialists did something unexpected: it pledged to put science and technology at the heart of its governing strategy. 

It promised one million new high-tech jobs in the next five years. It talked of new funding agencies for biotechnology and nanotechnology, of new programmes in fuel cells and small satellites, and of revamping agricultural research. And it included a promise that the state would not interfere in the appointment of university vice-chancellors. 

If kept, the promises would mark a step in the right direction for Pakistan, helping it to shed its reliance on international aid and edge towards economic independence and stability. But they seemed a little too good to be true.

But Ehsan is disappointed by the choice of the new Minister of Science:

The latest incumbent, Zahid Hamid, is an unpromising choice for science minster. The position was his reward from the Muslim League for switching political sides — and it is questionable whether he has the vision or the experience to effect the changes promised by the league. 

Hamid also faces a political challenge that could see him exit the ministry as quickly as he arrived. He once was loyal to the former military dictator General Pervez Musharraf, who is now awaiting trial and may be charged with treason. If Musharraf goes down, it would undermine Hamid and leave him ripe for replacement. 

There is no shortage of candidates to take his place — people who have a record of building successful institutions at the interface of knowledge and commerce, despite the poor track record of Pakistan's science ministry. Any one of these would be well placed to turn the promises of the manifesto into reality. 

Science does have the ear of the new prime minister, Nawaz Sharif. The man who was instrumental in placing science at the heart of the league's manifesto, Ahsan Iqbal, is minister for planning and development and a member of Sharif's inner circle. Should Hamid depart, Iqbal would have a golden opportunity to push for a widely respected and heavy-hitting science minister.

I have not been following the details of Pakistani political scene, so I don't know about the potential choices. However, Ehsan has some ideas - and they look good:

One candidate is plant geneticist Kauser Malik, founding director of the National Institute for Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering in Faisalabad and one-time chairman of the Pakistan Agricultural Research Council. Malik has experience as both bench scientist and high-level administrator. He also has plenty of international connections and a record of delivering results. Alternatively, the government could look to the next generation and appoint Muhammad Iqbal Choudhary, director of the HEJ Research Institute of Chemistry at the University of Karachi, which is among the largest such facilities in Asia. 

A wild card would be Asad Umar, former chief executive of Engro, which he grew from a mid-size company to one of the continent's largest conglomerates, spanning agrochemicals to energy. Young, cricket-mad and popular with the public, Umar quit his job to join former cricketer Imran Khan's political party, Tehreek-e-Insaf, which in May came from nowhere to become the country's third electoral force. 

Umar's decision to leave business for politics is part of a bigger trend among younger, middle-class and highly networked voters to become politically active. Unusually for Pakistan, many queued for the best part of a day to cast their votes in May's elections. Even if Hamid stays in his post, the government might consider appointing a heavy-hitter to take charge of the science-for-growth strategy, and have him or her report to Iqbal in the Planning Commission. That person could then get on with the task of dragging Pakistan into the twenty-first century.

Asad Umar sounds like an interesting bet and he may bring some energy to the science policy. Furthermore, it will be good to have a federal minister from outside the ruling party. That will be another sign that the government is taking their words about the importance of science seriously.

Read the full article here.

P.S. I know that Ehsan takes quite a positive view of a past science minister, Dr. Atta-ur-Rehman, who indeed increased the science budget tremendously and reformed higher education. However, the effectiveness of such a strategy, without building a strong infrastructure has also been questioned - and the legacy of Atta-ur-Rehman remains very much in the air (for example, amongst its Muslim cohorts, Pakistan's scientific publications are still way behind Turkey, Iran, Egypt, and Malaysia). But I was also dismayed by Atta-ur-Rehman when he wrote a highly dubious article that stoked conspiracy theories about US controlling the weather in Pakistan! There is plenty to critique about the US policy towards Pakistan, but it is a bit problematic when a prominent scientist uses highly dubious pseudoscientific claims to make his point. See my post from 2010: A Prominent Pakistani Scientist is Stoking Conspiracy Fires.

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

There is a lot going on Egypt right now and much of it is deeply troubling. Yesterday, I had a chance to have a conversation with Mohammed Yahia, the editor of Nature Middle East. He lives in Cairo and, inHouse of Wisdom blog. I don't want to spoil the interview, but I do want to say that he represents the new generation of young, dynamic, and electronically connected Egyptians, and is wonderfully eloquent about the hopes and fears regarding the future of his country. As per the complexity, he participated in anti-Mubarak rallies, then he voted for Morsi (not in support of the Muslim Brotherhood, but to keep the military backed candidate out of power), participated in anti-Morsi rally, and feels that the current army crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood counterproductive. Hope some of this complexity comes out in our conversation.
addition to his day job, he has been actively participating in political demonstrations of the past two years. I first met him in December, 2010 (about 2 months before the Jan 25th overthrow of Mubarak) and we had a great conversation about the political situation in Egypt at the time. I wanted to get his take on the current political situation as well as the status of science projects in Egypt. He also runs the wonderful

Here is the video of our conversation (about 30 minutes long):

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

I'm catching up on back issues of Science and Nature. Here is the news story about the concerns of a nuclear medical reactor in Iran. Now, I have said this multiple times - but here it is again. Nuclear weapons are, of course, awful and should not be pursued by any nation (see . At the same time, it is hypocritical of nuclear powers to place their opposition to Iranian nuclear program in any sort of ethical/moral or even security context. This is particularly true of the US, which has increased its funding for nuclear weapon facilities just this current year (see the link in this earlier post).

Here is a piece from Science (Jun 21st):

If all goes to plan, Iran next year will switch on a facility that gives nuclear nonproliferation analysts goose bumps: the Arak heavy water reactor in the central province of Markazi. Iranian officials have long stated that a chief aim of the fission reactor, known as the IR-40, is to make radioisotopes for medicine. But it also will yield something far more troubling: about 10 kilograms of plutonium a year, enough for one or two atomic bombs. 

Locked in a standoff with the United States and allies over its nuclear ambitions, Iran has steadfastly averred that the objectives of its sprawling nuclear program are peaceful: to generate electricity and produce radioisotopes for industry and medicine. But what if Iran didn't need the controversial IR-40 to make medical isotopes? A new report by nuclear specialists highlights that possibility, laying out alternatives that avoid uranium and production of plutonium, the fissile material in nuclear bombs. 

Medical isotopes are a ripe topic for diplomacy. In remarks on 17 June reported by Fars News Agency, Iran's President-elect, moderate cleric Hassan Rouhani, said that his nation is prepared to "increase transparency" of its nuclear program and "enhance mutual confidence [-building] between Iran and other countries." One confidence-building measure, diplomats say, might be expanding medical isotope production via ways that don't facilitate making bombs. If U.S. negotiators "can sell the idea of Iran participating in advanced nuclear technologies [that steer clear of fissile material], then maybe you've got something," says Mark Jansson, special projects director at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, D.C. 

Radioisotopes are widely used in medical imaging and cancer treatment. Considered a dividend of nuclear technology, they were an important reason that nuclear powers in the 1950s and 1960s promoted the construction of research reactors around the world. However, many medical isotopes are made in reactors that use highly enriched uranium (HEU), which contains at least 20% of the fissile isotope uranium-235 (U-235)—enough to be "weapons ready." So arms control advocates are loath to see HEU-powered reactors spread, and have successfully shut down some located in unstable regions. 

In Iran, technicians already make medical isotopes in an aging reactor that uses uranium enriched to 19.75% U-235—a hair below bomb-grade. The IR-40 would replace that reactor, but use natural uranium, which is mostly U-238, and not HEU. That worries arms control specialists because bombarding natural uranium with neutrons turns out to be a very efficient way to generate plutonium. 

Several alternative methods of generating desired medical isotopes would make it harder for would-be proliferators to lay hands on weapon-grade fissile material, argues the 13 June report from the Center for Science, Technology, and Security Policy of AAAS (publisher of Science). The technical approaches include an expanded reliance on cyclotrons or spallation neutron sources. High demand for short-lived isotopes used in positron emission tomography, coupled with technical advances in miniaturizing accelerators, has driven down costs. "Accelerator technology is far less expensive and more capable than in the past," write authors Derek Updegraff and Seth A. Hoedl, analysts at AAAS.                  
...
If nonproliferation is the objective, cost may not be a showstopper. In the wake of last week's Iranian elections, U.S. officials hope to revive nuclear talks, which broke down in April. Rouhani, a former nuclear negotiator in Iran's talks with the West, has not signaled any major policy shift. And the window for a deal on IR-40 may be closing. After Iran has spent 10 years planning the facility, "it will be hard to convince them to walk away" from the reactor, Jansson predicts. But proliferation risks could be reduced, he notes, by fueling it with low-enriched uranium, which would yield less plutonium. 

Whatever happens with IR-40, the long-term implications of alternative isotope technology are broader than Iran, says Pierce Corden, a disarmament expert and visiting scholar at AAAS who initiated work on the report. "There may be other problematic situations in the future," he says.                   

Read previous posts on Iran's nuclear program:
Boneheaded US sanctions on reviewing Iranian science manuscripts
The Sacred Value of Iranian Nukes
Scientists must speak up against assassinations of scientists
Oped on Iran's nuclear program
A photo-tour of an Iranian nuclear plant
More restrictions for Iranian-born scientists - The Dutch edition

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

Over the years I have had numerous posts on Saudi Arabia - and a vast majority of them have been unflattering. Much of it justified as many of these posts have been critical of Saudi government's handing out of death penalties for petty things as well as for laws against women (yes - women still cannot drive in Saudi Arabia and need a male guardian's signature to obtain a passport).

But then there is some good news as well. About a year ago, a 25-year old medical student, Muath Alduhishy, started up Scientific Saudi and now its team has expanded to 6 members. Out of a population of 26 million, Saudi Arabia has 6 million Facebook users and has the second-highest ratio of internet users per population in the Middle East (after Iran). Therefore, there is enormous potential in Scientific Saudi.
Alduhishy, started a Facebook dedicated for science communication in Arabic. The page is titled

Here is an interview with Muath Alduhishy conducted by Mohammad Yahia of the excellent House of Wisdom blog:

1)      How did the idea for Scientific Saudi come about and how long have you been online?  

The idea of Scientific Saudi started over a year ago, when I noticed the high prevalence of English-speaking scientific groups in the social media, namely Facebook, while I couldn’t find any in the Arabic-speaking world of Facebook. 

However, there are plenty of pseudoscientific groups, which in lieu of providing updated, credible and verified scientific articles and news, they broadcast common factoids that have been circulating the internet since its establishment or, in other cases, they are religious-oriented groups that uses science as a means to support their spiritual believes. 

I couldn’t find any credible Arabic-speaking group that’s passionate to communicate science purely for the sake of educating and informing people about the astonishing and mind-blowing advances and breakthroughs that happen every day in the research centres and universities, as it was the case with the numerous English-speaking scientific groups that I’ve come across, albeit I did found a couple of amazing Arabic scientific groups later on, but they are extremely scarce and have negligible impact in terms of the quantity of fans. 

At this moment, I realised that it’s my duty to bridge the gap, or at least to attempt to do so, due to the fact that I have always been passionate about science and I’ve been nurturing my passion for years through listening to scientific shows and podcasts and subscribing to scientific publications, such as your sister science publication Scientific American, hence the name Scientific Saudi. 

I started the group by myself as a Facebook page at the end of July 2012. It was just an ad hoc step. I had no grand plan or long-term strategy at that time. I had this idea for a while so I wanted to do something about it. From the first day, I made a pledge to myself to distinguish my page by not publishing anything without a credible, and, where possible, peer-reviewed reference, and to preserve the intellectual rights of any materials or persons presented in the group. I know it seemed a bit extreme and overly ideal commitment, especially that I publish new posts every day, but I did strictly adhere to it and still do, with a few exceptions. Also, I request from every contributor to adhere to this golden rule of mine. 

Today, we have pages on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube as well as an official website. We have over 30,000 followers in the aforementioned social networking websites, which is still a considerably scant number compared to the overwhelmingly ubiquitous religious, celebrities and trivia pages.

2)      What are your plans to expand on what you have right now?We are currently in the phase of expansion and development, which means focusing on increasing our impact and spreading further out. We are being gradually recognized in the world of social media as it’s evident in your reach to us. Also, we are interested in collaborating the efforts with other scientific groups and with individuals who share the same passion as us. You can read more about our goals as well as our mission and message here http://www.scientificsaudi.com/about-16051606-160615811606.html

And of course, a question on evolution also shows up:

5)      I see you have several articles on Darwin and evolution – topics that are often thorny in the Arab world, and might be especially so in Saudi Arabia. How do you handle these topics? And has there ever been a backlash against you for your coverage of these topics? 

This is a good question, I have to say. However, before I answer it, you should know that we are committed to not discuss religion or politics in our published work, which is really an unprecedented proposition in the Arabic-speaking world. Most of the Arabic scientific speakers and communicators, albeit they are few, have strong religious tendencies. 

I, myself, have no problem with that at all, but the problem is that many of them handle scientific theories that might contradict with their religious views with an unscientific mentality. I was listening the other day to a highly regarded scientific communicator in the Islamic world talking about Darwin’s evolution theory as if it was a ‘conspiracy’ to dehumanise people, and that it has no plausible scientific basis. He clearly has no clue how significant is the evidence that supports this theory, or at least he appears so. 

Now to answer your question, yes, we do care greatly about scientifically and objectively explaining such major theories that shaped our current knowledge of the world. Darwin’s theory of evolution, in particular, is supported by a significant amount of evidence from different fields of science, and that’s what we care about here as a scientific group. Of course this means we will deal with a backlash from some of our readers, and we did, but we are still willing to answer every inquiry they have about such theories without judgment or reject. In fact, we have witnessed people who strongly disbelieve that humans have ever passed the stratosphere, others think that the big bang theory is just an absurd lie, and some who think that stem cells technology is a myth. If we are afraid of any backlash in the group, then we should quit science. 

However, it should be noted that if an opponent of any theory of science brought a plausible scientific evidence against it, then we are willing to adopt the evidence without hesitation. In short, science is our language in this group.

Read the full interview here.

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

Posts should resume their regularity here. Lets start with the news that The French Muslim Council (CFCM) has decided to start using astronomical calculations to set the dates for Ramadan. Hallelujah - oh I mean, Alhamdulillah!. It's about time, but still good to hear some common sense trust (faith?) in science. From our friend Tom Heneghan:

Council President Mohammad Moussaoui said the old method played havoc with French Muslims' schedules for work, school and festivities. France's five million Muslims are the largest Islamic minority in Europe. 

"Now all this will be simplified," he said, and promptly announced the Ramadan fast would begin on July 9 this year. 

Turkey began using scientific calculations to set the start of Ramadan decades ago. Muslims in Germany, who are mostly of Turkish origin, and those in Bosnia also use this method. 

Muslim minorities elsewhere in Europe often start Ramadan according to its beginning in their countries of origin, or in Saudi Arabia. That can lead to different ethnic groups starting it on different days, even in the same country.
"This is historic. Now all Muslims in France can start Ramadan on the same day," said Lyon Muslim leader Azzedine Gaci.

Read the full article here.

In other news, Pakistan will most likely maintain the excitement of shunning science in favor of naked eye testimonies. For last year's adventures, see this earlier post: Strife amongst Maulvis give astronomers a rare opening in Pakistan.

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

Earlier today, the Pew Forum has released a survey of Muslims in 39 countries. The report is titled The World's Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society and provides a fascinating look into the complex ways Muslims are negotiating the modern world (thanks to Neha Sahgal!). In the past couple of years I have written several posts that have utilized the Pew data about Muslims. You should check out
Pew Study: Mapping the Global Muslim Population
Importance of religion for Muslims and their religious practice
Pew global religious landscape: Young Muslims and the unaffiliated
How the Muslim world sees American science and the drones
Pew Survey: Mahdi, Jesus, devotional dancing and sorcery

What does the new report says? Well, a lot of focus will be on opinions on sharia, opinions on women's rights, and extremism etc. I will also have later posts on that. But let me focus here on the question on human evolution. In 22 countries, Muslims were asked if they think that humans and other living things have a) Always existed in present form, or b) Evolved over time.

Here are the results:

Several things to comment here.
1) Interestingly, most Muslims around the world (median 53%) agree with the statement that humans and other living things have evolved over time. There is a large variation amongst countries, with Muslims in Kazakhstan (79%) and Lebanon (78%) having the highest levels of evolution acceptance and Iraq (27%) and Afghanistan (26%) having the lowest rates.

2) In 13 of 22 countries, more than half of respondents accept human evolution. On the other hand, in only four countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Indonesia) do more than half of the respondents reject human evolution (for good measure, we can throw in Turkey in this as well, with 49%). 

3) Pakistan has the most undecided population, with 30% accepting human evolution, 38% rejecting it, and 32% undecided.

4) There are some fascinating variations within the same geographical regions. For example, Morocco has a higher human evolution acceptance rate (63%) than Tunisia (45%); Iraq's acceptance is low (26%) compared to Jordan (52%), Palestinian territories (67%), and Lebanon (78%). And Bangladesh has a higher acceptance rate (54%) compared to Pakistan's at 30%. On the flip side, Malaysia (37%) and Indonesia (39%) are almost identical - something that we have also found in these two countries in  our oral interviews of Muslim physicians and medical students. 

What is causing these differences? Well, we can look at some other indicators to make some sense of it. The Pew survey also included a question about science and religion. In particular, if Muslims see a conflict between science and religion. Here are the results: 

It seems that most Muslims do not see a conflict between science and religion. This is not surprising as there exists a strong narrative of science and Islam harmony since the late 19th century. So does the variation in science and religion attitudes explain the variations in evolution acceptance rates within the same geographical region? Well, it may possibly work for the case of Tunisia and Morocco (42% of Tunisians think there is conflict between science and religion, compared with only 18% of Moroccans) if one believes that the conflict idea leads to a greater rejection of evolution. But then the opposite is true for the case of Bangladesh and Pakistan, where more Bangladeshis see a conflict between science and religion, but also have a higher level of acceptance of human evolution compared to Pakistan.

And if you are looking for even more variety, you can look at southeast asia, where less than a third of respondents in Thailand (26%), Indonesia (26%), and Malaysia (30%) see a conflict between religion and science, but more than half of Muslims in Thailand (55%) accept human evolution, compared to Indonesia (39%) and Malaysia (37%). Similarly, only a handful of respondents in Jordan, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories see a conflict between science and religion, but only 26% of Iraqis accept human evolution, compared to 52% and 67% of Muslims in Jordan and the Palestinian territories, respectively. 

So what is the grand lesson from all this? Well, it seems that not only is there diversity in human evolution responses of Muslims around the world, but there is also diversity in evolution acceptance and its relation with science and religion perceptions.

5) It seems like the global median acceptance for Muslims is higher than that of Muslims in the US:

On first glance, it may seem that Muslims in the US are being impacted by the American flavor of creationism. Well, may be. There a number of Muslim countries with acceptance rates similar to the US - and may simply be due to some other internal factors. But this is an interesting question and we definitely intend to look into it a bit more. By the way, here is the distribution of evolution acceptance in the US based on religion: 

6) This is probably just a coincidence, but the lowest levels of evolution acceptance is found in Afghanistan (26%), Iraq (27%), and Pakistan (30%). Hmm. Interesting. These are the three countries with substantial recent US military intervention. 

7) Religious observance is correlated only with countries in Southern-eastern Europe: 

In countries surveyed in Southern and Eastern Europe, more religiously observant Muslims are less likely to believe in evolution. In Russia, for example, 41% of Muslims who pray several times a day believe in evolution, compared with 66% of those who pray less frequently. Significant gaps also appear between more and less devout Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina (-19 percentage points) and Kosovo (-14). Views on evolution do not differ significantly by religious commitment in the other regions surveyed.

Again, this is something that needs to be further investigated. But it is possible that the issue of evolution may have become inter-twined with the religious identity of Muslims in souther-eastern Europe. But it is important to note that acceptance or rejection of evolution is not correlated with religious observance in much of the Muslim world.

Fascinating!

I will post more from the Pew report in the coming days. In the mean time, you can find the full report here.

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

It seems that faith as faith is not enough. There is a huge temptation to "prove" one's religion based on science. What these individuals don't realize is that such efforts devalue religion and often makes a mockery of faith (also in the literal sense of the word, faith).

The trend of seeking science in sacred scriptures in not unique to Islam, but it is certainly quite popular in the Muslim world (see this post on: On the futility of finding science in the Quran and other scriptures). Some of this has to do with the loss of intellectual prestige. The argument is that "you" (meaning the West) may have the science, but that very science validates the faith of Muslims. The problem is that these claims are always based on awful understanding of science. But then the point often is not curiosity about how the world works - but rather just to have a confirmation of one's own faith from a method whose power is recognized the world over.

There are many examples of this matter. Some of these relate to Mecca. Two years ago, there were calls to replace GMT with Mecca Time. One of the reasons provided was a "scientific" claim that Mecca is the center of the Earth. Yes, even apart from the logical problem of the lack of center on a surface of a sphere, there were a number of other problems. I had three posts on the topic and if interested, you can check these out: a) The problem with peddling pseudoscientific claims regarding Mecca Time, b) Move over GMT, here comes a call to adopt Mecca Time, and c) Mecca Clock: Seeking prestige via borrowed science.

Unfortunately, there is more pseudoscience in this matter. I recently came across this website that provides a "scientific" reason of why the Tawaf around Ka'aba in Mecca is done in a counter-clockwise direction. Here are the claims on the website:

Worshipping Allah in one direction. Praising Allah in one direction.
When we revolve around the Ka'aba we are orbiting in the same direction as the whole universe and all the creations of Allah from the tiniest particles, to the largest galaxies, along with the human race unite in praise of Allah.
When we go around the Ka'aba, we are travelling in the land travelled by all the prophets of Allah, from the prophet Adam (alaihis salaam) to the Prophet Muhammad (SAW)
The Ka'aba in Makkah is never free from circumbulators.
The Blood inside the human body begins its circulation "Anticlockwise"
The electrons of an atom revolve around its nucleus in the same manner as making Tawaf, in an anti-clockwise direction.
the moon revolves around the earth anti-clockwise.
The earth rotates around its own axis in an anti-clockwise direction
The planets of the Solar system revolve around the sun in an anti-clockwise direction
The Sun along with its whole Solar system orbit in the galaxy in an anti-clockwise direction.
All the galaxies orbit in the space in an anti-clockwise direction
Tawaf around the Ka'aba is "Anticlockwise"
Truly Islam is from Allah

Now - sure one can talk about the sacredness of the Ka'aba and its centrality to Islam. But, as you can imagine, to tie the counter-clockwise direction of Tawaf with physical processes in the universe might be a bit of a problem, especially when the claims are just simply wrong. At worst, these claims are based on gross misunderstandings. What is shocking for me is that this website (and its claims) came up in a positive way in an academic discussion!

So lets take a look at some of the examples. First of all, there is a fundamental problem of logic when ascribing direction of motion in space. This is because there is preferential frame in space. For example, a counter-clockwise motion from the "top" would appear clockwise from the "bottom" (and there is no absolute top or bottom). Astronomers ascribe a direction for the Solar system by using Earth north's pole is "up". But as our friends in the southern hemisphere know, that there is nothing absolutely unique about picking Earth's north as the reference point.  

But apart from the logical problem, there are also factual errors on the website: 

a) The universe - as far as we know - is not revolving around anything. It is expanding - and the rate of expansion is accelerating. But there is no axis of rotation, as there is no "center" of the universe. 

b) There is no preferential rotation directions for particles. The orbit of the electron can only be described in terms of probabilities (because of quantum effects). Textbooks usually simplify diagrams to show an atom like a solar system. But to say that electrons orbit in a plane - let alone in a counter-clockwise direction - would be wrong (see here for the visualization of electron cloud model).
c) The orbits of stars in most galaxies are not systematic (for example, elliptical galaxies are dominated (and supported) by random orbital motions). Even in spiral gales, only the disk stars can be said to have

systematic orbits. The bulge stars and halo stars do not.

d) On the largest scale, there are no generalized orbits around which galaxies are orbiting. As mentioned earlier, there is no preferential plane is space, so it is impossible to come up with a general direction of the motion of galaxies. But all galaxies are moving. But they are moving in the direction of their nearest strong gravitational tug. Here is what we have measured with respect to the Milky Way (remember, Milky way is not at the center of the universe, but since we are making the measurements in all directions, we appear to be at the center):

And there have also been attempts to present galaxies with respect to their distance from us. Here is how the wedge looks like (these are positions of galaxies within 2 billion light years of us): 

From the press release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS): The SDSS is two separate surveys in one: galaxies are identified in 2D images (right), then have their distance determined from their spectrum to create a 2 billion lightyears deep 3D map (left) where each galaxy is shown as a single point, the color representing the luminosity - this shows only those 66,976 out of 205,443 galaxies in the map that lie near the plane of Earth's equator.

Also see: What does the universe looks like beyond our Galaxy. And if you are interested seeing how it would be like to fly though the universe, here is a 3D simulation of the universe:

As you may have guessed by now, there is no sense of making a connection between the direction of Tawaf and stars or galaxies. But such claims serve as a good warning sign of the folly of using modern science to support one's faith. Let's keep faith as a matter of faith alone. But lets also ponder about the workings of the universe from a scientific perspective. 

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

This is from the recently concluded Karachi Literature Festival. Unfortunately, he is right about nuclear weapons. It will take a tragedy to wake people up on the indiscriminate evil of the bomb. Here is a sobering clip from Pervez Hoodbhoy:

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

I won't be in Islamabad, but here is your chance to attend a seminar organized by Rationalist Society of Pakistan and Khudi on February 21st:

Science, Rationality and ModernitySeminar, Islamabad, Pakistan (15:00 PST, 21st of Feb, 2013) 

The speakers are Dr. Mobarak Haider (Author Civilizational Narcissism aka Tehzeebi Nargasiyat) and Dr. Khalid Masood (Ex-Member Pakistan Ideological Council and Judge Shariat Court). The authors will speak on the history, advantages and the need of Rationality for Muslims for the advancement in Science and solution of contemporary problems in the context of modern world.

You can find more information about the event and about registration here. If you attend the event, write about it in the comments. And here is the poster for the event:

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

This week's Economist has an article that talks about the currents status of science in the Muslim world. It takes a broad approach and starts with the dismal state of current science in much of the Muslim world:

THE sleep has been long and deep. In 2005 Harvard University produced more scientific papers than 17 Arabic-speaking countries combined. The world’s 1.6 billion Muslims have produced only two Nobel laureates in chemistry and physics. Both moved to the West: the only living one, the chemist Ahmed Hassan Zewail, is at the California Institute of Technology. By contrast Jews, outnumbered 100 to one by Muslims, have won 79. The 57 countries in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference spend a puny 0.81% of GDP on research and development, about a third of the world average. America, which has the world’s biggest science budget, spends 2.9%; Israel lavishes 4.4%. 

Many blame Islam’s supposed innate hostility to science. Some universities seem keener on prayer than study. Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, for example, has three mosques on campus, with a fourth planned, but no bookshop. Rote learning rather than critical thinking is the hallmark of higher education in many countries. The Saudi government supports books for Islamic schools such as “The Unchallengeable Miracles of the Qur’an: The Facts That Can’t Be Denied By Science” suggesting an inherent conflict between belief and reason.

But then it also talks about the rising publications from Turkey, Iran and other Muslim countries (I have also written about it here on Irtiqa: See the numbers for 2012 here and 2011 here)

In the 2000 to 2009 period Turkey’s output of scientific papers rose from barely 5,000 to 22,000; with less cash, Iran’s went up 1,300, to nearly 15,000. Quantity does not imply quality, but the papers are getting better, too. Scientific journals, and not just the few based in the Islamic world, are citing these papers more frequently. A study in 2011 by Thomson Reuters, an information firm, shows that in the early 1990s other publishers cited scientific papers from Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey (the most prolific Muslim countries) four times less often than the global average. By 2009 it was only half as often. In the category of best-regarded mathematics papers, Iran now performs well above average, with 1.7% of its papers among the most-cited 1%, with Egypt and Saudi Arabia also doing well. Turkey scores highly on engineering.

The article then goes on to highlight some of the challenges as well, especially those related to biological evolution. It cites my 2008 paper for the dismal statistics of evolution acceptance in the Muslim world. However, our more recent work based on oral interviews show a much more complicated picture. In particular, we find that people hear different things when they hear the mention of evolution or Darwin, and often times, it has little to do with science. This is also highlighted in the article:

Though such disbelief may be couched in religious terms, culture and politics play a bigger role, says Mr Hameed. Poor school education in many countries leaves minds open to misapprehension. A growing Islamic creationist movement is at work too. A controversial Turkish preacher who goes by the name of Harun Yahya is in the forefront. His website spews pamphlets and books decrying Darwin. Unlike his American counterparts, however, he concedes that the universe is billions of years old (not 6,000 years). 

But the barrier is not insuperable. Plenty of Muslim biologists have managed to reconcile their faith and their work. Fatimah Jackson, a biological anthropologist who converted to Islam, quotes Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the founders of genetics, saying that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”. Science describes how things change; Islam, in a larger sense, explains why, she says. 

Others take a similar line. “The Koran is not a science textbook,” says Rana Dajani, a Jordanian molecular biologist. “It provides people with guidelines as to how they should live their lives.” Interpretations of it, she argues, can evolve with new scientific discoveries. Koranic verses about the creation of man, for example, can now be read as providing support for evolution.

And it is great that the article goes on to talk about the work on stem cells research that is going on in Iran - and also in Malaysia, Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan:

Other parts of the life sciences, often tricky for Christians, have proved unproblematic for Muslims. In America researchers wanting to use embryonic stem cells (which, as their name suggests, must be taken from human embryos, usually spares left over from fertility treatments) have had to battle pro-life Christian conservatives and a federal ban on funding for their field. But according to Islam, the soul does not enter the fetus until between 40 and 120 days after conception—so scientists at the Royan Institute in Iran are able to carry out stem-cell research without attracting censure.

Here is a broad swath of issues in a condensed manner. Read the full article here. By the way, if you are interested, you should also check out this article from The Chronicle of Higher Education from last year: Does Islam Stand Against Science?

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

When evolution becomes a political issue, it becomes very hard to trace what is really going on. Just yesterday, I had a post about TUBITAK - the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey - halting further publication of evolution books. These concerns have also been echoed by some Turkish academics as well. But TUBITAK has denied this and says that this is propaganda against them (tip from Don Everhart):

The Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) has strongly denied reports that it has stopped printing books on evolution, saying the claims were “black propaganda” against their institution. 

“If we aim to censor Evolution Theory we would discontinue publishing any books containing evolutionist approaches, but on the contrary we are publishing the books that are not being published by other publishing houses,” an official from TÜBİTAK told the Hürriyet Daily News yesterday in a phone interview. 

A number of reports in daily Sözcü claimed Jan. 14 that TÜBİTAK had put a stop to the publication and sale of all books in its archives that support the theory of evolution.
The evolutionist books, previously available through TÜBİTAK’s Popular Science Publications’ List, will no longer be provided by the council, the daily had claimed. 

Titles from prominent writers including Richard Dawkins, Alan Moorehead, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Levontin and James Watson were listed as being among those which would no longer be available to Turkish readers. 

However, the official refuted the claims. “There are two books already in our 2012 catalogue regarding evolution, Richard Dawkins’ ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ is one of them … Dawkins’ ‘The Selfish Gene’ is not being published because of a publication rights issue, but this is being manipulated,” the official said.

Okay that is the first part. But this is where politics, evolution and science gets mushed together:

He claimed that “some circles” had kicked off a “black propaganda” campaign against TÜBİTAK to “shadow its success,” following the successful mission of Turkey’s first Earth observation satellite, Göktürk-2. 

Göktürk-2 was launched Dec. 18 in China, but Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan followed the launch at Ankara’s Middle East Technical University (ODTÜ) campus, which witnessed huge numbers of students protesting the prime minister’s visit.  

Erdoğan had called on the academics who supported the students to resign, but the police’s heavy-handed intervention in the protests also stirred a debate among Turkish universities, with some backing the police and Erdoğan and some opposing. 

TÜBİTAK had previously been the target of evolutionist circles for alleged censorship practices.  

In early 2009 a huge uproar occurred when the cover story of a TÜBİTAK publication was pulled, reportedly because it focused on Darwin’s theory of evolution. The incident led to intense criticism and finger-pointing from various representatives of the publication and its parent institute.  

A few months later, the article in question appeared as the publication’s cover story.

As you can see, there is the issue of TUBITAK's reputation, student protests, and the academics - many of whom do not support the ruling party, AKP. Let's see how the dust settles on this matter. 

But if you are interested, here are some past posts that may help in making some sense of the current situation:  

A halt to publication of evolution books in Turkey (2012)

Students attack anti-evoltuion fossils in Turkey (2012)

Protest at creationism symposium at Marmara University (2012)

Turkish government versus academic (2012)

More on Turkey: Religion, Commerce and the Teaching of Evolution (2010)

Is "Islamic Fundamentalism" on the rise in Turkey? (2010)

Controversy over Darwin Censorship in Turkey (2009)

Internet and the spread of Islamic Creationism (2008)

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

I have an article in today's Guardian on the Islam and evolution debate in London last Saturday. Here is an excerpt (and you can also read a longer post on it here):

An imam of an east London mosque, Usama Hasan, received a death threat for arguing in support of human evolution two years ago. On Saturday, London played host to a riveting intrafaith dialogue on Islam's stance on the theory of evolution. The east London imam was one of the speakers – but this time there were others who shared his viewpoint. 

The event, organised by the Deen Institute, was titled Have Muslims Misunderstood Evolution? The speakers included an evolutionary biologist, a biological anthropologist, two theologians and a bona fide creationist. 

It lasted seven hours, yet almost everyone stayed till the end. There were more than 850 people in the audience and even though the topic was sensitive and controversial, there was no heckling or disruption. At least from my limited interactions, it seemed that the audience was comprised mostly of young professionals. Most had no strong opinion, but their interest was evident as they were willing to spend their entire Saturday hearing about Muslim positions on evolution. 

They were not disappointed. 

And here is the concluding paragraph:

Babuna aside, this was a serious debate on an important topic. The rejection of evolution in the face of scientific consensus stands as a Galileo moment for Islam. However, the tone of the debate and the quality of intellectual exchange at the London event is encouraging and it shows modern Muslims have the maturity to address a perceived challenge from a scientific idea.  

Read the full article here.

Also, see another article on the conference by Yasmin Khan - also in the Guardian: Muslims Engage in Quest to Understand Evolution:

More than 850 delegates flocked to a seminal conference in London on Saturday about the compatibility of modern evolutionary theory and Islamic theology – despite scaremongering and the refusal of Islamic student societies to participate. Determined organisers had overcome pressure to cancel by changing the venue from Imperial College to Logan Hall at the University of London. The event was the brainchild of the Deen Institute, which runs courses to promote critical thinking among Muslim students and kindle rational dialogue within Islam. The need for dialogue is urgent, because to date there has been little open discussion within British Muslim communities on this divisive subject. Recent debates in the US suggest that evolution is not as much of a problem theologically to Muslims as it is to Christian creationists, but there is work to be done to clarify the situation.

Read the full article here.

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

This is very cool! Here is an Urdu translation of Sagan's Pale Blue Dot excerpt (tip from Zakir Thaver). This apparently is part of a project of urdu language translation of science content, proposed by Faisal R. Ahmad at Cornell University. We have to capture the wonder and thrill of science. This is a great step. Fantastic!

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

I'm now back in US and I'm glad that I had a chance to attend the London debate, Have Muslims Misunderstood Evolution? It was organized by The Deen Institute and I posted some quick thoughts on Saturday.

You can find a good summary of each speaker's presentation at Farrukh's blog.

Here are a few reasons why I think the London debate on evolution and Islam may turn out be a game-changer in the way Muslims look at evolutionary biology, and science, in general.

This was an intra-faith debate. There is no question that the topic was controversial. However, the conversation on evolution often gets derailed by common misconceptions and juvenile creationist ideas. The debate would have been a failure, had it been simply between biologists and those who follow Harun Yahya. There is no common ground - as Yahya's group has no understanding of science.

The reason for the success of the debate was that almost all of the speakers (with the exception of Harun Yahya acolyte, Oktar Babuna) accepted the scientific consensus on evolution. Then the question became: Can Muslims reconcile human evolution with their faith? Now this is an important question.

Here are a few take-aways from the London debate:
1. It is crucial for Muslims (and non-Muslims) to know that there are Muslim scientists out there, who not only understand evolution but have thought about its implications for their own personal faith. Both Ehab Abouheif and Fatimah Jackson talked about their own personal belief and the way they reconcile evolution, in particular, human evolution, with Islam. What is important here is that they accept mainstream evolutionary ideas - and not some fringe ideas of directional evolution or the American version of Intelligent Design (ala Irreducible Complexity of bacterium flagellum). Furthermore, they are first rate researchers who take a no nonsense approach to science, and a no nonsense approach to religion. Fatimah Jackson, a convert to islam, teared up when talking about her faith - and she emphasized that no one can question her Iman. She took the position that science tells the how - and not the why.

Both Ehab and Fatimah are spectacular role models for budding Muslim scientists. When a genetics student asked about potential experiments to test evolution, Ehab invited him to join his lab, which is doing cutting-edge research on ant evolution (he has two papers in published in the prestigious journal Science just in 2011!).

2. The theological debate between Usama Hasan and Yasir Qadhi was also interesting. The important thing to note is that both accepted the science of evolution. Usama Hasan's main position was that science is clear on human evolution as well and Islamic theology has room to incorporate it. Yasir Qadhi, on the other hand, said that he has no problem with almost all of evolution, except for human evolution. However, he made it clear that he is not speaking on the science of human evolution, but rather on human evolution from an Islamic theological perspective. He went after Usama, and I think, he was quite condescending towards him. Though to be fair, Yasir Qadhi had also come really prepared for the debate. But if you listen carefully, the difference in their positions is razor-thin.

Why do I say that? On the one hand, Yasir Qadhi insisted that theologically, Muslims cannot accept human evolution. On the other hand, he said that the "maximum we can go" from the theological perspective is to say that Allah inserted Adam in the natural order - and while we may not see any difference, it is actually a miracle. He used the example of dominos. He asserted that Adam was the last domino. Now, in his perspective, we are seeing the last domino, and that domino is specially placed by Allah. However, for non-believers, it may seem to be connected to all other dominos. This way, the miracle of Adam is preserved.

Usama and Yasir could have easily agreed on this point. However, it seemed to me that Yasir was insistent on inflating the differences between his position and Usama's. As it turns out, they both know each other from way back, and their rivalry goes beyond the topic of evolution. Overall, Usama was interested in emphasizing the lessons from history about the changing religious (including Islamic) interpretations in wake of new sciences (for example, earth-centered to sun-centered universe), whereas Yasir was focusing on a close textual reading of the text, claiming that this current interpretation is really definitive.

But notice that overall, this is a subtle debate on the theological acceptance/rejection of human evolution only. Even if one takes a conservative position, almost all of evolution is okay for both of them.

3. The audience was diverse and deeply interested in the topic. There were 800 people in a packed auditorium. The talks started at 11am and went till 6pm (with lunch and prayer breaks), and it was amazing to see that almost all of the audience stayed until the end. This is all the more amazing since most people lined up to get in the auditorium from 9am. Plus, there was no heckling or disruption. This was a very civil debate on a controversial topic. A lot of it had to do with the host, Mariam Francois-Cerrah. She was fantastic in not getting the debate out of hand, and in handling the questions.

But what struck me the most was the diversity in audience members. There were some whose religiosity was explicit (with hijabs, niqabs, beards, etc) and there were others that did not show that. In conversations, I found a film-producer, a pharmacist, a philosophy undergraduate, a chemist, a science communication professional, a hedge-fund manager, an IT professional, a medical doctor, a nurse, a genetics student, a biology postdoc, etc. Most of them were there to simply hear the debate. None of them had a strong position on evolution, one way or the other, but were interested in hearing Muslim positions on it.

It is a shame that the debate did not take place at Imperial College. I had posted a few weeks ago about the opposition to the debate by the Islamic Society there. The success and the tenor of the debate shows that the Islamic Society at Imperial College may simply be a step behind much of the community. Ultimately, it is the students at Imperial College that may have missed out on a high quality debate.

4. The debate exposed the shallowness of Harun Yahya brand of creationism. Those of us who follow Islamic creationism have known this for a while (for example, see the crude quality of his Atlas here). However, the media has often portrayed him and his group as the leading "intellectual voice" of Islamic creationism. However, they only have a few talking points: Evolution is an evil ideology, evolution is false, quoting Darwin out of context, and a constant reference to fossils. Well, Ehab Abouheif in his opening remarks did a fantastic job of neutralizing most of their arguments by showing the common misconceptions about evolution.

This would not have been enough had the debate lasted only hour. People who are not familiar with the debate would have seen two people disagreeing - and would have left undecided. However, the conversation went deeper, in particular with the introduction biological anthropology by Fatimah Jackson, and then a historical and philosophical discussion between Usama Hasan and Yasir Qadhi. The response of Oktar Babuna was - "fossils". The conversation had moved along - but Babuna had nothing new to add. And the audience figured it out. Towards the end, Oktar Babuna was serving as a comic relief. Other panelists would be talking about something substantial, and Oktar Babuna would bring up his fossils. People were rolling in their seats with laughter. I even started feeling bad for him towards the end.

The bottom line is that the Yahya position of no evolution at all (and with almost no change in the DNA) is akin to those who still believe in a universe where the Sun goes around the Earth. Yahya people have been able to gain traction by using evolution as a synonym for atheism and eugenics and by presenting evolution as an ideology pushed by non-Muslims against Islam. Their claim to present an alternative "scientific" idea, however, did not work when they were confronted by world class Muslim biologists. Furthermore, they don't offer any sophisticated theology either.

London is one of the strongholds of the Harun Yahya group amongst Muslims (much more so than most of the Muslim world). The debate may have permanently exposed their shallowness in both Islamic theology and Islam. And yes, even in the evolution debate, Oktar Babuna brought up Mahdi, and the End of Times. (see earlier post on Harun Yahya's fascination with Mahdi and if sees himself as The One).

5. Ultimately, this was a grown-up debate. This shows a maturity within Islam on dealing with a serious challenge from a scientific idea. Instead of a knee-jerk reaction, The Deen Institute managed to bring together a fantastic panel that engaged with the topic. And this can serve as a good model for other issues as well (freedom of speech, gender equity, etc.). I'm curious to the see the direction they will take after this event.

There is going to be a circus reaction as well. There will be some who will be upset by the debate. The Harun Yahya people will also go on the offensive and may try to manufacture a controversy. It will be unfortunate, if the press focused on some of the outliers.

This is a long post - but I think this was an important event.

Related posts:
A Riveting Session on Islam and Evolution in London
Opposition to Evolution and Islam Debate at Imperial College?

Here is a picture of a section of the crowd at the debate:

And here are the speakers along with couple organizers:

(from left to right: one of the organizers, Mariam Francois-Cerrah, Fatimah Jackson, Adam Deen, Yasir Qadhi, Usama Hasan, Ehab Abouheif, one of the organizers)

Read More »