Modern Science and Atheism: A Comprehensive Deconstruction of the Greatest Intellectual Deception of the Modern Age

In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate. All praise is due to Allah, Lord of all worlds, and peace and blessings be upon the noblest of messengers, our Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, and upon his family and all his Companions.

To proceed:

Among the most dangerous doubts promoted in our time—doubts that have led many educated young people astray—is the following claim:

“If modern sciences truly point to the existence of a Creator, as believers claim, then why do we find that most prominent scientists in physics, biology, and chemistry are atheists? Why does a person seem to grow further away from faith the more knowledge he acquires? Why have prestigious universities such as Harvard, Oxford, and Cambridge become strongholds of atheism? Is this not decisive proof that true modern science undermines the foundations of faith? And how do you explain that the most scientifically advanced countries, such as Sweden, Denmark, and Japan, are the least religious, while the most backward countries are the most religious? Is this not a clear equation: the more modern science increases, the less religion remains; and the less science there is, the more religion grows?”

These are questions that indeed deserve comprehensive, well-reasoned answers—answers that uncover the facts, expose the fallacies, and lay bare the intellectual agendas behind such claims.

However, although these questions may appear at first glance to be supported by observable realities, they are in fact built upon a fragile structure of compounded logical fallacies, truncated historical readings, unjust generalizations, and deliberate conflation of concepts.

The superficial view that links scientific progress to atheism, and treats the atheism of some scientists as proof of an inherent contradiction between natural science and faith, ignores historical facts as solid as mountains. It also overlooks complex psychological, social, and political factors, and falls into logical traps that even a beginner in logic would avoid.

The First Error: The Fallacy of Alleged Majority Authority and Statistical Deception

The first thing that must be exposed in this claim is the major statistical deception on which it rests. The proponent of this doubt speaks about “most scientists” as if he had conducted a precise, comprehensive global census of all scientists. In reality, this claim is completely unsupported by evidence. In fact, available statistics on this issue are inconsistent and vary widely.

For example, Rice University in the United States published a well-known article about a major study it conducted on this topic, titled:

“First Global Survey of Religion and Science: No, Not All Scientists Are Atheists.”

In that article, they wrote:

“Are all scientists atheists? Do they believe religion and science can co-exist? These questions and others were addressed in the first worldwide survey of how scientists view religion, released today by researchers at Rice University.

‘No one today can deny that there is a popular ‘warfare’ framing between science and religion,’ said the study’s principal investigator, Elaine Howard Ecklund, founding director of Rice University’s Religion and Public Life Program and the Herbert S. Autrey Chair in Social Sciences. ‘This is a war of words fueled by scientists, religious people and those in between.’ Books The study’s results challenge longstanding assumptions about the science-faith interface. While it is commonly assumed that most scientists are atheists, the global perspective resulting from the study shows that this is simply not the case.

More than half of scientists in India, Italy, Taiwan and Turkey self-identify as religious, Ecklund said. ‘And it’s striking that approximately twice as many ‘convinced atheists’ exist in the general population of Hong Kong, for example, (55 percent) compared with the scientific community in this region (26 percent).’

The researchers did find that scientists are generally less religious than a given general population. However, there were exceptions to this: 39 percent of scientists in Hong Kong identify as religious compared with 20 percent of the general population of Hong Kong, and 54 percent of scientists in Taiwan identify as religious compared with 44 percent of the general population of Taiwan. Ecklund noted that such patterns challenge longstanding assumptions about the irreligious character of scientists around the world.”

The Fallacy of Appealing to Authority

Even if we were to assume—purely for the sake of argument—that the majority of scientists were atheists (which is not true), would that be proof that atheism itself is correct?

This is a blatant logical fallacy known as appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).

Let us clarify this with decisive historical examples. In the sixteenth century, about 99% of scientists believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Was that belief therefore true? In the nineteenth century, most scientists believed in the existence of the “aether,” a medium through which celestial bodies were thought to move. Did their consensus prove that the aether existed?

The history of science is filled with errors that the majority of scientists once believed, only for those beliefs to later be proven false. So how can we turn the opinions of scientists—on matters outside their empirical specialization, such as the existence of the Creator—into decisive proof?

The Second Error: Ignoring the Historical Roots of the Conflict

The second error—and one of the most insidious—is ignoring the bloody historical context in which scientific atheism arose in the West, and treating it as if it were a natural consequence of scientific progress.

The Scientific Inquisitions: The Ugly Face of the Church

Let us briefly but clearly review what the Catholic Church did to scientists:

Giordano Bruno (1548–1600), an Italian astronomer and philosopher, proposed that the stars were distant suns with planets that might be inhabited. He was tried by the Inquisition for seven years, brutally tortured, and then burned alive in the Campo de’ Fiori in Rome on February 17, 1600.

Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), the father of modern science, was forced to kneel before the Inquisition in 1633 at the age of seventy and compelled to recant the theory of Earth’s rotation. He was sentenced to house arrest until his death.

Michael Servetus (1511–1553), a physician and theologian who discovered pulmonary circulation before William Harvey, was burned alive by order of John Calvin in Geneva on charges of heresy.

The Psychological Reaction: From Persecution to Atheism

In this blood-soaked context, is it surprising that scientists recoiled from religion? Imagine a young scientist in the seventeenth century watching his colleagues burned alive, tortured in the dungeons of the Inquisition, and forced to deny scientific truths. Is it not natural that he would associate religion with darkness and faith with oppression?

This psychological association was passed down through generations. To this day, the Western collective consciousness carries a painful memory of the so-called “Dark Ages” dominated by the Church. Atheism became a symbol of liberation from this dark legacy. Atheist advocates then compounded the problem by adding exaggerations and outright falsehoods, until this image became firmly entrenched in the public mind.

The Great Tragedy: Generalizing the Judgment to All Religions

The real tragedy, however, is that the West generalized its bitter experience with the Church to all religion. Instead of saying, “The Catholic Church was wrong,” they said, “All religion is superstition.” Instead of saying, “Christian clergy distorted the truth,” they said, “The very idea of God is an illusion.”

Consider an analogy that exposes the absurdity of this generalization: if a child were beaten by a bad teacher, grew to hate school, and later began calling for the abolition of all education—would this be a rational position? Or would any sensible person say: this teacher was bad, but education itself is essential?

The Third Error: Erasing a Blazing Historical Truth — The Flourishing of Science in Islamic Civilization

The third error—and among the most egregious and historically falsifying—is ignoring the glaring historical reality: the flourishing of the sciences for centuries under a civilization in which religion was the primary driving force of life.

Numbers Speak for Themselves: The Scientific Achievements of Islamic Civilization

Let us review the documented facts that no one can honestly deny.

In medicine:

Al-Rāzī (854–925 CE) authored more than 200 books, among them al-Ḥāwī fī al-Ṭibb in 23 volumes. He was the first to distinguish between smallpox and measles, and the first to use surgical sutures made from animal intestines.

Al-Zahrāwī (936–1013 CE), the father of modern surgery, invented more than 200 surgical instruments, some of which are still used today. His book al-Taṣrīf was taught in Europe for over 500 years.

In mathematics:

Al-Khwārizmī (780–850 CE), the father of algebra—his name is the origin of the word algorithm. His book Ḥisāb al-Jabr wa-l-Muqābalah laid the foundation of modern algebra.

Al-Bīrūnī (973–1048 CE) calculated the circumference of the Earth with astonishing precision (an error of only 0.04%) and discussed the Earth’s rotation on its axis nearly 600 years before Galileo.

In physics and optics:

Ibn al-Haytham (965–1040 CE), the founder of the modern experimental scientific method. His book al-Manāẓir revolutionized optics. He proved that light travels from objects to the eye, not the other way around—six centuries before Europe reached the same conclusion.

The Fatal Question for the Claim

If science necessarily leads to atheism, how do we explain that Islamic civilization—where religion was the very soul of society—produced the greatest scientific renaissance of the Middle Ages? Indeed, many of these scholars explicitly stated that their faith was the motivation behind their scientific inquiry.

The Fourth Error: The Fallacy of False Causation in Linking Progress to Atheism

The fourth error is falling into a dangerous logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc—“after this, therefore because of this”—where mere succession is mistaken for causation.

The True Historical Sequence

Let us analyze the historical sequence carefully:

First phase (12th–17th centuries): The scientific renaissance in Europe began in deeply religious societies.

The earliest universities (Bologna 1088, Oxford 1096, Paris 1150) were religious institutions.

Foundational scientists were clergy or devout believers.

Second phase (17th–19th centuries): The golden age of modern science unfolded under widespread religiosity.

Isaac Newton (1634–1727) wrote more on theology than on physics.

Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) initially intended to study theology but saw in astronomy evidence of the Creator.

Michael Faraday (1791–1867), the father of electromagnetism, was a preacher in his church.

Gregor Mendel (1822–1884), the founder of genetics, was a monk.

Third phase (20th–21st centuries): Atheism emerged after scientific progress, not as its cause.

Decisive Evidence: Comparing Timelines

The Scientific Revolution: 16th–17th centuries (in religious societies)

The Industrial Revolution: 18th–19th centuries (in religious societies)

The spread of atheism: 20th century (centuries after progress)

How, then, can atheism be the cause of something that occurred hundreds of years before it? This is like saying, “It rained because the ground was wet.”

The First Criterion: The Nature of Intellectual Arrogance and Its Destructive Impact

One of the most dangerous psychological diseases that afflicts some scientists is what may be called intellectual arrogance, an ancient ailment that the Qur’an warned against with remarkable precision.

The Precise Qur’anic Diagnosis

Allah says: “They know what is apparent of the life of this world, but of the Hereafter they are heedless.” [Sūrat al-Rūm: 7]

Reflect on the precision of the Qur’anic wording:

“They know” — yes, they possess real knowledge.

“What is apparent” — but it is superficial, confined to the outer shell.

“Of the life of this world” — limited to the material realm.

“But of the Hereafter they are heedless” — heedless of what truly matters: eternal life.

Stages in the Development of Intellectual Arrogance

Many such scientists pass through stages:

Stage one – Fascination with discovery: when a scientist discovers a new natural law, he experiences cognitive euphoria. “I discovered how this law works!” “I decoded DNA!”

Stage two – The illusion of sufficiency: the scientist begins to think that knowing the mechanism removes the need to know the source. “I know how the brain works, so I do not need to assume the existence of a soul.”

Stage three – Intellectual pride: “When their messengers came to them with clear proofs, they rejoiced in the knowledge they had, and that which they used to mock encompassed them.” [Sūrat Ghāfir: 83]

Joy in limited knowledge turns into arrogance and mockery of faith-based truths.

The Heavy Price of Intellectual Arrogance

Intellectual blindness: inability to see clear evidence of the Creator.

Logical contradiction: falling into blatant inconsistencies without realizing it.

Psychological distress: loss of meaning and purpose in life.

The Second Criterion: Hidden Pressures — The Dictatorship of Academic Atheism

One of the most dangerous unspoken truths is the existence of “secular inquisitions” within Western academia, no less harsh than the old ecclesiastical inquisitions.

Documented Cases of Academic Persecution

Dr. Richard Sternberg, a biologist at the Smithsonian Institution, published a peer-reviewed article discussing intelligent design in 2004. The result:

An organized smear campaign

Attempts to remove him from his position

Banning him from using the museum’s library

Investigations into his personal religious beliefs

Dr. Caroline Crocker, a professor at George Mason University, mentioned in a single lecture that some scientists question aspects of evolutionary theory. The result:

She was barred from teaching

Her contract was not renewed

She was blacklisted

Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, an astronomer at Iowa State University, co-authored a book on the fine-tuning of the universe. Despite an outstanding academic record, he was denied tenure—the real reason being his views on intelligent design.

Systematic Intellectual Terror

Dr. Jerry Bergman documented in his book Slaughter of the Dissidents more than 700 cases of scientists persecuted for doubting Darwinism or believing in a Creator.

Media figure Ben Stein produced a documentary on this intellectual terror titled Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which was screened in over one thousand American cinemas—more than any documentary before it.

Mechanisms of Soft Suppression

Repression often comes in subtle forms:

Social marginalization: the believing scientist is excluded from influential circles.

Denial of funding: research grants are withheld.

Difficulty publishing: journals reject papers regardless of quality.

Constant ridicule: in conferences and seminars.

The Result: Tactical Atheism

Under such pressure, many scientists practice what may be called tactical atheism:

They hide their faith or pretend to be atheists to survive academically.

They completely separate their personal and professional lives.

They avoid any discussion of religion or belief altogether.

Criterion Three: Astonishing Stories of Transformation — From the Peak of Atheism to Faith

The strongest proof that genuine science leads to faith is found in the stories of scientists who once stood at the very pinnacle of atheism, only to be led by scientific evidence itself to belief in the Creator.

Antony Flew: The Supreme Philosopher of Atheism Surrenders to the Evidence

For fifty years, Antony Flew was the foremost champion of philosophical atheism. His books, such as Theology and Falsification and The Presumption of Atheism, were considered the gospel of atheists. His famous debates defeated the leading defenders of belief.

Then, in 2004, he stunned the world by announcing his conversion to belief. In his book There Is a God, he explains:

“I followed the evidence wherever it led. And the evidence led me to acknowledge the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial being, omnipotent and omniscient.”

What changed his mind?

The astonishing complexity of DNA: “The arrangement of nucleotides in DNA carries a message. And a message requires a sender.”

The fine-tuning of the universe: “The laws of nature appear to be designed specifically to produce life.”

The origin of life: “There is no convincing natural explanation for how life arose from non-living matter.”

Francis Collins: From Atheism to Leading the Greatest Scientific Project

The story of Collins is remarkable. He grew up in a non-religious home and became an outspoken atheist during university. He mocked believers and regarded them as intellectually weak.

But while working as a physician, he was struck by the faith of his patients in the face of death. He began to ask himself, “Have I missed something important?” He read C. S. Lewis and embarked on a sincere journey of inquiry.

What convinced him scientifically?

Human morality: “The universal sense of right and wrong in all human beings cannot be explained by evolution.”

The language of DNA: “Allah speaks through the language of DNA, and the elegance and complexity of the genome testify to His greatness.”

Allan Sandage: A Giant of Astronomy Finds Allah Among the Stars

Sandage was a student of Edwin Hubble and one of the greatest astronomers of the twentieth century. He was an agnostic atheist until the age of fifty.

In an interview with Newsweek, he said: “My science has driven me to the conclusion that the world is far more complex than can be explained by science alone.” He added: “I cannot understand the mystery of existence except through the supernatural.”

Criterion Four: A Deep Analysis of the ‘Advanced Countries’ Dilemma

The claim that “advanced countries are more atheistic” requires careful analysis that exposes the deception behind this linkage.

First: Deconstructing the Misleading Numbers

These are statistics on the prevalence of atheism in some Western countries according to World Population Review:

United Kingdom: 21.7%

Australia: 20%

Japan: 19.1%

Germany: 11.6%

United States: 7.9%

Russia: 6%

So where is this alleged universal atheism?

These “advanced atheistic” countries suffer from devastating crises.

Suicide rates (per 100,000):

Lithuania: 26.1 (among the highest rates of atheism in Europe)

Russia: 23.5

Belgium: 18.3

Japan: 17.7

Compared with:

Saudi Arabia: 4.4

Jordan: 1.6

Kuwait: 2.2

Depression and psychiatric medication:

In the United States: 1 in 6 adults takes psychiatric medication.

In the United Kingdom: 17% of adults are on antidepressants.

In Scandinavian countries: the highest consumption of antidepressants globally.

Family breakdown:

Divorce rate in Belgium: 71%

In Sweden: 55%

In Norway: 48%

Compared with:

India: 1.1%

Egypt: 2.2%

Third: Spiritual Emptiness and the Return of Superstitions

Ironically, these “scientific” societies are witnessing a striking spread of superstitions:

25% of Britons believe in horoscopes.

40% of Germans consult fortune-tellers.

A rampant spread of yoga, Buddhist meditation, and pagan rituals.

Why? Because the human being cannot live with a spiritual vacuum. If true faith is driven out through the door, superstition enters through the window.

Fourth: The Communist Experiment — The Greatest Atheistic Experiment in History

The Soviet Union and Maoist China were the two largest attempts to impose atheism through state power. The result?

More than 100 million people killed.

Extreme poverty despite vast resources.

Moral and social collapse.

Total failure and inevitable disintegration.

China today is witnessing the fastest growth of Christianity in the world. Russia has returned powerfully to Orthodoxy.

Criterion Five: Modern Scientific Proofs That Cry Out for the Existence of the Creator

One of the most astonishing paradoxes of our time is that the immense scientific progress atheists boast of and use as a pretext to deny the Creator is itself what provides the strongest and most precise evidence for the existence of a wise, all-knowing, all-powerful Creator. The deeper we delve into the secrets of the universe, and the more we uncover the fine details of creation, the more dazzling signs appear, testifying that behind this exquisite order stands a wise Organizer, and behind this breathtaking creativity stands a magnificent Creator.

The Miraculous Fine-Tuning of the Universe: When Numbers Speak of the Creator

Let us begin with one of the most powerful contemporary scientific arguments for the existence of the Creator: what is known as the fine-tuning of the universe. The universe we inhabit rests upon a set of fundamental physical constants, and these constants are tuned with unimaginable precision, such that even the slightest change in the value of any one of them would result in a completely different universe — one in which life could not exist in any form.

Consider the gravitational constant, the number that determines the strength of attraction between objects. If gravity were slightly stronger than it is — by a change as small as one part in ten raised to the power of sixty — the universe would have collapsed in on itself before stars and planets could form. If it were weaker by the same minuscule amount, the universe would have expanded so rapidly that matter could never condense to form galaxies and stars. This level of precision is like firing an arrow from Earth and hitting a target the size of a coin on the surface of the Moon.

And it does not stop with gravity. The strong nuclear force — the force that binds the components of an atomic nucleus — is also tuned with astonishing precision. If this force were increased by just 2%, hydrogen could not exist in the universe, and without hydrogen there would be no stars, no water, and no life. If it were decreased by 5%, atomic nuclei would not hold together, and the universe would remain nothing more than a diffuse cloud of protons and electrons.

Then there is the remarkable ratio between the mass of the proton and the mass of the electron, which is exactly 1836.152701. This number, which appears random, is in fact exquisitely calibrated. If this ratio differed even slightly, chemistry as we know it would collapse, and the complex molecules that form the basis of life would be impossible.

The Encoded Language of Life: When DNA Speaks of Its Programmer

Let us move from the vastness of the universe to the depths of the living cell, where we encounter another miracle that defies every materialistic explanation: DNA. This astonishing molecule carries within it all the information needed to build and operate a living being, from the smallest bacterium to the most complex human.

DNA is not merely a chemical substance. In reality, it is an advanced information system whose complexity surpasses any information system humans have ever produced. It uses a four-letter language—adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine—to write genetic instructions. In a single human cell, DNA contains three billion of these “letters,” arranged in a precise, specific sequence. If we wanted to write this information in books, we would need a library containing a thousand volumes, each volume five hundred pages long.

Yet what is even more astonishing is not only the quantity of information, but its nature. These are not random chemical patterns; they are real information with meaning and function. They are programmed instructions for building proteins, regulating vital processes, and controlling the growth and development of the organism. The question that forcefully imposes itself is: where did this information come from?

Stephen Meyer, in his influential book Signature in the Cell, presents a compelling argument: in all human experience, in all scientific observation, we have never once seen meaningful, encoded information arise from nothing or from random processes. Information always, without exception, comes from a conscious mind. When we see writing carved into stone, we immediately know there is a writer behind it. When we hear an encrypted message, we know there is a sender. So how can we look at the most intricate and precise information system in existence—DNA—and claim it arose without a programmer?

Molecular Machines: Engineering That Defies Imagination

If we go deeper still into the world of the cell, we discover wonders even more astonishing. The cell is not merely a bag of chemicals, as was once imagined. Rather, it is an advanced factory containing complex molecular machines that operate with a precision and efficiency surpassing any machine made by human beings.

Consider, for example, the bacterial flagellum, an extraordinary molecular motor that enables bacteria to move. It is a true motor in every sense of the word, composed of around forty types of proteins intricately linked with extreme precision. It has a rotor, a drive shaft, bearings, and a universal joint—just like the motors we manufacture, but on a molecular scale. This motor spins at speeds up to one hundred thousand revolutions per minute, with efficiency approaching 100%—an efficiency no human machine has achieved. Even more astonishing, it can stop and reverse direction in fractions of a second.

The central question here is this: this motor consists of forty protein parts; if any one part is missing or defective, the motor stops functioning entirely. So how could such a system evolve gradually? What use is 10% of a motor, or 50% of a motor? It will not function at all. This is what is called “irreducible complexity,” and it poses a deadly challenge to the idea of gradual, random evolution.

Another striking example is the blood-clotting system. When you are wounded, your body initiates a complex chain of sequential chemical reactions to stop the bleeding. This cascade involves more than twenty different factors, each activating the next in a precise sequence. If one of these factors is missing or defective, you either bleed to death, or your blood clots entirely and you die. This system must exist complete from the beginning, otherwise it becomes lethal rather than beneficial. So how did it arise through gradual evolution?

The Mystery of Consciousness: When Matter Fails to Explain the Soul

Finally, we reach the deepest and most challenging puzzle for the materialistic worldview: human consciousness. How can a collection of atoms and molecules—no matter how complex—produce awareness, perception, feelings, and free will? How do electrochemical signals in the brain become a subjective conscious experience?

The philosopher David Chalmers, one of the leading contemporary philosophers of mind, calls this “the hard problem of consciousness.” We may be able to understand how the brain processes information, stores memories, and controls movement. But none of this explains why there is a “someone” who experiences all of this from within. Why are we not merely “zombies” that behave and react without an inner awareness?

The Nobel Prize–winning scientist Sir John Eccles, after a long life studying the brain, reached a striking conclusion: “Human self-consciousness has no logical evolutionary explanation. It is a divine gift.” Consciousness provides no clear evolutionary advantage that would explain its emergence through natural selection. On the contrary, it may even be a burden—psychological pain, anxiety, and depression are all consequences of consciousness.

These scientific realities—the precise fine-tuning of the cosmos, the encoded information in DNA, the complex molecular machines, and the mystery of consciousness—come together to form a thunderous testimony to the existence of a wise, all-knowing Creator. They are not gaps in our knowledge that we fill with “God.” Rather, the opposite: the more our knowledge increases, the clearer the need for a Creator becomes. True science does not lead to atheism; it leads the unbiased mind to faith in the عظیم Creator.

Conclusion: The Collapse of the Great Illusion and the Radiance of Truth

After this clarifying presentation and deep, comprehensive analysis, the claim that science leads to atheism collapses entirely, and the shining truth becomes clear: true science leads to faith, and atheism is not a scientific conclusion, but a philosophical stance with historical, psychological, and social causes.

We have seen how the presented doubt rests upon a chain of glaring logical fallacies: the fallacy of alleged authority, confusing correlation with causation, unjust generalization, selective use of evidence, and ignoring established historical realities.

We also saw how the conflict between the Church and science in Europe produced a psychological backlash against religion, and how this bitter, particular experience was wrongly generalized to every faith. And we uncovered the bright historical truth of the flourishing of science in Islamic civilization for centuries, which completely undermines the claim of contradiction between science and faith.

We clarified how intellectual arrogance blinds some scientists from seeing obvious truths, and how academic pressures compel many to hide their faith or feign atheism. We presented documented testimonies of towering figures who moved from atheism to belief under the force of scientific evidence itself.

We dismantled the illusion of linking progress to atheism and exposed the heavy price paid by irreligious societies in devastating psychological and social crises. Finally, we presented models of modern scientific evidence that cries out for the existence of a wise, all-knowing Creator.

The unavoidable truth is that every new scientific discovery adds a new proof of the Creator’s existence. From the precision of cosmic constants, to the complexity of the living cell, to the mystery of human consciousness—everything points to one reality: there is a magnificent Creator behind this existence.

A wise person is not deceived by glossy atheistic propaganda, nor dazzled by the atheism of some scientists whose reasons are not scientific. Rather, he looks at the evidence with an impartial eye, follows the proof wherever it leads, and submits to the truth when it becomes clear.

Allah the Exalted has spoken the truth when He says: “We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is witness over all things?” [Fuṣṣilat: 53]

And He says: “Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for people of understanding. Who remember Allah while standing or sitting or [lying] on their sides and give thought to the creation of the heavens and the earth, [saying], "Our Lord, You did not create this aimlessly; exalted are You [above such a thing]; then protect us from the punishment of the Fire.” [Ᾱl ‘Imrān: 190 - 191]

We ask Allah the Exalted to guide us all to the clear truth, to show us the truth as truth and grant us its following, and to show us falsehood as falsehood and grant us its avoidance; to make us among those who listen to speech and follow the best of it; to protect us from arrogance over little knowledge; and to grant us humility before the greatness of His creation; and to make us among those of whom He said: “Only those of His servants who have knowledge truly fear Allah. Indeed, Allah is Mighty, Most Forgiving.”

O Allah, show us Your signs in the horizons and within ourselves; make knowledge a light that guides us to You, not a veil that turns us away from You; and make us among those who combine beneficial knowledge, righteous deeds, and firm faith. You are All-Hearing, All-Responding, and You are capable of all things.

And Allah knows best. And may peace and blessings be upon our prophet Muhammad and upon his family and his companions, all of them.