God : An Islamic Perspective

8/10/2019 God : An Islamic Perspective

1/79


2/79

GOD:AN ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE

By:Allamah Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi

Published by:Bilal Muslim Mission of Tanzania

P.O. Box 20033, Dar es Salaam


3/79

ISBN 9976 956 80 0

First Edition 1971, 500 copies2nd (Revised) Edition 1976, 5000 copies3rd (Revised and Annotated) Edition 1994, 5000 copiesNumerous editions printed

By WOFIS (ehran), WIN (Bombay) and other countries.

Published by:BILAL MUSLIM MISSION OF TANZANIA

P.O. BOX 20033DAR ES SALAAM


4/79

CONTENTSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

P O: B G1. Belie in God: A natural instinct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22. o Be or Not o Be . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23. Beginning Point o the World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44. Essential Qualities o Eternal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55. Is Matter Eternal? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86. Matter begins and ends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

7. wo Suppositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108. Matter not the Source o lie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119. Teism vs. Atheism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1210. Some alks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1311. Religions vs. Darwinism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1512. Where the Darwinists went astray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1713. Russells Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

14. Creation by Chance? Without a Creator? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2315. Sae Course or Agnostics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3016. Universe: Witness o One Allah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3217. Seven Reasons why a Scientist believes in God . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

P : O G18. Meaning o One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4419. God cannot be more than one . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4520. Meaning o Shirk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4621. Te Holy Prophet on at-awheed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4822. Islam vs. Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4923. Unity vs. rinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5124. Unity vs. Duality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5325. Unity vs. Idol-worship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54


5/79

P : -26. at-awheed o Islam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5927. Attributes o Allah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6028. Names o Allah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

29. Al-Asmaul-Husna (Te Beautiul Names o Allah) . . . . . . . . . . 6430. Attributes o Person and Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72


6/79i

PREFACE

Tis book was first published under the title, God o Islam, in 1971,

as the 2nd unit o the Islamic Correspondence Course o the BilalMuslim Mission o anzania. A revised edition was printed in 1976.

It has been repeatedly printed by the World Organisation For IslamicServices (WOFIS), ehran, and Bilal Muslim Mission o Kenya(Mombasa). Also World Islamic Network (WIN), Bombay, hasreprinted it under its new title. Many o its chapters have been

published in Islamic magazines in USA, India and other places. (Apirate edition o God o Islam has recently been printed by a NewYork publisher.)

It was translated into Urdu by Maulana Muhammad aqi Rahimiyanand my son, Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi in early 1980s in Qum (Iran).It was serialised in the Urdu monthly, Al-Waez (Lucknow). Tat inits turn was translated into Hindi by Al-Haj Chaudhary Sayyid SibteMuhammad Naqvi (editor, Hindi ortnightly, Hamari awheed,Lucknow) and serialised in that magazine. Earlier it was translatedinto Swahili and Tai; and recently into Malayan language.

Now I have revised again and annotated the book and it is beingpublished by the Bilal Muslim Mission o anzania under its new title,God: An Islamic Perspective. It is hoped that this version will proveeven more popular than the previous one.

Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvioronto, Canada15thOctober, 1994


7/79

GOD:A I P

P O:B G


8/792

1. B G: A N I

BELIEF in God is as natural as any instinct can be. An atheist askedImam Jafar Sadiq how could he convince him about the existence of

God.

Te Imam (a.s) asked him whether he had ever gone on sea voyage.Te reply was Yes. Te Imam (a.s) further asked: Have you ever beencaught in a erce storm with your ship broken, where there was noother ship to rescue you, nor swimming could avail you anything?Again the reply was Yes.

Ten Imam (a.s) asked: Was not there, in all that black despair, aglimmer of hope in your heart that some unnamed and unknownpower could still save you? When he agreed, Imam said: Tat poweris God.1

Tat atheist was intelligent. He knew the truth when he saw it.

2. T B N T B

We think about thousands and thousands of things. We imagine ahorse, a man, an aeroplane, the earth, a train and a book. We see thepictures of these things displayed on the screen of our imagination.

Tis is called the existence in imagination (Wujud-e-Dhehni

.(

And also a horse, a man, an aeroplane, the earth, a train or abook has its own existence outside our imagination. Tat is calledexistence outside imagination. Tis is the real existence (Wujud-e-Khariji .(

1 Al-Majlisi, Biharu l-anwar(new ed)., ehran, vol.3, p.41


9/793

Sometimes, we imagine such ideas which can never be found outsideour imagination. We may imagine 2 + 2 = 5. But can 2 + 2 be 5 in realexistence? No. We may imagine that a thing exists and also does notexist at the same place at the same time. But can this happen in the

world of reality? Certainly NO.Such imagined ideas which can never exist in reality are called

(mumtaniul-wujud ) impossible.

Also we imagine a man walking at a certain time. Can this happenin reality? Remove all other ideas from your mind. Just look at the

imagined picture of that man walking at a particular time. Now say,is it necessary that that man should be walking at that time? Or, onthe other side, is it impossible of him to be walking at that time?Te answer to both questions is No. Why? Because it is neitheressential nor impossible for any man to walk at a given time. He maybe walking; he may not be walking. So far as the reason and logic isconcerned both his walking and not walking are possible - possible,

but not necessary.Such imagined ideas which have equal relation with existence and

non-existence, are called (Mumkinul-Wujud ) Possible,or ransient. Tey may exist in reality; they may not exist. Tere isnothing in their nature to demand this or that. So far as their nature isconcerned, o be and Not to be both are equal to them.

So far we have seen two categories of relationship between animagined idea and its existence in reality:1. Where that idea has equal relation with existence and non-

existence. It may exist; it may not exist. Tere is nothing in itsnature to prefer either side.


10/794

2. Where that idea can have absolutely no relation with existence. It,by its very nature is non-existence.

It will appear from above classication that there should be a third

category which would be opposite of Impossible (Mumtaniul-wujud) mentioned in (2) above. Tis third category is of the ideawhich can have absolutely no relation with non-existence. By its verydenition, it is self-existent. Such an idea is called (Wajibul-Wujud

) Essential Existence or Absolute Existence.

Now the picture is complete.

3. B P W

Tere is much conict between the points of views of atheists andthose who believe in a Supreme-Being Who created the world. Still,there is one important point where both are in complete agreement.

Both agree that the basic source or cause of the universe is Eternal -has no beginning and no end; was always and will remain for ever. Inother words, it is self-existent or Wajibul-Wujud.

Te reason for this idea is very simple: As every thing in this universefalls under the category of Mumkinul-Wujud ransient, it hasequal relation with existence and non-existence. Once these thingsdid not exist; now they exist; sometime in future they will cease toexist. By their nature, they cannot demand to exist or to cease to exist.Terefore, there must be a source or cause to bring them to existenceor to terminate their existence.And (it is the important point) that source or cause should not itself

be just a ransient; otherwise it will itself need a source or cause to


11/795

bring into existence. And this chain o cause and effect MUS stopon a cause which needs no outside source or cause or its existence.It means that the final source or cause o bringing this universe intoexistence MUS be sel-existent.

It is interesting to note that even the atheists accept this point,because they say that nothing can come out o nothing, and,thereore, the basic source o existence must be eternal. It is rom everand will remain or ever.Now comes the first difference. Te atheists say that that eternal source

o existence is Matter. Te believers say that that eternal source oexistence is God.

We will discuss it aferwards. Here it is enough to establish a commonground o belie, and that is the aith that the basic source or causeo the existence o the universe is Eternal - without beginning andwithout end.

4. E Q EA. By its very definition, Eternal is Sel-existent, it could never have

been non-existent nor can it ever be terminated. In other words,it has no beginning - because i we suppose or it a beginning wemust admit that it was non-existent beore that beginning. But wealready know that it could never have been non-existent.

Tereore, we must accept that the Eternal has no beginning - it isever-existent.

B. By the same reason, it can have no end. It is ever-lasting, becauseit can never be non-existent.


12/796

C. Te Eternal must be sel-sufficient. In other words it should beabove all needs; it should not be in need o anything. Because, iit needs anything, it will be dependent upon that thing. But by its

very definition, the Eternal does not depend upon anything, as

it is Sel-existent. In other words, the Eternal must have absoluteperection.

D. Te Eternal can be neither compound nor mixture.

A compound or mixture depends or its existence upon its parts orcomponents. As we accept that Eternal is Sel-existent, we cannot

admit that its existence depends upon its components or parts.

Moreover, look at any mixture or compound. You will find thatthe components or parts existed BEFORE the resulting mixture orcompound. As the Eternal has no beginning, we cannot say thatanything preceded it in existence. Otherwise, we will have to imaginea beginning point or the Eternal which is admittedly wrong.

E. Te Eternal can be neither a body nor a surace, neither a line nora point.

A body, by its very nature, needs space to be in. As we have alreadyseen, the Eternal should not be in need o anything. It ollows that theEternal cannot be a body.

In real existence, a surace needs a body; a line needs a surace; apoint needs a line. Eternal needs nothing. Tereore, the Eternal isneither a surace, line nor a point. Nor can it be anything which isound in a body, like dimension, colour, smell, position, condition

or other such things which are called incorporeal (aradh ) inphilosophical language, because such things depend on a substance


13/797

or body or their existence - they are not sel-existent.

F. Te Eternal should not be subject to any change, because i thatchange be or better, it would mean that the Eternal beore that

change was not perect, that is, it was in need o something. Butwe have already said that the Eternal cannot need anything.

And i that change be or worse, it would mean that the Eternal is nowin need o something to make it perect. And, as just explained, it isnot possible.

And i that change is just to the same level o perection, then what isthe need or use o such a change?In act, the changes may occur either in a substance (body, matter)or in its incorporeal qualities like colour, dimension etc. But it has

just been proved that the Eternal can be neither a substance nor anincorporeal quality o another substance.

G. Te Eternal must be a living being. Because it is agreed that theEternal is the source and cause o the existence o the universe.And also it is agreed that nothing can come out o nothing. Now,as we find abundance o lie in the universe, we have to admit thatthe source o all these living things must itsel be All-lie. It couldnot bestow lie i it had itsel no lie.

H. Te Eternal source o world must be all-knowing (Omniscient).Te intricate design o a single atom shows the perect wisdomembodied in it. Te elaborate system and perect design ouniverse leaves no doubt that whoever or whatever is the sourceor cause o the universe is all-knowing.


14/798

I. By the same reasoning the Eternal source or cause o the universemust be allpoweul (Omnipotent).

5. I M E

Te atheists maintain that the matter is the Eternal source o theuniverse. It needs no great intelligence to see that matter does notpossess any o the qualities o the Eternal mentioned in the previouschapter.

Matter has a body and as such it needs space. It is divisible and as such

it is made up o several parts. It is constantly changing.

But the atheists maintain that matter has no beginning and no end;and thereore, it is eternal.But the recent theories challenge these two last stands o atheism.

6. M EWhat is matter? It is substance o which a physical thing is made.Or anything which has the property o occupying space and theattributes o gravity and inertia.

Beore going urther it is necessary to point out one important thing.Tere are, in every branch o science, certain ideas which have noexistence in reality. Yet they are assumed to exist in reality just to makeit easy or the beginners to understand the arguments o that subject.ake or example geometry. Tey teach the children that point is athing having neither length, breadth nor depth. Such a thing has nophysical existence. Tey teach that line is a thing having only length,


15/799

but neither breadth nor depth. Tis also has no physical existence.In fact, it is only by taking a body (which has all three dimensions -length, breadth and depth) and sub-dividing it in imagination that wecan understand the conception of surface, line and point.

Still students of geometry are taught as though these things have realphysical existence. It is done not to deceive the student, but to make iteasier for him to understand geometry.

Likewise, in chemistry, the student is taught that matter can neitherbe created nor destroyed. But it is just a stepping stone so that student

can understand further arguments.

Also, it is for this reason that chemistry students are taught separateconservation of matter and energy.But read the following quotation carefully: In classical mechanics,mass and energy are considered to be conserved separately; in atomic

and nuclear reactions, matter can be converted into energy and viceversa. . . So far as chemistry is concerned, the law of conservation ofmatter, that is, matter can neither be created nor destroyed, can beassumed to be true.

So you see, the theory that matter is eternal (it is neither created nordestroyed) is just an assumption for the purpose of simplifying thesubject for chemistry students.

It is a fact that matter changes into energy. So it is not a thingever-lasting nor is it a thing which does not change. Tus, we see thatmatter does not pass the test of eternity - it is not without end, and it isnot without change. And as it is supposed that energy can be changedinto matter, it is admitted that matter has a beginning. So it is noteternal - it is not without beginning.


16/7910

It is assumed that when the matter changes into energy, it exists inthat orm, and, thus they try to prove that matter is ever-lasting.But what is Energy? It is Capacity o matter to perorm work as theresult o its motion or its position in relation to orces acting upon

it. So, the energy is not a thing having independent existence. It is anincorporeal thing, i.e., it depends upon a matter or substance or itsexistence. By its very definition, it cannot be ound except in a matter.As energy is a dependent thing, it cannot be an eternal thing.

7. T S

Now, it should be mentioned here that there are two hypotheses, i.e.,tentative theories, in science about the creation or beginning o theuniverse (Universe: All created or existing things).

Te first hypothesis, developed in 1948 by a trio o Britishastrophysicists, is called the Steady state theory. According to themthe universe has no beginning and no end; but as it expands, resh

matter is continuously created to fill up the new space.

Now the Universe is a collection o matter; and they believe thatmatter is continually being created. In other words, the universe is acompound o created things. How can a collection o created thingsbe called Eternal (without beginning) is beyond credulity. In anycase, this theory itsel is now dead.

Te steady state theory was abandoned by astronomers in the late1960s . In 1965, cosmic background radiation (the aferglow o theBig Bang) strongly suggested that the universe began with a creationevent about 15 billion years ago. Tis Big Bang theory (which is nowgenerally accepted since 1980) says that all the material in theuniverse was ormerly concentrated in a sort o primeval (i.e.

ancient) atom; that the universe was created at one particular


17/7911

moment and that it will eventually die.

If this idea is correct then that primeval atom cannot be said to beeternal. A thing which dies, which comes to an end, cannot be, by any

stretch of imagination, said to be self-existent, ever-lasting or eternal.

Tus it is clear that, whatever view one takes matter cannot be provedto be eternal (without beginning and without end).

Now, that matter is believed to be constantly created afresh, is knownto change into energy, is known to need a shape and a place, is subject

to division and constant changes, can it be said that matter is eternalwhen all its qualities are those of ransient?Five atheists had a discussion with the Holy Prophet, at the end ofwhich the Holy Prophet told them:Tis universe is of such a nature that some of its parts aredependent on some other parts; they cannot exist without those

other parts, just as some parts of a structure depend upon otherparts for their strength and existence. And that whole universe is,in this respect like that building. Now, tell me, if that part (which isdependent upon other parts for its strength and existence) is eternalin spite of its dependence and need, then what would have been itsquality had it been just transient (possible, not eternal)?2

Yes. Let the atheists say what it would have been like if the matter werenot eternal?

8. M S L

Now, we come to the last three qualities mentioned in chapter 4. We

2 Al-abrisi,Al-Ihtijaj, vol.1, pg.25-26


18/7912

have already accepted the atheists notion that nothing comes out onothing. Now, we see in the universe a most intelligent design andpattern and a most perect coordination in this unparalleled system.And we see it teeming with lie. And, admittedly, matter has no lie,

and hence no power or knowledge.

Had the matter been the cause or source o the universe, the universewould have been without lie; it would have been without system andcoordination, because it could not give to universe what it did notpossess itsel. Is there still need to emphasize in so many words thatmatter cannot be considered as the source o universe?

9. T A

Here I give the translation o the discussion o the Holy Prophet withthe atheists, a part o which has been mentioned earlier:

Te Holy Prophet asked them: What is the reason o your belie that

the universe has neither beginning nor end and that these things arerom ever and will remain or ever?

Atheists: We believe only what we see. As we have not seen thebeginning o the universe, thereore we say that it has always existed,and as we have not seen its extinction, we say that it will remain orever.

Holy Prophet: Well, have you seen that the universe is withoutbeginning and without end?

Atheists:No, we have not seen its being without beginning nor havewe seen its being without end.

Holy Prophet: Ten how do you believe in its eternity? And why


19/7913

should your view be preerred to the view o that person who believesthe universe to be transient because he has not seen it being withoutbeginning or without end?

Ten afer some more arguments the Holy Prophet asked: Can youtell me whether the days (time) which have passed on this earth werefinite (limited) or infinite (limitless)? I you say that the time whichhas passed so ar was limitless, then how the later time came in i theormer did not pass away?And i you say that the time is finite (limited) then you will have to

admit that it is not eternal.

Atheists:Yes, it is finite.

Holy Prophet: Well, you were saying that universe is eternal, notcreated nor finite. Do you realize what is the implication o youradmission that time is finite? What were you denying? What have you

admitted?3

Atheists accepted that their belie was not correct.Incidentally, this argument o the Holy Prophet shows that timehas unbreakable relation with matter. Otherwise, he could not haveintroduced the element o time in the discussion about matter. Te

beauty o this can best be appreciated by only those who have studiedthe theory o Relativity.

10. S TTe most simple arguments o ancients on this topics are still valid, in

3 Al-abrisi,Al-Ihtijaj, vol.1, pg.25


20/7914

spite of all the complexity of the modern science.

An old woman was spinning yarn. Someone asked her why she didbelieve in God. She stopped her hand and the spindle stopped. She

said: You see, a simple spindle needs a hand to make it revolve. Canyou think that this sun, this moon, these stars, all this world moveswithout any guiding hand?4

Imam Ali ibn Abi alib (a.s) was asked for a proof of the existenceof the Almighty Designer. He replied: Te faeces of camel and ofdonkey lead one to conclude that such animals have passed that

way. Te traces of human feet indicate a mans trek. Do not thismagnicent universe, with all its sublimity and this lowly point (theearth) with all its solidity point to the existence of the Almighty Allah,the Sublime and the Omniscient?5

Once Abu Shakir ad-Dayasani (an atheist) came to Imam Jafaras-Sadiq (a.s) and asked him to guide him to the recognition of my

Supreme Lord. Te Imam asked him to take his seat. Tere arriveda small child with an egg in his hand. Te Imam (a.s), taking the eggfrom him, addressed Abu Shakir ad-Dayasani: Here is a mysteriousfortress enclosed within a hard shell, underneath which is a newrapping which covers molten silver (the albumen of the egg) andsome molten gold (the yellow yolk). Te molten gold does not getalloyed with the molten silver, nor does the molten silver get mixed

with the molten gold. (Yet both are semiuid and they should havemixed together on jerking.) Tey retain their separate states.

No artist comes out of it to say that he has made any changes therein,nor does any vitiating agent enter it to tell of any vitiation therein.

4Jamiu l-akhbar

5 Al-Majlisi, Biharu l-anwar, vol.3, p.55


21/7915

Nor is it known whether it is designed to produce a male or a emale.Pea-birds o florid colouration issue thererom. Do you think it has aDesigner (the Omniscient Creator)? Who has painted all this insideit? And how did the chick come about? Who designed all these

variegated hues, the eathers, the limbs, the paintings, the eet, thebeak, the wings, the eyes, the ears, the nose, the bowels, the crop, the

joints, etc., etc. seeing that no one entered it?Abu Shakir, according to the narration, was absorbed in his thoughtsor sometime with his head downcast and then suddenly proclaimed,I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, the one without peer,

and I bear witness that Muhammad (s.a.w.w) is His servant andprophet, and that you are Imam and Proo o Allah or His creation,and I turn away rom my erstwhile attitude.6

11. R DWhen Darwin first published his treatise Origin o Species in

1859, he stirred a thunderous opposition rom religious groups. Tereligious opposition was based, mainly, upon two actors:1. Darwin asserted - with convincing proos - that the universe was

not made in six days, as described in the Bible, but in a very verylong time with so many stages between the first state and thepresent orm; and

2. He denied - without any valid reason, o course - the need o aSupreme Being ( God) in the scheme o the universe.

Te Jews and Christians o that time believed in the six day-creationquite literally; they could not swallow the idea o the protracted

6 Ibid. pg.31-32


22/7916

creation easily. And so the conict between Christianity and Sciencereached its climax in the later hal o the 19thcentury.

But what about the Muslims?

Te Quran says that the skies and the earth were created in sixAiyam.7Te word Aiyam has two meanings: days and periods.Te Sunni commentators o Quran generally ollowed Kaab al-Ahbar, a ormer Jew converted to Islam in the days o second Caliph.It was but natural or him to explain the verses o Quran in the lighto his previous learning. So he imported every Jewish legend into

Islam. Tough the Quran was silent about the details, the Muslimsinterpreted the ayats in such a way that every detail o Genesis (othe Bible) was incorporated in the commentaries o Quran and thusbecame a part o Sunni religious belie.

But the Shia commentators rejected the idea o six-days-creationright rom the early days o Islam. According to them, Aiyam in

those verses meant Periods and not the days. For instance, see thecommentaries o Quran by Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi (diedsometime afer 919 A.D.) and Muhsin Faiz (died 1680 A.D.). Also seethe Dictionary o Quran and raditions, by ash-Shaykh Fakhruddinurayhi (d. 1676 A.D.). According to them the Quran says that theskies and the earth were created in six periods. (Or should we say insix stages!)Tereore, we, the Shias, have nothing against the theory o gradualCreation, which is embodied in the theory o evolution. More thanthat, ours is not a belated attempt o reinterpreting our religion - asChristians are doing now to cover the Christianitys deeat by thescience. We were thinking on this line one thousand years beoreDarwin.

7 Quran 7:54; 10:3


23/7917

But it must be mentioned here that the acceptance o gradualcreation does not mean that we endorse the hypothesis o evolution.Evolutionists claim that: (1) Living things change rom generationto generation producing descendants with new characteristics;

(2) Tis process has produced all the groups and kind o things nowliving as well as others now extinct; (3) All these different living thingsare related to each other.8

But, as was mentioned in Need of Religion there is not a singleossil-evidence to show that a member o lower species developedinto a higher species. It is or this reason that Dr. . N. ahmisian (a

physiologist or the Atomic Energy Commission) said: Scientistswho go about teaching that evolution is a act o lie are great conmen,and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. Inexplaining evolution we do not have one iota o act.9

It is one thing to say, as we say (and the ossils and scientic datasupport us) that God created this universe in stages and created the

things and living beings on earth one afer an other with time gaps inbetween; and quite another, as the Darwinisms or neo-Darwinismssay (and have no evidence to prove it) that the living things on thisearth developed rom non-living matter and that unicellularorganisms developed stage by stage to become a human being.

12. W T D W A

So much about the rst ground o the conict between religion andscience. Now we come to the second ground o the conict, thatis, the denial o God. Here we, the Shias, as well as other religious(and many scientists o the present generation) are totally against theDarwinism.

8 Te World Book Encyclopedia, 1966, vol.6, pg.330

9 Dr. . N. ahmisian: Te Frenso Bee. Aug. 20, 1959. p.1-B


24/7918

Here is our view in a ew sentences.Te whole deliberation on Evolution attempts to answer the questionHow the universe came into being? But it does not touch theother big question: By whom was it created? But Darwin and his

ollowers said that as they could explain the sequence o the creationand its working method, so it was automatically proved that therewas no God. It is just like saying, As I can explain the working o anautomobile and can guess the sequence o its manuacturing, so it isautomatically proved that there is no manuacturer o that car.

It may seem absurd as I have put it on paper here. But the more you

read their denial o God the more you will be reminded o this allacyin their arguments.Now let us look at one more allacy o atheism. It has already beenmentioned in previous chapters. But here it is repeated to completethe picture. Tey assert that thing cannot come out o nothing.Tereore, according to them, it is wrong to say that God created the

universe out o nothing. Tere must be a source o every thing. So,they believe that the Matter is eternal; and every thing is adevelopment o the eternal Matter.Tis line o argument goes straight until it reaches the stage wherebegins the phenomenon called lie. Nobody has ever succeeded insolving the mysteries o lie. Nobody knows where the lie came rom.

Having rejected the belie in God, the atheists are compelled to sayWe do not know; but the lie must have come rom the Matter. Now,Matter is lieless. I thing cannot come rom nothing, how can thelie come rom lieless?Not only this. Let us proceed urther. As they say, there must be asource or everything. And as everybody knows, the Matter is a thing.


25/7919

What was the source o Matter?

Tese phenomena o the universe cannot be explained withoutstopping at a certain point and believing that the universe began rom

it. Te atheist say that the Matter is that beginning point. But theMatter is lieless. So, the existence o lie cannot be explained bythis theory. And the Matter is senseless. Te existence o Sense andWisdom in the animals and human beings cannot be explained by it.

Tereore, i we are to have a satisactory theory or the existence othe universe as a whole, we have to accept that there is an Eternal

Being Who is the Source o Existence, the Source o Lie and theSource o Wisdom. Tat Being is God.

13. RUSSELLS ARGUMENTSWhy I Am Not A Christian is a collection o Bertrand Russellsessays and papers on religion and related subjects. Proessor Paul

Edwards, the editor o the book, says that these essays are perhaps themost moving and the most graceul presentation o the ree-thinkersposition since the days o Hume and Voltaire.

Tis statement, coupled with the name o Russell10, was enough tocompel one to study the book with high expectation o scholarlyand logical discourses on the subject o religion. Whether those

expectations were justified will be seen rom a ew commentsappended below:-

Te first thing which comes beore the eyes is the inconsistency o thearguments. Russell called himsel a ree-thinker, and during a debatewith Rev. F. C. Copleston,11he said that he was not an atheist but an

10 B. Russel, amous philosopher and mathematician, died 1970

11 in 1948


26/7920

agnostic.Te position o atheists is that non-existence o God can be proved.Te agnostics, on the other hand, say that man does not and can

not in the nature o things know anything about a spiritual existence,either o God or man or o any afer-death state. Tey assert thatmans only cognition can be o the phenomenal world (i.e., theworld which may be perceived by one o the five senses). Accordingto them, it does not mean that there may not be a noumenal entity(that is, an entity known through intellectual institution only) or soulbehind the phenomenal world.

Te agnostics repudiate even atheism or materialism on the groundthat these theories are dogmatic. Tey say that i you cannot know athing, you have no right to reject it. An agnostics one and only answerto all questions concerning soul, God or spiritual existence is that wedo not know and there are so ar no reasonable grounds or believingthat we shall ever know. In other words, man, being finite, can never

comprehend Infinite.Rev. Copleston had asked Russell at the beginning o their debate(in 1948): Perhaps you would tell me i your position is that oagnosticism or o atheism. I mean, would you say that the non-existence o God can be proved? Russell replied: No, I should notsay that; my position is agnostic.

I Russell believed in agnosticism, then his only answer about allquestions concerning God, or lie afer death should have been Ido not know. Instead, he declares right on the jacket o the book, Ibelieve that when I die I shall rot, and nothing o my ego will survive.

Another example: Russell says at the beginning o the preace:


27/7921

I think all the great religions o the world - Buddhism, Hinduism,Christianity, Islam and Communism - both untrue and harmul. It isevident as a matter o logic that, since they disagree, not more thanone o them can be true.

Afer this statement, one would expect him to look at each o theabove religions in turn to prove why even one o them was not true.But he did not eel obliged in any o his essays to bring this argumentto its logical end. He just said that, since they disagree, not more thanone o them can be true, and then arbitrarily concluded that not evenone o them was true!

Tis type o inconsistency goes on rom essay to essay; and onefinishes the book with a eeling that i these essays would have beenwritten by a lesser being than Russell, the publishers would not havedeigned to publish them.Te first article Why I Am Not A Christian was delivered as a lecture

in 1927; Russell has tried in this lecture to repudiate the arguments oChurch or the existence o God.

He says:Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument othe First Cause. (It is maintained that every thing we see in this worldhas a cause, and as you go back in the chain o causes urther and

urther you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause yougive the name o God.) I may say that when I was a young man andwas debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I or a longtime accepted the argument o the First Cause, until one day, at theage o 18, I read John Stuart Mills Autobiography12and I there oundthis sentence: My ather taught me that the question, Who made

12 J. S. Mill, died in 1873


28/7922

me? cannot be answered since it immediately suggests the urtherquestion, Who made God? Tat very simple sentence showed me,as I still think, the allacy in the argument o the First Cause.

Now, Russell has, perhaps unwittingly, misquoted the argumentso believers. o reresh the memory, the reader is advised to readagain Chapter 2 and 3 o this book. Tere he will find, inter alia, theollowing sentences: As every thing in this universe alls under thecategory o Mumkinul-Wujud (ransient), it has equal relationwith existence and non-existence. Once these things did not exist;now they exist; sometime in uture they will cease to exist. By their

nature, they cannot demand to exist or to cease to exist. Tereore,there MUS be a source or cause to bring them to existence or toterminate their existence.

And then comes the important point which Russell has missed. Tepoint is that that source or cause should not itsel be just ransient.Otherwise it will itsel need a source or cause to bring it into

existence. And this chain o cause and effect MUS stop on a causewhich needs no outside source or cause or its existence. It means thatthe final source or cause o this universe MUS be Sel-existent.

I one compares the Islamic version o the argument o Te FirstCause (as given in this book) with the version o the Church aspresented by Russell at the beginning, one finds two important

differences.He said: Everything we see in this world has a cause. But he shouldhave said: Everything we see in this world is transient and as suchmust have a cause or its existence.

Again, he said: As you go back in the chain o causes urther and


29/79


30/7924

times cease to exist. So there is nothing in their essence, in theirnature, to demand existence. If they exist, it must be because of a handwhich tilted the scale in favour of existence; if they cease to exist itmust be because that hand has now tipped the scale towards non-

existence.

Russell: Nor there is any reason why it (the world) should not havealways existed.

Te claim that the world may have always existed is refuted by allprevalant theories of science: Tis is quite apart from the fact that a

collection of transient things could not exist always.Te reader should read Chapter 7 again, where he will nd thatwhatever view one takes, matter cannot be proved to be eternal(without beginning and without end).

Again he says: Tere is no reason why the world could not have come

into being without a cause.

Before commenting further on this sentence, let me quote his words(from the same article) where he refutes the idea that there is anynatural law. He writes:Tere is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will getdouble sixes only once in thirty six times, and we do not regard that

as evidence that the fall of dice is regulated by design; on the contrary,if the double sixes came every time, we should think that there wasdesign.Here Russell admits that if events appeared in the same sequenceagain and again it would be a proof that there was design. Now,one wonders why he did not spare a few moments looking at the


31/7925

well-planned and superbly-executed movements o the galaxies,stars, planets and moons? Let us suppose that there is someone inouter space who has never heard about earth or human beings. Tenone day he sees a space-ship streaking past and afer some time

another one, and then another one. O course, their paths are not thesame, and the gap between their appearances is not systematic so thatit might be measured and estimated in advance. But he knows thateach space-ship contains thousands o parts which are well connectedto each other and together they orm a superbly effecient apparatus.

What would Russel think o him i he were to declare that those

space-ships had come into being without a creator?And how strongly would he have condemned the arrogance o thatinhabitant o outer space, i all the space-ships would have been wellregulated in their paths and requency?

And, remember that those space-ships have no connection with each

other. Compare that with this universe o uncounted millions ogalaxies, each having millions o solar systems, each systemcontaining numerous planets, and the planets having their variousmoons etc.

And all o them bound together in the chain o gravity, eachinuencing its neighbour, and in turn being inuenced by it. And

then think that Mr. Russell says that it was not proo o any design.Frank Allen, ormer proessor o Biophysics in University oManitoba, Canada, writes in his articles: Te Origin of the World: ByChance or Design:-I in the origin o lie there was no design, then living matter musthave arisen by chance. Now chance, or probability as it is termed, is


32/7926

a highly developed mathematical theory which applies to that vastrange o knowledge that are beyond absolute certainty. Tis theoryputs us in possession o the soundest principles on which todiscriminate truth rom error, and to calculate the likelihood o the

occurrence o and particular orm o an event.Proteins are the essential constituents o all living cells, and theyconsist o the five elements, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen andsulphur, with possibly 40,000 atoms in the ponderous molecule. Asthere are 92 chemical elements in Nature, all distributed at random,the chance that these five elements may come together to orm the

molecule, the quantity o matter that must be continually shakenup, and the length o time necessary to finish this task, can all becalculated. A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugen Guye,13has madethe computation and finds that the odds against such an occurenceare 10160 to 1, or only one chance in 10160, that is, 10 multiplied byitsel 160 times, a number ar too large to be expressed in words.14Teamount o matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule

o protein would be millions o times greater than that in the wholeuniverse. For it to occur on the earth alone would require many,almost endless billions (10243) o years.15

Proteins are made rom long chains called amino acids. Te way thoseare put together matters enormously. I in the wrong way they will notsustain lie and may be poisons. Proessor J. B. Leathes (England) has

calculated that the links in the chain o quite a simple protein could beput together in millions o ways (1048).16 It is impossible or all thesechances to have coincided to build one molecule o protein.

13 Quoted by V. H. Mottran in the Organ Corporation, Liner, April, 22nd1948.14 o write this number, you will have to add 160 zeros afer one.15 For this number, write 243 zeros afer one.

16 Tat is 48 zeros written afer number 1.


33/7927

But there are incalculable billions o molecules o protein inonly one human body, let alone the whole earth. Tey are createdsystematically and still Russell clings to his theory o chance!

Frank Allen goes on to say:But proteins as chemicals are without lie. It is only where themysterious lie comes into them that they live. Only Infinite Mind,that is God, could have oreseen that such a molecule could be theabode o lie, could have constructed it, and made it live.Russell has endeavoured to challenge this argument in these words:

You all know the argument rom design: everything in the world ismade just so that we can manage to live in the world, and i the worldwas ever so little different we could not manage to live in it. Tat is theargument rom design. It sometimes takes a rather curious orm; orinstance, it is argued that rabbits have white tails in order to be easy toshoot. I do not know how rabbits would view that application. It is aneasy argument to parody. You all know Voltaires remark, that

obviously the nose was designed to be such as to fit spectacles. Tatsort o parody has turned out to be not nearly so wide o the markas it might have seemed in the eighteenth century, because since thetime o Darwin we understand much better why living creatures areadapted to their environment. It is not that their environment wasmade to be suitable to them, but they grew to be suitable to it, andthat is the basis o adaption. Tere is no evidence o design about it.

Let us suppose, or the time being, that the living creatures adaptedthemselves to their environment. But was Russell really blind to theact that long long beore the living creatures came on this earth,this earth, its atmosphere, its whole structure, together with itsrelations with sun and other planets and moon had been made insuch a way that the lie became possible at all. Does he want us to


34/7928

believe that the living things, that is, the animals and man, beoretheir own existence, influenced the whole system o universe ingeneral, and that o this earth in particular, so that they might be bornhere untold millions o year in uture?

Frank Allen writes in the same article:Te adjustments o the earth or lie are ar too numerous to beaccounted or by chance. First, the earth is a sphere reely poised inspace in daily rotation on its polar axis, giving the alternation o dayand night, and in yearly revolution around the sun. Tese motionsgive stability to its orientation in space, and, coupled with the

inclination (23 degrees) o the polar axis to the place o its revolution(the ecliptic), affords regularity to the seasons, thus doubling thehabitable area o the earth and providing a greater diversity o plantlie than a stationary globe could sustain.Secondly, the atmosphere o lie-supporting gases is sufficientlyhigh (about 500 miles) and dense to blanket the earth against the

deadly impact o twenty million meteors that daily enter it at speedso about thirty miles per second. Among many other unctions theatmosphere also maintains the temperature within sae limits or lie;and carries the vital supply o resh water-vapour ar inland rom theoceans to irrigate the earth, without which it would become a lielessdesert. Tus the oceans, with the atmosphere, are the balance-wheelo Nature.

Four remarkable properties o water, its power o absorbing vastquantities o oxygen at low temperatures, its maximum density at 4degrees C above reezing whereby lakes and rivers remain liquid, thelesser density o ice than water so that it remains on the surace, andthe power o releasing great quantities o heat as it reezes, preservelie in oceans, lakes and rivers throughout the long winters.


35/7929

Te dry land is a stable platorm or much terrestrial lie. Te soilprovides the minerals which plant lie assimilates and transorms intoneedul oods or animals. Te presence o metals near the suracerenders the arts o civilization possible.

Te diminutive size o the earth compared with the immensity ospace is sometimes disparagingly reerred to. I the earth were as smallas the moon, i one-ourth its present diameter, the orce o gravity(one sixth that o the earth) would ail to hold both atmosphere andwater, and temperatures would be atally extreme. I double itspresent diameter, the enlarged earth would have our times its

present surace and twice its orce o gravity, the atmosphere wouldbe dangerously reduced in height, and its pressure would be increasedrom 15 to 30 pounds per square inch, with serious repercussionsupon lie. Te winter areas would be greatly increased and the regionso habitability would be seriously diminished. Communities opeople would be isolated, travel and communication rendereddifficult or almost impossible.

I our earth were o the size o the sun, but retaining its density,gravity would be 150 times as great, the atmosphere diminishedto about our miles in height, evaporation o water renderedimposssible, and pressures increased to over a ton per square inch.A one-pound animal would weigh 150 pounds, and human beingsreduced in size to that o say, a squirrel. Intellectual lie would be

impossible to such creatures.

I the earth were removed to double its present distance rom thesun, the heat received would be reduced to one-ourth o its presentamount, the orbital velocity would be only one-hal, the winterseason would be doubled in length and lie would be rozen out. Iits solar distance were halved, the heat received would be our times as


36/7930

great, the orbital velocity would be doubled, seasons would be halvedin length, if changes could even be effected, and the planet would betoo parched to sustain life. In size and distance from the sun, and inorbital velocity, the earth is able to sustain life, so that mankind can

enjoy physical, intellectual and spiritual life as it now prevails.

15. T S C A

As was mentioned earlier, Russell claimed to be an agnostic. If we takethat claim on its face-value, then the best and safest course for himwould have been to believe in a Creator and Day of Judgement.

Here is a tradition of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (a.s):Ibn Abi al-Awja and Ibn al-Muqaffa were sitting in Masjidul-Haramat the time of pilgrimage, with some of their fellow atheists. (Teypretended to be Muslims just to save their skins; but were alwaysopenly arguing against the belief in God.) Ibn al-Muqaffa said

pointing towards the space around Kabah: Do you see this mob?Tere is none among them who may be called human being exceptthat old man (i.e., Imam Jafar as-Sadiq -(a.s)). As for the others, theyare just cattles and animals.

Ibn Abi al-Awja asked how could he say such a thing?Ibn al-Muqaffa said: Because I found with him (the virtues andknowledge) which I did not nd anywhere else.Ibn Abi al-Awja said: Now it is necessary to test whether what yousay is true.

Ibn al-Muqaffa tried to dissuade him from it. But Ibn Abi al-Awja


37/7931

went to the Imam (a.s). He came back afer sometime and said: OIbn al Muqaffa, he is not just human being. I there were in this worlda spiritual thing. . . which becomes a body i wishes so, and turns intoa spirit i wants so, then it is he.

Ibn al-Muqaffa said: How come?

Ibn Abi al-Awja said: I sat near him. When all others went away, hestarted talking (without my asking anything) and said:I the act is as they believe and it is as they (that is, the pilgrims) say,then they would be saved and you would be in trouble. And i the act

is as you (atheists) say, and not as they say, then you and they bothwould be equal (and no harm would come to anybody).

I said: May Allah have mercy on you, what is it which we say andwhat is it which they say? My belie and their belie is but one.

Imam (a.s) said: How could your belie and their belie be the same?

Tey say that there is to be resurrection, and reward and punishment;and they believe that there is a God. (And you do not believe it).17

Imam (a.s) meant that i there was in reality no God and no Dayo Judgement, as Ibn Abi al-Awja said, then the believers and non-believers will be in the same position afer death. Both will perish orever and nobody would suffer or his belie or dis-belie. On the other

hand, i there is a God and a Day o Judgement, as the believers say,then afer death the believers would be saved and would be blessed,while the atheists and non-believers would have to suffer. Tereore,it is the dictate o wisdom to have Faith and Belie in God and Day oJudgement, to save onesel rom the possibility o disgrace and eternalpunishment.

17 Al-Majlisi, Biharu l-anwar, vol.3, p.42


38/7932

Te reader should also see the chapter Pascals Bet in Need ofReligion.

16. U: W O G

A unique pattern o the universe is emerging with the advent oscience. Tere was a time when the earth was considered to be thecentre o the universe; and the universe was confined within nineskies. Our fifh Imam, Hazrat Muhammad al-Baqir (a.s) explainedto his companions that there were inumerable worlds besides whatthey knew about. But, strangely, the Muslims ignored his teachings

and ollowed the pagan philosophers, like Ptolemy, who thought andtaught that the earth was stationary and the heavenly bodies revolvedaround it. Consequently, the gate o knowledge remained shut againstthem or more than one thousand years. Ten came a time when thepeople explored the Solar system by the help o telescopes. So, theygave the Sun the pride o place. Now we know that our Solar systemis but an insignificant amily o Planets placed at the edge o the huge

galaxy which we call Milky Way.We see the moon rotating around the Earth, like a happy childdancing brightly around its mother. Tere are eight other planets,besides our Earth, in the solar amily; and five o them have gotsatellites o their own. Mars and Neptune have two moons each;Jupitor has twelve moons and satellites; Saturn has nine and Uranusfive moons. All the moons and satellites rotate around their planets.And all these planets, in turn, rotate around the sun, which may becalled the Head o Family.Now, let us trace back our steps, beore going urther.All these stars, planets and satellites are made o atoms. And atom


39/7933

itself is just a miniature solar system. Formerly it was believed thatatoms were immutable entities, i.e, they could not be divided.Now the atoms are known to have so many particles; the belief intheir indestructibility has been shattered away. Atoms consist of a

nucleus and a number of electrons. Te nucleus is built from simpleparticles: neutrons and protons. Te nucleus is located at the centreof the atom and is surrounded by electrons. It should be mentionedhere, to make the picture more clear, that the nucleus of an atom isa particle of very small radius, but of exceedingly great density. Inplain words, all the atomic mass (except a negligible fraction) isconcentrated in the nucleus, while the size of the nucleus is less

than one hundred thousandth of the size of atom. And dont forgetthat more than 100,000,000 atoms can be put side by side in onecentimetre. Now, as we have stated earlier, the atom is a world initself. Te Protons and Neutrons behave as though they were rotatingaround their own axis, like rotating tops. Teir spin suggests the ideaof an internal rotation.

Tus, we see that there is a single pattern of operation, right from thesmallest sub-atomic particles to the mighty solar system.

But this is not the end of the story.

As we have known, the sun, together with its family, is placed on thebrink of the Milky Way. If we could view the Milky Way from a vast

distance and see it as a whole, we should observe a rather at wheelof stars with spiral arms - something like the sparks of a Catherinewheel. It consists of many millions separate stars like our sun. Tissystem of stars is physically connected by gravitational forces andmoves through space as a whole. It is called a Galaxy.

If we think that our solar system is a family of stars, a galaxy may


40/7934

be called a very big tribe consisting o millions and millions o suchamilies.Te multitude o galaxies were unknown in the past. By about 1920

it was thought that there were at least 500,000 galaxies. Now, with theadvent o the powerul telescopes this number has risen to 100,000,000,and is being increased urther day by day. So ar as the eyes o camerasand telescopes can see, there are clusters and clusters o galaxies.Human knowledge, at present, is in its inancy. Nobody knows whatis beyond these galaxies. Nor we know much about the nature o their

movement. Quran says that Allah has decorated the nearest sky withthese lamps18(that is, the stars). So we know that until now, we havenot seen the end o even the first sky. And who knows what wondersare hidden beyond the first sky! You have not been given knowledgebut a little.19

So, let us confine our talks to the little we know about. We know that

the particles o atoms are rotating around their axis; satellites arerotating around their planets; planets are rotating around their stars;and stars along with their dependant amilies, are rotating in thegalaxies.

Our aith in the Unity o God is HE PURES in the world. We havegiven countless proos o our belie in the last ourteen centuries. Now

the science has opened a new path, which, also, leads to the belie inthe Unity o God. It may be described briefly, in these words: Teuniorm pattern o the universe is an indisputable proo that all thishas been made by one, and only one, Creator.

18 Quran 67:5

19 Quran 17:85


41/7935

When we see two identical watches, we need not be told that they aremade in the same factory. On the same ground, when we see all theuniverse woven into a single entity; all its components governed bythe same laws, all its parts operating on the same pattern, our natural

instinct guides us to believe that it is created, made and controlled byONE and ONLY ONE CREAOR.

And there is a great difference between the watches and the universe.Watches may be imitated or duplicated by imposters and forgerers.But, as the scientists say, by denition there is only one universe.One CANNO repeat it or do experiments with it. So, we need not

bother ourselves with thought of any imitation-gods. If the universe- the thing MADE - cannot be more than one, HOW ALLAH - HEMAKER - can be more than ONE?Now we should have a look at living things. Tere also we see thesame uniformity of design in bone-structure. It is quite amusing tosee the atheists use this uniformity to prove that there is no God. Tey

say that Because all the living beings are developed systematicallyand because, for instance, the skeletons of Gibbons, Orangutans,Chimpanzees, Gorillas, and Man are quite similar in construction, itis proved that they have not been made by any Creator.Suppose there had been no system in the universe nor in the structureof living beings and they had used that lack of method against the

existence of any Creator, it could have made sense. But astonishinglyenough, they are using the unique and perfect system of the universeand the living beings against the Omniscient and Omnipotent God.Any body can see the absurdity of this argument. Because theperfectness of the universe is an irrefutable proof that it has not beenmade by a blind and senseless nature. Ironically enough, they areusing an argument which is basically against their claim.


42/7936

Darwinists may use this single and uniorm pattern o Creationagainst those who believe that different things were created bydifferent gods. Tey may use it against those who say that, orinstance, cow was created by a good-natured creator and snake was

made by another bad-natured god. But how can they use it againstthe belie o One Creator Who created all the things according to Hisown systematic plan?

It is quite obvious that Darwin ailed in drawing the conclusion. Hecould not see the Eternal ruth, which his evidence was pointingat. Te evidence, gathered by him, is crying out loudly that all the

universe, living or without lie, has been created by ONE and onlyONE, ALLAH, Who is Omnipotent and Omniscient.

17. S R W S B G(Tis article o Mr. A. Cressy Morrison, ormer President o theNew York Academy o Sciences, first appeared in the Readers Digest

(January 1948); then on recommendation o Proessor C. A.Coulson, F.R.S., Proessor o Mathematics at Oxord University, wasrepublished in the Readers Digest (Novermber, 1960). It shows howthe science compels the scientists to admit the essential need o aSupreme Creator.)We are still in the dawn o the scientific age and every increase o

light reveals more brightly the handiwork o an intelligent Creator. Inthe ninety years since Darwin we have made stupendous discoveries;with a spirit o scientific humility and o aith grounded in knowledgewe are approaching even nearer to an awareness o God.For mysel, I count seven reasons or my aith:


43/7937

First: By unwavering mathematical law we can prove that ouruniverse was designed and executed by a great engineeringIntelligence.

Suppose you put ten coins, marked rom one to ten, into your pocketand give them a good shuffle. Now try to take them out insequence rom one to ten, putting back the coin each time andshaking them all again. Mathematically we know that your chanceo first drawing number one is one in ten; o drawing one and twoin succession, one in hundred; o drawing one, two and three insuccession, one in a thousand, and so on; your chance o drawing

them all, rom one to number ten in succession, would reach theunbelievable figure o one chance in ten thousand million.

By the same reasoning, so many exacting conditions are necessary orlie on earth that they could not possibly exist in proper relationshipby chance.

Te earth rotates on its axis at one thousand miles an hour; i it turnedat one hundred miles an hour, our days and nights would be ten timesas long as now, and the hot sun would then burn up our vegetationduring each long day while in the long night any surviving sproutwould reeze.Again, the sun, source o our lie, has a surace temperature o 12,000

degrees Fahrenheit, and our earth is just ar enough away so that thiseternal fire warms us just enough and not too much! I the sun gaveoff only one hal its present radiation, we would reeze, and i it gavehal as much more, we would roast.

Te slant o the earth, tilted at an angle o 23 degrees, gives us ourseasons; i it had not been so tilted, vapours rom the ocean would


44/7938

move north and south, piling up or us continents o ice. I our moonwas, say, only fy thousand miles away instead o its actual distance,our tides would be so enormous that twice a day all continents wouldbe submerged; even the mountains would soon be eroded away. I the

crust o the earth had been only ten eet thicker, there would be nooxygen without which animal lie must die. Had the ocean been a eweet deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygen would have been absorbedand no vegetable lie could exist. Or i our atmosphere had beenthinner, some o the meteors, now burned in space by the millionevery day, would be striking all parts o the earth, starting reseverywhere.

Because o these, and host o other examples, there is not one chancein millions that lie on our planet is an accident.Second: Te resourceulness o lie to accomplish its purpose is amaniestation o all-pervading intelligence.

What lie itsel is no man has athomed. It has neither weight nordimensions, but it does have orce; a growing root will crack a rock.Lie has conquered water, land and air, mastering the elements,compelling them to dissolve and reorm their combinations.Lie, the sculptor, shapes all living things; an artist, it designs everylea o every tree, and colours every ower. Lie is a musician and

has each bird sing its love songs, the insects to call each other in themusic o their multitudinous sounds. Lie is a sublime chemist, givingtaste to ruits and spices, and perume to the rose, changing water andcarbonic acid into sugar and wood and, in so doing, releasing oxygenthat animals may have the breath o lie.

Behold an almost invisible drop o protoplasm, transparent and jelly-


45/7939

like, capable o motion, drawing energy rom the sun. Tis single cell,this transparent mistlike droplet, holds within itsel the germ o lie,and has the power to distribute this lie to every living thing, greatand small. Te powers o this droplet are greater than our vegetation

and animals and people, or all lie came rom it. Nature did not createlie; fire-blistered rocks and a saltless sea could not meet the necessaryrequirements.

Who, then, has put it here?Tird: Animal wisdom speaks irresistibly o a good Creator who

inused instinct into otherwise helpless little creatures.

Te young salmon spends years at sea, then comes back to his ownriver, and travels up the very side o the river into which flows thetributary where he was born. What brings him back so precisely? Iyou transer him to another tributary he will know at once that he isoff his course and he will fight his way down and back to the main

stream and then turn up against the current to finish his destiny moreaccurately.Even more difficult to solve is the mystery o eels. Tese amazingcreatures migrate at maturity rom all ponds and rivers everywhere- those rom Europe across thousands o miles o ocean - all boundor the same abysmal deeps near Bermuda. Tere they breed and die.

Te little ones, with no apparent means o knowing anything exceptthat they are in a wilderness o water, nevertheless find their wayback not only to the very shore rom which their parents came butthence to the rivers, lakes or little ponds so that each body o water isalways populated with eels. No American eel has ever been caught inEurope, no European eel in American waters. Nature has evendelayed the maturity o the European eel by a year or more to make


46/7940

up or its longer journey. Where does the directing impulse originate?A wasp will overpower a grasshopper, dig a hole in the earth, stingthe grasshopper in exactly the right place so that he does not die but

becomes unconscious and lives on as a orm o preserved meat. Tenthe wasp will lay her eggs handily so that her children when they hatchcan nibble without killing the insect on which they eed; to them deadmeat would be atal. Te mother then flies away and dies; she neversees her young. Surely the wasp must have done all this right the firsttime and every time, or else there would be no wasp. Such mysterioustechniques cannot be explained by adaption; they were bestowed.

Fourth:Man has something more than animal instinct the powero reason.

No other animal has ever lef a record o its ability to count ten oreven to understand the meaning o ten. Where instinct is like a singlenote o a flute, beautiul but limited, the human brain contains all the

notes o all the instruments in the orchestra. No need to belabour thisourth point; thanks to the human reason we can contemplate thepossibility that we are what we are only because we have received aspark o universal intelligence.Fifh: Provision or all living is revealed in phenomena which weknow today but which Darwin did not know - such as the wonders

o genes. So unspeakably tiny are these genes that, i all o themresponsible or all living people in the world could be put in one place,there would be less than a thimbleul. Yet these ultra-microscopicgenes and their companions, the chromosomes, inhabit every livingcell and are the absolute keys to all human, animal and vegetablecharacteristics. A thimble is a small place in which to put all theindividual characteristics o two thousand million human beings.


47/7941

However, the acts are beyond question. Well then, how do geneslock up all the normal heredity o a multitude o ancestors andpreserve the psychology o each in such an infinitely small place?Here evolution really begins - at the cell, the entity which holds

and carries genes. How a ew million atoms, locked up as an ultra-microscopic gene, can absolutely rule all on earth is an example oproound cunning and provision that could emanate only rom aCreative Intelligence no other hypothesis will serve.Sixth:By the economy o nature, we are orced to realize that onlyinfinite wisdom could have oreseen and prepared with such astute

husbandry.

Many years ago a species o cactus was planted in Australia as aprotective ence. Having no insect enemies in Australia the cactussoon begun a prodigious growth; the alarming abundance persisteduntil the plants covered an area as long and wide as England,crowding inhabitants out o the towns and villages, and destroying

their arms. Seeking a deence, the entomologists scoured the world;finally they turned up an insect which exclusively eeds on cactus,and would eat nothing else. It would breed reely too; and it had noenemies in Australia. So animal soon conquered vegetable and todaythe cactus pest has retreated, and with it all but a small protectiveresidue o the insects enough to hold the cactus in check or ever.

Such checks and balances have been universelly provided. Why havenot ast-breeding insects dominated the earth? Because they have nolungs such as man possesses; they breathe through tubes. But wheninsects grow large, their tubes do not grow in ratio to the increasingsize o the body. Hence there has never been an insect o great size;this limitation on growth has held them all in check.


48/7942

I this physical check had not been provided, man could not exist.Imagine meeting a hornet as big as a lion!Seventh: Te act that man conceive the idea o God is in itsel a

unique proo.

Te conception o god rises rom a divine aculty o man, unsharedwith the rest o our world - the aculty we call imagination. By itspower, man and man alone can find the evidence o things unseen.Te vista that power opens up is unbounded; indeed, as man isperected imagination becomes a spiritual reality. He may discern in

all the evidence o design and purpose the great truth that heaven iswherever and whatever is; that God is everywhere and in everything,but nowhere so close as in our hearts.

It is scientifically as well as imaginatively true; in the words o thepsalmist: Te heavens declare the glory o God and the firmamentsheweth His handiwork.


49/79

GOD:A I P

P T:O G


50/7944

18. M ONow that our talk is going to be centered on the theme God is One,let us clariy what we mean by One in this sentence.

Te word One in our daily conversation conveys any o theollowing meanings:1. Man and Horse are one (because both are mammals). Here

one describes that both man and horse belong to the samegenus.

2. Bakr and Smith are one. One here shows that both are o thesame species.3. You say pointing to two carpenters that they are one. Here one

means that both have the same proession, or the same adjectivecan be used or both.

4. Churchill was an orator, writer, soldier and statesman. You maysay that his oratory, penmanship, soldiership and statesmanship

were one, because they were combined in one person.5. One pint milk and one pint water are one, because both have thesame quantity.

6. Hot milk and hot water are one, because both are in the samecondition.

7. John and Smith are standing. You may say Tey are one, becauseboth are in the same position.

8. Khalid has two sons, Bakr and Umar. Bakr and Umar are one,because they have the same relation with Khalid.9. A human-body or a chair is one because its components or parts

are joined together. (But i the parts are disjoined or disintegrated,this one will become millions.)

10. Te beginning o counting is called one, as the beginning otheoretical line is called point. Tis one is ollowed by countless

numbers.


51/7945

11. A matchless or unique person or thing is called one, as, orexample, we may say that the sun within our solar system is onebecause it has no equal within this system.

But all these meanings o Unity carry the idea o duality orplurality, because meanings Nos. 1 to 9 show that two or morethings are one in some respect. So two or more are always presentin these meanings.

One as beginning o number or count presupposes more than onething.

A unique thing may be called one, but it is just a metaphorical usewhich has no relation with reality, because that unique thing, beingmade o matter, has millions o parts - is not one.

When we say God is One, we take none o these meanings inconsideration. Unity o God means that He has no parts, no body; He

is not divisible even in imagination.

19. G C M T OGod cannot be more than one. Why this bold assertion? Tere are

various reasons. In addition to some o the proos given earlier, hereare two more: -First Proo:It has been proved earlier that God is Eternal. And alsoit has been proved that Eternal cannot be a compound, mixture ormixed thing.Now suppose there are two identical pens. Tey are similar inshape, size, colour and all qualities. Still, they are two, each having a


52/7946

separate identity. So, each pen has two kinds o qualities: first, thecommon qualities which make one pen similar to the other; second,the distinguishing qualities which give each pen its separate entityand identity. In other words, each pen o the set is a compound o

mixed lot o two separate properties.

Tis happens in all examples where two similar things exist side byside. It would surely happen i two Eternals were to exist side by side.It means that i there were two Eternals they would both becompound. Each would have a common quality, that is, Eternity; and

a distinguishing quality which would give it a separate personality.Tis would mean that Eternal would be a compound, which wealready have proved to be impossible.

Tereore, God being Eternal cannot be more than one.Second Proo: Suppose there were two gods. Could one o them

over-ride the decision o the other? I yes, then the second one isweaker than the first, and thereore is not omnipotent, not a god atall. I No, then the first one is weaker than the second, and thereorenot omnipotent, not a god at all.

And i both think and act exactly on similar lines, then what is theneed to suppose two gods at all? One god is enough to run this

universe!

20. M SShirk literally means partnership. In Islamic terminology, it is usedor the belie o polytheism (believing in more than one god) andpantheism, (believing that everything in the world is a part o god).


53/7947

Polytheism is ound in a variety o disguises. Some details are givenhere mostly rom the Urdu book Tawheed aur Adl (Unity and Justiceo God) o Mawlana Muhammad Mustaa Jawhar o Karachi:

Tere is some difference o opinion about oneness o God. Forexample:1. Some say that God is not alone in Eternity. He has some

colleagues in His Eternity. As, or instance, Christians believethat Jesus Christ and Holy Ghost are partners o God in godship- and it is evident that they could not be said to be partners in

godship unless they themselves were believed to be eternal.

And the believers in transmigration o soul believe that matter andsoul both were eternal like God. I they discard the belie o theeternity o matter and soul, they will have to discard the belie o thetransmigration o soul also.

2. Resulting rom the above belie, is the belie that there arepartners in the attributes and qualities o God, as Christiansbelieve about Jesus Christ. Because i Jesus Christ was not sharingthe attributes and qualities o godhead, he could not be called agod.

3. Some groups believe that there were partners in the actions o

God, i.e., they were his helpers or partners in creation and controlo the universe, as the Greek philosophers believed in tenintellects who created the whole universe.

4. Some people believe and say that God has no partner in hiseternity, qualities and actions, but he has partners in worship.Such people are mainly called mushrik in the Quranic

terminology.


54/7948

Such mushriks were the idol-worshippers of Arabia and theirideology is shared by the idol-worshippers in India and other places.

5. Te last group is of those people who thought that God has no

partner in his Eternity, attributes, actions and worship; but theybelieved themselves to be independent of Allah in their actions.Such was the case of al-Qadiriyyah (Qadirites) in Islam, whosaid that Allah had no power over mans actions. Such beliefmeans that man is not dependent upon Allah; rather he shares inthe authority of Allah concerning his own activities.1

Tus there are ve types of shirk:1. Shirk in the Person and Eternity of God,2. Shirk in the Attributes of God,3. Shirk in the Action of God,4. Shirk in the Worship of God, and5. Shirk in the Authority of God.

All such beliefs are vehemently and clearly rejected and refuted in theQuran.

21. T H P -T

Chapter 7 and 9 contain a discussion of the Holy Prophet withatheists. It was a part of a great discussion in which 35 representativesof ve religions (Jews, Christians, Atheists, Dualists i.e Parsees, andPolytheists i.e Mushrikin) came to him and held discussions withhim. In the end all accepted the truth of Islam and became Muslims.

It is the beauty of the arguments put forward by the Holy Prophet that

1 Muhammad Mustafa Jauher, Tawheed aur Adl, Nahju l-Balagha ki Nazar se,

Karachi, pg. 6-8


55/7949

he explained highly philosophical subjects in such a simple languagethat even a layman could easily understand it. It is a master-piece ofWisdom and good preaching.

By the way, there are people who assert day in day out that the HolyProphet learned from Judaism and Christianity. Tis discussion is achallenge to them. Let them produce such irrefutable argument fromJewish and Christian literature of early centuries before Islam.

It will not be out of place to mention that these apparently simplearguments hold their ground even today and they are as much valid

today as they were 1,400 years ago.

Te discussion is narrated by Imam al-Hasan ibn Ali al-Askari (a.s)in his Tafseer and al-abrisi has copied it in his famous al-Ihtijaj;2it has been translated (with short comments) into Urdu by MaulanaMuhammad Mustafa Jauhar of Karachi and published twice. All threebooks are in my library.

Te Holy Prophet had started his talks with Jews, then went onconversing with Christians, atheists, dualists and lastly with idol-worshippers.

Because of the arrangement of this booklet the arguments againstatheists were given in the rst part. Now the remaining fourdiscussions are given here.

22. I JJews of Arabia in the days of Holy Prophet had lost their originalbeliefs. Being in touch with idol-worshippers and Christians, they

2 Al-abrisi,Al-Ihtijaj, vol.1, pg.22-28


56/7950

also had started the dogma o God having a son. As Uzayr3 hadre-written orah afer it had been lost or centuries, Jews revered him

very much and started the claim that Uzayr was son o God.

Te Holy Prophet asked them what was the reason o their belie.Tey said that Uzayr re-wrote orah or the children o Israel when itwas lost to them and it shows that he was son o God.Te Holy Prophet: Why Uzayr was son o God and Moses was not,as Moses brought orah rom God or the first time and bringing itfirst time is ar more important than rewriting it?

Moreover, Moses showed many miracles which Uzayr did notshow. Tereore, i Uzayr was son o God because God gave him thehonour o re-writing orah, Moses is ar more deserving to be the sono God.Also, I take it that by sonship you do not mean that relationship which

is established when a child is born rom the womb o his mother aferhis parents establish sexual intercourse.

Jews confirmed it, saying that when they said that Uzayr was sono God, they did not mean sonship by birth, but because o hishonour with God. It has the same meaning as many teachers call theiravourite pupil my son.Te Holy Prophet said that he already had answered that argumentwhen he said that by that standard Moses was more deserving to becalled the son o God.

And so ar as the example o an elder calling some unrelated youth asmy son is concerned, let us look at such uses a bit urther.

3 Uzayr = Esdras or Ezra in English


57/7951

You must have seen that the same elder, while showing respect tosome great scholar, calls him my brother or my elder or my chie or even my ather.

Basing on such usage, will you say that Moses (who was morehonoured than Uzayr beore God) should be called Brother o Godor Elder o God or Chie o God?

Te Jews could not answer it and afer some deliberation acceptedIslam.4

23. U TChristians had expressed their belie that God is one with Jesus andthat Jesus was son o God.

Te Holy Prophet asked them what they meant by saying that eternalGod is one with his son Jesus?

Do you mean that the eternal (that is, God) became mortal as Jesuswas?I you say so, it is impossible that eternal which has neitherbeginning nor end should become mortal, which has both beginningand end. Or do you mean that mortal (Jesus) became eternal as God

is?

But this also is impossible, because how can a thing which wascreated afer non-existence be eternal ?

Or do you mean by this sentence (God is one with Jesus) that Godgave Jesus honour which was not given to anyone else?

4 Ibid. pg.23


58/7952

I so, then you will have to accept that Jesus was not eternal, as hewas created; and that his quality o getting honour rom God is alsonot eternal, because he got it afer his being created. And in that case,Jesus cannot be one with God because eternal and transient cannot

combine together.

Christians: When God showed many wonderul miracles on thehand o Jesus, He made him His son as an honour.Te Holy Prophet drew their attention to what he had already toldJews on the subject o Uzayr and sonship o God, and repeated that

argument. Te Christians could not answer the arguments.

Ten afer some deliberation one o them said that the scriptures havereported Jesus as saying, I am going to my ather. (Tis argument isbased on the understanding that Jesus himsel claimed that God washis ather, and as the Holy Prophet accepted Jesus as a true prophet,his claim could not be wrong).

Te Holy Prophet said that the wording is I am going to my and yourather. It means that all persons in the whole audience were sons oGod in the same sense in which Jesus was son o God.

Further, this quotation reutes your claim that Jesus was son o Godbecause o the unique honour he had beore God, because, according

to your own belie, none among the audience had that honour andstill they were called the sons o God.

Afer some deliberation they became Muslim.5

5 Ibid. pg.24 - 25


59/7953

24. U DDualists (present days Parsees) believe that light and darkness arecreators and rulers o the universe. Te Holy Prophet asked them the

reason o this belie.

Tey said: We find two kinds o things in this world - good and evil.Tese are opposites and we believe that the creator o good cannotbe the creator o evil, and vice versa. Tese two opposites cannot beound together.

Dont you see that snow cannot give warmth and fire cannot makecool? Tat is why we believe two separate creators or good and eviland they are represented by light and darkness and both are eternal.Te Holy Prophet said: Pray tell me, have not you ound in this worlddifferent colours - black, white, red, yellow, green and blue? Is it nota act that none o these colours can be ound with another colour in

same place at same time?Dualists: Yes. No two o these colours can be ound in one place atsame time.

Te Holy Prophet said: Ten, according to your thinking, you mustbelieve that there is a separate creator or each one o these colours.

Te Dualists could not give any answer to that argument.

Ten the Holy Prophet asked them that light and darkness beingopposites, how did it happen that both joined hands in creation andtheir creatures (good and evil) are together in this world? Doesnt itmean that there is a Superior power who has brought these opposites

together?


60/79


61/7955

Te Holy Prophet said:1. Your belie that God was incarnated in anybody is absolutely

wrong because you have made the Creator like His creatures.Dont you see that God cannot be incarnated in anything unless

that thing surrounds God. (But how can anything surround God?)2. Also what will be the difference between God and other things

which are ound in a body (like colour, taste, smell, hardness orsofness, heaviness or lightness). All these things are ound inother things, and have no independent existence. Is God also likethis?

3. Lastly, when you attribute to God a quality (incarnation) which

is the quality o a transient (o a thing which was created afernon-existence), then why not believe that all qualities o atransient are ound in Him. I mean, you must also believe thatGod changes and deteriorates and dies, because the body o Hissupposed incarnation changes and deteriorates and dies. It isimpossible or the content not to change with the changes o thereceptacle!

All these considerations prove that it is impossible or God to beincarnated in any body.

And when incarnation is wrong, there remains no basis or yourbelie that God was incarnated in some o His creatures and that theseidols are the image o such persons.

Te second group said that those idols were the images o those opast generations who were very obedient to God. We carved theirimages and worship them with a view to gloriy God through theirworship.Te Holy Prophet asked them: Pray tell me what kind o worship


62/7956

have you saved or Almighty God, when you are worshipping theseimages by prostrating beore them, praying to them, and putting yourhead beore them?

Dont you know that it is the right o God that He should not bethought equal to His servant? I you honour a King in the same wayas you honour his servant, will not it be an insult to the King?Idol-worshippers: Yes. It is true.

Te Holy Prophet: Ten, dont you realize that by worshipping the

images o the creatures, you are insulting the Creator?

Te last group said: God creat

Documents

God : An Islamic Perspective