Eyes Wide Closed
Question) What do you call a person who goes to cross a road, but in the middle of the road he stops to look at the cars driving by- thinking about how one day he is going to drive a nice car too. And he looks at the children and the women on the other side of the road, thinking how he wants to have a family- but he misses the cars heading towards him – and SPLAT!
Answer) a fool!
Why is he a fool? Because in the process of thinking and planning about his future- for events which may or may not happen (the car he wants to buy, the family he wants to have)- he stops thinking about what is definitely happening in the present (the cars speeding towards him!)
How many people think like this fool in life? They make plans for their future- for events that may or may not happen- but neglect preparing for that single most definite event!
So you see them preparing and planning for their education, their jobs, their careers, their children and their families, but with no guarantees that they will be successful in their plans. They have no guarantee that all the events that they plan for – their jobs, their promotion, their careers, their graduation from university, their children, that perfect partner to settle down with- will even come to pass!
And while they get lost in all of this, they fail to plan for the most definite event in life-that single event that will be guaranteed to happen- DEATH!
Yes, it’s coming towards you like that car in the road!
But unlike that car in the road you don’t know what speed it’s hurtling towards you at!
When will you get hit by death?
Do you think you can afford to wait a while?
Do you think you have time before it hits you?
Now imagine that the car on that road is an invisible car speeding towards you- you don’t know when it will hit you!
Do you think you will have time to jump out the way before it hits you?
How many people have made plans for the future only to have death hit them before they realised their plans?
This is the reality of our lives- living without knowing when death will strike.
Only a fool stands in that road ignoring that carriage of death speeding towards him!
So how do you prepare for it?
I don’t mean the funeral arrangements- the physical side of death. I mean the soul, the spirit (whatever you want to call it)- the non-physical part of your existence.
Some people will even doubt the spiritual side to themselves- saying that it is all just a physical existence in this universe- that there are no non-tangible entities. But there are differences between the living and dead and if it were just a physical process then why can't we just produce the smallest living entity from non-living material? What is this magical secret of life that we cannot harness? Clearly there is a difference between something living and dead which is not just physical- otherwise you would not be able to read this and consciously scroll down the screen or turn over the page- you would just be a set of eyes staring blindly at the page. What directs you to turn over the page? It isn't something physical because we can’t measure it. It is your free will connected to your life.
Likewise the thoughts in your head are non-physical but also exist. That voice in your head that you hear echoing these words that you read are not physical entities that can be observed. Sure there are electrical impulses in your physical brain’s neural networks as you read but that is different to the understanding that you have in your mind of these words. The difference between you and a computer! A computer can be programmed to have electricity running through its circuits in order to perform certain functions like scanning a piece of text and playing it out loud. But a computer will not appreciate the meaning of those words. The meaning of those words that you understand that can evoke different feelings within you as you read them causing you to pause or choke, to cry or to laugh!
So- back to the point: how will you be ready for death?
Only if you could know what happens after death!
But who knows what happens when death collides with us? What can tell us what happens when we die? No one has ever come back from the dead to explain it.
But there is another way of knowing. And it can’t be through guesswork- you have to be sure! You only get one chance to prepare yourself-so you have to be certain!
There is one way of being certain…and I’ll give you a clue:
What is death? Is it not just the end of your life? So shouldn’t you be asking:
“What gave me life?”
“Is there a creator of this universe that gave life to all that is within it?”
“If there is a creator that created life, wouldn’t it also know the secrets of what happens after life?”
“How would I be able to even know if this creator has communicated these answers to us anyway?”
These questions will all be explored in the following chapters laying down a methodology to provide certainty.
So where do we start? We could talk about the nature of the human and analyse him and ask what makes the psychology of a child different to an adult. We could talk about the difference between man and animal and how the gift of the mind has allowed the human to become the master of his environment whilst the animal will die out if it doesn’t adapt.
This journey will be one that any human can undertake- from first principles of thinking that a person with any religion or no religion can apply in order to understand the truth about why we exist.
Everything starts with thinking!
{footnote: Alhamdulilah to the one who began His revelation with the word Iqra- to read,recite.
There was a way of thinking amongst the people living in the past (and also today) that led them to deny the Oneness of Allah SWT along with the superstitions that they believed in and the contradiction in their lives.
Allah then ordered the prophet Muhahmaad saw to use their minds and think- to think correctly and come to know the truth.
When the Arabs started to embrace this message and they began to think and submit they broke free from the intellectual shackles that kept them oppressed by other humans- slaves to their traditions and superstitions and tribes. They started to unleash the full potential of the human achievements in science, justice and civilisation to create a tranquil, progressive and harmonious individual, family and society.
It is important to understand this process of thinking and inculcate it within us so that we protect and purify our personalities, our homes and the future of our society.}
2. If you have no destination, then your journey is meaningless
But to begin with you may want to question why would that person standing in the middle of the road be considered a fool?
Why can’t he decide to enjoy the moment and end it all once he has had enough of his enjoyment of life? Why should he avoid getting run over by a car? You may think there are obvious answers to these questions – that ending life defeats the point of life! However to some they would differ- that life is to do what you wish with it- it’s your life! So you even have the movement for legal euthanasia that campaigns for the right to end your life if you so wish; suicide clinics have even opened in countries where it is legal! These assumptions about life’s objectives and purpose have been questioned philosophically over the ages to form the most basic answers to the question of why we are alive. But why is it important to know why you are alive?
The most important question in life: Why am I alive?
The fact that you are reading this means that you are alive- the truth of reality is that people do not live forever- they may wish it to be true- they may invest in cryogenics to freeze their bodies in the hope that they may be able to come back to life - but that is all speculation- and as we will discuss below, speculation does not trump reality. The reality is at the moment, that you will die one day and will not come back to life to this world.
To deny this reality is to deny living correctly-as we will discuss later- because nobody can live in the reality around them and deny its rules. If you chose to ignore those rules of physical reality you would not last very long without suffering. If you chose to ignore the reality of leaving your room through the door and tried to go through the wall you would have a painful existence bleeding and bruising to death. If you feel hungry and chose to ignore the biological reality of your physical body’s nutritional requirements, and denied it the reality of sustenance then your body’s cells would not respire and they would die.
Once death is accepted as a reality then we cannot ignore it.
So the first reason for the importance of asking why am I alive is the reality of life and death existing- death is the end of life and it is related to the reality of life. It must be considered then in order to prepare for death. So the preparation for death will depend upon your understanding of what happens to you when you die. So for example, if someone believes that after death they will be judged by God for their admittance into a Paradise or Hell based upon the sins that they have committed and the good that they have done then they may be more observant of the sins in life and choose to live a life of serving and pleasing their God. On the other hand if a person did not think that there were to be any accountability and nothing happens after death- you just materially decompose into the soil, then that person may choose a purpose in life that he felt made him happy- not concerned with a purpose of pleasing God who will judge him.
The second reason like the parable at the beginning, is that car coming towards you while you stand in the middle of the road. Death is a reality - we can not ignore the reality if we want to live in it. You can not survive the reality if you do not live according to its rules. Like the one who tries to exit a room through a wall rather than the door. Just like we study the reality of a room to find out how to exit it safely- we must study the reality of death to understand how to navigate it. Even if you did not know yet what happens at the point of death- you should still be concerned with its existence as it is hurtling towards you like that car! What is it about and what happens after it? These are the realities around death that you should be asking.
The third reason for the importance of purpose is that it will define your actions- what is good and bad. Good and evil are not labelled on any action and there are no universal moral codes that everyone is born with. Societies have their own penal codes different to one another as they have different views of morality. People have their different views on what is moral too- for example some people would think it is immoral to kill an animal in order to eat it and therefore become vegetarian. Some people would think it is immoral to also exploit animals and become vegan. Good and evil are linked to one's moral criteria which is linked to their objective in life. So for instance a person who believes that they are alive to obey God and earn His salvation may have a view of abortion as a sin due to the sacredness of a God-given life. This may be different to one who believes that they are alive to enjoy their freedoms that the past generations have given to this ever -evolving world and that they should be free to abort the life of a baby in their body if they so wish.
[footnote: This type of morality is different to the ethics that philosophers also debate which is hypothetical. For example, would everyone agree that it is wrong to kill an innocent child? If yes, then what if you knew that this child was going to grow up to become an evil dictator that would wage war and kill many innocent lives? This is similar to the “runaway trolley/train problem”. Philosophers have debated over ethical dilemmas such as these throughout the ages. However these are hypothetical and not a good starting point for this type of question as you could argue that they have no grounding in reality and that there are always other options available. For instance- no one knows the future about whether children will grow up to do evil. So it would be unfair to conclude the non-universality of morality based on the differences that people will have on this issue. However we can still conclude that morality is not universal because of the differences we see between people and cultures on their views of what is good and bad- such as the eating of certain meats like pig or views on relationships outside of marriage etc.]
Finally,it will define what to expend your life force upon- it will drive you in your darkest hour- it will push you to keep on – to do what you are supposed to do- it will give you purpose – it will let you know if you are wasting your life or fulfilling it. It can cause you to find happiness or anxiety when facing obstacles in your path of life. As an example if you think that your purpose is to enjoy yourself, then anything which disrupts that like the death of a loved one whom you used to enjoy life with, or imprisonment where your liberties are taken away can be the source and cause of misery and depression preventing you from engaging with the world. These unfortunate events may be viewed differently by someone whose purpose is not to live for enjoying this life but sees it as serving God in order to enjoy the afterlife. This person may see the unexpected death of a loved one as part of God’s plan and his imprisonment as an opportunity to spread God’s message inside prison- remaining happy knowing that he is fulfilling his purpose!
In short if your purpose of life is wrong then your life would have been wasted and worthless.
This is similar to the one who buys the latest most expensive smartphone but does not use its functions correctly because he hasn’t figured out how to use it. In fact the owner uses it as a paperweight to stop the papers on his desk from flying off! or he uses it as a door stop to prop a door open! Its purpose hasn’t been realised. This was not the purpose of the phone- to be used as a paperweight or a doorstop. It was a waste of his phone.
3. How can we understand purpose?
But how do we know that the phone being used as a desk paperweight was a waste? How do we know that its purpose was not to be a paperweight one may argue? Even if it was an expensive one !? Maybe the owner wanted to use it for that and it is fulfilling a purpose, is it not? Most people may not actually use it for the purpose of calling anyone but for other functions such as texting, internet etc. There is nothing intrinsic within the phone to tell us what its purpose is and so how will we know? As there is nothing intrinsic or internal from the phone that tells us what its purpose is then one may try to figure it out using its design and function. But even that is not definite- an object such as this smartphone may be able to carry out many functions (such as a paperweight). There is no way from examining the object to tell its purpose. Purpose must therefore come from outside of the object. Purpose has to be defined by the maker of that object- it is the reason that the object was made for. Only the maker would be able to tell us the intention behind his/her invention.
Similarly, we may think that just because I can do such and such then this is my purpose. We may even try to find purpose from within ourselves internally- through introspection or soul-searching or some fashionable lifestyle guru who guides us to find our purpose. Just because I can enjoy to eat and drink, to reproduce, to read and write , working, playing sport, listening to music- does not mean that my purpose is any of those things that I am capable of or even enjoy. Purpose is not an internal/intrinsic feature of any object including human beings. Purpose is defined by the maker of the object- why did they make it? So the human must ask why was he made from his maker- if such a maker exists!
There is another aspect of your nature that pushes you to look for this creator of man if it exists or not. Alongwith the need to understand your purpose of your life, there is also a need to sanctify and revere within human nature. This is innate and can be seen throughout the ages where man has worshipped many things including the sun, stars, nature, God, gods. Even in secular and godless societies this innate need finds itself manifested in the celebrity worship of film stars, athletes and music idols. It is not uncommon in these atheistic and secular societies for helplines to be opened for helping the distraught teenage souls when their favourite pop band has split up. Even when believing in communist ideas, societies that denied the existence of religion this innate reverence instinct was manifested in the deep respect for their leaders as they would perform pilgrimage to the embalmed bodies of Lenin and the graveyard of Marx, and the recitation of the words from the red book of Chairman Mao. Therefore there is an instinct of reverence that should be directed to the highest being that exists otherwise our action of reverence will not be correct. As mentioned previously, if you cannot perform actions that solve your problems correctly then you will suffer the consequences of your wrong actions. Similar to an engineer who wants to build a bridge and uses the wrong formula to calculate the strength of the force that is needed to keep the bridge standing- it will collapse. Similar to the student who uses the wrong formula to solve his mathematics problem- he will get the wrong answer.
Out of all the questions that exist, this is the gravest most important question though as its answer will lead to great ramifications. Knowing who the creator is does not lead you to just fulfil your need for reverence correctly but it also has costly implications for the rest of your life. For if this being is greater than you, is it also not greater than you in knowledge about how to solve your problems in life, about guidance in living life? It is not just greater in its deserving to be prayed to in fulfilling your spiritual needs. It would be greater than you in the knowledge about how to live as it manufactured you. Similar to if your phone were to encounter a problem then where would you send it to get it fixed? Wouldn’t you trust that the manufacturer of your phone would be more capable of solving its problem than your hair- dresser, than your neighbour, than another phone manufacturer, than yourself?
This question is also linked to the reality of death- if there is a creator of life and this universe and everything in it and has knowledge of this universe and life that it created, then only it would be in the position to tell us about the reality of death as it is out of our sensible reality to form a judgement upon; no human has ever come back from any post-death/post-Earth existence with any definite proof about its reality. I do not refer to people who are clinically dead for a few hours because their heart stops and a few hours later their hearts beat again and regain consciousness. I also do not mean those who are in comas for months or years before regaining consciousness- in this case the body still shows the signs of life even though the mind is not conscious- as if in a deep sleep. Because no-one has been able to come back to life after death then it would only be within the realm of the creator of life to inform us of the reality of its end.
4. Epistemology- What can we know?
How will we know if this maker of mankind exists? Let's go one step back: How do we know anything? How can we be sure of the answer to any such question?
People may argue different ways of acquiring knowledge about the world, indeed even about knowing things. Philosophers throughout history have debated what is true knowledge. This includes knowing whether a creator exists or not. For example someone may believe information that their parents or a highly respected person has told them; or you may have a feeling after going to a holy place of worship; or maybe a dream that has inspired you. However, none of these things produce certain knowledge- they can be disputed by others with a different view, feeling or dream.
There is also a danger of irrational thinking in that it delves into speculation that leads to useless information whilst giving the illusion of knowledge. This is like when philosophers start to describe the qualities and characteristics of the unseen creator. An example of such debates include how the all-loving all-powerful creator allows evil to exist. Such thinking creates confusion, doubt and skepticism in the existence of a creator.
So if we want to avoid any doubts in what we may think about let us ask the most basic of questions about the knowledge that we seek: Is there anything that you can definitely know? Without any errors or speculation or doubt in your information?
This has been studied amongst philosophers throughout time and is known as epistemology- the philosophy of knowledge. Some philosophers (such as Descarte) would argue that knowledge and truth are understood innately without having to rely on the external world for any truths, whereas others (like Locke) would propose that we are born as blank slates and that knowledge is acquired through our senses and what we experience- the empirical view.
So what will lead to true knowledge since we have seen that everyone may come out with opinions which differ from each other. How then do we distinguish between what is a fact from an opinion?
A fact is information which is true for everyone. Truth by its definition is what cannot be denied- no-one can disagree with it or claim that it is false. This is the description of any statement that is true. A truth therefore must be objective - verifiable by all and not subjective or personal to you or a group of people – that would be an opinion. Therefore emotions, dreams and feelings which are subjective and not universal for all cannot be a source of truth. One person may enter a church and pray and feel like he has an answer to the meaning of life and another individual may not have that feeling. Another person may have a dream that Buddha visited him, whereas another person may not.
So what can everyone agree on then?
Everyone can access the physical world outside of their bodies and it does not change from person to person. We have access to this external physical world through our five senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell.
But doesn’t everyone perceive the world differently? For example colour blindness is an example where someone may not see the distinction between certain colours. So what if your senses don’t work?
There is a substance that we can all perceive with our senses – the reality around us. There are basic elements of it that anyone who senses it can agree to- for example if we take a book that exists- it will have a certain dimension- it takes up a certain amount of space in the universe. You may have people disagreeing over the colour due to a problem or difference in sight- but they will still accept that there is a book- or at least an item – if for instance there might be a problem with sight and cannot distinguish between the letters on the pages. The proof that they will accept it's existence is that they will try to avoid it if they saw you throw it at their face!
What if they don’t have that sense altogether? With the senses that do exist, then they are able to appreciate the universality of the reality around them that applies to all. So if I can't see the book- then I could feel it through touch. If it was a plate of hot food that I could not see- then I could smell it. We progress in life and are able to function to the extent that we appreciate the reality around us through our senses. If those senses do not work then the reality from our surroundings accessed –in order for the mind to make a judgement- will be restricted, resulting in faulty judgements of our world and then faulty actions. As an example- if I walk into my house and I did not sense (smell was not working due to a cold) that there is methane gas in the air due to a leak from the gas pipe – I may well assume that it was safe to light a cigarette- unfortunately causing an explosion and harming or ending my life.
What about sceptics who may doubt our reality?
Ultimately even the sceptics cannot deny their reality otherwise they would suffer too, and not last very long within their environment. So for example if a sceptic was to walk into their house and smell a gas leak, they may choose to philosophise that they can’t be sure if they really exist and if the gas really exists- however when it comes to the action– they would have to base their actions on that knowledge of their reality otherwise they would die or be at a serious loss in any explosion!
This is the rational method – the thinking based on the sensed reality-that allows the human to make correct judgements about his environment enabling him to manipulate and control it and thus to progress. This method of acquiring knowledge and forming judgements must therefore also be utilised when answering the most important questions to do with our lives: i.e. where did we come from; what will happen after death; and what therefore is the relationship of these with our life- our purpose of life?
This is rational knowledge: it is only limited to forming conclusions upon our sensed reality and you can be so sure about it that you bet your life on it all the time- everyone does. No one denies their reality otherwise they could not live! You would not be able to cross the road if you tried to philosophise that the car coming towards you is a dream!
So rational knowledge produces facts and truths because it is based on the reality that we all sense. It cannot go beyond that. If you try to base any knowledge beyond the senses then it no longer is a fact and is now open to opinion and interpretation as it is subjective to you only. So for example if you are sitting at home and you hear a knock on the door- you know for certain that there is something behind that door that caused the knock – why? Because from reality you have sensed that doors do not have the ability to knock themselves. However it would be irrational to describe what is behind that door with certainty- is it a man, woman, boy, girl, a stone that was thrown, or a branch from a tree that fell? The only way to know is if you could open the door and check or if someone outside could tell you (if we could verify that they were not lying).
(This then leads us to another type of knowledge that we will come to after the next part: transmitted knowledge)
6. Where did I come from? Is there a creator?
When we study the reality around us (i.e. anything we sense within the universe) we will come to know that nothing has the quality or characteristic of being able to create either itself or other things. What is meant by ‘create’ is to bring into existence from nothing, rather than just a manipulation of form from already existing things. For example, making a can from metal extracted from the ore that already exists in rocks is not considered as creating a can in our strict sense here- but rather making a can.
So even when a child is born- it was not that he came from nothing, but he grew from his parent’s cells and then that fertilised cell kept on absorbing nutrients from its mother and then from the environment until it grew to its size.
We cannot observe anything within our universe creating itself or other objects from nothing even the smallest speck of sand or sub-atomic particle has never been observed to appear from nothing out of thin air. Sub-atomic particles of mass (the stuff inside everything) have been found to transform to and from energy – however that energy is still ‘something’ and can be converted using the formula E=mc2, So mass and energy are interchangeable. Energy has not ever been produced from nothing, and neither has mass.
Moreover the aforementioned point is even established according to the scientific law of thermodynamics that within the observable universe: "energy cannot be created or destroyed but can only be changed from one form to another" (this is represented mathematically as a law as: U_{T} = U_{i} + W + Q) and energy is related to matter through the law E=mc2. So even scientifically, it is established that within the universe something cannot appear or disappear into nothing. [ side point of scientific knowledge: science is not a criteria to judge truth as it can be based on interpretations of observed phenomena to justify unobserved theories. The interpretation therefore has elements of speculation ]. However the above observation is established rationally through our senses – the scientific method just confirms it – i.e. this rational method does not contradict what even scientists think!
If it were true that objects within the universe have the power of bringing themselves or other things into existence from ‘nothing’ then this would mean for instance that whilst you walk down the street a chicken (or an egg- whichever came first) appears from nowhere- hitting you in the face! Or whilst sitting down watching television and getting hungry you don’t bother walking to the fridge to get some food but you open your hand and wait for the food to materialise into your hand! Why even bother mine natural resources like carbon based fuels and nuclear fuels for power stations when we should be able to power our homes from the energy inside the sub-atomic particles that are constantly being created from nothing?!
Then where did everything come from?
So, logically speaking if we use the information that we can sense:
If our universe exists,
If nothing within the universe has the power to bring itself or other things into existence from nothing (creation),
Then it must have come from something that is not within this observable universe
This is the rational belief in a “creator”.
It is a fact -not based on opinion as the reality proves it for everyone.
A mistake in thinking would be to extend the discussion beyond the sensed reality of the universe such as in asking, “if this creator created us then what created the creator?”
By asking who created the creator there is an error in thinking that the non-sensed characteristics of the creator is the same as the sensed characteristics of the creation. This is an irrational analogy to make. An example of the absurdity of this question is like asking, “if bread has come from the baker, then who baked the baker?” the error here is in thinking that the bread and baker share the same characteristics of being baked.
Therefore we cannot describe this creator and its characteristics because it is out of our physically sensed reality- and it would be factually incorrect to describe anything about it.
(footnote: throughout history certain arguments are made against this rational view of the world from various religions, philosophies and now speculative scientific theories such as one branch of quantum mechanics which speculates that something can come from nothing- however this theory as well as the others have been refuted by other quantum physicists as discussed later in the section below)
Knocking on Heaven’s door: The second type of knowledge
Now, to know anything about this creator by just thinking about it would not lead to any certain knowledge and it would all be speculation. This is because we can only give a correct judgement based on what we can sense in our reality as mentioned above. As this creator is not directly sensed by us then we cannot make any judgements about it using our mind- it would all be guesswork and full of doubt. This is the problem that the ancient philosophers would face as highlighted previously.
But as we have demonstrated, you do not need to see it directly to know that it exists, and it is completely correct to believe in a creator as it is a conclusion based upon the sensed reality. This is similar to the following situation:
You hear a knock on the front door of your house.
You know from reality that doors do not have the power to knock themselves.
You link this information to the sensed reality and conclude that there is something on the other side of the door, however you cannot describe what this thing is that is outside your door because it is out of your sensed reality- is it a man, woman, boy, girl, a stone that was thrown, or a branch from a tree that fell? The only way to know is if you could open the door and check or if someone outside could tell you (if you could verify that they were not lying).
This then brings us to another type of knowledge that we can say can be used to establish truth. If the reality that we want to discuss is not sensed then any information we have about it from our own minds will be speculation. The only reliable information will only come transmitted to us from that object itself if it can communicate it to us.
This is the reality of our situation: we can rationally establish the existence of a creator for this universe- but we cannot observe it directly. However we still need to establish our purpose of creation and we need to know what happens at the end of life. As it is out of the reach of our senses- to be able to communicate with it and ask it then the only way we can acquire this knowledge is if it communicates it to us – this is known as transmitted knowledge (naqli in Arabic). This of course will need to be verified with some form of proof.
How to access this transmitted knowledge?
Now from reality we know that this creator has not communicated with each one of us directly otherwise we would all have the same idea and answer about the question of purpose and life after death as well as other details about this creator. Clearly this is not the case- humans do differ about these ideas. However, some people may claim to have such communication from the creator. Now if that is how the creator has chosen to communicate to us then we will need to verify such claims as the person could be lying or delusional. The question is how? Is it enough that they claim divine communication without offering any proof? What kind of proof would we require?
The proof would have to establish that this so-called messenger from the creator, has indeed been authenticated by the creator. Now if the messenger is a human being like us then the proof should be simple. We live within a universe which exhibits certain physical laws. For instance human beings do not have the ability to fly or breathe under water. Objects on Earth are influenced by its force of gravity so if you jump you will be pulled back to Earth by its force of gravity. Water will freeze at 0 degrees Celcius (at a pressure of 1 atm) and act differently as a solid ice than when it is a liquid (for example flowing in its liquid state). These laws of the universe are not within the ability of the human being to change. They are part of the characteristics or design of the universe that we have already established has been created. (In fact this in itself is another proof of a creator, for if these characteristics came from the universe itself- i.e. that the universe created itself with these characteristics- then the universe should be able to change these rules and laws that they obey. Why should they be bound to them if they are its maker? Why should the Earth for example rotate around the sun in a fixed pattern- that gives us a predictable time for sunrise and sunset? The Earth if it created itself should be able to stop rotating around the sun if it wants to. Why does the sun have to use its gravity to keep pulling on the Earth for its orbit? Why does the Earth have to use its gravity to keep you or this book from not floating away? Why doesn’t water decide to boil at 200 degrees instead of 100 degrees? The entire universe is all bound by laws that are beyond its ability to break free from! Laws that must have therefore been instigated by an external force to the universe- the creator that we have already established!)
It is these laws that we are forced to abide by that will also be able to prove to us the proof of messengership. Since it is beyond the ability of the human being to break free from the laws of the universe, then if he was able to do so then it would demonstrate that he must have some form of authority to do so from the one who established those laws (and can lift them if it chooses to do so). This is true if there is some challenge to other human beings to copy such an action that broke the natural law- in order to show that it is beyond the ability of a human being to perform such an action.
For example if a human being could start to freely fly and other human beings could not do so after being challenged to do the same in the same way as he. This would indicate that this law of the human not being able to fly had been broken – not because of the human being but because of the creator of the human being that chose to design the human as not being able to fly. This is what we would term a “miracle”.
Todays miracle
Suppose you bumped into someone today and he told you that he was flying around yesterday for half an hour and that it was miraculous; which must mean that he had a special relationship with God – (the creator of the universe and its physical laws and thus able to remove those laws that we are bound by) and that he was therefore a messenger. Suppose he told you that he brings you a message from God; that you must believe whatever he tells you about what happens to you after death, and he informs you what your purpose in this life is and that you must follow the rules he brought for you because he receives his guidance from God. But you then challenged him and asked him to fly in front of you to prove it but he couldn’t – would you believe him? Or would you want to see that miraculous act in front of you so that you would be sure he was speaking the truth?
There is a claim to a miracle that we can witness today- and that is the miracle of the Quran. The Quran lays a claim that it is the speech of God revealed to Muhammed:
“Al- Rahman (The All- Merciful) , Taught the Quran” (Chapter Rahman, ayah 1-2)
“Should you have any doubt about what We have revealed to Our servant, present one chapter comparable to it and call all your supporters, besides God, if your claim is true.” (Chapter 2 , ayah 23)
The proof of its miracle is in its challenge to the people to bring something like it and their inability to do so -for if it is from a human being then it surely can be replicated by a human being:
“And this Qur'ân is not such as could ever be produced by other than Allah (Lord of the heavens and the earth), but it is a confirmation of (the revelation) which was before it [i.e. the Taurat (Torah), and the Injeel (Gospel), etc.], and a full explanation of the Book (i.e. laws and orders, etc, decreed for mankind) - wherein there is no doubt from the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns,and all that exists).
Or do they say: "He (Muhammad(P)) has forged it?" Say: "Bring then a sûrah (chapter) like unto it, and call upon whomsoever you can, besides Allah, if you are truthful!" [Qur'ân 10:37-38]
What is the miracle?
In a nutshell: Arabic literature (like other languages) has its different structures : poetry and prose that have their different compositions or designs. If one design of expression is tried to squeeze and fit into another style then it will stand out. The Quran has its own unique style which cannot be imitated.
To explain further, (using the English language as an example):
Poems can be broken down and its structure analysed in terms of line, stanza, rythym and rhyme. These can be combined to form different types of poems such as sonnets, villanelle and haiku to name a few. There will be uses of devices within the poem to strike the listener such as the use of enjambment (where the meaning runs over the line), onomatope (where the sound of the word describes the meaning like ‘roar’) and dissonance (the use of contrasting or harsh sounds).
Prose will also have its various styles such as when writing a text message, an email or an essay.
Now if we look at an example of a Shakespearean sonnet:
Shakespearean sonnet is generally written in iambic pentameter, in which there are 10 syllables in each line. The rhythm of the lines must be as below:
“From fairest creatures we desire increase,
That thereby beauty’s rose might never die.
But as the riper should by time decease,
His tender heir might bear his memory:
But thou, contracted to thine own bright eyes,
Feed’st thy light’s flame with self-substantial fuel,
Making a famine where abundance lies,
Thyself thy foe, to thy sweet self too cruel.
Thou that art now the world’s fresh ornament
And only herald to the gaudy spring,
Within thine own bud buriest thy content
And, tender churl, mak’st waste in niggarding.
Pity the world, or else this glutton be,
To eat the world’s due, by the grave and thee…”
The rhyme scheme of the Shakespearian sonnet is abab–cdcd–efef–gg, which is difficult to follow. Hence, only Shakespeare is known to have done it.
However, that is not to say that if challenged you could not imitate this structure.
Similarly, before Shakespear- Edmund Spenser was the first poet who modified the Petrarch’s form (the italian sonnet), and introduced a new rhyme scheme as follows. The rhyme scheme in this sonnet is abab–bcbc–cdcd–ee, which is specific to Spenser, and such types of sonnets are called Spenserian sonnets:
“What guile is this, that those her golden tresses
She doth attire under a net of gold;
And with sly skill so cunningly them dresses,
That which is gold or hair, may scarce be told?
Is it that men’s frail eyes, which gaze too bold,
She may entangle in that golden snare;
And being caught may craftily enfold
Their weaker hearts, which are not yet well aware?
Take heed therefore, mine eyes, how ye do stare
Henceforth too rashly on that guileful net,
In which if ever ye entrapped are,
Out of her bands ye by no means shall get.
Folly it were for any being free,
To covet fetters, though they golden be.”
All that we examined here was the rhyming patterns in the structure- we did not even consider any language devices used that enrichen the experience and conveys the author’s intended meaning.
Now going back to the Arabic language; there too is a whole series of different poetic forms that exist. The celebrated poets in pre-islamic Arabia would be honoured with their poetry being hung on the walls of the Ka’abah (the House of God which was the center of pilgrimage from all over Arabia). These poems are known as the “mu'allaqat” (literally- ‘the hung’) and are still studied in schools and universities in Arabic lessons- as Shakespeare is studied in English lessons. The quranic style does not fit the structure of any of the styles of prose or poetry. When the learned Arabs heard it- they said it was unlike anything they heard before. It came with its own unique style, and the challenge is to recreate that style using the same devices that give it its unique structure. There have been books by various scholars written analysing the various aspects of the language of the quran- however one example of the features is included below:
* Surah al-Anbiyaa, verse 46: “And if a breath of the torment of your Lord touches them…”
ولئن مسّتهم نفحة من عذاب ربك
“Here, we shall .... demonstrate the word-order in the parts of a sentence as a whole. For example: But if a breath of your Sustainer’s punishment touches them. In this sentence, it wants to point out the terribleness of the punishment by showing the severity of the least amount. That is to say, it expresses littleness or fewness, and all the parts of the sentence also look to this littleness or fewness, and reinforce it.
“Thus, the words, ‘But if’ signify doubt, and doubt looks to littleness or fewness.
“The word ‘touches’ means to touch lightly and expresses a small amount.
“And just as the word ‘a breath’ is merely a whiff, so too is it in the singular form. Grammatically it is a masdar al-marra and signifies once. Also the tanwin indicating indefiniteness in ‘a breathe’ expresses littleness or fewness and means it is so insignificant that it can scarcely be known.
“The word ‘of’ signifies division or a part; it means a bit and indicates paucity.
“The word ‘punishment’ points to a light sort of punishment in relation to chastisement (nakal) or penalty (i’qab), and suggests a small amount.
“And by alluding to compassion and being used in place of Subduer, All-Compelling, or Avenger, the word ‘Sustainer’ indicates littleness or fewness. It says, if the small amount of punishment suggested in all this paucity has such an effect, you can compare how dreadful Divine chastisement would be. How much then do the small parts of this sentence look to one another and assist one another. How each reinforces the aim of the whole. This example looks to the words and aim in one degree.”
We have heard of humans forming words that sound like the meaning like “croak” and “roar” (onomatopoeia) - but here we have a whole sentence that uses the meaning of each word to reinforce the aim of the sentence! If it was difficult for poets to imitate the Shakespearean rhyming code in his sonnets (although still reproducible) then the difficulty to recreate sentences like this where one must consider all the words that exist with similar meanings before choosing any- will be appreciated!
It may be asked though, do you have to know Arabic to know it’s a miracle? The answer is no because there is a difference between appreciating or experiencing the miracle and rationally concluding its existence.
Appreciating a miracle
Any miracle will challenge the people to reproduce an act like it- in order to prove to them that it is beyond their capability and therefore that it is not humanly possible. Naturally then, those who are proficient or have some skill in the act are going to be the ones who can take up the challenge and prove it or disprove it as a miraculous act. They will therefore be able to appreciate it directly themselves for they have attempted to meet the challenge- and the more of a specialist in that field they are then the more they will be able to appreciate it!
However this does not mean that if you did not directly sense it yourself that you could not appreciate its existence! In this case, again we would study the reality and evaluate whether the challenge had been met.
It is incorrect to say that the miracle is only for those who are specialists, for the miracle is there for anyone to witness. It is only if you think about and study it that you will conclude it is a miracle. This is the same for any miracle (a layman for instance may not be able to appreciate the tricks involved in magic: that is why the magicians who saw Musa's miracle knew straight away that his act of turning the staff into a snake was no trick and submitted to God straight away infuriating the pharaoh). Following on from this, if the miracle best resembles the known arts of its age, in which there are many specialists in that particular field the miracle would be quickly believed and firmly established as evidence for the messengers claim. So Musa being given the miracle of the staff turning to a snake would have been acknowledged by the magicians prevalent in society; Jesus curing the lepers and making the blind see would have challenged the doctors who were prevalent in their skills of medicine. Likewise, Muhammad bringing a new and unique form of speech would have challenged the many poets prevalent amongst the Arabs who were glorified for their command of the language: thereby acknowledges the existence of a miracle once the challenge is not met amongst the many specialists in society.
Why language as a medium for the miracle ?
Language enables the communication of ideas. In the case of a messenger bringing a message, it enables the message itself to be preserved for future generations after the messenger has departed. A miracle of language therefore allows the message it carries to be kept pure from tampering and corruption for all of time. There is no need for future messengers to confirm the message from God - as long as humans can still use language to communicate!)
Contrast this with a miracle in a different form- that would mean that the message that a prophet brings would only be confirmed whilst the miracle and prophet exist- possibly a few generations who may be able to confirm through multiple independent witnesses the original witnessing of the miracle. However any message could still be corrupted by those future generations because what is witnessed and transmitted is the knowledge of the existence of a miracle but the message itself is a separate entity. Hence there would be a need for recurring prophets to correct the misguided transmission of any message amongst the people.
How can a non-Arabic speaker know the miracle exists as it is in a different language?
A person does not need to be an Arab (i.e. one who speaks and comprehends Arabic), for though the miracle of the Qur'an is related to the Arabic language, the proof is based upon a rational evaluation of this miracle. Therefore there is no blind imitation (taqleed) in the belief, and neither is it a transmitted (naqli) evidence. Rather it is a rational (aqli) evidence. Also as mentioned already, even the lay person Arabic speaker may not be able to appreciate the miracle in the same way the learned person in the Arabic language would.
To briefly explain: the principle of the proof that the Quran is from God alone is an evaluation that takes place at the point of origin of the Quran. This is so, since it is at the point of its origin that the question is raised, 'what/who is the source and origin of the Quran?' It makes no rational sense to evaluate it 1400 years later at year 2020, in light of the year 2020 - for the person in year 2020 needs to evaluate it regarding the year 623 A.D. i.e. at the point when the Quran was first revealed, for it is at that point that the author would have existed. Therefore, the evaluation and proof would occur at that point. So the person in year 623, year 700, year 1400, year 1992, year 2020 (today) and year 3050 etc. would look to the miracle of the Quran initially at the point of its revelation.
Upon this, the rational being would come to the rational and conclusive proof that the only source of the Qur'an was definitely other than man - definitely it was God. It could not be a non-Arab, for the speech was foreign to it. It could not have been an Arab since the challenge in the Quran is explicit: 'Say: bring a chapter (surah) like unto it.” (tmq 10:38) and no one was able to reproduce the like of it. This has been confirmed soundly in all transmitted text and even acknowledged by non-Muslims (examples of their statements can be seen at the end). Had it been possible, it would have been a duty upon the Arabs who- as mentioned already- took pride in their poetry and eloquence of language to take up the challenge that was taunting them in their outstanding skill and mark of distinction. It would be likely as important for the Arabs to meet the challenge just to invalidate this claim to prophethood that was tearing through their societies’ norms and traditions. The tribal customs that were challenged of following their noble ancestors in their idol-worshipping for instance meant that the economic base of Muhammad’s tribe in Makkah was threatened due to the consequence of upsetting the social order of the other surrounding tribes visting Makkah to pay tribute to their idols. As a result the leaders of Makkah resorted to many schemes to try and prevent Muhammad and his companions that started to follow him from preaching his message including slander, boycott, torturing, and killing. They also tried to bribe him or induce him by offering him wealth, women and leadership if only he abandoned this message. If they could meet the challenge it would have spared them from all this expense and difficulty. Had any of the Arabs been able to meet the challenge it would have spared them against the later costly wars fought against the muslim city-state of Medina. In fact had it been done it would have been well-known amongst the Arabs who took pride in their literature and it would have been passed down throughout the ages as we have the pre-Islamic poetry that is still passed down today and studied. If the challenge of the Quran had been met it would have been made known by the Arabs in their gatherings and publicized at their annual fairs and markets. The enemies of Islam would have taken any such verses that beat the challenge as an anthem, chanting it in every gathering and repeating it in every occasion- passing it on to the next generations- and guarding it as the litigant in court gaurds his evidence. This would have been more satisfying than preserving their own heritage. The result would be that any such successful challenge would be preserved and studied today in the literature just as the pre-islamic poetry and even post-islamic poetry is studied in the universities and schools. The fact remains that you can go to any library in the world and ask for a book like the quran in the Arabic language of course and you will not be able to find any.
Finally, it could not have been Muhammad for he himself was an Arab; he could not read nor write and there is no comparison between the Arabic of the Quran to that of the recorded sayings and traditions of Muhammad (ahadith), both which came from the mouth of Muhammad. Notwithstanding this, it was the hadith that were corruptible, facing the problem of fabrication at the hands of the hypocrites (munafiqeen) and disbelievers, while the Quran was beyond reproach.
So the rational being concludes decisively that the origin of the Quran could not have been man for he was not able to respond to the challenge and acknowledged this. Therefore the proof is rational for it is the evaluation at the time when someone could argue that he/she had been the author i.e. the time of origin of the Quran. Yet it has been rationally and conclusively proven that it could not be man. This is confirmed with the reality throughout history until today.
With this in mind, if we now tackle the issue that someone claims that he has produced something like the Quran - this is rationally impossible for two reasons:
1. It has been conclusively proven that at the time of revelation of the Quran, when the proof of authorship arises, that only God could have been the author, for it is beyond human ability i.e. the mode of expression - therefore it is rationally impossible for the author to change.
2. The argument of the 'principle of principality'. This rational concept simply states that when a person understands the principles behind something, he is able to reproduce it and over a period of time, no doubt improve upon it. So for example when we learned the principles of addition, we were able to apply it. When we understood the principles of baking a cake, we initially made a bad cake, but repetitive attempts improved the quality of the cake. When we understood the principles of microchip technology, we were able to apply this to reduce the size whilst increasing the power of computers etc. In summary rationally knowing the principle and possessing the tools allows man to apply these principles- this is the basic generic and comprehensive reality. Now, all the miracles, which occurred in history did not possess any principles or tools by which man could comprehend and therefore imitate the miracle, let alone improve upon it. So the separation of the sea, the virgin birth, transforming wooden sticks into real snakes etc. had no principles by which anyone could understand how it was done, therefore it was impossible to imitate or reproduce (and will remain so, for they were miracles). However, it could be argued quite legitimately (though wrongly) by scientists, doctors, physicists etc. that once they are able to deduce the principles and tools by which the separation of the sea, virgin birth etc. had occurred then they would be able to reproduce it, since they have acquired the principles and the tools - just as they have done with cloning and genetics after they understood the principle and tools related to DNA structure. This could be their argument and in the same way that people laughed as impossible when it was first mentioned about man going into space 100 years ago, only to be proven wrong years later, scientists could argue the same for these miracles, that is, 'after x number of years we will have pioneered the very principles that could allow us to do a virgin birth.'
But such an argument, assumption, presumption could never hold any weight when applied to the miracle of the Quran, for it defies the very reality that we sense, understand and engage in. It is rationally irrational! The tools and principles of the miracle of the Quran have been known for over 1500 years i.e. the grammar, syntax, punctuation, style etc.. of the Arabic language. Indeed anyone with minimal knowledge of the Arabic language (e.g. a 1st year GCSE student) can take a verse (ayah) of the Quran, explain its components and why it had to be grammatically written and structured in that way in order to make sense. Yet though the principles and tools have always been available (unlike the other miracles, where the principles and tools do not exist), no one was able to reproduce the like of the Quran. This contradicts rationale completely i.e. possessing the principles and tools but not able to apply them! Subhan'Allah, (Glory to God) how mankind, unlike the other miracles in history, is able to sense, comprehend and explain the principles and tools of the Arabic and the verses in the Quran - yet not able to reproduce it himself. This convinces the mind absolutely, even for the one who does not speak or read Arabic for the argument is about the application of principles, which every human can sense and comprehend. And it is no wonder that those who do speak Arabic to a good level and are sincere to their language are left feeling weak with pure astonishment about the miracle.
And the above arguments prove three things profoundly and conclusively –
1. You do not need to be an Arab to comprehend the miracle.
2. It is a rational proof.
3. No one was able to do it, no one is able to do it and no one will ever be able to do it...absolutely.
On top of this miracle of the language is the precise predictions made in the Quran
There is knowledge of the future that is impossible for a human to know- which a non-arab speaker can also evaluate.
The chapter on Abu Lahab- the prophet’s uncle- is clear in its irreversible condemnation of him to Hellfire. Verse 3 states, “He will [enter to] burn in a Fire of [blazing] flame”. Contrast this with the promise preached by Muhammad in the Quran for the believers which is that they will be admitted to paradise and to be saved from the hellfire for rejecting god's message.
In order to undermine the message of the Quran all Abu Lahab had to do was hypocrtitcally announce that he was a believer and follower of Muhammad. However he did not and for 10 years he had the opportunity to seal the fate of the main enemy of the Quraysh; even as his enemy grew from strength to strength with his followers and ultimately establishing his political authority in the city-state of madina from which they launched wars against each other.
But who could have known the future to such a precise extent- that Abu Lahab would never announce that he was a believer- and risk the validity of the message? This is beyond the knowledge of a human being!The knowledge of time would not be beyond the knowledge of the creator of the universe since time is a function of the universe that we live in and was created by Him.
(footnote: some laymen critics try to argue that everyone is going to hellfire anyway so there is no special prophecy here. This is a shallow argument that shows the lack of any understanding of the base message of Islam and not based on any scholarship- it makes no sense for anyone to believe and follow Muhammed if there will be no difference to their fate in the after-life!
Others also try to foolishly argue that the verse was revealed after he had died because the verb ‘ma aghna’ (“his wealth did not enrichen him”- verse 2) is in the past. This is wrong from many perspectives:
Firstly: linguistically as mentioned above the past tense is used to emphasise definiteness since the past cannot be undone. Again this shows that the one making the statement has full knowledge of the future that the statement “ma aghna ‘anhu maluhu wa ma kasab” (his wealth did not enrichen him nor did he benefit) refers to how he will not be helped on the Day of Judgement because of his wealth. If he had submitted himself to God though- he could have used his wealth in charity- thus benefiting himself on the Day of Judgement.
Secondly: the time of revelation of this verse was in Makkah and this is agreed upon by all the historians of the life of Muhammed (seerah) and the historians of the Quran. However Abu Lahab died during Muhammad’s later stage of life in Madinah specifically after the Battle of Badr. Therefore to claim that this verse was revealed in Madinah contradicts all the available evidence of collections of the narrations of seerah- there is no narration that says as such. In fact the narrations all indicate that this was revealed after Muhammed had called and gathered all the people of his tribe and then asked them to embrace Islam, to which Abu Lahab called for him to be perished for wasting their time to call them out to this- and so these verses were God’s reply.
Thirdly: Abu Lahab as just mentioned above died just after the Battle of Badr whilst Muhammed was living in Medinah. The muslims of Medina had just fought their first battle against the disbelieving Makkans and defeated them even though they were outnumbered by three to one. This was a great victory that would make headlines all over Arabia where many of the notables of Quraysh were killed. So how does it make sense to say that these verses were revealed after Abu Lahab had died when he was not significant to their lives anymore? Why not mention any of the other notables of Quraysh that actually fought and were killed at the time? Abu Lahab did not even fight in this battle (choosing to ransom himself from his obligation with a debtor taking his place)- making him even more insignificant during this time! )
-------------------
Why didn’t the non-muslim Arabic scholars believe then?
It may occur to you to ask if the miraculous nature can even be confirmed by the specialist in the Arabic language- then why do there remain specialists who do not submit to it and become muslim? (You can also ask the same question for the non-arab speaker or layman arab speaker who are not specialists in the language but have the capability to assess the miracle rationally).There could be many incorrect bases in thinking that does not lead a person to the correct way of thinking. As mentioned earlier, the mind is man’s greatest asset when used correctly-separating him from all other creatures: it allows him to progress within and control his universe – even if he is physically unable to move within his environment, he will invent a machine that will allow him to take control of his environment. The mind when used correctly will let us understand our environment and our reality: The mind can be man's greatest liberator or his greatest prison imprisoning him in confusion and decline.
If the person making the assessment for instance does not believe that God exists because they haven’t thought about the topic in the correct manner then they may attribute the inimitable nature of the Quran to a supernatural cause (also another irrational idea since we cannot verify the existence of supernatural beings rationally according to our senses). There may also be non-intellectual reasons linked to the interests of the human which would mean that he would have to sacrifice those interests if he were to submit to the commands of the creator. These interests could be as little as following your own physical desires of eating and drinking what you like; or even pride (such as has been narrated about the prophets own uncle and protector who was kind to him-Abu Talib- who could not bring himself to bear witness to the truth of the message due to the pride of his ancestors religion amongst his tribe). The interests could also involve your status and power within society from taking advantage of the current system that prevails- such as the leaders of the Quraysh tribe in Makkah who resisted with all their might the preaching of Muhammad (SAW).
(As mentioned earlier, the mind is man’s greatest asset when used correctly-separating him from all other creatures: it allows him to progress within and control his universe – even if he is physically unable to move within his environment, he will invent a machine that will allow him to take control of his environment. The mind when used correctly will let us understand our environment and our reality: The mind can be man's greatest liberator or his greatest prison
If the mind is used correctly then the knowledge he will derive will be useful – leading him to progress in life as he understands his purpose and solves his problems correctly. It will allow him to break free from the man-made ideas that shackles a person to conform to oppressive systems; to false ideas of the route to happiness; from ideas that paralyse them from fulfilling their potential.
However if used incorrectly, it can cause you to accept what is told to you. it can cause you to become confused throughout life, hesitating whenever faced with a problem. Doubt can cause anxiety as you believe in false ideas of what perfection means and from the frustration the false ideals that you aspire to are not within reach. The psychological problems that arise from irrational thinking has led to led to depression and anxiety. The mind can be a prison of darkness even for the one that appears on the outside to be happy. The purpose of the individual is not realised and his life is wasted.)
Transmitted Knowledge in the quest for purpose
Once the Quran has been established as the communication from the creator then it establishes another line of knowledge for us- a knowledge of the creator about aspects that we will not be able to know due to our senses being limited to the observable universe. This will include any knowledge describing the creator as well as what happens after life- both of which are beyond our sensible reality. This type of knowledge as we have already mentioned is transmitted knowledge and is not directly observable (termed ‘naqli’ in Arabic).
We can now go back to our original question about purpose and seek answers from the creator. The creator informs us that it’s name is Allah and refers to itself as He (and so shall we from now on refer to Him as such) and that He is the sole creator of the universe and that He has no partners and had there been so there would indeed be much chaos (as they struggle against each other – upsetting and contradicting each other’s rules within the universe).
Our purpose is clearly defined for us:
“And I (Allaah) created not the jinn and mankind except that they should worship Me (Alone)”
[al-Dhaariyaat 51:56]
Worship here is defined in many other verses as full submission to Allah and His Messenger in terms of thought and action. For example in the penultimate verse of surah Baqarah:
“…they (the believers) say, we hear and we obey..”
To hear is to obey.
Thinking should not contradict the definitive statements that are evidently from Allah as this is akin to disagreeing with Allah and a sign of rejection of His Message to us:
A believer should find no resistance in their hearts to the judgements of Allah and His messenger:
There will be a Day of Judgement in which all of mankind will be brought before Allah and they will be accountable for their belief and actions:
The believers are the ones who will be rewarded with paradise:
“Indeed, they who have believed and done righteous deeds - those are the best of creatures. Their reward with Allah will be gardens of perpetual residence beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever, Allah being pleased with them and they with Him. That is for whoever has feared his Lord.” Surah Bayyinah
All of the above show the purpose for the human built on knowledge transmitted to us from the creator of the human Himself.
The problem of the philosophers
Describe to me what a ‘krtitokrac’ does. Anything you can think of. Can you be sure of anything that you think of it? I don’t think you can – because it doesn’t exist – it’s a made up word. Odds are you tried to look it up to try and get an idea. Whatever you had come out with would not have been any closer to the truth than what another may have thought of. You could not produce any thinking on the subject matter because there was no reality for you to sense (you had never seen/heard/felt/smelt/tasted one) and there was no previous information stored that your mind could have linked to the reality of the sound ‘kritokrac’. Any output of your thinking would have been irrational gibberish.
What about a ‘thalaja’? can you do any better? If you know Arabic then you may have come across the word before. If you have then you can link the sound of the word to the reality you have seen which is now stored in your previous information. If not then you may like to know that the word ‘thalj’ means ice in Arabic. You can know recall all the previous information stored in your mind about the word ice and start to produce some thinking about this thalaja- “maybe it is some form of ice, maybe it is an ice maker…”. These would all be close to the reality of it – which is a freezer. Now the next time you hear that word (the sensed reality) you would be able to give me a thought upon it by accessing your stored previous information (that sound means ‘freezer freeezer’ in Arabic).
This is the rational thinking: the use of the mind to link previous information to the sensed reality. If any of these four factors are missing from the process then there is no rational thinking: the reality, the senses (to access the reality), the previous information and the mind (to link the reality with the previous information). Rational thinking is a natural innate way of thinking and what the human being uses in everyday life to progress and solve his problems. You live in your environment and the quality of life in your environment depends on the quality of your irrational thinking. If you are missing any of the processes of rational thinking (or if there is a malfunction or incorrectness of any of the factors) then you will not be able to progress and solve your problems successfully. You will not be able to successfully navigate in your environment. You will -to put it simply- suffer and not last very long. So as an example if you were to walk into your house and there is a gas leak then if any of these factors that we just mentioned are missing from your thinking :
you don’t sense the reality of gas because you can’t smell (maybe you have a cold),
you can smell the gas but have no ‘previous information’ as to what this peculiar smell is
there is a problem with your mind that does not allow you to link this smell with the information that it is explosive
then your next step of turning on the cooker or lighting a flame could be fatal!
The problem and incorrect method of the philosophers can be identified as :
1-Ignoring and doubting the rational procedure when establishing sound knowledge.
Philosophers like to establish the basis of knowledge that they can be sure of – a branch of philosophy known as epistemology. This would provide the building blocks of establishing certainty of God’s existence, so if you doubt the method of knowledge or tools that you use to establish God’s existence then that would mean you could doubt God himself (the conclusion based on your method of knowledge).
There are many views on this topic that the philosophers had over the ages from Plato’s claims that our experience of the world is no more than shadows and that the true reality lies beyond these shadows, to Descarte’s doubt of everything except his own existence. From the empiricists, to the idealists, to the skeptics – all with different views of knowledge. Even in the Islamic world many philosophers who started to dabble with the translated works of the ancient philosophers started to also get affected with these ideas and fall into circles of confusion because of a lack of a clear basis of thinking of these matters.
One of the reasons for these many views is the use of hypothetical “thought experiments” which leaves the discussion open to any imaginable scenario. The problem with these discussions and the methods of thought experiments is that they are not necessarily based on reality. So for example Descarte’s ‘clever demon’ scenario where he imagines a demon that has convinced him of the reality around him which does not exist but which is really a dream. Likewise in the Islamic world philosophers would use these thought experiments not grounded in reality to make a case for their point such as the famous ‘floating man’ of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) to argue for the existence of the soul.
Because these thought experiments are not based on the real world that we can sense (e.g. a demon that makes us dream, a floating man etc.) then the conclusions that are derived are open to many routes that the imagination can come out with. The author of these thought experiments will only naturally focus on the route they wish to take in order to prove their point. However even in the presuppositions that are made there will still be different interpretations or routes that you could take to interpret the discussion. For example, Descarte’s thought experiment that a demon that controls us is making us think that we are alive and that 2+3=5, where in fact we are dreaming and that this controlling demon is making us think that we are conscious and that really 2+3= 6! He then argues that God must be true because God implanted this idea within our thinking however it could be (and has been) argued according to his same parameters that it was the same demon that made us believe in this untrue idea of God!
The biggest problem is that there is no grounding for the assumptions that are taken in these thought experiments. If what is taken as an assumption has no truth to it then what is built upon it will also have no truth. However the assumptions in these thought experiments are not grounded in reality. So for instance the assumption of Descarte’s thought experiment above (where he assumes that we are really dreaming and a demon controlling us is making us think we are alive) does not agree with what we know and sense between the difference of our conscious state and our sleep dream state. So if you were dreaming right now why aren’t you being chased by lions and flying away from them (as you might do in a dream)? Why isn’t your long dead relative making an appearance and sitting next to you? Why are those things that happen to us in our dreams not happening to us now?
As mentioned earlier, the framework of knowledge is important otherwise anything can be claimed! Not one of these philosophers could deny to live within their sensed realities- that has to be the basis upon which we build our knowledge- otherwise why do we refer to it when it comes to everyday living? You would not survive very long in this world if you denied the reality of the world. If you decided to exit a room through the wall instead of the door you would find your bones broken! Actually, one philosopher by the name of Pyrrho’s philosophical lack of trust in his senses led him to ignore cliffs, oncoming wagons and dangerous dogs, and his friends had to follow him around to protect him from these various everyday hazards. (Note: Pyrrho’s philosophical stance that no knowledge is definite and therefore to be trusted is argued to be self-contradictory for this life premise to him was definite and trusted knowledge!)
2-Thinking irrationally about God and his nature- when God is an unsensed reality
(Leading to doubt of its existence
Leading to problems in life and society- fatalists – dealt with in a separate chapter)
The errors in thinking and doubt increases when discussing the reality of God. This has been a source of contention and criticism between philosophers in the western and Islamic world debating the attributes of god. For example the question of evil : whether a God that was omnipotent could prevent the evil that exists and if not then that means he is not all-powerful and unlimited; but if he could but chooses not to then that would mean he is not omnibenevolent- all loving- so if not a good god or all-powerful god then why worship him?
Similarly the mutakallimin philosophers of the Islamic world would debate how God's attributes could be understood such as His Knowledge and predestination. Famously, the Mu'tazilite school of thought believed the speech of Allah in the form of the Quran was created. They came to the conclusion of this belief through the examination of His attributes via the application of logical deduction as follows:
Major Premise: in the phenomenal (tangible) realm, the Word of God is manifest in the texts of the Scriptures (i.e. the Qur'an and other religious scriptures)
Minor Premise: these texts are composed of letters and sounds that are embodied alternately (which are part of this created universe)
Conclusion: the Qur'an -that is the embodiment of God's factual speech (Kalam)- is created
This conclusion contradicted another by their opponents built on a different premise:
Major Premise: The Word of God (Kalam Allah) is a product of the speech nature which is inherent in God‟s Essence
Minor Premise: All that become the attributes of God‟s Essence are eternal as the eternity of God
Conclusion: the Word of God is eternal.
Likewise another group emerged believing that humans have no responsibility due to God controlling man’s actions , again by using logic to delve into the unseen nature of God as such:
God has no partners in creation
If man creates his actions then he is sharing creation with God
Therefore God creates man’s actions
Thus the debate over his attributes created a lot of confusion and even schisms within elements of society as these were matters of belief and used to define (and attack) one's identity as a proper believer.
Again the problem here is how the unsensed reality of God can be applied to our sensed reality; how can the infinite qualities be understood by limited beings? As already discussed, the components of rational thinking include a sensed reality linked to previous information. In this case because there is no sensed reality to study we must only rely upon (correct) previous information to give any thoughts upon an unsensed reality. Any extrapolations of how this unsensed entity operates is purely speculation because no one has ever witnessed a creator to be able to store information about it and then to be able to use that information for passing any judgements. Even when Allah the creator describes Himself through revelation to us with qualities that we have as humans, that does not mean that Allah has human attributes because we cannot rationally verify that. Rather, any description is a way of helping us to form a relationship with Him but we cannot start to equate the description to our reality. So if Allah says that He has hands we cannot assume that this also means fingers too or even literal human hands; rather the rational person will just leave the description at that and add no more or no less to the description. It was when philosophers started extrapolating from this that caused problems in their thinking. A final example to illustrate the point:
in surah (chapter) 95, verse 8, Allah (God) says: “Is not Allah (God) the most just of judges?
If we try to impose our human reality of justice upon God then we could end up contradicting other revelations. So according to the human notion of equity and justice, the one who does not fulfill their end of a contract would not expect a judge to reward them in a court of law. Also in the Quran it is mentioned many times that those who believe and do good will be rewarded by God. So according to the human notion of justice the one who does not do good should not be rewarded. However God also mentions that He can forgive those who do not obey Him to do good:
Allah says: “Say: O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [Sûrah al-Zumar: 53]
and that He punishes whom He wants to:
“And Allah's is the kingdom. of the heavens and the earth; He forgives whom He pleases and punishes whom He pleases, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” [48:14]
This shows us that there can be a difference in the human concept of justice and equity, with God’s justice and so it would be incorrect to superimpose our reality upon God’s reality. This is the case for any issue that concerns God. Any discussion upon an unsensed reality will therefore be laden with doubts and speculation.
The above examples show us that it is futile trying to discuss the unseen including God’s nature whilst having no knowledge of it as it is out of our sensed reality. The most we can do is limit the discussion to any knowledge that He reveals to us.
Dealing with illogical questions of the nature of God:
The previous discussion is dissimilar to the problems that arise when we start to go into questions of the infinite nature of God. Here we again are trying to understand it when we don’t have access to its reality. Because it describes itself as infinite in it’s existence then again if we start to entertain discussions on its infinite nature we end up in problems- because we have never sensed an infinite being in our physical reality to be able to give any rational judgement. So for example if we take the question, “If God is all-powerful then can He create a stone that is too heavy for Him to lift?” If you answer yes, then how can He be all-powerful if He can't lift the stone? And if you answered no, then how can He be all-powerful if He can’t create a s tone?
This question seems to suggest that such a being cannot therefore exist. However the paradoxical nature of the situation only appears because the question itself is a non-sensical question.
If we break down the question it is actually asking can an unlimited being be limited? Can an all-powerful entity not be powerful? Can an infinite also be finite? It is a nonsense question because by its definition it contradicts itself. Because the situation of being unlimited in power is dichotomous to being limited in power- there is no middle ground – therefore you are either limited or unlimited and you cannot be both by definition. Similar to a lightbulb being on or off. Therefore as it does not make sense as a question then we can disregard its challenge to this idea of the existence of an infinite creator.)
Infinity unravelled in mathematics?
Unsurprisingly, this is also the same sort of confusion that arises amongst the modern day philosophers of mathematics when trying to unravel the nature of Infinity. When mathematicians try to make a formula to represent the idea of the unlimited or the concept of ‘infinity’ then it starts to go against our common sense understanding of reality. This is because it is mathematically and scientifically impossible to measure anything infinite in our limited lifespans as it could mean that the data is very large (larger than our lifespans) rather than infinite. When mathematicians tried to quantify the infinite then they came out with different understandings of what it means mathematically. For instance Cantor, using his set theory demonstrated different types of infinity such as transfinite, but this led to contradictions in the application of his formula, and paradoxes to arise. Needless to say even in mathematics there are disagreements and this is because there is no such thing in our reality as infinity.
One such absurdity that arises when an infinite sum of finite things (such as the celestial bodies within the universe) is assumed can be demonstrated as follows. Imagine an infinite sum of marbles. If we were to halve the marbles then both halves would be equal to infinity. In fact any fraction of the infinite sum of marbles would equal infinity. This then produces an apparent contradiction that the part is equal to the whole. Further if we were to take three marbles out of the infinite sum of marbles then the remaining marbles would still equal to infinity. But the 3 marbles that have been taken out would be a fraction of the overall marbles. Yet this contradicts the principle we established earlier which is that every fraction of the infinite sum of marbles would equal to infinity. Yet the three marbles do not equal infinity. Thus something cannot be infinite and finite at the same time, because of this and many other contradictions it is absolutely clear that the sum of finite things must be finite. (We can also apply this to our previous discussion about the creation of the universe, for those who claim that the universe needs no creator as it is infinite in itself: because the universe is made up of finite bodies within space, and because we can measure parts of the universe which are finite distances then the whole universe is finite even though it be very large indeed!)
Again the problem is that we don’t know what infinite means in our reality and when we try to apply the mathematical formula to life it doesn’t make sense.To illustrate again, if you imagine a rope stretching to infinity in both directions. It runs to the end of the universe. It is, in essence, infinite. Now look at the space all around it. That also runs to the end of the universe. It is also infinite. Both are infinite, but are they the same? Isn’t one infinity bigger than the other? It doesn’t make sense but Cantor wanted to demonstrate this nonsensical idea mathematically using set theory. This demonstrates the mismatch between abstract mathematical ideas and reality.
The problems here arise in mathematics because it is not based in reality- the numbers that mathematics represents are not real actual tangible and sensed things but are an abstract construct: you can’t hold a ‘2’ in your hand and add it to something that is a ‘3’ to get a ‘5’. What you can do is find 2 items and find another 3 items and put them together and then if you count them you will get 5 items. So the numbers do not exist outside of the reality they represent.
Likewise in the mathematics of the infinity that Cantor delves in- there is a confusion about reality. In Cantor's set theory he (and mathematicians) presuppose “all positive integers” (all positive whole numbers) as part of their demonstration of how they can line up with integers from a different class (for example negative whole numbers) which he calls a “set”. To say, “all the positive integers” is to presuppose an error. Sets aren’t tangible things existing out there in reality. They are constructed by our minds to understand an idea. All sets are exactly as large as they’ve been constructed. Therefore there is no such thing as “all the positive integers”.
It’s like asking, “How many words does the largest sentence have in it?” And when you respond, “I don’t know, but at any given time, it’s a finite amount”, they say, “No! I can just add a word to it! It’s an actually-infinite sentence with an infinite number of words!” Just because you can always add another word, doesn’t mean an “actually-infinite sentence” is out there.
Therefore any number or formula that tries to represent infinity is going to be full of speculation and doubt- it is just an abstract idea because in our reality there is no such thing as infinity. It ends up being just fanciful philosophy as the ancient philosophers would talk about without any real knowledge.
Is it any surprise then that mathematicians who spend their lives trying to prove their fanciful philosophy as real when there is no way to verify it are usually insane or end up insane (as Cantor did)– living in a different reality- just a modern day Pyrrho!
TBC....
Refuting modern day arguments against God :
-have a structured way of thinking: basis is reality. definite reality over speculation. these have been about before in different forms.
two of today: evolution and quantum mechanics.
evolution:
quantum mechanics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
