Archive for October, 2015

Newton and the Apple

October 29, 2015

Nasir Khan, October 29, 2015

“Millions saw the apple fall, Newton was the only one who asked why?”

― Bernard M. Baruch (1870-1965)
I think people may not have asked why the apple fell in the sense Newton did, but throughout our past history, people had their views and explanations about such things happening in nature. For instance:

First, things always fall down; they do not go up. That is an empirical observation.

Second, when an apple is ripe, it will fall down.

Third, apples are for us to eat; therefore, they fall down so that we can eat them. Some may call it the law of nature to help the human race.

Fourth, god wills it and it happens.

Fifth, on each apple is inscribed an invisible language the name of the person who will eat it; therefore that person gets it.

Sixth, observe what happens in nature, but follow the traditional wisdom and don’t step outside the boundaries because human intelligence is finite!

Seventh, don’t try to understand the mysteries of the ‘On High’ with your little brains; you will never understand how the Cosmic Mind works and decides!

If I have missed any, others may add, barring any nonsense!



Religion and Intelligent People

October 28, 2015

Nasir Khan, October 28, 2015

“I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously.”

― English author Douglas Adams (1952-2001)
Human intelligence is also profoundly interesting. It can search for the deepest ‘mysteries’ surrounding our lives and guide us along the paths of knowledge and wisdom. But when it comes to Religion, something incredible happens with it. It gives up any pretensions to independent inquiry and starts repeating what goes against all rational thinking. We may call it the miracle of Religion.

By the way, by intelligence, I mean intelligent people, not some bodiless phantoms floating in the air! Intelligence is a necessary condition for the wisdom to arise, but something more is needed. Analytical philosophers point to critical thinking.

But why to bother about questioning and critical thinking that go against all the established norms and patterns of thought that have been traditionally handed down to us? Perhaps that explains something for some of us; however, many intelligent religionists have their own universe.

Book Review: Perceptions of Islam in the Christendoms (Khan)

October 17, 2015

Editor’s Note: This is a recent  review by Jacob J. Prahlow of my book Perceptions of Islam in the Christendoms: A Historical Survey.

This book can be downloaded by clicking on the following link.

— Nasir Khan, Editor


Book Review: Perceptions of Islam in the Christendoms (Khan)

History is contested. Though far from a novel statement, we often need to be reminded that the past is not as clean and easy as our history textbooks make it out to be. This is especially true in matters of religious history and conflict, where seemingly everyone wants to contribute their two cents to hot button issues. Occasionally, however, someone will produce a historical narrative that—while outside the mainstream—remains valuable enough to warrant consideration. Nasir Khan’s Perceptions of Islam in the Christendoms may be one such book.

In Perceptions of Islam in the Christendoms: A Historical Survey (Oslo: Solum Forlag, 2006), Khan traces the history of Christianity and its interactions with Islam, admittedly writing from the perspective of a Muslim historian and political analyst. Weighing in at nearly five hundred pages, Khan’s tome-like work stands as one of the most thorough treatments of Islamic-Christian in recent decades. After three chapters on early Christianity and the pre-Islamic world, Khan devotes two sections to the rise of Islam and early doctrinal differences between Christianity and Islam and two chapters on political influence and spread of Islam. Next come two chapters on the Crusades, a section on Islamic interaction with the Mongol empire, and three chapters on “shifting perceptions” of Islam and then rise of Enlightenment perspectives. Perceptions of Islam closes with two chapters on late-nineteenth and twentieth century interactions between Islam and Christianity.

There is much of value in this volume. In the first place, it is well written and easy to follow, something that cannot be said of every attempt at a historical survey. Khan does an especially admirable job providing a Muslim perspective on the history of Christianity, world history, and Muslim-Christian relations. Books that provide other ways of engaging history—even if they are ultimately disagreeable—are integral to properly engaging the complexities of the past. In this vein, Khan provides a good sense of Muslim interpretations of important events—the Crusades in particular—and how these events continue to shape Muslim perceptions of the West. Finally, he offers some solid reading in the general history of Middle East. Overall, there is much that students of history will find useful in Khan’s presentation.

However, much here also stands in need to critique. Two primary issues loom large throughout this volume: the assumption of modernity and its harshest critiques of Christianity without reciprocity toward Islam and a fundamentally faulty understanding of early Christianity. In the first place, Khan takes a thoroughly modernist approach to history—Marxist it seems, both in term of approach and the laudatory citation of Marx and Lenin. This historiography relies heavily upon considerably older scholarship, especially when it comes to discussing the ills of Christianity. Khan’s primary authorities when considering the history of Christianity are Voltaire, Thomas Paine, and Gibbon. Further, he relies on ‘First Quest’ Historical Jesus scholars—Wrede and Renan primarily—when talking about the historical Jesus. This would be problematic in itself, but Khan also almost entirely avoids similarly dated and perspectival criticisms of Islam. This approach to scholarship is simply not acceptable for something published as recently as 2006. Second, Khan’s chapters on early Christianity are filled with numerous inaccuracies, the most troubling of which is a flawed understanding of the Trinity. For a writer who consistently criticizes Christians for not coming to a proper understanding of Islam,[1] this is disappointing.

Overall, Khan’s work stands as something of a mixed bag. The most valuable use of Perspectives of Islam may be that it offers a good indication of “where we’re at” in terms of Muslim-Christian dialogue. Whereas many interfaith-minded authors seem to put the best face possible on any given situation, Khan gives what appears to be his honest opinion, no holds barred. In that sense, this book may serve as a valuable source for where Christians and Muslims need to seek further clarification and understanding. This book comes recommended for those thinking about Muslim-Christian dialogue, and those who already possess a solid foundation in the history of Christianity. For other readers, Perceptions of Islam in the Christendoms should only serve as piecemeal source or an example of Muslim perspectives on the history of Christianity.

All opinions in this review belong solely to the reviewer.

[1] For one example of this, see page 329.

Rational thinking

October 1, 2015

Nasir Khan, October 1, 2015

“It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”
– English mathematician and philosopher, W. K. Clifford (1845-1879), who had a short life of 33 years.

W.K. Clifford has offered us a profound insight in this succinct remark. It opens up new vistas for us in our struggles to seek knowledge and truth. If we follow it, then many myths that exist all around us in our political, social and cultural stereotypes would come tumbling down and instead we would have a rational and humane path in front of us.

In reality, myths and sugar-coated lies still control us. Luckily, despite all the impediments and social taboos, a limited number of people see what is at stake and are brave enough to stand for rational thinking. Because of rational thinking, rational social practice is born and gets stronger. Thus, the dialectical connection between thinking and social practice as an interactive process becomes the motive-force of Social Change.


%d bloggers like this: