> Abdul Fatteh Questions about Allah's Existence

[Qatada]

Some questions regarding Allah's existence by someone kind of intelligent Muslim who wants doubts to be removed

Akh Abdul Fattah, i know someone whose had long experience in talking to atheists. He's not an ignorant too, so i hoped that maybe you can answer some of his questions insha Allah;

As for the evolution stuff. I am convinced so all that stuff is OK.

Some questions for you:

1. How can any rational/intuitional proof of God argument be made based on the reality we see, when Quantum physics shows us that our intution on some things can be wrong. The universe doe snot work according to our ration, we so how can we make rational arguments about God's exitence?

2. The universe contains many random elements to it. Where is the design in random planets, moons, and colliding galaxies? Is this a proof that the universe is somehow random? Could strcuture arise out of time? e.g the example about monkeys typing forever on a keyboard eventually producing keyboard. There are so many planets, that one HAD to have life on it.

3. Is the universe fine tuned? Fine tuned according to what meter? There are some constants that if you move them by 2% life would not exist. BUT that is 2% and not 1% so where is the 'fine' tuning here?

These questions will suffice for now. May Allah bless you.

[I have a lost of questions non science related? 9 pages worth! Want them?] (I agreed to this but that comes later.)

[Abdul-Fattah]

Selam aleykum
I'll give it my best shot inshaAllah ^_^

Originally Posted by Qatada

1. How can any rational/intuitional proof of God argument be made based on the reality we see, when Quantum physics shows us that our intution on some things can be wrong. The universe doe snot work according to our ration, we so how can we make rational arguments about God's exitence?

Intuition and rationality
First of all, we should understand that there's a difference between rational proof and intuitional. A rational proof, is based on logical thinking and deductions. Our intuition on the other hand is based on experiences. We constantly see things falling down to earth, so intuitionally we start understanding how gravity works. That's what it basically boils down to, predictability by experience. the sun has always come up each morning, so we assume it'll come up tomorrow as well.
Anyway, so my point is, intuition and logic are two separate things. An idea might be logical, and it might be intuitional at the same time, or it can be one of those but not the other, or it could be neither. But whether or not something is intuitive/predictable has no bearing on whether or not it is logical and vice versa.
Quantum mechanics
The reason that quantum mechanics is sometimes counter-intuitive. Is because we do not use our intuition logically. What happens is that people assume that the laws of the large scale is the same as the laws of the small scale. That is of course a baseless assumption. For example, to us humans, gravity is one of the most familiar forces we deal with in our daily live, so we have a strong intuitional feel about how it works. An amoeba on the other hand; doesn't even know gravity. To it, there is absolutely no distinction between up or down, left or right and so on. The water-tension created by the electromagnetic force of electrons in water-molecules on the other hand is a very important force for it, where as most humans are barely aware of it. So if we form our intuition by experience, it's very normal that our intuition fails in a scale where we have no experience in.
Rational working universe.
However, whether or not our intuition is right/wrong, has no bearing on whether or not the universe works in a rational, logical way. I'm not aware of anything illogical or counter-rational in the universe. Everything seems to make sense; at least that is to the extend that we understand it.

2. The universe contains many random elements to it. Where is the design in random planets, moons, and colliding galaxies? Is this a proof that the universe is somehow random? Could structure arise out of time? e.g the example about monkeys typing forever on a keyboard eventually producing keyboard. There are so many planets, that one HAD to have life on it.

The existance of randomness.
First of all, the word random has two different meanings, that are often mixed:
1. The first meaning, is the strict scientific meaning of the word, that something is without cause. In other words, something occurs without another thing causing it to happen. True randomness.
2. The second, more popular definition; is when something happens due to a cause that is to complex for us to calculate. This is more an apparent randomness rather then a true randomness.
Rolling a dice for example, is not truly random. The outcome of the dice is determined by the position you first held it in, the strength of your throw, the surface on which you threw it, and so on. Although these things are to complex to predict, it is nevertheless still causal. We have in all of human existence, never encountered something which we have proven to be truly random. And that's natural, since you can't proof true randomness. To prove true randomness, you would have to prove their is no cause. But you cannot prove something doesn't exist, can you? Of course that isn't to say there are candidates. Some speculate for example that electrons in quantum mechanics behave randomly. That is however debatable, and many scientist do believe that there is an underlying cause for the behaviour of electrons. In other words, the belief that chaos is an order we fail to understand. In conclusion, I don't know wheter or not there actually exists something that is random. I for one do not believe in randomness, and it doesn't have a place in Islamic doctrine either.

Monkeys and typewriters
The analogy is often made, that sooner or later life was bound to arise from one of the planets, just as how with millions of monkeys randomly typing on typewriters a sensible word, or even one of Shakespeare's works is bound to come up. However the analogy is flawed. With this analogy, the assumption is made that all the "letters" to form the right words are already in place. All that is needed is for the monkeys to sequence them in the right order, and given infinite attempts that shouldn't be that hard. However for life in the universe, the criteria are different. It's not simply a matter of random sequences out of existing materials. What are the chances of the monkey typing the correct word if half of the letters that are required are missing from the keyboard?

3. Is the universe fine tuned? Fine tuned according to what meter? There are some constants that if you move them by 2% life would not exist. BUT that is 2% and not 1% so where is the 'fine' tuning here?

When considering the complex way the rules of physics manifest themselves in both physiology and cosmology it seems obvious that the slightest change in any factor of physics or any change in the nature of the universe would have made life (as we know it) impossible:
“If the rate of expansion one second after the 'Big Bang' had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million (0,000000000000001%), the universe would have re-collapsed. The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous”. (Stephen Hawking, 'A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes', Page 128).
“If gravity (released by the Big Bang) had been stronger or weaker by even one part in ten thousand million million million million million million (0,00000000000000000000000000000000000001%) then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible.” (Brandon Carter, ‘New Physics’ Page 187).

[I have a lost of questions non science related? 9 pages worth! Want them?]

(I agreed to this but that comes later.)

Perhaps not all at once, but yeah, bring it on :p

[Hassan_Abd_Allah]

Assalamu 'Alaikum bro Abdul Fattah, I had my test exams (which didnt go so well :( ) so I was kinda away. Its nice to see brother Qatadah has nrought up some awesome questions, even I sometimes thought of these.

About point number one and your reply: (I am gonna take an atheists position here)

First off, whenevr a Muslim would try and give rational arguments for the existence of God, the Kalam Cosmological argument (everything had a cause and therefore the universe) inevitably comes up.

However, though we claim it to be rational, at one point it does depend on intuition. It pre-asserts the premise that evrything that has a beginning must have a Cause. Now we cannot rationally prove this, can we? We can only say that empirical evidence stands as its proof, however, this again drags us to intuition. This is pretty much like your analogy: we saw apples fall so many times that its obvious (to us) that gravity works the way it does. However this is mere intuition and not logic. Siilaly, the Law of Causality without any rational proof is but intuition, we observe events WITH cause there every event must have a Cause which (isnt rational but) is intuitional.

So this again takes us back to the primary question, how can we really prove the existence of A Creator of the Universe(s) (at least by Kalam Cosmological Argument) when we are depending on intuition?

[Actually if I argue on that premise, I would have to agree to the fact that nothing can be proven rationally, everything has to depend on intuition and /or empirical evidence at the end of the day]

[Hassan_Abd_Allah]

Response to the point about Quantum Mechanics:

Well yes, it is true that we havent proven the existence of a Cause, but it is also true that our claim "Everything with a beginning must have a Cause" is no stronger than the the claim "Everything need not necessarily have a cause, because a) this is an intuitive assumption and b) we observe events which appear to happen without any cause, such as quantum mechanics and radioactivity and so on (there are more examples).

Since we have two sets of events here:

a) those which appear to have a Cause
b) those who appear to not have a cause

Therefore can the claim "everything must have a cause" be even qualified to be an intuitive assumption?

When considering the complex way the rules of physics manifest themselves in both physiology and cosmology it seems obvious that the slightest change in any factor of physics or any change in the nature of the universe would have made life (as we know it) impossible

Yes, but what is there to show that just because these acute and precise events support our life, they are therefore miraculous and/or designed?

I think this actually pre asserts that life itself is the goal of these events. If we assume that "creating life" is the goal and concern of these event, then this would hold water. However, what is the proof that life itslef is something which is completely random?

Jazak Allah Khair for the replies in advance :)

And thanx again to bro Qatadah for those AWESUM questions! After this mess gets resolved, I will start another thread with my confusions about Qur'an and science and another about the Philosophy of Miracles inshAllah.

Until then...:-)

[Abdul-Fattah]

Selam aleykum

Originally Posted by Hassan_Abd_Allah

First off, whenevr a Muslim would try and give rational arguments for the existence of God, the Kalam Cosmological argument (everything had a cause and therefore the universe) inevitably comes up. However, though we claim it to be rational, at one point it does depend on intuition.

Yes, very true. It has always been my position that the existence of God is not un-deniable. In the end of the day it is still a religion requiring faith. In fact it would make sense for Allah subhana wa ta'ala to set the universe up as such. If his existence was obvious to us, and undeniable, life wouldn't really be a test.

All that we can do, is show how Islam is a logical plausible alternative to explain the universe, and everything in it. But there is no such thing as undeniable proof.

Yes, but what is there to show that just because these acute and precise events support our life, they are therefore miraculous and/or designed?

To explain by using an analogy; think of the world like a tool-box.

Logic would have us assume that this box was specifically made to fit these tools. Nobody would look at this box and think: "hey what a coincidence, all the tools fit the slots nicely, must have been random..." Of course you cannot prove that the box was designed for these tools, simply by looking at it, but it's still the most logical and plausible conclusion.

[yhunt]

Salam, does this thread need a update?

Originally Posted by Hassan_Abd_Allah

Response to the point about Quantum Mechanics:

Well yes, it is true that we havent proven the existence of a Cause, but it is also true that our claim "Everything with a beginning must have a Cause" is no stronger than the the claim "Everything need not necessarily have a cause, because a) this is an intuitive assumption and b) we observe events which appear to happen without any cause, such as quantum mechanics and radioactivity and so on (there are more examples).

Since we have two sets of events here:

a) those which appear to have a Cause
b) those who appear to not have a cause

Therefore can the claim "everything must have a cause" be even qualified to be an intuitive assumption?



Yes, but what is there to show that just because these acute and precise events support our life, they are therefore miraculous and/or designed?

I think this actually pre asserts that life itself is the goal of these events. If we assume that "creating life" is the goal and concern of these event, then this would hold water. However, what is the proof that life itslef is something which is completely random?

Jazak Allah Khair for the replies in advance :)

And thanx again to bro Qatadah for those AWESUM questions! After this mess gets resolved, I will start another thread with my confusions about Qur'an and science and another about the Philosophy of Miracles inshAllah.

Until then...:-)

[Hassan_Abd_Allah]

Assalamu 'Alaikum brother yhunt and thanx for the reminder, as a matter of fact, I resolved these two issues with Brother Abdul Fattah via PM. In my inbox I have the responses by Brother Abdul Fattah, but without my questions and summarizations of the whole issue, it might be a little hard to understand. So can any moderators of this site help me publish the entire PM thread on the actual forum inshAllah?

---------- Post added at 01:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 AM ----------

Here are the answers and fragments of my questions I found in my inbox:

The answers have been provided by bro steve, as usual ^_^

Q1. When we are placing theArgument from Causality to prove the Existence of a Creator, we assume that the Creator of this Universe is not causal. Since it(Creator) is not "natural", therefore it needs to cause to exist.

First of all, I think you shouldn't be to hung up on proof. In the end of the day, it's still a religion a belief. If there were truly proof, then everybody would believe and in a sense at the same time nobody would be a "believer". Instead what we have are signs and indications, which are open for interpretation.

Quote:

However the deal is, we are assuming here that only that which is unnatural needs no cause. Cant a thing which is natural (outside this universe, but natural) not be causal? After all, Causality is not intrinsically present in human rationalism. Rather, it is something we know from our experience in this Universe. So can it not be so that the Cause of this Universe is natural and not super-natural?

It can be both. We believe it's supernatural, but you can't prove that.

Q2. Here is kind of a counter-analogy against the argument from Design.
A man shoots at a wall.
The bullet bores into the wall making an exactly 3.25 cm deep hole.
Now people wonder wow look how precisely the hole is dug. Only if the velocity of the Bullet were a little over such and such there would not have been an exact 3.25 cm hole.
Isnt this what we are doing when we are placing the Argument from Design?

Well first off, "the" argument from design is unclear, there are many things which hint to design and so you'd have to specify which argument exactly. In most arguments I'm familiar with though, it's nothing of the kind like the holes in the wall. In the analogy it's merely the recurring depth that seeks to be explained. In creation of the universe and creation of the planets, and life on the planets and so on, it goes far beyond a recurring number that "could" have been created by the same smoking gun. Instead what we're dealing with is the phenomena of fine tuning, where criteria are set in a certain way to allow other things to occur.
As for the particles on the edge of the hole who consider it a miracle, they're somewhat narrow minded, because the particle that hung next to them a sec ago is now scorched. So it's not so much of a miracle, but more like good for him and bad for someone else. That's not even close to the fine tuning we find in physics.

---------- Post added at 01:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:06 AM ----------

Aselam aleykum

Quote:

So if it really is all a matter of belief then how can we do dawaah since we have no reason and or rationale to back up what we claim?
...
So again, if both the options are euqally credible then how can we Dawaahfy the atheists into Islaam?

First off all, the reason, intention for giving dawah should be that it's a duty to the Muslims. However this is not an individual duty, but a duty of the community. This means that If some members of the community are already active in it, all other members are relieved of that duty.
Secondly, a person giving dawah is only responsible for explaining Islam, not to make people believe it. Allah subhana wa ta'ala will guide who he wishes and let astray who he wishes. We don't have to beautify Islam. We merely show it as it is, and since our religion is already perfect that should be sufficient.
Thirdly, just because it's a belief, doesn't mean there's no rational to back it up. It's a rational belief, and it makes allot of sense. And that by itself is already very meaningful.

Quote:

First, what are u referring to by signs and indications?

Well like for example the argument from design. Allah subhana wa ta'ala frequently invites us in different verses of the Qur'an to ponder upon creation and how it testifies of being created by an intelligent omnipotent being. but as I said this is only a sign, an indication.
Example:
Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day,- there are indeed Signs for men of understanding (3:190)
Allah doesn't say undeniable proofs, because he know that there are some people who will always deny clear signs.

Quote:

Second, if both the interpretations - theist and atheist- are equally credible then why should an atheist become a theist, and why should a theist NOT become an atheist? What makes our intellectual paradigm more credible?

Well I don't think they are equally credible. I think the theistic viewpoint makes allot more sense and has allot more consistencies. But the reason that I converted was mostly because of personal experiences, and only for a small part because it made allot of sense. I think in reality almost every person chooses with his heart. But what happens then, is that we seek justifications and rationalizations for our choices. and if you're strongly inclined towards either viewpoint, you will surely find rationalizations for either side. But it's just a facade.

Quote:

The above quotation made me realize that I dun really understand the argument from design. So perhaps I need to look into this a bit more.

The argument of design works on so many different levels, and in so many different fields of knowledge. From the universal laws of physics, both on the scale of quantum mechanics, of chemistry and on the scale of movement of the planets and composition of the universe. To biology, the intricate workings of the cell, to cooperation of different organs, the symbioses of organisms in a biotope, to the specific circumstances here on earth that make life possible. All of these things, and many more all suggest there was a design in everything.
Here are just two examples:

“If the rate of expansion one second after the 'Big Bang' had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million (0,000000000000001%), the universe would have recollapsed. The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous”. (Stephen Hawking, 'A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes', Page 128).
“If gravity (released by the Big Bang) had been stronger or weaker by even one part in ten thousand million million million million million million (0,00000000000000000000000000000000000001%) then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible.” (Brandon Carter, ‘New Physics’ Page 187).

Quote:

Dont take the analogy literally:
the depth of the hole (among other things) : effect(s)
smoking gun : Cause

In a sense, the effects of a precise hole among other things like cracks being formed in the wall, amount of heat produced etc etc are the effects which have been produced by that single random gunshot. So once we take both the cause and effect into vie, it doesnt really seem that special or surprising.

Yes of course. I agree it isn't that special or surprising. but that is because the analogy is inadequate. see the thing is, the depth of the bulletholes, it isn't peculiar. True if you don't know they were caused by the same gun, it would be odd to notice all have the precise same depth. But that's still only peculiar not meaningfull. If all the holes were all exactly 1 inch deeper; it would still be equally peculiar, and equally meaningless. If however there would also be a purpose in the precise depth of the holes, now then we'd have something meaningful. and then, even if you suddenly learn that they were caused by a gun, and are therefor all the same depth, then it is still meaningful and peculiar that this gun causes holes at the exact depth to serve this or that purpose. Try comparing with the two example of big bang and gravity I just gave. And you'll see it's not just a matter of two holes having the same depth, but its a matter of purpose and made-to-fit holes.

Quote:

The precision of certain numbers and ratios in physics made xistence possible for us and not for anyone else.

Not really. The precision of certain numbers and ratios in physics made the universe possible.

So its actually good for us and bad for that anyone else whoever it might be. I think the scenario in both the cases are kinda same.

It's not a matter of us or them, here or there. It's a matter of possible or not. It's a misconception to think, that if these criteria were different, then we wouldn't have existed but perhaps some other life-forms would have existed in some other place of the universe. the fine-tuning in the laws of physics on a particle level is really a matter of existence being possible or not.

---------- Post added at 01:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 AM ----------

Aselam aleykum

1. People should accept Islaam not because its one hundred percent provable but because it could be backed up with ration. o in the end Islaam is a sensible Intellectual paradigm to take and not a hundred percent true one (none is btw).

2. An individual is convinced of a certain reality by means of (mainly) personal experiences.

That about sums it up, I would add to personal experiences also emotions, and subconscious choices on the list.

Question: Can the rational evidences given motivate this personal conviction or not? If so then to what extent?

I guess what these signs and indications, these arguments can do; is that they can make a person open-minded and willing to actually take a minute to consider whether or not Islam could be true.

If I understand this correctly, this is a facade because the justifications we make are not bsaed on strict rational choice rather these rational choices are motivated by the inclination we had to begin with.

Yep, you got it :)

So my question is:
a) On One hand we are claiming that Islaam is the most rational intellectual paradigm and therefore people should accept it.

I wouldn't say that. Instead I would say that because Islam is so rational and self-consistent, people should at least consider it, or grant that it is possible. If they then choose to believe or not is then up to them. Well actually it's up to Allah subhana wa ta'ala since he is the one who holds every bodies heart in his hands and can turn it towards either direction as he sees fit.

I believe the answer to this paradox is rationalism kinda invokes that open-mindedness upon a person and therefore would motivate his or her personal experiences (which would result in a positive change of pradigm).

I believe so yes.

Is this true? If so then do you mind explaining it a bit more by analogies etc.?

Emotions and feelings play a very determining role in our paradigm. Far more then the average person would admit. The way we feel about a concept and idea is influenced by our personal experiences. This has both good and bad consequences. The bad part of it is, emotions and feelings can't be defeated by reason even if these feelings are out of place and uncalled for. If you want to use logical reasoning, all you can do is explain your view and then let your opponent accept or reject it on his personal feelings. On the other hand it can be considered a good thing that you can't force someone into believing something simply by superior reasoning. This is also why in many religious debates you'll find that people resort to emotive arguments rather then logical ones. One of the most powerful ways to convey emotive arguments is by art. Poetry, music or even paintings can convey strong arguments that can't be defeated by logic. Whether or not that argument or message is realistic is of course a totally different matter. But important here, is that most people do not approach emotive messages from a sceptical, logical point of view.

Of course most of this happens subconsciously. And according to Freud's model of the topography of mind, these subconscious influences outweigh by far our conscious arguments and decisions. So our true motives for our choices lie buried in our subconscious urges, which are easily influenced by emotions and thus subject to emotional arguments that you find in art, music, poetry and so on.
In a way you could say that everybody is guided by their desires in choosing their views. I completely agree, although I would add a slight nuance and say everybody is guided by their desires to some extend. I cannot deny that for me there is also a factor of personal desires which guided me in the past. I think this is an inevitable factor every human has to deal with. However, I also think that every person has conflicting desires, and then again we have a choice in which desires we allow to take the lead. So perhaps our choices in faith are not free; and are instead a direct result of our previous (apparently unrelated) choice we have made in the past. I do believe so. But this still means our faith is nevertheless the result of a choice. And not just any choice. It is the result of a choice in which desires we allow to drive our. Which subconscious drives do we let take control: Urges, needs, fears, shame morality, immorality, instinct, conscience? This is defenitly a choice we can justly be taken responsible for. It's also a choice we all have to make at a rather young age. Long before we even consider whether or not religion is true. And by the time we actually do consider religions, this previous choice is long forgotten and has become something we take for granted.
Mind you, these are my personal views on this matter,I haven't found classical Islamic teachings delving so deep in this matter.

Now coming back to the main question, you claimed that The Islaamic paradigm with all its choices makes more sense. However with the primary question I asked on causality (the cause being either natural or supernatural) I think both options are equally credible. How can u prove that the Islaamic Theism makes more sense in this particular context?

Well, you're not comparing paradigms. Your comparing a single question with two possibilities. You'd have to look at the full picture. It's not just a question of is the cause causal or non-causal. It's also a question of which causal or which non-causal cause could it have been. It's a question of God vs. Whatever alternative theory you might suggest. you can't just say it's God vs. causal. Because then you're comparing a detailed complete paradigm to an un-detailed, general, fits-all, part.

1. The bullethols may serve their own purposes though. For instance it could be so that if the bulletholes were just a bit deeper then the cracks on the wall wouldve differed in volume and rainwater couldntve stuck in them to produce herbage from the cracks (bad example but thats all I had).

Ok, that's actually a good example if I can make some modifications. Imagine that indeed you 'd need a certain depth of bullet-holes. Imagine that if it's just the slightest micrometer to small, then an air bubble would have prevented rain to poor inside, and the surface-tension of the water running over the hole would be just strong enough to withhold the pressure of the air-bubble. And for the sake of argument let's also assume that if the other way around it would have been a micrometer to big, Then the cracks would grow to big and make the wall weak and fragile, so it would break up as soon as plants try to nest in it. so what we have here is a purpose, there's an infinitesimal small threshold of bullet-holes depth that allows for a good nesting-ground for plants. No you have something that resembles the fine-tuning a little bit closer. Still not the same depth, but a closer representation. Well now, isn't it miraculous that this gun fires the bullets at exactly the required force to cause the exactly desired depth in the surface upon impact? wouldn't that suggest that the person firing the gun knew exactly what he was doing when making those bullet holes? And why would a person fire a gun at a wall anyway?

If the numbers etc werent that precise, then would there be another universe/form of existence or no universe/form of existence at all?

In the case of the examples I gave, the alternative would be "no universe at all". In some other arguments there's indeed a question of either the universe being like this, or like that.[/QUOTE]

---------- Post added at 01:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:10 AM ----------

Aselam aleykum

does no universe necessarily imply no existence?

Well that's a hard question. surely no existence could be possible outside of the universe in the definition of existence we know. But Allah is also an existence and exists outside of the universe. So I guess all is possible.

so far what Ive dug up on design is:
-the numbers and ratios concerning the laws of the Universe often have to reach a very specific level of accuracy.

True

-These levels of accuracies have been matched, yet at this point we are unaware of why is it the way it is, whether its a mere accident or Design.

Yes we don't know, but it seems a whole lot of a stretch to claim that all of them were like this merely by accident.

-Since the level of accuracies produce very far-reaching results and consequences then it would be safe to say that a stronger claim is that the Universe was designed the way it is to serve the purpose that it serves.

True

-Had it been mere accident we wouldve had to explain several things like a) why is the precision meter so erm accurate and b) why do only those accuracy meters had to be reached which trigger such vast consequences. Such is not the case with Design so we can take it as the stronger claim.

I'm not quite sure I understood what you're saying there.

thanx fer all your help bruh, everything is all falling into place now Alhamdulillah.

Glad I could be of assistance ^_^

[Hassan_Abd_Allah]

The content within the quote boxes have been written by me while the answers have been provided by Br. Steve.

Also about quantum mechanics, refer to this beneficial thread inshAllah:

Atheism Question and answers: Automated idawah project (unresolved questions)

[Hassan_Abd_Allah]

BTW: its great to have u back brother Yhunt :D

[yhunt]

walaikumasalam brother Hassan, its good to be back - life is... busy - to much to do :) alhumdulillah - inshaAllah i will get around to reading the massive post soon :-D
jazakAllah khair for the information.