Thursday, 26 August 2010
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Calculation of Timings for Fajr and Ishaa Prayers.
The timings of Fajr and Ishaa are related to the appearance of twilight - a period of soft, diffused light from the sky when the sun is just below the horizon preceding sunrise (morning twilight) or following sunset (evening twilight). It is possible to calculate the time twilight appears each day, though approximate, by considering the position of the Sun below the local horizon.
Astronomical Twilight is defined, for European countries, to be when the centre of the Sun, when setting, is 18 degrees below the horizon. At this point it no longer contributes to sky illumination i.e. it is totally dark. However, the sun stops contributing to the illumination of the sky in a way that can be physically discerned by the naked eye before the decline of 18 degrees.
For the calculation of Ishaa times, Muslims are not concerned about the onset of total darkness but the disappearance of the redness of sunset,* and this occurs at a time before Astronomical Twilight. Despite this, many timetables have their Ishaa times corresponding to the time when the sun has declined by 18 degrees i.e. at Astronomical Twilight.
The opposite also holds true, the sun, when rising, starts contributing illumination to the sky after 18 degrees, but changes in illumination only become discernable to the human eye some time after.
The time for Fajr prayer commences when the horizon becomes illuminated and that illumination proceeds to spread across the horizon, as seen by the human eye. This would then be some time after the sun has risen above a decline of 18 degrees. However, again, many timetables have their Fajr times corresponding to the times when the sun is rising and is at a decline of 18 degrees.
We, in High Wycombe, have been observing the times of Fajr and Ishaa, keeping the above in mind, and have found that timings for Ishaa prayer approximate to an angle less than 15 degrees and for Fajr prayer, an angle of 17 degrees. As such we have altered our timetables to reflect our findings. This means that our Fajr times are slightly later, and our Ishaa times earlier, than the times found on timetables based on 18 degrees, such as the Regents Park timetable. Moreover, some timetables also introduce a 10 minute 'safety margin' which they subtract from the time of Fajr; as such the differences in times on these timetables when compared to ours is greater. We have not added this 'safety margin' as it is something that contradicts the Sunnah.
No matter what the angle used, the times of sunset and sunrise are all approximately the same. NOTE: these timetables are provided only as a guide, and where possible, we encourage you to view the actual timings for start of Fajr for yourself.
* According to the majority of scholars, other than the Hanafi School, the time of Ishaa commences when the redness of the sunset disappears, i.e. before Astronomical Twilight. (Ibn Rushd, Bid«yatu’l-Mujtahid)
The above was taken from High Wycombe mosque's webpage.
Astronomical Twilight is defined, for European countries, to be when the centre of the Sun, when setting, is 18 degrees below the horizon. At this point it no longer contributes to sky illumination i.e. it is totally dark. However, the sun stops contributing to the illumination of the sky in a way that can be physically discerned by the naked eye before the decline of 18 degrees.
For the calculation of Ishaa times, Muslims are not concerned about the onset of total darkness but the disappearance of the redness of sunset,* and this occurs at a time before Astronomical Twilight. Despite this, many timetables have their Ishaa times corresponding to the time when the sun has declined by 18 degrees i.e. at Astronomical Twilight.
The opposite also holds true, the sun, when rising, starts contributing illumination to the sky after 18 degrees, but changes in illumination only become discernable to the human eye some time after.
The time for Fajr prayer commences when the horizon becomes illuminated and that illumination proceeds to spread across the horizon, as seen by the human eye. This would then be some time after the sun has risen above a decline of 18 degrees. However, again, many timetables have their Fajr times corresponding to the times when the sun is rising and is at a decline of 18 degrees.
We, in High Wycombe, have been observing the times of Fajr and Ishaa, keeping the above in mind, and have found that timings for Ishaa prayer approximate to an angle less than 15 degrees and for Fajr prayer, an angle of 17 degrees. As such we have altered our timetables to reflect our findings. This means that our Fajr times are slightly later, and our Ishaa times earlier, than the times found on timetables based on 18 degrees, such as the Regents Park timetable. Moreover, some timetables also introduce a 10 minute 'safety margin' which they subtract from the time of Fajr; as such the differences in times on these timetables when compared to ours is greater. We have not added this 'safety margin' as it is something that contradicts the Sunnah.
No matter what the angle used, the times of sunset and sunrise are all approximately the same. NOTE: these timetables are provided only as a guide, and where possible, we encourage you to view the actual timings for start of Fajr for yourself.
* According to the majority of scholars, other than the Hanafi School, the time of Ishaa commences when the redness of the sunset disappears, i.e. before Astronomical Twilight. (Ibn Rushd, Bid«yatu’l-Mujtahid)
The above was taken from High Wycombe mosque's webpage.
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Can democracy work in the muslim world?
Bismillahi Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
CAN DEMOCRACY WORK IN OUR LANDS?
When we look at the muslim ummah today we see that we are plagued by problems that we cannot solve effectively. For example, our lands contain so much wealth yet we are unable to feed ourselves, whereas a country like Britain contains nothing but is able to feed itself many times over.
Recently during the coup in Pakistan, General Musharraf stated that the reason for the continued failure of Pakistan to succeed as a nation was due to the failure to fully implement democracy. Certainly, this position is advocated not just by Musharraf, but also by some in the muslim world since we witness the progression of western nations who do implement democracy 100%. This article hopes to examine the validity of such a view and asks whether the muslims can ever implement democracy to the extent of the west.
Before we begin answering this question it is important to know how a nation progresses and solves its problems effectively. For a nation to solve its problems effectively, coherently and consistently it must have a single reference point to refer its problems to. This is because a nation's systems all interact with each other. In other words the solutions or laws that are implemented effect other solutions that are implemented. For example it will be ineffective for a nation to teach the people that adultery is wrong but not punish them for doing so. It is therefore important that the people be united behind a single reference point so that all the problems that a nation faces are referred to a single source of solutions so that there is coherence, consistency and movement in the nation. This reference point is a result of the nations thought about its purpose in life and how this purpose affects the way it lives its life; as this is the most basic question affecting how the human being thinks and acts in life.
We can begin by asking the question what exactly is democracy? Democracy is the system of ruling in which the human beings decide the rules to be implemented in solving life's problems. This is done through a system of voting by the people, with the majority having their decisions implemented. It is important to note that this system of ruling gives man the sovereignty to legislate. At its heart, indeed the very foundation that this western democratic system is based upon, is the secular belief that the Creator of man (that many do not even recognise) has no right to lay down the laws for our life, and that the sphere of the Creator should only be restricted to our rituals of worship. (The democratic system under communism is based on the belief that god does not exist and as a result man must decide the laws of life).
We can now see why the west can implement democracy successfully. Before the west embraced democracy they embraced a thought about how they would live their lives. This transformation from the western nations living oppressed by the church and king to nations living secularly according to the separation of church from daily life is what is historically known as the Renaissance. They have built their democratic ruling system on their belief about their purpose in life (secularism). This allows them to use democracy to solve their problems with no hesitation as it complies with their secular purpose in life. There is no clash between the solutions offered by democracy and their belief about how they should live their lives. There is also no clash between the solutions derived by democracy and the religions embraced by the people in the west as their religions do not offer any solutions for the problems of daily life. Thus there is unity amongst all in this method to live their lives and this adherence to a single reference point is reflected in the coherence of their systems of living. We can see how the west implements the democratic rule successfully, for example in the case of Salman Rushdie who was given protection as a result of their secular belief in the freedom of opinion. Also we can see how the American troops were rallied to fight Iraq under the democratic framework to defend the 'freedom of Kuwait' or rather the freedom of American ownership of the gulf oil. In these examples the democratic decisions made by these governments were successfully implemented by the answerable institutions of that nation. We can wonder what would result if the British policemen who have to defend
Salman Rushdie did not believe in freedom of opinion, or the American troops in the gulf did not believe in personal freedom or freedom of ownership. Would these bodies still move in the same way?
This is in stark contrast to the Muslim's lands in which there is not one single reference point for our laws and thus a clash between the solutions we implement, which results in an ineffectiveness in the ability to solve our problems coherently. For example, in a many muslim countries it is taught through the schools that fornication is wrong, however the democratic laws allow businesses operating nightclubs to open, and the punishment system, through its lack of punishment for the fornicator actually encourages such behaviour. We witnessed recently the pull out of Kashmir by Pakistani troops - who wanted to expel the occupying kuffar as Islam dictates - due to the orders of a non-Islamic democratic ruler basing his decision on another reference point and thus causing the nation to ineffectively solve its problem. These examples serve to show us the stagnation our ummah finds itself in when it tries to solve its problems, due to its reference to more than one basis.
It will be impossible for the muslims to ever implement democracy as the west does since they hold a belief of Islam that provides a problem-solving basis that clashes with the secular basis of democracy. Unlike the religions of the west this belief provides us with solutions and a method of implementation for daily problems and these solutions and method will always be standing between us and any democratic solutions that we may decide to implement. For example if we democratically decided that it was allowed to fornicate, practice homosexuality, and eat pork , would we be prepared to accept our children to one day come home and do these things? Would we be prepared to give our lives for a war to defend the freedom to defame the Prophets if that was democratically decided upon for us? No we would not - and thus we would stagnate as a nation unable to organise our life's affairs. The only way we could accept these solutions and use democracy to solve our problems, like the west, is if we decided that we were going to consciously reject ruling by Allah's (SWT) laws and thus secularise Islam - however this is kufr as Allah (SWT) warns in [TMQ 5:44]
'And those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed are non-believers'
The other option that remains for us to solve our problems coherently, and move together with as a nation, is to comprehensively implement the solutions that emanate from the basis that we already have.
This movement can be illustrated when the muslims at the time of the battle of Badr were faced with a new problem that needed solving. This was whether the muslims should go out on the offensive fighting the Quraysh as the Ansar had given the pledge to defend the Prophet only and did not mention that they would leave Medinah and fight. On this day the muslims referred this problem to their basis (to live life according to the commandments of Allah) and were able to mobilise themselves into a functional unit to defeat their enemies. In the words of one of the spokesmen on that day - Sa'd ibn Muadh:
Sa'd b.Muad'h stood up and spoke "O prophet of Allah, we believe in you, and bear witness to what you have vouchsafed to us and we declare in unequivocal terms that what you have brought is the Truth. We give you our firm pledge of obedience and sacrifice. O messenger of Allah, you set out of Medina with a different objective but Allah ordained otherwise. Do what ever you deem fit. Cement relations with whom you like; and sever them with those whom you dislike. Make peace with those whom you prefer and fight against those whom you look upon as enemies. We will remain on your side under all circumstances. You have every right to obtain out of our belongings as much as you like and spare for us whatever you desire. We would look upon the portion accepted by you far more valuable than that which you spare us. We will obey you most willingly in whatever you command us. If you order us to go to Bak al-Ghimad (a place in Yemen according to some and according to others, the farthest point in the Hijaz), we will show no reluctance and by Allah, Who has sent you with the Truth, if you were to ask us to plunge into the sea we will do that most readily and not a soul will stay behind. We do not grudge the idea of encounter with the enemy. We are experienced in war and are trustworthy in combat. We hope that Allah will show you through our hands those deed which will please your eyes. Kindly lead us to the battlefield in the Name of Allah".
Imad Shoubaki
CAN DEMOCRACY WORK IN OUR LANDS?
When we look at the muslim ummah today we see that we are plagued by problems that we cannot solve effectively. For example, our lands contain so much wealth yet we are unable to feed ourselves, whereas a country like Britain contains nothing but is able to feed itself many times over.
Recently during the coup in Pakistan, General Musharraf stated that the reason for the continued failure of Pakistan to succeed as a nation was due to the failure to fully implement democracy. Certainly, this position is advocated not just by Musharraf, but also by some in the muslim world since we witness the progression of western nations who do implement democracy 100%. This article hopes to examine the validity of such a view and asks whether the muslims can ever implement democracy to the extent of the west.
Before we begin answering this question it is important to know how a nation progresses and solves its problems effectively. For a nation to solve its problems effectively, coherently and consistently it must have a single reference point to refer its problems to. This is because a nation's systems all interact with each other. In other words the solutions or laws that are implemented effect other solutions that are implemented. For example it will be ineffective for a nation to teach the people that adultery is wrong but not punish them for doing so. It is therefore important that the people be united behind a single reference point so that all the problems that a nation faces are referred to a single source of solutions so that there is coherence, consistency and movement in the nation. This reference point is a result of the nations thought about its purpose in life and how this purpose affects the way it lives its life; as this is the most basic question affecting how the human being thinks and acts in life.
We can begin by asking the question what exactly is democracy? Democracy is the system of ruling in which the human beings decide the rules to be implemented in solving life's problems. This is done through a system of voting by the people, with the majority having their decisions implemented. It is important to note that this system of ruling gives man the sovereignty to legislate. At its heart, indeed the very foundation that this western democratic system is based upon, is the secular belief that the Creator of man (that many do not even recognise) has no right to lay down the laws for our life, and that the sphere of the Creator should only be restricted to our rituals of worship. (The democratic system under communism is based on the belief that god does not exist and as a result man must decide the laws of life).
We can now see why the west can implement democracy successfully. Before the west embraced democracy they embraced a thought about how they would live their lives. This transformation from the western nations living oppressed by the church and king to nations living secularly according to the separation of church from daily life is what is historically known as the Renaissance. They have built their democratic ruling system on their belief about their purpose in life (secularism). This allows them to use democracy to solve their problems with no hesitation as it complies with their secular purpose in life. There is no clash between the solutions offered by democracy and their belief about how they should live their lives. There is also no clash between the solutions derived by democracy and the religions embraced by the people in the west as their religions do not offer any solutions for the problems of daily life. Thus there is unity amongst all in this method to live their lives and this adherence to a single reference point is reflected in the coherence of their systems of living. We can see how the west implements the democratic rule successfully, for example in the case of Salman Rushdie who was given protection as a result of their secular belief in the freedom of opinion. Also we can see how the American troops were rallied to fight Iraq under the democratic framework to defend the 'freedom of Kuwait' or rather the freedom of American ownership of the gulf oil. In these examples the democratic decisions made by these governments were successfully implemented by the answerable institutions of that nation. We can wonder what would result if the British policemen who have to defend
Salman Rushdie did not believe in freedom of opinion, or the American troops in the gulf did not believe in personal freedom or freedom of ownership. Would these bodies still move in the same way?
This is in stark contrast to the Muslim's lands in which there is not one single reference point for our laws and thus a clash between the solutions we implement, which results in an ineffectiveness in the ability to solve our problems coherently. For example, in a many muslim countries it is taught through the schools that fornication is wrong, however the democratic laws allow businesses operating nightclubs to open, and the punishment system, through its lack of punishment for the fornicator actually encourages such behaviour. We witnessed recently the pull out of Kashmir by Pakistani troops - who wanted to expel the occupying kuffar as Islam dictates - due to the orders of a non-Islamic democratic ruler basing his decision on another reference point and thus causing the nation to ineffectively solve its problem. These examples serve to show us the stagnation our ummah finds itself in when it tries to solve its problems, due to its reference to more than one basis.
It will be impossible for the muslims to ever implement democracy as the west does since they hold a belief of Islam that provides a problem-solving basis that clashes with the secular basis of democracy. Unlike the religions of the west this belief provides us with solutions and a method of implementation for daily problems and these solutions and method will always be standing between us and any democratic solutions that we may decide to implement. For example if we democratically decided that it was allowed to fornicate, practice homosexuality, and eat pork , would we be prepared to accept our children to one day come home and do these things? Would we be prepared to give our lives for a war to defend the freedom to defame the Prophets if that was democratically decided upon for us? No we would not - and thus we would stagnate as a nation unable to organise our life's affairs. The only way we could accept these solutions and use democracy to solve our problems, like the west, is if we decided that we were going to consciously reject ruling by Allah's (SWT) laws and thus secularise Islam - however this is kufr as Allah (SWT) warns in [TMQ 5:44]
'And those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed are non-believers'
The other option that remains for us to solve our problems coherently, and move together with as a nation, is to comprehensively implement the solutions that emanate from the basis that we already have.
This movement can be illustrated when the muslims at the time of the battle of Badr were faced with a new problem that needed solving. This was whether the muslims should go out on the offensive fighting the Quraysh as the Ansar had given the pledge to defend the Prophet only and did not mention that they would leave Medinah and fight. On this day the muslims referred this problem to their basis (to live life according to the commandments of Allah) and were able to mobilise themselves into a functional unit to defeat their enemies. In the words of one of the spokesmen on that day - Sa'd ibn Muadh:
Sa'd b.Muad'h stood up and spoke "O prophet of Allah, we believe in you, and bear witness to what you have vouchsafed to us and we declare in unequivocal terms that what you have brought is the Truth. We give you our firm pledge of obedience and sacrifice. O messenger of Allah, you set out of Medina with a different objective but Allah ordained otherwise. Do what ever you deem fit. Cement relations with whom you like; and sever them with those whom you dislike. Make peace with those whom you prefer and fight against those whom you look upon as enemies. We will remain on your side under all circumstances. You have every right to obtain out of our belongings as much as you like and spare for us whatever you desire. We would look upon the portion accepted by you far more valuable than that which you spare us. We will obey you most willingly in whatever you command us. If you order us to go to Bak al-Ghimad (a place in Yemen according to some and according to others, the farthest point in the Hijaz), we will show no reluctance and by Allah, Who has sent you with the Truth, if you were to ask us to plunge into the sea we will do that most readily and not a soul will stay behind. We do not grudge the idea of encounter with the enemy. We are experienced in war and are trustworthy in combat. We hope that Allah will show you through our hands those deed which will please your eyes. Kindly lead us to the battlefield in the Name of Allah".
Imad Shoubaki
Saturday, 3 October 2009
Is there a creator?- shortened
Is There a Creator?- summarized from www.proofofislam.blogspot.com
First of all we need to agree on the correct way of coming to an answer (our criteria) as people use different criteria to answer this question and hence arrive at differing conclusions (such as feelings, dreams, science-empiricism, morality judgments [e.g. god is good and wouldn't allow all this evil in the world if he existed], blind faith etc.). Science cannot even begin to answer this question as it's methodology is limited to dis/proving theories/hypotheses which must be observable in the natural world- no one can observe 'God' in a test-tube!
What is proof that is good enough that everyone will accept? What can we find truth in? Truth is what cannot be denied. So ask yourself - What is it that nobody can deny?
No one can deny the reality in which they live in. We accept it all the time as we function within it- no one dares ignore it when doing an action! (do you exit the room using a door or through a wall?)
Now that we've agreed what we can agree upon, let us move onto the burning question of our existence. The question that we are asking is where did we all come from? Now, you can answer this in a shallow way and say "my parents" which does agree with the reality- but it also ignores other parts of it too (where did your parents come from?). Now in a question like this which is the most important question in life as it will shape your identity and what you do with your life- you don't want to make any mistakes. So you don't want to leave any bit of the reality out when you examine it. In a question like this, you need to include all of the reality so that there is no room for error.
We can thus categorize the whole of the reality into three: mankind, other life, and the entire non-living universe.
So the question is: where did it all come from?
If we study all of these things we will find that none of them have the ability to create. In the context of this discussion by 'create', we mean 'to make out of nothing' as this is what we are asking. We do not mean 'manipulation' of existing elements as in cloning or reproduction (which manipulates sex cells already present). If anything in this universe was able to create itself (or for that matter other things) then we should be able to perceive such phenomena in our reality- however this is not the case. (Have you ever walked down the street and into a lamppost that just came out of nowhere after creating itself?) No scientist has ever discovered any living or non-living object creating anything else or itself.
Some may try to argue however that the universe needs no creator because it in itself is self-created or has always existed and we were not around at its time of self-creation to witness it and so cannot exclude it as a possibility. As part of this argument that the universe just always existed, they imply that in fact the universe itself has got the ability to create itself because it goes on for infinity occupying an infinite space with no restrictions to it- in effect just growing and getting bigger from nothing!
This argument can easily be tackled in a number of ways.
To begin with, the universe itself is just the sum of all of its celestial bodies as well as the life forms that we can perceive within it. So if all of these bodies have no ability to create then the universe too by definition of what it is -has no ability to create! (Five apples plus five apples will always give you apples and never can you get oranges from adding as many more apples as you want!).
Secondly, David Hilbert the famous mathematician discussed this and concluded that absurdities arise when an infinite sum of finite things (such as the celestial bodies within the universe) is assumed. In order to understand this, imagine if you will an infinite sum of marbles. If we were to halve the marbles then both halves would be equal to infinity. In fact any fraction of the infinite sum of marbles would equal infinity. This then produces an apparent contradiction that the part is equal to the whole. Further if we were to take three marbles out of the infinite sum of marbles then the remaining marbles would still equal to infinity. But the 3 marbles that have been taken out would be a fraction of the overall marbles. Yet this contradicts the principle we established earlier which is that every fraction of the infinite sum of marbles would equal to infinity. Yet the three marbles do not equal infinity. Thus something cannot be infinite and finite at the same time, because of this and many other contradictions it is absolutely clear that the sum of finite things must be finite. And because the universe is made up of finite bodies within space, and because we can measure parts of the universe which are finite distances then the whole universe is finite even though it be very large indeed!
Thirdly, no scientist could ever prove using hard facts that the universe has no bounds. How would you measure it?- by sending out a pulse and waiting for the response (like they do for measuring the depths of the ocean) or by sending a satellite probe to the edges of the universe and waiting for it to report back- however we would be dead by the time any of them came back if the universe was infinite- and this would still not indicate infinity as it could just mean that the universe expands further than the time it takes for us to measure it! so it would be speculation (and theory) to say that the universe expands to infinity. However, what we do know from reality is that within the universe nothing has the power to self-create. So if we have to choose reality or theory which are we to take? (If you are to cross a road which thought would you use -built on reality or theory? reality tells you a car will hurt you if it hits you and speculation/theory would be that the driver will swerve out the way).]
Finally when they say the universe arose from a Big Bang and is expanding they inherently admit it is finite in size, otherwise it could not expand! The universe is large, but is still a 'finite' space. There is nothing in reality which is infinite. No matter how hard we try, man is unable to find anything infinite around him. All we can perceive is the finite and limited that has not the power to create.
This leads us to therefore conclude that if everything in our reality has no ability to create itself (or indeed other things), then all of our reality must have been created by some thing unlike anything we can perceive! This being is what we call the creator, or ‘Allah’ in Islam.
The fact that we cannot see it or "empirically" measure this creator (as the scientist's modus operandi will seek to do) has no bearing on this, as the scientific methodology of investigation is limited to only things which are observable- however the creator is clearly not perceivable by any of our five senses (i.e. we cannot see, hear, touch, smell, or taste it). What we have used to discover the creator is our everyday ability to think rationally (based on reality). It is similar to the one who hears a knock on the door and thinks to himself, "something must be behind that door because from reality, doors can’t knock themselves”. Also, it is irrational and absurd for us to attribute qualities to describe this creator as some philosophers do (e.g. God is good/love)- as we cannot perceive it. This only leads to incorrect assumptions which causes the purity of our thinking to be lost. All we could know about it – is what it chooses to tell us. (Likewise, you couldn’t describe what was behind the door- without the ‘knocker’ giving you some information of its description)
We can now start to ask the questions that would lead on from this such as- Has this creator communicated to us why it created us and what will happen when we die? And how can we even identify its communication-if any! (Which is another discussion for another article)
It is only with this type of certainty built on reality and not speculation that a Muslim can build his life so that he is sure about everything he does. And it is this gift of the mind that differentiates us from animals, that allows us to progress properly when we use it in the correct way to build our thinking on reality rather than doubt and speculation; and then allows mankind to bond together in society producing a great civilization based on real answers!
"When a finger points to the sky, only a fool stares at the finger!"
First of all we need to agree on the correct way of coming to an answer (our criteria) as people use different criteria to answer this question and hence arrive at differing conclusions (such as feelings, dreams, science-empiricism, morality judgments [e.g. god is good and wouldn't allow all this evil in the world if he existed], blind faith etc.). Science cannot even begin to answer this question as it's methodology is limited to dis/proving theories/hypotheses which must be observable in the natural world- no one can observe 'God' in a test-tube!
What is proof that is good enough that everyone will accept? What can we find truth in? Truth is what cannot be denied. So ask yourself - What is it that nobody can deny?
No one can deny the reality in which they live in. We accept it all the time as we function within it- no one dares ignore it when doing an action! (do you exit the room using a door or through a wall?)
Now that we've agreed what we can agree upon, let us move onto the burning question of our existence. The question that we are asking is where did we all come from? Now, you can answer this in a shallow way and say "my parents" which does agree with the reality- but it also ignores other parts of it too (where did your parents come from?). Now in a question like this which is the most important question in life as it will shape your identity and what you do with your life- you don't want to make any mistakes. So you don't want to leave any bit of the reality out when you examine it. In a question like this, you need to include all of the reality so that there is no room for error.
We can thus categorize the whole of the reality into three: mankind, other life, and the entire non-living universe.
So the question is: where did it all come from?
If we study all of these things we will find that none of them have the ability to create. In the context of this discussion by 'create', we mean 'to make out of nothing' as this is what we are asking. We do not mean 'manipulation' of existing elements as in cloning or reproduction (which manipulates sex cells already present). If anything in this universe was able to create itself (or for that matter other things) then we should be able to perceive such phenomena in our reality- however this is not the case. (Have you ever walked down the street and into a lamppost that just came out of nowhere after creating itself?) No scientist has ever discovered any living or non-living object creating anything else or itself.
Some may try to argue however that the universe needs no creator because it in itself is self-created or has always existed and we were not around at its time of self-creation to witness it and so cannot exclude it as a possibility. As part of this argument that the universe just always existed, they imply that in fact the universe itself has got the ability to create itself because it goes on for infinity occupying an infinite space with no restrictions to it- in effect just growing and getting bigger from nothing!
This argument can easily be tackled in a number of ways.
To begin with, the universe itself is just the sum of all of its celestial bodies as well as the life forms that we can perceive within it. So if all of these bodies have no ability to create then the universe too by definition of what it is -has no ability to create! (Five apples plus five apples will always give you apples and never can you get oranges from adding as many more apples as you want!).
Secondly, David Hilbert the famous mathematician discussed this and concluded that absurdities arise when an infinite sum of finite things (such as the celestial bodies within the universe) is assumed. In order to understand this, imagine if you will an infinite sum of marbles. If we were to halve the marbles then both halves would be equal to infinity. In fact any fraction of the infinite sum of marbles would equal infinity. This then produces an apparent contradiction that the part is equal to the whole. Further if we were to take three marbles out of the infinite sum of marbles then the remaining marbles would still equal to infinity. But the 3 marbles that have been taken out would be a fraction of the overall marbles. Yet this contradicts the principle we established earlier which is that every fraction of the infinite sum of marbles would equal to infinity. Yet the three marbles do not equal infinity. Thus something cannot be infinite and finite at the same time, because of this and many other contradictions it is absolutely clear that the sum of finite things must be finite. And because the universe is made up of finite bodies within space, and because we can measure parts of the universe which are finite distances then the whole universe is finite even though it be very large indeed!
Thirdly, no scientist could ever prove using hard facts that the universe has no bounds. How would you measure it?- by sending out a pulse and waiting for the response (like they do for measuring the depths of the ocean) or by sending a satellite probe to the edges of the universe and waiting for it to report back- however we would be dead by the time any of them came back if the universe was infinite- and this would still not indicate infinity as it could just mean that the universe expands further than the time it takes for us to measure it! so it would be speculation (and theory) to say that the universe expands to infinity. However, what we do know from reality is that within the universe nothing has the power to self-create. So if we have to choose reality or theory which are we to take? (If you are to cross a road which thought would you use -built on reality or theory? reality tells you a car will hurt you if it hits you and speculation/theory would be that the driver will swerve out the way).]
Finally when they say the universe arose from a Big Bang and is expanding they inherently admit it is finite in size, otherwise it could not expand! The universe is large, but is still a 'finite' space. There is nothing in reality which is infinite. No matter how hard we try, man is unable to find anything infinite around him. All we can perceive is the finite and limited that has not the power to create.
This leads us to therefore conclude that if everything in our reality has no ability to create itself (or indeed other things), then all of our reality must have been created by some thing unlike anything we can perceive! This being is what we call the creator, or ‘Allah’ in Islam.
The fact that we cannot see it or "empirically" measure this creator (as the scientist's modus operandi will seek to do) has no bearing on this, as the scientific methodology of investigation is limited to only things which are observable- however the creator is clearly not perceivable by any of our five senses (i.e. we cannot see, hear, touch, smell, or taste it). What we have used to discover the creator is our everyday ability to think rationally (based on reality). It is similar to the one who hears a knock on the door and thinks to himself, "something must be behind that door because from reality, doors can’t knock themselves”. Also, it is irrational and absurd for us to attribute qualities to describe this creator as some philosophers do (e.g. God is good/love)- as we cannot perceive it. This only leads to incorrect assumptions which causes the purity of our thinking to be lost. All we could know about it – is what it chooses to tell us. (Likewise, you couldn’t describe what was behind the door- without the ‘knocker’ giving you some information of its description)
We can now start to ask the questions that would lead on from this such as- Has this creator communicated to us why it created us and what will happen when we die? And how can we even identify its communication-if any! (Which is another discussion for another article)
It is only with this type of certainty built on reality and not speculation that a Muslim can build his life so that he is sure about everything he does. And it is this gift of the mind that differentiates us from animals, that allows us to progress properly when we use it in the correct way to build our thinking on reality rather than doubt and speculation; and then allows mankind to bond together in society producing a great civilization based on real answers!
"When a finger points to the sky, only a fool stares at the finger!"
What a fool
Q) What do you call a person who goes to cross a road, but in the middle of the road he stops to look at the cars driving by- thinking about how one day he is going to drive a nice car too. And he looks at the children and the women on the other side of the road, thinking how he wants to have a family- but he misses the cars heading towards him – and SPLAT!
A) a fool!
Why is he a fool? Because in the process of thinking and planning about his future- for events which may or may not happen- he stops thinking about what is definitely happening in the present (the cars speeding towards him!)
How many people think like this fool in life? They make plans for their future- for events that may or may not happen- but neglect preparing for that single most definite event!
So you see them preparing and planning for their education, their jobs, their careers, their children and their families, - but with no guarantees that they will be successful in their plans. They have no guarantee that all the events that they plan for – their jobs, their promotion, their careers, their graduation from university, their children, that perfect partner to settle down with- will even come to pass!
And while they get lost in all of this- they fail to plan for the most definite event in life-that single event that will be guaranteed to happen- DEATH!
Yes, it’s coming towards you like that car in the road!
But unlike that car in the road you don’t know what speed it’s hurtling towards you at!
When will you get hit by death?
Do you think you can afford to wait a while?
Do you think you have time before it hits you?
Imagine an invisible car on that same road speeding towards you- you don’t know when it will hit you!
Do you think you will have time to jump out the way before it hits you?
How many people have made plans for the future only to have death hit them before they realised their plans?
Only a fool stands in that road ignoring that carriage of death speeding towards him!
So how do you prepare for it?
Only if you know what will happen on impact!
But who knows what happens when death collides with us? What can tell us what happens when we die? No one has ever come back from the dead to explain it.
But there is another way of knowing. And it can’t be through guesswork- you have to be sure! You only get one chance to prepare yourself-so you have to be certain!
There is one way of being certain…and I’ll give you a clue:
What is death? Is it not just the end of your life? So shouldn’t you be asking:
“What gave me life?”
“Is there a creator of this universe that gave life to all that is within it?”
“If there is a creator that created life, wouldn’t it also know the secrets of what happens after life?”
“How would I be able to even know if this creator has communicated these answers to us anyway?”
read on for more info..........
Imad Shoubaki
A) a fool!
Why is he a fool? Because in the process of thinking and planning about his future- for events which may or may not happen- he stops thinking about what is definitely happening in the present (the cars speeding towards him!)
How many people think like this fool in life? They make plans for their future- for events that may or may not happen- but neglect preparing for that single most definite event!
So you see them preparing and planning for their education, their jobs, their careers, their children and their families, - but with no guarantees that they will be successful in their plans. They have no guarantee that all the events that they plan for – their jobs, their promotion, their careers, their graduation from university, their children, that perfect partner to settle down with- will even come to pass!
And while they get lost in all of this- they fail to plan for the most definite event in life-that single event that will be guaranteed to happen- DEATH!
Yes, it’s coming towards you like that car in the road!
But unlike that car in the road you don’t know what speed it’s hurtling towards you at!
When will you get hit by death?
Do you think you can afford to wait a while?
Do you think you have time before it hits you?
Imagine an invisible car on that same road speeding towards you- you don’t know when it will hit you!
Do you think you will have time to jump out the way before it hits you?
How many people have made plans for the future only to have death hit them before they realised their plans?
Only a fool stands in that road ignoring that carriage of death speeding towards him!
So how do you prepare for it?
Only if you know what will happen on impact!
But who knows what happens when death collides with us? What can tell us what happens when we die? No one has ever come back from the dead to explain it.
But there is another way of knowing. And it can’t be through guesswork- you have to be sure! You only get one chance to prepare yourself-so you have to be certain!
There is one way of being certain…and I’ll give you a clue:
What is death? Is it not just the end of your life? So shouldn’t you be asking:
“What gave me life?”
“Is there a creator of this universe that gave life to all that is within it?”
“If there is a creator that created life, wouldn’t it also know the secrets of what happens after life?”
“How would I be able to even know if this creator has communicated these answers to us anyway?”
read on for more info..........
Imad Shoubaki
Thursday, 19 February 2009
Is there a creator?
You hear it all the time- arguments for and against the existence of a higher being and everyone comes with their different perspectives. I've come across loads of wacky arguments (e.g. if God exists then why all this suffering in the world? or even one guy who was praying for a "sign" of proof and found it when he got splashed by a passing car driving through a puddle that day! and then you get the pseudo-intellectuals that you meet at university who haven't even questioned the rubbish that you might learn nowadays in an elementary philosophy course-coming out with their versions of existentialism like "maybe this is all a dream");and those trying to defend the existence of a creator aren't much better either- using some self-fulfilling arguments that my 8 yr old would use (e.g.a creator must exist because it says it in the Quran!).
It seems that growing up in these secular societies has taught people that there are no absolute truths (as such societies have been built on compromise between those calling for the mandatory role of the church in life and those philosophers that denied the existence of God) and thus that everyone should have their own opinion and just live and let live without being too sure. (I hope to elaborate on the error of this perspective in another article). Science has even replaced God in these secular societies in the hope that it will offer the truth of the meaning of life to us. Hence the celebration we see of the anniversary of Darwin's evolutionary theory of life, or even the fascination with programmes such as "The X-files" in the hope that it could offer some sort of meaning to our existence!
I hope to show you below that there is an absolute way of proving the existence of a creator. But first we must ask ourselves what do we mean by proof? If we understand this then we can establish our criteria for discussing correctly. Or to put it another way- what would be the correct way to arrive at our answer- since different methodologies at seeking proof could provide different results. (Philosophers refer to this as epistemology- the foundation of knowledge).So for the person who is basing his answer on his "feelings" when he goes and prays and feels "spiritual" when he is in a church, mosque or a bingo hall- he may arrive to a different conclusion than say young Einstein (or young Penrose) who is waiting to empirically measure God in a test-tube using the "scientific" way of thinking- creating a hypothesis for the existence or non-existence of God and then seeking empirical proof to verify or falsify their "theory". We could talk about someone basing his proof on his dreams during sleep (he saw Buddha come to him), or the number of vegetables they have cut and found the Arabic word for Allah inside a holy tomato and how that outnumbers the number of toast with the face of Jesus sold on eBay- the list is endless! (google "Allah tomato" and "Jesus toast" if you don't know what I'm talking about).
So where do we start? What is proof that is good enough that everyone will accept? What can we find truth in? The answer is simple. Truth is what cannot be denied. So ask yourself - what is it that nobody can deny?
To give a working example- if I told you not to go home tonight as there was an alien spacecraft parked on top of your house waiting to suck you into its spacecraft and whisk you away to its galaxy-what would you believe and hence how would you react? (a side note- incidentally some cults believe in a variety of UFO explanations of our existence!)Would you just have blind faith in what I said and just stay away from home? Would you sit down, close your eyes, meditate, and wait for your feelings to tell you if my statement "felt" true? Would you develop a "scientific" speculative hypothesis and look for speculative evidence that may speculatively be interpreted as proof of aliens- perhaps by investigating for mutated humans i.e. any abnormality that exists within say 0.1% of the general population (especially looking for dwarfs with large domed heads and pointy eyes) and use this as the "missing link" to prove that aliens could exist?
Isn't there a doubt as to the accuracy of all these methods in knowing if my statement was true or not? Of course there is! All of these proofs could be doubted and denied by another individual as being subjective and interpreted subjectively. To start with- someone could deny what I said accusing me of lying! Someone else could have different "feelings" when he meditated. In interpreting the evidence for the existence of mutated abnormalities existent within an extreme sample of the population someone could offer a counter theory to your "missing link" explanation and develop their own speculative hypothesis e.g. a chemical spill in their parents generation- causing their gametes (the cells used in reproduction by both sexes to produce an offspring) to mutate thus producing abnormal offspring etc.
So what is it then that nobody could deny if they wanted to know if my belief about alien spacecraft on your house was correct or not?
They would have to check the reality! That's right - go and take a peep with your eyes for any aliens parked up! The only thing that we humans have to trust is the reality around us that our five senses inform us about. And no one can deny the reality in which they live in. We accept it all the time as we function within it- no one dares deny it! Nobody would look outside his window before going to work/college and see that its cold and raining but deny that reality - thinking instead, "maybe its an illusion, or possibly it could instantly turn hot and sunny- so I think I'll wear my Bermuda shorts and my sunglasses!" If they did deny it- they would be mad! And then they would end up suffering (getting cold, wet and sick). And anyone who tried to keep on denying his reality would indeed keep on suffering and would probably be dysfunctional very quickly as he does actions that disagree with his reality (e.g. crossing a busy road whilst denying the reality of the cars hurtling towards him)- and then end up dead very quickly! Therefore the limits for our discussion must be built around the reality of the world around us that we sense - and not feelings, dreams, speculative hypothesis or blind faith etc!
Now that we've agreed what we can agree upon, let us move onto the burning question of our existence. The question that we are asking is where did we all come from? Now, you can answer this in a shallow way and say "my parents" which does agree with the reality- but it also ignores other parts of it too (where did your parents come from?). Now in a question like this which is the most important question in life as it will shape your identity and what you do with your life- you don't want to make any mistakes. so you don't want to leave any bit of the reality out when you examine it. In a question like this, you need to include all of the reality so that there is no room for error.
We can thus categorise the whole of the reality into three: mankind, other life, and the entire non-living universe. So the question is: where did it all come from?
If we study all of these things we will find that none of them have the ability to create. In the context of this discussion by 'create', we mean 'to make out of nothing' as this is what we are asking. We do not mean 'manipulation' of existing elements as in cloning or reproduction (which manipulates sex cells already present). If anything in this universe was able to create itself (or for that matter other things) then we should be able to perceive such phenomena in our reality- however this is not the case. I have never been able to zap a burger into my open hand instead of getting up off my lazy backside to make a sandwich. Have you ever walked down the street and into a lamppost that just came out of nowhere after creating itself? No “scientist” has ever discovered any living or non-living object creating anything else.
Some may try to argue however that the universe needs no creator because it in itself is self-created or has always existed and we were not around at its time of self-creation to witness it and so cannot exclude it as a possibility. As part of this argument that the universe just always existed, they imply that in fact the universe itself has got the ability to create itself because it goes on for infinity occupying an infinite space with no restrictions to it- in effect just growing and getting bigger from nothing!
This argument can easily be tackled in a number of ways. To begin with, the universe itself is just the sum of all of it's celestial bodies as well as the life forms that we can perceive within it. So if all of these bodies have no ability to create then the universe too by definition of what it is -has no ability to create! (Five apples plus five apples will always give you apples and never can you get oranges from adding as many more apples as you want!).
Secondly, David Hilbert the famous mathematician discussed this and concluded that absurdities arise when an infinite sum of finite things (such as the celestial bodies within the universe) is assumed. In order to understand this, imagine if you will an infinite sum of marbles. If we were to halve the marbles then both halves would be equal to infinity. In fact any fraction of the infinite sum of marbles would equal infinity. This then produces an apparent contradiction that the part is equal to the whole. Further if we were to take three marbles out of the infinite sum of marbles then the remaining marbles would still equal to infinity. But the 3 marbles that have been taken out would be a fraction of the overall marbles. Yet this contradicts the principle we established earlier which is that every fraction of the infinite sum of marbles would equal to infinity. Yet the three marbles do not equal infinity. Thus something cannot be infinite and finite at the same time, because of this and many other contradictions it is absolutely clear that the sum of finite things must be finite. And because the universe is made up of finite bodies within space, and because we can measure parts of the universe which are finite distances then the whole universe is finite even though it be very large indeed!
Thirdly, no scientist could ever prove using hard facts that the universe has no bounds. How would you measure it?- by sending out a pulse and waiting for the response (like they do for measuring the depths of the ocean) or by sending a satellite probe to the edges of the universe and waiting for it to report back- however we would be dead by the time any of them came back if the universe was infinite- and this would still not indicate infinity as it could just mean that the universe expands further than the time it takes for us to measure it! so it would be speculation (and theory) to say that the universe expands to infinity. However, we know from reality that everything about the universe is that it has no power to self-create. So if we have to choose reality or theory which are we to take? (If you are to cross a road which thought would you use -built on reality or theory? reality tells you a car will hurt you if it hits you and speculation/theory would be that the driver will swerve out the way). Only a mad man would ignore the hard facts of reality to base his actions on speculation!
Finally when they say the universe arose from a Big Bang and is expanding they inherently admit it is finite in size, otherwise it could not expand! The universe is large, but is still a 'finite' space. There is nothing in reality which is infinite. No matter how hard we try, man is unable to find anything infinite around him. All we can perceive is the finite and limited that has not the power to create.
This leads us to therefore conclude that if everything in our reality has no ability to create itself (or indeed other things), then all of our reality must have been created by some thing unlike anything we can perceive!
The fact that we cannot see it or "empirically" measure this creator (as the scientist's modus operandi will seek to do) has no bearing on this, as the scientific methodology of investigation is limited to only things which are observable- however the creator is clearly not perceivable by any of our five senses (i.e. we cannot see, hear, touch, smell, or taste it). What we have used to discover the creator is our everyday ability to think rationally (based on reality). It is similar to the one who while walking along a beach and sees footprints in the sand thinks to himself, "someone must have been walking here because footprints can't make themselves!".
We can now start to ask the questions that would lead on from this such as- Why did this creator create us and What will happen when we die? (Which is another discussion for another article)
It is only with this type of certainty built on reality and not speculation that a Muslim can build his life so that he is sure about everything he does. And it is this gift of the mind that differentiates us from the animals-a tool that allows us to progress properly when we use it in the correct way to build our thinking on reality rather than doubt and speculation; and then allows mankind to bond together in society producing a great civilisation based on real answers!
"When a finger points to the sky, only a fool stares at the finger!"
Imad Shoubaki
It seems that growing up in these secular societies has taught people that there are no absolute truths (as such societies have been built on compromise between those calling for the mandatory role of the church in life and those philosophers that denied the existence of God) and thus that everyone should have their own opinion and just live and let live without being too sure. (I hope to elaborate on the error of this perspective in another article). Science has even replaced God in these secular societies in the hope that it will offer the truth of the meaning of life to us. Hence the celebration we see of the anniversary of Darwin's evolutionary theory of life, or even the fascination with programmes such as "The X-files" in the hope that it could offer some sort of meaning to our existence!
I hope to show you below that there is an absolute way of proving the existence of a creator. But first we must ask ourselves what do we mean by proof? If we understand this then we can establish our criteria for discussing correctly. Or to put it another way- what would be the correct way to arrive at our answer- since different methodologies at seeking proof could provide different results. (Philosophers refer to this as epistemology- the foundation of knowledge).So for the person who is basing his answer on his "feelings" when he goes and prays and feels "spiritual" when he is in a church, mosque or a bingo hall- he may arrive to a different conclusion than say young Einstein (or young Penrose) who is waiting to empirically measure God in a test-tube using the "scientific" way of thinking- creating a hypothesis for the existence or non-existence of God and then seeking empirical proof to verify or falsify their "theory". We could talk about someone basing his proof on his dreams during sleep (he saw Buddha come to him), or the number of vegetables they have cut and found the Arabic word for Allah inside a holy tomato and how that outnumbers the number of toast with the face of Jesus sold on eBay- the list is endless! (google "Allah tomato" and "Jesus toast" if you don't know what I'm talking about).
So where do we start? What is proof that is good enough that everyone will accept? What can we find truth in? The answer is simple. Truth is what cannot be denied. So ask yourself - what is it that nobody can deny?
To give a working example- if I told you not to go home tonight as there was an alien spacecraft parked on top of your house waiting to suck you into its spacecraft and whisk you away to its galaxy-what would you believe and hence how would you react? (a side note- incidentally some cults believe in a variety of UFO explanations of our existence!)Would you just have blind faith in what I said and just stay away from home? Would you sit down, close your eyes, meditate, and wait for your feelings to tell you if my statement "felt" true? Would you develop a "scientific" speculative hypothesis and look for speculative evidence that may speculatively be interpreted as proof of aliens- perhaps by investigating for mutated humans i.e. any abnormality that exists within say 0.1% of the general population (especially looking for dwarfs with large domed heads and pointy eyes) and use this as the "missing link" to prove that aliens could exist?
Isn't there a doubt as to the accuracy of all these methods in knowing if my statement was true or not? Of course there is! All of these proofs could be doubted and denied by another individual as being subjective and interpreted subjectively. To start with- someone could deny what I said accusing me of lying! Someone else could have different "feelings" when he meditated. In interpreting the evidence for the existence of mutated abnormalities existent within an extreme sample of the population someone could offer a counter theory to your "missing link" explanation and develop their own speculative hypothesis e.g. a chemical spill in their parents generation- causing their gametes (the cells used in reproduction by both sexes to produce an offspring) to mutate thus producing abnormal offspring etc.
So what is it then that nobody could deny if they wanted to know if my belief about alien spacecraft on your house was correct or not?
They would have to check the reality! That's right - go and take a peep with your eyes for any aliens parked up! The only thing that we humans have to trust is the reality around us that our five senses inform us about. And no one can deny the reality in which they live in. We accept it all the time as we function within it- no one dares deny it! Nobody would look outside his window before going to work/college and see that its cold and raining but deny that reality - thinking instead, "maybe its an illusion, or possibly it could instantly turn hot and sunny- so I think I'll wear my Bermuda shorts and my sunglasses!" If they did deny it- they would be mad! And then they would end up suffering (getting cold, wet and sick). And anyone who tried to keep on denying his reality would indeed keep on suffering and would probably be dysfunctional very quickly as he does actions that disagree with his reality (e.g. crossing a busy road whilst denying the reality of the cars hurtling towards him)- and then end up dead very quickly! Therefore the limits for our discussion must be built around the reality of the world around us that we sense - and not feelings, dreams, speculative hypothesis or blind faith etc!
Now that we've agreed what we can agree upon, let us move onto the burning question of our existence. The question that we are asking is where did we all come from? Now, you can answer this in a shallow way and say "my parents" which does agree with the reality- but it also ignores other parts of it too (where did your parents come from?). Now in a question like this which is the most important question in life as it will shape your identity and what you do with your life- you don't want to make any mistakes. so you don't want to leave any bit of the reality out when you examine it. In a question like this, you need to include all of the reality so that there is no room for error.
We can thus categorise the whole of the reality into three: mankind, other life, and the entire non-living universe. So the question is: where did it all come from?
If we study all of these things we will find that none of them have the ability to create. In the context of this discussion by 'create', we mean 'to make out of nothing' as this is what we are asking. We do not mean 'manipulation' of existing elements as in cloning or reproduction (which manipulates sex cells already present). If anything in this universe was able to create itself (or for that matter other things) then we should be able to perceive such phenomena in our reality- however this is not the case. I have never been able to zap a burger into my open hand instead of getting up off my lazy backside to make a sandwich. Have you ever walked down the street and into a lamppost that just came out of nowhere after creating itself? No “scientist” has ever discovered any living or non-living object creating anything else.
Some may try to argue however that the universe needs no creator because it in itself is self-created or has always existed and we were not around at its time of self-creation to witness it and so cannot exclude it as a possibility. As part of this argument that the universe just always existed, they imply that in fact the universe itself has got the ability to create itself because it goes on for infinity occupying an infinite space with no restrictions to it- in effect just growing and getting bigger from nothing!
This argument can easily be tackled in a number of ways. To begin with, the universe itself is just the sum of all of it's celestial bodies as well as the life forms that we can perceive within it. So if all of these bodies have no ability to create then the universe too by definition of what it is -has no ability to create! (Five apples plus five apples will always give you apples and never can you get oranges from adding as many more apples as you want!).
Secondly, David Hilbert the famous mathematician discussed this and concluded that absurdities arise when an infinite sum of finite things (such as the celestial bodies within the universe) is assumed. In order to understand this, imagine if you will an infinite sum of marbles. If we were to halve the marbles then both halves would be equal to infinity. In fact any fraction of the infinite sum of marbles would equal infinity. This then produces an apparent contradiction that the part is equal to the whole. Further if we were to take three marbles out of the infinite sum of marbles then the remaining marbles would still equal to infinity. But the 3 marbles that have been taken out would be a fraction of the overall marbles. Yet this contradicts the principle we established earlier which is that every fraction of the infinite sum of marbles would equal to infinity. Yet the three marbles do not equal infinity. Thus something cannot be infinite and finite at the same time, because of this and many other contradictions it is absolutely clear that the sum of finite things must be finite. And because the universe is made up of finite bodies within space, and because we can measure parts of the universe which are finite distances then the whole universe is finite even though it be very large indeed!
Thirdly, no scientist could ever prove using hard facts that the universe has no bounds. How would you measure it?- by sending out a pulse and waiting for the response (like they do for measuring the depths of the ocean) or by sending a satellite probe to the edges of the universe and waiting for it to report back- however we would be dead by the time any of them came back if the universe was infinite- and this would still not indicate infinity as it could just mean that the universe expands further than the time it takes for us to measure it! so it would be speculation (and theory) to say that the universe expands to infinity. However, we know from reality that everything about the universe is that it has no power to self-create. So if we have to choose reality or theory which are we to take? (If you are to cross a road which thought would you use -built on reality or theory? reality tells you a car will hurt you if it hits you and speculation/theory would be that the driver will swerve out the way). Only a mad man would ignore the hard facts of reality to base his actions on speculation!
Finally when they say the universe arose from a Big Bang and is expanding they inherently admit it is finite in size, otherwise it could not expand! The universe is large, but is still a 'finite' space. There is nothing in reality which is infinite. No matter how hard we try, man is unable to find anything infinite around him. All we can perceive is the finite and limited that has not the power to create.
This leads us to therefore conclude that if everything in our reality has no ability to create itself (or indeed other things), then all of our reality must have been created by some thing unlike anything we can perceive!
The fact that we cannot see it or "empirically" measure this creator (as the scientist's modus operandi will seek to do) has no bearing on this, as the scientific methodology of investigation is limited to only things which are observable- however the creator is clearly not perceivable by any of our five senses (i.e. we cannot see, hear, touch, smell, or taste it). What we have used to discover the creator is our everyday ability to think rationally (based on reality). It is similar to the one who while walking along a beach and sees footprints in the sand thinks to himself, "someone must have been walking here because footprints can't make themselves!".
We can now start to ask the questions that would lead on from this such as- Why did this creator create us and What will happen when we die? (Which is another discussion for another article)
It is only with this type of certainty built on reality and not speculation that a Muslim can build his life so that he is sure about everything he does. And it is this gift of the mind that differentiates us from the animals-a tool that allows us to progress properly when we use it in the correct way to build our thinking on reality rather than doubt and speculation; and then allows mankind to bond together in society producing a great civilisation based on real answers!
"When a finger points to the sky, only a fool stares at the finger!"
Imad Shoubaki
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)