Islamic Revival

Richard Dawkins is known throughout the world as a prominent advocate for atheism and evolution, however he admitted in February 2012 that he has some doubt over whether a God could exist. In a debate with Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, Dawkins remarked that he was less than 100% sure that a God does not exist, stating “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low.” He further mentioned that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs. The chair, Sir Anthony Kenny, then asked “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” To which Dawkins confirmed that he did. For some theists this will be seen as a major climb down from someone so antagonistic towards religion. However if one scrutinises his words then they will realise this isn’t any different to his previous positions. In fact this uncertain approach is the nature of science whose conclusions cannot determine the definitive nature of an observation. This may seem counter-intuitive to t

Some  people say that ordering of good and forbidding of evil is not an obligation upon us, and that we should only be concerned with accounting ourselves, supporting this view with the verse in the Qur’an where Allah (swt) mentioned that the misguidance of others will not harm us: “O you who believe, you are accountable only for yourselves. It will not harm you if someone chooses to deviate – as long as you are rightly guided. To Allah is your return, and He will inform you of what you used to do.” [5:105] We will discuss this claim from two angles: The Ayah itself, and the other texts mentioned in the Qur’an and the Sunnah related to this subject. The Ayah itself Looking carefully at the Ayah itself, we see that Allah (swt) stated that no harm will come from the misguidance of others, on the condition that we are guided:  “ It will not harm you if someone chooses to deviate – as long as you are rightly guided ”;  and we know that a person will not be rightly guided unles

Legislation in the Caliphate Unlike a King or dictator, the Caliph cannot legislate laws from his own mind that suit his personal or family interests. Although the Caliph holds all executive powers within the Caliphate his powers are restricted by the  shari’a . Many orientalists acknowledged this separation of powers. C.A. Nallino said: But these universal monarchs of Islam, just like all other Muslim sovereigns, while they possessed to an unlimited degree executive power and some judicial power, are entirely lacking in legislative power; because legislation properly so called can only be the divine law itself, the shari’a, of which the ulama, or doctors, are alone the interpreters. 1 Thomas Arnold said: The law being thus of divine origin demanded the obedience even of the Caliph himself, and theoretically at least the administration of the state was supposed to be brought into harmony with the dictates of the sacred law. It is true that by theory the Caliph could be a muj