What do you think?
Rate this book
Islam Answers Atheism
This unique work is a result of multiple engagements and debates in universities, mosques, private gatherings and elsewhere. The author, Asrar Rashid, takes on the more difficult questions taking us through a labrynth of Kalām, philosophy, logic, epistemology, science, the Qurʾān, Ḥadīth and Sharīʿa. The book covers in depth the proof for God, His divine attributes, the problem of evil, freewill and divine knowledge, the most difficult philosophical and scientific objections against Islam, as well as objections to Sharīʿa law, the Qurʾān’s historical preservation, the historicity of the Ḥadīth, slavery, Jihād, women’s rights and a host of other complex issues. This book is a must for all who are learning about Islam, Muslims and non-Muslims, apologists and detractors.
392 pages, Hardcover
Published January 21, 2021
49 people are currently reading
441 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
April 11, 2024
https://delsharm.blog.ir/1403/01/23/iaa
چند وقت پیش یاد کتابی که سالها پیش خوانده بودم افتادم و متوجه شدم این کتاب را در جابجاییها گم کردهام. دنبال نظر دیگران در مورد این کتاب بودم که به کانال یوتیوبی blogging theology از مسلمانشدهٔ سابقاً مسیحی به اسم پال ویلیامز برخوردم که با دقت مثالزدنیای این کتاب را مورد بررسی قرار داده بود. کمکم به مطالب این کانال علاقهمند شدم تا که رسیدم به مصاحبهاش با اسرار رشید در مورد پاسخ به خداناباوران. استدلالهای رشید با وجود آن که هیچ کدام جدید نبودند برایم جالب بود. به این خاطر که خیلی به حاشیه نمیرفت، برای اثبات چیزی از محکمات دینی دلیل نمیآورد که دچار دور در استدلال شود و البته به مغالطات رایج خداناباوران میپرداخت. همین شد که این کتاب را تهیه کردم و خواندم.
این کتاب بخشهای مختلف دارد. اول به مسألهٔ نئوآتئیسم اشاره میکند و به جنبههای فرهنگی اجتماعی آن میپردازد و ادعا میکند حرف جدیدی آورده نشده است. نوخداناباوری جنبشی است که بعد از ۱۱ سپتامبر ۲۰۰۱ شکوفا شد و چهار پیامبر اصلی دارد از جمله ریچارد داوکینز. بسیاری از استدلالهای آنها عطف به مسائل بیربط مانند تکامل داروینی و اتفاقات بنیادگرایی دینی است که لزوماً باعث رد وجود خالق نخواهد بود و مثلاً شاید بشود بخشهای عهد عتیق و انجیل یا نوع خاصی از مذهب دینی را رد کرد. در ادامه رشید اسرار مخاطب را با انواع مغالطات آشنا میکند و سپس با معرفی علم کلام اهل سنت و مقایسهٔ گذرای آن با تفکر معتزله، به استدلالهای موجود خصوصاً استدلال واجبالوجود میپردازد. جالب است که اصطلاح contingency به نظرم از ممکنیت خیلی گویاتر است و برای من همین تغییر کلمه باعث شفافتر شدن استدلال شد. در بخشهای بعدی کتاب، رشید به شبهات بسیاری در مورد دین اسلام پاسخ میدهد که البته اگر کسی مثلاً با کتابهای مطهری مأنوس باشد هیچ کدام از این پاسخها برایش تازگی ندارد.
سخنرانی دیگری مربوط به شش سال پیش از این نویسنده دیدم که انتقاد به شیعه و سلفیها بود. انتقادش به شیعه محدود میشد به طیفی که لعن علنی میکنند و قمه میزنند. ولی بخش سلفیاش برای من خیلی جالب بود: حتی نسبت به تخریب قبرهای بقیع انتقادهایی داشت که پنداری سخنران خود شیعه باشد.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LHztul3...
پینوشت:
به نظرم در میان نویسندگان ایرانی، اگر حسین نصر را که به انگلیسی مینویسد کنار بگذاریم، نویسندهای که به زبان روز و بدون گیر و گرفتهای اصطلاحی حوزوی که باعث طرد مخاطب غیرحوزوی میشود، مطالب دینی را مورد بازنگری قرار بدهد و با شبهات موجود دست و پنجه نرم کند، خیلی کم داریم. برای شما آرزوی موفقیت دارم اگر بخواهید مثلاً کتابهای جوادی آملی را در این موضوعات بخوانید.
چند وقت پیش یاد کتابی که سالها پیش خوانده بودم افتادم و متوجه شدم این کتاب را در جابجاییها گم کردهام. دنبال نظر دیگران در مورد این کتاب بودم که به کانال یوتیوبی blogging theology از مسلمانشدهٔ سابقاً مسیحی به اسم پال ویلیامز برخوردم که با دقت مثالزدنیای این کتاب را مورد بررسی قرار داده بود. کمکم به مطالب این کانال علاقهمند شدم تا که رسیدم به مصاحبهاش با اسرار رشید در مورد پاسخ به خداناباوران. استدلالهای رشید با وجود آن که هیچ کدام جدید نبودند برایم جالب بود. به این خاطر که خیلی به حاشیه نمیرفت، برای اثبات چیزی از محکمات دینی دلیل نمیآورد که دچار دور در استدلال شود و البته به مغالطات رایج خداناباوران میپرداخت. همین شد که این کتاب را تهیه کردم و خواندم.
این کتاب بخشهای مختلف دارد. اول به مسألهٔ نئوآتئیسم اشاره میکند و به جنبههای فرهنگی اجتماعی آن میپردازد و ادعا میکند حرف جدیدی آورده نشده است. نوخداناباوری جنبشی است که بعد از ۱۱ سپتامبر ۲۰۰۱ شکوفا شد و چهار پیامبر اصلی دارد از جمله ریچارد داوکینز. بسیاری از استدلالهای آنها عطف به مسائل بیربط مانند تکامل داروینی و اتفاقات بنیادگرایی دینی است که لزوماً باعث رد وجود خالق نخواهد بود و مثلاً شاید بشود بخشهای عهد عتیق و انجیل یا نوع خاصی از مذهب دینی را رد کرد. در ادامه رشید اسرار مخاطب را با انواع مغالطات آشنا میکند و سپس با معرفی علم کلام اهل سنت و مقایسهٔ گذرای آن با تفکر معتزله، به استدلالهای موجود خصوصاً استدلال واجبالوجود میپردازد. جالب است که اصطلاح contingency به نظرم از ممکنیت خیلی گویاتر است و برای من همین تغییر کلمه باعث شفافتر شدن استدلال شد. در بخشهای بعدی کتاب، رشید به شبهات بسیاری در مورد دین اسلام پاسخ میدهد که البته اگر کسی مثلاً با کتابهای مطهری مأنوس باشد هیچ کدام از این پاسخها برایش تازگی ندارد.
سخنرانی دیگری مربوط به شش سال پیش از این نویسنده دیدم که انتقاد به شیعه و سلفیها بود. انتقادش به شیعه محدود میشد به طیفی که لعن علنی میکنند و قمه میزنند. ولی بخش سلفیاش برای من خیلی جالب بود: حتی نسبت به تخریب قبرهای بقیع انتقادهایی داشت که پنداری سخنران خود شیعه باشد.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LHztul3...
پینوشت:
به نظرم در میان نویسندگان ایرانی، اگر حسین نصر را که به انگلیسی مینویسد کنار بگذاریم، نویسندهای که به زبان روز و بدون گیر و گرفتهای اصطلاحی حوزوی که باعث طرد مخاطب غیرحوزوی میشود، مطالب دینی را مورد بازنگری قرار بدهد و با شبهات موجود دست و پنجه نرم کند، خیلی کم داریم. برای شما آرزوی موفقیت دارم اگر بخواهید مثلاً کتابهای جوادی آملی را در این موضوعات بخوانید.
March 18, 2022
This is overall an excellent book that does pretty much what it was intended to. That said, I can't give it a perfect rating because there were definitely times when I couldn't follow it. Call me dumb, but the middle-ish section that dealt with things like epistemology was really a chore to get through. It was so utterly unenjoyable that I had to take a break from this book for a few months. I also felt that, though I do greatly respect Shaykh Asrar and agree with most of his points in this regard, he employed a bit of whataboutism at times. It's definitely still essential reading, though.
October 5, 2021
Couldn’t stop reading this book. It’s soo good and answers any questions that this new wave of atheism have and try to create some sort of confusion within the Islamic community - all their questions answered in a intellectual manner.
July 12, 2024
This book truly lives up to its title. Asrar Rashid presents a strong case for how Islam answers all the queries, objections and questions of atheists. It specifically addresses the contemporary atheists who take refuge in science, trying to debunk religion, particularly the existence of God Almighty.
The book starts with highlighting the importance of understanding the existence of God for believers and non-believers. The first chapter explains how, without relying on divine knowledge (Quran and revelations), anyone should and can perceive the existence of Almighty God. Then the book discusses various methods of the discussion, different types of proofs and judgements and highlights some famous assumptions and fallacies of argumentation. This part (Chapter 2) of the book requires extra attention from the reader but it is as crucial for understanding how logic, human intellect and rational thinking inevitably lead one to acknowledge the existence of Allah. In the next chapter, author beautifully debunks many atheist theories via rational and logical points and by highlighting the flaws in many famous theories. Moving forward, the book answers other more objections like the existence of evil, the concept of free will vs divine will and so on. This portion is also very enlightening as it explains many Islamic concepts that even Muslims are unaware of. Next, the author explains why Islam is not against science and how following science does not necessarily means opposing Islam. This portion also explains how prophetic miracles are in the realm of rational possibilities. The book ends with a brief discussion on answering opposition to Islam's socio-political concepts like Shariya, Jihad and Role of Women.
The book seems a bit weak when explaining major prophetic miracles in reference to modern science. The author explains how authentic miracles are rationally possible, he struggles to provide detailed scientific explanation for these (which i think was not required in the context of this book) .
Asrar Rashid effectively demonstrates how Islam addresses and counters atheistic arguments., with many direct citations from atheist scholars and proponents, exposing their flaws. This book is a highly recommended to anyone interested in understanding the concept of God, and gaining a solid understanding of Islam considering the challenging contemporary times.
The book starts with highlighting the importance of understanding the existence of God for believers and non-believers. The first chapter explains how, without relying on divine knowledge (Quran and revelations), anyone should and can perceive the existence of Almighty God. Then the book discusses various methods of the discussion, different types of proofs and judgements and highlights some famous assumptions and fallacies of argumentation. This part (Chapter 2) of the book requires extra attention from the reader but it is as crucial for understanding how logic, human intellect and rational thinking inevitably lead one to acknowledge the existence of Allah. In the next chapter, author beautifully debunks many atheist theories via rational and logical points and by highlighting the flaws in many famous theories. Moving forward, the book answers other more objections like the existence of evil, the concept of free will vs divine will and so on. This portion is also very enlightening as it explains many Islamic concepts that even Muslims are unaware of. Next, the author explains why Islam is not against science and how following science does not necessarily means opposing Islam. This portion also explains how prophetic miracles are in the realm of rational possibilities. The book ends with a brief discussion on answering opposition to Islam's socio-political concepts like Shariya, Jihad and Role of Women.
The book seems a bit weak when explaining major prophetic miracles in reference to modern science. The author explains how authentic miracles are rationally possible, he struggles to provide detailed scientific explanation for these (which i think was not required in the context of this book) .
Asrar Rashid effectively demonstrates how Islam addresses and counters atheistic arguments., with many direct citations from atheist scholars and proponents, exposing their flaws. This book is a highly recommended to anyone interested in understanding the concept of God, and gaining a solid understanding of Islam considering the challenging contemporary times.
June 26, 2024
The book makes some good points, however there were too many over-simplifications.
What I liked about the book is that it made some absolutely apposite criticisms of the New Atheists, especially where it identified an excessive dogmaticism within a Scientism (72%). Its criticism of the book ‘Universe from Nothing’ also made some very pertinent points about how the nothingness in that account is not actually nothingness (32%), so that particular atheist argument is smuggling its conclusion into its premises.
Another helpful feature of this book was its breadth of knowledge of Islam, and the way it provided informative explanations of ideas such as the 3 types of scepticism: Inadiyya, Indiyya and La-adriyya (25%).
However, when it came to actually engaging atheists in detailed argument, the book made too many assumptions which it did not defend. This can be seen with an analogy cited in the text, which suggests that we can know the existence of a camel by observing a dung trail (4%). But that is not quite right. All that dung can evidence is a ‘dung-dropper.’ To get from dung to a camel requires a lot more evidence and argument.
Another example occurs when the book explains the capacity to draw conclusions which have certainty, by appealing to an example. The book says: ‘it can be stated with certainty that where there are grey clouds, it is because of rain’ (27%). But that isn’t right. We can only draw that kind of conclusion when we make an additional background assumption that ‘all things are equal’ ie that the circumstances of ‘this’ observation are appropriately similar enough to the circumstances of ‘other’ observations.
The book correctly identified the fact that atheist arguments often turn upon rejecting premises which theists take to be obvious. One cited example is the Law of Excluded Middle, which states that every claim must be either true or false (34%). But when the book claims that these kinds of principles are ‘common sense,’ and when it thus implies that atheists are being (to some extent) less rational, it makes assumptions about the content of common sense which it does not defend.
Common sense is not as obvious as it is sometimes assumed to be. For example, Mathematicians are divided over the obviousness of the law of excluded middle, with Intuitionists denying it. These are arguments about what is rational and what is common sense. They have nothing to do with theism or atheism. If even mathematicians cannot agree among themselves about what is common sense, how can the book be so sure that what it takes as common sense is in fact a genuine common sense?
When the book engaged with specific points of doctrine it often seemed to move too quickly and it gave ‘rushed’ explanations which were not always very clear. For example the idea of eternal punishment was defended by telling us that the ‘realities and dimensions’ of post-death worlds are different, and so eternal hell fires will make sense in that context (51%). That explanation did not seem to explain much at all.
When the book dealt with allegations that there are variant Quranic texts, it responded by saying that there are variant words but the meaning is the same (77%). But that explanation only deals with noun-like variants. What about verb variants which arguably change the meaning when they refer to different persons (eg making reference to I, you, he, they)? But the book does not deal with that issue.
The section on evolution seemed particularly unclear. It said that evolution is just an uncertain hypothesis, which conflicts with the Quran because the Quran teaches that humans come from soil, not from primates (73%). This means that the book rejects the science of evolution, but it was not clear what the actual evidence was, to justify such a rejection.
And what of the alternative argument that the Quran is being misread when it is interpreted in such a way to rule out evolution? The book acknowledges that people can misinterpret the Quran (7%). But it gives no argument for insisting on a specific reading which puts the Quran into direct conflict with the science of evolution.
Another specific criticism which the book tried to resolve is the allegation that the prophet married Aisha at 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9. The book states that ‘by the human conventions of that time the marriage was fine’ (91%). But is that really solving the problem? Isn’t it effectively admitting that there was something wrong in the prophet’s actions, and that they can only be justified by appealing to the standards of that age? Is that really the most appropriate way to explain this issue?
Overall, this is a book which makes some good points, but it is trying to do too much in a single book, and so it ends up over-simplifying many of the issues and only dealing with limited aspects of critics’ allegations.
What I liked about the book is that it made some absolutely apposite criticisms of the New Atheists, especially where it identified an excessive dogmaticism within a Scientism (72%). Its criticism of the book ‘Universe from Nothing’ also made some very pertinent points about how the nothingness in that account is not actually nothingness (32%), so that particular atheist argument is smuggling its conclusion into its premises.
Another helpful feature of this book was its breadth of knowledge of Islam, and the way it provided informative explanations of ideas such as the 3 types of scepticism: Inadiyya, Indiyya and La-adriyya (25%).
However, when it came to actually engaging atheists in detailed argument, the book made too many assumptions which it did not defend. This can be seen with an analogy cited in the text, which suggests that we can know the existence of a camel by observing a dung trail (4%). But that is not quite right. All that dung can evidence is a ‘dung-dropper.’ To get from dung to a camel requires a lot more evidence and argument.
Another example occurs when the book explains the capacity to draw conclusions which have certainty, by appealing to an example. The book says: ‘it can be stated with certainty that where there are grey clouds, it is because of rain’ (27%). But that isn’t right. We can only draw that kind of conclusion when we make an additional background assumption that ‘all things are equal’ ie that the circumstances of ‘this’ observation are appropriately similar enough to the circumstances of ‘other’ observations.
The book correctly identified the fact that atheist arguments often turn upon rejecting premises which theists take to be obvious. One cited example is the Law of Excluded Middle, which states that every claim must be either true or false (34%). But when the book claims that these kinds of principles are ‘common sense,’ and when it thus implies that atheists are being (to some extent) less rational, it makes assumptions about the content of common sense which it does not defend.
Common sense is not as obvious as it is sometimes assumed to be. For example, Mathematicians are divided over the obviousness of the law of excluded middle, with Intuitionists denying it. These are arguments about what is rational and what is common sense. They have nothing to do with theism or atheism. If even mathematicians cannot agree among themselves about what is common sense, how can the book be so sure that what it takes as common sense is in fact a genuine common sense?
When the book engaged with specific points of doctrine it often seemed to move too quickly and it gave ‘rushed’ explanations which were not always very clear. For example the idea of eternal punishment was defended by telling us that the ‘realities and dimensions’ of post-death worlds are different, and so eternal hell fires will make sense in that context (51%). That explanation did not seem to explain much at all.
When the book dealt with allegations that there are variant Quranic texts, it responded by saying that there are variant words but the meaning is the same (77%). But that explanation only deals with noun-like variants. What about verb variants which arguably change the meaning when they refer to different persons (eg making reference to I, you, he, they)? But the book does not deal with that issue.
The section on evolution seemed particularly unclear. It said that evolution is just an uncertain hypothesis, which conflicts with the Quran because the Quran teaches that humans come from soil, not from primates (73%). This means that the book rejects the science of evolution, but it was not clear what the actual evidence was, to justify such a rejection.
And what of the alternative argument that the Quran is being misread when it is interpreted in such a way to rule out evolution? The book acknowledges that people can misinterpret the Quran (7%). But it gives no argument for insisting on a specific reading which puts the Quran into direct conflict with the science of evolution.
Another specific criticism which the book tried to resolve is the allegation that the prophet married Aisha at 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9. The book states that ‘by the human conventions of that time the marriage was fine’ (91%). But is that really solving the problem? Isn’t it effectively admitting that there was something wrong in the prophet’s actions, and that they can only be justified by appealing to the standards of that age? Is that really the most appropriate way to explain this issue?
Overall, this is a book which makes some good points, but it is trying to do too much in a single book, and so it ends up over-simplifying many of the issues and only dealing with limited aspects of critics’ allegations.
September 8, 2021
Does a good job of answering all of the criticisms you hear from atheists. It's not exactly a response to 'atheism' but more like a response to stereotypical atheists. Atheism just means to believe God doesn't exist. It mostly goes into all the stuff that atheists usually criticize about religion, such as their claims of religion being immoral.
It also talks about how knowledge is attained and confirmed. Which is a difficult question for anybody to answer conclusively, whether you are Muslim or atheist.
It's definitely written by a person who understands the topic.
It also talks about how knowledge is attained and confirmed. Which is a difficult question for anybody to answer conclusively, whether you are Muslim or atheist.
It's definitely written by a person who understands the topic.
June 15, 2024
An overall excellent book written primarily for the general masses in mind. It doesn't contain detailed exploration of arguments presented by real Atheology (Sobel, Oppy, Mackie, etc.), but rather confines itself to the mostly rhetorical movement of New Atheism. The explanation of Freewill would probably not make much sense for a reader not already familiar with Kalam. I'd still say it's a must-read for Muslims who'd not want to go too deep into the discourses, but have general knowledge that protects his faith and those around him, which frankly, is what really matters.
Read
September 8, 2021Looks a good book, I want o read full.
THanks
THanks
November 5, 2021
Excellent
April 4, 2024
Well-researched, compelling, and informative, but read more like a thesis designed for joyless academics to read who hate their life.
February 12, 2024
First half read like a thesis and I was struggling to keep up at times. But overall, it was well written and concise.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews