By

SAYYID SAEED AKHTAR RIZVI

TEHRAN -IRAN.

Revised edition 1398/1978Sixth edition 1418/1998

Published by:World Organization for Islamic Services,

P. 0. Box 11365-1545,Tehran - 15837,

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN.

In the Name of Allah,the Most Compassionate, the Merciful

Praise belongs to Allah, the Lord of all beings;the Most Compassionate, the Merciful;the Master of the Day of Judgement;

Thee only we serve, and to Thee alone we prayfor succour;

Guide us in the straight path;the path of those whom Thou hast blessed,

who are immune from Thy wrathand have never gone astray.

0' Allah send your blessings to the head ofyour messengers and the last of

your prophets, Muhammadand his pure and cleansed progeny.Also send your blessings to all your

prophets and envoys.

Dear Reader,

The book you now have in hand is one ofthe many Islamic publications distributed by thisOrganization throughout the world in differentlanguages with the aim of conveying the messageof Islam to the people of the world.

You may read this hook carefully andshould you be interested to have further studyon such publications you can contact us througha letter. Naturally, if we find you to be a keenand energetic reader we shall give you a deserv-ing response in sending you some other publi-cations of this Organization.

You may express your views on this pub-lication and the subject matter discussed init, and how far you have benefited from it orwhich part of the subject matter has proveduseful to you and your environment. You willbe able, in this manner, to introduce yourselfas one of our good and active reader.

Meanwhile, you can keep our address atthe disposal of your friends and those individ-uals interested in Islamic Studies.

Publication Secretary,

World Organization for Islamic Services( WOFIS)

CONTENTS

PART ONEPage

1. BELIEF IN GOD: A NATURAL INSTINCT . 72. TO BE OR NOT TO BE............... 83. BEGINNING POINT OF THE WORLD .... 124. ESSENTIAL QUALITIES OF THE ETERNAL. 145. IS MATTER ETERNAL? .............. 196. MATTER BEGINS AND ENDS.......... 207. TWO SUPPOSITIONS ................. 248. MATTER NOT THE SOURCE OF LIFE ..... 269. THEISM VS. ATHEISM ............... 27

10. SOME TALKS ...................... 3011. RELIGION VS. DARWINISM ........... 3312. WHERE THE DARWINISTS WENT ASTRAY. 3813. RUSSELL'S `ARGUMENTS............. 4114. CREATION BY CHANCE?

WITHOUT A CREATOR? .............. 5015. THE SAFEST COURSE FOR AGNOSTICS . 63

FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

PART TWO

PART THREE

1 6. UNIVERSE: WITNESS OF ONE ALLAH... 6717. SEVEN REASONS WHY A SCIENTIST

BELIEVES IN GOD.................. 76

18. MEANING OF "ONE.................. 9119. GOD CANNOT BE MORE THAN ONE.... 9420. MEANING OF "SHIRK................ 9721. THE HOLY PROPHET ON "AT-TAWHID . 10022. ISLAM VS. JUDAISM ............... 10223. UNITY VS. TRINITY ............... 1 0524. UNITY VS. DUALITY ............... 10825. UNITY VS. IDOL-WORSHIP. .......... 110

26. AT-TAWHID OF ISLAM.............. 12127. ATTRIBUTES OF ALLAH ............ 12428. NAMES OF ALLAH ................ 13029. AL-ASMAU'L-HUSNA (THE BEAUTIFUL

NAMES OF ALLAH)................ 13230. ATTRIBUTES OF PERSON AND ACTION. . 1 40

FOREWORD

This booklet was initially written for theBilal Muslim Mission of Tanzania by the re-nowned Muslim scholar Sayyid Saeed AkhtarRizvi as the second unit of the Islamic Corre-spondence Course. It deals with the first Articleof Faith namely at-tawhid or Divine Unity.

Since we found the booklet extremelyinteresting, and our first publication of 5,000copies was in such great dernand by interestedreaders, this issue was subsequently reprintedmore than ten times in large quantities formass circulation.

3

Now, in this reprinted edition, the authorhas completely revised the booklet and hasadded more facts and information to supporthis theory.

Finally, we invoke the Almighty Allah forguidance and success in our work.

World Organization for Islamic Services( WOFIS)

(Board of Writing, Translation and Publication)

Dhi'l-hijjah, 1398,November, 1978.Tehran - IRAN.

GOD Of ISLAM

Part One

1. BELIEF IN GOD: A Natural Instinct

BELIEF in God is as natural as any instinctcan be. An atheist asked Imam Ja'far as-Sadiqhow could he convince him about the existenceof God. Coming to know that the man had goneseveral times on sea voyages, Imam asked him"Have you ever been caught in a fierce storm inmiddle of nowhere, your rudder gone, your sailstorn away, trying desperately to keep your boatafloat?" The answer was `Yes'. Then Imamasked: "And sometimes perhaps even thatleaking boat went down leaving you exhaustedand helpless on the mercy of raging waves?"The answer was again `Yes'.

7

Then Imam asked: "Was not there, in allthat black despair, a glimmer of hope in yourheart that some unnamed and unknown powercould still save you?" When he agreed, Imamsaid: "That power is God."

That atheist was intelligent. He knew thetruth when he saw it.

2. TO BE OR NOT TO BE

We think about thousands and thousandsof things. We imagine a horse, a man, an aero-plane, the earth, a train and a book. We see thepictures of these things displayed on the screenof our imagination.

This is called `the existence in imagination'(wujud-i dhihni -

And also a horse, a man, an aeroplane,

8

the earth, a train or a book has its own existenceoutside our imagination. That is called 'exist-ence outside imagination.' This is the real exist-ence ( wujud-i khariji -

Sometimes, we imagine such ideas whichcan never be found outside our imagination. Wemay imagine `2 + 2 = 5.' But can 2 + 2 be 5 inreal existence? No. We may imagine that a thingexists and also does not exist at the same placeat the same time. But can this happen in theworld of reality? Certainly not.

Such imagined ideas which can never existin reality are called `impossible' (mumtani'u'l-wujud -

Also we imagine a man walking at a certaintime. Can this happen in reality? Remove allother ideas from your mind. Just look at the imagined picture of that man walking at a particu-lar time. Now say., is it necessary that that man

9

1 0

should be walking at that time? Or, on the otherside, is it impossible of him to be walking at thattime? The answer to both questions is `No'.Why? Because it is neither essential nor imposs-ible for any man to walk at a given time. He maybe walking; he may not be walking. So far as thereason and logic is concerned both his walkingand not walking are possible - possible, but notnecessary.

Such imagined ideas which have equal re-lation with existence and non-existence, arecalled `mumkinul-wujud' -Possible, or Transient. They may exist in reality;they may not exist. There is nothing in theirnature to demand this or that. So far as theirnature is concerned, `To be' and `Not to be'both are equal to them.

So far we have seen two categories of re-lationship between an imagined idea and itsexistence in reality.

1. Where that idea has equal relation withexistence and non-existence. It may exist;it may not exist. There is nothing in itsnature to prefer either side.

2. Where that idea can have absolutely norelation with existence. It, by its verynature is non-existence.

It will appear from above classification thatthere should be a third category which would beopposite of `Impossible' (mumtani`ul-wujud)mentioned in (2) above. This third category isof the idea which can have absolutely no rela-tion with non-existence. By its very definition,it is self-existent. Such an idea is called (wajibu'l-wujud -'Absolute Existence'.

Now the picture is complete.

`Essential Existence' or

II

1 2

3. BEGINNING POINT OF THE WORLD

There is much conflict between the pointsof views of atheists and those who believe in aSupreme-Being Who created the world. Still,there is one important point where both arein complete agreement.

Both agree that the basic source or cause ofthe universe is Eternal - has no beginning and noend; was always and will remain for ever. In otherwords, it is 'self-existent' or 'wajibu'l-wujud'.

The reason for this idea is very simple: Asevery thing in this universe falls under the cate-gory of `mumkinul-wujud' ` Transient,' it hasequal relation with existence and non-existence.Once these things did not exist; now they exist;sometime in future they will cease to exist. Bytheir nature, they cannot demand to exist or tocease to exist. Therefore, there must be a sourceor cause to bring them to existence or to termin-ate their existence.

1 3

And (it is the important point) thatsource or cause should not itself be just a` Transient'; otherwise it will itself need asource or cause to bring into existence. Andthis chain of cause and effect must stop on acause which needs no outside source or causefor its existence. It means that the final sourceor cause of bringing this universe into existencemust be 'self-existent.'

It is interesting to note that even theatheists accept this point, because they saythat nothing can come out of nothing, and,therefore, the basic source of existence mustbe eternal. It is from ever and wilI remain forever.

Now comes the first difference. The athe-ists say that that eternal source of existence is`Matter.' The believers say that that eternalsource of existence is God.

14

We will discuss it afterwards. Here it isenough to establish a common ground of belief,and that is the faith that the basic source orcause of the existence of the universe is Eternal- without beginning and without end.

4. ESSENTIAL QUALITIES OF THE ETERNAL

A.

By its very definition, Eternal is Self-exist-ent, it could never have been non-existentnor can it ever be terminated. In otherwords, it has no beginning - because if wesuppose for it a beginning we must admitthat it was non-existent before that begin-ning. But we already know that it couldnever have been non-existent.

Therefore, we must accept that the Eternalhas no beginning - it is ever-existent.

B.

By the same reason, it can have no end.

1 5

It is ever-lasting, because it can never benon-existent.

C. The Eternal must be self-sufficient. Inother words it should be above all needs;it should not be in need of anything.Because, if it needs anything, it will bedependent upon that thing. But by itsvery definition, . the Eternal does notdepend upon anything, as it is Self-exist-ent. In other words, the Eternal musthave absolute perfection.

D. The Eternal can be neither compoundnor mixture.

A compound or mixture depends for itsexistence upon its parts or components.As we accept that Eternal is Self-existent,we cannot admit that its existence dependsupon its components or parts.

1 6

Moreover, look at any mixture or com-pound. You will find that the componentsor parts existed before the resulting mix-ture or compound. As the Eternal has nobeginning, we cannot say that anythingpreceded it in existence. Otherwise, we willhave to imagine a beginning point for theEternal which is admittedly wrong.

E.

The Eternal can be neither a body nor asurface, neither a line nor a point.

A body, by its very nature, needs space tobe in. As we have already seen, the Eternalshould not be in need of anything. Itfollows that the Eternal cannot be a body.

In real existence, a surface needs a body;a line needs a surface; a point needs a line.Eternal needs nothing. Therefore, theEternal is neither a surface, line nor a point.Nor can it be anything which is found in a

1 7

body, like dimension, colour, smell, posi-tion, condition or other such things whichare called `incorporeal' (arad -in philosophical language, because suchthings depend on a substance or body fortheir existence - they are not self-existent.

F.

The Eternal should not be subject to anychange, because if that change be for better,it would mean that the Eternal before thatchange was not perfect, that is, it was inneed of something. But we have alreadysaid that the Eternal cannot need anything.

And if that change be for worse, it wouldmean that the Eternal is now in need ofsomething to make it perfect. And, as justexplained, it is not possible.

And if that change is just to the same levelof perfection, then what is the need or useof such a change?

1 8

In fact, the changes may occur either in asubstance (body, matter) or in its incor-poreal qualities like colour, dimension etc.But it has just been proved that the Eternalcan be neither a substance nor an incorpor-eal quality of another substance.

G.

The Eternal must be a living being. Becauseit is agreed that the Eternal is the sourceand cause of the existence of the universe.And also it is agreed that nothing can comeout of nothing. Now, as we find abudanceof life in the universe, we have to admitthat the source of all these living thingsmust itself be All-life. It could not bestowlife if it had itself no life.

H.

The Eternal source of world must be all-knowing (Omniscient). The intricate de-sign of a single atom shows the perfectwisdom embodied in it. The elaboratesystem and perfect design of universe

19

leaves no doubt that whoever or whateveris the source or cause of the universe isall-knowing.

I.

By the same reasoning the Eternal sourceor cause of the universe must be all-poweful (Omnipotent).

5. IS MATTER ETERNAL?

The atheists maintain that the matter isthe Eternal source of the universe. It needs nogreat intelligence to see that matter does notpossess any of the qualities of the Eternalmentioned in the previous chapter.

Matter has a body and as such it needsspace. It is divisible and as such it is made upof several parts. It is constantly changing.

But the atheists maintain that matter has

20

no beginning and no end; and therefore, it iseternal.

But the recent theories challenge thesetwo last stands of atheism.

6. MATTER BEGINS AND ENDS

What is `matter'? It is "substance of whicha physical thing is made." Or "anything whichhas the property of occupying space and theattributes of gravity and inertia."

Before going further it is necessary topoint out one important thing. There are, inevery branch of science, certain ideas whichhave no existence in reality. Yet they are as-sumed to exist in reality just to make it easyfor the beginners to understand the argumentsof that subject.

21

Take for example geometry. They teachthe children that `point' is a thing havingneither length, breadth nor depth. Such a thinghas no physical existence. They teach that `line'is a thing having only length, but neither breadthnor depth. This also has no physical existence.In fact, it is only by taking a body (which hasall three dimensions - length, breadth anddepth) and sub-dividing it in imagination that wecan understand the conception of surface,line and point.

Still students of geometry are taught asthough these things have real physical existence.It is done not to deceive the student, but tomake it easier for him to understand geometry.

Likewise, in chemistry, the student istaught that matter can neither be creatednor destroyed. But it is just a stepping stoneso that student can understand further argu-ments.

22

Also, it is for this reason that chemistrystudents are taught separate conservation ofmatter and energy.

But read the following quotation care-fully:-

"In classical mechanics, mass and energyare considered to be conserved separately; inatomic and nuclear reactions, matter can beconverted into energy and vice versa . . . So faras chemistry is concerned, the law of conser-vation of matter, that is, matter can neitherbe created nor, destroyed can be assumed tobe true."

So you see, the theory that matter iseternal (it is neither created nor destroyed)is just an assumption for the purpose ofsimplifying the subject for chemistry students.

It is a fact that matter changes into energy.

23

So it is not a thing ever-lasting nor is it a thingwhich does not change. Thus, we see that matterdoes not pass the test of eternity - it is notwithout end, and it is not without change.And as it is supposed that energy can be changedinto matter, it is admitted that matter has abeginning. So it is not eternal - it is not withoutbeginning.

It is assumed that when the matter changesinto energy, it exists in that form, and, thus theytry to prove that matter is ever-lasting-But whatis Energy? It is "Capacity of matter to performwork as the result of its motion or its position inrelation to forces acting upon it." So, the energyis not a thing having independent existence. Itis an incorporeal thing, that is, it depends upona matter or substance for its existence. By itsvery definition, it cannot be found except ina matter. As energy is a dependent thing, itcannot be an eternal thing.

24

7. TWO SUPPOSITIONS

Now, it should be mentioned here thatthere are two hypotheses, that is, tentative the-ories, in science about the creation or beginningof the universe (Universe: All created or exist-ing things). First there is the evolutionarytheory. This theory says that all the material inthe universe was formallly concentrated in asort of `primeval' (that is, ancient) atom; thatthe universe was created at one particularmoment and that it will eventually die.

If this idea is correct then that primitiveatom cannot be said to be eternal. A thing whichdies, which comes to an end, cannot be said, byany stretch of imagination, to be self-existence,ever-lasting or eternal.

The second hypothesis is called `Steadystate' theory. It maintains that the universe hasalways existed and will exist for ever, and that

25

fresh matter is continually being created. Nowthe universe is a collection of matter; and theybelieve that matter is continually being created.In other words, the universe is a compound ofcreated things. How can a collection of createdthings be called "Eternal" (without beginning)is beyond credulity.

Thus it is clear that, whatever view onetakes matter cannot be proved to be eternal( without beginning and without end).

Now, that matter is believed to be con-stantly created afresh, is known to change intoenergy, is known to need a shape and a place,is subject to division and constant changes, canit be said that matter is eternal when all itsqualities are those of Transient.

Five atheists had had a discussion with theHoly Prophet, at the end of which the HolyProphet told them

26

"This universe is of such a nature thatsome of its parts are dependent on some otherparts; they cannot exist without those otherparts, just as some parts of a structure dependupon other parts for their strength and exist-ence. And that whole universe is, in this respectlike that building. Now, tell me, if that part(which is dependent upon other parts for itsstrength and existence) is eternal in spite of itsdependence and need, then what would havebeen its quality had it been just transient (poss-ible, not eternal)?"

Yes. Let the atheists say what it would havebeen like if the matter were not eternal?

8. MATTER NOT THE SOURCE OF LIFE

Now, we come to the last three qualitiesmentioned in chapter 4. We have already accept-ed the atheists' notion that nothing comes out

27

of nothing. Now, we see in the universe a mostintelligent design and pattern and a most perfectcoordination in this unparalleled system. Andwe see it teeming with life. And, admittedly,matter has no life, and hence no power orknowledge.

Had the matter been the cause or source ofthe universe, the universe would have been with-out life; it would have been without system andcoordination, because it could not give to uni-verse what it did not possess itself. Is there stillneed to emphasize in so many words that mattercannot be considered as the source of universe?

9. THEISM VS. ATHEISM

Here I give the translation of the discussionof the Holy Prophet with the atheists, a part ofwhich has been mentioned earlier:-

28

The Holy Prophet asked them: "What isthe reason of your belief that the universe hasneither beginning nor end and that these thingsare from ever and will remain for ever?"

Atheists: "We believe only what we see. Aswe have not seen the beginning of the universe,therefore we say that it has always existed, andas we have not seen its extinction, we say thatit will remain for ever."

Holy Prophet: "Well, have you seen thatthe universe is without beginning and withoutend?"

Atheists: "No, we have not seen its beingwithout beginning nor have we seen its beingwithout end."

Holy Prophet: "Then how do you believein its eternity? And why should your view bepreferred to the view of that person who

29

believes the universe to be transient because hehas not seen it being without beginning orwithout end?"

Then after some more arguments theHoly Prophet asked: "Can you tell me whetherthe days (time) which have passed on this earthwere finite (limited) or infinite (limitless) ? Ifyou say that the time which has passed so farwas limitless, then how the later time came inif the former did not pass away?

"And if you say that the time is finite(limited) then you will have to admit thatit is not eternal."

Atheists: "Yes, it is finite."

Holy Prophet: "Well, you were saying thatuniverse is eternal, not created nor finite. Doyou realize what is the implication of youradmission that time is finite? What were you

30

denying? What have you admitted? "

Atheists accepted that their belief wasnot correct.

Incidentally, this argument of the HolyProphet shows that `time' has unbreakablerelation with matter. Otherwise, he couldnot have introduced the element of time inthe discussion about matter. The beauty ofthis can best be appreciated by only thosewho have studied the theory of Relativity.

10. SOME TALKS

The most simple arguments of ancientson this topics are still valid, in spite of all thecomplexity of the modern science.

An old woman was spinning yarn. Some-one asked her why she did believe in God. She

3 1

stopped her hand and the spindle stopped. Shesaid: "You see, a simple spindle needs a handto make it revolve. Can you think that this sun,this moon, these stars, all this world moveswithout any guiding hand?"

Imam `Ali ibn Abi Talib (peace be uponhim) was asked for a proof of the existence ofthe Almighty Designer. He replied: "The faecesof camel and of donkey lead one to concludethat such animals have passed that way. Thetraces of human feet indicate a man's trek. Donot this magnificent universe, with all its sub-limity and this lowly point (the earth) with allits solidity point to the existence of the Al-mighty Allah, the Sublime and the Omniscient?"

Once Abu Shakir ad-Dayasani (an atheist)came to Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (p.b.u.h.) andasked him to guide him to the recognition of"my Supreme Lord." The Imam asked him totake his seat. There arrived a small child with

32

an egg in his hand. The Imam, taking the eggfrom him, addressed Abu Shakir ad-Dayasani:"Here is a mysterious fortress enclosed withina hard shell, underneath which is a fine wrappingwhich covers molten silver (the albumen of theegg) and some molten gold (the yellow yolk).The molten gold does not get alloyed with themolten silver, nor does the molten silver getmixed with the molten gold. (Yet both are semi-fluid and they should have mixed together onjerking.) They retain their separate states. Noartist comes out of it to say that he has madeany changes therein, nor does any vitiating agententer it to tell of any vitiation therein. Nor is itknown whether it is designed to produce a maleor a female. Pea-birds of florid colouration issuetherefrom. Do you think it has a Designer (theOmniscient Creator)? Who has painted all thisinside it? And how did the chick come about?Who designed all these variegated hues, thefeathers, the limbs, the paintings, the feet, thebeak, the wings, the eyes, the ears, the nose, the

3 3

bowels, the crop, the joints, etc., etc. seeing thatno one entered it? " Abu Shakir, according tothe narration, was absorbed in his thoughts forsometime with his head downcast and thensuddenly proclaimed, "I bear witness that thereis no god but Allah, the one without peer, andI bear witness that Muhammad (peace be uponhim and his progeny) is His servant and prophet,and that you are Imam and Proof of Allah forHis creation, and I turn away from my erst-while attitude."

11. RELIGION VS. DARWINISM

When Darwin first published his treatiseOrigin of Species in 1859, he stirred a thun-derous opposition from religious groups. Thereligious opposition was based, mainly, upontwo factors:-

34

1. Darwin asserted - with convincingproofs - that the universe was not madein six days, as described in the Bible, butin a very very long time with so manystages between the first state and thepresent form; and

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

The Jews and Christians of that timebelieved in the six day-creation quite literally;they could not swallow the idea of the protracted creation easily. And so the conflictbetween Christianity and Science reached itsclimax in the later half of the 19th century.

But what about the Muslims?

The Qur'an says that the skies and theearth were created in six "ayyam ".The word

35

"ayyam" has two meanings: `days' and `periods'.The Sunni commentators of Qur'an generallyfollowed Ka'bu'l-Ahbar, a former Jew convert-ed to Islam in the days of second Caliph. It wasbut natural for him to explain the verses ofQur'an in the light of his previous learning. Sohe imported every Jewish legend into Islam.Though the Qur'an was silent about the details,the Muslims interpreted the `ayahs' in such away that every detail of Genesis (of the Bible)was incorporated in the commentaries of Qur'anand thus became a part of Sunni religious belief.

But the Shi'ahs commentators rejected theidea of six-days-creation right from the earlydays of Islam. According to them, `ayydm' inthose verses meant `Periods' and not the `days'.For instance, see the commentaries of Qur'anby `Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi (died sometimeafter 919 A. D.) and Muhsin Fayd (d. 1680A.D.). Also see the Dictionary of Qur'an andTraditions, by ash-Shaykh Fakhru'd-Din at-

36

Tarihi (d. 1676 A. D.). According to them theQur'an says that the skies and the earth werecreated in six periods. (Or should we say `in sixstages''. )

Therefore, we, the Shi'ahs, have nothingagainst the theory of gradual Creation, which isembodied in the theory of evolution. More thanthat, ours is not a belated attempt of reinter-preting our religion - as Christians are doingnow to cover the Christianity's defeat by thescience. We were thinking on this line onethousand years before Darwin.

But it must be mentioned here that theacceptance of gradual creation does not meanthat we endorse the hypothesis of evolution.Evolutionists claim that

1. Living things change from generationto generation producing descendants withnew characteristics;

37

2. This process has produced all the groupsand kind of things now living as well asothers now extinct;

3. All these different living things are re-lated to each other.

But, as was mentioned in Need of Religionthere is not a single fossil-evidence to show thata member of lower species developed into ahigher species. It is for this reason that Dr. T. N.Tahmisian (a physiologist for the Atomic EnergyCommission) said: "Scientists who go aboutteaching that evolution is a fact of life are greatcon men, and the story they are telling may bethe greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolutionwe do not have one iota of fact. "

It is one thing to say, as we say (and thefossils and scientific data support us) that Godcreated this universe in stages and created thethings and living beings on earth one after an-

38

other with time gaps in between; and quite an-other, as the Darwinisms or neo-Darwinisms say(and have no evidence to prove it) that the livingthings on this earth developed from non-livingmatter and that unicellular organisms developedstage by stage to become a human being.

12. WHERE THE DARWINISTS WENT ASTRAY

So much about the first ground of theconflict between religion and science. Nowwe come to the second ground of the conflict,that is, the denial of God. Here we, the Shi`ahs,as well as other religious (and many scientistsof the present generation) are totally againstthe Darwinism.

The whole deliberation on `evolution'attempts to answer the question "How theuniverse came into being?" But it does nottouch the other big question: "By whom was itcreated?" But Darwin and his followers said that

39

as they could explain the sequence of the creationand its working method, so it was automaticallyproved that there was no God. It is just likesaying, "As I can explain the working of anautomobile and can guess the sequence of itsmanufacturing, so it is automatically provedthat there is no manufacturer of that car."

It may seem absurd as I have put it onpaper here. But the more you read their denialof God the more you will be reminded of thisfallacy in their arguments.

Now let us look at one more fallacy ofatheism. It has already been mentioned in pre-vious chapters. But here it is repeated to complete the picture. They assert that `thing' cannotcome out of `nothing'. Therefore, according tothem, it is wrong to say that God created theuniverse out of nothing. There must be a sourceof every thing. So, they believe that the Matteris eternal; and every thing is a development of

40

the eternal Matter.

This line of argument goes straight until itreaches the stage where begins the phenomenoncalled life'. Nobody has ever succeeded insolving the mysteries of life. Nobody knowswhere the life came from. Having rejected thebelief in God, the atheists are compelled to say"We do not know; but the life must have comefrom the Matter." Now, Matter is lifeless. If`thing' cannot come from `nothing', how canthe `life' come from `lifeless'?

Not only this. Let us proceed further. Asthey say, there must be a source for everything.And as everybody knows, the Matter is a`thing'. What was the source of `Matter'?

These phenomena of the universe can-not be explained without stopping at a cer-tain point and believing that the universebegan from it. The atheist say that the Matter

4 1

is that beginning point. But the Matter is life-less. So, the existence of life cannot be ex-plained by this theory. And the Matter issenseless. The existence of Sense and Wis-dom in the animals and human beings cannotbe explained by it.

Therefore, if we are to have a satisfactorytheory for the existence of the universe as awhole, we have to accept that there is an EternalBeing Who is the Source of Existence, theSource of Life and the Source of Wisdom.That Being is God.

13. RUSSELL'S `ARGUMENTS'

Why I Am Not A Christian is a collectionof Bertrand Russell's essays and papers "onreligion and related subjects." Professor PaulEdwards, the editor of the book, says that theseessays are "perhaps the most moving and the

42

most graceful presentation of the free-thinker'sposition since the days of Hume and Voltaire."

This statement, coupled with the name ofRussell, was enough to compel one to study thebook with high expectation of scholarly andlogical discourses on the subject of religion.Whether those expectations were justified willbe seen from a few comments appended below:-

The first thing which comes before the eyesis the inconsistency of the arguments. Russellcalled himself a free-thinker, and during a debatewith Rev. F. C. Copleston he said that he wasnot an atheist but an agnostic.

The position of atheists is that non-exist-ence of God can be proved. The agnostics, onthe other hand, say that "man does not and cannot in the nature of things know anything abouta spiritual existence, either of God or man or ofany after-death state." They assert that "man's

43

only cognition can be of the phenomenal world(that is, the world which may be perceived byone of the five senses)". According to them, itdoes not mean that there may not be a noume-nal entity (that is, an entity known throughintellectual institution only) or soul behind thephenomenal world.

The agnostics repudiate even atheism ormaterialism on the ground that these theoriesare dogmatic. They say that if you cannot knowa thing, you have no right to reject it. Anagnostic's one and only answer to all questionsconcerning soul, God or spiritual existence isthat "we do not know and there are so far noreasonable grounds for believing that we shallever know. In other words, man, being finite,can never comprehend Infinite."

Rev. Copleston had asked Russell at thebeginning of their debate (in 1948): "Perhapsyou would tell me if your position is that of

44

agnosticism or of atheism. I mean, would yousay that the non-existence of God can beproved?" Russell replied: "No, I should not saythat; my position is agnostic."

If Russell believed in agnosticism, then hisonly answer about all questions concerning God,or life after death should have been "I do notknow." Instead, he declares right on the jacketof the book, "I believe that when I die I shallrot, and nothing of my ego will survive."

Another example: Russell says at the begin-ning of the preface

"I think all the great religions of the world- Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam andCommunism - both untrue and harmful. It isevident as a matter of logic that, since they dis-agree, not more than one of them can be true."

45

After this statement, one would expecthim to look at each of the above religions inturn to prove why even one of them was nottrue. But he did not feel obliged in any of hisessays to bring this argument to its logical end.He just said that, "since they disagree, not morethan one of them can be true," and then arbit-rarily concluded that not even one of themwas true!

This type of inconsistency goes on fromessay to essay; and one finishes the book witha feeling that if these essays would have beenwritten by a lesser being than Russell, thepublishers would not have designed to publishthem.

The first article Why I Am Not A Christianwas delivered as a lecture in 1927; Russell hastried in this lecture to repudiate the argumentsof Church for the existence of God.

46

He says

"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to under-stand is the argument of the First Cause. (It ismaintained that every thing we see in this worldhas a cause, and as you go back in the chain ofcauses further and further you must come to aFirst Cause, and to that First Cause you give thename of God.)... I may say that when I was ayoung man and was debating these questionsvery seriously in my mind, I for a long timeaccepted the argument of the First Cause, untilone day, at the age of 18, I read John StuartMill's Autobiography and I there found thissentence: `My father taught me that the ques-tion, `Who made me?' cannot be answeredsince it immediately suggests the further ques-tion, `Who made God?' That very simple sen-tence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy inthe argument of the First Cause."

Now, Russell has, perhaps unwittingly,

47

misquoted the arguments of believers. Torefresh the memory, the reader is advisedto read again Chapter 2 and 3 of this book.There he will find, inter alia, the followingsentences:-

"As every thing in this universe fallsunder the category of `mumkinu'l-wujud'(Transient), it has equal relation with existenceand non-existence. Once these things did notexist; now they exist; sometime in future theywill cease to exist. By their nature, they cannotdemand to exist or to cease to exist. Therefore,there must be a source or cause to bring them toexistence or to terminate their existence."

And then comes the important point whichRussell has missed. The point is that that sourceor cause should not itself be just Transient.Otherwise it will itself need a source or cause tobring it into existence. And this chain of causeand effect must stop on a cause which needs

48

no outside source or cause for its existence. Itmeans that the final source or cause of thisuniverse must be 'Self-existent'.

If one compares the Islamic version of theargument of `The First Cause' (as given in thisbook) with the version of the Church as presented by Russell at the beginning, one findstwo important differences

He said: "Everything we see in this worldhas a cause." But he should have said: "Every-thing we see in this world is transient and assuch must have a cause for its existence."

Again, he said: "As you go back in thechain of causes further and further you mustcome to a First Cause." But he should havesaid:" You must come to a Cause which is nottransient, which is Self-existent (whose veryessence is the existence itself)."

49

Read his version with these amendments,and see how his objections loose every weight.

Russell thought it sufficient to scoff atthis argument off-handedly. "I can illustratewhat seems to me (the believers') fallacy. Everyman who exists has a mother and it seems tome (their) argument is that therefore the humanrace must have a mother, but obviously thehuman race hasn't a mother."

It seems to me that it is Russell who isindulging in fallacy. He has failed to note thatthe believers do not say that `every transientthing has a transient cause, therefore, the wholeuniverse should have a transient cause.'

Our argument is that, as all the compo-nents of the universe are transient, and as acollection of billions of transient things is stilltransient, the whole universe is still transient,and as such must have an external cause to bring

it into existence. And that cause must be Self-existent. And as He is Self-existent, the ques-tion, `Who made God?' doesn't arise.

14. CREATION BY CHANCE?WITHOUT A CREATOR?

Russel further wrote: "If there can beanything without a cause it may just as wellbe the world as God."

The reason why the world could not haveexisted or come into being without a Cause,is that its components some times exist andsome times cease to exist. So there is nothingin their essence, in their nature, to demandexistence. If they exist, it must be because ofa hand which tilted the scale in favour of exist-ence; if they cease to exist it must be becausethat hand has now tipped the scale towards non-existence.

51

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

The claim that the world may have alwaysexisted is refuted by all prevalant theories ofscience: This is quite apart from the fact that acollection of transient things could not exist" always ".

The reader should read Chapter 7 again,where he will find that whatever view one takes,matter cannot be proved to be eternal (withoutbeginning and without end).

Again he says: "There is no reason whythe world could not have come into being with-out a cause."

Before commenting further on this sen-tence, let me quote his words (from the samearticle) where he refutes the idea that there isany "natural law". He writes:-

52

"There is, as we all know, a law that if youthrow dice you will get double sixes only oncein thirty six times, and we do not regard that asevidence that the fall of dice is regulated bydesign; on the contrary, if the double sixes cameevery time, we should think that there wasdesign. "

Here Russell admits that if events appearedin the same sequence again and again it would bea proof that there was design. Now, one wonderswhy he did not spare a few moments looking atthe well-planned and superbly-executed move-ments of the galaxies, stars, planets and moons?Let us suppose that there is someone in outerspace who has never heard about earth or humanbeings. Then one day he sees a space-shipstreaking past and after some time another one,and then another one. Of course, their paths arenot the same, and the gap between their ap-pearances is not systematic so that it might bemeasured and estimated in advance. But he

53

knows that each space-ship contains thousandsof parts which are well connected to each otherand together they form a superbly effecientapparatus.

What would Russel think of him if he wereto declare that those space-ships had comeinto being without a creator?

And how strongly would he have con-demned the arrogance of that inhabitant ofouter space, if all the space-ships would havebeen well regulated in their paths and frequency?

And, remember that those space-ships haveno connection with each other. Compare thatwith this universe of uncounted millions ofgalaxies, each having millions of solar systems,each system containing numerous planets, andthe planets having their various moons etc.

And all of them "bound" together in the

54

chain of gravity, each influencing its neighbour,and in turn being influenced by it. And thenthink that Mr. Russell says that it was not proofof any design.

Frank Allen, former professor of Biophysicsin University of Manitoba, Canada, writes in hisarticles: The Origin of the World: By Chanceof Design:-

"If in the origin of life there was no design,then living matter must have arisen by chance.Now chance, or probability as it is termed, isa highly developed mathematical theory whichapplies to that vast range of knowledge that arebeyond absolute certainty. This theory puts usin possession of the soundest principles onwhich to discriminate truth from error, and tocalculate the likelihood of the occurrence of andparticular form of an event.

"Proteins are the essential constituents of

55

all living cells, and they consist of the five ele-ments, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen andsulphur, with possibly 40,000 atoms in theponderous molecule. As there are 92 chemicalelements in Nature, all distributed at random,the chance that these five elements may cometogether to form the molecule, the quantity ofmatter that must be continually shaken up, andthe length of time necessary to finish this task,can all be calculated. A Swiss mathematician,Charles Eugen Guye,(1) has made the compu-tation and finds that the odds against such anoccurence are 10

^ 160 to 1, or only one chancein

10

160, that is, 10 miltiplied by itself 160times, a number far too large to be expressedin

words.(2) The amount of matter to be shaken

1.

Quoted by V. H. Mottran in the organ Corpor-ation, Liner, April, 22nd 1948.

2.

To write this number, you will have to add 160zeros after one.

56

together to produce a single molecule of proteinwould be millions of times greater than that inthe whole universe. For it to occur on the earthalone would require many, almost endlessbillions ( 10 243 ) of years.

(For this number, write 243 zeros afterone! )

"Proteins are made from long chains calledamino acids. The way those are put togethermatters enormously. If in the wrong way theywill not sustain life and may be poisons. Pro-fessor J. B. Leathes (England) has calculatedthat the links in the chain of quite a simple pro-tein could be put together in millions of ways(10 4$ ) (that is 48 zeros written after number1). It is impossible for all these chances to havecoincided to build one molecule of protein."

But there are incalculable billions ofmolecules of protein in only one human body,

57

let alone the whole earth.

They are created systematically and stillRussell clings to his theory of chance

Frank Allen goes on to say:-

"But proteins as chemicals are without life.It is only where the mysterious life comes intothem that they live. Only Infinite Mind, that isGod, could have foreseen that such a moleculecould be the abode of life, could have con-structed it, and made it live."

Russell has endeavoured to challenge thisargument in these words:-

"You all know the argument from design:everything in the world is made just so that wecan manage to live in the world, and if the worldwas ever so little different we could not manageto live in it. That is the argument from design.

58

It sometimes takes a rather curious form; forinstance, it is argued that rabbits have whitetails in order to be easy to shoot. I do not knowhow rabbits would view that application. It isan easy argument to parody. You all knowVoltaire's remark, that obviously the nose wasdesigned to be such as to fit spectacles. Thatsort of parody has turned out to be not nearlyso wide of the mark as it might have seemedin the eighteenth century, because since thetime of Darwin we understand much betterwhy living creatures are adapted to their en-vironment. It is not that their environmentwas made to be suitable to them, but they grewto be suitable to it, and that is the basis ofadaption. There is no evidence of design aboutit. "

Let us suppose, for the time being, that theliving creatures adapted themselves to their en-vironment. But was Russell really blind to thefact that long long before the "living creatures"

59

came on this earth, this earth, its atmosphere,its whole structure, together with its relationswith sun and other planets and moon had been"made" in such a way that the life becamepossible at all. Does he want us to believe thatthe living things, that is, the animals and man,before their own existence, influenced the wholesystem of universe in general, and that of thisearth in particular, so that they might be bornhere untold millions of year in future?

Frank Allen writes in the same article :-

"The adjustments of the earth for life arefar too numerous to be accounted for by chance.First, the earth is a sphere freely poised in spacein daily rotation on its polar axis, giving thealternation of day and night, and in yearly revol-ution around the sun. These motions give stabi-lity to its orientation in space, and, coupled withthe inclination (23 degrees) of the polar axisto the place of its revolution (the ecliptic),

60

affords regularity to the seasons, thus doublingthe habitable area of the earth and providing agreater diversity of plant life than a stationaryglobe could sustain.

. "Secondly, the atmosphere of life-support-ing gases is sufficiently high (about 500 miles)and dense to blanket the earth against the deadly impact of twenty million meteors that dailyenter it at speeds of about thirty miles persecond. Among many other functions theatmosphere also maintains the temperaturewithin safe limits for life; and carries the vitalsupply of fresh water-vapour far inland fromthe oceans to irrigate the earth, without whichit would become a lifeless desert. Thus theoceans, with the atmosphere, are the balance-wheel of Nature.

"Four remarkable properties of water,its power of absorbing vast quantities of oxygenat low temperatures, its maximum density at 4

6 1

degrees `C' above freezing whereby lakes andrivers remain liquid, the lesser density of icethan water so that it remains on the surface,and the power of releasing great quantities ofheat as it freezes, preserve life in oceans, lakesand rivers throughout the long winters.

"The dry land is a stable platform formuch terrestrial life. The soil provides theminerals which plant life assimilates and transforms into needful foods for animals. Thepresence of metals near the surface rendersthe arts of civilization possible.

"The diminutive size of the earth com-pared with the immensity of space is some-times disparagingly referred to. If the earthwere as small as the moon, if one-fourth itspresent diameter, the force of gravity (one-sixth that of the earth) would fail to holdboth atmosphere and water, and temperatureswould be fatally extreme. If double its present

62

diameter, the enlarged earth would have fourtimes its present surface and twice its force ofgravity, the atmosphere would be dangerouslyreduced in height, and its pressure would beincreased from 15 to 30 pounds per square inch,with serious repercussions upon life. The winterareas would be greatly increased and the regionsof habitability would be seriously diminished.Communities of people would be isolated, traveland communication rendered difficult or almostimpossible.

"If our earth were of the size of the sun,but retaining its density, gravity would be 150times as great, the atmosphere diminished toabout four miles in height, evaporation of waterrendered imposssible, and pressures increasedto over a ton per square inch. A one-pound ani-mal would weigh 150 pounds, and human beingsreduced in size to that of say, a squirrel. Intellec-tual life would be impossible to such creatures.

6 3

"If the earth were removed to double itspresent distance from the sun, the heat receivedwould be reduced to one-fourth of its presentamount, the orbital velocity would be only one-half, the winter season would be doubled inlength and life would be frozen out. If its solardistance were halved, the heat received would befour times as great, the orbital velocity would bedoubled, seasons would be halved in length, ifchanges could even be effected, and the planetwould be too parched to sustain life. In size anddistance from the sun, and in orbital velocity,the earth is able to sustain life, so that mankindcan enjoy physical, intellectual and spiritual lifeas it now prevails."

15. THE SAFEST COURSE FOR AGNOSTICS

As was mentioned earlier, Russell claimedto be an agnostic. If we take that claim on itsface-value, then the best and safest course for

64

him would have been to believe in a Creatorand Day of Judgement.

Here is a tradition of Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (p. b. u. h.)

Ibn Abi al-`Awja' and Ibn al-Mugaffa` weresitting in Masjidu'l-haram at the time of pilgrim-age, with some of their fellow atheists. (Theypretended to be Muslims just to save their skins;but were always openly arguing against the be-lief in God.) Ibn al-Mugaffa` said pointing to-wards the space around Ka'bah: "Do you seethis mob? There is none among them who maybe called human being except that old man (thatis, Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq - p.b.u.h.). As for theothers, they are just tattles and animals."

Ibn Abi al-`Awja' asked how could hesay such a thing?

Ibn al-Mugaffa` said: "Because I found

6

with him (the virtues and knowledge) which Idid not find anywhere else."

Ibn Abi al-`Awja' said: "Now it is necess-ary to test whether what you say is true."

Ibn al-Mugaffa` tried to dissuade him fromit. But Ibn Abi al-`Awja' went to the Imam. liecame back after sometime and said: "O' Ibn alMugaffa`, he is not just human being. If therewere in this world a spiritual thing . . . whichbecomes a body if wishes so, and turns into aspirit if wants so, then it is he."

Ibn al-Mugaffa` said: "How- come?"

Ibn Abi al-`Awja' said: "I sat near him.When all others went away, he started talking( without my asking anything) and said

` If the fact is as they believe and it isas they (that is, the pilgrims) say, then they

66

would be saved and you would be in trouble.And if the fact is as you (atheists) say, and notas they say, then you and they both would beequal (and no harm would come to anybody)'

"I said: `May Allah have mercy on you,what is it which we say and what is it whichthey say? My belief and their belief is but one.'

"Imam said: `How could your belief andtheir belief be the same ? They say that there isto be resurrection, and reward and punishment;and they believe that there is a God.' " (Andyou do not believe it).

Imam meant that if there was in reality noGod and no Day of Judgement, as Ibn Abial-`Awja' said, then the believers and nonbelievers will be in the same position after death.Both will perish for ever and nobody wouldsuffer for his belief or dis-belief. On the otherhand, if there is a God and a Day of Judgement,

67

as the believers say, then after death the be-lievers would be saved and would be blessed,while the atheists and non-believers would haveto suffer. Therefore, it is the dictate of wisdomto have Faith and Belief in God and Day ofJudgement, to save oneself from the possibilityof disgrace and eternal punishment.

The reader should also see the chapter"Pascal's Bet" in Need of Religion.

16. UNIVERSE: WITNESS OF ONE ALLAH

A unique pattern of the universe is emergingwith the advent of science. There was a timewhen the earth was considered to be the centreof the universe; and the universe was confinedwithin nine skies. Our fifth Imam, Muhammadal-Baqir (p.b.u.h.) explained to his companionsthat there were inumerable worlds besides whatthey knew about. But, strangely, the Muslims

68

ignored his teachings and followed the paganphilosophers, like Ptolemy, who thought andtaught that the earth was stationary and theheavenly bodies revolved around it. Conse-quently, the gate of knowledge remained shutagainst them for more than one thousand years.Then came a time when the people exploredthe Solar system by the help of telescopes. So,they gave the Sun the pride of place. Now weknow that our Solar system is but an insignificantfamily of Planets placed at the edge of the hugegalaxy which we call Milky Way.

We see the moon rotating around theearth, like a happy child dancing brightlyaround its mother. There are eight other planets,besides our earth, in the solar family; and fiveof them have got satellites of their own. Marsand Neptune have two moons each; Jupitorhas twelve moons and satellites; Saturn has nineand Uranus five moons. All the moons and satel-lites rotate round their planets. And all these

6 9

planets, in turn, rotate round the sun, whichmay be called the Head of Family.

Now, let us trace back our steps, beforegoing further.

All these stars, planets and satellites aremade of atoms. And atom itself is just a minia-ture solar system. Formerly it was believed thatatoms were immutable entities, that is, theycould not be divided. Now the atoms are knownto have so many particles; the belief in their in-destructibility has been shattered away. Atomsconsist of a nucleus and a number of electrons.The nucleus is built from simple particles: neu-trons and protons. The nucleus is located at thecentre of the atom and is surrounded by elec-trons. It should be mentioned here, to make thepicture more clear, that the nucleus of an atomis a particle of very small radius, but of exceed-ingly great density. In plain words, all theatomic mass (except a negligible fraction) is

70

concentrated in the nucleus, while the size ofthe nucleus is less than one hundred thousandthof the size of atom. And don't forget thatmore than 100,000,000 atoms can be put sideby side in one centimetre. Now, as we havestated earlier, the atom is a world in itself. TheProtons and Neutrons behave as though theywere rotating around their own axis, like ro-tating tops. Their spin suggests the idea of aninternal rotation.

Thus, we see that there is a single patternof operation, right from the smallest sub-atomicparticles to the mighty solar system.

But this is not the end of the story.

As we have known, the sun, together withits family, is placed on the brink of the MilkyWay. "If we could view the Milky Way from avast distance and see it as a whole, we should ob-serve a rather flat wheel of stars with spiral arms

7 1

- something like the sparks of a Catherinewheel." It consists of many millions separatestars like our sun. This system of stars is physi-cally connected by gravitational forces and movesthrough space as a whole. It is called a Galaxy.

If we think that our solar system is a familyof stars, a galaxy may be called a very big tribeconsisting of millions and millions of suchfamilies.

The multitude of galaxies were unknownin the past. By about 1920 it was thought thatthere were at least 500,000 galaxies. Now, withthe advent of the powerful telescopes thisnumber rose to 100,000,000, and is being in-creased further day by day. So far as the eyesof cameras and telescopes can see, there areclusters and clusters of galaxies.

Human knowledge, at present, is in its in-fancy. Nobody knows what is beyond these

72

galaxies. Nor we know much about the natureof their movement. Qur'an says that "Allah hasdecorated the nearest sky with these lamps"(that is, the stars) (67: 5). So we know thatuntil now, we have not seen the end of even thefirst sky. And who knows what wonders arehidden beyond the first sky! "You have notbeen given knowledge but a little" ( Qur'an,17:85)

So, let us confine our talks to the little weknow about. We know that the particles of atomsare rotating around their axis; satellites are rotating around their planets; planets are rotatingaround their stars; and stars along with theirdependant families, are rotating in the galaxies.

Our faith in the Unity of God is the purestin the world. We have given countless proofs I'mour belief in the last fourteen centuries. Now thescience has opened a new path, which, also,leads to the belief in the Unity of God. It may

73

be described briefly, in these words: "The uni-form pattern of the universe is an indisputableproof that all this has been made by one, andonly one, Creator."

When we see two identical watches, weneed not be told that they are made in the samefactory. On the same ground, when we see allthe universe woven into a single entity; all itscomponents governed by the same laws, all itsparts operated on the same pattern, our naturalinstinct guides us to believe that it is created,made and controlled by One and only OneCreator.

And there is a great difference betweenthe watches and the universe. Watches maybe imitated or duplicated by imposters andforgerers. But, as the scientists say, "by defini-tion there is only one universe. One cannotrepeat it or do experiments with it." So, weneed not bother ourselves with thought of any

74

imitation-gods. If the universe - the thing made- cannot be more than one, how Allah - theMaker - can be more than One?

Now we should have a look at living things.There also we see the same uniformity of designin bone-structure. It is quite amusing to see theatheists use this uniformity to prove that thereis no God. They say that "Because all the livingbeings are developed systematically and because,for instance, the skeletons of Gibbons, Orange,Chimpanzee, Gorilla, and man are quite similarin construction, it is proved that they have notbeen made by any Creator."

Suppose there had been no system in theuniverse nor in the structure of living beings andthey had used that lack of method against theexistence of any Creator, it could have madesense. But astonishingly enough, they are usingthe unique and perfect system of the universeand the living beings against the Omniscient and

75

Omnipotent God. Any body can see the absurd-ity of this argument. Because the perfectness ofthe universe is an irrefutable proof that it hasnot been made by a blind and senseless nature.Ironically enough, they are using an argumentwhich is basically against their claim.

Darwinists may use this single and uniformpattern of Creation against those who believethat different things were created by differentgods. They may use it against those who say that,for instance, cow was created by a good-naturedcreator and snake was made by another bad-natured god. But how can they use it against thebelief of One Creator Who created all the thingsaccording to His own systematic plan?

It is quite obvious that Darwin failed indrawing the conclusion. He could not see theEternal Truth, which his evidence was pointingat. The evidence, gathered by him, is cryingout loudly that all the universe, living or without

76

life, has been created by One and only One,Allah, Who is Omnipotent and Omniscient.

17. SEVEN REASONS WHY A SCIENTISTBELIEVES IN GOD

(This

article

of Mr. A. Cressy Morrison,former President of the New York Academy ofSciences, first appeared in the Reader's Digest[January 19481 ; then on recommendation ofProfessor C. A. Coulson, F.R.S., Professor ofMathematics at Oxford University, was repub-lished in the Reader's Digest [ Novermber, 1960],- It shows how the science compels the scien-tists to admit the essential need of a SupremeCreator.)

We are still in the dawn of the scientificage and every increase of light reveals morebrightly the handiwork of an intelligent Creator.In the ninety years since Darwin we have made

77

stupendous discoveries; with a spirit of scientifichumility and of faith grounded in knowledgewe are approaching even nearer to an aware-ness of God.

For myself, I count seven reasons formy faith:-

First: By unwavering mathematical law wecan prove that our universe was designed andexecuted by a great engineering Intelligence.

Suppose you put ten coins, marked fromone to ten, into your pocket and give them agood shuffle. Now try to take them out insequence from one to ten, putting back thecoin each time and shaking them all again.Mathematically we know that your chanceof first drawing number is one in ten; of draw-ing one and two in succession, one in hundred;of drawing one, two and three in succession,one in a thousand, and so on; your chance of

78

drawing them all, from one to number ten insuccession, would reach the unbelievable figureof one chance in ten thousand million.

By the same reasoning, so many exactingconditions are necessary for life on earth thatthey could not possibly exist in proper relationship by chance. The earth rotates on its axis atone thousand miles an hour; if it turned at onehundred miles an hour, our days and nightswould be ten times as long as now, and the hotsun would then burn up our vegetation duringeach long day while in the long night any sur-viving sprout would freeze.

Again, the sun, source of our life, has asurface temperature of 12,000 degrees Fahren-heit, and our earth is just far enough away sothat this "eternal fire" warms us just enoughand not too much! If the sun gave off only one-half its present radiation, we would freeze, andif it gave half as much more, we would roast.

79

The slant of the earth, tilted at an angle of23 degrees, gives us our seasons; if it had notbeen so tilted, vapours from the ocean wouldmove north and south, piling up for us conti-nents of ice. If our moon was, say, only fiftythousand miles away instead of its actual dis-tance our tides would be so enormous thattwice a day all continents would be submerged;even the mountains would soon be eroded away.If the crust of the earth had been only ten feetthicker, there would be no oxygen withoutwhich animal life must die. Had the ocean beena few feet deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygenwould have been absorbed and no vegetablelife could exist. Or if our atmosphere hadbeen thinner, some of the meteors, now burnedin space by the million every day, would bestriking all parts of the earth, starting fireseverywhere.

Because of these, and host of other ex-amples, there is not one chance in millions

80

that life on our planet is an accident.

Second: The resourcefulness of life toaccomplish its purpose is a manifestation ofall-pervading intelligence.

What life itself is no man has fathomed.It has neither weight nor dimensions, but it doeshave force; a growing root will crack a rock. Lifehas conquered water, land and air, mastering theelements, compelling them to dissolve andreform their combinations.

Life, the sculptor, shapes all living things;an artist, it designs every leaf of every tree, andcolours every flower. Life is a musician and haseach bird sing its love songs, the insects to calleach other in the music of their multitudinoussounds. Life is a sublime chemist, giving taste tofruits and spices, and perfume to the rosechanging water and carbonic acid into sugarand wood and, in so doing, releasing oxygen

81

that animals may have the breath of life.

Behold an almost invisible drop of proto-plasm, transparent and jelly-like, capable ofmotion, drawing energy from the sun. Thissingle cell, this transparent mistlike droplet,holds within itself the germ of life, and has thepower to distribute this life to every living thing,great and small. The powers of this droplet aregreater than our vegetation and animals andpeople, for all life came from it. Nature did notcreate life; fire-blistered rocks and a saltless seacould not meet the necessary requirements.

"Who, then, has put it here?"

Third: Animal wisdom speaks irresistiblyof a good Creator who infused instinct intootherwise helpless little creatures.

The young salmon spends years at sea,then comes back to his own river, and travels

82

up the very side of the river into which flowsthe tributary where he was born. What bringshim back so precisely? If you transfer him toanother tributary he will know at once that heis off his course and he will fight his way downand back to the main stream and then turn upagainst the current to finish his destiny moreaccurately.

Even more difficult to solve is the mysteryof eels. These amazing creatures migrate atmaturity from all ponds and rivers everywhere -those from Europe across thousands of miles ofocean - all bound for the same abysmal deepsnear Bermuda. There they breed and die. Thelittle ones, with no apparent means of knowinganything except that they are in a wilderness ofwater, nevertheless find their way back not onlyto the very shore from which their parents camebut thence to the rivers, lakes or little ponds -so that each body of water is always populatedwith eels. No American eel has ever been caught

83

in Europe, no European eel in American waters.Nature has even delayed the maturity of theEuropean eel by a year or more to make up forits l onger journey. Where does the directingimpulse originate ?

A wasp overpower a grasshopper, dig ahole in the earth, sting the grasshopper in ex-actly the right place so that he does not die butbecomes unconscious and lives on as a form ofpreserved meat. Then the wasp will lay her eggshandily so that her children when they hatchcan nibble without killing the insect on whichthey feed; to them dead meat would be fatal.The mother then flies away and dies; she neversees her young. Surely the wasp must have doneall this right the first time and every time, or elsethere would be no wasp. Such mysterioustechniques cannot be explained by adaption;they were bestowed.

Fourth: Man has something more than

84

animal instinct -- the power of reason.

No other animal has ever left a record ofits ability to count ten or even to understandthe meaning of ten. Where instinct is like asingle note of a flute, beautiful but limited,the human brain contains all the notes of allthe instruments in the orchestra. No need tobelabour this fourth point; thanks to the humanreason we can contemplate the possibility thatwe are what we are only because we havereceived a spark of universe intelligence.

Fifth: Provision for all living is revealedin phenomena which we know today but whichDarwin did not know - such as the wonders ofgenes. So unspeakably tiny are these genes that,if all of them responsible for all living peoplein the world could be put in one place, therewould be less than a thimbleful. Yet these ultra-microscopic genes and their companions, thechromosomes, inhabit every living cell and are

8 5

the absolute keys to all human, animal andvegetable characteristics. A thimble is a smallplace in which to put all the individual charac-teristics of two thousand million human beings.However, the facts are beyond question. Wellthen, how do genes lock up all the normal hered-ity of a multitude of ancestors and preserve thepsychology of each in such an infinitely smallplace? Here evolution really begins - at the cell,the entity which holds and carries genes. How afew million atoms, locked up as an ultramicro-scopic gene, can absolutely rule all on earth is anexample of profound cunning and provision thatcould emanate only from a Creative Intelligence-- no other hypothesis will serve.

Sixth: By the economy of nature, we areforced to realize that only infinite wisdomcould have foreseen and prepared with suchastute husbandry.

Many years ago a species of cactus was

86

planted in Australia as a protective fence. Havingno insect enemies in Australia the cactus soonbegun a prodigious growth; the alarming abun-dance persisted until the plants covered an areaas long and wide as England, crowding inhabit-ants out of the towns and villages, and destroy-ing their farms. Seeking a defence, the entomol-ogists scoured the world; finally they turned upan insect which exclusively feeds on cactus, andwould eat nothing else. It would breed freelytoo; and it had no enemies in Australia. Soanimal soon conquered vegetable and today thecactus pest has retreated, and with it all but asmall protective residue of the insects enoughto hold the cactus in check for ever.

Such checks and balances have been uni-verselly provided. Why have not fast-breedinginsects dominated the earth? Because they haveno lungs such as man possesses; they breathethrough tubes. But when insects grow large,their tubes do not grow in ratio to the increasing

8 7

size of the body. Hence there has never been aninsect of great size; this limitation on growthhas held them all in check.

If this physical check had not been pro-vided, man could not exist. Imagine meetinga hornet as big as a lion!

Seventh: The fact that man conceive theidea of God is in itself a unique proof.

The conception of god rises from a divinefaculty of man, unshared with the rest of ourworld - the faculty we call imagination. By itspower, man and man alone can find the evidenceof things unseen. The vista that power opensup is unbounded; indeed, as man is perfectedimagination becomes a spiritual reality. He maydiscern in all the evidence of design and purposethe great truth that heaven is wherever andwhatever is; that God is everywhere and in every-thing, but nowhere so close as in our hearts.

88

It is scientifically as well as imaginativelytrue; in the words of the psalmist: "The heavensdeclare the glory of God and the firmamentsheweth His handiwork."

Part TWO

GOD OF ISLAM

18. MEANING OF "ONE"

NOW that our talk is going to be centeredon the theme "God is One," let us clarify whatwe mean by "One" in this sentence.

The word "one" in our daily conversationconveys any of the following meanings:-

1. "Man" and "Horse" are one (becauseboth are mammals). Here `one' describesthat both man and horse belong to thesame genus.

2. "Bakr" and "Smith" are one. `One'here shows that both are of the samespecies.

91

3.

You say pointing to two carpenters thatthey are one. Here `one' means that bothhave the same profession, or the sameadjective can be used for both.

4. Churchill was an orator, writer, soldierand statesman. You may say that his ora-tory, penmanship, soldiership and states-manship were one, because they werecombined in one person.

5. One pint milk and one pint water are` one', because both have the same quantity.

6. Hot milk and hot water are `one',because both are in the same condition.

7. John and Smith are standing. You maysay `They are one', because both are in thesame position.

8. Khalid has two sons, Bakr and `Umar.Bakr and `Umar are one, because they have

92

93

the same relation with Khalid.

9. A human-body or a chair is one be-cause its components or parts are joinedtogether. (But if the parts are disjoinedor disintegrated, this `one' will becomemillions.)

10. The beginning of counting is called` one', as the beginning of theoretical lineis called point. This `one' is followed bycountless numbers.

11. A matchless or unique person or thingis called one, as, for example, we may saythat the sun within our solar system is` one' because it has no equal within thissystem.

But all these meanings of `Unity' carrythe idea of `duality' or `plurality', becausemeanings nos. 1 to 9 show that `two' or `more'

94

things are `one' in some respect. So `two' or` more' are always present in these meanings.

` One' as beginning of number or count pre-supposes more than one thing.

A unique thing may be called one, but itis just a metaphorical use which has no relationwith reality, because that unique thing, beingmade of matter, has millions of parts - is notone.

When we say `God is One', we take noneof these meanings in consideration. Unity ofGod means that He has no parts, no body;He is not divisible even i-: imagination.

19. GOD CANNOT BE MORE THAN ONE

God cannot be more than one. Why thisbold assertion? There are various reasons. In

95

addition to some of the proofs given earlier,here are two more: -

First Proof: It has been proved earlierthat God is Eternal. And also it has been provedthat Eternal cannot be a compound, mixtureor mixed thing.

Now suppose there are two identical pens.They are similar in shape, size, colour and allqualities. Still, they are two, each having aseparate identity. So, each pen has two kindsof qualities: first, the common qualities whichmake one pen similar to the other; second,the distinguishing qualities which give eachpen its separate entity and identity. In otherwords, each pen of the set is a compound ofmixed lot of two separate properties.

This happens in all examples where twosimilar things exist side by side. It would surelyhappen if two Eternals were to exist side byside.

96

It means that if there were two Eternalsthey would both be compound. Each wouldhave a common quality, that is, Eternity;and a distinguishing quality which would giveit a separate personality. This would meanthat' Eternal would be a compound, whichwe already have proved to be impossible.

Therefore, God being Eternal cannotbe more than one.

Second Proof: Suppose there were twogods. Could one of them over-ride the decisionof the other? If yes, then the second one isweaker than the first, and therefore is notomnipotent, not a god at all. If `No', thenthe first one is weaker than the second, andtherefore not omnipotent, not a god at all.

And if both think and act exactly onsimilar lines, then what is the need to supposetwo gods at all? One god is enough to runthis universe!

9 7

20. MEANING OF `SHIRK'

,shirk' literally means `partnership'. InIslamic terminology, it is used for the belief of` polytheism' (believing in more than one god)and `pantheism', (believing that everything inthe world is a part of god).

Polytheism is found in a variety of dis-guises. Some details are given here mostlyfrom the Urdu book Tawhid awr `adl ( Unityand Justice of God) of Mawlana MuhammadMustafa Jawhar of Karachi:

"There is some difference of opinionabout `oneness' of God. For example:

"1. Some say that God is not alone inEternity. He has some colleagues in His Eternity.As, for instance, Christians believe that JesusChrist and Holy Ghost are partners of God ingodship - and it is evident that they could not

98

be said to be partners in godship unless theythemselves were believed to be eternal.

"And the believers in -transmigration ofsoul believe that matter and soul both wereeternal like God. If they discard the beliefof the eternity of matter and soul, they willhave to discard the belief of the transmigrationof soul also.

"2. Resulting from the above belief, is thebelief that there are partners in the attributesand qualities of God, as Christians believe aboutJesus Christ. Because if Jesus Christ was notsharing the attributes and qualities of god-head, he could not be called a god.

"3. Some groups believe that there werepartners in the actions of God, i.e., they were hishelpers or partners in creation and control of theuniverse, as the Greek philosophers believed in`ten intellects' who created the whole universe.

99

"4. Some people believe and say thatGod has no partner in his eternity, qualitiesand actions, but he has partners in worship.Such

people

are

mainly

called

"mushrik "in the Qur'anic terminology.

"Such mushriks were the idol-worshippersof Arabia and their ideology is shared by theidol-worshippers in India and other places.

"5. The last group is of those peoplewho thought that God has no partner in hisEternity, attributes, actions and worship; butthey believed themselves to be independent ofAllah in their actions. Such was the case of` al-Qadiriyyah' (Qadirites) in Islam, who saidthat Allah had no power over man's actions.Such belief means that man is not dependentupon Allah; rather he shares in the authorityof Allah concerning his own activities. "

Thus there are five types of shirk: (1)

100

shirk in the person and Eternity of God, (2)shirk in the Attributes of God, (3) shirk in theAction of God, (4) shirk in the worship of God,and (5) shirk in the Authority of God.

All such beliefs are vehemently and clearlyrejected and refuted in the Qur'an.

21. THE HOLY PROPHET ON `AT-TAWHID'

Chapter 7 and 9 contain a discussion ofthe Holy Prophet with atheists. It was a partof a great discussion in which thirty-five representatives of five religions (Jews, Christians,Atheists, Dualists that is Parsecs, and Poly-theists that is mushrikin) came to him' and helddiscussions with him. In the ,end all acceptedthe truth of Islam and became Muslims.

It is the ;beauty of the arguments putforward by the Holy Prophet that he ex-

plained highly philosophical subjects in sucha simple language that even a layman couldeasily understand it. It is a master-piece of"Wisdom and good preaching."

By the way, there are people who assertday in day out that the Holy Prophet learnedfrom Judaism and Christianity. This discussionis a challenge to them. Let them produce suchirrefutable argument from Jewish and Christianliterature of early centuries before Islam.

It will not be out of place to mention thatthese apparently simple arguments hold theirground even today and they are as much validtoday as they were 1,400 years ago. The dis-cussion is narrated by Imam al-Hasan ibn `Ali al-` Askari (p.b.u.h.) in his tafsir, (commentary),and al-`Allamah at-Tabarsi has copied it in hisfamous al-Ihtijaj (vol.I); it has been translated( with short comments) into Urdu by MawlanaMuhammad Mustafa `Jawhar' of Karachi and

10 1

102

published twice. All three books are in mylibrary.

The Holy Prophet had started his talkswith Jews, then went on conversing with Chris-tians, atheists, dualists and lastly_ with idol-worshippers.

Because of the arrangement of this book-let the arguments against atheists were givenin the first part. Now the remaining four dis-cussions are given here.

22. ISLAM VS JUDAISM

Jews of Arabia in the days of Holy Prophethad lost their original beliefs. Being in touchwith idol-worshippers and Christians, they alsohad started the dogma of God having a son. As`Uzayr(1) had re-written Torah after it had been

1.

` Uzayr = `Esdras or Ezra in English.

103

lost for centuries, Jews revered him very muchand started the claim that `Uzayr was son ofGod.

The Holy Prophet asked them what wasthe reason of their belief. They said that 'Uzayrre-wrote Torah for the children of Israel whenit was lost to them and it shows that he wasson of God.

The Holy Prophet: "Why `Uzayr was sonof God and Moses was not, as Moses broughtTorah from God for the first time and bringingit first time is far more important than re-writing it?

"Moreover, Moses showed many miracleswhich `Uzayr did not show. Therefore, if `Uzayrwas son of God because God gave him thehonour of re-writing Torah, Moses is far moredeserving to be the son of God.

104

"Also, I take it that by sonship you donot mean that relationship which is establishedwhen a child is born from the womb of hismother after his parents establish sexualintercourse."

Jews confirmed it, saying that when theysaid that `Uzayr was son of God, they did notmean sonship by birth, but because of hishonour with God. It has the same meaning asmany teachers call their favourite pupil "myson ".

The Holy Prophet said that he already hadanswered that argument when he said that bythat standard Moses was more deserving to becalled the son of God.

And so far as the example of an eldercalling some unrelated youth as "my son"is concerned, let us look at such uses a bitfurther.

105

You must have seen that the same elder,while showing respect to some great scholar,calls him "my brother" or "my elder" or"my chief" or even "my father".

Basing on such usage, will you say thatMoses (who was more honoured than `Uzayrbefore God) should be called "Brother of God"or "Elder of God" or "Chief of God?"

The Jews could not answer it and aftersome deliberation accepted Islam.

23. UNITY VS. TRINITY

Christians had expressed their beliefthat God is one with Jesus and that Jesuswas son of God.

The Holy Prophet asked them what theymeant by saying that eternal God is one withhis son Jesus ?

106

"Do you mean that the eternal (that is,God) became mortal as Jesus was?

"If you say so, it is impossible that eternalwhich has neither beginning nor end should be-come mortal, which has both beginning andend. Or do you mean that mortal (Jesus) be-came eternal as God is ?

"But this also is impossible, because howcan a thing which was created after non-exist-ence be eternal ?

"Or do you mean by this sentence (Godis one with Jesus) that God gave Jesus honourwhich was not given to anyone else?

"If so, then you will have to accept thatJesus was not eternal, as he was created; and thathis quality of getting honour from God is alsonot eternal, because he got it after his beingcreated. And in that case, Jesus cannot be one

107

with God because eternal and transient cannotcombine together."

Christians: "When God showed manywonderful miracles on the hand of Jesus, Hemade him His son as an honour."

The Holy Prophet drew their attention towhat he had already told Jews on the subject of` Uzayr and sonship of God, and repeated thatargument. The Christians could not answerthe arguments.

Then after some deliberation one of themsaid that the scriptures have reported Jesus assaying, "I am going to my father." (This argument is based on the understanding that Jesushimself claimed that God was his father, andas the Holy Prophet accepted Jesus as a trueprophet, his claim could not be wrong).

The Holy Prophet said that the wording

108

is "I am going to my and your father." It meansthat all persons in the whole audience were sonsof God in the same sense in which Jesus was sonof God.

"Further, this quotation refutes yourclaim that Jesus was son of God because of theunique honour he had before God, because,according to your own belief, none among theaudience had that honour and still they werecalled the sons of God."

After some deliberation they becameMuslim.

24. 'UNITY VS. DUALITY

Dualists (present days' Parsees) believe thatlight and darkness are creators and rulers of theuniverse. The Holy Prophet asked them thereason of this belief.

109

They said: "We find two kinds of thingsin this world - good and evil. These are oppo-sites and we believe that the creator of goodcannot be the creator of evil, and vice versa.These two opposites cannot be found together.

"Don't you see that snow cannot givewarmth and fire cannot make cool? That iswhy we believe two separate creators for goodand evil and they are represented by light anddarkness and both are eternal."

The Holy Prophet said: "Pray tell me,have not you found in this world differentcolours-black, white, red, yellow, green andblue? Is it not a fact that none of these colourscan be found with another colour in sameplace at same time?"

Dualists: "Yes. No two of these colourscan be found in one place at same time."

The Holy Prophet said: Then, according toyour thinking, you must believe that there is aseparate creator for each one of these colours."

The Dualists could not give any answerto that argument.

Then the Holy Prophet asked them thatlight and darkness being opposites, how did ithappen that both joined hands in creation andtheir creatures (good and evil) are together inthis world? Doesn't it mean that there is aSuperior power who has brought these oppo-sites together?

They took time pondering upon thesepoints and finally accepted Islam.

25. UNITY VS. IDOL-WORSHIP

Then the Holy Prophet asked the idol

worshippers why they worshipped the idolsinstead of the one Almighty God.

They said: "We seek to be nearer to Godthrough these idols."

The Holy Prophet: "Do these idols hear?Are they pious and obedient servants of God?How can you seek nearness to God throughthem ? "

Idol-worshippers: "No. They do not hear."

Holy Prophet: "And the fact is that youhave carved these idols by your own hands. So,if these had ability to worship, it was incumbentupon them to worship you (because you aretheir creator) not that you should worship them.

"Moreover, God has never allowed you toworship idols (so how can you be nearer to Godthrough these idols, without any authorityfrom God?)."

111

On hearing this argument, the idol-worship-pers split into three groups:-

One group said: "These are the images ofthose persons in whom God was incarnated.Thus we worship God by worshipping the images of those persons who were incarnationof God. "

The Holy Prophet said:-

1. " Your belief that God was incarnated inanybody is absolutely wrong because you havemade the Creator like His creatures. Don't yousee that God cannot be incarnated in anythingunless that thing surrounds God. (But how cananything surround God?)

2. "Also what will be the differencebetween God and other things which are foundin a body (like colour, taste, smell, hardness orsoftness, heaviness or lightness). All these things

1 1 2

are found in other things, and have no indepen-(lent existence. Is God also like this?

3. "Lastly, when you attribute to God aquality (incarnation) which is the quality of atransient (of a thing which was created afternon-existence), then why not believe that allqualities of a transient are found in Him. I mean,you must also believe that God changes anddeteriorates and dies, because the body of Hissupposed incarnation changes and deterioratesand dies. It is impossible for the content not tochange with the changes of the receptacle!

"All these considerations prove that it isimpossible for God to be incarnated in any body.

"And when incarnation is wrong, thereremains no basis for your belief that God wasincarnated in some of His creatures and thatthese idols are the image of such persons."

11 3

The second group said that those idolswere the images of those of past generationswho were very obedient to God. "«e carvedtheir images and worship them with a view toglorify God through their worship."

The Holy Prophet asked them: "Pray tellme what kind of worship have you saved forAlmighty God, when you are worshipping theseimages by prostrating before them, praying tothem, and putting your head before them?

"Don't you know that it is the right ofGod that He should not be thought equal toHis servant? If you honour a King in the sameway as you honour his servant, will not it bean insult to the King? "

Idol-worshippers: "Yes. It is true."

The Holy Prophet: "Then, don't yourealize that by worshipping the images of the.creatures, you are insulting the Creator ? "

11 4

'rhe last group said: "God created Adamand ordered the angels to prostrate before him.We are more deserving to prostrate before Adam(because we are his children). As Adam is notalive today, we have carved his image to pros-trate before it and to seek nearness to Godthrough that worship."

'rhe Holy Prophet told them: "Acceptedthat God ordered the angels to prostrate beforeAdam. But has He ordered you to prostratebefore the image of Adam? Adam and his imageare not one and same thing. How are you surethat God is riot displeased with your prostrationbefore Adam's image ?

"Look at it in this way. If a man allowsyou to enter his house one day, do you haveany right to enter that house next day? Or toenter his other house the same day ?

"If a man gives you a gift of one of his

11 5

clothes, or one of his horses, arc you justifiedin taking it?"

Idol-worshippers:

"Yes, we will take it."

The Holy Prophet: "If you don't acceptthat cloth or horse, do you halve any rightto take his other cloth or horse without hispermission ? "

Idol-worshippers: "No. Because he hadgifted the first cloth or horse, but not theother."

The Holy Prophet: "Who has more rightthat his property should not be used withouthis permission: God or His creatures?"

Idol-worshippers: "God has more rightthat His property should not be infringedupon."

116

The Holy Prophet: "Then why are youcontravening this principle? When and wherehas God allowed you to worship the idols?"

After some consideration, all of thembecame Muslim.

11 7

GOD OF ISLAM

Part Three

26. AT-TAWHID OF ISLAM

It will be seen from above-mentioned dis-cussion how Islam, for the first time in historyof religions, explained "at-tawhid" (Onenessof God) in such a way that there was no mis-understanding afterwards.

The Jews believed in one God, but theirswas not the universal but tribal god. And eventhen, they had fallen in the pitfall of giving` Uzayr the title of `son of God.'

It is the direct result of the teaching ofIslam that Jews left calling a man `son of God'.Christians are trying to re-interprete the dogma

121

122

of Trinity; Hindus were compelled to rediscoverthat Vedas teach Unity of God and that idol-worship was wrong.

The surah of at-Tawhid is one of the short-est chapters of the Holy Qur'an. It establishesthe pure belief in the Oneness of God, rejectingall types of 'shirk' in these words:-

In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent,the Merciful

"Say: He is Allah, The One and Only:Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;He begetteth not, Nor is He begotten;And there is none like unto Him."

(chap. 112)

123

The first sentence of the Islamic kalimah,t hat is, "There is no god except Allah" leads aMuslim throughout his life not only in religiousmatters but in social behaviour also. "There isno god" shows a Muslim that nothing in theuniverse is superior to Him. It is observed inQur'an that "He it is Who created for you allthat is in the earth." So a Muslim knows thatnothing in this world is to be worshipped.Neither stone nor trees, neither animals norhuman beings; neither the Sun, the Moon northe Stars can be worshipped, because everthingis created and created for his benefit. When aMuslim thus has rejected every falsehood andevery idea of nature-worship, idol-worship andhuman-worship, he is ready to believe in the posi-tive truth of the Unity of God. Believing in a Su-preme being gives an aim to our life and providesa purpose for our actions. Had a man been leftwith the wrong impression that there was noGod at all, his life would have been aimless,and an aimless life is dangerous. So it is added

that there is no god "except Allah". Thissentence has a negative as well as a positiveaspect. Both are instrumental in creating thebelief that every man is equal to every otherperson. When nobody is superior, nobody isinferior. Thus, the belief in the Unity of Godpromotes the sense of brotherhood and equalityand equity which is another feature of Islam.

27. ATTRIBUTES OF ALLAH

Now time has come to explain in shortwhat is our belief concerning God. In precedingchapters almost all the aspects of our belief havebeen explained. It should be apparent by nowthat there are many attributes which are a mustfor God, while there are others which are be-neath His dignity and cannot be found in Him.

Therefore, in our faith, the attributesof Allah have been grouped as `positive'and `negative'.

1 24

125

as-Sifaat ath-thubutiyyah

The positive attributes which are befittingAllah are called

as-Sifat ath-thubutiyyah. Theyare many in number, but only eight of themare usually mentioned. They are:-

1.

al-Qadim: It means that Allah is Eternal,that is, He has neither beginning nor end.Nothing except Allah is eternal.

2.

al-Qadir: It means that Allah is Omnipo-tent, that is, He has power over everythingand every affair.

3.

al- Alim: It

means

that

Allah is Omni-scient, that is, He knows everything. Evenour unspoken intentions and desires arenot hidden from Him.

4.

al-Hayy: It means that Allah was alwaysalive and will remain alive for ever.

55.

al-Murid: It means that Allah has His ownwill and discretion in all affairs. He doesnot do anything under compulsion.

6. al-Mudrik: It means that He is All-per-ceiving, as as-Sami' ` (All-hearing), al-Basir(All-seeing). Allah sees and hears every-thing without any need of eyes or ears.

7.

al-Mutakallim: It means that Allah is theMaster of the word, that is, lie can createspeech in anything, as He did in a tree forProphet Musa (Moses - p.b.u.h.) and in the"Curtain of Light" for our Holy Prophet(p. b. u. h. a. h. p.).

8. as-Sadiq: It means that Allah is true inhis words and promises.

It is impossible to fix any limit to Hisattributes. This list is not exhaustive but it isessential to understand the Glory of Allah.

126

12 7

These attributes are not acquired but are in-herent in the conception of Divinity.

as-Sifat as-salbiyyah

The Negative Attributes which cannot befound in Allah because they are below His dig-nity are called

"as-Sifdt as-salbiyyah ".

Theyare many, but like "as-Sifat ath-thubutiyyah "only eight are listed here. They are:-

1.

ash-Sharik: The word "ash-sharik" means

a colleague or partner. Allah has neither acolleague nor a partner in His Divinity.

2. al-Murakkab: This word means "Com-pound" or "Mixed". Allah is neithermade, nor composed, of any material. Hecannot be divided even in imagination.

3.

al-Makan: It means "Place". Allah is notin a place because He has no body and 11c

128

is everywhere because His power and know-ledge is manificently apparent everywhere.

4.

al-Hulul: It means

"Entering". Nothingenters into Allah nor does He enter intoanything or anybody. Therefore, the beliefof Incarnation in any form is abhorrentto the conception of Divinity.

5. Mahal al-hawadith: This means "Subjectto Changes". Allah cannot change.

6.

al-Mar'i: It means "Visible". Allah is notvisible. He has not been seen, is not seenand will never be seen.

7. Ihtiydj: It means "Dependence" or"Need". Allah is not deficient in anyvirtue, so he does not need anything.He is All-perfect.

129

8. as-Sifat az-zaidah: This means "AddedQualification". The attributes of Alldhare not separate from His Being. Whenwe say God is Omnipotent and Merci-ful, we do not mean that His powerand Mercy are something differentfrom His Person. We see that a childis born without any power, and thenhe acquires stength day by day. It isso because power is not his person.God is not like this. He is Power Him-self; Mercy Himself; Knowledge Him-self; Justice Himself; Virtue Himself;Truth Himself and so on.

It will thus be seen that according toIslam Allah is the name of God as perceivedin the light of the above Positive and Negative Attributes. In other words, Allah is theCreator of the universe, Self-existent, thesource of all perfection and free from alldefects.

130

28. NAMES OF ALLAH

The proper name which Islam uses for Godis "Allah". "Allah" means "One who deservesto be loved " and "Into Whom everyone seeksrefuge." This word, grammatically speaking,is unique. It has no plural and no feminine.So this name itself reflects light upon the factthat Allah is one and only one; He has neitherany partner nor any equal. This name cannotproperly be translated by the word "God"because God can be transformed in `gods'and `goddess'.

Two more frequently used names arear-Rahman and ar-Rahim.

ar-Rahman signifies that AllAh is Mercifuland that His Mercy encompasses each andeverything in the universe without any distinction on account of faith or belief. He makes,creates and sustains everything and every manwhether he be a Muslim or kafir (unbeliever).

ar-Rahim signifies that the Mercy of Allahon the Day of Judgement will surround the truebelievers only, and that unblievers and hyp-ocrites will be left out.

It is apparent that both of these namessignify a distinct aspect of God's Mercy. HisMercy in this world, as signified by `ar-Rahman'is general; and the one in the life-hereafter, assignified by `ar-Rahim' is special.

It will be of interest to note that the word` ar-Rahman' cannot be used except for Allah,while `ar-Rahim' can be used for others also.

That is why it has been told by Imam that"ar-Rahman is a reserved name which denotesunreserved Mercy, and ar-Rahim is an unreservedname which denotes Reserved Mercy. "

13 1

13 2

29. AL-ASMAU'L-HUSNA

(THE BEAUTIFUL NAMES OF ALLAH)

Here is a list of 99 names used for Allah

in Islam, together with their meanings:-

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

30. ATTRIBUTES OF PERSON AND ACTION

Question: One of the names of Allah isal-Khaliq that is, Creator. As Allah was Creator

from ever, does it not follow that the created

things, that is, the universe is from ever?

Answer: Allah was not creating from ever.

If you study carefully you will find that theattributes of God, as mentioned in the above

chapter, may easily be divided into two groups:-

First, there are those attributes which can

never be separated from the conception ofdivinity. For example, we say that God is alQddir ( Omnipotent) al- Alim ( Omniscient) andal-Hayy (Everliving). These are such attributes

which can never be separated from the concep-

tion of God, because there never was a timewhen God was not Omnipotent, Omniscient or

Living. He was al-Qadir, al- Alim and al-Hayy

for ever, and will remain al-Qadir, al- Alim andal-Hayy for ever.

Second, there are the attributes which des-cribe the actions of Allah. For example, we saythat Allah is al-Khaliq (Creator), ar-Razzaq(Sustainer) etc. These are the Attributes whichdescribe the actions of Allah, and are, therefore,called as-Sifatu'l fi'liyyah (Attributes of Actionsof Allah).

These actions were not from ever, andtherefore these attributes were not used forAllah, from ever. You know that Allah is alMurid. He acts according to His own plan andHis own Will. He is not like fire which burnswithout any intention or will of its own. Noris He like the sun which goes on giving lightand warmth without intention and will of itsown. Allah works according to His own plan. Hecreated when He wished, and not before that.

141

Such attributes refer to the person ofAllah, and are, therefore, called as-Sifatu'dhatiy-yah ( Attributes of Person of Allah).

14 2

It does not mean that God had no powerto create. The power to create was there forever; because the `Power' is not separate fromHis person. But the appearance of that power,and bringing it into effect, was not from ever.In short, Allah had power to create from ever,but He did not create from ever. And when Hecreated, He was called al-Khaliq; but not beforethat.

Likewise, when he sustained, He wascalled ar-Razzaq; when He forgave, He wascalled al-Ghaffar; when He avenged, He wascalled

al-Qahhar; when He gave life, He wascalled al-Muhyi; when He gave death, lie wascalled al-Mumit.

THE END