quantum physics, holographic universe, implicate order, david bohm, the secret, mind over matter, matter does not exist, matter is energy

View Video By Clicking Here -> Nassim Nicholas Taleb talks about The Black Swan

Black Swan, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Unpredictability, 9/11

Although the ordering of the myths are not important, you may first read Part 1 here.

That a mind ‘contaminated’ by religion or the idea of God cannot seriously be scientific as well.

Believing the above statement to be true is like throwing away hundreds of years of recorded history. I shall not give an exhaustive list of contributors to sciences and other academic secular fields who are religious or theological as well, but I shall just give you a sample of it - a rather excellent example, I might add - of this list.

I present you Geber, aka Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan (clicking on the link opens its Wikipedia entry in a separate window), an 8th century Shia Muslim polymath credited widely to be the “Father of Chemistry”. I urge you to read about him first as my descriptions based on my infantile knowledge of him may not do justice to him.

People should not mistake him to be the creator of Algebra, although his Latinised name, Geber, and the word ‘Algebra’ sounds similar. The word Algebra is derived from a treatise by a Persian Mathematician, Muhammad Ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi (the word Algorithm is derived from his name), titled “Al-Kitab Al-Jabr Wal-Muqabala”.

But I would add also that Jabir’s chief influence and teacher is the 6th Infallible Imam of the Shia, Jaafar As-Sadiq (pbuh), who was a prolific polymath himself, as well as scientist and philosopher, besides being the spiritual leader of the Shia Muslims of his time.

Suffice it to say, Jabir was a brilliant and prolific scientist as well as a pious Shia Muslim. If that statement and fact were to be viewed under Dawkinsian lenses, you can’t get any more oxymoronic (extremely paradoxical) than that.

Of course, like I said, I am only giving you a sample of the list, and Geber is only one of those people whom the likes of Dawkins can’t accept that a religious mind can be scientific as well.

If I may add, people such as Newton and Einstein, although not strictly religious, are as they would describe themselves, spiritual. Even the late Carl Sagan, the prominent atheist astronomer, described, “But if by ‘God,’ one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying… it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.”

Interestingly, while I believe most atheists agree with Sagan’s view, I see very little (or nothing) in Dawkinsian rhetoric that acknowledges, echoes or embraces the view of Carl Sagan to at least ‘justify’ or lend some balanced credit to his arguments.

That raising your children in your own religious tradition is child abuse.

So by this, I mean to infer that if I were to be an atheist, freethinker or secular humanist and I raise my children in the philosophies of atheism, inculcate in her the logical fallacies and evils that religious belief can bring about, argue strongly against the improbability of God’s existence and strongly advocating to her the merits of rational and scientific thought, as well as educate her on the finer points of Darwinian evolution, that wouldn’t amount to ‘child abuse’ too?

What would not constitute child abuse then?

Think through that question thoroughly. Take into your account all practical and social considerations. What would it take to achieve an ‘ideal Dawkinsian society’ in which child abuse (by inculcating children in the traditions of the parents’ religion) is virtually non-existent?

If his argument that raising your child in your religious tradition is a form of child abuse becomes mainstream and takes root - although far-fetched - in policy-makers, and even - God forbid - becomes part of the list of no-no’s (amongst perhaps torture, imprisonment without trial, etc) in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, what do you think would happen? Do you think the governments of the world would deem it wise to illegalise the raising of children in their parents’ religious tradition? Do you think parents of any religious tradition would actually want to comply with the new laws being passed against the raising of children in their parents’ religious tradition? What would stop parents from ‘brainwashing’ their children into accepting religion in secret?

What about teaching our children basic morals and ethics? Would that too amount to abuse because morals and ethics are subjective and evolve with the times - what might be ‘moral’ in an earlier age may not be moral now? So do we then allow our children free rein to do whatever they want and decide what is right or wrong, according to their own trial-and-error learning processes? Make it okay for them to curse and swear at their parents, bully their peers, take what’s not theirs, torture their pets, embrace homosexuality while still young, all in the name of ‘giving them the freedom to choose whatever belief systems, moral systems, ethical systems, sexual orientation or life philosophies they want to adopt’?

Geber, 8th century Shia Muslim polymath, Jaafar As-Sadiq

Finally, I have completed reading The Dawkins Delusion. Funny that I realised it is only 75+ pages long after I’ve completed it.

The Argument that Religion is the Root of Evil.

In any group of people who are holding on to any particular set of beliefs, ideas or world views, there will always be the rational and practical people and the extreme, emotion-driven and radical people. The irony is that even this is a simplification of reality.

The polemics of binary opposition (i.e. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” / “If you’re not one of us, you’re one of them”) is flawed no matter the context in which it can be found - even in the Dawkinsian atheism rhetoric.

While it is a tragic fact that there have been terrible atrocities committed in the name of religion via the process of ‘transcendentalising’ certain principles or values such that these ideas trump all other notions rooted in reality (for an extreme example, some people believe abortion - no matter what the situation - is murder and it is Godly to kill the murderer before he commits an act of murder - and this has been manifested in reality in the murder of an abortionist in America by people who interpreted the Bible in a twisted and narrow manner), this ‘transcendentalising’ of values to the point of extremism at the risk of human rights and life is universal and not to be found solely in religion.

Recently more attention has been directed at the atrocities committed under religion’s banner due to the sudden (perceived) rise of terrorism early this century. These terror acts were perpetrated supposedly for religious reasons, hence, it is natural that in the collective consciousness of the world, there has arisen that growing feeling of threat from the darker side of religion.

But this shift in consciousness should not detract our attention from other equally (if not more) terrible atrocities committed in the name of something else other than religion - be it a political ideology, an economic model, or even extremist secular fundamentalism itself.

I believe Richard Dawkins himself does not unquestioningly believe that religion is the root of evil. It was just a title he (or his marketing reps) constructed for a documentary he made as a tie-in promotion for his new book, intended to sensationalise the topic and attract attention, discussion and debate.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins attempted - in vain - to ‘disprove’ the so-called myth that the ideas influencing Nazism stemmed from godless Darwinian / Malthusian values. His arguments in this motion are weak, as is many others in his far-from-’scientific’ book. Yes, Hitler tried to twist in some Christianity into his Nazi ideals, but that does not make Nazism a product of Christianity. If anything else, Hitler was pretending to make it seem as if Nazism is Christian, in order to appeal to his German subjects, but in his true form, he is a godless and malevolent megalomaniac altogether.

Thousands of Argentinians suspected of being socialists were tortured or killed during and after Pinochet’s brutal coup in the name of establishing ‘free market economics’ in that country.

Millions of religious people had been persecuted, deprived of their essential rights and murdered under the essentially godless Soviet regime.

The informed person will know that to limit terror, violence and evil solely as a product of religion is a Sisyphean attempt.

Evil acts can come about due to any number of influencing factors, but mostly they occur due to a situation in which the perpetrator is pushed to a corner (or perceived to be pushed into a corner) to the point of desperation where no other options of escape or redress is available to him. That is the justice-seeking view of the cause of acts of atrocities.

Another more common reason for atrocities to be committed is simply greed - the perception that there is not enough or a severe lack of something that is wanted hence everything should be done to acquire more of or get exclusive access to that something at the expense of other’s rights to the same thing and their freedoms. The stronger, more resourceful the agent is, the more able she is in procuring that thing to the exclusion of others’ rights to it. Acts of atrocities can come about as a by-product of the process of trying to gain exclusive access to said limited resource.

That the Separation of Religion and Politics is the Highest Ideal that should be strived for.

One thing I’d like to clarify for my more religiously-inclined friends (I am one of you, God willing) - you should not fear the word Secular or Secularism as if it is Nazism to a Jew, or Polytheism to a Muslim (especially during the Prophet’s time).

Secular, while essentially it means that which has nought to do with the religious, the spiritual or the godly, need not mean the exclusion nor demands the eradication of religion per se.

Religion can still exist in all its splendour and glory in a secular society. Or in the case of Singapore, more than one can co-exist in relative harmony.

A secular state can be inclusive of any number of religions as long as the common values of such religions are in line with the ideals of the state, namely, justice, equity, freedom and individual rights, etc, and as long as the differing values of these religions are respected within their bounds and are not being used to cause unnecessary tensions, frictions and conflicts that cost human lives, dignities and property.

But a reform I’d like to see in the model of the secular state that is inclusive of a multiplicity of religions co-existing in relative peace and harmony is a more two-sided or bilateral approach to the way things are being done.

While the beliefs of one particular religion should not dominate the political domain of a secular state such that it affects to disadvantage people of another religion or of no religious affiliation who are also citizens of said state, the ethical, moral and sociological views of the different religious views can inform (but need not influence or dominate) the decision and policy making processes of the political domain of the secular state.

Here the word secular has transmuted its definition from its original non-religious or void-of-religion meaning to one that is more inclusive.

On the other hand, while the policies, laws and acts of the secular political administration should not trample on, restrict or transgress the various sanctities, sensitivities, requirements and prohibitions of the different religious belief systems, the political domain can inform the peoples of whatsoever persuasions amongst its citizens of the importance of taking a more proactive or at least cooperative role in the advancement of its society sans any form of social discrimination whatsoever.

In fact, the model I am describing closely resembles that of Singapore. Though far from perfect with a vast room for further improvement and reform, I am glad things are the way they are and it should stay this way or get better.

However, in practical reality, there is bound to be clashes between the secular interests of the state and the ideals of a particular or a number of religions. The present protocol is for the secular interests of the state to trump the ideals of religion. While I am not calling for the ideals of religion to dominate over secular interests either, a more mutually beneficial and win-win approach should be worked out in great detail and with the sincerest effort, such that the secular interests are appeased and the religious ideals are preserved, both in just measure.

Because if secular interests consistently trump the religious ideals of its people, the state risks alienating its own citizens, the very people who, although faithful in their own traditions, were willing to contribute their life, money, time, energy, economy, service, allegiance, etc, to the advancement of the society. Since the state is composed of people and the people’s rights, freedoms and responsibilities are not attended to, what use is the state that has disgruntled people as its building blocks?

The Dawkins Delusion, terrorism, secular fundamentalism, The God Delusion, Dawkins, Hitler, Pinochet, free market economics, Soviet, Secularism

The Greatest Modern Tragedy of Islam is the hijacking of its true heritage and sacred sanctities by the tyrannical dynasty of Ibn Saud. The House of Saud is the modern-day equivalent and ideological descendant of the despotic regime of Islamic yore, the Bani Umayya (which consisted of the tyrants Muawiyah, Yazid, etc).

On the 8th of Shawal 1345 AH (21st April 1925), after the city of Medina was taken over by Ibn Saud, in line with his supra-puritanical and fanatical Salafi a.k.a. Wahabbi beliefs, his minions destroyed the tombs and resting places of the family members and close companions of the Prophet in Jannatul Baqi (click on the link for authoritative sources as well as pictorial empirical evidence).

The lie perpetrated by the Salafi myth is that Shi’ahs and other lovers of Ahlul Bayt, the Prophet’s family, commit the grave Islamic sin of shirk (polytheism) by visiting these graves, honouring these righteous personalities and praying for the well-being of their souls, while asking for theirs through the intercession of these personalities.

Visiting graves of loved ones or even paying homage to the tombs of illustrious personalities is a natural human practice. Even atheists can visit the tombs of, say, Isaac Newton, or Albert Einstein, and they can get away without being accused of being ’superstitious’; they know said personalities are dead and can affect nothing physically. It is simply a psychological, emotional, perhaps spiritual-level act.

And asking for intercession through holy personalities does not equate to worshipping said personalities in place of God. Even Catholics have this practice of intercession via Saints. They do not worship the Saints. They worship God.

Intercession is what I call spiritual leverage. The Saints, according to the Catholic context, or the Imams, the Shi’ah Islam context, are the closest personalities (spiritually) to God, hence, by intercession they act as a bridge between the ordinary believer and God. It is not because God is proud and does not want to have anything to do with ‘ordinary (sinning) believers’; conversely, God is closer to us than our own jugular vein (in the Islamic tradition), but it is our shortcomings and inadequacies that act as a veil between us and God and the intercessors’ function is to lift that veil.

The Salafi / Wahabbi / Saudi’s also know that God does not live in the Ka’abah, and that is not the reason why Muslims pray facing that direction every day. It is a symbolic act of unity, a Divine Ordinance. Since physically, the Ka’abah is simply a cubic structure and only a symbol (the central symbol) of Islam, why not demolish it in the name of ‘preventing polytheism that equates the Ka’abah with God’? Apparently, the Salafi logical fallacy has a limit, thank God!

It is the natural order of the Universe that humankind usually does not achieve a thing through direct will. There will always be tools, materials, mechanisms, processes; i.e. ‘intercessors’ in a sense, that help humankind use them as leverage to achieve something. Same goes with prayer and intercession. It is not dependency. It is nature. Even our very act of thought and will requires some form of ‘intercession’ by way of our neurons firing and forming connections in our brain. In a rational causal universe, that is the way things work.

Even then, even if all this explanation for the validity of intercession in Islamic tradition is wrong, the Saudi authorities have no right, divine or earthly, to destroy (by bombing, no less) the graves of historic figures. This act of theirs pre-dates the bombing of the Buddha statues in Afghanistan by the Taleban.

Islam, Ibn Saud, House of Saud, Bani Umayya, Muawiyah, Yazid, Salafi, Wahabbi, Jannatul Baqi, Shi’ah, Ahlul Bayt, spiritual leverage, Ka’abah, Saudi authorities, Taleban

A friend alerted me to a documentary that played this evening titled God is Green. Mark Dowd, a Catholic, goes around interviewing various religious representatives (some leaders, some mere spokespeople for environmental consciousness within their own religious contexts) about the relevance of preserving the balance of the Earth to combat global warming in their religion.

While various viewpoints were presented, the documentary is wanting on many levels. It thoroughly misses out on a lot of elements and dimensions to the whole ecological movement thing. Perhaps it is due to a lack of funding (it seemed a small one-man project to me), but Mark, although being pragmatic and realistic, focuses only on the abstinence aspect of the struggle for a more life-friendly Earth - the abstinence from actions that cause large carbon footprints (like flying, taking gas-guzzling vehicles, electricity consumption, etc) - while he ignores the equally pragmatic approach of finding alternatives to present necessary activities that do not produce as much if not no carbon dioxide at all.

Although he devotes a couple of minutes to solar panels, the thrust of his message seemed to be more abstinence.

I believe a more holistic approach is required to effectively cause ’significant damage’ upon the carbon dioxide surplus. This approach should be holistic yet practical, significantly effective yet economical and ideally, bridges gaps and dissolves tensions between various human-divisive groups.

I am not a frequent traveller myself, but eventually I do want to travel as frequently as I want to and perhaps perform the Hajj pilgrimage. When Mark goes on to the Muslim segment of the documentary, the only practical solution that was presented was by this Muslim Londoner who suggested Muslims should limit the number of times they go on the Hajj because the amount of carbon dioxide produced by plane travel every year during the Hajj season is utterly staggering.

Of course, being a Muslim I shall have a certain bias in this regard and say that the documentary’s focus on the Muslim segment is grossly oversimplifying. First of all, Muslims have gone on the Hajj for thousands of years even before the invention of the aeroplane. Many have gone on foot, on ships, on beasts of burden, on vehicles, etc, and there should be nothing to stop people from travelling anywhere they please while they can.

We should not sacrifice one freedom for the sake of another. The solution would be to find alternative means of travel or alternative plane fuels that do not emit significant levels of carbons.

Secondly, the problems facing the Islamic world (most of them caused by the Muslims themselves ourselves) are far too complex to ‘distract’ us from the pressing issue at hand - Palestine, terrorism, sectarian squabbles, extremism, fundamentalism, reformism, anti-semitism, Zionism, Arab supremacism, greed, corruption, ad nauseam.

But of course, that should not be an excuse for complacency. Muslims desperately do not need another decade let alone another century or millennium of complacency, self-imposed oppression via ignorance and general wanton self-absorption.

Thirdly, the Islamic solutions for a greener life on Earth goes far beyond limiting the number of times Muslims should go for the Hajj. Numerous Prophetic traditions hail such practical deeds as planting trees, keeping your surroundings clean and treating plants and animals as gifts from God - hence the responsibility side of the coin also plays a crucial role here. I have even personally seen statutes in Islamic books of law and jurisprudence concerning limits to the cutting down of trees - deforestation control in Islam!

Another notion that is put forward in this documentary that I disagree with is that the key to the solving of these problems is leadership. Hundreds of years of attempting to impose, revolutionise or evolutionise social changes have shown the impotence of ‘leadership’ and vertically-labyrinthine hierarchical structures in doing anything significant (except for imposing some form of fascistic change usually via violence).

We can pay, bribe, beg, vote or coerce people in power to be ambassadors for change, spokespeople for the environment who walk the walk and not just talk the talk and feature them in the media, etc, but that would only create more a culture of hero worship rather than hero emulation. The focus would be on what brand of hybrid car Mr So-and-So drives rather than genuine concern for the Earth that should motivate such eco-friendly actions.

Again, we go back to the Fullerian vision for reality change - to create a new, practical, economical, vastly superior model that makes the old ones obsolete. If we can find a cleaner, greener way of air travel, if we can find alternative clean fuels that is perfect and more energy efficient than the current ones we are consuming, and if we can implement all this in a structure that allows for greater social and economic equity that bridges gaps and dissolves tensions, then we have hope.

In fact, we have always had hope.

God is Green, global warming

I wish to see an intimate dialogue / debate between Professors Hassanain Rajabali and Richard Dawkins either live or on internet video.

In this lecture, Professor Hassanain explains how the idea of evolution by natural selection need not be categorically rejected from the domain of holistic Islamic understanding and in fact, how it could possibly even be in harmony with what is agreed upon in Islam.

Hassanain Rajabali, Richard Dawkins, evolution, natural selection, Islam

If you have any iota of concern for your freedom…

If you have any inkling of concern for your well-being as a human being…

If you want all the madness that is happening to and in the world to stop once and for all and be actively and consciously involved in the shaping of a new, brighter future for humanity and your children…

Then your first step to participate in what is probably the greatest revolution in the history of humankind (which is a revolution for nothing less than the absolute highest ideal of humanity - FREEDOM) is to watch this online documentary feature -

ZeitgeistMovie.com

- I firmly believe the only rational way forward for our species (and for all life on this planet) is to break away from the destructive cycle of violence, paranoia, hatred, fear, deceit, addictions, conceit and the desire for dominance at the expense of others that has been going on and on since 10,000 BC (the earliest historically documented starting point of human civilisation) in multiple variations and near-infinite iterations (wars, colonialisation, imperialisation, racism, nationalism, religious zealotry, patriotic zealotry, class divisions, etc).

The first step is to find out, understand and know the Truth. As the Bible says, The Truth shall set you free. In essence, Truth and Freedom are intertwined. Truth is the elixir and Freedom is the end result.

As the Quran says, Truth has arisen and falsehood has vanished. Indeed, falsehood is ever vanishing.

How To Be Free & Join In The Revolution For Nothing Less Than The Liberation Of Humanity In 3 Simple Steps.

Step 1. Set aside 2 hours of free time.

Step 2.  Watch every minute of the movie featured on the above-mentioned website.

Step 3. Spread the word. Join in the conversation. Participate in the Zeitgeist (Spirit of the Times). Blog about it. Social bookmark it. Assemble friends & family and hold discussions about it. Find ways and means to integrate the messages of the Zeitgeist into your personal and professional lives. Stop being so cynical. Stop being so paranoid. Learn to trust. Start trying to understand others. Volunteer in worthy causes. Vote right. Impeach Bush. Okay, the last one is optional.

freedom, humanity, ZeitgeistMovie.com, The Truth shall set you free, Truth has arisen and falsehood has vanished. Indeed, falsehood is ever vanishing, Impeach Bush

I just watched Jesus Camp, the documentary feature about Evangelical Christianity in America (in general) and a certain summer camp organised by a Pastor Becky designed for children of Evangelical Christians (in particular).

Perhaps the 2 are worlds apart, but I find Jesus Camp more ‘comfortable’ than Richard Dawkins’ “Root of All Evil?”.

I could say that every minute of the documentary film was riveting but what stood out from the rest of the scenes - for me - was when the children were asked to ‘pray to the Lord’ for forgiveness of sins such as ’saying dirty words in school, being a completely (un-Christian) different person in school than when in Church, etc’, to the point that some (if I could recall almost all of them) were in tears.

I wouldn’t really say that the film is biased towards or against any particular point of view. In fact, it has a lot of restraint for a work that covers a controversial issue. But other viewers might disagree.

The radio DJ that was featured in the documentary, a moderate Christian who believes in the separation of Church and State, that has been one of the defining principles of America, and who was the so-called ‘Voice of Reason’ in the feature, I would say, represented a rather paranoid view that might exaggerate the reality of the situation in America.

There is the sentiment of a growing Evangelical Christian influence in America, yes, that is affecting the government and schools of America, but the truth of the matter is that reality is far more complex and sophisticated than any kind of polarity that any side might want to portray in terms of ‘Us’ versus ‘Them’; which in this case, would be ‘Evangelical Christians (or Extremist Fundamentalist Muslims) who want to bring an end to the Separation of Church (Religion) and State’ and ‘Moderate Christians and other non-Christians who want to maintain the Separation of Church (or Religion) and State’. Like anything else in Nature, things will return to a certain state of equilibrium eventually.

Jesus Camp, Evangelical Christianity, Richard Dawkins, Root of All Evil, separation of Church and State

I have already thought of the idea of residual philanthropy even before Mark Victor Hansen and Robert Allen wrote about it in their book, Cracking the Millionaire Code.

I was doing some research about which charities to sponsor as a permanent policy for all my future business endeavours and I was considering Feed the Children.  But somehow, when I did more research into this charity, I had this uneasy feeling and negative vibe about it. Perhaps it was due to some rumours about its poor management and handling of funds that had been flying about online. Perhaps it was also due to the fact that it has some sort of Christian involvement.

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against Christianity and Christians, and I say this beyond societal demand for political correctness. It’s just that I feel uncomfortable supporting a charity or a social movement that is inspired by, based upon or managed largely by religious ideals or groups. Realistically and practically speaking, there tends to be hidden agendas and intentions that will be made manifest in the good works that these charities and movements would do, despite their best and sincerest efforts to remain strictly and secularly professional and dogma-free.

I am also uncomfortable about supporting any charity or social movement that has a nationalistic, political or non-religious ideological agenda.

Basically, any charity or movement that has any agenda at all will not pass my test.

What matters to me is that the movement must realistically, truthfully and honestly serve the best interests of humanity (children, women, men, young, old, able, disabled), with a blindfold against class, status, race, religion, clan, tribe, nationality, colour, sex and other human-taxonomies.

To illustrate my point, my ideal charity or movement would be more than willing to treat wounded Israeli civilians with utmost care and humanity even if said charity or movement were to comprise mostly of Palestinians.

Of course, I am not saying that, for my sake, if you are a Muslim you should stop supporting fund-raisers to build mosques or that if you’re a Buddhist, you should stop supporting free Buddhist clinics or hospitable homes. To you, your beliefs and to me, mine. And to have different religious groups supporting each other’s movements (as long as they serve the common good) once in a while is no harm either, if not in fact, encouraged.

Where I draw the line is when chiefly secular businesses or secular organisations choose to sponsor charities or movements that have religious, nationalistic, political or ideological agendas.

If you are running a strictly commercial entity, consisting of people from various religions and races, then it would be imprudent to partner with a religiously-based or ideologically-based charitable movement. However, in the domain of your personal life, which mosque, church, synagogue, temple or even atheists’ hang-out you want to donate to is entirely your own business (and you should not unlawfully use your company funds to sponsor your personal philanthropic urges).

Slightly Out of Context - Example from History:

At this point I would like to highlight a beautiful example in the history of Islam. Ali Ibn Abi Thalib was probably the first and only Caliph (if not the best one of all) to have handled the Islamic Treasury (collected from the Muslims’ annual tithe and other sources of income) in such a way that the portions from it that were supposed to support the development of the Christian and Jewish communities in the Islamic civilisation at that time were managed with utmost fairness and justice. Not a single iota of their portions were touched or taken to favour Muslim interests over theirs; in fact, when other agents sought to manipulate the Christian and Jewish portions of the Treasury, Ali meted out swift justice against these agents. Even his closest blood relations were not spared from his just dispensation of duties - any ‘favourable’ requests by them to receive additional amounts from the Treasury even on account of poverty are firmly refused by Ali.

residual philanthropy, Mark Victor Hansen, Robert Allen, Cracking the Millionaire Code, Feed the Children, Ali Ibn Abi Thalib