Category Archives: Atheism

Does Artificial Intelligence Undermine Religion?

By Hamza Andreas Tzortzis

Artificial intelligence (AI) has developed rapidly over the past few years. We have computers, phones and other hardware that can now display abilities and intelligence that makes humans look primitive. With this fast-moving area of technology many are postulating that AI can become conscious, and the implications are that it undermines religious narratives. If AI can be conscious then there is a physicalist explanation for what makes us human.1 The soul, the immaterial thing that animates the body, can now be replaced with a physical, materialistic explanation.2 Religion is therefore undermined.

The physicalist may argue that consciousness and the ability to experience subjective conscious states (also referred to as phenomenal states) can be explained by artificial intelligence—consciousness becomes analogous to a computer programme. However, there is a difference between weak AI and strong AI. Weak AI is a computer system’s ability to display intelligence. This can include answering complex mathematical equations or beating multiple opponents at a game of chess in less than an hour. Strong AI refers to computer systems actually being conscious. In other words, having the ability to experience subjective conscious states—which includes attaching meaning to things. Weak AI is possible and has already been developed. Strong AI is impossible. What follows are the reasons why.

The first reason, which is more of a general point, is that computers are not independent systems with the ability to engage in reasoning. A thing characterised as conscious implies being an independent source of rational thought. However, computers (and computer programmes) were designed, developed and made by human beings that are independently rational. Therefore, computers are just a protraction of our ability to be intelligent. William Hasker explains:

“Computers function as they do because they have been constructed by human being endowed with rational insight. A computer, in other words, is merely an extension of the rationality of its designers and users; it is no more an independent source of rational thought than a television set is an independent source of news and entertainment.”3

The second reason is that humans are not only intelligent—their reasoning has intentionality. This means that our reasoning is about or of something and that it is associated with meaning.4 Conversely, computer programmes are not characterised as having meaning. Computer systems just manipulate symbols. For the system, the symbols are not about or of something—all computers can “see” are the symbols they are manipulating, irrespective of what we may think the symbols are about or of. Computer programmes are just based on syntactical rules (the manipulation of symbols), not semantics (meaning).

To understand the difference between semantics and syntax, consider the following sentences:

I love my family.

αγαπώ την οικογένειά μου.

আমি আমার পরিবারকে ভালবাসি.

These three sentences mean the same thing: I love my family.

This refers to semantics, the meaning of the sentences. But the syntax is different. In other words, the symbols used are unalike. The first sentence is using English ‘symbols’, the second Greek, and the last Bangla. From this the following argument can be developed:

Computer programmes are syntactical (based on syntax);

Minds have semantics;

Syntax by itself is neither sufficient for nor constitutive for semantics;

Therefore computer programmes by themselves are not minds.5

Imagine that an avalanche somehow arranges mountain rocks into the words ‘I love my family’. To make the claim that the mountain knows what the arrangement of rocks (symbols) mean would be untenable. This indicates that the mere manipulation of symbols (syntax) does not give rise to meaning (semantics).

Computer programmes are based on the manipulation of symbols, not meaning. Likewise, I cannot know the meaning of the sentence in Bangla just by manipulating the letters (symbols). No matter how many times I manipulate the Bangla letters, I will not be able to understand the meaning of the words. This is why for semantics we need more than the correct syntax. Computer programmes work on syntax and not on semantics. Computers do not know the meaning of anything.

John Searle’s Chinese Room thought-experiment is a powerful way of showing that the mere manipulation of symbols does not lead to an understanding of what they mean:

“Imagine that you are locked in a room, and in this room are several baskets full of Chinese symbols. Imagine that you (like me) do not understand a word of Chinese, but that you are given a rule book in English for manipulating the Chinese symbols. The rules specify the manipulation of symbols purely formally, in terms of their syntax, not their semantics. So the rule might say: ‘Take a squiggle-squiggle out of basket number one and put it next to a squiggle-squiggle sign from basket number two.’ Now suppose that some other Chinese symbols are passed into the room and that you are given further rules for passing back Chinese symbols out of the room. Suppose that unknown to you the symbols passed into the room are called ‘questions’ by the people outside the room, and the symbols you pass back out of the room are called ‘answers to questions.’ Suppose furthermore, that the programmers are so good at designing the programs and that you are so good at manipulating the symbols, that very soon your answers are indistinguishable from those of a native Chinese speaker. There you are locked in your room shuffling your Chinese symbols and passing out Chinese symbols in response to incoming Chinese symbols… Now the point of the story is simply this: by virtue of implementing a formal computer program from the point of view of an outside observer, you behave exactly as if you understood Chinese, but all the same you do not understand a word of Chinese.”6

In the Chinese Room thought-experiment the person inside the room is simulating a computer. Another person manages the symbols in a way that makes the person inside the room seem to understand Chinese. However, the person inside the room does not understand the language; they merely imitate that state. Searle concludes:

“Having the symbols by themselves—just having the syntax—is not sufficient for having the semantics. Merely manipulating symbols is not enough to guarantee knowledge of what they mean.”7

The objector might respond to this by arguing that although the computer programme does not know the meaning, the whole system does. Searle has called this objection “the systems reply”8. However, why is it that the programme does not know the meaning? The answer is simple: it is because it has no way of assigning meaning to the symbols. Since a computer programme cannot assign meaning to symbols, how can a computer system—which relies on the programme—understand the meaning? You cannot produce understanding just by having the right programme. Searle presents an extended version of the Chinese Room thought-experim

ent to show that the system as a whole does not understand the meaning: “Imagine that I memorize the contents of the baskets and the rule book, and I do all the calculations in my head. You can even imagine that I work out in the open. There is nothing in the ‘system’ that is not in me, and since I don’t understand Chinese, neither does the system.”9

Lawrence Carleton postulates that Searle’s Chinese Room argument is invalid. He argues that Searle’s argument commits the fallacy referred to as the denial of the antecedent. Carleton maintains that Searle commits the fallacy because “we are given no evidence that there is only one way to produce intentionality”

.10 He claims that Searle is assuming that only brain’s have the processes to manipulate and understand symbols (intentionality), and computers do not. Carleton presents the fallacy in the following way:

“To say, ‘Certain brain-process equivalents produce intentionality’ and ‘X does not have these equivalents’, therefore ‘X does not have intentionality’, is to commit the formal fallacy, ‘Denial of the antecedent.’”11

However, Dale Jacquette maintains that Searle does not commit the formal fallacy if an interpretation of Searle’s argument is:

“If X is (intrinsically) intentional, then X has certain brain-process equivalents.”12

Jacquette believes that Searle’s argument is a concession to functionalism. He argues that functionalists “maintain that there is nothing special about protoplasm, so that any properly organized matter instantiating the right input-output program duplicates the intentionality of the mind.”13 Searle also seems to admit that machines could have the ability to understand Chinese. However he states that “I do see very strong arguments for saying that we could not give such a thing to a machine where the operation of the machine is defined solely in terms of computational processes over formally defined elements….”14

If computers cannot attach meaning to symbols, then what kind of conscious machine is Searle referring to? Even if one would postulate a robot (something that Searle rejects), it would still present insurmountable problems. Machines are based on “computational processes over formally defined elements”. It seems that the mere possibility of a machine having understanding (attaching meaning to symbols) would require something other than these aforementioned processes and elements. Does such a machine exist? The answer is no. Could they exist? If they could, they probably would not be described as machines if something other than “computational processes over formally defined elements” is required.

According to Rocco Gennaro, many philosophers agree with Searle’s view that robots could not have phenomenal consciousness.15 Some philosophers argue that to build a conscious robot “qualitative experience must be present”[16], something that they are pessimistic about. Others explain this pessimism:

“To explain consciousness is to explain how this subjective internal appearance of information can arise in the brain, and so to create a conscious robot would be to create subjective internal appearance of information inside the robot… no matter how advanced, will likely not make the robot conscious since the phenomenal internal appearances must be present as well.”17

AI cannot attach meaning to symbols, it just manipulates them in very complex ways. Therefore there will never be a strong version of AI. Religion is not undermined.


1 Physicalism is the view that consciousness can be reduced to, explained by, or identical to physical processes in some way.

2 In the philosophy of the mind physicalism or materialism are synonymous terms, even though they have different histories and meaning when used in other domains of knowledge.

3 Hasker, Hasker. Metaphysics(Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1983), 49; also see “The Transcendental Refutation of Determinism,” Southern Journal of Philosophy 11 (1973) 175–83.

4 Searle, John, Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 160.

5 Searle, John. (1989). Reply to Jacquette. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 49(4), 703.

6 Searle, John. (1984) Minds, Brains and Science. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, pp. 32–33.

7 Searle, John. (1990) Is the Brain’s Mind a Computer Program? Scientific American 262: 27.

8 Ibid, 30.

9 Ibid.

10 Carleton, Lawrence (1984). Programs, Language Understanding, and Searle. Synthese, 59, 221.

11 Ibid.

12 Jacquette, Dale. “Searle’s Intentionality Thesis.” Synthese 80, no. 2 (1989): 267.

13 Ibid, 268.

14 Searle, John. (1980b) Minds, Brains, and Programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, 422.

15 Gennaro, Rocco. Consciousness. (London: Routledge, 2017), p. 176.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid

Coronavirus has its Origin in Atheism

Here’s why. Most of the world eats grazing animals or cattle since the beginning, its not like that only one or two cultures/civilizations eat grazing animals. Those who eat these, are mostly people with religion backend, no matter whatever the religion is. Even the Hindus prune the animal and filter impure organs. Its like human innate nature resonating with grazing animals.

The dilemma of eating snakes, bats, mouse, scorpion, insects or eating any animal alive has no precedence in any divine ordained teachings. People who eat these things are from China, Japan, Vietnam, Mynamer, Korea etc.

What’s common in those countries? Atheism. Its not like I am unnecessarily stretching the lines to Atheism. But one should ask what Atheism teaches us? Atheism don’t provide any ethical and moral benchmark, on the another side, any kind of believer whether muslim or non muslim, they do akin to some setted benchmark.

Their is a popular cuisine in Japan and Korea where the freshly cut Monkey’s head is served on the table and they eat it with chopsticks.

The conclusion is the obvious, the human mere relying on rationality will suffer these setbacks of plagues.


By Hamza Tzortzis

God makes it very clear that the purpose of our lives is to worship Him, “And I did not create the jinn (spirit world) and mankind except to worship Me.”[1] The concept of worship in the Islamic tradition is profound. Worship entails that we must know, love and obey God, as well as single out and dedicate all acts of worship to Him alone. If we want to know, love and obey something other than God the most, including direct acts of worship (like ultimate gratitude) to something other than Him, then that is our object of worship. In this sense, human beings, including those who do not believe in God, cannot not worship. However, many misdirect their worship to things other than God; something this essay aims to address.

According to the Islamic spiritual tradition, acts of worship are accepted if they fulfil two conditions. The first is that the act of worship should be done purely for the sake of God. The second is that the action itself is prescribed by the Islamic source texts: the Qur’an and the authentic Prophetic traditions. So a natural question that follows from this is: What are these acts of worship?

The acts of worship are many. Any good action that is done to please God is an act of worship. However, there are some basic acts of worship which are essential to Islamic spiritual practice. These have been summarised by the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ as the five pillars of Islam. They include: affirming and recognising in one’s heart that there is no deity worthy of worship except God and that Muhammad ﷺ is God’s final messenger; praying five times a day; giving the obligatory charity if one can afford to; fasting in Ramadan (the 9th month of the Islamic calendar) and performing the pilgrimage if one is able to do so. These acts of worship have profound meanings and inner dimensions. These are the basic pillars of Islam. However, in developing one’s spiritual practice one can engage in a plethora of additional spiritual activities. These include: reciting the Qur’an; remembrance of God; removing the spiritual diseases in one’s heart; voluntary charity; repentance; spiritual reflection; conveying the message of Islam to others; feeding the poor; spreading peace; taking care of animals; studying the life of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ; memorising the Qur’an; the night prayer; reflecting on natural phenomena and much more.

Since our reason for being is to worship the Divine, it is important to understand why we must dedicate all acts of worship to Him alone. In this essay I will provide 7 reasons for why we must worship God and dedicate all acts of worship to Him alone. These reasons include:

  1. God is worthy of worship by virtue of who He is.
  2. God has created and sustains everything.
  3. God provides us with innumerable favours.
  4. If we love ourselves, we must love God.
  5. God is The-Loving, and His love is the purest form of love.
  6. Worship is part of who we are.
  7. Obeying God is the most rational thing to do.

Knowing God

Before I discuss the above reasons, it is important to elaborate on what is meant by knowing God. Knowledge of God is essential to understanding why God is worthy of our worship, because we cannot worship something we are ignorant of. This is why, in the Islamic tradition, traversing a path of knowing God is a form of worship:

“So know, that there is no deity except God.”[2]

To know God means that we affirm that He is the sole creator and maintainer of everything that exists (known as Oneness of God’s Creativity). It also entails that we affirm His names and attributes in the context of recognising that they are unique and that nothing can compare to God (known as Oneness of God’s Names and Attributes). Knowledge of God also involves that we must know that He is unique in His Divinity; He alone is entitled to all acts of worship (known as Oneness of God’s Divinity). It must be noted that in Islamic theology it is critical to affirm that nothing whatsoever shares in God’s creative power and ability, names and attributes, and Divinity. All forms of anthropomorphism are completely rejected. God is transcendent and maximally perfect. He has no imperfections. The concept of oneness in the Islamic spiritual tradition is referred to as tawheed, which linguistically means to affirm oneness or to make something one or unique.

Oneness of Creativity

The oneness of God’s Creativity is to affirm and recognise that God is the sole creator, master and owner of everything that exists. God is the One who sustains, takes care of, and nourishes everything. According to the Islamic doctrine of tawheed, anyone who denies this has associated partners with God, which is polytheism (known as shirk in Islamic theology). Anyone who believes that these descriptions of God can be shared by any created thing has deified that thing. Therefore, they have associated partners with God.

Oneness of God’s Names and Attributes

The ‘oneness of God’s names and attributes’ means to describe God only by the names and attributes by which He has described Himself, which are found in the Qur’an and the Prophetic teachings (some names such as Al-Khaaliq, The-Creator, and Al-Qadeer, The-Powerful, can be affirmed by a sound rational mind). These names and attributes, such as The-Loving and The-Subtle, are affirmed but they are not comparable to creation. God’s names and attributes are perfect without any deficiency or flaw, God is maximally perfect. God’s names are described by God Himself as the most beautiful:

“The most beautiful names belong to God: so call on Him by them.”[3]

The one who compares these names and attributes to creation has committed humanisation, and therefore has associated partners with God. The one who compares any created thing to God has committed deification, which is also a form of associating partners with God.

Oneness of God’s Divinity

The oneness of God’s Divinity is that we must affirm that all acts of worship must be directed to Him alone. Someone who directs acts of worship to anything other than God, and the one who seeks reward from anything other than God in any act of worship, has associated partners with Him.

In certain contexts, some acts of worship such as the internal acts of worship, if directed to other than God, do not constitute associating partners with Him. For example, one’s love for God may be deficient and require perfecting. Associating partners with God in the context of love would involve loving something or someone instead of God or as much as God. Someone can love their their family and it would not constitute associating partners with God. If they loved their family instead of God or as much as God, then that would constitute a form of associating partners with Him.

The gravest sin

Associating partners with God is the gravest sin. The consequence of this sin is that the one who dies in such a state and has not repented dies in a state of disbelief. This will never be forgiven by God. (This applies to major forms of associating partners with God. There are lesser forms that do not lead to disbelief, such as giving charity for other than God, obeying someone instead of God and showing off one’s good deeds. However, major forms of associating partners with God such as praying to other than Him and believing other things are worthy of worship lead to disbelief):

“Indeed, God does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. And he who associates others with God has certainly committed a tremendous sin.”[4]

However, if one associates partners with God and repents to Him and returns to the path of oneness, he or she will be forgiven, and their transgressions will be transformed into good deeds:

“And those who invoke not any other deity along with God… Except those who repent and believe, and do righteous deeds; for those, God will change their sins into good deeds, and God is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful.”[5]

The one who has associated partners with God and has never repented, and dies in that state (and has no excuse), has essentially oppressed themselves by closing the door to God’s mercy. Their hearts have ‘eternally’ rejected God’s guidance and mercy; therefore, they have alienated themselves from the Divine. Those who reject God will plead to go back to earth to do righteousness, but their hearts have ‘eternally’ rejected:

“[For such is the state of the disbelievers], until, when death comes to one of them, he says, ‘My Lord, send me back that I might do righteousness in that which I left behind.’ No! It is only a word he is saying.”[6]

This self-imposed spiritual reality is a form of denial. The person has denied all the just and fair opportunities that God has given them to embrace His mercy and love:

“God has not wronged them, but they wronged themselves.”[7]

“This is reward for what your hands have done. And God is never unjust to His servants.”[8]

It must be noted that according to Islamic theology, if someone was not given the right message of Islam, and sought the truth, they will have an excuse and will be tested on the Day of Judgment.[9] God is The-Just and no one will be treated unjustly. This is why, when a non-Muslim has passed away, it is considered un-Islamic to pass judgment on their final abode (however, some scholars have said this may not apply to those who never sought the truth or had sufficient knowledge of Islam). No one knows what is in someone else’s heart and whether someone was given the right message in the right way. However, from a creedal and societal point of view, non-Muslims who died will be buried as non-Muslims. This does not mean that this is their final judgement. In reality, God is maximally and perfectly just and merciful, so no one will be treated unmercifully and no one will be treated unjustly.

People who have heard the message of Islam in a sound and correct way will have to account for their denial. However, whoever dies without having heard the message of Islam, or heard it in a distorted form, will be given an opportunity to accept the truth. Echoing the principles from the various verses of the Qur’an and the Prophetic traditions, Al-Ghazali summarises this nuanced approach. He argues that people who never heard the message of Islam will have an excuse: “In fact, I would say that, God willing, most of the Byzantine Christians and the Turks of this age will be included in God’s mercy. I’m referring here to those who live in the farthest regions of Byzantium and Anatolia who have not come into contact with the message… They are excused.”[10]

Al-Ghazali also argues that the people who heard negative things of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and his message will also be excused: “These people knew the name ‘Muhammad’, but nothing of his character or his qualities. Instead, all they heard since childhood is that a liar and imposter called ‘Muhammad’ claimed to be a prophet… This party, in my opinion, is like the first party. For even though they’ve heard his name, they heard the opposite of what his true qualities were. And this does not provide enough incentive for them to investigate [his true status].”[11]

The true teachings of Islam are a barrier to extremism. In my view, all forms of extremism are based on an ‘ideological hardness’ that hardens people’s hearts. What I mean by this is that people adopt non-negotiable, binary and negative assumptions about the world and other people. This makes one group of people ‘otherize’ another. Otherization is not simply labelling people as belonging to other groups. This is natural and part of modern society. Otherization usually happens when one group describes another group in a negative way and maintains that each member is the same. This hardens people’s hearts and prevents them from positively engaging with other people who seem to be different. Islam does not otherize people. It does not assert that everyone who is not a Muslim is ultimately doomed or evil. The Qur’an makes it quite clear that people constituting other groups “are not all alike[12] and describes some of them as “upright”[13] The Qur’an also applies this concept to believers too; some are righteous and some are not. Nevertheless, Islam teaches that every human being must be treated with mercy, compassion and fairness.

7 Reasons why God is worthy of worship

# 1 God is worthy of worship by virtue of who He is

The best place to start is to understand who God is. God, by definition, is the One who is entitled to our worship; it is a necessary fact of His own existence. The Qur’an repeatedly highlights this fact about God,

“Indeed, I am God. There is no deity except Me, so worship Me and establish prayer for My remembrance.”[14]

Since God is the only Being whose right is our worship, then all of our acts of worship should be directed to Him alone.

In the Islamic tradition, God is considered a maximally perfect Being. He possesses all the perfect names and attributes to the highest degree possible. For example, in Islamic theology, God is described as the The-Loving, and this means that His love is the most perfect and greatest love possible. It is because of these names and attributes that God must be worshipped. We always praise people for their abilities, kindness, knowledge and wisdom. However, God’s power, kindness, knowledge and wisdom are to the highest degree possible with no deficiency or flaw. Therefore, He is worthy of the most extensive form of praise, and praising God is a form of worship. In this light, God is worthy of worship by virtue of who He is.

God is also the only One entitled to our supplications and prayers. He knows best what is good for us, and He wants what is good for us. Such a Being with these attributes must be prayed to, and be asked assistance of. God is worthy of our worship because there is something about God that makes Him so. He is the Being with the most perfect names and attributes.

An important point regarding worshipping God is that it is His right, even if we are not recipients of any type of comfort. If we were to live a life full of suffering, God must still be worshipped. Worshipping God is not dependent on some kind of reciprocal relationship; He gives us life, and we worship Him in return. Do not misunderstand what I am saying here: God showers us with many blessings (as I will discuss below); however, He is worshipped because of who He is and not necessarily how He decides—via His boundless wisdom—to distribute His bounty.

We praise people due to their sporting skill, eloquence, strength or any other attribute. We do so even though they do not benefit us in any direct way. Similarly, God deserves extensive praise by virtue of His perfect names and attributes, and not as a result of how He decided to manifest them in our lives. If we can praise people who have limited and flawed attributes, what does it mean on how we must praise God whose names and attributes have no deficiency or flaw?

# 2 God has created and also sustains everything

There is something in your life that you receive freely, yet you do not earn it and do not own it. There is no good reason to believe that you deserve it either. This thing is this moment, and the next moment, and all of the moments of your existence. You do not earn these moments, so what can you possibly do to earn another instant in your life? This is exactly why in popular culture we call it a gift: the gift of life. If you knew that you had 10 hours left to live and in order to live another 3 days you had to give away all of your wealth, you would immediately do so. That’s why we all consider it to be so precious. You do not own these moments because you do not have the capacity to bring anything into existence; you cannot even create a fly. You do not deserve another moment of your existence because it is not yours; you do not have the ability to produce life, even for a second. Therefore, nothing that you do can be deserving of something that you can never acquire by yourself.

In light of these basic truths, you must always be in a state of gratitude, because you always receive something that you neither earn, nor own, nor deserve. These moments of our existence are from God alone, therefore we must be thankful to God, and acknowledge that all gratitude belongs to Him alone. Gratitude is a key aspect of worship.

God has created everything; He continually sustains the entire cosmos and provides for us out of His bounty. The Qur’an continually repeats this concept in various ways, which evokes a sense of gratitude and awe in the heart of the listener or reader:

“It is He who created for you all of that which is on the Earth.”[15]

“Do they indeed ascribe to Him as partners things that can create nothing but are themselves created?”[16]

“O mankind, remember the favour of God upon you. Is there any creator other than God who provides for you from the heaven and Earth? There is no deity except Him, so how are you deluded?”[17]

Therefore, everything we use in our daily lives, and all of the essential things that we require to survive, are due to God. It follows then that His is all gratitude. Since God created everything that exists, He is the owner and master of everything, including us. Hence, we must be in a sense of awe and gratitude to Him. Since God is our Master, we must be His servants. To deny this is not only rejecting reality, but it is the height of ingratitude, arrogance and thanklessness.

Since God created us, our very existence is solely dependent on Him. We are not self-sufficient, even if some of us are deluded in thinking that we are. Whether we live a life of luxury and ease or poverty and hardship, we are ultimately dependent on God. Nothing in this universe is possible without Him and whatever happens is due to His will. Our success in business and the great things that we may achieve are ultimately because of God. He created the causes in the universe that we use to achieve success, and if He does not will our success it will never happen. Understanding our ultimate dependency on God should evoke an immense sense of gratitude and humility in our hearts. Humbling ourselves before God and thanking Him is a form of worship. One of the biggest barriers to Divine guidance and mercy is the delusion of self-sufficiency, which is ultimately based on ego and arrogance. The Qur’an makes this point clear:

“But man exceeds all bounds when he thinks he is self-sufficient.”[18]

“There is the one who is miserly, and is self-satisfied, who denies goodness—We shall smooth his way towards hardship and his wealth will not help him as he falls. Our part is to provide guidance.”[19]

# 3 God provides us with innumerable favours

“And if you should [try to] count the favours of God, you could not enumerate them. Indeed mankind is [generally] most unjust and ungrateful.”[20]

We should be eternally grateful to God because we could never thank Him for His blessings. The heart is an appropriate example to illustrate this point. The human heart beats around 100,000 times a day, which is approximately 37,000,000 times a year. If we were to live up to the age of 75, the number of heartbeats would reach 2,759,400,000. How many of us have even counted that number of heartbeats? No one ever has. It is actually impossible to count that many heartbeats. Firstly, for the first few years of your life you cannot count. Already there’s a few years of backlog. Secondly, you cannot count your heartbeats while you are sleeping. To be able to count a lifetime’s worth of heartbeats, you would have had to start counting each heartbeat from the day you were born and while you were asleep. This would interfere with your ability to live a normal life, as you would always be counting every time your heart started a new beat. As a practical matter it is impossible. However, every heartbeat is precious to us. Anyone of us would sacrifice a mountain of gold to ensure that our hearts function properly to keep us alive. Yet we forget and deny the One who created our hearts and enables them to function. This illustration forces us to conclude that we must be grateful to God, and gratitude is a form of worship. The above discussion just refers to heartbeats, so imagine the gratitude we must express for all the other blessings God has given us. From this perspective anything other than a heartbeat is a bonus. God has given us favours we cannot enumerate, and if we could count them we would have to thank Him for the ability to do so.

# 4 If we love ourselves, we must love God

Loving God is a fundamental aspect of worship. There are many types of love and one of these includes self-love. This occurs due to the desire to prolong our existence, feel pleasure and avoid pain, as well as the need to satisfy our human needs and motivations. We all have this natural love for ourselves because we want to be happy and content. The psychologist Erich Fromm argued that loving oneself is not a form of arrogance or egocentricity. Rather, self-love is about caring, taking responsibility and having respect for ourselves. This type of love is necessary in order to love others. If we cannot love ourselves, how then can we love other people? There is nothing closer to us than our own selves; if we cannot care for and respect ourselves, how then can we care for and respect others? Loving ourselves is a form of ‘self-empathy’. We connect with our own feelings, thoughts and aspirations. If we cannot connect with our own selves, how then can we empathise and connect with others? Eric Fromm echoes this idea by saying that love “implies that respect for one’s own integrity and uniqueness, love for an understanding of one’s own self, cannot be separated from respect and love and understanding for another individual.”[21]

If a person’s love for himself is necessary, this should lead him to love the One who made him. Why? Because God created the physical causes and means for human beings to achieve happiness and pleasure, and avoid pain. God has freely given us every precious moment of our existence, yet we do not earn or own these moments. The great theologian Al-Ghazali aptly explains that if we love ourselves we must love God:

“Therefore, if man’s love for himself be necessary, then his love for Him through whom, first his coming-to-be, and second, his continuance in his essential being with all his inward and outward traits, his substance and his accidents, occur must also be necessary. Whoever is so besotted by his fleshy appetites as to lack this love neglects his Lord and Creator. He possesses no authentic knowledge of Him; his gaze is limited to his cravings and to things of sense.”[22]

# 5 God is The-Loving, and His love is the purest form of love

God is The-Loving. He has the purest form of love. This should make anyone want to love Him, and loving Him is a key part of worship. Imagine if I were to tell you that there was this person who was the most loving person ever, and that no other love could match his love; wouldn’t that instil a strong desire to get to know this person, and eventually love him too? God’s love is the purest and most intense form of love; therefore, any sane person would want to love him too.

Given that the English word for love encompasses a range of meanings, the best way to elaborate on the Islamic conception of God’s love is to look into the actual Qur’anic terms used to describe Divine love: His mercy (rahmah), His special mercy (raheem) and His special love (muwadda). By understanding these terms and how they relate to the Divine nature, our hearts will learn to love God.


It is said that another word for love is mercy. One of God’s names is The-Merciful; the Arabic word used is Ar-Rahmaan. This English translation does not fully represent the depth and intensity that the meaning of this word carries. The name Ar-Rahmaan has three major connotations: the first is that God’s mercy is an intense mercy; the second is that His mercy is an immediate mercy; and the third is a mercy so powerful that nothing can stop it. God’s mercy encompasses all things and He prefers guidance for people. In God’s book, the Qur’an, He says,

“…but My mercy encompasses all things….”[23]

“It is the Lord of Mercy who taught the Qur’an.”[24]

In the above verse, God says He is The-Merciful, which can be understood as the “Lord of Mercy”, and that He taught the Qur’an. This is a linguistic indication to highlight that the Qur’an was revealed as a manifestation of God’s mercy. In other words, the Qur’an is like one big love-letter to humanity. As with true love, the one who loves wants good for the beloved, and warns them of pitfalls and obstacles, and shows them the way to happiness. The Qur’an is no different: it calls out to humanity, and it also warns and expresses glad tidings.

Special Mercy

Connected to Ar-Rahmaan is Ar-Raheem. These names share the same root as the previous, which comes from the Arabic word for womb. The difference in meaning however is significant. Ar-Raheem refers to a special mercy for those who want to embrace it. Whoever chooses to accept God’s guidance has essentially accepted His special mercy. This special mercy is for the believers and it is manifested in paradise; unending, blissful peace with God.

Special Love

According to the Qur’an, God is The-Loving. The Arabic name is Al-Wadood. This refers to a special love that is apparent. It comes from the word wud, which means expressing love through the act of giving: “And He is the Forgiving, The Loving.”[25]

God’s love transcends all of the different types of love. His love is greater than all worldly forms of love. For example, a mother’s love, although selfless, is based on her internal need to love her child. It completes her, and through her sacrifices she feels whole and fulfilled. God is an independent Being who is self-sufficient and perfect; He does not require anything. God’s love is not based on a need or want; it is therefore the purest form of love, because He gains absolutely nothing from loving us.

In this light, how can we not love the One who is more loving than anything we can imagine? The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said, “God is more affectionate to His servants than a mother to her children.”[26]

If God is the most loving, and His love is greater than the greatest worldly love we have experienced, this should instil in us a deeper love for God. Significantly, this should make us want to love Him by being one of His servants. Al-Ghazali aptly said, “For those endowed with insight there is in reality no object of love but God, nor does anyone but He deserve love.”[27]

From a spiritual perspective, God’s love is the greatest blessing anyone can ever achieve, as it is a source of internal tranquillity, serenity, and eternal bliss in the hereafter. Not loving God is not only a form of ingratitude, but the greatest form of hate. Not loving the One who is the source of love is a rejection of that which enables love to occur and fill our hearts.

God does not force His special love on us. Although, by His mercy, He lovingly gives us every moment of our lives, to fully embrace God’s love and be recipients of His special love, one must enter into a relationship with Him. It is as if God’s love is waiting for us to embrace it. However, we have closed the door and put up the shutters. We have kept the door shut by denying, ignoring and rejecting God. If God were to force His special love on us, love would lose all meaning. We have the choice: to follow the right path and thereby gain God’s special love, or reject His guidance and face the spiritual consequences.

The most loving Being wants to love you, but in order for you to embrace that love, and for it to be meaningful, you have to choose to love Him and follow the path that leads to His love. This path is the Prophetic path of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

“Say, [O Muhammad]: ‘If you love God, then follow me, [so] God will love you and forgive your sins. And God is Forgiving and Merciful’.”[28]

# 6 Worship is part of who we are

God is worthy of our worship because worship is part of who we are. Just like our need to eat, drink and breathe, worship is an innate tendency. From this perspective, we are natural-born worshippers, because that is who we are and it is our Divinely given purpose. Worshipping God is a logical necessity, just as when we say a car is red. It is red because we have defined that colour as red; it is red by definition. Likewise, we are worshippers by definition, because God defined and made us that way: “I did not create the Jinn [spirit world], nor mankind, except to worship Me.”[29]

Even people who do not believe in God, including those who reject the fact that He is entitled to worship, manifest signs of adoration, reverence and devotion. If you do not worship God, you’ll still end up worshipping something. From an Islamic perspective, the object that you love and revere the most, including whatever you attribute ultimate power to and believe you are ultimately dependent on, is essentially your object of worship. For many people, this can include an ideology, a leader, a family member, and even your own self. In other words, many people idolise these things. Polytheism or idolatry is not just about praying to or bowing down in front of an object.

God is rooted in our innermost nature, and when God commands us to worship Him it is actually a mercy and act of love. It is as if every human being has a hole in his or her heart. This hole is not physical, it is spiritual, and it needs to be filled to achieve spiritual tranquillity. We attempt to fill this hole with a new job, a holiday, a new house, a new car, a hobby, travel or taking up a popular self-help course. However, every time we fill our hearts with these things, a new hole appears. We are never truly satisfied, and after a while we seek something else to fill the spiritual void. Yet, once we fill our hearts with the love of God, the hole remains permanently closed. Thus, we feel at peace and experience a tranquillity that can never be put into words, and a serenity that is undisturbed by calamity.

# 7 Obeying God is the most rational thing to do

“[A]nd obey God and the Prophet[30] so that you may be given mercy.”[31]

When I travel by plane, I usually hear the pilot announce—via the inflight audio system—to fasten our seat belts due to oncoming turbulence. My typical response involves sitting down, fastening my belt and hoping (and praying) for the best. The reason I obey the pilot’s command is that I understand he is the authority concerning the plane, how it works and the effects of turbulence. My obedience is a result of using my rational faculties. Only an arrogant person would disobey a valid authority. Would any of us take seriously a seven-year-old telling us that our maths professor does not know how to teach calculus?

In a similar light, disobeying God is foolish and unfounded. Obeying God, even if we do not know the full wisdom behind some of His commands, is the most rational thing to do. God’s commands are based on His boundless knowledge and wisdom. He is the ultimate authority. To deny this authority is like a two-year-old child scribbling on a piece of paper and claiming that he is more eloquent than Shakespeare. (Actually, it is worse.)

This does not mean that we suspend our minds when obeying God. We are told by God Himself to use our reason. However, once we have established what God has said, then that should result in obedience.

Obeying God entails that one should fear Him. A believer should fear God if he wants to be in a state of servitude and obedience. This fear, however, is not the type of fear that is associated with being scared of an enemy or an evil force. God wants good for us. Rather, this fear is associated with skin-shivering awe, loss, love and unhappiness. We fear God from the perspective of fearing losing His love and good pleasure.[32]

The reasons I have provided above may raise some questions. These include: Does God need our worship? Why did He create us to worship Him?. To summarise, God is independent and everything depends on Him. He does not need anything. Worshipping God is for us, not for Him. Also, God creating us to worship Him was inevitable. His perfect names and attributes were going to manifest themselves. An artist inevitably produces art work because he has the attribute of being artistic. By greater reason, God would inevitably create us to worship Him because He is the One worthy of worship. This inevitability is not based on need but rather a manifestation of God’s names and attributes.

A Note on the Essence of Worship

In the Islamic tradition, a key act of worship is supplication (known as dua in Islamic theology). The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ taught that supplication is “the essence of worship”[33]. Supplications are to God alone, because only He can help us when we ask for help for something that we need or want. Supplicating to anything other than God is an act of polytheism, because the person is asking for something from an entity that does not have the ability to provide or fulfil that request. For example, if someone were to ask a stone idol to grant them twin girls, it would be an act of polytheism because they are supplicating to an entity that has no power to fulfil that request. This does not mean, however, that asking someone who has the ability to assist you for help is polytheism. It would only be polytheism if one were to believe that God was not the ultimate creator of their ability to help you. Supplicating to God is part of making our worship pure, and the way we supplicate to Him should be with humility. God says: “Invoke your Lord with humility”[34] and “So invoke God making your worship pure for Him”[35].

The free slave 

From an existential perspective, worshipping God is true liberation. If worship entails loving and obeying God the most, then in reality many of us also have other gods in our lives. Many of us want to love and obey our own egos and desires the most. We think we are always right, we never want to be wrong, and we always want to impose ourselves on others. From this perspective, we are enslaved to ourselves. The Qur’an points out such a debased spiritual state and describes the one who considers his desires, passions and whims as his god, to be worse than an animal: “Think of the man who has taken his own passion as a god: are you to be his guardian? Do you think that most of them hear or understand? They are just like cattle—no, they are further from the path.”[36]

From self-worship, sometimes we move to worship various forms of social pressures, ideas, norms and cultures. They become our point of reference, we start to love them, want to know more about them, and are led to ‘obey’ them. Examples abound; take, for instance, materialism. We have become preoccupied with money and material belongings. Obviously, to want money and possessions is not necessarily a bad thing, but we have allowed our pursuit to define who we are. Our time and efforts are devoted to the accumulation of wealth, making the false notion of material success the primary focus in our lives. From this perspective, material things start to control us, and lead us to serve the culture of avid materialism rather than serving God. I appreciate that this does not apply to everyone, but this form of excessive materialism is very common.

Essentially, if we are not worshipping God, we are still worshipping something else. This can be our own egos and desires, or ephemeral things like material possessions. In the Islamic tradition, worshipping God defines who we are, as it is part of our nature. If we forget God, and start to worship things that are not worthy of worship, we will slowly forget our own selves: “And be not like those who forgot God, so He made them forget themselves.”[37]

Our understanding of who we are is dependent on our relationship with God, which is shaped by our servitude and worship. In this sense, when we worship God we are freed from submission to other ‘gods’, whether ourselves or things that we own or desire.

The Qur’an presents us with a profound analogy: “God puts forward this illustration: can a man who has for his masters several partners at odds with each other be considered equal to a man devoted wholly to one master? All praise belongs to God, though most of them do not know.”[38]

God is essentially telling us that if we do not worship God, we end up worshipping something else. These things enslave us and they become our masters. The Qur’anic analogy is teaching us that without God, we have many ‘masters’ and they all want something from us. They are all ‘at odds with each other’, and we end up in a state of misery, confusion and unhappiness. However, God, who knows everything, including our own selves, and who has more mercy than anyone else, is telling us that He is our master, and that only by worshipping Him alone will we truly free ourselves from the shackles of the things we have taken as replacements for Him.

To conclude this essay, lovingly worshipping God and peacefully submitting to Him frees you from the degraded worship of the ephemeral world and the lustful submission to the carnal and egotistical realities of the human condition. The following lines of poetry by the Poet of the East, Muhammad Iqbal, eloquently summarises this point:

“This one prostration which you deem too exacting liberates you from a thousand prostrations.”[39]


[1] The Qur’an, Chapter 51, Verse 56.

[2] The Qur’an, Chapter 47, Verse 19.

[3] The Qur’an, Chapter 7, Verse 180.

[4] The Qur’an, Chapter 4, Verse 48.

[5] The Qur’an, Chapter 25, Verses 68 and 70.

[6] The Qur’an, Chapter 23, Verses 99 and 100.

[7] The Qur’an, Chapter 3, Verse 117.

[8] The Qur’an, Chapter 8, Verse 51.

[9] This is based on the following authentic tradition narrated by Ahmad and Ibn Hibban: “There are four (who will protest) to God on the Day of Resurrection: the deaf man who never heard anything, the insane man, the very old man, and the man who died during the fatrah(the interval between the time of  Jesus (upon whom be peace) and the time of Muhammad ﷺ. The deaf man will say, ‘O Lord, Islam came but I never heard anything.’ The insane man will say, ‘O Lord, Islam came but the children ran after me and threw stones at me.’ The very old man will say, ‘O Lord, Islam came but I did not understand anything.’ The man who died during the fatrah will say, ‘O Lord, no Messenger from You came to me.’ He will accept their promises of obedience, then word will be sent to them to enter the Fire. By the One in Whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, if they enter it, it will be cool and safe for them.” There are other hadiths and verses of the Qur’an that indicate that God will not allow anyone to enter hell until people have been given the correct message of Islam.

[10] Al-Ghazali, M. A. (1993) Fayasl al-Tafriqa Bayn al-Islam wa-l-Zandaqa. Edited by M. Bejou. Damascus, p. 84. An online copy is available at: [Accessed 21st November 2016].

[11] Ibid.

[12] The Qur’an, Chapter 3, Verse 113. This verse refers to the ‘people of the book’. However, the principle applies to all groups of people.

[13] Ibid.

[14] The Qur’an, Chapter, 20, Verse 14.

[15] The Qur’an, Chapter 2, Verse 29.

[16] The Qur’an, Chapter 7, Verses 191 to 194.

[17] The Qur’an, Chapter 35, Verse 3.

[18] The Qur’an, Chapter 96, Verses 6 and 7.

[19] The Qur’an, Chapter 92, Verses 8 to 12.

[20] The Qur’an, Chapter 14, Verse 34.

[21] Fromm, E. (1956). The Art of Loving. New York: Harper & Row, pp. 58-59.

[22] Al-Ghazali. (2011) Al-Ghazali on Love, Longing, Intimacy & Contentment. Translated with an introduction and notes by Eric Ormsby. Cambridge: The Islamic Texts Society, p. 25.

[23] The Qur’an, Chapter 7, Verse 156.

[24] The Qur’an, Chapter 55, Verses 1 and 2.

[25] The Qur’an, Chapter 85, Verse 14.

[26] Narrated by Abu Dawud.

[27] Al-Ghazali. (2011) Al-Ghazali on Love, Longing, Intimacy & Contentment, p. 23.

[28] The Qur’an, Chapter 3, Verse 31.

[29] The Qur’an, Chapter 51, Verse 56.

[30] Obedience to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ as a result of obeying God, as He commands us to do so.

[31] The Qur’an, Chapter 3, Verse 132.

[32] Al-Ghazali. (2011) Al-Ghazali on Love, Longing, Intimacy & Contentment, pp. 120-121.

[33] Narrated by Bukhari.

[34] The Qur’an, Chapter 7, Verse 55.

[35] The Qur’an, Chapter 40, Verse 1.

[36] The Qur’an, Chapter 25, Verses 43 and 44.

[37] The Qur’an, Chapter 59, Verse 19.

[38] The Qur’an, Chapter 39, Verse 29.

Cited in Riffat, H. (1968) The Main Philosophical Idea in the Writings of Muhammad Iqbal (1877 – 1938). Durham theses, Durham University. Available at: [Accessed 6th October 2016].

Belief in a Divine Being

It is clear from history and from the religious literature of different groups that belief in the existence of a Supreme Being has always existed in the people. In every age, and in every people, it has been accepted that this world has a Creator, and that He has great power. Therefore, the call and teachings of the messengers who were sent to different people at different times, stressed the Oneness of that Deity. They did not feel the need to stress the actual existence of a Supreme Deity. The reason for this is that for almost the whole of mankind, His  actual existence is an accepted fact, and the existence of a Creator of the universe is as natural and self-evident a fact as a person’s own existence. Therefore, this error has never been very widespread among mankind. However, in recent times, the atheistic movements have been very successful in promoting their ideologies. An immense change is occurring on university campuses. The popularisation of atheistic publications and propaganda through social media, combined with fervent activism, have increased an environment of intellectual challenge and peer pressure. Any Muslim who is not equipped with the adequate spiritual, intellectual and theological tools to address these challenges can be misguided onto the irrational path of denying the Divinity. Atheism is not merely a figment of imagination, which is not based on any proof whatsoever, but a sinister tool of Shaytaan to lure people away from the truth.

Allah Ta’ala says in the Quran, “Allah  created the heavens and the earth as required, and so that each soul may be rewarded for its earnings, and they shall not be wronged. Look at the one who has made his own lust his deity. And Allah, knowing him as such, led him astray and set a seal upon his ears and his heart, and cast darkness over his eyes. So now who will bring him onto the path beside Allah? Do you not ponder? They say, “There is nothing but our life of this world. We die and we live, and nothing but time destroys us.” They have no knowledge thereof. They are merely guessing. When Our clear verses are recited to them, they have no proof except that they say, ‘Bring forth our forefathers if you are truthful.’” (Surah Jaathiyah)

It should not be necessary to make a case for the existence of a Divine Being, who created the heavens and the earth, and everything in it, including mankind. The evidence is so obvious, that one is amazed that anybody could think otherwise. Unfortunately, many people are still in denial, despite all the evidence being presented to them. The evidence is basic common sense, logic and is also backed by solid scientific material. That all this be rejected, should be something to be amazed at. From the inception of mankind, there has been a battle between truth and falsehood. This battle will continue. Many people get swayed by the arguments put forward by those who reject the existence of a Divine Being, and argue that mankind came into existence through a process of evolution. Many of these adherents are scientists (who ought to know better). They are so enthralled by scientific “progress!!!” that they refuse to acknowledge the Divine Hand behind the running of the universe.

A parable narrated by Maulana Rumi  illustrates the position of the scientists accurately. It is being reproduced here, with slight modification:

“Once an ant saw an artist draw a beautiful sketch on paper with his pen and pencil. The ant said in admiration: ‘What beautiful figures!’ Another ant came and said: ‘It is the pen that has to be praised. It is the pen that is making those beautiful figures.’ Another ant came and said: ‘That pen is held in the fingers, so the fingers are creating those wonderful figures. The pen is merely its instrument.’ A fourth ant remarked: ‘Don’t you see the arm? These control the fingers which merely carry out the actions through the power of the arm.’ The dispute was referred to the queen of ants and she said: ‘These figures do not proceed from the pen, the fingers or the arm. These proceed from the mind. The mind controls all of these.’”


• The first ant is like those scientists who see only as far as their noses, and are not prepared to consider anything that exists beyond that.

• The other ants represent those individuals who can see a bit more, but are still deprived of Reality.

• The queen ant appears to be the most correct in her assessment.

• However, there is a higher level of understanding: to realise that the mind of the artist is also controlled. This Control is by the Hand of the Almighty. He is in Control of everything. He gave the understanding and intelligence to the artist to be able to use his senses and talent to draw the figures.

Atheism: The Irrational Doctrine

Twenty evidence of the fact that Atheism is the worst doctrine on earth .. !!

1 – Atheism violates the first law of Newton.
The first law of Newton says that “an object at rest will stay at rest and an object in steady motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force (static or dynamic).” So there must be an external force that made the Big Bang to happen at that very moment and forced the universe to begin at that very moment.

2 – Atheism violates the first law of thermodynamics.
Law of Conservation of energy or what is known as the first law of thermodynamics says ((matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed.)) If we contemplate in this law, we come to conclusion that the universe cannot exist. According to this law, the universe does not exist or it’s present in the presence of the Creator.

3 – Atheism violates the second law of thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamic says that the universe is now heading towards thermal death when the temperature of all organisms and particles becomes equal. So the universe as scientists say is heading toward disintegration, towards demolition, towards cooling and towards thermal death “thermal death of universe”, while atheism says that the universe is moving towards complexity and towards building a struggle to develop. So scholars consider the second law of thermodynamics to carry the end of Darwinism and selective evolution. And these are laws, not theories.. so the science on the side while atheism and Darwinism are completely on the other side.

4 – Atheism is contrary to the Code of Ethics.
The original definition of morality: – Morals are those that come against self-interest .. against matter .. against reason
Moral obligation is a restriction of the human being and as Nietzsche said long ago: – The lack of power in human being is because of his ethical commitment.

So morals are not profitable practically .. there must be a value for ethics and this value is not of this world .. a value that is not measured by abstract materialistic standards and not subject to natural laws .. ethical behavior, sacrifice, supreme ideals, asceticism and altruism are the inherent morality either are meaningless or has a meaning in the presence of God…

5 – Atheism does not find an explanation to the law of pairs.
The secret of the wisdom of the repeated mentioning of the two sexes, male and female in the Qur’an: “And of everything We have created pairs that you may be mindful” [SURAH ADH-DHARIYAT-49]. “And that He created pairs, the male and the female” [SURAH AN-NAJM 45]. The contemporary philosopher Henri Bergson said that the repeated mentioning of the pairs is not intended for gratitude, but also meant something greater which is to alert that pairing is in plants, animals and even particles and which is a great evidence of the purpose and the denial of the chance, moronic Darwinism, randomness and senselessness.

6 – Material atheism is in contradiction with the immaterial self.
If a human being committed a crime and insisted that he did it unconsciously, each lawyer seeks to prove there was no intent, but from the material perspective, the crime took place and ended up on the reality and the offender is also admitting that he’s the perpetrator, but the law interferes to know the purpose, intent and self-condition during the commission of the crime and whether the crime took place unconsciously or not .. Here, we put self in position higher than facts and higher than abstract materialistic reality.. In reality, we do not really judge what happened in the world, but to judge what has occurred within the self .. This reflects the contradiction in principles between man and the world.

7 – Atheism is contrary to the laws of human rights.
Human rights is metaphysical pure issue and your saying that human beings are equal this is possible only if the human is a creature of God, so equality between human beings is exclusively ethical, not a natural, materialistic or mental fact, since people from the materialistic, natural or mental perspective are undoubtedly unequal and based only on religion, the weak can claim equality.

Those who are weak and poor in money, health and mind and excluded from the tables of the celebrations in the world, those who do not have anything to show or to prove about except through religion only, by which they demonstrate that they are equal to them or even better towards God than the wealthy, and this is where lies the frequent proof of the value of religion in equality.

8 – Atheism violates the privacy of all, since it does not recognize the sanctity and holiness.
No value to bunch of virtues that have been established by religions in the last tens of thousands of years. As Dr. Missiri says: – the atheist sees the ground as an exploited matter and his purpose is to achieve maximum satisfaction of it or as the thinker John Locke says: – If all hopes of human is limited to this world and if we enjoy life here in this world, it is not surprising nor illogical to look for happiness, even at the expense of parents and children.

So the ideas of impurity, holiness, chastity and purity are ideas derived from another world have nothing to do with the materialistic, Darwinian, imperative, cold world… If we were really the sons of this world, it will not seem to us as it has something dirty or sacred…

9 – Atheism is contrary to the law of cause and effect.
Of nothing comes nothing… there is no effect without a cause .. this common sense is erected in the mind because it is higher than the law and on it stands the modern science and goals’ purpose.

Descartes says: “I exist so who made me exist and who created me? I have not created myself. It has to be my Creator.” This Creator must exist and does not lack a creator and He should be named with all the attributes of perfection: “Or were they created without there being anything, or are they the creators?” [Surah at-Tur: 35] .. and it does not occur to us to deny this common sense because of the pretext that the mental delusion of the sequence of reasons to no end and it is mentally false or because of the pretext of our ignorance but it is the cause and the law of causality that is not based on observation as atheists claims since our senses just shows the pictures of the disjointed and sequenced phenomena and does not show us the relationship with the causality, so how can we know this relationship only if the mind has innate organized laws – the talk of Descartes – which with it, the human being can realize the sense of and then make new constructed judgments that does not depend on the senses

10 – Atheism contradicts the law of intent and care.
All assets on the ground fits to the human existence and operates accordingly to him, so it is not surprising to say that everything around us is subjected to our requirements of day and night, four seasons, space, surrounding air molecules and how all that situated to the human nature and his needs, and it is not unrealistic to the fact that we say that this harmony in the universe is designed specifically for the production of the human race and as our brother Majdi says: “By washing your hands, thousands of bacteria die, since Man is the fixed component in the world history, his spirit value and moral values will remain unchanged, so the human being was and will remain as human being from thousand years ago born by the past to thousand years later born by the future, neither his nature nor his intent will change.”

11 – Atheism is contrary to teleology.
Science is in constant progress … all scientists’ researches based on the existence of laws governing the world and controlling the matter .. the purpose of science in every search is to find the law governing this case since the science is teleological and therefore it is in constant progress .. and without the science adoption already of a law that governs all things for this progress, the science would not progress one step .. and here lies the contradiction in principle between messy atheism and teleological science.. and it is not imaginable that everything around us is governed by the law of teleology and the human is the only being responsible in this case.

12 – Atheism contradicts the law of consistency previous to consolidation.
Says Leibniz:- “the atoms are moving with God’s will and work ability that shows how they relate to each other, However, they are not really related, but the power of God to make each atom goes in motion that harmonizes the motion of other atoms, so what seems to us of this harmony is the impact of the law of “consistency previous consolidation” since the matter does not discern the laws applied on it. And there is no rational must to oblige the water to boil at one hundred degrees Celsius or its molecules to diverge with boiling, and as Hume says: – a science that explains that with former interpretations is very immature science since it does not do more than adopting the situation but without giving any reasons. And it’s unavoidable but to admit of the law of “consistency previous consolidation”

13 – Atheism violates the principle of the famous Barclay.
Says Hume:- no evidence obliges us to believe that there is something If our senses missed it and no evidence compels us to believe that the thing we saw today and then we left and we go back to see it in the second day is the same thing we saw on the first day, since we do not know about the outside world except of we what have in our mind from sensory perceptions, and the mind obliges that there must be a holistic mind that absorbs all things and be a witness by it, and as God says:- “Is it not sufficient as regards your Lord that He is a witness over all things?” [SURAH FUSSILAT – 53]

14 – Atheism is the founder of most criminal doctrines on the Earth.
Se Gore says: – The Darwinism doctrine is one of the despicable doctrines that are not supported except by the worst tendencies and contemptible feelings, since its father is infidelity and its mother is dirtiness.

Nazism was formed only on the discrimination of races and ethnicitiy.

Mao Zedong the atheist thug said: – All the lower animals will be executed and all who stood against the revolution is an evolutionary error, and said in a December 9, 1958 “mass graves provide a good fertilizer for the land.” As a result, 50 million people was killed in China.

The Atheist Che Guevara said: – “To send men to the firing squad, the juridical validation is not necessary. We must learn how to kill queues of people in a shorter time!!!”

The criminal atheist Lenin said: – “No mercy for the enemies of the nation, but kill, hang and confiscate.”

Marx said: – “We have no pity for you, and we do not ask for your sympathy, when the day will come, we are in practice: conscientious savages.” and Marx justify this criminal terrible approach, saying: – “When people accuse us of cruelty, we wonder how they forgotten the basics of Marxism?”

As a result, 250 million people was killed in one century by horrible Darwinian atheism and this is probably more dead people, more than all the wars from Adam (alayhis salaam) to this day.

15 – Atheism is against art and life.
The existence of another world along with the natural world is the primary source of every religion and art .. and If there was only one world, the art would be impossible. Atheism will never understand the essence of art and nature .. If there is no spirit of man so why we are keen to have the spirit of art?

When the science deals with the man, it looks at it as what is dead and what is not personal, while when an art deals with man, it looks at what is humane and teleological, since art is on a natural collision with the world and with all its sciences, that the silent rebellion and if there is absolutely no support to man with no room for his spirit and his self, then the art is not an area for him and the poets and tragedy writers deludes us and write nonsense that does not make sense.

Art in nature and its recognizing of the existence of another world is carrying revolutionary meanings of blasphemy of materialistic world… and that was understood by the famous French painter de Buffet when he said: – “the essence of art is uncomfortable and useless, it’s against society and the threat of it.” Therefore, the essence of works of art are fully and vaguely obscure, it’s a continuous rebellion on the reality. It is repeated confession of the existence of another world that we do not belong to and we will go to it one day .. confession of human suffering on the ground and its inability to achieve the paradise that lies within his dreams and to search for it .. Art is simply is the fruit of the relationship between the spirit and the truth.

So when you contemplate on deep painting.. When you read a great novel .. the human being feels a strange sense that is mysterious with transcendence and holiness and entering the world of eternity .. Art is exactly as religion, both are recognizing the existence of another world, but art is not a religion but an expression of religion. Art is the illegitimate son of the truth… while religion is the legitimate son of the truth ..

16 – Atheism represents abnormality in the history of civilization.
Atheism is nothing more than an intellectual abnormalities and mental pollution in the history of nations and civilizations, Will Durant says in his book The Story of Civilization:-  “There may be cities without walls, without armies, without plants but there is no city without a temple.”
And The author of the book why we say that God exists says:- “and there one who said that man is guided to God with revelation or without revelation, but with the revelation, it was better and thorough, and some argued that all the worships are revelation from God, but it might be an old revelation that was stained with myths from magicians and fortune-tellers, so the primitive nations sidetracked in their ignorance and God was sending Messengers to purify these beliefs from sidetracking.” And Schmidt and Lang – two of the researchers of the assets of religions – say that the origin of all religions in purpose is the Oneness and the diversity came in the later stages, and it have been discovered that inheritance of Indian American and Indigenous residents of the North America are similar in many decrees to monotheistic religions particularly in terms of punishment and reward and here where lies the argument on people, where they are equal in reason and requesting guidance .. and humans differ in religion, but they agree in what God wants them to do.

Sheikh Nadeem Aljssr said in his book, the story of Faith, p. 35: – It’s more likely that many philosophy of the ancients in Egypt, China and India are the remnants of forgotten history, so the owners of these philosophies were stacked among the philosophers and they might have come from prophets or prophets’ subordinates.

That’s why atheism is abnormal approach that appears in temporary image and quickly disappears and if it‘s beneficial to people, it would’ve stayed on the earth.

17 – Big Bang and the fall of the myth of the stable static universe.
In 1989, NASA had launched the satellite (Cuba) for the detection of cosmic radiation resulted from the Big Bang and compiling information on the radiation and this satellite was able in only 8 minutes just to give a complete picture of the radiation and it is proven that the universe is made and this is what knocked off the atheists in critical embarrassment.

A. S. EDDINGTON says: “Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant to me”

And DENNIS SCIAMA said that he did not defended the steady-state theory, not because he deemed it valid, but because he wished that it were valid. SCIAMA goes on to say that as evidences began to pile up, he had to admit that the game was over and that the steady-state theory had to be dismissed.. And that he must leave aside the theory of the stable universe and his colleague GEORGE ABEL said that he has no choice but to accept the Big Bang theory.

This prompted the atheist philosopher of the twenty century ANTHONY FLEW to say his famous aphorism: –

“Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus.” .. because the science has proven the idea that were defended by religious books.

18 – What is the mystery behind the bias of modern science towards the Qur’an?
Gustave Le Bon says “Islam is religion of the most appropriate for scientific discovery”, and that’s the reason of the frequent convert to Islam in the scientific community of doctors, researchers and professors.
The wonderful Alija Izetbegovic Say: – Aristotle has wrote three scientific books (in physics in the heavens .. .. in the earth) These three books do not exist today with one sentence that is scientifically valid .. three books from a scientific perspective is equal to zero to ten, while the Qur’an as Maurice Bucaille says in his famous book (the Qur’an, Bible and the Torah in the perspective of modern science): – The truth is I did not find any verse from the Qur’an that is contrary to one scientific fact but the Qur’an already passed the modern science and corrected many of the scientific theories that were prevalent in his day, for example the idea that groundwater was formed through a deep gorge at the bottom of the continents moved underground water from the oceans to the depths of the earth did the Qur’an ratify this scientific myth which was prevalent in that times or said. “Do you not see that Allah sends down water from the cloud, then makes it go along in the earth in springs” [Surah Zumar 21] ….. The source of groundwater is made up of springs, rain and not from Aristotle gap in the depth of the continent …….. And so on.

19 – Atheism does not give an explanation for anything.
Atheism is not a solution but a confession of a failure in finding a solution and this is the beginning of atheism and the end of it ..
The famous atheist Richard Dawkins says in his book delusion: – “Atheists are like bunch of cats, every cat in different direction..” Every atheist is an independent church and as a Sheikh Moqbel Bin Hadi says “If ten people of falsehood meet, they separate in eleven ideas”, so you do not find two atheist with the same idea combined and this is the misfortune of atheism and its ravages, it is the indisciplined doctrine that does not have a clear explanation of any issue, does not have a value, it is “just a fun game mentality,” as said by Dr. Ahmed Okasha .. Atheism in itself is merely a superficial naive idea that is very lazy on a very deep and serious issue … Atheism is messy, nihilistic and skeptical. As one of the old brothers says:- “Since the science is in continuous progress and since there are laws and fixed facts, the function of science is to look for those laws and facts, therefore, there no existence of Atheism or the messy Agnosticism.”

20 – The return of scientific world to God
The physicist (Frederick Bermham) author of History of Science (Science historian) says: “ present, the scientific community deems the idea of God’s creation of the universe a more respectable idea than ever before for hundreds of years.”
Michael Behe says: “I am compelled to accept the existence of God since the result of all these cumulative efforts to examine the cell. ie: to examine life at the molecular level is a loud shout to the clear sharp design …
And I evidenced that by the return of hundreds of scientists and thinkers in the past few years to God and acknowledged that the cause of atheism is psychological rather than mental aspect.:

The famous astronomer (Fred Hoyle) says in his book Mathematics of evolution page 130: – “ fact, how the very clear scientific theory says that life is collected by a clever mind, however, the person marvels and wonders, why it’s not accepted widely as an intuitive … but most likely it’s psychological reasons rather than scientific.”

and as Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) when he said: “O Allah!, an eye is blinded that doesn’t see You.”

To sum up, Imam Ghazali (rahimahullah) was right when he said: – “We are imagining a mule building the pyramids, but we do not imagine what is assumed by atheists when they deny the Divinity .. and as has been said in the Islamic history: – “The ox knows its master, the donkey knows its owner, but this one does not know …” or, as the Bible in the Psalms of David (Dawud alayhis salaam) says : ”The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. 14-1 .. or as our Lord saus in the Qur’an:- “And certainly We have created for hell many of the jinn and the men; they have hearts with which they do not understand, and they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear; they are as cattle, nay, they are in worse errors; these are the heedless ones” [SURAH AL-A’RAF 179]

Contemporary Physicists and God’s Existence

[By Jaafar Shaikh Idris]

The Eternalness of Matter

Whether  God  exists  or not  is  not  as  such,  part  of  the subject  matter  of  any  empirical  science,  natural  or  social.  But  the  facts  or  what  are sometimes  assumed  to  be  the facts  of  the  natural  sciences, especially  physics  and  biology,  are  often  interpreted  to  support  one  view  or  the  other.  This  is  not  therefore  a  paper  about  physics,  but  about  the  relationship  between  physics   and  the  question  of  the  existence  of  God.  More  specifically,  it  is  mainly  an  Islamic  rational  critique  of  the  ways  modern  atheists  attempts  to  meet  the  challenge  posed by  the  Big  Bang  theory.  It  does  not  deal  with  positive  proofs  for  the  existence  of  the  Creator;  it  only  proves  the  invalidity  of  the  arguments  used  to  buttress  atheism.

One  of  the  main  arguments  invoked  in  support  of  some form  or  other  of  atheism  has  always  been  the  claim  that  the world,  or  some  part  of  it,  is  eternal  and,  as  such,  needs  no creator.  Thus,  some  Greek  thinkers  believed  that  the  heavenly  bodies,  especially  the  sun,  were  eternal.  The  main argument  of  one  of  them,  Galen,  was,  according  to  Al-Ghazali, that  it  has  had the  same  size  for  continued  for  eons  and  eons,  a  fact  which shows  that  it  is  not  perishable,  for  if  it  were,  it  would  have  shown  signs  of  decay,  which  it  doesn’t.  Al-Ghazali  says  that  this  is  not  a  good  argument  because:

First…we  do  not  grant  him  that  a  thing  cannot  perish except  by  decaying;  decaying  is  only  one  way  of  perishing;  but it  is  not  improbable  for  something  to  perish  suddenly  while  it is  in  its  complete  form. 

Second,  even  if  we  grant  him  that  there  is  no  perishing  without  decay,  whence  does  he  know  that  it  does  not  suffer  any  decay?  His  reference  to  observation  posts  is  not  acceptable,  because  their  quantities  [the  quantities  known  by  them]  are  known  only  approximately.  So  if  the  sun,  which  is  said  to  be  a  hundred  and  seventy  times  or more  the  size  of  the  earth  (We  now  know  that  it  is  definitely  more.  The  mass  of  the  sun  is  333,000  times  that  of  the  earth,  and  its  radius  is  109  times  the  earth’s  radius.),  were  to  diminish  by  amounts  the  size  of  mountains,  that  would  not  be  apparent  to  the  senses.  So  it  might  be  decaying,  and might  have  decreased by amounts  the  size  of  mountains  or  more,  but  the  senses  cannot  perceive  this  …”  (Al-Ghazali,  126)

Al-Ghazali’s  guess  that  the  size  of  the  sun  might  be  diminishing  was,  as  we  can  now  see,  a  rare  prescience  of  what  science  would  prove.  Scientists  now  tell  us  that  the  sun  does  indeed  decay,  but  much  more  than  he  thought,  and  that  it  will  ultimately  perish.

The  amount  of  energy  released by  the  sun  is  such  that  the mass  of  the  sun  is  decreasing  at  the  rate  of  4.3  billion kilograms  per  second.  Yet  this  is  such  a  small  fraction  of  the sun’s  mass  that  the  change  is  hardly  noticeable…

Our  sun  is  believed  to  be  about  4.5  billion  years  old,  and will  probably  continue  its  present  activity  for  another  4.5 billion  years.  (Wheeler,  596)

If  the  heavenly  bodies  are  not  eternal,  what  is  it  then  that  is  eternal,  the  substances  from  which  those  bodies  are  made? But  physicists  have  discovered that  these  are  made  of  molecules.  Is  it  then  the  molecules  that  are  eternal?  No,  because  these  are  made  up of  atoms.  What  about  the  atoms?  It  was  once  believed  that  they  were  indivisible,  and  were,  as  such,  the  immutable  matter  from  which  all  kinds  of  transient  forms  of  material  things  are  made.  This  seemed,  at  last,  to  be  the  solid foundation  on  which  to  erect  modern  atheism.

Science  continued  to  advance   however,  and  contented  in  its  advancement  to  embarrass  the  atheists.  It  was  soon  discovered  that  atoms  were  not the  immutable  solid  ultimate eternal  constituents  of  matter  that  they  were  believed  to  be for  a  time.  Like  everything  else,  they  are  also  divisible;  they  are  constituted  of  sub-atomic  particles,  which  are  in  turn  divisible  in  yet  smaller  constituents.  Is  there  an  end  to  this  divisibility?  No  one  knows;  but  even  if  there  was,  that  would  not  be  of  any  help to  the  atheists,  for  science  has  not  only  shown  atoms  and  their  constituents  to  be  divisible,  it  has  obliterated  the  division  between  matter  and  energy.  Thus,  every  piece  of  matter,  however  small,  is  not  only  theoretically  but  also  practically  changeable  into  energy,  and  vice  versa.  The  end  result  is  that  there  is  no  longer  any  actual  existent  to  which  one  can  point  and  say  with  any  assurance:  this  has  always  been  like  as  it  is  now,  and  will  continue  forever  to  be.
That  discovery  should  by  itself  have  sufficed  to  dash  any  hope  of  anchoring  atheism  on  the  eternity  of  matter.  If  it  did not,  the  Big  Bang  theory certainly  did.  It  was  this  theory which  dealt  the  final  death blow  to  the  eternity  of  any  part  of  the  universe.  Why?

Cosmologists  believe  that  the  big  bang  represents  not  just the  appearance  of  matter  and  energy  in  a  pre-existing  void, but  the  creation  of  space  and  time  too.  The  universe  was  not created  in  space  and  time;  space  and  time  are  part  of  the created  universe.  (Davies,  123)

The  biggest  misunderstanding  about  the  big  bang  is  that  it began  as  a  lump  of  matter  somewhere  in  the  void  of  space.  It  was  not  just  matter  that  was  created  during  the  big  bang.  It  was  space  and  time  that  were  created.  So  in the  sense  that  time  has  a  beginning,  space  also  has  a  beginning.”  (Boslouh, 46.)

In  the  beginning  there  was  nothing,  neither  time  nor space,  neither  stars  nor  planets,  neither  rocks  nor  plants,  neither  animals  nor  human  beings.  Everything  came  out  of  the  void.  (Fritzch,  3)

The  question  of  the  existence  or  non-existence  of  God  is  not,  as  we  said,  the  concern  of  any  empirical  science.  But scientists  are  human  beings.  They  cannot  help  thinking  about  the  non-scientific  yet vital  implications  of  their  sciences.  They  cannot  even  help  having  feelings  towards  those  implications.

Jasrow  says  about  Einstein:

He  was  disturbed  by  the  idea  of  a  universe  that  blows  up, because  it  implied  that  the  world  had  a  beginning.  In  a  letter  to  De  Sitter,  Einstein  wrote,  “This  circumstance  of  an  expanding  universe  irritates  me.”  …  This  is  curiously  emotional  language  for  a  discussion  of  some  mathematical  formulas.  I  suppose  that  the  idea  of  a  beginning  in  time  annoyed Einstein  because  of  its  theological  implications.  (Jasrow,  29.)

Gastro  quotes  similar  reactions  by  other  scientists,  like Eddington  who  says  that  “the  notion  of  a  beginning  is  repugnant”  to  him  (122),  and  attributes  this  emotional  reaction  to  the  fact  that  they  do  not  “bear  the  thought  of  a  natural phenomenon  which  cannot  be  explained” (Gastro  would  have  been  more  accurate  if  he  said,  “a  phenomenon  that  cannot  be  naturally  explained.”,  since  Divine  creation  is  an  explanation,  and  the  only  one  in  such  cases.)  and  comments  on  such  reactions  of  scientists  by  saying  that  they  provide:

…an  interesting  demonstration  of  the  response  of  the scientific  mind  –  supposedly  a  very  objective  mind  –  when evidence  uncovered  by  science   itself  leads  to  conflict  with  the  articles  of  faith  in  our  profession.  It  turns  out  that  the  scientist  behaves  the  way  the  rest  of  us  do  when  our  beliefs  are  in  conflict  with  the  evidence.  We  become  irritated,  we  pretend  the  conflict  does  not  exist,  or  we  paper  it  over  with  meaningless  phrases. (Jasrow, 15-16.)

A Series of Causes
If  matter,  time  and  space  all  had  a  beginning,  the  question that  naturally  comes  to  mind  is:  How  did  they come  to  be? The  Quran  tells  us  that  if  a  person  does  not  believe  in  God, then  he  cannot  explain  the  coming  into  being  of  anything  except  by  one  of  three  untenable  explanations:

a.  either  he  says  that  it  was  created  by  nothing,  i.e.  that  it just  appeared  out  of  nothing?

b.  Or  that  it  created  itself,

c.  Or  that  it was  created  by  something  that  is  itself  created.

Addressing the atheists the Quran says:

“Were  they  created  by  nothing?  Or  were  they  themselves  the creators  (of  themselves)? Or  did  they  create  heaven  and  earth?  Nay,  but  they  are  not  sure.”  (Quran 52:35-36)

The  Quran  is  not  saying  that  the  Arabs  whom  it  addressed  actually  believed  that  things  were  created  by  nothing,  or  that  they  created  themselves.  They  certainly  did  not  claim  that  they  were  the  creators  of  the  heavens  and  earth;  no  sane  person  would.  The  Quran  then,  is  only  making  clear to  the  atheists  the  absurdity  of  their  position.

After  a  careful  study  of  some  of  the  arguments  of  many Western  atheistic  philosophers  and  scientists,  I  have  found that  they  do  indeed  fall  into these  three  untenable  categories. Why  untenable?

Was it created out of nothing?

Suppose  that  you  told  someone  that  there  was  nothing, nothing  at  all  in  a  certain  region,  and  then  lo!  a  duck  appeared  alive  and  kicking.  Why  wouldn’t  he  believe  you  however  much  you assure  him  that  that  was  indeed  the  case?  Not  only  because  he  knows  that  ducks  don’t  come  into  being  in  that  way,  as  some  might  suppose,  but  because  believing  this  violates  an  essential  principle  of  his  rationality.  Thus  his attitude  would  be  the  same  even  if  the  thing  that  he  was  told  to  have  come  from  nothing  was  something  that  he  never  heard  of  before.  It  is  because  we  believe  that  nothing  comes  out  of  nothing,  that  we  keep  looking  for  causes  by  which  we  explain  the  occurrence  of  events  in  the  natural,  social  or  psychological  world.  It  is  because  of  this  rational principle  that  science  was possible.  Without  it,  not  only  our  science,  but  our  very rationality  will  be  in  jeopardy.  Moreover,  the  idea  of  causation is  essential  even  to  the  very identity  of  things,  as  it  was  observed  by  the  Muslim  philosopher  Ibn  Rushd (Averroes):

It  is  self-evident  that  things  have  identities,  and  they  have qualities  in  virtue  of  which  every  existent  has  its  actions,  and  in  virtue  of  which  things  have  different  identities,  names  and  definitions.  If  it  were  not the  case  that  every  individual thing  had  an  action  peculiar  to,  it  would  not  have  had  a  nature  that  is  peculiar  to  it;  and  if  it  did  not  have  a  special nature,  it  would  not  have  had  a  special  name  or  definition.  (Tahafut Attahafut,  782-3)

Did it create itself?

The  absurdity  of  the  idea  of  something  creating  itself  is even  clearer.  For  something  to  create,  it  must  be  already  existing;  but  for  it  to  be  created,  it  must  be  non-existent.  The  idea  of  something  creating  itself  is  thus  self-contradictory.

Was  it  created  by  something that  is  itself  created?

Can the  cause  of  a temporal  thing  be  itself  temporal?  Yes,  if  we  are  talking  about  immediate,  incomplete  causes  like  eating  and  nourishment,  water  and  germination,  fire  and burning,  etc.  But  these  causes  are  incomplete  causes.  First, because  none  of  them  is  by  itself  sufficient  to  produce  the effect  we  attribute  to  it;  every  such  temporal  cause  depends for  its  efficacy  on  a  host  of  other  positive  and  negative  conditions.  Second,  because  being  temporal,  they  need  to  be  caused,  and  cannot  therefore  be  the  ultimate  causes  of  the  coming  into being  of  anything.  Suppose  the  following  to  be  a  series  of  temporal  effects  and  causes:  C1,  C2,  C3,  C4… Cn,  such  that  C1  is  caused  by  C2,  C2  by  C3,  and  so  on.  Such  temporal  causes  are  real  causes,  and  useful  ones,  especially  for  practical  purposes  and  for  incomplete  explanations;  but  if we  are  looking  for  the  ultimate  cause  of  the  coming  into  being  of,  say,  C1,  then  C2  is  certainly  not  that  cause,  since  it  is  itself  caused  by  C3.  The  same  can  be  said  about  C3,  and  so  on.  So  even  if  we  have  an  infinite  series  of  such  temporal  causes,  still  that  will  not  give  us  an  ultimate  explanation  of  the  coming  into being  of  C1.  Let  us  put  this  in  other  words:  when  does  C1 come  into  being?  Only  after  C2 has  come  into  being.  When  does  C2  come  into  being?  Only after  C3  has  come  into  being,  and  so  on  until  Cn.  Therefore C1  will  not  come  into  being  until  Cn  has  come  into  being.  The  same  problem  will  persist  even  if  we  go  further  than  Cn,  even  if  we  go  to  infinity.  This  means  that  if  C1  depended  for  its  coming  into  being  on  such temporal  causes,  it  would  never have  come  to  exist.  There  would  be  no  series  of  actual  causes,  but  only  a  series  of  non-existents,  as  Ibn  Taymiyyah explained.  The  fact,  however,  is  that  there  are  existents  around us;  therefore,  their  ultimate  cause  must  be  something  other than  temporal  causes;  it  must  be  an  eternal,  and  therefore, uncaused  cause. 

When  someone,  whether  scientist  or  non-scientist,  insists  on  his  erroneous  beliefs  in  the  face  of  all  the  evidence,  there  can  be  no  way  for  him  to  support  those  beliefs  except  by  resorting  to  dubious  arguments,  because  no  falsehood  can  be supported  by  a  valid  argument.  This  has  been  the  case  with  all  atheistic  scientists  and  philosophers  who  believe  in  the  Big Bang theory. 

Some  claimed  unabashedly  that the  original  matter  of  the universe  came  out  of  nothing.  Thus  Fred  Hoyle,  who  advocated  the  steady  state  theory,  which  was  for  sometime  considered  to  be  a  credible  rival  to  the  big  bang  theory,  but  which,  like  its  rival,  necessitates  the  coming  into  being  of  new  matter–  used to say:

The  most  obvious  question  to ask  about  continuous  creation  is  this:  Where  does  the  created  material  come  from?  It does  not  come  from  anywhere.  Material  simply  appears  –  it  is  created.  At  one  time  the  various  atoms  composing  the  material  do  not  exist,  and  at  a  later  time  they  do.  This  may  seem  a  very  strange  idea  and  I  agree  that  it  is,  but  in  science  it  does  not  matter  how  strange  an  idea  may  seem  so  long  as  it  works  –  that  is  to say,  since  the  idea  can  be  expressed  in  a  precise  form  and  so  long  as  its  consequences  are  in  agreement  with  observation.  (Hoyle,  112)

When  Hoyle  said  this,  there  was  an  uproar  against  him.  He  was  accused  of  violating  a  main  principle  of  science, namely  that  nothing  comes  out  of  nothing,  and  was  thus ‘opening  the  flood  gates  of  religion’  as  one  philosopher  of science  put  it.  Thus  Mario  Bunge  said  about  it:

[T]his  theory  involves  the  hypothesis  of  the  continuous creation  of  matter  ex  nihilo.  And  this  is  not  precisely  what  is  usually  meant  by  respecting  scientific  determinism  even  in its  widest  sense,  for  the  concept  of  emergence  out  of  nothing  is  characteristically  theological  or  magical  even  if  clothed  in  mathematical  form. (Bunge)

That  the  hypothesis  of  creation  ex  nihilo  is  not  a  scientific  one,  is  true,  but  the  claim  that  it  is  characteristically  theological  is  wide  off  the  mark.  Theistic  religions  do  not  say that  things  come  out  of  absolute  nothing  because  that  contradicts  the  basic  religious  claim  that  they  are  created  by God.  All  that  many  religious  people  say  is  that  God  creates things  out  of  nothing,  and  there  is  the  whole  difference  in  the  world  between  the  two notions.

If  creation  out  of  nothing  was  earlier  considered  by  atheists  to  be  an  unscientific  and  theological  principle,  it  is  now claimed  by  some  to  have  a  scientific  status  and  is  used  to discredit  religion. 

For  the  first  time  a  unified  description  of  all  creation  could  be  within  our  grasp.  No  scientific  problem  is  more  fundamental  or  more  daunting  than  the  puzzle  of  how  the  universe  came  into  being.  Could  this  have  happened  without  any  supernatural  input?  Quantum  mechanics  seems  to  provide  a  loophole  in  the  age-old  assumption  that  ‘you  can’t  get  something  for  nothing’.  Physicists  are  now  talking  about  ‘the  self  creating  universe’:  a  cosmos  that  erupts  into  existence  spontaneously,  much  as  a  sub  nuclear  particle  pops  out  of  nowhere  in  certain  high  energy  processes.  The  question  of  whether  the  details  of  this  theory  are  right  or  wrong  is  not  important.  What  matters  is  that  it  is  now  possible  to  conceive  of  a  scientific  explanation  of  all  creation.  (Jastrow,  viii)

What  kind  of  explanation  is  this?  Do  you  really  even  start to  explain  anything  by  saying  that  it  pops  out  of  nowhere? Do  scientists  really  believe  that  the  sub  nuclear  particle  referred  to  pops  out  of  nowhere,  in  the  sense  that  it  really  comes  out  of  nothing,  and  has  no  relation  whatsoever  to  anything  that  precedes  it?  Commenting  on  what  Davies  claimed,  one  scientist  had  this  to  say:  “This,  in  any  case,  is  an  event  that  occurs  in  space  and  time,  within  a  domain bathed  in matter  and  radiation.  ‘Nothing’  is  nowhere  to  be  seen  in  this  situation.“ (This  is  what  my  friend,  Professor  Mahjoob  Obeid,  the  famous Sudanese  physicist  wrote  to  me in  a  personal  communication).

This  same  fallacious  idea  is  repeated  in  a  later  book  by another  atheistic  scientist,  Taylor: 

As  such,  there  is  a  non-zero  probability  of,  say,  a  particle  such  as  an  electron  appearing  out  of  the  vacuum.  In  fact  a  vacuum  is  full  of  possibilities,  one  of  which  is  the  appearance  of  the  Universe  itself.  It  had  been  created  from  nothing,  as  it  were.  (Taylor,  22)

What  kind  of  vacuum  is  Taylor  talking  about?  If  he  is  using  the  word  in  its  technical  scientific  sense,  then  he  can  indeed  speak  of  its  being  full of  possibilities,  or  of  an  electron  appearing  out  of  it,  because  this  vacuum  is  in  fact  a  non-empty region.  This  surely,  however,  is  not  the  nothingness  that  is  referred to by  the  big  bang  theory.  There is  therefore  not  even  an  analogy  between  the  appearance  of  a  particle  in  a  vacuum  and  the  appearance  of  a  Universe  out  of  absolute nothing.

Room for God

The  idea  that  something  is  not  created  by  anything,  that  it comes  out  of  nothing,  is  very  different  from  the  idea  that  it creates  itself.  It  is  strange  therefore  to  find  some  scientists  speaking  about  them  as  if  they are  one  and  the  same  thing.  It  is  not  only  Davies  who  confused  these  two  notions  as  we  can  see  in the  quotation  just  cited,  but  others  also.  Taylor  tells  us  that electrons  can  create  themselves  out  of  nothing  in  the manner  Baron  Munchausen  saved  himself  from  sinking  into  a  bog  by  pulling  himself  up  by  his  bootstraps.

It  is  as  if  these  particles  special  particles  are  able  to  pull  themselves  up  by  their  own  bootstraps  (which  in  their  case  are  the  forces  between  them)  to  create  themselves  from  nothing  as  Baron Munchausen  saves  himself  without  visible  means  of  support…This  bootstrapping  has  been  proposed  as  a  scientifically  respectable  scenario  for  creating  a  highly specialized  Universe  from  nothing.  (Taylor,  46)

Is  it  science  or  science  fiction  that  we  are  being  told  here? Taylor  knows  and  says  that  Munchausen’s  is  only  a  story; what  he  claimed  to  have  done  is  in  fact  something  that  is physically  impossible  to  do.  In spite  of  this,  Taylor  wants  to explain  by  his  idea  something that  is  not  only  real,  but  is  of the  utmost  importance,  and thus  ends  up  saying  something that  is  more  absurd  than Munchausen’s  fictitious  story  of saving  himself  by  pulling  up  his  bootstrap.  At  least Munchausen  was  talking  about  things  that  were  already  in  existence.  But  Taylor’s  special  particles  act  even  before  they  are created!  They  “pull  themselves  by  their  own  bootstraps…  to  create  themselves  from  nothing.”!

False Gods
The  third  alternative  to  attributing  the  creation  of  things  to  the  true  God,  is  to  attribute  them  to  false  gods.  Thus  many  atheists  try  to  attribute  the  creation  of  temporal  things  to  other  things  which  are  themselves  temporal  (as  we  said  before).  Davies  says:

The  idea  of  a  physical  system  containing  an  explanation  of  itself  might  seem  paradoxical  to  the  layman  but  it is  an  idea  that  has  some  precedence  in  physics.  While  one  may concede,  (ignoring  quantum  effects)  that  every  event  is  contingent,  and  depends  for  its  explanation  on  some  other  event, it  need  not  follow  that this  series  either  continues  endlessly,  or  ends  in  God.  It  may  be  closed  into  a  loop.  For  example,  four  events,  or  objects,  or  systems,  E1,  E2,  E3,  E4,  may  have  the  following  dependence  on  each  other:  (Davies,  47)

But  this  is  a  clear  example  of  a  very  vicious  circle.  Take  any  one  of  these  supposed  events  or  objects  or  systems.  Let  it  be  E1,  and  ask  how  it  came  about.  The  answer  is:  it  was caused  by  E4,  which  preceded  it;  but  what  is  the  cause  of E4?  It  is  E3;  and  the  cause  of  E3  is  E2,  and  of  E2  is  E1.  So the  cause  of  E4  is  E1 because  it  is  the  cause  of  its  causes. Therefore  E4  is  the  cause  of  E1  and  E1  is  the  cause  of  E4 which  means  that  each  one  of  them  precedes  and  is  preceded by  the  other.  Does  that  make  any  sense?  If  these  events,  etc. are  actual  existents,  then  their  coming  into  being  could not have  been  caused  by  them  the  way  Davies  supposes  it  to  be. Their  ultimate  cause  must  lie  outside  this  vicious  circle.

And  the  philosopher  Passmore  advises  us  to:
Compare  the  following:
(1)  every  event  has  a cause;
(2)  to  know  that  an  event  has  happened  one  must  know how  it  came  about.

The  first  simply  tells  us  that  if  we  are  interested  in  the  cause  of  an  event,  there  will  always  be such  a  cause  for  us  to discover.  But  it  leaves  us  free  to  start  and  stop  at  any  point we  choose  in  the  search for  causes;  we  can,  if  we  want  to,  go  on  to  look  for  the  cause  of  the  cause  and  so  on  ad  infinitum,  but  we  need  not  do  so;  if  we  have  found  a  cause,  we  have  found  a  cause,  whatever  its  cause  may  be.  The  second  assertion,  however,  would  never  allow  us  to  assert  that  we  know that  an  event  has  happened  …  For  if  we  cannot  know  that  an  event  has  taken  place  unless  we  know  the  event  that  is  its cause,  then  equally  we  cannot  know  that  the  cause-event  has taken  place  unless  we  know  its  cause,  and  so  on  ad  infinitum.  In  short,  if  the  theory  is  to  fulfill  its  promise,  the  series must  stop  somewhere,  and  yet  the  theory  is  such  that  the  series  cannot  stop  anywhere  –  unless,  that  is,  a  claim  of  privilege  is  sustained  for  a  certain  kind  of  event,  e.g.  the  creation of  the  Universe.  (Pasture,  29)

If  you  think  about  it,  there  is  no  real  difference  between these  two  series  as  Ibn  Taymiyyah  clearly  explained  a  long  time  ago  (Ibn Taymiyyah,  436-83).  One  can  put  the  first  series  like  this:  for  an  event  to  happen,  its  cause  must  happen. Now  if  the  cause  is  itself  caused,  then  the  event  will  not happen  unless  its  cause  event  happens,  and  so  on,  ad infinitum.  We  will  not  therefore  have  a  series  of  events  that  actually  happened,  but  a  series  of  no  events.  And  because  we know  that  there  are  events,  we  conclude  that  their  real  ultimate  cause  could  not  have  been  any  temporal  thing  or  series of  temporal  things  whether  finite  or  infinite.  The  ultimate  cause  must  be  of  a  nature  that  is  different  from  that  of  temporal  things;  it  must be  eternal.  Why  do  I  say ‘ultimate’?  Because,  as  I  said  earlier,  events  can  be  viewed  as  real  causes  of  other  events,  so  long  as  we  acknowledge  them  to  be  the  incomplete  and  dependent  causes  they  are,  and  as  such  not  the  causes  that  explain  the  coming into  being  of  something  in  any absolute  sense,  which  is  to  say that  they  cannot  take  the  place  of  God. 

What  is  the  relevance  of  this  talk  about  chains  after  all? There  might  have  been  some  excuse  for  it  before  the  advent  of  the  Big  Bang,  but  it  should  have  been  clear  to  Davies  in  particular  that  there  is  no  place  for  it  at  all  in  the  world-view  of  a  person  who  believes  that  the  universe  had  an  absolute  beginning.

The  fact  that  every  thing  around  us  is  temporal  and  that  it  could  not  have  been  created  except  by  an  eternal  Creator  has  been  known  to  human  beings  since  the  dawn  of  their  creation,  and  it  is  still  the  belief  of  the  overwhelming  majority  of  people  all  over  the  world.  It  would,  therefore,  be  a  mistake  to  get  from  this  paper  the  impression  that  it  hinges  the  existence  of  God  upon  the  truth  of  the  Big  Bang  theory.  That  certainly  is  not  my  belief;  neither  was  it  the  purpose  of  this  paper.  The  main  thrust  of  the  paper  has  rather  been  that  if  an  atheist  believes  in  the  big  bang  theory,  then  he  cannot  avoid  admitting  that  the  Universe  was  created  by  God.  This,  in  fact,  is  what  some  scientists  frankly admitted,  and  what  others  hesitantly  intimated  to.

There  is  no  ground  for  supposing  that  matter  and  energy  existed  before  and  was  suddenly  galvanized  into  action.  For  what  could  distinguish  that  moment  from  all  other  moments in  eternity?  …  It  is  simpler  to  postulate  creation  ex  nihilo,  Divine  will constituting  nature  from  nothingness.  (Jastro,122)

As  to  the  first  cause  of  the  universe  in  the  context  of  expansion,  that  is  left  to  the  reader  to  insert,  but  our  picture  is incomplete without Him. (Jasrow,122)

This  means  that  the  initial  state  of  the  universe  must  have  been  very  carefully  chosen  indeed  if  the  hot  big  bang  model  was  correct  right  back  to  the  beginning  of  time.  It  would  be  very  difficult  to explain  why  the  universe  should  have  begun  in  just  this  way  except  as  the  act  of  a  God  who  intended  to  create  beings  like  us.  (Hawking,127)

Al Ghazali,  Abu  Hamid,  Tahafut  al  Falasifa,  edited  by  Sulayman Dunya,  Dar  al  Ma’arif,  Cairo,  1374  (1955)

Berman,  David,  A  History  of  Atheism in  Britain,  London  and New York,  Routledge,  1990.

Boslough,  John,  Stephen  Hawking’s  Universe:  an  Introduction to  the  most  remarkable  Scientist of  our  Time,  Avon  Books,  New York,  1985.

Bunge,  Mario,  Causality:  The  Place  of  the  Causal  Principle in Modern  Science,  The  world  publication  Co.  New  York,  1963

Carter,  Stephen  L.  The  Culture  of  Disbelief:  How  American  Law  and  Politics  Trivialize  Religious  Devotion.  Basic  Books,  Harper Collins,  1993.

Concise  Science  Dictionary,  Oxford  University  Press,  Oxford, 1984 

Davies,  Paul,  (1)  The  Cosmic  Blueprint:  New  Discoveries  in Nature’s  Creative  Ability  to  Order  the  Universe,  Simon  &  Schuster  Inc,  London,  1989.  (2)  God  &  The  New  Physics,  The  Touchstone  Book,  New  York,  1983.

Fritzsch,  Harald,  The  Creation  of  Matter:  The  Universe  From Beginning to  End,  Basic  Books  Inc  Publishers,  New  York,  1984.

Ibn  Rushd,  al  Qadi  Abu  al  Walid  Muhammad  Ibn  Rushd,  Tahafut  at-Tahafut,  edited  by  Sulayman  Dunya,  Dar  al  Ma’arif  ,  Cairo, 1388  (1968.)

Ibn  Taymiya,  Abu al  Abbas  Taqiyuddin  Ahmad  Ibn  Abd  al  Halim,  Minhaj  al Sunna  al Nabawiya,  edited by  Dr.  Rashad  Salim,  Imam  Muhammad  Ibn  Saud  Islamic  University,  Riyad,  AH  1406 (1986)

Jastrow,  Robert,  God  And  The  Astronomers,  Warner  Books, New York,  1978.

Hawking,  Stephen,  A  Brief  History  of  Time, Hoyle,  Fred,  The  Nature  of  the  Universe,  Mentor  Books,  New York, 1955.

Kirkpatrick,  Larry  D.  and  Wheeler,  Gerald  F.  Physics,  A World View,  New  York,  Saunders  College  Publishing,  1992.

Newton,  Sir  Isaac,  Optics,  Dover  Publications  Inc.  New  York, 1952.

Pasture,  J.  A,  Philosophical  Reasoning,  New  York,  1961.

Taylor,  John,  When  the  Clock  Struck  Zero:  Science’s  Ultimate Limits,  Picador,  London,  1993

Islamic Refutation of Communism (Marxism)

Compiled By Suranimala

(Source: Dr. Abdallah Omar Naseef; Dr. Mustafa Mahmoud)

Islam does not instinctively respond to Communism (Marxism) nor accept its ideology. Communism does not have a place in the lives of Muslims. Islam is, basically, in such a headlong collision with Communism that the two ideologies never meet. The most significant reason for Muslims’ rejection of Communism is that all Muslims believe in Almighty God, the Angels, the divinely revealed Books, God’s apostles and the Day of Judgment. Such a strong belief is neither marginal nor accidental. It is true and deep-rooted, unique, genuine and distinctive, a belief which constitutes the dynamic and propelling force of a Muslim’s life and projects itself in all matters of life and living, significant and insignificant alike.

The second reason for our rejection of Communism lies in the fact that Islam is a comprehensive religion in the sense that it is not only concerned with life after death, the spiritual or the metaphysics. Islam embraces life in the Here and the Hereafter, the body and the soul, the natural and the supernatural.

The third reason why Muslims reject Communism is that Islam provides far better solutions for all problems and ambiguities of life and living, be they political, social, economic, ideological etc than all other solutions artificially worked out by Communism or any other doctrine.

Communism is in the sense a product of European intellectual reaction to the rigidly narrow interpretation of life and nature that the Christian Church in the Middle Ages had imposed on people. In the midst of acute and irreconcilable conflicts in medieval Europe, things were not harmonized and balanced, and naturally they did not lead to stable results. Europe was in a state of reaction to an existing aberration, and consequently was carried to the opposite extreme. The Church imposed so many restrictions on the mind and all intellectual freedom. The result was an insatiable desire to exercise man’s intellectual power paying no heed to the benefit of mankind. The Church waged a severe war against science with the inevitable result that there grew among the people an insatiable hunger for acquisition of knowledge and the accumulation of scientific information so much so that science far exceeded its limited scope and significance and was turned into a man-made god worshiped by many scientists and knowledge seekers. The Church condemned all worldly pleasures and instigated people to live only for the life to come. In response to the Church’s overdose of spirituality there was a great thirst for the physical pleasures of life on earth and an obvious neglect and indifference to the Hereafter. The Church belittled and denied the physical aspect of life for the sake of spiritual purification. The inevitable result was an ardent adoration of the matter and a derogatory deprecation of the spirit. Thus Europe began to take long but gradual strides towards overall materialism which was later maximized in communist dialectic materialism.

The Buddhist society is no different from the extremist experience undergone by the European. Present day Buddhism teaches that to attain eternal redemption (Nirwana) it is imperative to give up ALL desires. One may well question the logic in this as we are taught by Buddhism to give up ALL desires to fulfill the desire to attain Nibbana. As a result desire is not annihilated and the desire to attain Nibbana yet remains.

All Buddhists would agree that Buddha’s development from infancy through childhood and adolescence to adulthood to the age of 29 to be precise was abnormal. In fact, he is the only person, perhaps in the whole history of mankind, who was deliberately kept away from the fact of suffering until he was 29 years of age. He was kept away from the view of old age, sickness, death and asceticism. And, to make matters worse, this abnormality was supplemented with another abnormality. He was fed up to his throat, so to say, with joys of this world-dancing and singing girls, good food and drink, luxurious clothes, joyful sports, and as pleasant and beautiful an abode and environment as the royal purse could afford. He was, in fact, confined in a cage of happiness! According to the Anguttara Nikaya, a canonical text from the sutta pitaka, Buddha himself is reported to have said later about his upbringing.

“Bhikkus (monks), I was delicately nurtured, exceedingly delicately nurtured, delicately nurtured beyond measure. In my father’s residence lotus ponds were made; one of blue lotuses, one of red and another of white lotuses, just for my sake…. Of kasi cloth was my turban made; of Kasi my jacket, my tunic and my cloak… I had three palaces; one for winter, one for summer and one for the rainy season. Bhikkus, in the rainy season palace, during the four months of the rains, entertained only by female musicians, I did not come down from the palace”.

At the age of 29 he came in contact with the real world-with the fact of suffering which he never knew before, and, what is just as important, with the temporary nature of the joys and happiness which he, up till then, believed to be real and permanent. It was only natural that this should give rise to an abnormal impact of the reality of suffering and the unreality of happiness on the mind of the disillusioned young man. I believe this to be the fundamental psychological explanation for the over emphasis on suffering on which Buddha founded his religion! Buddhism teaches that ‘all is suffering’ and to be redeemed one has to give up all desires as enumerated above. We would like you to visualize the scenario of whole of or a major portion of mankind choosing to attain salvation (Nibbana) through this method. If the whole of mankind choose this method, the life will come to a stand still and the human race will be wiped off from the face of the earth completely within about 100 years, as no human reproduction will take place from the time of choosing this path, due to annihilation of desire. From these extremist teachings we are observing a very sensuous, atheistic society emerging, having very scant respect for moral values and rejecting all such unnatural and abnormal precepts. Concepts similar to Marxism could easily breed under these circumstances.

In theory and practice, Communism is based on a cluster of hypotheses which are not truly scientifically proven though Communism assumes that it is the first doctrine based on scientific data. The first hypothesis in the Communist theory is that matter is everlasting and imperishable. Communism assumes that matter preceded thought and that thought is but a product of matter. Matter, Communism alleges, is the maker which made everything including man, and that the laws of matter apply to human life. Secondly, there is a certain determinism which Communists believe governs human life: materialistic, economic and historical determinism which is epitomized in dialectic and materialistic interpretation of history. Thirdly, there is the Communist assumption that individual ownership is inconsistent with basic distinctive human nature and that it is, basically and solely, the cause of all conflicts in human life. In order that human life be stabilized and human conflicts be wiped out from the earth, individual ownership should be abolished. Fourthly, Communism predicts that a day will come when people will do without the state and live like angels on the earth only when they fully apply the principle of “From everyone according to his ability, to everyone according to his need”.

Let us now discuss briefly each and every hypothesis upon which Communism (Marxism) is based in order to find out how it can fit in genuine scientific thinking.

Communists assume that matter had always been in existence and that it is imperishable. Therefore, they attribute everything to matter on the assumption that the laws of matter are unalterably permanent, stable and inevitable.

From the purely scientific point of view, geologists and physicists are unanimously in agreement that the physical universe has a specific and a definite date of birth. They may disagree on the accurate and precise date on which the universe, in its physical sense, was created. But they unanimously agree that the universe did really exist at a certain time and did not exist before. Geologists and physicists, out of sheer courtesy to the data of science itself, cannot precisely predict anything about the future-and cannot say definitely the matter is imperishable. If this hypothesis disintegrates and collapses, all dependent hypotheses, theories and applications will inevitably collapse.

Dialectical materialism and materialistic interpretation of history are both based on the concept of determinism which combines materialistic, economic and historical determinism. In the light of and in consistency with this concept, human history falls into five inevitable stages: 1. Early tribal partnership, 2. Slavery, 3. Feudalism, 4. Capitalism and, 5. Communism. Each one of these five stages is inspired by specific material causes. It has its unique economic and social aspects, its own institutions which convey and reflect its basic concepts and ideologies. For Communists, no idea or convictions can be built on non-materialistic, non-economic basis. Ideas and convictions are inextricably linked to the materialistic and economic environment of which they are but faithful reflections. The prevailing ideas and beliefs are always those of the economically dominating social class. These are always sectarian in nature confined to the specific class which has inspired them. The ideas and beliefs will never change unless some material or economic changes take place. To round off these three-dimensioned concept of determinism and Communist philosophy asserts that the world will for ever live in class conflicts until Communism comes along and rids it of inter-class conflicts by the extermination of all classes with the exception of one class only, the proletariat.

We would take up much time and space if we discussed in greater detail these entire concepts one after the other. Let us deal with one case which will, I am sure, blow up at once this collective mass of Communist ideas. The emergence of Islam and its dissemination across vast territorial stretches in the course of centuries will undoubtedly refute all allegations provided by the Communist philosophy with regard to man and matter. We shall then pose the following questions and queries to be answered by the Communist ideology.

Communism asserts that historical changes are determined solely by material and economical factors. Dialectical materialism and the materialistic interpretation of history spring mainly from the materialistic concept of man. But the emergence of Islam was not conditioned by certain traceable economic or material changes in the Arabian Peninsula. Islam carried with it a group of beliefs, ideas, principles and economic, social, political and moral disciplines completely inconsistent with those prevailing in pre-Islamic Arabia and in the whole world at that time. Islam is still distinguished from most of the currently existing disciplines in the world.

What was the material or economic changes that led mankind to the belief in the existence of One God, the Maker and Sustainer of all creation? Islam emerged and flourished in Arabia which was distressingly torn between heathenism, atheism, agnosticism. Even Christianity and Judaism which are still incapable of working out a decisive, unambiguous and clearly intelligible concept of monotheism similar to what Islam presents.

What were the material and economic changes which led to the emergence of a religion that divested the rulers from their long sustained holiness and re-established them as servants of the One and Indivisible God whom people should all worship irrespective of class, colour or race? The religion of Islam ordained that the assumed holiness with which rulers had been invested should no longer exist on both the secular and religious planes. Rulers should not be authorized to fundamentally legislate for their subjects. In fact all mankind are, from the Islamic point of view, unauthorized to devise their legislations. Allah alone, the Lord of the Worlds, is the divine legislator and Law-giver for all mankind and all people are equal before His Law. Allah organizes their rights and duties and enjoins on everyone to abide by them. Islamic law does not permit social distinctions. The entire mankind is a composite body of individuals. Each individual is independent, unique and self-responsible. But all individuals combine into one self-contained, self-sustained, harmonious, loving and compassionate community.

No material or economic change could lead to the emergence of a religion which called for the freeing of slaves either by manumission or ‘Mukatabat’. Islam allows a contract to be signed by the slave and his master according to which a certain sum of money is paid by the former to the latter within a limited period of time. When such a contract is signed the slave is allowed full freedom to do business with whomsoever he likes. If at the expiration of the assigned period the slave could pay the amount of money to his master as agreed upon in the contract signed by them, he should gain his freedom. This procedure is what is called ‘Makatabat’ in Islam. Islam abolished all sources of slavery that existed on earth with its divine teachings. Slavery by birth, slavery by race, slavery by colour, slavery by poverty……etc.

No material or economic changes could ostensibly or logically lead to the emergence of a religion which called for the immediate emancipation of women in Arabia where they were looked down upon and maltreated in pre-Islam times. Islam equalized the relations between man and woman in human rights and allowed woman the right to learn, own and sell her property. Islam gave woman the right to approve or disapprove of her marriage and claim divorce if she is not justly, decently and humanely treated by her husband. Islam gave woman other rights which non-Muslim women did not possess except only during the last two centuries after a series of feminist movements and rebellions in which women as well as morals were victimized.

More than one thousand years before the emergence of capitalism, no natural or economic changes could bring fourth a religion forbidding usury and monopoly which were the instruments of enforcing social injustice, human bondage and deprivation. No material or economic change could inspire a religion which bases all human relations: social, political and economic, on moral principles to which the poor and the rich, men and women are equally committed. Muslims, in their relations with their brother Muslims, are fully committed to these moral principles. Also in their relations with non-Muslims, Muslims abide by these moral principles in war and peace. Islam was not revealed for a particular class of people. Islamic concepts, beliefs and morals were not confined to one specific people or class. Islam was revealed to all mankind.

Therefore, we defy all Communist thoughts implied in the second hypothesis to interpret the emergence of Islam in terms of dialectical materialism. Communist determinism, material, economic and historical will inevitably fail to provide a sufficiently convincing and logical interpretation for the emergence of Islam with all its beliefs, concepts, values, principles and social, economic and moral disciplines. Islam thus emerges triumphant over all the determinism of dialectical materialism because it is a God-given religion.

They (the disbelievers, the Jews and the Christians) want to extinguish Allah’s Light (with which Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has been sent-Islamic Monotheism) with their mouths, but Allah will not allow except that His Light should be perfected even though the Kafirun (disbelievers) hate it.

It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammed sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) with guidance and the religion of truth, to make it superior over all religions even though the Musrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it). (Quran 9: 32, 33)

“Invite (all) to the Way of your Rabb (Only God, Cherisher and Sustainer) with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious, for your Rabb knows best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance” (Qur’an 16:125)

“You are the best of people chosen for mankind because you command righteousness, forbid evil and believe in Allah” Qur’an 3: 110.

Communists (Marxists) assume that individual ownership is not a natural instinct but an accidental novelty in human life attributed solely to material and economic complexities in contemporary life. Early humanity, Communists allege, lived happily in a state of collective ownership and hence suffered no conflicts. When individual ownership appeared inter-personal and inter-class conflicts prevailed in the form of slavery, feudalism and capitalism. The Communism is only a return to the healthy and early life where collective ownership replaces individual ownership. All conflicts based on individual ownership are eliminated in an attempt to achieve the promised (or lost) paradise on earth. Neither science nor experiment can prove the validity or durability of this hypothesis.

In this context I would like to discuss four main points:

· a). There is no evidence that these primitive tribes did not suffer from any conflict, personal or tribal, and that sexual freedom was prevalent among all males and females. It has been proved that conflicts arose sometimes among the young men of the same tribe for the possession of a certain woman who was more beautiful, attractive and sexually appealing to some of them. Conflicts occasionally arose for the leadership of the tribe.

· b). These tribes were in a constant state of war amongst themselves. Tribal wars and invasions were launched for the usurpation of land, arms, women or all. If we contend that individual ownership did not exist among the members of these tribes, inter-tribal wars arose for the possession of land, property, arms, women…..etc. Instead of the individual or the class in recent history, the tribe constituted the unit which owned and fought for sovereignty.

· c). The existence of collective ownership within the tribe is not sufficient proof that the spirit of individual ownership did not exist among the members of the tribe. The apparent non-existence of individual ownership may be ascribed to the absence of anything to owned or destined to be owned by the individual. But with the emergence of something that can be owned by the individual, individual ownership arose. Communists admit that individual ownership arose with the discovery of agriculture. Individual ownership had been latent in the tribal community. It appeared when circumstances became favourable for its emergence.

· d). Practical experiment proved that collective ownership failed to replace individual ownership as incentive to work. The continuous decrease in the production of wheat in the old Soviet Union is an example in point. Russia, prior to Bolshevik revolution, which used to export wheat, began to import from USA, despite the fact that the richest wheat fields in the world are found in the Ukraine in USSR. Wheat production has always been decreasing. This has led Russia to change its agricultural policy and allow a reasonable portion of individual ownership as an incentive to encourage more production of wheat.

With the abolition of individual ownership which Communists believe is the principal and only cause of all conflicts, the Communist block is continually exposed to ideological and political conflicts. Between Trotsky and Lenin, Stalin and Beria, Khrushchev and the members of the Central Committee and the Political Bureau, there were eternal conflicts. Even after the establishment of collective leadership there arose a conflict in which one of their leaders was ousted. Afterwards, emerged a serious conflict between Russia and China for the ideological leadership of the Communist world. Communism thrives on conflicts and is a root cause of all conflicts.

After Gorbachev, emerged a new economic order in Russia and we are witnessing a rapid growth and prosperity due to the open economic policy implemented successfully. China gradually stepped in to the open economic policy of private ownership and has proved to be a tremendous success after years of setbacks. Communism is part of history and does not appear to be a valid currency in any social setup.

Marx gave a public statement about religion when he said that, “Religion is the opium of peoples”, Marx may have referred to a particular reality which Europe has witnessed when feudal lords and capitalists used to provoke in the minds and hearts of the working masses a long-desired dream for eternal bliss in the Hereafter to make up for the humiliation and repression inflicted upon them in this world.

Marx made a public statement about religion in general and in all circumstances. We need not discuss Marxian concept of religion but we only mention this fact, that Communism, which considers religion as an intoxicant and opium to all people, is now using more serious intoxicants to divert the minds of the working class into acceptance of hardship, humiliation, suppression and dehumanization.

Now Communists promise unrealizable dreams. They create a dream land to divert the masses from expressing their dissatisfaction with the bitter living conditions they face. From the very outset, Communists used to attract the masses by stimulating and provoking class conflicts among them. They hate religion because it endeavours to eliminate hatred, envy and anger among all people. Communists used to promise the downtrodden working masses that once Communism became a reality, workers will own their factories and farmers will take possession of their land and capitalism and feudalism will be completely wiped out.

Collective ownership proved to be a big fallacy. No one owns anything in fact, nor does anyone feel this ownership. All are but humiliated slaves. The state is the only master. The state authorities particularly the party leaders, political bureau, central committee, have all the power in their hands. They live in villas, palaces and own luxurious and expensive cars, whereas the proletariats, the working class, in whose name the state authorities rule, have to toil and work. The working masses are mere cogs in the huge state machinery. They live in poor houses, wear uncomfortable clothes and eat indecent food. In such worsened living conditions, Communism had to use intoxicants to extinguish the flames of rebellion among the working masses, to make the masses tolerate and put up with the social and economic afflictions imposed upon them. Communists assume that the working masses suffer hardship because national production is relatively insufficient to meet the local requirements. If production increases the law of “From each according to his ability to each according to his need” will be fully applied. Communists assume that they live under the heavy pressure of the state and in the tight grip of espionage circles because they have to confront their enemies. Once they crush their enemies, Communists will form a unified universal government which will uphold and spread justice among all peoples and put an end to all forms of humiliation and oppression. Not only that, eventually the day will come when government will not have to exercise its functions. People will live as angels with no conflicts, disputes, prisons, police force, or suppression among them. What a ridiculous dream, what a utopian expectation. With such foolish illogical assumptions and fabrications, Communism appeals to young men and women inside and outside the Communist camp to believe in Marxist philosophy. When they are caught into the net of Communism they will not be able to escape. History tells us that the Hungarians and Czechoslovakians were crushed under Communist tanks when they tried to break off the Communist orbit and regain their freedom. Communist Russia gave Hungarians and Czechoslovakians an unforgettable lesson so that they would never claim their freedom.

Communism states unequivocally that one who owns is one who rules. Hence one rules for his own interests and those of the class to which he belongs. Therefore, he devises and originates all the concepts and beliefs which are compatible with his own interests and the interests of his class. This unmistakably applies to the laws and legislations conceived and introduced throughout the ages. In the age of feudalism feudal lords owned large stretches of land and exercised their own power on the land serfs. They ruled against the interests of the “people” who were but the masses of the land serfs. Capitalists did the same thing. They possessed everything and ruled for their own interests and not for the interests of the working class. Communists raise up a big fallacy when they assume that they are an exception to the rule. They say that Communism has been introduced to fight and defeat all forms of oppression, social, economical, or ideological. The proletariat rule and own everything. Its supremacy is mainly directed to safeguard its own interests against “none” for it will have dissolved and liquidated all other social classes. The proletariats do not rule in the true sense of the word. A group of individuals rule in the name of the proletariat. They crush, oppress and subjugate the proletariat in their capacity as individuals or as the “state” which own, rule and suppress all others. As long as the rulers devise and apply their own legislations, oppression on earth will remain and humanity will remain divided into masters and slaves into the powerful and the powerless into the rich and the poor.

In one case only this rule does not apply. Injustice will be uprooted from the face of the earth if people do not devise and implement their own basic legislations. When the Divine Law of God replaces the man-made law all owners and non owners, the rulers and the ruled will be subject to the God given Law and all forms of injustice will be ruled out from the earth. This is ISLAM.

Islam is not merely a set of beliefs rooted in the hearts of Muslims though faith constitutes a basic and an indivisible part of it. Islam is a Divine comprehensive system of life in all its aspects, political, economical, social, ideological and moral. Therefore it is the only religion which actively responds to the requirements of the human body and soul and of life at large. Faith in God is indispensable for man. Man is naturally and instinctively a worshipper. The difference between one man and another does not lie in that this man is a worshipper and that one is not. The difference lies in that one man worships God Almighty and the other worships something else, an idol, a star, a human being, or even nature. Man may worship his own self, the state, the leader, the political party, an ideology, materials of production, the dollar, or even science, or intellect or the base human instincts. All these are stray forms of worship which will lead man into all indecencies and divert him from his honourable decent human nature. The real worth of man is inspired by the god he worships. If he worships the true God, man will be duly honoured and respected. Allah says in the Holy Quran: “We have honoured the sons of Adam, provided them with transport on land and sea, given them for sustenance things good and pure and conferred on them special favours above a great part of Our Creation” )Chapter 17:Verse 70). If man worships another god, he will degenerate himself with his own man-made god and sink into the lowest of the low.

There can be no doubt that Marx founded his theory on the backward industrial situation of the nineteenth century. Workers were in the main manual; they toiled for bread, were greatly exploited and suffered endlessly. Marx could never have anticipated the changes brought about by the scientific and technological revolution of the twentieth century. Workers today enjoy the luxury of sitting at panels with push-button switches, factories are run by computers, and instead of an army of tired workmen, we see comfortable employees protected by many trade unions and social insurance laws (against disability, old age and illness) and having every chance of education and medical treatment. Marx could never have foreseen the flexibility of capitalism and its capacity for developing a new industrial situation in which workers have stakes in the capital, as has happened in many Japanese, Italian, French and British firms. Hence the dissociation of Marxist thought from the reality of our century. Indeed, in the prevailing conditions of today, Marxism may be regarded as reactionary.

All Marx’s predictions, based on his dialectical method have proved to be wrong.

Marx has predicted that the Communist Revolution would break out not in a backward society but in an advanced, capitalist, industrial one, such as the British or the German. He was wrong: Communism struck root in a backward, agricultural society, as happened in Russia and China.

He had predicted that the gap between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in capitalist states would consistently grow and that the situation would deteriorate so much that a revolution would break out to destroy the entire capitalist system. In fact the reverse of this actually occurred in capitalist countries: thanks to a series of reforms and trade unionist activity the gap has narrowed and class differences have diminished, while it is in Communist states that a conflict has broken out and intensified.

Marx had predicted that capitalism would lead to more concentration of money in colossal monopolies, making the rich richer and the poor poorer. What actually happened was that capital has tended to split up through the establishment of joint stock companies and that through inheritance, land ownership also tended to split up naturally.

Marx has predicted that a devastating economic crisis would practically crush the capitalist system following an imbalance between supply and demand, (namely that as a result of extreme poverty the rate of demand and purchasing power of workers would be too low for ever-rising levels of production). However all economic crises in capitalist countries have so far been temporary. Furthermore, according to Marx’s theory of ‘surplus value’ workers’ wages in capitalist countries should merely fulfill their minimum living requirements, but, thanks to new legislation, trade unionist activity and capitalist self-modification, workers’ wages in many European countries rose to remarkable levels of affluence, thus entirely refuting Marx’s theory.

The most serious flaw in Marxism is, perhaps, that it insists on being a comprehensive system of thought which has an answer to every question and a solution to every problem. He who does not accept this comprehensiveness has no claim to Marxism. Indeed, Marxists believe their worst enemies to be the eclectic-those who accept (or reject it) partially. This rigidity is the weakest aspect of Marxism. In contrast, there is an obvious intellectual flexibility in capitalist states, as well as an ability to absorb the ideas of their opponents and benefit by them regardless of ideology. Many capitalist states have adopted nationalization in an attempt to defeat the evils of exploitation and monopoly.

For all its ideological fanaticism, Marxism has not been comprehensively applied anywhere. Whenever it came to actual application, ‘comprehensive’ Marxism has always been rejected, the reason being a basic weakness in Marxism which we may term ‘methodological arbitration’.

Such arbitrariness of method as is found in historical materialism, may be illustrated by its very dialectic, based as it is on the idea of a single factor in operation down human history, namely the economic factor, which Marx regards as the root cause of all historical phenomena. This mode of thought has come to be rejected as unscientific. The accepted view today is that we cannot interpret social phenomena in terms of a sole, independent and externally isolable factor; we cannot even regard one factor as principal and another as secondary or subordinate in as much as the relation between ’cause’ and ‘effect’ is complex and changing. Instead, we may mark out numerous factors which affect one another and observe the changes in this dynamic process, for what may seem principal today may prove to be secondary tomorrow and so on.

The economic factor cannot be regarded as primum mobile, there are national, psychological, racial and ideological factors which may play an even greater part in shaping history than the economic.

Because Marx did not found his theory on the evidence of the entire history of man but on that of a few, carefully selected historical stages, the laws which he deduced cannot be valid for a reading of all history; indeed, they cannot be regarded strictly as laws. His materialistic interpretation of history, namely that it had always been production methods and employer-worker relationships that built up the social superstructure (including art and thought and religion), constituted a naïve simplification of many interconnected and highly complex processes. Any modern theory is ineluctably based on multiple factors and the principle of reciprocal causality, so that a given factor may be seen as both cause and effect at once. Thought and invention are likely to introduce changes in methods of production and worker-employer relations but the latter two can hardly produce any system of thought; religion can change social relations while social relations cannot create a religion, as amply evidenced by the birth of ISLAM itself.

Islam was not the creation of a class-based community. It was neither a reactionary religion designed to protect the property of tyrants and oppressors nor a drug to induce the poor to accept their poverty. It called on people to enjoy life in moderation and to fight all forms of oppression and exploitation. Nor was it the result of a revolution in the methods of production and worker-employer relations in Quraish. It was a super structural phenomenon independent of environmental factors. From the start Islam established the principles of equal opportunities for all, a guaranteed and adequate level of income for each citizen and an economic balance between the individual and society. It also introduced a system of private ownership, public ownership, and a guided but free economy. All this was introduced in the Arabian Peninsula at a time when neither production conditions nor employer-worker relations called for any change. Consequently, Islam cannot be seen to have sprung out of a particular economic situation. Thus the historical logic of Marxism is defeated and the materialistic theory that a revolution in the production system and worker-employer relations is followed by a political revolution is utterly defeated.

One of the worst excesses of Marxism is its bestowal of a mythical aura of purity and virtue on the proletariat (the working class), as though they were the ‘chosen people’ or an alien race of Martians. Today, as a result of a discrepancy in income between skilled and unskilled labour, this class has itself split into two opposed ones. It is not surprising, therefore, that in view of such obvious gaps in the theory and practice of Marxism many writers and politicians who had once adopted it have now turned away from it. Disenchanted with it, many old socialists today criticize and even oppose it. To state in this context that we belong neither to capitalist ‘right’ nor to Marxist ‘left’ is not to imply that ours is an ideological mean between the two extremes. Ours is an independent contribution to political thought – all our own. We have rejected the dictatorship of the proletariat and substituted a method based on the alliance of the working forces of the population, covering all sectors and classes. We do not regard religion as a reactionary force but as a moving force, as a constructive energy and as a progressive thought – more progressive than all available theories.

Science Can Not Disprove GOD’s existence.

There is actually no scientific basis that can tell you that God does not exist. It is not science’s domain to test whether there is God or not. Science is simply a tool to test what is empirically true. Science operates on induction. The inductive method entails searching out things in the world and drawing generalized conclusions about those things based on observations. Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can’t find. So how can Science disprove something which they can’t see and will never be able to. As GOD cannot be seen for sure. Because from Qur’an we know that GOD is unlike His creation [See Qur’an 42:11]. And, No vision can grasp Him  [see Qur’an 6:103]. Moreover, How can a Creator be a part of His Creation?

It is totally unreasonable for one to think in a scientific framework to put God as an extra element. Within scientific framework, it is true that an extra element is not needed, since we already made the assumption that everything is contained and confined within the universe and nothing can be lost. But this does not mean that science denies the existence of God. There is no reason to think that way. People has a distorted view of Science. Because some take the position that if science doesn’t give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. As Freeman Dyson says and I quote, “The public has a distorted view of Science because Children are taught in schools that science is a collection of firmly established  truths. In fact, science is not a collection of truths. It is continuing exploration of mysteries.”

There is no reason to consider God’s actions in a scientific framework and in the same time, there is no reason to consider that God does not exist based on scientific deduction. Scientific theories only propose that which is falsifiable. That means the scientific method can’t answer any questions but only shows what is a false answer out of innumerable possibilities. We should not try to apply science outside of the fields for which it is meant. Some take the position that if science doesn’t give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That’s simply the false assumption scientism. However, it would be a mistake to expect it to be able to test everything. In this case, ”GOD’s existence”. There are many more intellectual tools available to us than just science, and as the old saying goes, when all you’ve got is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail!  Science is not deficient in any way; but it’s just not the right way to find few particular kinds of truths. To try to do so would be like trying to ascertain whether a banana is tasty by sticking it in your ear and listening to it; it’s simply the wrong method!

I really do not understand why a scientist and let alone a non-scientist would have to throw away their religious identity over a scientific theory, which cannot be proven in a universal way. Of course if someone wants to become atheist it is their choice, but don’t ever think religious people are inferior. Religious people could be smarter than an atheist person, and religious people could cleverly manage their life so they can achieve many things without losing their religious identity.

And one more thing I wanna say that if any non-scientist reading this article of mine I would like to advice them that, before you ever accept or even think about a scientific result, try to think like a scientist for a while, in the correct way, not in the way that the atheistic propaganda wants you to think. Then make your decision based on your own thought, not theirs. They are also human, so they can be wrong and so can I.

The Quranic Argument for God’s Existence

[By Brother Hamza Tzortzis]

“No question is more sublime  than why there is a universe: why  there is anything rather than  nothing.” [1]

When we reflect upon our own  existence we will come to the  realisation, that at some point in  time, we began to exist. Since we  were once non-existent and are  now in existence, it follows that  we must have had a beginning. In  light of this, the Qur’an raises  some profound questions: were  we created by nothing? Did we  create ourselves? Or did we  create the universe?

“Or were they created by nothing? Or were they the creators (of  themselves)? Or did they create  heavens and earth? Rather, they  are not certain.” [Quran 52:35-36]
These questions can be  addressed to the existence of  everything temporal, in other words the entire universe. Therefore, the exegetical  implications of these verses can be logically formulated in the  following way: Things that began  to exist were either:-

1. Created or brought into being  from nothing

2. Self caused or self created

3. Created or brought into being  by something else that began to exist

4. Created or brought into being by a non-created or un-caused entity

Before we proceed, the first pre-supposition has to be  subtantiated, as it forms the basis for the Qur’an’s argument  for the existence of God. This first  assumption is that the universe  began to exist.

Did the universe begin to exist?

To substantiate the view that the  universe began to exist we can  bring into our discussion a  plethora of philosophical and  inductive arguments:

1. The  second  law  of  thermodynamics

2. The  absurdity  of  an  infinite  history of  past  events

3. Astrophysical evidence

1. The second law of thermodynamics

The concept of entropy was  introduced to explain the  direction of various processes that occur in the natural world. Entropy is a measure of how  evenly energy is distributed in a  system. For example, heat always flows from a body of a higher temperature or energy (low entropy) to one of a lower temperature or energy (high entropy). 

Take the following illustration of  a container with gas, when the  partition is removed, the gas in  one end of the container will spread to the whole of the  container, going from a state of  low entropy (higher temperature  or energy) to high entropy (lower temperature or energy).

Hence, according to the second  law of thermodynamics,  processes in a closed system tend towards higher entropy, as their energy is being used.

Applying the second law of  thermodynamics to the universe  we will conclude that it must  have began to exist. Since the  universe is a closed system, with  enough time the universe will suffer a heat death or  thermodynamic equilibrium. 

When systems are in thermodynamic equilibrium, they  cannot transfer energy. This is because entropy can only  increase over time. Therefore, as the universe continues to expand  it will eventually become cold and  dead. 

However this raises a question, if  the universe never began to exist  it would imply that the universe  has existed for an infinite amount  of time. If this is true then why  isn’t the universe already in a  state of heat death? This strongly suggests that the universe must  have had a beginning, because if it didn’t it would imply that it has existed for an infinite amount of time, which would mean that it should already have suffered a heat death. Since it hasn’t suffered a heat death, it strongly indicates that the universe is finite, meaning it began to exist.

2.  The absurdity of an infinite history of past events

Some philosophers such as Bertrand Russell argued that the  universe is eternal, meaning it  has no beginning and it will never end. However if we think about  this we will conclude that this position is irrational. If the  universe never had a beginning it means there must be an infinite  history of past events. Yet does an actual infinite exist in the real  world? Is it possible?

The concept of the actual infinite  cannot be exported into the real  world, because it leads to contradictions and doesn’t make  sense. Let’s take the following  examples to illustrate this point:

1. Say you have an infinite  number of balls, if I take 2 balls  away, how many do you have  left? Infinity. Does that make  sense? Well, there should be two  less than infinity, and if there is, then we should be able to count  how many balls you have. But  this is impossible, because the  infinite is just an idea and  doesn’t exist in the real world. In light of this fact the famous German mathematician David  Hilbert said,

“The infinite is nowhere to be  found in reality. It neither exists  in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational  thought…the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely  that of an idea.” [2]

2. Imagine you are a soldier ready  to fire a gun, but before you  shoot you have to ask permission  for the soldier behind you, but he  has to do the same, and it goes on for infinity. Will you ever  shoot? No you wouldn’t. This highlights, the absurdity of an infinite regress and this applies to events too. Therefore, there  cannot be an infinite history of past events.

3. Take the distance between two  points, one may argue that you  can subdivide the distance into infinite parts, but you will always be subdividing and never actually reach the ‘infinitieth’ part! So in  reality the infinit is potential and  can never be actualised. Similarly  the ancient Greek Philosopher  Aristotle explained,

“…the infinite is potential, never actual: the number of parts that  can be taken always surpasses  any assigned number.”[3]

So if we refer back to an infinite  history of past events we can  conclude, since events are not just ideas they are real, the  number of past events cannot be  infinite. Therefore the universe  must be finite, in other words the  cosmos had a beginning.

3.  Astrophysical  evidence 

The ‘Big Bang’ is the prevailing  theory in cosmology. It was first  formulated by the aid of some  observations made by an  American Astronomer called  Edwin Hubble. While Hubble was  trying to understand the size of the universe, he observed  immensely luminous stars called  Cepheid Variables and noticed  something peculiar. He observed that some of these stars were  further away than initially anticipated, and that their colour  was slightly changed, shifting  towards red, something now known as red-shift. From Hubble’s observations we were  able conclude that everything  seems to be moving away from  each other, in other words the  universe is effectively expanding.  As time moves on the universe  continues to expand, but if time  is reversed, the theory is that  everything starts to coalesce and  come together. Coupled with the  discovery of cosmic  microwave  background radiation, which is the radiation uniformly filling the observable universe, the idea of  the ‘Big Bang’ was born. In other  words the universe began at a  cataclysmic event which created  space-time and all matter in the  universe. The physicist P. C. W.  Davies explains,

“If we extrapolate this prediction  to its extreme, we reach a point  when all distances in the universe  have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore  forms a past temporal extremity  to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime,  through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On  this view the big bang represents  the creation event; the creation  not only of all the matter and  energy in the universe, but also  of space-time itself.” [4]

Although our understanding of  what happened 10-43 seconds  after the ‘Big Bang’ is highly  speculative, astrophysicists now concede little doubt that this universe in which we live is the  aftermath of the emergence and  expansion of space-time, which occurred  approximately 14 billion years ago. John Gribbin, an  astrophysicist at Cambridge University, summarises the importance of ‘Big Bang’ cosmology,

“…the discovery of the century, in  cosmology at least, was without  doubt the dramatic discovery made by Hubble, and confirmed by Einstein’s equations, that the  Universe is not eternal, static,  and unchanging.” [5]

Thus the ‘Big Bang’ model  describes our universe as having  a beginning a finite time ago. As Alex Vilenkin, one of the world’s leading theoretical cosmologists,  writes,

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men  and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable  man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide  behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the  problem of a cosmic beginning.” [6]

Other models have been proposed to try and explain away the obvious metaphysical questions that arise from a finite  universe, for instance P.C.W.  Davies questions,

“What caused the big bang? . . .  One might consider some  supernatural force, some agency  beyond space and time as being  responsible for the big bang, or  one might prefer to regard the  big bang as an event without a  cause. It seems to me that we don’t have too much choice. Either…something outside of the  physical world…or…an event  without a cause.” [7]

These models include the  oscillating and vacuum fluctuation models. These models however still have principles that necessitate a beginning to the  universe, in other words they are  non-infinitely extendable into the  past. Take the oscillating model as an example, this model maintains that if the gravitational  pull of the mass of the universe was able to surmount the force of  its expansion, then the expansion  could be changed into a cosmic  contraction or ‘Big Crunch’, and  then into a new expansion, with  the process continuing ad infinitum. However, there are a few issues with this model,

1. Firstly, there is nothing  available in modern physics that  would allow a universe that is collapsing to spring back into a  new expanding universe.

2. Secondly, the mean mass density of the universe, derived  from observational evidence, has shown that it is not enough to develop the required  gravitational force to stop and  reverse the expansion of the universe.

3. Thirdly, the second law of  thermodynamics (as discussed  above) implies the finitude of the  universe. According to the  oscillation model, the entropy is conserved from cycle to cycle of  the various oscillations of  expansion, crunch and expansion. This has the effect of generating larger and longer oscillations. Therefore the thermodynamic property of this model implies a beginning, as the universe that we exist in has not suffered a heat death, or thermodynamic equilibrium.

Since we have presented good  evidence that the universe began  to exist. We can now address the  logically possible explanations  the Qur’an presents as rationalisations of the origins of  the universe.

Created or brought into being  from nothing

We know the universe couldn’t  have come out of nothing,  because out of nothing, nothing  comes! This is an undeniable  philosophical principle, as P. J. Zwart in his publication About  Time explains,

“If there is anything we find  inconceivable it is that  something could arise from nothing.” [8]

A significant point to raise here  is that nothingness should not  be misconstrued as the nothingness that some physicists talk about. The term nothingness in this context refers to the  absence of anything physical, in  other words there is no pre-existing ‘stuff’. In light of the beginning of the universe, there  was absolutely nothing before it began to exist, which  lis why  physicists have explained the  universe as having a space-time  boundary.

However, nothingness as defined  by some physicists relates to the  quantum vacuum. This is misleading because the quantum  is something. In quantum theory the vacuum is a field of energy  pervading the whole of the  universe. In the word’s of John Polkinghorne, a philosopher of  science, the quantum vacuum,

“…is not ‘nothing’; it is a  structured and highly active entity.” [9]

So, in context of some of the  physicists’ definition, the universe  could not have come from  absolutely nothing, as the quantum vacuum is something. It  is a sea of fluctuating energy,  which is still part of the cosmos  and it did not pre-exist the  universe. This point leads us nicely to the next possible  explanation.

Self caused or self created

Philosophically, the universe  couldn’t have created itself because that would imply a paradox. It would mean that  something can exist and not  exist at the same time. The logical ends of this explanation are tantamount to saying that your mother gave birth to herself!
Recently, the world renowned  physicist, Stephen Hawking in his new book The Grand Design argues that the universe did self  create due to the law of gravity,

“Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing…” [10]

But his view on nothing, as previously mentioned, is not really nothingness but is space filled  with the quantum vacuum, which  is part of the universe. In essence  Hawking is telling us that the  universe can create itself, but it  has to already exist for it to do that!

Concerning the law of gravity, well that is just a mathematical  equation that describes nature.  This law is part of the universe,  which can also be described as a  force of attraction between  material objects. Therefore, how can this force exist before matter, in other words the universe? To  assert that the universe created  itself would be absurd and self refuting, because in order for  something to create itself it would need to exist before it  existed!

Created or brought into being by  something else that began to  exist

This is not an adequate explanation for the origins of the  universe. The universe could not have owed its existence to another state of temporal  physical existence. To maintain  such an explanation would be  equivalent of expanding the  boundaries of the universe, as all  things which have a temporal beginning exist within the  universe. Also, if temporal  physical existence owes itself to another temporal physical  existence ad infinitum, it doesn’t  explain anything. Rather it  highlights the absurdity of an  infinite regress, and that there  has to be a beginning to the  temporal physical states, which logically must be a non-physical  state.

Take the following example into consideration. If the universe, U1,  followed another temporal cause  U2, and U2 followed another temporal cause U3, and this went  on ad infinitum we wouldn’t have  the universe U1 in the first place.  Think about it this way, when does U1 come into being? Only  after U2 has come into being.  When does U2 come into being? Only after U3 has come into being. This same problem will continue even if we go to infinity. If U1 depended on its coming  into being on a chain of infinite temporal causes, U1 would never exist. As the Islamic Philosopher  and Scholar Dr. Jaafar Idris writes,
“There would be no series of actual causes, but only a series of  non-existents, as Ibn Taymiyyah  explained. The fact, however, is that there are existents around  us; therefore, their ultimate cause  must be something other than  temporal causes.” [11]

Created or brought into being by  a non-created or un-caused entity
Since something cannot come  from nothing, and self creation is absurd, including the unreasonableness of the  aforementioned explanation,  then the universe being created or brought into existence by an  uncaused entity is the best  explanation. This concept is intuitive but also agrees with  reality: whatever begins to exist  has a cause or a creator.

This cause or creator must be uncaused due to the absurdity of  an infinite regress, in other words  an indefinite chain of causes. To  illustrate this better, if the cause  of the universe had a cause and  that cause had a cause ad infinitum, then there wouldn’t be  a universe to talk about in the  first place (something we have  already discussed above). For example, imagine if a Stock Trader on a trading floor at the Stock  Exchange was not able to buy or  sell his stocks or bonds before  asking permission from the  investor, and then this investor  had to check with his, and this went on forever, would the Stock Trader ever buy or sell his stocks or bonds? The answer is no. In  similar light if we apply this to  the universe we would have to posit an uncaused cause due to this rational necessity. The  Qur’an confirms the  uncreatedness of the creator,  God,

“He neither begets nor is born.”   [Qur’an 112:3]

The cause or creator for the  universe must be a single cause  for several reasons. An attractive  argument to substantiate this claim includes the use of the  rational principle called Occam’s  razor. In philosophical terms the  principle enjoins that we do not multiply entities beyond necessity. What this basically  means is that we should stick to explanations that do not create  more questions than it answers.  In the context of the cause for the universe we have no evidence  to claim multiplicity, in other words more than one. The Qur’an affirms the Oneness of the  creator,

“Say: He is God, [who is] One.”   [Qur’an 112:1]

However some philosophers and  scientists claim: why doesn’t the  cause be the universe itself? Why  can’t the cause stop at the  universe? Well, the problem with these claims is that they would  imply that the universe created  itself, which we have already  discussed, is absurd. Additionally,  we have good reasons to postulate a cause for the universe  because the universe began to exist, and what begins to exist has a cause.

Our argument thus far allows us to conclude that this cause or  creator must be non contingent  meaning that its existence is dependent on nothing but itself.  If it were contingent it would be  one more effect in the chain of  causes. The Qur’an verifies this,

“God is Independent of (all)  creatures.” [Qur’an 3:97]

The cause or creator must also be  transcendent, this means that the  cause of the universe must exist  outside of and apart from the  universe. Since this being exists apart from the universe it must be  non-physical or immaterial, if it was material then it would be part of the universe. This is confirmed in the Qur’an,

“There is nothing like unto Him,  and He is the Hearing, the Seeing” [Qur’an 42:11]

This cause must have the power  to create the universe, without  this ability nothing could be created. The Qur’an testifies to  God’s power,

“Certainly, God has power over all things.” [Qur’an 2:20]

This cause must have a will,  because it wouldn’t be able to  create the universe without one. What this means is that it must  have a will so the power to create  could be acted on. The Qur’an  refers to God as having a will in  many places, for instance,

“And God guides whom He wills  to a straight path.” [Qur’an  2:213]

In summary, we have concluded  what the Qur’an concluded over 1400 years ago, that a creator for the universe exists, that is one,  has a will, is powerful, uncaused, immaterial and eternal.

Quantum Physics Undermines the Argument

A common contention to the central argument made in this essay is that the assumption –  whatever begins to exist has a  cause – is false. This is due to the apparent observations in the  quantum vacuum that sub-atomic events behave spontaneously without any causes. In light of this common contention there are some good objections we can raise:

1. Firstly, the view that some  events just happen, also known as indeterminism, for no reason at  all is impossible to prove  conclusively. Our inability to identify a cause does not necessarily mean that there is no cause.

2. Secondly, there are deterministic perspectives adopted by physicists to explain these so-called spontaneous  sub-atomic events. For instance  in the 1950s David Bohm showed  there was an alternative formulation of quantum theory that is fully deterministic in its basic structure. [12] Commenting  on Bohm’s theory Polkinghorne explains,

“In Bohm’s theory there are  particles which are as unproblematically objective and deterministic in their behaviour as  Sir Isaac Newton himself might  have wished them to be. However, there is also a hidden wave, encoding information about the  whole environment. It is not itself directly observable, but it  influences in a subtle and highly sensitive manner the motions of  the particles in just such a way as  to induce the experimentally  observed probabilistic effects.” [13]

What this means is that the  apparent indeterminism present  at the quantum level can be  explained deterministically by  this hidden wave that produces  observed indeterministic or  probabilistic effects.

However, since these two  interpretations of quantum  theory are empirically equivalent  the choice between them will not be based on a scientific decision  but on a metaphysical one. This leads to the philosophical  objection to this contention.

3. Thirdly, from a philosophical  perspective it is extremely  difficult for these physicists (who adopt an indeterministic explanation of sub-atomic events) to justify their conclusions. This is because without the concept of  causality we will not have the mental framework to understand  our observations and experiences. In philosophical terms causality is a priori, which means knowledge we have independent of any experience. We know causality is true because we bring it to all our experience, rather than our experience bringing it to us. It is like wearing yellow-tinted glasses, everything looks yellow not because of anything out  there in the world, but because of the glasses through which we are looking at everything. Take the following example into consideration; imagine you are looking at the White House in Washington DC. Your eyes may wonder to the door, across the  pillars, then to the roof and finally over to the front lawn.  Now contrast this to another experience, you are on the river Thames in London and you see a boat floating past. What dictates the order in which you had these experiences? When you looked at the White House you had a choice to see the door first and then the pillars and so on. However, with the boat you had no choice as the front of the  boat was the first to appear.

The point to take here is that you  would not have been able to  make the distinction that some  experiences are ordered by  yourself and others are ordered  independently, unless we had the  concept of causality. In absence  of causality our experience would be very different from the way it  is. It would be a single sequence  of experiences only: one thing  after another. So to accept that sub-atomic events do not correspond with causality would  be tantamount of denying our own experience!


[1]  Derek Parfit, “Why Anything?  Why This?” London Review of  Books 20/2 (January 22, 1998),  page 24.

[2]  David Hilbert. On the Infinite,  in Philosophy of Mathematics, ed.  with an Intro. by P. Benacerraf and H. Putnam. Prentice-Hall. 1964, page151.

[3]  Aristotle, Physics 207b8 (available online here

[4]  P.C.W. Davies, “Space-time  Singularities in Cosmology,” in  The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag,  1978), pages 78–79.

[5]  John Gribbin, In the  Beginning: The Birth of the  Living Universe (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1993),  page  19.

[6]  Alex Vilenkin, Many Worlds in  One: The Search for Other  Universe. Hill and Wang. 2006,  page 176.

[7]  Paul Davies, “The Birth of the  Cosmos,” in God, Cosmos, Nature  and Creativity, ed. Jill Gready  (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic  Press, 1995), pages. 8-9.

[8]  P. J. Zwart, About Time  (Amsterdam and Oxford: North  Holland Publishing Co.,1976), pages 117-19

[9]  John Polkinghorne and  Nicholas Beale. Questions of  Truth. 2009, page 41

[10]  Stephen Hawking and  Leonard Mlodinow. The Grand  Design. 2011, page 180.

[11]  accessed 1 October 2011,  10:32AM.

[12]  See D. Bohm and B. J. Hiley. The Undivided Universe. Routledge, 1993.

[13] John Polkinghorne. Science and Religion in Quest of Truth. SPCK. 2011, page 39