Al-Risala (English), May 1984
Al-Risala (English), May 1984, p. 16
By Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan is named as the default author of the periodical; a piece that carries another writer’s byline is credited to that writer.
Only if man can look hopefully to his eternal future can he be satisfied in life. Man’s greatest problem is not the threat of apocalypse, the unlikelihood of a job, the uselessness of qualifications; his greatest problem is that it has become intellectually unfashionable to think of a life after death. It is his faith in his eternal future that is being destroyed. This is the major psychological factor behind his present dissatisfaction, and it is this dissatisfaction that leads to hedonistic and irresponsible behaviour. Man can never be content unless he is provided with a faith which brightens his eternal future; which fills with hope the unknown country that awaits him after death. □ No Clash between Science and Religion Those who conducted scientific research in the centuries immediately preceding our own were not in any way opposed to religion. When Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) discovered the laws governing the revolution of heavenly bodies, he wrote to a friend: “The continuous rotation of the planets is not only due to the law of gravity; there must also be a divine arm in it. When Darwin (1809-1882) wrote his book, The Origin of Species, he expressly acknowledged the existence of God. This is how he concluded the book: “How magnificent is the concept that the Creator first created some simple forms of life, and from them astonishingly simple and wonderful species of life came into existence.” Then why was it that science turned against religion? The real reason behind this was not, as Drapier (1811-1882) and others have realized, any conflict between science and religion; it was, in fact, a conflict between science and ancient theology, which had been founded on Greek and Egyptian philosophy rather than on divine religion. Exponents of religion mistakenly thought of it as a conflict between science and religion; they, therefore, opposed science. The result of this was that a contemporary force, which could have been put to the use of religion, became religion’s rival from the very outset. □

‹ Previous page Next page › About this issue Open in the reader