Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Please note this is News in Brief, and so will be a short article.
Published online 2 July 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/454014b
Muslim nuclear physicist sues over freedom of rights
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Please note this is News in Brief, and so will be a short article.
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
The retention of religion by people dabbling in science is an anachronism. One would hope that people intelligent enough to research into science would be able to see the ridiculousness of adhering to archaic rituals and barbaric beliefs. Unfortunately many are unable to shake off the shackles of their childhood indoctrinations and resort to all sorts of logical contortionism to justify clinging onto something, which they possibly realise, deep in their subconscious, is intellectually indefensible. The support of extreme religious radicals by the liberal left and indeed by the liberal societal laws of the west is also paradoxical and ironic, as the eventual aim of such radicals is to destroy liberalism. The communists similarly used all the laws and safeguards of democracy to destroy it. Where do we draw the line to protect our democratic freedoms and how do we amend and rectify our laws to remove this anomaly while at the same time ensuring that individuals' democratic rights are not infringed upon?
This retaliation against a US citizen for peacefully expressing views at odds with the current administration is disgraceful. Thanks for publicizing this incident.
Perhaps, there is a legitimate reason why his security clearance was revoked.
One's religious beliefs should strictly remain within the confines of one's private space or better be never verbalized. There is no need to express them so loud and in so many words. All public display of religiosity and ritualism should be completely banned all over the world. it is your belief, it is good for you, the matter ends there. Vinod Krishan
I don't know why we keep repeating that science can not go along with religion. The way I see it is that none of them could exist without the other. No scientific theory can explain the origin of the universe beyond the "Big Bang"; and here where religion comes. On the other hand, we need science to learn more about how elegant and complicated this universe is to appreciate the work of the Creator. We learned in high school physics: Matter can not be created nor destroyed, however we keep repeating now, as "scientists", that the universe came from nothing! Instead of fighting useless battles to exclude the theory of God from scientific theories, let's work together to find the common grounds that exist between both; I am sure there is a lot common out there.
I think that the furore that situations like the above reported create is very interesting. Is this a case of the infringement of civil liberties, as the above article would suggest? Has an overly authoritarian administration retaliated unfairly against an otherwise peaceful foreign national for the sole reason that he, as a private citizen, as expressed discontent with American foreign policy? Maybe. Or, has a concerned government identified a potential threat to their national security posed by a foreign national working in a sensitive area? Again, perhaps. Is it a case of someone conducting bad science by allowing their faith-based judgement to cloud their reason? There is nothing in the above article to suggest that the security clearance was revoked on these grounds, yet of all the above responses only two neglected in any way to mention faith as a potential reason for his dismissal. While it is true that it is possible to find paradoxical any support liberal societies have for those which would, at first glance, seem inimical to their own, one usually finds that this support is, typically, limited to the support of free speech. That said, it is certainly not true to say that he wouldn’t express “his opinions so openly, and make himself so recognisable�. There are many international examples of vociferous opponents of western government although admittedly, to my knowledge, they usually aren’t nuclear physicists working in a national laboratory. I think it would be interesting to know that when he is described as being an “active member in local Islamic community�, precisely what does this mean. Does he merely attend religious services? Or is there something else? Certainly, banning public displays of religiosity is a nice idea, particularly since those most engaged in them are often verging on hate-speech, which is certainly not included in the right to free speech, but in practice, I don’t think this is possible. One thing I do strongly “believe� is that there is no room in science for faith-based belief. It is not simply enough to want something to be true, nor is faith a sufficient recourse with which to fill in current gaps of knowledge. The postulation of a “creator� as being the reason for any natural phenomena creates far more problems than it actually solves, and the continued insistence of the creationist groups on using this as an excuse for the non-investigation of the natural world is astounding. There will almost certainly never be a serious scientist who does anything other than oppose the inclusion of any kind of god in science. Critical thought is a virtue in science, faith is not. But, of course this again has nothing whatsoever to do with the above article!
I was not reacting to the revocation of his security clearance, which is an internal US matter, but to the fact that he has been described as a "Muslim" physicist, sports a beard in adherence to the wishes of a medieval religious founder and is an active member of the local Islamic community. I was deploring the fact that he has not been able to overcome the indoctrination of his childhood to see the ridiculousness of an archaic religion. Whereas Einstein had personal beliefs these were those he came by through (his) subsequent reasoning and not the product of indoctrination.
The title is not good. Why not the title sometimes be Christian Nuclear Physicist or Hindu Nuclear Physicist or Buddhist Nuclear Physicist? Why the media is trying to project muslim community in this way? The journal like "NATURE" should be kept away from these type of controversies.
I don't see this as a religion thing. It's a matter of national security. Considering the problems we've had in the past I personally wouldn't have any Muslims or Chinese that have emigrated to the U.S. allowed to have top security clearances. I would probably not allow first generation children of either group to have a top security clearance. Still too iffy. If they dislike the U.S. so much why stay. Let him go back to Egypt. I've lived in Egypt and it's a mess. If they want to do research there are plenty of other areas which could use their assistance.
rollinson ford wrote: "Nothing I have read regarding islam allows a devout muslim to be a United States citizen. They have to give their highest allegiance to islam to remain devout; that precludes them from supporting the Constitution simply because islam demands they undermine the rule of law to impose sharia! We are stupid to allow any muslim access to any control or knowledge of strategic science or policy"!! Excellent points Rollinson...even moderate Muslims revere sharia law in a much more foundational way than they do any secular law of any country! Even those moderates who dont agree with Islamist doctrine or militant jihadism hardly ever speak out against them because many freedom-loving Muslims who disagree with the violent means employed my the extremists, often agree with and support the end which is imposition of sharia law!!
To Lynn, If it were not for the contributions of foreign born scientists, the nuclear program as we know it today would be non-existant, or at least not initiated by America. The following quote is from, "Atomic Energy" by Henry DeWolf Smyth: "At that time American-born nuclear physicists were so unaccustomed to the idea of using their science for military purposes that they hardly realized what needed to be done. Consequently the early efforts both at restricting publication and at getting government support were simulated largely by a small group of foreign-born physicists centering on L. Szliard and including E. Wigner, E. Teller, V.F. Weisskopf, and E. Fermi" (page 45). Add to that list Oppenheimer, Einstein, Niels Bohr, and Urey. Not to mention, Wernher von Braun , father of the American space and missile programs, and John von Neumann, the modern computer pioneer, all foreigners who made contributions to high security projects. Of course, some might say, but these are all 'good Jewish and Christian people.' Unfortunately, bigotry has no logical answer. To those discussing the compatibility of religion and science, I will quote again from Smyth, in his description of the immediate moments before the first test of the atom bomb: "We were reaching into the unknown and we did not know what might come of it. It can safely be said that *most of those present were praying -- and praying harder than they had ever prayed before*" (page 253, emphasis mine). Those who were present were some of the greatest minds and military leaders in this country. They prayed. And later, on page 254: "Thirty seconds after, the explosion came first, the air blast pressing hard against the people and things, to be followed almost immediately by the strong, sustained, awesome roar *which warned of doomsday and made us feel that we puny things were blasphemous to dare tamper with the forces heretofore reserved to the Almighty*" (emphasis mine). So, a number of the scientists involved in the atom bomb's development were religious, yet that did not conflict with the stipulations of their security clearances, intellectual superiority, or personal integrity. Most scientists throughout history have believed in God; and most great philosophers, including the likes of Kant did not deny the presence of God, but only the theological inaccuracies of man's interpretation of various religions. Indeed, atheism itself is a religion, with its own tenets and assumptions. The real question here is not about Dr. El-Ganayni's religion, or whether or not it conflicts with science. The question is whether or not the Constitution and due process still have a place in the American society; the answer, if we take Dr. El-Ganayni's case as an example, is a resounding no. Aaron Shank (H.A.Q.)
One would assume that the previous contributors are all scientist and as such would be inclined to judge matters by evidence and reason. What a shame that even members of the scientific community cannot overcome unsophisticated arguments! If we criticize the simplicity of religious tenets, let us not fall into other equally baseless arguments, please.
Could anyone explain to me why some of commentators above think that working as a scientist is inherently incompatible with having a religion or any other system of beliefs or rituals? What Mr. Dawson calls "adhering to archaic rituals and barbaric beliefs" and "childhood indoctrinations", others would call tradition and culture. I think it irrational and absurd to assume that scientists have to ban everything from their lives that is not falsifiable. What about music and art? I like it, but I can't prove it. I hope scientists can still marry, despite it being a completely irrational old-fashioned ritual. And I sincerely hope that none of you scientists enjoy football games or ever participated in graduation ceremonies. The ritual, irrational nature of these activities should disgust you. As Shakespeare once said, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Obviously, he was an idiotic, irrational fool, but stil...
El-Ganyani did not do anything illegal. Otherewise he would have been charged in a court of law. Whether he is a radical or not is subjective. The article says he held critical views of the US intervention in Iraq, just as Sakarov did on Afghanistan for that matter, and was punished. That may be a radical view for some and perfectly valid criticism for others. What is worrisome is that some of the people publicly expressing views in his favor, e.g.. this forum, may end up being put under government surveillance, in no-fly lists, etc. By the way, the American Association for the Advancement of Science Human Rights program presents completely different facts in the case. To be amazed check out http://shr.aaas.org/actionalert/Abdel-Moniem_Ali_El-Ganayni.html I've noticed that scientific organizations never achieve objectivity when politics comes into play.