FROM CONFLICT TO INSIGHT

In the Quran, God says: “We have enjoined man to show kindness to his parents.” (29: 8) This command is repeated at several places in the Quran, which shows its great importance. It teaches that after God, the greatest obligation of a person is towards their parents. A believer is required to treat them with utmost kindness, respect, and sincerity, and to fulfil their rights in every possible way.

Even if parents speak harshly or act in a way that is difficult to bear, children are not permitted to respond negatively. Rather, they must continue to deal with them gently. Their love, respect, and service should not decrease under any circumstance. This is because the command is not based on the behaviour of the parents, but on a higher moral principle. It is a test of the individual’s character and their ability to rise above personal feelings.

The importance of this duty is clearly expressed in a well-known Hadith. A man came to the Prophet of Islam and asked, “Who among people is most deserving of my good companionship?” The Prophet replied, “Your mother.” The man asked again, “Then who?” The Prophet said, “Your mother.” He asked a third time, “Then who?” The Prophet again said, “Your mother.” When he asked a fourth time, the Prophet said, “Your father.” (Sahih Muslim)

This teaching shows the extraordinary status of parents, especially the mother. In reality, no one sacrifices more for a person than their parents. From birth to adulthood, they endure hardship and make countless sacrifices for the well-being of their child. Because of this, a person remains deeply indebted to them throughout life.

Even if parents speak harshly or act in a way that is difficult to bear, children are not permitted to respond negatively. Rather, they must continue to deal with them gently. Their love, respect, and service should not decrease under any circumstance.

There is considerable confusion among people regarding the views of Einstein. Some assume that he was an outright atheist, while others believe that he affirmed the existence of God. However, a careful study of his various statements suggests that Einstein was neither a denier of God nor a conventional believer. Rather, he may best be described as a sceptic—someone who remained uncertain about God’s existence. In this regard, a report published in The Times of India sheds light on Einstein’s position.

In 1997, Skeptic, a magazine known for its strong unbelieving stance, published for the first time a series of letters that Einstein had exchanged in 1945 with a junior officer in the US Navy, Guy Raner. Raner had asked whether it was true that Einstein had moved from atheism to belief in God after a discussion with a Jesuit priest, who had argued that a design implies a designer, and therefore the universe must have a Creator. Einstein replied that he had never met such a priest. 

He further stated that, from the perspective of a religious believer, he might be regarded as an atheist. At the same time, he emphasised that it was misleading to use human-like concepts when dealing with realities beyond human experience, and that one should instead humbly admire the harmony of the universe as far as it can be understood. When Raner pressed him further to clarify whether he was an atheist in the strict sense, Einstein responded: “You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist.” (The Times of India, New Delhi, May 18, 2012)

Einstein’s position reflects, to a large extent, the general attitude of many scientists. God is not considered a subject of direct scientific investigation. This raises an important question: why do scientists, despite this limitation, generally refrain from outright denial of God’s existence? Why do many of them describe themselves as agnostics rather than atheists? Agnosticism represents a middle position, where one neither denies nor affirms belief in God with certainty.

It is true that science concerns itself primarily with the material world. However, the material world is itself a creation. Thus, the study of nature becomes, indirectly, the study of the work of a Creator. A scientist may deny God verbally, but the signs present in the universe—order, structure, and coherence—cannot be dismissed so easily.

In fact, modern scientific discoveries have revealed that the universe is marked by meaningfulness, design, and purpose. These features point beyond the material itself. They suggest an underlying intelligence. To evaluate this, one may apply a scientific method: which explanation better fits the observed universe—one that excludes a Creator, or one that affirms a Creator? Clearly, the latter aligns more closely with the structured and purposeful nature of reality. This method of reasoning may be described as a form of verification based on coherence with observed data.

Another relevant scientific concept is the principle of compatibility. According to this principle, a theory may not be directly observable, yet it may still be accepted if it fits consistently with other verified observations. In science, many accepted realities are not directly seen but are inferred through their effects. If this principle is applied to the question of God, belief in a Creator becomes a reasonable and well-supported conclusion.

From a strictly scientific standpoint, it is often said that there is no direct proof of God’s existence. Science has identified fundamental particles such as electrons, quarks, and neutrinos. Yet, these particles have not been directly observed through human sight. Scientists accept their existence because their effects can be measured and studied. The same logic can be extended further.

Closer examination reveals that the issue is not merely one of cause and effect. The universe exhibits not only activity but also order, balance, and purpose. Leading scientists such as Sir James Jeans, Sir Arthur Eddington, Albert Einstein, Fred Hoyle, and others have acknowledged this remarkable harmony. One scientist observed that the substance of organic life appears to be deeply connected with what may be described as “mind-stuff.”

A more balanced conclusion, therefore, is that while the concept of God as presented in religion may not be a direct subject of scientific experimentation, scientific discoveries provide indirect support for belief in God. Science does not prove God in a laboratory sense, but it offers a vast body of evidence pointing towards an underlying intelligence.

In scientific explanations of the universe, there remains a missing element. Science describes processes, interactions, and laws, but it does not account for the ultimate source behind them. It explains the ‘action’ but remains silent about the ‘actor’. In contrast, the Quranic perspective includes both—the action and the One who brings it into existence. If science acknowledges order and intelligence in the universe, it is only logical to consider that such intelligence must originate from a conscious source.

Einstein himself, despite being born into a Jewish family, developed doubts regarding traditional notions of God. In a letter written in 1954 to the philosopher Eric B. Gutkind, he remarked that the word “God” was an expression of human weakness. However, what he termed as weakness may, in fact, be understood differently.

Human beings possess a natural inclination to seek explanations. This is not a defect but a defining strength. It is this very quality that has driven scientific progress. The desire to understand has led humanity to uncover the laws of nature and to build civilization. Without this trait, human advancement would have remained impossible.

Thus, the search for God may be seen as an extension of this same intellectual impulse. It reflects the human desire to understand not only how the universe works, but why it exists. In this sense, the journey from observation to realization is both natural and meaningful.

In science, many accepted realities are not directly seen but are inferred through their effects. If this principle is applied to the question of God, belief in a Creator becomes a reasonable and well-supported conclusion.

In the Quran, God addresses the Prophet in these words: “It may well be that your Lord will raise you to a station of praise and glory.’ (17: 79)

In Baghdad, in the year 317 AH, this verse became the centre of a serious dispute between two Muslim groups. On one side were the followers of Abu Bakr al-Marwadhi of the Hanbali school, and on the other, a section of the general public. The Hanbali group interpreted the verse to mean that on the Day of Judgement, God would seat the Prophet above the Throne. The opposing group maintained that it referred instead to the concept of the “great intercession”. The disagreement intensified to such an extent that it turned into open conflict, resulting in violent clashes and the loss of many lives. (Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Vol. 11, p. 162)

Such episodes have not been limited to the past; they continue to occur in different forms even today. Witnessing such incidents, some people have formed the opinion that disagreement and debate themselves are harmful, and that the only safe course is blind conformity, avoiding all forms of difference. However, this conclusion is itself mistaken. Rather than calling for the elimination of disagreement, what is needed is to educate people on the correct manner of engaging in it.

The tragedy described above arose from a failure to distinguish between scholarly disagreement and physical confrontation. In warfare, the use of weapons such as swords or guns may become inevitable, because conflicts of that nature are settled through force. But intellectual disagreement belongs to an entirely different domain. To introduce violence into such matters is a sign of irrational behaviour, as intellectual issues can only be resolved through reasoning, not coercion.

If one argument is not accepted, another may be presented. If that too is rejected, further arguments can be offered. The essence of academic and intellectual discussion lies in presenting ideas, regardless of whether they are accepted or not.

Therefore, what deserves rejection in such situations is not disagreement itself, but excess and extremism. Going beyond limits in any matter leads only to harm.

The notion that unity can be achieved by eliminating criticism and difference of opinion may appear appealing, but it is not practical. Disagreement is an inherent part of human nature and cannot be completely removed. A more realistic and constructive approach is to accept differences and tolerate criticism. True unity is built upon this foundation, and the same principle applies to the Muslim community. There is no alternative path to genuine unity.

Differences of opinion existed even among the Companions of the Prophet and their successors. Likewise, scholars of Hadith, jurists, theologians, and mystics have historically held varying views. The Quran itself indicates that even prophets living in the same period could differ on certain matters. To expect complete uniformity as a precondition for unity is both unnatural and contrary to the spirit of religious tradition.

Criticism and disagreement are not inherently negative. On the contrary, they often contribute to intellectual growth. For instance, during the Battle of Badr, one of the Companions questioned the Prophet’s choice of campsite. This exchange led to the adoption of a more advantageous position.

The real difference lies in the mindset of individuals. One type is the self-seeker, whose primary concern is self-promotion, recognition, and status. Such a person reacts negatively to criticism, seeing it as a threat to their ego.

The other type is the truth-seeker, who is concerned only with what is right. Such a person does not take criticism personally. Their only concern is whether the point raised is valid. If it is baseless, they disregard it. But if it holds truth, they accept it without hesitation—because in that very criticism, they find what they were genuinely seeking.

Disagreement is an inherent part of human nature and cannot be completely removed. A more realistic and constructive approach is to accept differences and tolerate criticism. True unity is built upon this foundation.

For prayers to be accepted, it is essential that one gives to others what one seeks for oneself.

The Quran draws attention to a profound principle of creation in the words: “We created pairs of all things so that you might reflect.” (51: 49) This statement is not merely descriptive; it is an invitation to understand the structure of life itself. The world is not a random arrangement of elements, but an organized system built upon balance, complementarity, and interdependence.

Among the clearest examples of this principle is the creation of human beings as male and female. Man and woman together form a complete unit. This pairing is not accidental; it is part of a deliberate design established by the Creator. Recognizing and accepting this design is essential for a balanced and meaningful life. Attempts to ignore or redefine this natural order ultimately lead to confusion and imbalance.

The existence of pairs implies that each part has a role to play. A system can function smoothly only when its components understand their responsibilities and act accordingly. In the human context, this means that both men and women must recognize their respective roles within the broader framework of life.

Traditionally, this division has been understood in functional terms: the man is primarily responsible for external responsibilities—earning a livelihood and managing affairs outside the home—while the woman takes charge of organizing and nurturing the internal environment of the household. This arrangement is not a matter of superiority or inferiority, but of practical complementarity. Each role supports the other, and together they create stability.

However, the success of this system depends not merely on division of labour, but on mutual understanding and cooperation. A household cannot function effectively if each side acts independently without regard for the other. For instance, if financial planning within the home does not take into account the limits of income, it creates strain and conflict. Similarly, if relationships that are important to one partner are disregarded or opposed by the other, it disrupts the harmony of the family.

In reality, the family is a unit that requires emotional intelligence as much as practical organization. It calls for patience, consideration, and the ability to prioritize collective well-being over individual impulses. When either partner begins to act solely on personal feelings, without regard for the overall balance, the natural order is disturbed.

It is therefore important for individuals—especially within close relationships—to rise above momentary emotions and view their roles in the light of a larger purpose. A person is not an isolated entity, but part of a system. Recognizing oneself as one half of a larger whole encourages humility and responsibility. It leads to a willingness to adjust, to compromise, and to contribute positively.

The natural world offers many examples of such harmony. The sun, the earth, the atmosphere—all function in precise coordination. Each element performs its role without conflict, and this collective balance makes life possible. The same principle applies to human life. The family, as the basic unit of society, must reflect this harmony if it is to remain stable and productive.

This also means that one must be mindful not only of personal rights, but also of duties. Modern thinking often emphasizes individual rights, but the smooth functioning of any system depends equally on the fulfilment of responsibilities. Within a family, this includes respect for extended relationships, sensitivity towards others’ feelings, and a commitment to maintaining bonds rather than weakening them.

It is important to understand that such conduct is not about submission to another human being, but about aligning oneself with the order established by the Creator. When a person acts with this awareness, their actions acquire a higher meaning. They are no longer driven merely by personal preference, but by a sense of purpose and responsibility.

The principle of pairs extends beyond the relationship between man and woman. It reflects a broader reality: life itself is a network of interconnected relationships. Every individual is part of a larger chain of cooperation. Society functions because people fulfil their roles and maintain their connections with others.

If even one link in this chain weakens or breaks, it affects the whole system. This is why personal conduct has wider consequences. By maintaining integrity, fulfilling responsibilities, and respecting the natural order, each individual contributes to the stability of the whole.

The principle of pairs is a reminder that life is based on balance and cooperation. Success lies in recognizing one’s place within this system and acting accordingly. When individuals align themselves with this natural order, they create harmony within themselves, within their families, and within society at large.

A person is not an isolated entity, but part of a system. Recognizing oneself as one half of a larger whole encourages humility and responsibility. It leads to a willingness to adjust, to compromise, and to contribute positively.

The greatest secret of all success is patience, while the greatest secret of all failure is impatience.

In the modern age, scientific instruments and space technology have enabled human beings to observe events in the universe with remarkable precision. What was once hidden from human sight has now become accessible through satellites and advanced monitoring systems. These discoveries have revealed not only the vastness of space, but also the delicate conditions that make life on Earth possible.

One such event occurred on July 23, 2012, when a massive magnetic storm erupted on the surface of the sun. This phenomenon, known as a solar storm, released an enormous amount of energy into space. Scientists later noted that the intensity of this storm was extraordinary—strong enough to cause severe disruption if it had struck the Earth directly. However, no such catastrophe occurred. The reason was simple yet astonishing: at that particular time, the Earth happened to be positioned on the opposite side of the sun. As a result, the storm passed through space without affecting our planet.

This was not an isolated incident. Events of a similar nature occur in the universe on a regular basis. The sun continuously emits radiation and energy, and occasionally, powerful eruptions such as coronal mass ejections send charged particles hurtling through space. If these were to collide directly with the Earth under unfavourable conditions, they could disrupt communication systems, damage satellites, and interfere with electrical networks on a global scale.

A report carried by a leading Indian daily highlighted the seriousness of the 2012 event. It described how a solar storm travelling at a speed of 3,000 kilometres per second—fast enough to circle the Earth several times in a single minute—narrowly missed the planet. The energy released was compared to that of billions of hydrogen bombs. Experts observed that had the timing been slightly different—had the eruption occurred just a few days earlier—it could have resulted in widespread technological collapse, affecting power grids, navigation systems, and modern infrastructure.

Such occurrences point towards a profound reality. The survival of life on Earth is not merely the result of human effort or technological advancement. Rather, it depends on a complex and finely balanced system that operates far beyond human control. The positioning of the Earth, the behaviour of the sun, and the protective layers surrounding our planet—all contribute to safeguarding life in ways that often go unnoticed.

This reality is beautifully reflected in the Quranic verse: “Say, ‘Who guards you by night and by day from the Most Merciful?’ Yet they turn away from the remembrance of their Lord.” (21: 42) The verse invites reflection on the unseen protection that surrounds human existence at every moment. It reminds us that while human beings may feel secure, their safety is dependent on factors beyond their awareness.

Despite the abundance of such signs, human beings often remain heedless. Surrounded by comfort and routine, they fail to recognize the continuous protection that sustains their lives. Modern science, instead of diminishing this awareness, actually reinforces it. The more we learn about the universe, the more we realize how fragile our existence is and how precisely conditions have been arranged to preserve it.

If a person were to truly reflect on these realities, it would lead to a profound transformation. They would begin to see life not as a series of random events, but as part of a meaningful and purposeful system. This awareness would naturally give rise to gratitude, humility, and a deeper connection with the Creator.

The preservation of Earth is not an ordinary matter. It is the result of an intricate and ongoing arrangement that protects life at every moment. Recognizing this truth is the first step towards developing a sense of responsibility and gratitude. When a person becomes aware of this continuous divine care, it can bring about a complete inner revolution—transforming not only how they see the world, but also how they live within it.

The more we learn about the universe, the more we realize how fragile our existence is and how precisely conditions have been arranged to preserve it.

The initiative by Goodword Books to produce a Roman Urdu translation of the Quran represents a deeply relevant and much-needed step in today’s world, where the gap between people and divine guidance is often not one of availability but of accessibility. While the Quran is widely available in Arabic and in numerous translations, a large segment of Urdu-speaking people remains unable to benefit from it fully—not because they do not understand the language, but because they cannot read the Urdu script.

Urdu, though widely spoken across South Asia and among diaspora communities, is written in the Nastaliq script, which is elegant but complex. Many individuals, especially those educated in English-medium environments, grow up speaking and understanding Urdu fluently but never acquire proficiency in reading its script. At the same time, these very individuals are comfortable reading Urdu written in the Roman alphabet, as is common in everyday texting, social media, and informal communication. Roman Urdu has thus become a functional bridge language of the modern age. Bringing the Quran into this familiar script removes a silent yet significant barrier, allowing countless people to approach the divine message directly.

The Quran itself repeatedly calls upon human beings to reflect, to understand, and to internalize its message. It asks, “Will they not reflect upon the Quran?” (4: 82), and describes itself as a blessed Book revealed so that people may ponder over its verses (38: 29). These verses make it clear that the purpose of revelation is not mere recitation, but comprehension. When a person reads words without understanding, the transformative power of the Quran remains largely unrealized. In this sense, any effort that enhances understanding is not merely helpful—it is essential.

This is precisely where the Roman Urdu translation becomes so valuable. It allows a reader to engage with the Quran in a language they already understand, presented in a script they are already comfortable with. The result is immediate comprehension, and with comprehension comes reflection. The Quran begins to speak to the reader in a direct and personal way, fulfilling its role as guidance rather than remaining a distant, ritual text.

This approach closely reflects the lifelong mission of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, whose work consistently emphasized the importance of understanding the Quran in one’s own language. He repeatedly stressed that the Quran is a book meant for thoughtful study, not just for recitation. According to him, every individual should read the Quran as if it were a personal message addressed directly to them. For this to happen, language and presentation must not become obstacles.

Through his writings and efforts, including works like Tazkirul Quran, he sought to present the Quran in a simple, contemporary style that could be understood by modern readers. He also encouraged large-scale translation and distribution efforts so that the Quran could reach people across linguistic and cultural boundaries. The Roman Urdu Quran is a natural extension of this vision. It applies the same principle—removing barriers—to a new and increasingly relevant context: the barrier of script.

In today’s digital age, reading habits have shifted dramatically. Much of people’s reading now happens on screens, in short bursts, and often in Roman script. Even those who can read Urdu may find Roman Urdu quicker and more accessible in everyday contexts. By adopting this format, the Quran becomes more integrated into daily life. It can be read on a phone, shared easily, and approached without the hesitation that sometimes accompanies unfamiliar scripts.

Of course, Roman Urdu is not without its limitations. It lacks the standardization and phonetic precision of the Urdu script, and it cannot fully capture the linguistic beauty of traditional writing. However, its purpose is not to replace the original or classical forms, but to serve as an entry point. It opens the door for those who might otherwise remain distant from the Quran. Once that connection is established, deeper engagement can follow.

In essence, the Roman Urdu Quran is a response to a real and widespread need. It acknowledges that in order to bring people closer to divine guidance, one must speak to them in the language and form they understand best. This is not a compromise, but a fulfilment of the Quran’s universal message. It ensures that the call to reflect, to understand, and to transform one’s life is not limited by script or literacy, but remains open to all.

Seen in this light, the effort by Goodword Books is not merely a publishing decision. It is part of a broader mission to make the Quran a living guide for humanity, accessible to every heart and mind. It carries forward the vision of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, who believed that the true revolution begins when the Quran is not only read, but understood.

• Free Download click 
• Buy Online click

The Roman Urdu Quran is a response to a real and widespread need. It acknowledges that in order to bring people closer to divine guidance, one must speak to them in the language and form they understand best.

This world is a place of constant change. No condition remains the same forever. In accordance with the laws of nature and the divine scheme of creation, circumstances continue to alternate. Ease is followed by difficulty, and difficulty by ease. At times, a person is confronted with loss. This loss may appear in the form of fear, hunger, or a decrease in wealth, life, or well-being, as mentioned in the Quran (2: 155). 

In such situations, some people begin to complain and lament. They give way to negative thinking, and gradually despair takes hold of their minds. They see only what has been taken away and fail to reflect upon what still remains. This attitude leads them into a state of helplessness. But this is not the way of a thinking person. It is the way of those who fail to understand the wisdom behind events. The proper response, at such moments, is to turn towards the Creator of the universe and entrust all matters to Him. Hardship should be seen not as a cause for protest, but as a test of patience; not as a permanent condition, but as a temporary phase.

Those who possess a God-oriented mind respond differently. When they are faced with a calamity, they spontaneously say: “We belong to God, and to Him we shall return.” Along with this, they pray: “O God, reward us in our hardship, and grant us what is better for us after it.” (Sahih Muslim)

This is not merely a verbal response. It is a complete way of thinking. Such words awaken inner strength. They help a person rise above the shock of the moment. After a phase of grief, they rediscover hope and clarity.

Those who adopt this attitude do not remain prisoners of the past. They learn to move forward. Even in times of deprivation, they discover new possibilities. Where others see an end, they find a new beginning, and a fresh opportunity to rebuild their lives.

The proper response, in adverse situations, is to turn towards the Creator of the universe and entrust all matters to Him. Hardship should be seen not as a cause for protest, but as a test of patience; not as a permanent condition, but as a temporary phase.