Poetry for Palestine

 

Dear oh Dear Nahida,

You surprise me for I see you as someone with a brilliant mind, undoubtedly one of the sharpest, I have come across in years.  Yet, when something arises that in any way clashes with your deeply held religious beliefs that incredible intellect seems to take a back seat.

I first noticed this when I queried why divinely inspired writings such as the Koran made no mention of the fact that the earth was round or that it revolved around the sun. Your response was to come up with an obscure passage from the Koran, which with a lot of interpretation
could be used to suggest the earth is round.  (I say obscure because I subsequently asked a number of Muslims about it, and they had never heard of the passage)

One would have thought that given the fact that the earth is round and that it revolves around the sun, is probably the biggest single contradiction between what we can see and the real world; there would be more emphasis of this fact in divinely inspired writings.  The
obvious answer is that “men” based on their knowledge of the world as they saw it wrote Koran.

I once asked you how two little boys, one growing up in the deserts of the Middle East and one on the ice flows of the artic, would relate to Koran. I am sure the Koran like the Bible talks of deserts, sands, camels, goats but how much discussion is there of glaciers and polar
bears?  Were the Koran not to have the religious significance that it does, you would probably be the first to point out that it was written by “men” based on their knowledge of the world as they knew it and that did not include ice flows and polar bears.  I do so wish you would give
free reign to your intellect and not constrain it with your religious beliefs.

You have done the same thing with this article on intelligent design. I am not an evolutionary biologist and thus not in a position to critique the article but I would be willing to bet that if I went to the subsequent issue of the journal, there would be quite a few letters destroying every argument the author makes.  Go into google and type in the words “evolutionary biology” and compare the sites that come up when you type in the words “intelligent design”.

I know this may be impossible but try to put aside your deeply held religious beliefs and objectively look at the material resulting from the two searches.  There is no doubt in my mind if you were looking at two sets of suggested mathematical proofs, you could look objectively
at them and see which was correct.  Why can you not do the same when comparing the material on evolutionary biology and intelligent design? How is it that as a mathematician you can ignore the vast amount of material that has been built up over the past 150 years about
evolutionary biology and then focus in on the nonsensical writings and the occasional pseudo-scientific article supporting intelligent design?

Again I ask you, please try and look at the material objectively, not through the eyes of your religious beliefs.

Sam,

 

—————————————————————————————————————————

13- September

Dear Sam

 

Yet, I am the one who’s at loss at your unbelievable responses (or should I say lack of response to my specific arguments).

 I am truly perplexed and puzzled at your incredible counter-arguments that you responded by to my arguments!

 

I tried to put forward to you -as clearly as I possibly could- my personal views onto why do I think that the idea of the existence of a Designer/ a Creator seems to my logic, my intellect and my commonsense more plausible than other theories; yet instead of responding to my points by trying to convince me otherwise and by refuting them logically and scientifically all you come up with is nothing but emotionally charged responses with no scientific validity what so ever; that can be summarized as such:

 

• Firstly: you show your disappointment in my lack of ability to use my intellect.
• Secondly: you keep referring me to google asking me to read more on the two arguments
• Thirdly: you do more… you mock, and ridicule the scientists/ people who support my case rather than refute and challenge what they say.
• Fourthly: your forth argument is that you come up with “presumptions” that appears to you and to your imagination as “facts”.

 

To illustrate to how do you do it from your own words, here it is:

1)     Showing your disappointment in my lack of ability to use my intellect.

 

.  “I do so wish you would give free reign to your intellect and not constrain it with your religious beliefs.”

 “You surprise me for I see you as someone with a brilliant mind, undoubtedly one of the sharpest; I have come across in years.  Yet, when something arises that in any way clashes with your deeply held religious beliefs that incredible intellect seems to take a back seat”

 

 

but dear Sam that is exactly what I have been trying to debate with you about, that something that arose –that you refer to- is the evolution, which I argue against in favour of Intelligent Design; I –very clearly­- have laid my case for the latter, and I am still waiting to hear your own response to my arguments; point by point rather than this vague and blurry reaction against my faith.

.

 

2)   you keep referring me to google asking me to read more on the two arguments

 

 

“Dear Nahida, please do me one favour.  Try to forget about the issue
and take a close objective look at some of the articles advocating intelligent design and some of those challenging intelligent design or explaining evolutionary principles”

 

“Again I ask you, please try and look at the material objectively, not through the eyes of your religious beliefs.”

 

“I know this may be impossible but try to put aside your deeply held religious beliefs and objectively look at the material resulting from the two searches.  There is no doubt in my mind if you were looking at two sets of suggested mathematical proofs, you could look objectively at them and see which was correct. Why can you not do the same when comparing the material on evolutionary biology and intelligent design?
How is it that as a mathematician you can ignore the vast amount of material that has been built up over the past 150 years about evolutionary biology and then focus in on the nonsensical writings and the occasional pseudo-scientific article supporting intelligent design?”

 

 “Go into google and type in the words “evolutionary biology” and compare the sites that come up when you type in the words “intelligent design”.

Dear Sam what material? I am having a dialogue/ debate with you, not with google.

 

Don’t you think that by now that I’ve read something from both sides about what we are talking about?

 

3) You come up with more… you attack the scientists/ people rather than refute and challenge what they say

 

“I am very sorry to have to say this Nahida because it is obvious how strongly you feel, but I would not be honest if I said otherwise. The standard of the articles debunking intelligent design, the journals in which they appear and the reputations and previous achievements of the authors make the concept of intelligent design seem even more fanciful that I had previously thought.”

 

. “The vast majority of scientists treat these ideas as a joke for they add nothing to our knowledge of the natural world.  It is also apparent that as I said before that the actual numbers of scientists who accept the idea of intelligent design is
insignificant, and of those who do, few have any real standing in the scientific community.”

.  “I then went on to check the vast number of sites challenging intelligent design,
paying attention to the people writing the articles and the publications in which they appeared. (If interested go to google and type in “debunking intelligent design or challenging intelligent design”) and you will see what I mean.”

 

“Next time you see a so-called scientist who supports intelligent design, go on the web
and check out his/her background.  What contributions has he/she made?
How much has he/she added to our knowledge in their particular area of
study? How many articles does he/she have in reputable journals? What
positions does he/she hold in the scientific community?  Nearly all
will be non-entities in the scientific world.”

“The teaching of intelligent design in school science classes is more problematical for as I said, it does elevate it to that of a science and gives it a credibility it clearly does not deserve”

 

“Those students who do go on to believe in intelligent design will have no more impact on the future of science than those before them who believed in intelligent design. It is hard to imagine a brilliant student with the potential to become a great scientist taking up the idea of intelligent design. If they do, then it is a loss to all of us.  Maybe that is what intelligent design is all about.”

“Challenging intelligent design also takes time and energy and I do not believe it is worth the effort.”

 

 

4) One more thing that you came up with, “presumptions” that appear to you and to your imagination as “facts”

 

“You have done the same thing with this article on intelligent design.
I am not an evolutionary biologist and thus not in a position to
critique the article but I would be willing to bet that if I went to
the subsequent issue of the journal, there would be quite a few letters
destroying every argument the author makes.  Go into google and type in
the words “evolutionary biology” and compare the sites that come up
when you type in the words “intelligent design”.

 

 

I first noticed this when I queried why divinely inspired writings such
as the Koran made no mention of the fact that the earth was round or
that it revolved around the sun. Your response was to come up with an
obscure passage from the Koran, which with a lot of interpretation
could be used to suggest the earth is round.  (I say obscure because I
subsequently asked a number of Muslims about it, and they had never
heard of the passage)

Dear Sam, the verse that you are referring to is very clear, is it my fault that your Muslim friends don’t know it?

 Is it my problem that you refuse to believe something which is there in front of your nose?

Further, there is more than one verse that explicitly refers to the fact that the earth is round. The evidence is there for people who want to see.

 

“He made the earth egg-shaped”  (79:30)

He has created the Heavens and the Earth for Truth. He wraps the night up in the day, and wraps the day up in the night. (Qur’an, 39:5)

In the Qur’an, the words used for describing the universe are quite remarkable. The Arabic word which is translated as "to wrap" in the above verse is "takwir." And the verb used is “yokawiru” which literally means make something into a ball shape. Its root is “kawra” which literally means “a ball”.  In English, it means "to make one thing lap over another, folded up as a garment that is laid away." For instance, in Arabic dictionaries this word is used for the action of wrapping one thing around another in a ball shaped such as making a ball out of woollen thread. The information given in the verse about the day and the night wrapping each other up includes accurate information about the shape of the world. This can be true only if the Earth is round. This means that in the Qur’an, which was revealed in the 7th century, the roundness of the world was specifically pointed at..

It is He Who created night and day and the sun and moon, each one swimming in a sphere. (Qur’an, 21:33)

 

. I am sure the Koran like the Bible talks of deserts, sands,
camels, goats but how much discussion is there of glaciers and polar
bears?  Were the Koran not to have the religious significance that it
does, you would probably be the first to point out that it was written
by “men” based on their knowledge of the world as they knew it and that
did not include ice flows and polar bears.  I do so wish you would give
free reign to your intellect and not constrain it with your religious
beliefs.

Dear Sam, have you read the Quran and verified the above “facts” that you are so sure about?

Dear Sam, do you have any other more convincing arguments?

From a purely logical viewpoint; and as things stand today, evidence from, mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, accumulative knowledge, commonsense and logic, increasingly support the theory of intelligent Design as a rational hypothesis.

Every shred of evidence points towards the plausibility of the existence of a Designer:

 

The mathematical probability, the fine tuning in the physical world, the existence of the physical and mathematical laws, the specified complexity in biological life that can’t be explained neither by random chance nor by natural selection.

 

As a mathematician; If I have the choice between two theories one of which the probability of it being true (happening) is one out of two; and the other the probability of it is happening is 1 out of an astronomical number, my logic leads me to assume that the first is more likely to be true.

 

I am not a scientist, nor am I a philosopher, and I don’t have to be either in order to have some understanding of the world around me. I can draw my own conclusions that correspond to my limited IQ, and that make the most sense to my intellect in terms of fathoming the basic scientific knowledge that I have.

I said time and again that based on the hypothesis of Intelligent Design, our experience-based analysis, and on our accumulative knowledge that we possess now; offers an adequate and logical explanation (to my logic, the most adequate) to the existence of our universe and to our own existence.

I am challenging you to give me a more adequate explanation!

Dearest Sam

*It is no good argument just to dismiss my case simply because it involves something you don’t like (a Creator). Examine the logical evidence instead.

*It is no good argument accusing me of irrationality (because I say a God might exist). Refute my case by presenting a better and a more rational one.

*It is no good argument to scorn and belittle those whom you disagree with because they have a different view than yours or because they are a minority, we as active peace groups are a minority; does this undermine the validity of what we stand for? Being a famous scientist does not automatically guarantee you a more favoured position to your argument. What you have to say and the logic you apply is the more important thing.

 Einstein was very famous and he always believed in God, does that make the case for God more plausible just because of his position in the scientific community? I can’t and won’t argue that.

*It is no good argument to tell me that you bet there is a better argument out there on the Web. Show me it in your own words, as I am debating with you not with google.

*It is no good argument to assume that the Quran says this and does not say that when you’ve never read it; while I’ve read it hundreds of times and I memorise by heart some of its chapters.

*It is no good argument telling me to wait for the future until we come up with an explanation.

 

Dear Sam I don’t have the time to wait a hundred years or may be a thousand. My life span does not give the luxury of waiting until something -in the very far future if ever- happens. I need to know now. I need to explain and justify my existence to myself; I don’t want someone to explain it when I am long gone. And I can only do it with the existing knowledge that we have now. If the future generations brings a more adequate explanation, then that’s great. Good for them.

Dear Sam

in my earlier email I told you how important my faith is to me, and that loosing my life is far easier to me than loosing my faith; however, and after a lot of thinking I am prepared to put my faith and my life at the stake! If you do me a favour,

I want to ask you for a simple request; if you do it I will be prepared to give up on my faith.

How about that?

Just out of raw elements; make me a fly.

 

—————————————————————————————–

13- September

Dear oh Dear Nahida,

Where is this all going?

You are so skilful with words and I simply do not have the time to unpick your arguments and research out the relevant information.  Your mastery of the language may well in the end defeat me but it certainly won’t be the force of your arguments.

Imagine I am faced with two competing mathematical theories and I have to choose which one I think is correct.  Naturally I would look at the arguments, but having very little background in mathematics, they would mean nothing to me.  I could ask that they be simplified so I could
understand the two theories, but this would not help as the differences are in the details, which I cannot begin to understand.

Next I look at the people advocating each of the theories and in particular what are their reputations among their fellow mathematicians and most importantly, what kind of a contribution have these individuals made in the field of mathematics?

Then I look at the weight of the evidence supporting each of the two theories.  What is the extent of the books, journals and papers published in support of each theory? Again what is the reputation and what are the achievements of those writing the books, journals and
papers?  Are the books published by reputable publishers and are the papers in established mathematical journals?

I would also look to the mathematical community as a whole and the countless number of mathematicians who initially did not take a view but after examining the evidence have come down in favour one theory or the other.  Once more what is their reputation and what is their
contribution to mathematics?

I might even engage in debate with others who advocate one or the other of the theories but I would be careful to stay at a level where I can understand the arguments.  It would be meaningless for me to challenge a mathematician on either side about the detailed arguments for they could convince me of virtually anything at the level on which they are
operating.

What do I do now?  Google has been a tremendous help.  Previously this process would have taken months even then there would be a questions of thoroughness.

What have I found? One theory has hundreds of books and journals and literally thousands of papers supporting it over the other theory. Whole departments have been created in some of the world’s most famous universities to develop this theory and whole new disciplines have been created to further explore it.

I also find that the vast majority of the world’s mathematicians support this same theory and they include the most famous and well respected members of the profession, mathematicians who have already proven their ability by their contributions to the field.  Perhaps even
more important, they also dismiss the other theory as being irrelevant and the arguments in support of it as being nonsensical.  They even go on to question the mathematical credentials of the few who support the other theory, labelling them as insignificant, despite the fact that
they get a lot of publicity and have massive support among people who know nothing about mathematics.

I am not a mathematician but I would have a pretty strong view as to which theory I support.

Curiously this process is similar to the one used by the judge in Pennsylvania last year when he ruled that intelligent design was not a science.  He spent months listening to testimony of numerous witnesses including the most well known advocates of intelligent design and went
on to find in behalf of those parents who sought to keep intelligent design out of the science classroom.

I guess if I am wrong, I will be in some very distinguished company.

There is one point, which I have raised previously and remain most curious.  The countless, books, journals, papers, university departments and disciplines such as molecular genetics all of which are based on evolutionary principles – what would you have done with them?

One final anecdote.  I ran into an old acquaintance who had worked as an ORT co-ordinator in Africa for Oxfam.  ORT stands for “oral rehydration therapy” and involves getting a packet containing a mixture of sugar and salt to a person, usually a child, who is suffering from dehydration.  The contents of the packet are mixed with water and if administered in time, will prevent death.  Sadly each day about 15,000 children around the world die of dehydration because they simply cannot get access to the sugar and salt solution.

My friend had to quit Oxfam for eventually the work got to him.  He could not say which was worse.  Was it watching a child continually vomiting and suffering diarrhoea, not knowing what was happening to them, screaming in pain until they gradually lost consciousness and
died or was it the agonised look on the mother’s face as she watched helplessly, unable do anything.

He was a chemistry teacher and is thinking of going back to teaching so in talking about science the subject of intelligent design arose. Suddenly his face tightened and I thought he was going to hit me.  What kind of intelligence, he asked, could create and design a living being and then give it the capacity to inflict such horror upon its own kind?

I did not have an answer but if you do, I will pass it on.

Sam,

13- September

————————————————————-

Dear Nahida,

To suggest that Einstein believed in God, in the way that you do is somewhat misleading.

Given your hesitation about using google, I have copied this from one of the many thousands of sites on this topic.

Sam,

———————————————————————

Einstein the agnostic

THINKERS ON RELIGION

© Copyright 2006 Nahida Izzat & Sam Semoff -PoetryforPalestine – All Rights Reserved

—————————————————————————————————————————–

14- September

Dearest Sam

I have to admit to you that after sending my last email I felt so guilty, I regretted being so insensitive to your feelings, please do forgive me; I didn’t mean to be so harsh in my reply; it’s just my reflexive reaction which reflects nothing but my weakness and thoughtlessness. I am so sorry.

 Dear Sam, my aim of all these discussions was never to defeat you, but rather to present, explain, and defend my views.

I wanted to take your mind on a tour to the other side where you’ve never been before.

I wanted to share my thinking, my perceptions, and my experiences with you.

I understand that you’ve arrived at this point of awareness you are at because (just like me and everyone else in the world) this is precisely where your logic, your mind, your experiences had lead you to.

Each one of us on this planet had found him/ her self here… existing…

 

 So we had to make sense of it all; each in our own way, relying on our commonsense, knowledge and experiences.

 

 By absolutely no means do my experiences or my logic invalidate yours; neither do I have the right to impose mine on you.

Freedom of choice is the essence of our lives, how can we want something for ourselves, yet deny it to others?

 

As for my reply to your question what will happen to all the material about molecular genetics, and similar stuff; I don’t see where the problem is. Why is the worry?

Evolution is not a “fact” or a “law”, it never was. It has been taught as a theory and it should still be taught as a theory; however it won’t be the one and only theory.

 If a theory was capable of explaining a certain phenomenon, then the accumulative evidence came to support it; then it will naturally survive. If it fails and some other theory was more adequate at doing the explanation, supported by evidence; then the theory that can produce more valid evidence will eventually prove it self.

 Within the theory of evolution there is some great and credible contributions; however it’s not satisfactorily capable of explaining many issues such as the origin, the novelty, the variety, the purpose, or the complexity of life; neither does it have the evidence that could account for all the missing links as they’re called.

 Chance, mutation, and natural selection are seriously deficient in explaining the above; most serious of all it lacks the ability to explain purposefulness that stemmed out of utter randomness.

It is not capable of explaining how could some purposeful, conscious, conscientious, moral, intelligent beings come to exist out of utter chaos and disorder and only by mere chance.

 

 Academic freedom and adherence to scientific principles both imply and decree that this freedom should apply to all, including advocates of Intelligent Design.  

The other point regarding Einstein, there is no doubt that he didn’t believe in the personal (human-like) God of the bible as it were; nevertheless he undoubtedly believed in some sort of a God, a Creator. Until the last days of his life he was searching for the ultimate unified theory that would give him an insight into the mind of God as he called it.

When I was a little girl Einstein was my hero, I had his pictures all over my side of the room, I even painted him a picture. It took me ages to convince my sister Dima to put his pictures up! I read a lot about him, his theories and his life, and I cherished many of his quotations.

 

 Who is your hero?

But I don’t like this photo

In our room

My sister Dima shouts

With rage

 

He is an ugly old man

What is so nice about him?

Just take it off

Pleeease

 

But I like him very much

Says I

With wonder

Why can’t you see his beauty?

Look at his twinkling eyes

I think he’s wonderful

 

See how beautiful

His amazing mind

Covered with his wavy grey hair

You have your heroes

So let me have mine

 

Why not divide our room

You take that corner

For all the actors

And the singers

You like

 

And I’ll get this corner

For my Einstein

Don’t you think that’s fair?

 

With much hesitation

She agrees

 

The long winded fight

Has settled between us

The two hero- crazy teenagers

06-04-2006

 

Now to other question about suffering will need another episode.

Nahida

———————————————————————————————-

14- September

Dear Nahida,

You have absolutely no reason whatsoever to feel any guilt about your response.

Good friends do not have to feel any guilt for their responses to one another.  I appreciate and value your response because to me it is a sign that you are comfortable enough about me to be honest and express how you feel.  The fact that you take the time and the energy to
respond is also important for it is a sign that you care.  I only wish I could be more like you in this respect.

I really do believe the world would be a better place if people were more honest and open with one another.
I will tolerate a lot in people around me but playing games and hidden agendas are something for which I have little patience.

Even if someone were to have harsh thoughts about me, I would much rather they tell them to my face than mutter them under their breath.

Sam,

© Copyright 2006 Nahida Izzat & Sam Semoff -PoetryforPalestine – All Rights Reserved

———————————————————————————————————————–

15- September

The Question of Suffering

 

How could an Intelligent Being allow such cruelty?

A most valid, most important, and most relevant question.

To start with, I am afraid that by talking about this topic, it would be very difficult to be objective. We won’t be able to discuss it from a purely scientific perception.

We can’t -even if we wanted to- be objective; as this issue entails feelings, emotions, philosophy, personal experience. Therefore I find that –here- I can’t be anything other than subjective; reflecting on my own personal life and my personal experiences.

 

The most negative occurrences in the life of a human being can be summarized as such: physical pain, emotional pain (sorrow), and fear.

Contemplating on my own life and like every one on the planet I’ve experienced all; but with such intensity that some times it felt and feels almost unbearable.

As little girl I survived the horrors of war, I watched my childhood being stolen away from me. I witnessed the destruction of a people. I experienced the loss of every thing I loved; including my home, my garden, my relatives, my friends, my village, my identity, even my much-loved books and school bag.

I had to rely on UN food and cloths parcels in order to survive.

I witnessed fighter planes flying so low in the sky -that as a child you thought they’re about to fall onto your head- while bombing villages killing innocent women and children.

At such a tender age, I came face to face with human cruelty and brutality and witnessed their ability to inflect so much pain, suffering, and humiliation upon its own kind.

 I left home as a refugee with absolutely nothing except the two dresses and a jumper that my mum had forced me to put on in the burning heat of Middle Eastern summer.

 She could carry nothing as her youngest baby was only three months old; she had to look after him and his four other sisters; the eldest was only seven years old. For six days we were hiding in a tomb in one of the graveyards in a neighbouring village.

 I lived through a kind of fear that had left its permanent mark on me. Until this very day I still jump when I hear a loud noise; I still tremble when I hear the roar of an airplane.

 

 My family of seven and I had lived for some years of our life sharing one room, living with another family of twelve (in Jordan), then sharing with a different family of ten (in Libya).

At a very young age, I’ve experienced pain, fear, and sorrow that many people don’t experience in a lifetime.

I agonized as my roots were uprooted time and time again; so much so that at the age of seventeen I decided to live an isolated life refusing to talk to anyone, by doing so I was trying to protect my sanity.

 My experiences at the time had taught me that I should never allow my self to make friends or love any one; as every one I loved I ended up loosing or getting separated away from.

 

As a young mother I was severely ill that I thought I was dying, I asked the doctors to allow me to leave the hospital for few hours because I wanted to see “Beauty and the Beast” movie with my children before it was too late; as I didn’t think I’d make it to watch anything else with them let alone watch them grow.

The pain that I went through at the time was so horrendous that it would keep me awake all day and night; they had to use powerful sedatives to put asleep.  

I prayed that no one ever may go through what I’ve been going through.

For four years I was bed ridden, fighting what seemed to be an endless battle with ruthless pain; at some point I couldn’t even hold a cup of tea in my hand let alone making one.

I couldn’t even drive; Khaled used to put me in the car and try to take me out by driving around for a little while just to lift my spirit up. At the end of each trip I’d come home shattered and so exhausted that I would decide I would never leave the house again.

I would read a paragraph over and over and over again without being able to understand a thing. People would be surrounding me chatting trying to cheer me up, yet I wasn’t even able to comprehend what they were saying.

I sat in front of the consultant with tears flooding into my eyes as he told me that this is it for me. Announcing a life-sentence of pain and agony, and advising me that I should stop hoping to become better or be cured; rather I should be looking for ways of coping with my new life-imprisonment.

I stared at him while he was confirming the end of my life -as I knew it- in horror and disbelief, refusing to believe anything he said as my thoughts echoed “who do you think you are? You are not God to be telling me this nonsense”

 

The last episode of my extraordinary -yet very ordinary- life was the loss of my dearest, my greatest, my one and only love.

That episode you and other friends have been eyewitnesses to.

From this summarized narrative of my life you could vividly see that I’ve almost hit rock-bottom of every negative experience that any human can go through:

Loss of physical health and living with excruciating pain

Loss of all material positions even my very own identity

Loss of mental and intellectual capacities

Loss of the love of your life

By going into so much detail about my life I was eager to emphasize the reality that through my experiences I have a reasonable idea about pain and what it means to suffer.

 

Now then, through all what I’ve been through; One Thing and one thing only kept me going, helped me, held me, and carried me through; and that is my Faith.

 

 I could never reconcile my agonized painful existence with futility and lack of purpose.

 

 My logic and my feelings lead me to conclude that if everything came from nothing, if there was no purpose in the existence of the universe, if there is no purpose in the existence of life; then, it’s more reasonable to think that there is no purpose in a life full of agony such as mine, there is no point in living on to suffer more. I.e. there is no purpose in life period.

 The only thing that could ever console and comfort this troubled soul of mine was this faith, this insight and intuition that this can’t all be in vain.

And like a tender mother’s hand stroking her child

Like a soft warm blanket in a cold winter night

Like gentle rain drops drizzling over a parched piece of land

Like a rainbow flowing piercing through thick dark clouds

I feel God’s loving hand

Then…

Then this sweet… sweet comfort that overwhelms you, embraces you as you humbly say:

 Here I am God… exhausted… come to my aid

Here I am God… in much anguish… relieve me… ease my pain

Here I am God… full of sorrow… soothe my hurt

Here I am God… lonely… be my friend and companion.

Here I am God… tiered… help me…hold me… heal me

Here I am God… lost… guide me… show me the way

That distressed soul… that troubled heart would be magically transformed…

Calm would descend… tranquillity and serenity would prevail… joy would overwhelm… and sweet… sweet comfort would embrace you.

You feel helped… held… healed… and carried through.

Even if the pain is still there!

 

 There are no words in any human dictionary or vocabulary that could come near into describing that feeling, all we can do is give analogies.

Never the real feelings

 

Then with time; and in retrospect the wisdom of what you’ve been through will become more apparent.

Like pieces of a jigsaw your life would start making sense; some of the pieces might be very murky and horrible, others might be bright and colourful, each piece alone does not make any sense; yet as they assemble together a beautiful pattern emerges, an amazing picture materializes.

Such was my life.

Such is life.

© Copyright 2006 Nahida Izzat -PoetryforPalestine – All Rights Reserved

 

Hidden dimensions   

My first son Hassan

Was born on April the 9^th

 

You might think

So what… why are you saying it

With such a gloomy tune

What is wrong with 9^th of April?

 

You have to be a Palestinian

To understand

For on the 9^th of April 1948

The massacre of Deir Yassin

Took place

Where every man women and child

Of that peaceful farming village

Was killed in cold blood

No one survived

Except those

Who pretended to be dead

 

As we celebrate the birth of a new born

With joy

We mourn and grief

Lost loved ones

 

In our midst

Nothing comes insular

Nothing is disjointed

No single colours

 

The fabric of our lives

Makes the most amazing tapestry

 

If you hold it backwards

Looking at the wrong side

You’ll see a mirror image

Of shades of a blurred picture

With loops… knots and fraying thread

If you turn it over

It looks much neater

But still you can’t actually see

The full picture

Only colours and shadows

 

But hey… take a little time

And walk backwards

Further back

Look at the tapestry

From a distance

 

You will be amazed

With its outstanding beauty

All these murky shades

That didn’t make sense to you

Even disturbed you

When you were near

 

From far

These dark shadows

Are precisely what makes this piece

So unique

So spectacular

 

These unfathomable hues

Is what give our life portrait

Its depth

And hidden dimensions

 

Since that day of 1948

Many… many babies were born

On April the 9^th

 

Our joys are always stained

With hints of sorrow

 

Our sadness is always coloured

With hues of hope

 

Without which

The tapestry of our lives

Will never be complete

Won’t be as rich

Or as beautiful

 

Don’t waist much time

Staring at the wrong side with fury

Turn it over… walk further back… and feel the glory

 

01-04-2006

****************************************************************

Bad things! Good things!

 

You should be more assertive

You should have more confidence

In your skills

And your strengths

People say

 

But I am truly aware

Of my abilities

I can surely judge

What I can or can’t do

 

I am also aware of my flaws

And believe you me

They are so… so many

 

But I am not ashamed

Of my weaknesses

Despite their vastness

They are there for a reason

 

They keep me in my place

So I don’t grow bigger

Than my own shoes

 

I love my weaknesses

I love my defects 

Thank you God

For all my imperfections

 

Thank you for my fears 

For without them

I could live my entire days

Without ever appreciating

How safe my life is

  

Thank you for my worries 

For without them I can never

Fully enjoy peace of mind

And tranquillity

 

Thank you for my pain

For without it

I can only imagine

What others go through

 

Thank you for my grief

For without it

I cannot sincerely feel

 The heartache of others

How else can I ever

Learn genuine empathy?

© Copyright 2006 Nahida Izzat -PoetryforPalestine – All Rights Reserved

 

Bliss and beyond 

A state of delight

Blissful pleasure

Contentment

 Tranquillity

Enchantment and joy

 

If people knew how it feels

They would’ve fought for it

With arms and teeth

 

No privilege… No adversity

No gain… No loss

No health… No pain 

No achievement… No catastrophe 

No triumph… No defeat 

Can Annihilate

Or nullify  

Passionately… with a heartfelt desire 

 I want to share

 

**************************************************

Beyond

This love I have for you

Holds me, lifts me, carries me through

When all is dark

When pain is deep

When love is scarce 

When friends are few 

This love I have for you

Holds me, lifts me, carries me through

 

********************************************

Is it really cruel?

 

People say

What happened to you

Is so cruel… so unfair

To have to lose khaled

 In such an awful way

When you are so much in love

 

I say it is very painful

But not at all cruel

Death is nothing

But a gate way

Everything dies

Everyone dies

Why should I

Be the exception?

 

His journey ended before mine

That’s all

And soon I’ll follow

 

It’s only a matter of time

Before we are together again

We come to life

 Only for a while

 

Also… the law goes

The higher you fly up

The greater is your fall

 

The law goes

The more intensely you enjoy your love

The more painful is your sorrow

This only fair

For some live and die

Without experiencing real love

And I’ve experienced all

It’s not cruel to give something back

 

And to feel more pain

Is not unfair

 

**************************************************************

 With You I am OK

 

Dear Most Compassionate

Show me the truth

As true

And help me follow

 

Show me falsehood

As false

And help me avoid

 

Help me… say the truth

Help me… do the truth

Help me… think the truth

Help me… feel the truth

 

Dear Most Kind

I am lost

Without your guidance

 

Frail

Without your support

 

Miserable

Without your company

 

Dare I run away from You

Except towards You

 

Is there a place to hide from You

Except under your wings

 

The world has wronged me

Forsaken neglected and ignored

Held me responsible as the victim

Declared me guilty while innocent

Put me on trial although oppressed

Imprisoned me for being abused

 

An abandoned child

Blamed for… being…

 

But if You are pleased with me

I can take it all

Nothing else matters

 

© Copyright 2006 Nahida Izzat -PoetryforPalestine – All Rights Reserved

15- September

Dear Sam

You said that my language skills are the reason that your hypothesis didn’t hold up and not the force of my hypothesis.

 

Here, I am going to try again and present my case to you in very simple words, and very short summary.

 

Considering:

Your hypothesis: there is no Intelligent Designer

My hypothesis: there is an Intelligent Designer

 

I started proving my case by showing you that:

 

1) Your hypothesis is impossible to prove.

 

2)  Adding that the possibility of that of mine is impossible to refute.

 

3) I proceeded by showing you that scientific evidence leans heavily towards mine.

 

4) Then I concluded that my hypothesis in the present day holds more weight hence it offers a more adequate explanation.

 

5) At the end I gave you a challenge that might shatter my case and solve the problems and contradictions that your case have, and that is if you prove to me that life can be produced in the lab; then that will mean that the problems that we face with having to explain life through natural law will vanish.

 

Life throws at us such an impossible challenge. It defies all the natural laws that we know of, it also defies our observation, and our logic; by moving -as you claim- spontaneously and purposelessly from total randomness into perfect order, from chaos into organisation, from simplicity into complexity, from futility and utter lack of commonsense into intelligence, from meaningless aimless situation into producing beings with purpose, morality, intelligence and beauty.

 

Dear Sam

your preference for natural explanations could be reasonable, but if you insist on not being open to the possibility that there may be an Intelligent Designer; while it is impossible to prove that there isn’t one. Therefore, your willingness to adopt such an a priori position, and hold that as superior to facts, reflects a philosophical fundamentalist position as rigid as a religious fundamentalist position.

 

Dear Sam, this is my case presented in simple words and logical order. What do you say?

 

 

———————————————————————————————-

 

15- September

Hi Nahida,

I will follow your format and try to keep this as a summary.

My hypothesis is impossible to prove.
Presumably the thousands of books, journals and articles detailing evolutionary processes mean nothing.  The tons and tons of fossil records are either fakes or misinterpretations.  The evolutionary timelines established by molecular geneticists through examining the
DNA profiles of different species are artefacts that have no relevance.
The thousands of scientists working in departments and disciplines whose sole function is to further develop evolutionary principles are all living in a fantasy world.  The list goes on and on, as you well know.

Actually you can prove the evolutionary processes yourself.  Take a culture of bacteria and introduce a genetic mutation, which gives the mutant an advantage over the rest of the colony.  You can then do the calculations and even follow the change in genetic profiles as the new strain emerges and the old one disappears.  Presumably the emergence of
antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria mean the creator/designer is still at work.

Yes, we are looking at a single trait or genetic mutation and the molecular distance between bacteria and mammal is very great, but the principle is established and much has been published on this process. Some stages in the process are well established, some are supported by limited evidence and some stages remains theoretical. Surely this
cannot be used to claim that vast body of knowledge in support of evolutionary principles is wrong.

Your hypothesis is impossible to refute.
You make a statement that something exists such a creator/designer and challenge me to prove that it does not.  Virtually every other situation would be approached from the opposite view in that the challenge is to prove that something exists.  I am not sure why the
question of a creator/designer should be treated differently and will deal with the evidence for or the lack of evidence for a creator/designer in the next section.

I take vitamin c supplements to keep me from getting colds.  When my doctor challenges me about the value of taking vitamin c, I simply say I have not had a cold since I started taking the supplement and therefore it must work.

I would be curious to know just how one might go about proving that something does not exist.

The scientific evidence supports your hypothesis
This is the most amazing of all your statements and one, which I simply do not understand.  I have gone through your emails and looked at the sites on intelligent design and I have yet to find one shred of evidence that proves the existence of a creator/designer.  All of your
so-called evidence consists of either gaps in our understanding of evolutionary principles or attempts to show that the level of complexity of life is so great that there can be no other explanation. Hence the often used expression defining intelligent design as “God of
the gaps”.

You are in effect saying that because I do not have a complete explanation for something, your explanation must be the correct one. That is certainly not proof that yours is correct.

You conclude that your hypothesis in the present day holds more weight hence it offers a more adequate explanation.

I can understand this if you ignore the fact that the vast majority of the scientific community accepts the validity of evolutionary principles, disregard the mountains of evidence on which they base this acceptance and then use “God of the gaps as your standard.

The challenge to prove that life can be produced in the lab
My background is that of a cell-biologist with my expertise being electron microscopy.  I spent many an hour peering through an electron microscope examining sections of everything from frog pituitary glands to the brain tissue of people who had died of malaria.  I have had no
formal training in evolutionary biology and my knowledge of biochemistry and molecular genetics is very limited.

Your challenge involves an extensive series of complex processes many of which are interrelated.  I noted before that some of these have been well established, some are supported by limited evidence and some remain theoretical.  Some of the best scientific minds in the world have spent their lives working on these processes and continue to do
so.
I am not quite sure how you expect me to surpass them.
I do however adamantly maintain that the lack of all pieces in the puzzle at this particular point in time, does not mean that they will never be successful in meeting your challenge.

I am not willing to accept the possibility of a creator/designer This is not true.  Some years ago I did a brief course in bioenergetics and we were given the formula for calculating Brownian motion. It allows you calculate the probability for the motion of molecules.
However it can also be used to calculate the probability that the chair sitting on the floor next to me will rise up.  Naturally the figure is ridiculous but there is a finite probability.

Thus I accept the possibility of anything. That Santa Claus will bring me a present on Christmas Eve, that I will win the lottery next week, that the moon is made of green cheese, that global warming will destroy the planet or that a plane will crash into the building as I write this email. The movement from the realm of possibility to fact depends on the evidence and this I have already covered.

This is my challenge to you.  I will acknowledge the possibility of there being a creator/designer if you acknowledge the possibility that there is none.

Sam,

——————————————————————————————-

15- September

Dear Sam

You challenged me saying:

 

This is my challenge to you.  I will acknowledge the possibility of there being a creator/designer if you acknowledge the possibility that there is none.

 

This is not a challenge, because right from the beginning of our dialogue dear Sam I said to you that all I have is faith; i.e. my certainty is nothing but faith.

 

You can read my words again; I just copied them as they are:

 

 “My intention in writing this is NOT to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that God exists; rather I want to refute the atheistic claim that they dearly hold with a 100% certainty that God doesn’t exists, further I will try to put a logically valid and a scientifically sound case for the former.”

 

“We as believers never claim that we hold “The Scientific Proof” of God’s existence; we say: “we only have faith”, “we believe”, we simply say: we have noticeable, accumulative, and logical verifications that support our faith.”

 

 

Dear Sam, I think you have set this challenge for yourself rather than for me, as I already declared that all I have is faith, and that my logic, my observation, and my limited knowledge of science adds weight to the scale of probability –in my view- of the existence of a Designer. Unlike you, I never claimed 100% scientific certainty.

 

My argument with you was to prove to you that you also have nothing but faith. To prove false all your attempts of claiming that your hypothesis is more scientific or that it is the only scientific explanation.

 

I wanted to -logically- shatter your certainty that there is no God; I wanted to show you that your faith of the none-existence of God is not a scientific fact and I proved to you that it is only a faith not science that you cling onto -dear.

 

Your challenge now that you offered to yourself is to acknowledge that your certainty is nothing but faith

Just like me

nahida

smile

The wife of my uncle is a Spanish atheist; I used to have very long and heated discussions about God ever since I met her when I was about 13 years old.

In our last dialogue she ended the conversation by saying in Arabic:  “khalas, inshallah ma fi Allah”

What she actually said means “enough, God willing there is no God”

Everyone burst out laughing

nahida

          —————————————————————————————–

 

16- September

Dear Nahida,

We have finally arrived at the heart of the problem or in this case the question of whether there is a creator/designer or not.
I can approach the question open to either possibility.
You can not.
And so Nahida, that is the reason why religion has no place in science.

Incidentally not all religious people take the same position as you.
There is a debate going on within the Catholic church about evolution with some bishops arguing that the church should accept evolution as fact.

I would be curious to know if the same debate is going on within Islam.
Are there in fact any Islamic scholars who argue that evolution should be accepted as fact?

Finally I think we have truly reached a point where we can agree to disagree.

Sam,

————————————————————————————————————————

16- September

Dear Sam

I am bemused at your final conclusion; you said you are open to either possibility, yet:

1) You want me to accept evolution as a “fact”, where does the other possibility go here?

2) Also you won’t accept teaching the other possibility to children; how is that for being open to both possibilities?

I have absolutely no problem with teaching evolution as long as it was taught for what it really is a “theory” with many holes and gaps and imperfections. Yet you do not agree with teaching the other possibility!

How can you call this being open?

 

© Copyright 2006 Nahida Izzat & Sam Semoff -PoetryforPalestine – All Rights Reserved

 

17- September

Hi Nahida,

Perhaps part of the problem may be with the use of the word “fact” as it implies 100% certainty.
I believe that anything is possible, which means I cannot say anything is a fact. Thus once again it becomes a matter of keeping an “open mind” to all possibilities and looking at the evidence.
I do use the word “fact” when talking about the earth being round and I use the word “fantasy” when talking about the “moon being made of green cheese” but I am aware that these are not absolutes.
Thus the issue becomes at what point do we stop referring to something as “theory” and start for the purpose of language using the word “fact”.  I still remember when I first learned of atomic structure, the teacher referring to it as “atomic theory”.  That is a term I have
not heard in years.  I do not know for how many years after Copernicus, people talked about the “theory that the earth was round” but I would imagine it was a long time.

You are right, when we teach evolution; we have to include the gaps and holes.  But we also have to ensure students understand the weigh of the evidence and the views of the majority of the scientific community are so overwhelming that most would use the word “fact”.  The other issue is that evolutionary principles form the basis of so many other disciples that to talk of it as a “theory” becomes impractical. This is one of the reasons why the phrase “atomic theory” faded from use as so much of modern science is based on atomic structure.

The question of intelligent design becomes difficult because you and I disagree on what constitutes “evidence”.  I go along with the majority of the scientific community and the judge in the Pennsylvania case who all maintain that there is no scientific “evidence” for intelligent
design and that it is not science.

However, as you know, I do not go along with the idea that it should it should be kept out of the science classroom.  When I talk to the Somali children in the science club, I will teach the basics of evolution and always tell them that many people outside of the scientific community, which most likely includes their parents, do not accept this idea but
believe that life and its diversity are the result of a creator/designer.  Those who go into science can learn on their own about the weight of the scientific evidence behind evolution.

Finally you keep asking me to speak of evolution as being a theory and accept the possibility of a creator/ designer.

Fine.  But does that mean you will speak of intelligent design as a theory and accept the possibility of evolution as being responsible for the life and its diversity?

Sam,

———————————————————————————————

 

17- September

Dear Sam

For some one like me- with this trouble-maker, fascinated, inquisitive mind of mine- who is constantly searching for meanings and answers, and who will not be satisfied with half answers; and although Evolution does address important issues such as changes and adaptation in different species, and although there are strong evidences that support it in microevolution, yet it fails miserably -as far as my limited understanding goes- in explaining vital phenomena that I seek to understand as a conscious curious being:

1)     the origin of the universe (coming into being of nothingness)

2)   The origin of life (the mathematical probabilities of random chances offered by Evolution is near impossible- how much luck can science rely upon?)

3)    Explaining the variety, the intelligence, the beauty, the purposefulness, the morality, and simultaneous coexistence of different animal and plant forms and the fact that they rely upon each other for survival, as we discussed in the garden yesterday, it’s as if some one is planning ahead seeing into the future, some one with intelligence and beautiful artistic taste.

 Assuming that accidentally -as you propose- apple trees (for example) evolved purposelessly and simultaneously yet independently from us, how do we develop our taste buds to enjoy the flavour of the apple when we are in fact completely different unrelated species? (Notice that it is much more than just the apple trees)

4)   Explaining the purpose of existence. I talked about this before.

 

Evolution -for me and as it stands now- is capable of describing certain occurrences; but the significant point here is that even if Evolution had all the answers about the missing links and even if it proves in the lab that species do evolve from one another; it still falls very short from answering these above fundamental questions that my mind thirst for answers for.

 This lack of coherence and comprehensiveness in Evolution and its failure to explain all the above; diminishes the weight it claims it has; presenting itself as a theory that explains life.

 

Now then, the big news for you:

Even though I’ve been arguing with you in favour of Intelligent Design that does not necessarily mean that I utterly refuse Evolution and its entire discoveries.

I don’t see the predicament as Evolution VS Intelligent Design.

Accepting Evolution is not the issue for me.

The issue -that might trouble you- is: Evolution does not lead me to atheism.

The concept that life forms can evolve and change with time; does not prove to me that God does not exist.  

To me, evolution does not explain the existence of life or the existence of the universe; therefore it does not necessarily lead -as many people like to conclude- to atheism.

In other words –to me- Evolution is not an alternative to Intelligent Design; simply because it does not even begin to address some of many important questions that my mind requires answers for.

Originating life out of raw elements, and originating something out of nothingness are the big dilemma for me; if you can do either, I’ll be convinced.

nahida

———————————————————————————————-

18- September

Hi Nahida

I agree with you that accepting the validity of evolutionary principles does not prove the non-existence of God.  This would be a view taken by secular fundamentalists. I see no need “to prove” God does not exist, besides I would question if it were even possible.

Explaining the existence of the life, the universe and how it all came about are indeed questions worth pondering.  However I disagree with you in that we must have definitive answers.

I am willing go along with answers put forth by the many great minds before me and those who are currently working on these questions as long as they remain in the natural world. I accept that their answers are not always perfect with only partial evidence for some and theories for others

Pondering these questions can be a great source of stimulation and very stultifying, but the failure to find absolute answers does not bother me. It certainly does not stop me from enjoying the beauty and the wonder of the world around me.  Hopefully someday we will have these answers but whether this will happens in my lifetime, is not an issue.

My concern as I said on Saturday, is to try to live my life doing the most good and causing the least harm in the hope that those around me will do the same.

Sam,

–

———————————————————————————————-

 

 18- September

Oh dear Sam

Finally I see us coming closer to some common grounds; that is just fantastic!

 

I am open to Evolutionary principles.

You are open to the possibility of the existence of a Designer/ Creator, and you acknowledge that Evolution does not necessarily lead to atheism.

 

We both agree that we can only try our best to live our lives the best we could; by doing the most good and causing the least harm in our relationships with others.

We both enjoy our existence and love life passionately.

 

I can’t begin to tell you how much I enjoyed our debate!!!

The sharing of ideas, exploring each other’s minds. Thank you for the opportunity, for your patience and for your time.

nahida

——————————————————————————– 

18/09/06,

Hi Nahida

I agree with you that accepting the validity of evolutionary principles
does not prove the non-existence of God.  This would be a view taken by
secular fundamentalists.  I see no need "to prove" God does not exist,
besides I would question if it were even possible.

Explaining the existence of the life, the universe and how it all came
about are indeed questions worth pondering.  However I disagree with
you in that we must have definitive answers.

I am willing go along with answers put forth by the many great minds
before me and those who are currently working on these questions as
long as they remain in the natural world.  I accept that their answers
are not always perfect with only partial evidence for some and theories
for others

Pondering these questions can be a great source of stimulation and very
stultifying, but the failure to find absolute answers does not bother
me. It certainly does not stop me from enjoying the beauty and the
wonder of the world around me.  Hopefully someday we will have these
answers but whether this will happens in my lifetime, is not an issue.

My concern as I said on Saturday, is to try to live my life doing the
most good and causing the least harm in the hope that those around me
will do the same.

Sam,

 

—————————————————————————————–

18- September

 Dear Nahida,

My apologies for asking you to consider intelligent design as a theory in an earlier email for I think I now understand and appreciate why this is so unfair a request.  It is in fact rather petty on my part and I appreciate your patience.  It is also a perfect example of where I
have failed in my remit to live my life causing as little discomfort as possible to others.

Finally if I were in need of answers for all those questions, the ability to share ideas and explore each other’s minds would be a powerful argument for intelligent design.

Sam

© Copyright 2006 Nahida Izzat & Sam Semoff -PoetryforPalestine – All Rights Reserved