Saturday, November 5, 2011
“Muhammad (S) was only a warner and bringer of glad tidings to those who have faith.”
Allah says: “Say (O Muhammad): I have no power over any good or harm
to myself except as Allah wills. If I had knowledge of the unseen, I
should have multiplied all good, and no evil should have touched me: I
am but a warner, and a bringer of glad tidings to those who have faith.”
[Sûrah al-A`râf: 188]
One half of our testimony of faith is to declare
“Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” And indeed, it is central to the
Islamic faith that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is Allah’s final
Messenger to all humanity.
Allah says to His Messenger (peace be upon him) in the Qur’ân: “We
have not sent you but as a messenger to all humanity, giving them glad
tidings and warning them.” [Sûrah Saba’: 28]
Allah also says: “Say (O Muhammad): Mankind! I am Allah’s Messenger to you all.” [Sûrah al-A`râf: 158]
However, there are some people who violate this testimony,
not by disbelieving in the Prophet (peace be upon him) or the
universality of his Message, but rather by going to extremes with the
respect and reverence that they confer to him.
There are those who have declared him to be an eternal light that was passed from one Prophet
to the next until finally culminating in the person of Muhammad (peace
be upon him). Some have declared him a presence in which Allah
manifested himself. The first of these presumptions is advanced by
certain extremist Shi’ite and the Bâtinî sects, as well as the most
extreme of Sufi groups. The second is the belief of the pantheists.
Such statements are tantamount to heresy.
Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) was merely a human being, and
one of Allah’s servants. Allah chose him and honored him by appointing
him the Seal of the Prophets and Messengers and making him the most
noble of Adam’s offspring. His humanity is an established fact, in spite
of the false claims that have been advanced about him, like the ones we
have mentioned above.
Allah says: “Say (O Muhammad): I am merely a man like yourselves who
has been inspired that your God is One God. So whoever puts his hopes in
the meeting with his Lord should work righteousness and refrain from
ascribing any partners to Allah in his worship.” [Sûrah al-Kahf: 11]
Allah also says: “Say: Glory be to my Lord! Am I anything but a man who has been sent?” [Sûrah al-Isrâ’: 93]
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “I am but a man like yourselves. I am prone to forget just as you are.” [Sahîh al –Bukhârî(1/104, 105) and Sahîh Muslim (1/402)]
There are numerous other texts that show conclusively that Muhammad
(peace be upon him) was merely a human being and that Allah
distinguished him by bestowing upon him prophecy and the Message. Those
who go to extremes and raise him above his true status are in fact
contradicting their testimony that “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah”.
There are those who go to excesses by offering to the Prophet (peace
be upon him) certain acts of devotion that are to be offered to Allah
alone. Some people even offer to him supplications, pray to his grave,
and call to him in devout humility.
The Prophet (peace be upon him) went to great lengths to warn us against such behavior.
He did so repeatedly and emphatically. Even before he did so, the
Qur’ân made the matter perfectly clear. Allah declares supplications,
devotions, prayers, and all other forms of worship to be for Him alone.
Allah says: “And your Lord says: ‘Call on Me; I will answer your
supplication – but those who are too arrogant to serve Me will surely
find themselves in Hell – in humiliation!’ ” [Sûrah Ghâfir: 60]
Allah also says: “They were ever quick in emulation in good works;
they used to call on Us with love and reverence, and humble themselves
before Us.” [Sûrah al-Anbiyâ’: 90]
Likewise, He says: “So pray to your Lord and offer sacrifice.” [Sûrah al-Kawthar: 2]
Allah also says: “Say: ‘Truly, my prayer and my sacrifice, my life and my death, are all for Allah, the Lord of the Worlds’.” [Sûrah al-An`âm: 162]
`Umar b. al-Khattâb relates that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon
him) said: “Do not praise me excessively like the Christians praised
Jesus, the son of Mary. I am but a servant, so call me Allah’s servant
and Messenger.” [Sahîh al –Bukhârî (4/142)]
`A’ishah relates the following [Sahîh Muslim (1/376)]:
When death approached Allah’s Messenger, he began putting a sheet of his on his face. When he became hot and distressed because of it, he would remove it and say: “Allah’s curse came upon the Jews and the Christians because they took the graves of their Prophets as places of worship.”
The Prophet was warning the Muslims against what they had done. Had it not been for the fear that it would be taken as a mosque, his grave would have been in an open place.
The Prophet (peace be upon him) was so stern in prohibiting people
from taking graves as places for Allah’s worship, cursing those who did
so, because it is a practice that ultimately leads people to polytheism.
So what can we say about those people who actually direct their
worship to the denizens of the graves, offer sacrifices to them,
supplicate to them, swear oaths by them, or circumambulate their graves?
Al-Qurtubî writes, commenting on this matter [aL-Qurtubî, al-Mufhim lima Ashkal min Talkis Kitâb Muslim (2/128)]:
Therefore, the Muslims went to great lengths to block the tendency to do so at the grave of the Prophet (peace be upon him). They raised the dirt walls around it high, completely surrounding it and blocking off the entrances to it.
Then they feared that the location of his grave might be turned into a direction for prayer, because it was in the direction the worshippers face and some of them might get the idea that facing it was an act of worship. For this reason, they built two walls at the northern corners of the grave and placed them at a slant so that they would form a triangle with one of its corners pointing to the North. In this way, no one could be able to directly face the grave while making his prayer.
Those who seek to direct themselves to the grave can only do so with
their hearts, because it is quite impossible to actually face it or even
reach it.
It is, in fact, just as Ibn Taymiyah describes it. “Approaching his
grave is neither possible nor something enjoined upon us.” It took the
building of three walls to produce this situation.
This shows us how Allah protected the grave of the Prophet (peace be
upon him) in on answer to his prayer. The Prophet (peace be upon him)
had offered this supplication: “O Allah! Do not let my grave become an
idol that people worship.” [al-Muwatta’ as narrated by Yahyâ b.
Yahyâ al-Laythî. (p. 414). The hadîth is related by `Atâ’ b. Yasâr with
a discontinuous chain of narration.]
There are still others who go to extremes regarding the Prophet
(peace be upon him) by claiming that he knows the unseen. They claim
that he is aware of them and their circumstances. Some even go so far as
to claim that they have seen him and met with him while they were fully
awake.
This is in blatant denial of what the Qur’ân says, and it has in it
the implication of disbelief in Allah, since Allah clearly says: “Say:
None in the heavens or on earth, except Allah, knows what is hidden: nor
can they perceive when they shall be raised up.” [Sûrah al-Naml: 65]
Allah also says: “To Allah belongs the unseen secrets of the heavens and the Earth” [Sûrah Hûd: 123]
He says: “He knoweth the unseen and that which is manifest. He is the Great, the Most High.” [Sûrah al-Ra`d: 9]
Allah commands the Prophet (peace be upon him) with the following:
“Say (O Muhammad): I do not say to you, I have with me the treasures of
Allah, nor do I know the unseen.” [Sûrah al-An`âm: 50]
Allah also commands him with: “Say (O Muhammad): I have no power over
any good or harm to myself except as Allah wills. If I had knowledge of
the unseen, I should have multiplied all good, and no evil should have
touched me: I am but a warner, and a bringer of glad tidings to those
who have faith.” [Sûrah al-A`râf: 188]
My dear brothers and sisters in Islam, we must know the full meaning
and the implications of our testimony that Muhammad (peace be upon him)
is the Messenger of Allah. Only those who act according to its
requirements openly and in secret are true to their testimony.
As for those who misunderstand it or act contrary to it, they can fall into serious danger.
Source: IslamToday
“The time of our lives…”
A famous quotes is “Time is Money” but is it?
Following is another quote I was reading today:
“Our life is made up of time; our days are measured in hours,
our pay measured by those hours, our knowledge is measured by years. We
grab a few quick minutes in our busy day to have a coffee break. We
rush back to our desks, we watch the clock, we live by appointments. And
yet your time eventually runs out and you wonder in your heart of
hearts if those seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years and
decades were being spent the best way they possibly could. In other
words, if you could change anything, would you?”
— Cecelia Ahern
— Cecelia Ahern
In this world, we live within time and space which are of course both Creations of Allah (subhana wa ta’ala).
So we are bound by space and time.
But do we ever give the appropriate importance to our time?
I know we always say “I must make time for this and time for that… time to go to work, time to make money, time costs money, time is money and so on. ” This is not what I mean. Are we getting our priorities right as with regards to time?
How are you spending your time today? Do you know why you was given today, did you appreciate this day, that Allah (subhana wa ta’ala) blessed you with and what did you do with your time?
Or are you just spending your day idle and procrastinating? Putting off what you have to do for later?Thinking that you will be given the extra time to do beneficial activities later. I am also asking myself the same question…
We have to reflect on our purpose in life and why we have been given time in our lives, however much time Allah (subhana wa ta’ala) will permit us with.
Our life in this world is only temporary and it is a test for the life in the Hereafter, which will be our eternal life.. The purpose of our life is :
And I (Allâh) created not the jinns and humans except they should worship Me (Alone). (Adh-Dhariyat 51:56)
Worshipping Allah not only on when we perform our prayers but doing every action of our lives for His sake and to please Him.
Once we grasp the truth and purpose of our existence then it is possible for us to appreciate and use our time correctly.
Ibn-ul Qayyim said, “The highest, most worthy and most useful of reflection is what is intended for Allah and the Hereafter.”
Imam Hassan Al-Banna, said “Time is life itself.”
Imam Shafi’i said,”Out of my company with Sufis, I benefited only two things, one of which is their saying: like a sword, time will cut you if you do not cut it. …” In other words, if you do not spend time doing something useful, you are the loser by wasting it.
Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah said: “One’s time is in fact his age. It is the material of his eternal life either in everlasting joy or painful torture. It passes more quickly than clouds do. It is only the time one dedicates to Allah that constitutes one’s real life and age. The rest does not count; the life he leads in it is only animal life. Compared to a life of indulgence in appetitive activities, false aspirations and negligence of Allah’s remembrance – and at best in sleep and being idle – death is a much better alternative.”
The Prophet (salallahu alahi wa salam) said:
Take advantage of five matters before five other matters:
1) Your youth before you become old,
2) Your health before you fall sick,
3) Your richness before you become poor,
4) Your free time before you become busy,
5) Your life before your death.
Also it has been reported that he (salallahu alaihi wa salam) said:
Narrated by Ibn Abbas:
The Prophet (Salallahu alaihi wa salam)
said, ‘There are two blessings which many people lose: Health and free
time for doing good”
[Al- Bukhari 76:421]
On the authority of ‘Abdullaah ibn ‘Umar (radhi-yallaahu ‘anhumaa) who said:
If you live until the evening, then do not
expect to live until the following morning. And if you live until the
morning, then do not expect to see the evening. Take from your health
for your sickness and from your life for your death.
Reported by al-Bukhari
Between hypocrisy and politeness
1. I would like to know the dividing line between hypocrisy and
courtesy, because in many cases I feel that there is some two-facedness
in people’s behaviour and dealings, based on their interests and whims
and desires, and it is said that it is just courtesy. Is this true?
2. Is it possible for true friendship to be mixed with a little
hypocrisy? I have a friend who does not love me as I thought she did.
She held a special place in my heart that was shared by no one else, but
recently I found out that my status with her is zero, and her behaviour
with me for many years was superficial. I thought, and everyone was
certain about that, that our friendship was strong, and until now I do
not know how to end this friendship after finding out what is really
going on.
3. Can the way this friend behaved be regarded as hypocrisy?
4. What is the punishment for hypocrisy in friendship?.
Answer
Praise be to Allaah.
Some people often confuse the meanings of hypocrisy, politeness and
flattery, and the reason for that is the failure to understand the true
meanings of brotherhood and sincere friendship. In their minds they do
not separate truth and falsehood, good conduct and bad.
Firstly:
The word hypocrisy usually indicates pure evil. Hypocrisy is never something praiseworthy in any way whatsoever. The psychologists have defined it as showing a good face in order to achieve something bad and harmful.
So the hypocrite is never seeking something good, rather he is seeking to harm people and betray them and bring evil to them, and he achieves that by showing a good face and appearing to be loving and friendly.
Allaah says, warning against keeping company with hypocrites (interpretation of the meaning):
“O you who believe! Take not as (your) Bitaanah (advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends) those outside your religion (pagans, Jews, Christians, and hypocrites) since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse. Indeed We have made plain to you the Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses) if you understand.
119. Lo! You are the ones who love them but they love you not, and you believe in all the Scriptures [i.e. you believe in the Tawraat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel), while they disbelieve in your Book, the Qur’aan]. And when they meet you, they say, ‘We believe.’ But when they are alone, they bite the tips of their fingers at you in rage. Say: ‘Perish in your rage. Certainly, Allaah knows what is in the breasts (all the secrets)’”
[Aal ‘Imraan 3:118-119]
The same applies to everyone who presents a friendly face to people and appears loving, when in fact he is seeking to harm them and do something bad to them.
Secondly:
As for the one who is polite, he does not wish ill to anyone and he is not trying to harm anyone either outwardly or inwardly, but he may show a friendly, cheerful and kind face in order to soften the heart of one who has a bad attitude, or so as to ward off his harm from himself or others, but without agreeing with him in his falsehood or supporting him in any way, either by words or actions.
Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
It was said to Ibn ‘Aqeel in al-Funoon: I hear the command of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning): “Repel (the evil) with one which is better (i.e. Allaah orders the faithful believers to be patient at the time of anger, and to excuse those who treat them badly) then verily he, between whom and you there was enmity, (will become) as though he was a close friend” [Fussilat 41:34], but I hear people regard those who show something other than what they feel as hypocrites. How can I obey Allaah and rid myself of hypocrisy?
Ibn ‘Aqeel said: Hypocrisy means showing a good face whilst concealing bad intentions, and harbouring ill will whilst appearing good in order to cause harm. What the verse refers to is showing a good attitude in response to a bad one for the purpose of changing it to a good one.
From this it may be understood that hypocrisy means concealing ill will whilst making a show of goodwill in order to cause harm and evil. The one who shows a good attitude in response to bad treatment in order to remove evil is not a hypocrite, rather he is trying to put things right. Have you not heard the words of Allaah “then verily he, between whom and you there was enmity, (will become) as though he was a close friend”? This is done in order to soften hearts, ward off enmity, extinguish the flames of hatred, create love and correct beliefs. This is how one makes friends and wins hearts.
Al-Adaab al-Shar’iyyah (1/50, 51).
Hence politeness is part of a good attitude, and the scholars said a great deal about it.
Ibn Battaal (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Politeness is part of the attitude of the believers, and it is lowering the wing of humility to people, speaking gently, and not speaking harshly to them, which are among the best means of creating harmony.
Fath al-Baari (10/528).
In his Saheeh, al-Bukhaari included a chapter entitled “Chapter on politeness with people” in which he said:
It was narrated from Abu’l-Darda’: We smile at people when our hearts are cursing them.
He also included the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) concerning this topic:
A man asked permission to enter upon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he said: “Let him in, what a bad son – or brother – of the clan he is.” When he entered he spoke kindly to him. I said to him: O Messenger of Allaah, you said what you said then you spoke kindly to him? He said: “O ‘Aa’ishah, the worst of people in status before Allaah is the one whom people leave alone for fear of his foul mouth.”
Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
This attitude of Abu’l-Darda’ does not mean approving of something haraam; rather it is politeness that may achieve some purpose. This is what is meant by the report narrated in al-Saheehayn and elsewhere from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her): “O ‘Aa’ishah, the worst of people in status before Allaah is the one whom people leave alone for fear of his foul mouth.”
It says in Sharh Muslim and elsewhere: Being polite to one whose foul mouth you fear. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not praise him to his face or in his absence, rather he sought to soften his heart by giving him some worldly thing and speaking gently to him.
Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr quoted the words of Abu’l-Darda’ with regard to the virtues of good manners.
Al-Adaab al-Shar’iyyah (1/50).
The scholars wrote chapters on politeness, and Ibn Abi’l-Dunya wrote an essay entitled Politeness towards people, in which he said (p, 48, 50):
It was narrated that Humayd ibn Hilaal said: I met some people who regarded politeness as an act of charity towards one another.
It was narrated that al-Hasan said: Being friendly towards people is half of reason. End quote.
Hanbal said that he heard Abu ‘Abd-Allaah – i.e., Ahmad ibn Hanbal – say:
People need politeness and kindness, and enjoining what is good without harshness, except a man who does evil openly, who must be told and stopped.
Al-Adaab al-Shar’iyyah (1/191).
Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
In some cases politeness dictates that we should not say the truth. Is this regarded as a kind of lying?
He replied:
That depends. If the politeness will result in rights being denied or falsehood being approved, then this politeness is not permissible. But if the politeness will not result in any falsehood, and it is just kind words that are general in meaning, and it does not involve testifying falsely in anyone’s favour or denying anyone’s rights, then I do not think there is anything wrong with it.
Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz (5/280).
Thirdly:
It is also important to differentiate between praiseworthy politeness and blameworthy flattery. People mix them up because they are confused about proper manners and attitudes nowadays.
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
Some of them think that politeness is flattery, but they are mistaken, because politeness is recommended but flattery is haraam. The difference is that flattery refers to the one who shows one thing whilst concealing another. The scholars explained it as mixing with the evildoer and showing approval of what he is doing without denouncing it, and politeness is showing kindness to the ignorant whilst teaching him, and to the evildoer whilst denouncing his action, and not being harsh towards him when he is not committing evil openly, and rebuking him gently in word and deed, especially if his heart needs to be softened and so on.
Fath al-Baari (10/528).
Fourthly:
Many friends – and this happens a lot among women – misunderstand the true nature of their friendship, and they tend to go to extremes and develop strong feelings when the other person does not feel the same way; rather the other side does not intend to form such a strong friendship, rather the aim is just an ordinary friendship as dictated by circumstances. In that case the one who felt the deeper attachment may feel pain such as could not be borne by mountains. We need to guide this friendship that could captivate our hearts because of people we love, so that we will not be surprised one day and start imagining that everything has started to collapse around us when a friendship was never like that in the first place.
‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: Your love should not reach the point of infatuation and your hatred should not reach the point of destruction.
At the same time we need to deepen our understanding of brotherhood, which dictates loyalty, honesty and sincerity, where there is no room for excessive politeness and courtesy. In the past they said: When friendship is sincere there will be no pretence.
Undoubtedly such flattery is blameworthy and has no place in brotherhood and true friendship. If there is some occasional flattery among friends, it should be only what is dictated by circumstances, so as to ward off fitnah or preserve love. But if flattery is the basis of that friendship, then it is a distortion of all the meanings of true brotherhood.
‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The worst of friends is the one who tries too hard to flatter you and the one who expects too much courtesy from you and the one who makes you feel the need to justify yourself constantly.
It was said to one of them: Who should we make friends with? He said: The one who removes from you the burden of pretence and with whom you feel no reservations.
Ja’far ibn Muhammad al-Saadiq (may Allaah be pleased with him) used to say: The most burdensome of my brothers to me is the one who flatters me too much and I feel reserved with him. Ihya’ ‘Uloom al-Deen (2/181).
And Allaah knows best.
Firstly:
The word hypocrisy usually indicates pure evil. Hypocrisy is never something praiseworthy in any way whatsoever. The psychologists have defined it as showing a good face in order to achieve something bad and harmful.
So the hypocrite is never seeking something good, rather he is seeking to harm people and betray them and bring evil to them, and he achieves that by showing a good face and appearing to be loving and friendly.
Allaah says, warning against keeping company with hypocrites (interpretation of the meaning):
“O you who believe! Take not as (your) Bitaanah (advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends) those outside your religion (pagans, Jews, Christians, and hypocrites) since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse. Indeed We have made plain to you the Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses) if you understand.
119. Lo! You are the ones who love them but they love you not, and you believe in all the Scriptures [i.e. you believe in the Tawraat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel), while they disbelieve in your Book, the Qur’aan]. And when they meet you, they say, ‘We believe.’ But when they are alone, they bite the tips of their fingers at you in rage. Say: ‘Perish in your rage. Certainly, Allaah knows what is in the breasts (all the secrets)’”
[Aal ‘Imraan 3:118-119]
The same applies to everyone who presents a friendly face to people and appears loving, when in fact he is seeking to harm them and do something bad to them.
Secondly:
As for the one who is polite, he does not wish ill to anyone and he is not trying to harm anyone either outwardly or inwardly, but he may show a friendly, cheerful and kind face in order to soften the heart of one who has a bad attitude, or so as to ward off his harm from himself or others, but without agreeing with him in his falsehood or supporting him in any way, either by words or actions.
Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
It was said to Ibn ‘Aqeel in al-Funoon: I hear the command of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning): “Repel (the evil) with one which is better (i.e. Allaah orders the faithful believers to be patient at the time of anger, and to excuse those who treat them badly) then verily he, between whom and you there was enmity, (will become) as though he was a close friend” [Fussilat 41:34], but I hear people regard those who show something other than what they feel as hypocrites. How can I obey Allaah and rid myself of hypocrisy?
Ibn ‘Aqeel said: Hypocrisy means showing a good face whilst concealing bad intentions, and harbouring ill will whilst appearing good in order to cause harm. What the verse refers to is showing a good attitude in response to a bad one for the purpose of changing it to a good one.
From this it may be understood that hypocrisy means concealing ill will whilst making a show of goodwill in order to cause harm and evil. The one who shows a good attitude in response to bad treatment in order to remove evil is not a hypocrite, rather he is trying to put things right. Have you not heard the words of Allaah “then verily he, between whom and you there was enmity, (will become) as though he was a close friend”? This is done in order to soften hearts, ward off enmity, extinguish the flames of hatred, create love and correct beliefs. This is how one makes friends and wins hearts.
Al-Adaab al-Shar’iyyah (1/50, 51).
Hence politeness is part of a good attitude, and the scholars said a great deal about it.
Ibn Battaal (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Politeness is part of the attitude of the believers, and it is lowering the wing of humility to people, speaking gently, and not speaking harshly to them, which are among the best means of creating harmony.
Fath al-Baari (10/528).
In his Saheeh, al-Bukhaari included a chapter entitled “Chapter on politeness with people” in which he said:
It was narrated from Abu’l-Darda’: We smile at people when our hearts are cursing them.
He also included the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) concerning this topic:
A man asked permission to enter upon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he said: “Let him in, what a bad son – or brother – of the clan he is.” When he entered he spoke kindly to him. I said to him: O Messenger of Allaah, you said what you said then you spoke kindly to him? He said: “O ‘Aa’ishah, the worst of people in status before Allaah is the one whom people leave alone for fear of his foul mouth.”
Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
This attitude of Abu’l-Darda’ does not mean approving of something haraam; rather it is politeness that may achieve some purpose. This is what is meant by the report narrated in al-Saheehayn and elsewhere from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her): “O ‘Aa’ishah, the worst of people in status before Allaah is the one whom people leave alone for fear of his foul mouth.”
It says in Sharh Muslim and elsewhere: Being polite to one whose foul mouth you fear. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not praise him to his face or in his absence, rather he sought to soften his heart by giving him some worldly thing and speaking gently to him.
Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr quoted the words of Abu’l-Darda’ with regard to the virtues of good manners.
Al-Adaab al-Shar’iyyah (1/50).
The scholars wrote chapters on politeness, and Ibn Abi’l-Dunya wrote an essay entitled Politeness towards people, in which he said (p, 48, 50):
It was narrated that Humayd ibn Hilaal said: I met some people who regarded politeness as an act of charity towards one another.
It was narrated that al-Hasan said: Being friendly towards people is half of reason. End quote.
Hanbal said that he heard Abu ‘Abd-Allaah – i.e., Ahmad ibn Hanbal – say:
People need politeness and kindness, and enjoining what is good without harshness, except a man who does evil openly, who must be told and stopped.
Al-Adaab al-Shar’iyyah (1/191).
Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
In some cases politeness dictates that we should not say the truth. Is this regarded as a kind of lying?
He replied:
That depends. If the politeness will result in rights being denied or falsehood being approved, then this politeness is not permissible. But if the politeness will not result in any falsehood, and it is just kind words that are general in meaning, and it does not involve testifying falsely in anyone’s favour or denying anyone’s rights, then I do not think there is anything wrong with it.
Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz (5/280).
Thirdly:
It is also important to differentiate between praiseworthy politeness and blameworthy flattery. People mix them up because they are confused about proper manners and attitudes nowadays.
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
Some of them think that politeness is flattery, but they are mistaken, because politeness is recommended but flattery is haraam. The difference is that flattery refers to the one who shows one thing whilst concealing another. The scholars explained it as mixing with the evildoer and showing approval of what he is doing without denouncing it, and politeness is showing kindness to the ignorant whilst teaching him, and to the evildoer whilst denouncing his action, and not being harsh towards him when he is not committing evil openly, and rebuking him gently in word and deed, especially if his heart needs to be softened and so on.
Fath al-Baari (10/528).
Fourthly:
Many friends – and this happens a lot among women – misunderstand the true nature of their friendship, and they tend to go to extremes and develop strong feelings when the other person does not feel the same way; rather the other side does not intend to form such a strong friendship, rather the aim is just an ordinary friendship as dictated by circumstances. In that case the one who felt the deeper attachment may feel pain such as could not be borne by mountains. We need to guide this friendship that could captivate our hearts because of people we love, so that we will not be surprised one day and start imagining that everything has started to collapse around us when a friendship was never like that in the first place.
‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: Your love should not reach the point of infatuation and your hatred should not reach the point of destruction.
At the same time we need to deepen our understanding of brotherhood, which dictates loyalty, honesty and sincerity, where there is no room for excessive politeness and courtesy. In the past they said: When friendship is sincere there will be no pretence.
Undoubtedly such flattery is blameworthy and has no place in brotherhood and true friendship. If there is some occasional flattery among friends, it should be only what is dictated by circumstances, so as to ward off fitnah or preserve love. But if flattery is the basis of that friendship, then it is a distortion of all the meanings of true brotherhood.
‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The worst of friends is the one who tries too hard to flatter you and the one who expects too much courtesy from you and the one who makes you feel the need to justify yourself constantly.
It was said to one of them: Who should we make friends with? He said: The one who removes from you the burden of pretence and with whom you feel no reservations.
Ja’far ibn Muhammad al-Saadiq (may Allaah be pleased with him) used to say: The most burdensome of my brothers to me is the one who flatters me too much and I feel reserved with him. Ihya’ ‘Uloom al-Deen (2/181).
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
Leave a trace…
Many people pass by in this life and then move away and
became among the bygones. Among those, the footprints of some have
completely disappeared and if you try to follow them, you would find
nothing. This is because they did not walk on a definite path, for they
had neither purpose nor aim. However, the footprints of others are still
prominent and their trails brilliant, appealing to the beholders.
Although they have passed away, their good mention remains. That is
because they insisted on leaving a mark.
“Every human being has an existence and a legacy (to
leave); and his existence does not serve a purpose without his trace.
The trace he leaves indicates the value of his existence.” [Dr. ‘Ali Al-Hammaadi]
Allaah The Almighty created people to worship Him (Alone as confirmed in His Statement what means): {And I did not create the Jinn and mankind except to worship Me} [Quran 51:56] and for this purpose, He subjected to them all that is in existence (as stated in His Saying what means): {And
He has subjected to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on
the earth – all from Him: Indeed in that are signs for a people who give
thought}[Quran 45:13].
Thus, the main task of man as a vicegerent on earth is to
worship Allaah The Almighty and benefit from all those powers subjugated
to him for the sake of worship. That is to say, making a mark in life
and making a positive contribution to the world are among the main tasks
of mankind in this world.
As the last divine message, the compendium of divine
teachings, and the method approved by Allaah The Almighty for humankind
throughout the ages, until He inherits the earth and all that is on it,
Islam encompasses in its principles, laws and ordinances all the means
that ensure that humanity achieves the happiness of both abodes (of the
world and the Hereafter).
Islam covers all areas of life, keeping in mind the human
constitution and people’s needs, in an integrated structure which
combines both the spiritual and the moral on the one hand, and making
something of one’s life on the other hand.
Thus, a Muslim realizes the raison d’être for his existence and mission on earth, which includes, of course, to leave his imprint in the register of builders.
Are you among the living?
How easy it is for the answer to this question to readily
trip off our tongues! But if man is really living, then, what is the
sign of his being among the ranks of the living? Neither eating, nor
drinking, nor sleeping, nor any such process could stand as proof of
life. The living should have a mark to leave.
The life of a person is devoid of meaning and value if he
remains sedentary and motionless, in the depth of stillness. Ar-Raafi‘i,
the litterateur, expressed this sentiment in his statement: “If you make no addition to life, then you will be but a worthless addition to it.” [Wahy Al-Qalam: Mustafa Saadiq Ar-Raafi‘i]
Whoever fails to create for himself a trace to leave behind when he dies, is just like the “Men who are born, then live then die” as put by Al-Hakeem, without leaving anything to be recorded about him by history other than the words: birth, life and death.
On the contrary, the efficient believer who knows well the
value of living a purposeful and constructive life always seeks to leave
his mark on it. Efficiency is to obtain benefit from what is in our
hands. Allaah The Almighty has subjected to us the land, the sea,
animals and plants, and endowed us with time (to do what we like). The
efficient person is he who makes use of his living moments. For this
reason, on the Day of Judgment, man will be questioned about his
lifetime: what did he spend it in.
The hoopoe, the tutor:Has the news of the hoopoe of Solomon reached you? One day, Prophet Sulaymaan (Solomon) gathered his soldiers from men, Jinn, birds and wild animals, but he missed the hoopoe (as mentioned by Allaah The Almighty what means): {And he took attendance of the birds and said, “Why do I not see the hoopoe - or is he among the absent?} [Quran 27:20] He then threatened to punish him saying (what means): {“I will surely punish him with a severe punishment or slaughter him unless he brings me clear authorization.”} [Quran 27:21]
But it was not long before the hoopoe came to Sulaymaan in the same assembly and said (what means): {“I have encompassed [in knowledge] that which you have not encompassed, and I have come to you from Sheba with certain news.”}
[Quran 27:22] In this way, he aroused his curiosity to know the story,
then told him what confirmed that certain news; and this goes indicates
the hoopoe’s tact and mastery of the arts of speech.
Then, he told him in detail (what means): {Indeed, I found [there] a woman ruling them, and she has been given of all things, and she has a great throne.}
[Quran 27:23] He started with a rousing introduction to stimulate the
interest of the listener, and then told him about the serious matter
that kept him from attendance, saying (what means): {“I found her
and her people prostrating to the sun instead of Allaah, and Satan has
made their deeds pleasing to them and averted them from [His] way, so
they are not guided.”} [Quran 27:24]
In this manner he raised the issue of polytheism, the
heinous crime and most grievous sin to be committed on the surface of
the earth. What a wonderful trait in the hoopoe, to be concerned with
reform! He did not excuse himself on the grounds of his being
incompetent for religious assignments, nor upon the claim that he was
too weak to change falsehood. Rather, he found a role for himself, which
was to notify others about this odious incident of polytheism.
Since this hoopoe was positive and proactive, and liked to
leave a trace, he did not satisfy himself with mere notification. He
ascertained the even way, which is to affirm the oneness of Allaah The
Almighty, and not to ascribe to Him any partner (in worship): {“[And]
so they do not prostrate to Allaah, Who brings forth what is hidden
within the heavens and the earth and Knows what you conceal and what you
declare — Allaah — there is no deity except Him, Lord of the Great
Throne.”} [Quran 27:25-26]
An ant gives life to a whole nation (of ants)
This was the wonderful ant whose mention has also
beenimmortalized (in the Quran) by virtue of its good deed and positive
conduct. The story is mentioned with the story of Sulaymaan who was taught the language of the birds. Sulaymaan was marching with his soldiers: {Until,
when they came upon the valley of the ants, an ant said, “O ants, enter
your dwellings that you not be crushed by Solomon andhis soldiers while they perceive not.”}[Quran 27:18]
You have the right to wonder at this ant, which had a good assumption when it said: {while they perceive not.”} You
may also wonder at its eagerness to do something positive, and not to
rely on negative surrender. It warned its people, without caring about
its small size, not submitting to the obsession of failure to neglect
notifying or warning, and not acting upon the adage: “After me, the deluge”.
Similar to it is the story of the bee, which is the best
example for work, devotion and relentless activity, such that at the end
of its effort it produces delicious honey.
If your slow in deeds, nothing will hasten you forward
The Prophet s.a.w. said “Whoever is slowed by his deeds will not be hastened forward by his lineage.” [Muslim]
All of mankind comes from the same source, Adam and Hawa. All people share this common lineage. And they have all been created for the same purpose and they are all expected to heed the guidance that has come from Allah.
In reality, there is nothing naturally or inborn that separates one
human being from another. The only thing that is going to distinguish
them is their consciousness of God (taqwa) that is in their hearts and
which is manifested in their deeds. If a person himself did not work for
Paradise, then he is not going to be blessed with Paradise due to what
others have done, no matter how close their blood relationship may be.
If the deeds are not there, one’s lineage is not going to help the
person whatsoever. This is true for the noblest lineage of mankind.
Compiled From:
“Commentary on the Forty Hadith of al-Nawawi” – Jamaal al-Din M. Zarabozo, pp. 1339, 1340
“Commentary on the Forty Hadith of al-Nawawi” – Jamaal al-Din M. Zarabozo, pp. 1339, 1340
Source: Friday Nasiha
The Exalted Character of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.)
The Explanation of the Statement: “Verily, You are on an Exalted Character.”
Concerning Allah’s statement,
[وَإِنَّكَ لَعَلَى خُلُقٍ عَظِيمٍ ]
(And verily, you are on an exalted (standard of) character.) Al-`Awfi
reported from Ibn `Abbas, “Verily, you are on a great religion, and it
is Islam.” Likewise said Mujahid, Abu Malik, As-Suddi and Ar-Rabi` bin
Anas. Ad-Dahhak and Ibn Zayd also said this. Sa`id bin Abi `Arubah
reported from Qatadah that he said concerning Allah’s statement,
[وَإِنَّكَ لَعَلَى خُلُقٍ عَظِيمٍ ]
(And verily, you are on an exalted (standard of) character.)
“It has been mentioned to us that Sa`d bin Hisham asked `A’ishah about the character of the Messenger of Allah , so she replied:
`Have you not read the Qur’an’ Sa`d said: `Of course.’ Then she said:
`Verily, the character of the Messenger of Allah was the Qur’an.”’
`Abdur-Razzaq recorded similar to this and Imam Muslim recorded it in his Sahih on the authority of Qatadah in its full length.
This means that he would act according to the commands and the
prohibition in the Qur’an. His nature and character were patterned
according to the Qur’an, and he abandoned his natural disposition (i.e.,
the carnal nature). So whatever the Qur’an commanded, he did it, and
whatever it forbade, he avoided it.
Along with this, Allah gave him the exalted character, which included
the qualities of modesty, kindness, bravery, pardoning, gentleness and
every other good characteristic.
This is like that which has been confirmed in the Two Sahihs that Anas said,
“I served the Messenger of Allah for ten years, and he never said a
word of displeasure to me (Uff), nor did he ever say to me concerning
something I had done: `Why did you do that’ And he never said to me
concerning something I had not done: `Why didn’t you do this’ He had the
best character, and I never touched any silk or anything else that was
softer than the palm of the Messenger of Allah . And I never smelled any
musk or perfume that had a better fragrance than the sweat of the
Messenger of Allah.” Imam Al-Bukhari recorded that Al-Bara’ said, “The
Messenger of Allah had the most handsome face of all the people, and he
had the best behavior of all of the people. And he was not tall, nor was
he short.”
The Hadiths concerning this matter are numerous. Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi has a complete book on this subject called Kitab Ash-Shama’il.
Imam Ahmad recorded that `A’ishah said, “The
Messenger of Allah never struck a servant of his with his hand, nor did
he ever hit a woman. He never hit anything with his hand, except for
when he was fighting Jihad in the cause of Allah. And he was never given
the option between two things except that the most beloved of the two
to him was the easiest of them, as long as it did not involve sin. If it
did involve sin, then he stayed farther away from sin than any of the
people. He would not avenge himself concerning anything that was done to
him, except if the limits of Allah were transgressed. Then, in that
case he would avenge for the sake of Allah.”
Ref: Tafseer Ibn Kathir
Friday, November 4, 2011
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Jealousy and its cures
Hasad
(jealousy and envy) is among the most destructive emotions or feeling which a
man may have towards his fellow human being. It causes him to wish evil for
others and to be happy when misfortune befalls them. The Prophet (sallallahu
alaihi wa-sallam) warned against envy by comparing it to fire that completely
burns the wood. He (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) said:
"Beware of jealousy, for verily it destroys good deeds the way fire destroys
wood." [Abu Dawood]
Hasad is a disease of the heart and it causes impurity to the heart, when Allah's Messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) was asked who are the best of people? He (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) replied: "the one with a clean heart and truthful tongue." They asked: 'We understand a truthful tongue, but what does a clean heart mean?' he answered: 'It is the heart of one that is pious, pure, and is free of sin, transgressions, hatred and Hasad." [Ibn Majah]
Hasad is such a dangerous characteristic that Allah revealed verses of the Qur'aan to be recited as a protection from the jealous, "Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of the dawn... from the evil of envious when he envies." [Soorah al-Falaq (113): 1,5]
At-Tirmidhee narrated from al-Zubayr Ibn al-Awam that the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) said: "There has come to you the disease of the nations before you, jealousy and hatred. This is the 'shaver' (destroyer); I do not say that it shaves hair, but that it shaves (destroys) faith." [(Hasan) Jamee at-Tirmidhee (2434)]
Hasad can cause the person to indulge in disbelief because it causes the individual to feel that Allah has not been fair with him; he forgets all the mercy and blessings which Allah has bestowed upon him. The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) said: "They are enemies for Allah's bounties." They asked: "Who are they?" He said: "Those who envy people for what Allah has given them of Bounty." [at-Tabaranee]
Allah through His Absolute Wisdom has given some people more wealth, intelligence, beauty, strength, children, etc. than others. The believing Muslim should be content with what Allah has destined for him. Allah says: "Allah favored some of you over others with wealth and properties... Do they deny the favors of Allah?" [Soorah an-Nahl (16): 71] And: "Do they envy men for what Allah has given them of His Bounty?" [Soorah an-Nisa (4): 54]
"It is We Who portion out between them their livelihood in this world, and We raised some of them above others in ranks, so that some may employ others in their work. But the mercy of your Lord is better." [Soorah az-Zukhruf (43): 32] meaning mercy of Allah is better than the convenience of the world. The materials of this life do not make one superior to another in Allah's Judgment. True superiority lies in Taqwa (righteousness, fear of Allah). He said: "Surely, the most noble of you to Allah is the most God-fearing." [Soorah al-Hujurat (49): 13] "And the Hereafter with Your Lord is (only) for those who have Taqwa." [Soorah az-Zukhruf (43): 35]
What belongs to the transient world is of no significance before Allah. The Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) said: "If this world were worth a mosquito's wing before Allah, He would not give a disbeliever a drink of water." [At-Tirmidhee]
The favors of Allah in the world are a test; the more the favors, the more the tests. Al-Hasan al-Basri said: "Umar Ibn Khattab wrote this letter to Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, 'Be content with your provision in this world, for the Most Merciful has honored some of His servants over others in terms of provision as a test of both. The one who has been given plenty is being tested to see if he will give thanks to Allah and fulfill the duties which are his by virtue of his wealth." [Ibn Hatim]
Allah, the Exalted, has therefore forbidden us from desiring what other have, "Do not wish for what we have favored some of you over others." [Soorah an-Nisa (4): 32]
In order to discourage envy, the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) said: "Do not look to those above you. Look to those below you, as it will more likely remind you of Allah's favors bestowed on you." [Saheeh al-Bukharee and Saheeh Muslim] On another occasion, he said: "If one of you looks at someone wealthier and better built than him, he should also look at someone of lower standard than himself." [Saheeh Muslim]
Islam permits Ghibtah
Hasad is a disease of the heart and it causes impurity to the heart, when Allah's Messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) was asked who are the best of people? He (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) replied: "the one with a clean heart and truthful tongue." They asked: 'We understand a truthful tongue, but what does a clean heart mean?' he answered: 'It is the heart of one that is pious, pure, and is free of sin, transgressions, hatred and Hasad." [Ibn Majah]
Hasad is such a dangerous characteristic that Allah revealed verses of the Qur'aan to be recited as a protection from the jealous, "Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of the dawn... from the evil of envious when he envies." [Soorah al-Falaq (113): 1,5]
At-Tirmidhee narrated from al-Zubayr Ibn al-Awam that the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) said: "There has come to you the disease of the nations before you, jealousy and hatred. This is the 'shaver' (destroyer); I do not say that it shaves hair, but that it shaves (destroys) faith." [(Hasan) Jamee at-Tirmidhee (2434)]
Hasad can cause the person to indulge in disbelief because it causes the individual to feel that Allah has not been fair with him; he forgets all the mercy and blessings which Allah has bestowed upon him. The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) said: "They are enemies for Allah's bounties." They asked: "Who are they?" He said: "Those who envy people for what Allah has given them of Bounty." [at-Tabaranee]
Allah through His Absolute Wisdom has given some people more wealth, intelligence, beauty, strength, children, etc. than others. The believing Muslim should be content with what Allah has destined for him. Allah says: "Allah favored some of you over others with wealth and properties... Do they deny the favors of Allah?" [Soorah an-Nahl (16): 71] And: "Do they envy men for what Allah has given them of His Bounty?" [Soorah an-Nisa (4): 54]
"It is We Who portion out between them their livelihood in this world, and We raised some of them above others in ranks, so that some may employ others in their work. But the mercy of your Lord is better." [Soorah az-Zukhruf (43): 32] meaning mercy of Allah is better than the convenience of the world. The materials of this life do not make one superior to another in Allah's Judgment. True superiority lies in Taqwa (righteousness, fear of Allah). He said: "Surely, the most noble of you to Allah is the most God-fearing." [Soorah al-Hujurat (49): 13] "And the Hereafter with Your Lord is (only) for those who have Taqwa." [Soorah az-Zukhruf (43): 35]
What belongs to the transient world is of no significance before Allah. The Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) said: "If this world were worth a mosquito's wing before Allah, He would not give a disbeliever a drink of water." [At-Tirmidhee]
The favors of Allah in the world are a test; the more the favors, the more the tests. Al-Hasan al-Basri said: "Umar Ibn Khattab wrote this letter to Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, 'Be content with your provision in this world, for the Most Merciful has honored some of His servants over others in terms of provision as a test of both. The one who has been given plenty is being tested to see if he will give thanks to Allah and fulfill the duties which are his by virtue of his wealth." [Ibn Hatim]
Allah, the Exalted, has therefore forbidden us from desiring what other have, "Do not wish for what we have favored some of you over others." [Soorah an-Nisa (4): 32]
In order to discourage envy, the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) said: "Do not look to those above you. Look to those below you, as it will more likely remind you of Allah's favors bestowed on you." [Saheeh al-Bukharee and Saheeh Muslim] On another occasion, he said: "If one of you looks at someone wealthier and better built than him, he should also look at someone of lower standard than himself." [Saheeh Muslim]
Islam permits Ghibtah
What Islam permits in contrast to Hasad (destructive jealousy) is Ghibtah (envy that is free from malice), which means neither loving the loss of the blessing nor hating for it to remain with the person, but desiring the same for oneself without the removal of the blessing from others.
The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) said: "Envy is allowed in two cases, in case of a man whom Allah has given the Qur'aan and who recites it throughout night and day; and a man on whom Allah has bestowed wealth who gives it away throughout night and day." [Saheeh al-Bukharee and Saheeh Muslim] and he (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) also explained what may be said: "I wish I were given what he was given and did with it what he did."
The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) said: "The similitude of the people of this Ummah is like four individual. One whom Allah has given wealth and knowledge, so he handles his wealth with the knowledge. One whom Allah has given knowledge but not wealth and he says, 'Lord, should I have wealth like so-and-so I would have handled it like him.' So they both have the same reward. Such a person loves to have wealth like others so he can do good like others without wishing that the others lose their wealth. Another man, Allah has given him wealth but no knowledge and he spends his wealth in disobedience to Allah. And last, a man whom Allah has not given knowledge nor wealth but he says, 'Should I have wealth like so-and-so, I would spend it in the way he does.' So, both will have the same sin against them." [at-Tirmidhee and Ibn Majah]
Some Reasons that cause a person to have Jealousy
Anger and Malice: When one is hurt by someone for any reason, he is angered, and his anger produces malice and urge for revenge in the heart. The slave begins to desire harm for the other person, he enjoys when he sees him in hardships and he may further thinks that Allah has done it to him as an evil reward!
And if the person is blessed with a gift, he grieves and this is Hasad, which does not harm the envied person but it hurts and destroys the Hasid (one who has Hasad) himself.
In order to close the door to this evil Islam advises the Muslims to be forgiving in nature and control one's anger. Allah says in the Qur'aan: "Those who spend (in Allah's Cause) in prosperity and in adversity, who repress anger, and who pardon men. Verily, Allah loves the good doers." [Soorah al-Imran (3): 134]
Arrogance, Pride and Love for fame: When a person achieves a high status and position in the society or gains wealth, he hates to see someone other than him compete or go ahead of him or be praised over him. So, he envies the former person.
An example of this can be taken of the Jews and their Hasad towards Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) for the Prophet-hood that Allah entrusted him with. Their envy made them reject the divine message given to him, because he was an Arab and not from the Children of Israel. It was their Hasad which caused them to make statements as such, "It is these that Allah as favored among us?" [Soorah al-Anam (6): 53] "And they say: 'Why is not this Qur'aan sent down to some great man of the two towns?" [Soorah az-Zukhruf (43): 31] and in Soorah al-Muminoon (23): 34, "If you were to obey a human being life yourselves, then verily, you indeed would be losers."
This also shows one of the grave dangers of Hasad that Hasad hinders the person from following the truth and accepting advice from others just as the Hasad of the disbelievers prevented them from accepting Islam.
Evil Nature of the person: Some people, even though they may not be harmed or threatened by other people's success, grieve when they hear about some good happening to others, and enjoy in their adversities. Neither do they seek progress for themselves nor do they wish others to progress!! Such kind of defect is difficult to cure for the reason behind their evil attitude is the evil nature of the person which does not allow him to accept other people's success.
Repentance
and Getting Rid of Jealousy
Firstly, the believer should have sincerity in repenting from Hasad as Allah's Messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) said: "Three things that every heart of a believer should not hate to have is sincerity in actions, rendering advise to leaders and holding to Jama'ah (community) of the Muslims, for their supplication surrounds everyone with them." [Ahmad and Ibn Majah]
Second requirement to get rid of Hasad is to get rid of all those means which cause one to have Hasad like anger, hatred, love for the world and discontentment.
Discontentment comes from the slave's ignorance of his Lord. If he recognizes his Lord with the attributes of Perfection, All-Knowledgeable and All-Just to his slaves, he would not be discontent and as a result would not develop Hasad.
Imam Ibn Qayyim (rahimahullah) said: "It (contentment) opens the door of peace and security for the slave." It makes his heart pure from hatred, evil and malice. The more contented the person is, the purer his heart is. However, this does not mean that the slave should not make efforts to improve his situation. A slave should work to gain success and progress but he should not envy those whom Allah has granted more wealth or possession but he should be content with the decisions of Allah.
Thirdly, the slave should turn towards the Qur'aan which is a healing for the diseases of the heart. Allah says: "O mankind! There has come to you a good advice from your Rabb and a healing for that in your chests." [Soorah Yunus (10): 57]
Supplicate to Allah to purify your heart. Allah said in the Qur'aan: "And those who came after them say: 'Our Lord! Forgive us and our brethren who have preceded us in Faith and put not in our hearts any hatred against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed full of kindness, Most Merciful." [Soorah al-Hashr (59): 10]
Give Sadaqah (charity) for it purifies the heart and sanctifies the soul. It is for this reason Allah said to His Prophet: "Take Sadaqah from their wealth in order to purify them and sanctify them with it." [Soorah at-Tawbah (9): 103]
If thoughts of Hasad cross one's mind, he should seek refuge in Allah from the accursed Shaytan and busy himself with something that will dispel these insinuating whispers and thoughts.
But if the Shaytan manages to instill Hasad in the hearts, then beware lest you say or do anything which will show Hasad. A person will not be brought to account for whatever crosses his mind, but he will be brought to account for what he says and does.
Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: "Nobody is free from Hasad, but the noble person hides it whilst the base person shows it." [Amraad al-Quloob]
If you feel that you are jealous of a specific person, then buy him a gift, shake hands with him and give him salaams for Hasad is the result of hatred and the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) said: "Shake hands, for this will dispel rancour, and exchange gifts and love one another, for this will dispel hatred." [Narrated by Maalik in al-Muwatta (1413)]
Abu Hurayrah (radhi allahu anhu) narrated that the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) said: "By Allah, in Whose Hand is my soul, you will never enter Paradise until you believe. And you will not believe unless you love one another. May I tell you something that if you do, you may love one another? Spread Salaam amongst yourselves." Ibn Abdul-Barr said: "This proves that Salaam can lift hatred and produce love." [Saheeh Muslim]
Firstly, the believer should have sincerity in repenting from Hasad as Allah's Messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) said: "Three things that every heart of a believer should not hate to have is sincerity in actions, rendering advise to leaders and holding to Jama'ah (community) of the Muslims, for their supplication surrounds everyone with them." [Ahmad and Ibn Majah]
Second requirement to get rid of Hasad is to get rid of all those means which cause one to have Hasad like anger, hatred, love for the world and discontentment.
Discontentment comes from the slave's ignorance of his Lord. If he recognizes his Lord with the attributes of Perfection, All-Knowledgeable and All-Just to his slaves, he would not be discontent and as a result would not develop Hasad.
Imam Ibn Qayyim (rahimahullah) said: "It (contentment) opens the door of peace and security for the slave." It makes his heart pure from hatred, evil and malice. The more contented the person is, the purer his heart is. However, this does not mean that the slave should not make efforts to improve his situation. A slave should work to gain success and progress but he should not envy those whom Allah has granted more wealth or possession but he should be content with the decisions of Allah.
Thirdly, the slave should turn towards the Qur'aan which is a healing for the diseases of the heart. Allah says: "O mankind! There has come to you a good advice from your Rabb and a healing for that in your chests." [Soorah Yunus (10): 57]
Supplicate to Allah to purify your heart. Allah said in the Qur'aan: "And those who came after them say: 'Our Lord! Forgive us and our brethren who have preceded us in Faith and put not in our hearts any hatred against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed full of kindness, Most Merciful." [Soorah al-Hashr (59): 10]
Give Sadaqah (charity) for it purifies the heart and sanctifies the soul. It is for this reason Allah said to His Prophet: "Take Sadaqah from their wealth in order to purify them and sanctify them with it." [Soorah at-Tawbah (9): 103]
If thoughts of Hasad cross one's mind, he should seek refuge in Allah from the accursed Shaytan and busy himself with something that will dispel these insinuating whispers and thoughts.
But if the Shaytan manages to instill Hasad in the hearts, then beware lest you say or do anything which will show Hasad. A person will not be brought to account for whatever crosses his mind, but he will be brought to account for what he says and does.
Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: "Nobody is free from Hasad, but the noble person hides it whilst the base person shows it." [Amraad al-Quloob]
If you feel that you are jealous of a specific person, then buy him a gift, shake hands with him and give him salaams for Hasad is the result of hatred and the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) said: "Shake hands, for this will dispel rancour, and exchange gifts and love one another, for this will dispel hatred." [Narrated by Maalik in al-Muwatta (1413)]
Abu Hurayrah (radhi allahu anhu) narrated that the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) said: "By Allah, in Whose Hand is my soul, you will never enter Paradise until you believe. And you will not believe unless you love one another. May I tell you something that if you do, you may love one another? Spread Salaam amongst yourselves." Ibn Abdul-Barr said: "This proves that Salaam can lift hatred and produce love." [Saheeh Muslim]
"A Man from
the People of Paradise will enter now..."
Anas Ibn Malik (radhi allahu
anhu) reported that he and other companions were sitting with the Messenger (sallallahu
alaihi wa-sallam), who said: "A man from the people of Paradise will enter
now." And a man from al-Ansar entered, with his beard dripping with water from
Wudhu (ablution), and holding his sandals in his left hand.
The following day, the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) said the same thing and the same man entered.
On the third day, the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) again repeated his statement and the same man entered with water dripping and holding his sandals.
When the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) left, Abdullah Ibn Amr Ibn al-As (radhi allahu anhu) followed the man and said: 'I quarreled with my father and I swore I would not go to him for three days and night. Would you shelter me for these days?' the man replied: 'Yes.'
Anas said: 'Abdullah said that he stayed with this man for three nights and he did not see him praying at night, but every time he moved and changed position in bed he would remember Allah saying, 'Allahu Akbar' Until Salat-ul-Fajr."
Abdullah said: 'I didn't hear anything from him but good. When the three nights had passed… I said: 'O slave of Allah! I really didn't abandon my father nor was I angry with him. But, I heard the Messenger of Allah speaking of you on three separate occasions, the Prophet had said that a man from the people of Paradise would enter, and you were the one to enter on all the three times. So, I wanted to stay with you to see what you do so that I could follow you. But I have not seen you doing much. So what is that you do for Allah's Messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) to say what he had said?'
The man replied: 'It is nothing more than what you saw.' When it was time to leave, he called me back and said: 'Yes, it is nothing more than what you saw, except that I have no place in myself for ill-intentions or Hasad towards any Muslim and what Allah has given them.' Abdullah said: 'This is what has made you deserving of the praise and this is what we cannot do." [Musnad Ahmad]
The following day, the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) said the same thing and the same man entered.
On the third day, the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) again repeated his statement and the same man entered with water dripping and holding his sandals.
When the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) left, Abdullah Ibn Amr Ibn al-As (radhi allahu anhu) followed the man and said: 'I quarreled with my father and I swore I would not go to him for three days and night. Would you shelter me for these days?' the man replied: 'Yes.'
Anas said: 'Abdullah said that he stayed with this man for three nights and he did not see him praying at night, but every time he moved and changed position in bed he would remember Allah saying, 'Allahu Akbar' Until Salat-ul-Fajr."
Abdullah said: 'I didn't hear anything from him but good. When the three nights had passed… I said: 'O slave of Allah! I really didn't abandon my father nor was I angry with him. But, I heard the Messenger of Allah speaking of you on three separate occasions, the Prophet had said that a man from the people of Paradise would enter, and you were the one to enter on all the three times. So, I wanted to stay with you to see what you do so that I could follow you. But I have not seen you doing much. So what is that you do for Allah's Messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) to say what he had said?'
The man replied: 'It is nothing more than what you saw.' When it was time to leave, he called me back and said: 'Yes, it is nothing more than what you saw, except that I have no place in myself for ill-intentions or Hasad towards any Muslim and what Allah has given them.' Abdullah said: 'This is what has made you deserving of the praise and this is what we cannot do." [Musnad Ahmad]
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
PROOF FOR EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR
The Collins Dictionary defines 'Proof' as, 'any evidence that
establishes or helps to establish the truth, validity, quality, etc of
something'.
To better understand the concept of 'proof' let us consider an example; imagine not knowing today's date, so you decide to check the newspaper for it. As a result the newspaper forms the proof to substantiate your belief in today's date. The conclusion of the date and its correctness is based upon the correctness of the proof. Now, what if the newspaper we used in order to know the date was in fact yesterday’s. That means we incorrectly assumed the date, however, such an individual not knowing this error would feel assured in a truth that only he perceives due to the misunderstanding of the evidence. Thus, what is considered as 'proof' is of paramount concern, because although we may feel assured in the conclusion we obtained from what we perceive to be correct and valid proofs, we could in fact be completely wrong.
With regards to belief, there are three general ways, or three proofs that individuals use to adopt a particular set of beliefs. A person may adopt a belief through imitating the rest of society or following their forefathers. Similarly some base their belief upon the emotional satisfaction or contentment the particular belief gives them. Finally one may adopt a belief through the use of the intellect. With regards to the incorrectness of imitation as a method to establish ones' belief, it is self-evident.
As for emotions being the basis of adopting a belief, then this too can easily dismissed as an invalid proof, and I will not pursue to invalidate them. This then leaves us with the use of the intellect as the way to ascertain the proofs of the existence of the Creator. We thus need to ascertain how the intellect is used to obtain the correct conclusion. There are three general understandings as to the manner by which the mind/intellect could be used correctly in order to obtain objective knowledge. They are rational thought, empirical thought and the use of logic. Once we have obtained the correct manner in which to think we can then assess the proofs upon which any argument is to be built.
The use of Logic
The classical Greeks used a manner or style of thinking called 'logic', its most useful and strongest form was called deductive logic. By deductive logic they described how a conclusion would be built upon its premises, thus the correctness of the conclusion depended upon the correctness of the premises. Deductive logic therefore was built upon four components: the two premises, the link between the two premises and the conclusion which resulted from this link.
One of the most important features of the logic was the structure of the sentences i.e. semantics and terminology. So discussion branched out to discuss the theory of ideas and the theory of universals. In essence philosophers were trying to construct arguments built upon the correct use of semantics. So for example if I were to find out whether humans are warm blooded or not by using the logical approach then I may use the following premises; all mammals are warm blooded, all humans are mammals, therefore humans are warm blooded. Here the link between humans to mammals is based upon the definition we give to mammals. If our definition differs of mammals then our conclusion would change.
Hence amongst the logicians’, discussion on language, terminology and construct of sentences became an important feature. In this example, the understanding of the whether humans are mammals, is a discussion of the universal features that all mammals share, and thus do humans share this common feature. This discussion of universals and ideas are the two theories that distinguished Aristotle from Plato when understanding the commonalities that things share. So what we find, and it certainly is the case, that the use of logic can become complicated due to semantics. And we find that many philosophers fall into the trap of semantics, thus missing the wood from the trees so to say.
Further to the problem of semantics, logic also suffers from hidden defects that may not be known from the link between the two premises. This is due to the fact that the conclusion is not directly sensed but is built upon two base thoughts that may or may not have been sensed. So for example we could state oxygen is gas at room temperature and that hydrogen is also gas at room temperature thus we can conclude that oxygen combined with hydrogen would produce a gas at room temperature. But this is not the case for hydrogen combined with oxygen produces a liquid at room temperature. Such hidden defects can not be noticed when building thought upon thought and thus logic can not be used as the basis of building conclusions.
Empirical Thought
Discussion arose as to whether thought originated before matter or whether the matter was the source of thought. So the rationalists, and we should distinguish here between the ‘rationalists’ and what is meant by ‘rational thought’, they stated that humans were born with innate thoughts. One such exponent was Emannuel Kant the German philosopher. In response to this, the empiricists stated that such conclusion wasn't based upon any evidences and was merely an assumption. Further, in their zeal to remove the creator from the equation the empiricists (such as the communists) stated that thought resulted from matter itself.
Thus, they stated that the first step in the process of acquiring knowledge is the primary contact with the external environment - this is the stage of sensory perception. The second stage is the accumulation and the organisation of the information which is gathered from the sensory perception. This description of empirical thought was succinctly put by Mao Tse tung. In essence the thinking process according to them is produced by the sensation of the environment around them. Thus thought was a mere reflection of the matter onto the brain. This they said was the basis of thinking; so that no thought could exist except if reality exists for it.
However, they misunderstood the reality of thinking as we clearly know. So a simple example of a doctor undertaking tests proves that such tests doesn’t establish the disease of his patient unless he has previous information as to what the tests are meant to yield. To further clarify this, a doctor must know the average blood sugar level in the body for a normal healthy patient, and then when subsequent tests are made and it is found that the patients blood sugar level is higher than the average for a normal patient, one can say he has hyperglycemia i.e. diabetes. So a simple analogy throws doubt on the empirical method of thinking as the sole basis of thought.
Further, while conducting experiments at school where we are told, in order to put into practice the empirical approach - we first formulate a hypothesis then a method to test the above hypothesis then record the results obtained from tests finally concluding whether the tests substantiates the hypothesis or not. The very fact that we had a hypothesis clearly demonstrates that there was previous information upon which the experimentation was built. Therefore, simply stating that thought arises from purely sensing the environment or the reality is completely false when practically employing the empirical method. In fact due to the presence of previous information i.e. the hypothesis we understand that the empirical method is a branch of rational thought not its source.
To further clarify this point in order to establish a conclusion based upon experimentation we need to use the rational method of thinking. That is to say we link the experimental data to the previous knowledge we have to extrapolate a conclusion based on the least amount of doubt. So as an example, we have a patient who shows weight loss and urinates frequently the doctor hypothesises that the patient may have diabetes, as weight loss and urinating a lot are signs of that disease. So the doctor then tests his blood sugar level after which he establishes whether his original hypothesis is substantiated by his tests. So here he has linked the results from the tests to previous information of the normal blood sugar levels assessing whether this proves his initial hypothesis or not.
Finally with regards to empirical thought, due to the fact that the empiricists state that thought is directly built upon reality, meaning that each thought is a reflection of a specific reality. Then thoughts that do not have a representation in reality are not true thoughts. Then the empiricists firmly state that belief in God is an incorrect thought because such thought is not a reflection on reality as there is no sensation of the creator. However, they have failed to appreciate and understand the thinking process because if they are correct in stating that thinking is a direct reflection on reality, i.e. no reality no thought. Then one would ask where did such a thought come from with regards to the belief in a God? This sufficiently disproves their concept of the thought process.
In addition, causal relationships cannot be directly sensed, does that mean causal relations do not exist? If that is the case then the whole process of empirical thought wouldn’t exist as this depends on the necessary causal relationship. Thus, the claim that empirical thought is the source of thought stating that thought results in reflection of matter onto the brain, has glaring contradictions.
Rational thought
Finally on this section of the thinking process we come to rational thought and how this is the source of thinking. We state that thought came before matter because by merely sensing matter we do not establish any thought. The inability of sensing the syriac language without previous information of the syriac language shows that sensation alone will not allow us to understand the language. Instead we must have the previous information together with the reality which is sensed (sensory perception) and the distinguishing mind - to make the link between the reality and the previous information to produce thought.
Further we understand that the mind has the ability to produce thought based upon one reality and extrapolate a principle. So when we sense a ball on the ground with no force applied to it we see it stationary and when force is applied to the ball we see it move. We would understand that after observing the ball moving after applying force to it then this would be true each time we apply force to the ball and not just for that particular time. In fact this is true for all types of balls.
Further our mind is able to extract the general principle of cause and effect based upon all things which are finite and limited after simply observing the ball moving after force was applied. So there doesn’t just exist a simple relationship between the observed reality and its representation as a thought, which is the case with empirical thinking, but in fact the mind is able to establish principles and use those principles to establish other thoughts. Again, as an example a person may have a thought of a mountain and a thought of gold, his mind has then the capacity to link the two thoughts and produce a thought of a mountain of gold even though he hasn’t sensed this. Therefore rational thought is built upon the reality together with the previous information further the mind has the ability to extrapolate general principles and produce thoughts that may not be directly sensed. This is the clearest understanding of thought and this is how humans produce thought and live their life according to established thought.
Therefore the use of the rational method is the only definite way to assess the proofs in order to produce a conclusion. It is therefore the method of thinking we employ when discussing the subject matter of the proof of God.
Argument by design
This argument has been presented by various muslim and non muslim thinkers. So Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal gave the example of the egg and Thomas Aqinas gave the example of finding a watch in the middle of a desert. The argument is simple: complicated things require a designer. So taking the watch as an example we see it is complex, we also know the watch has a watch maker, thus an analogy can be made between the watch and the universe as the universe around us is also complex in its nature.
Thus if the watch is complex requiring a designer then what about the complexities of the universe? So some would naturally conclude that such complexity that exists in the universe would require a designer and that designer would thus be the Creator.
Although it is a simple argument it is at face value quite compelling, however many thinkers have criticised this argument. They have stated that how can an analogy be made between the watch and the universe. For instance we have previous information that the watch was made by a watchmaker. But such previous information doesn’t exist for the universe. The critics of this argument would also question as to whether the universe and all that it contains is truly complex, and state that it is just simply randomly arranged.
Those who try to defend the argument have stated that the universe is truly complex and that if one of the laws of nature was different by a very small amount then this would preclude the chances of life. Similarly if the expansion rate of the universe was greater or smaller then the universe would not exist. In essence they are stating that the probability of the universe coming into existence as it is allowing life to exist is so small that this would have to compel an observer to believe in a master designer. However, this argument isn't sound, for example if I were totake a ball and randomly throw it up in the air and for it to fall unto a particular piece of ground.
Then we would ask, that for it to have fallen on that piece of ground and not another piece of ground then the probability would be extremely low. But just because the probability was extremely low doesn’t mean that the ball was directed at that region, especially when the ball was thrown in a random way. Similarly the universe having its particular laws of nature and rate of expansion doesn’t necessarily mean it was designed in such a manner. For the universe to have different laws of nature or different rate of expansion then the probability would be equally as low. So such arguments as a rebuttal against those critics of the argument by design would be incorrect.
However, with regards to the critics they have failed to appreciate the manner by which the individual considers and thinks about the complexity of the universe and all that it contains. For instance, when we look at a table we establish that it is made of wood. But simply having the wood doesn’t necessarily follow we have a table. Thus, there must be something other than the wood to have fashioned it into a table. The philosophers therefore state that the ‘material cause’ of the table (i.e. what it is made out of) is the wood, but it has another cause i.e. its ‘efficient cause’. That is to say that there is something other than the wood required to fashion it into a table. That other would be different to the wood or material cause itself. So if we look at the life, man and the universe we find that the material cause is the same for all of these things, yet they differ from one another.
In addition, by having the material cause that makes up man and life then this doesn’t necessarily follow that we have a man or life. So if we have the elements that make up man, it does not follow that we have a human. Therefore, there must be something other than these elements that make up a human, i.e. an efficient cause. Again what distinguishes man life and the universe isn't the material cause therefore there must be something other than the material cause that distinguishes man from the universe and the different life forms. This means there exists an efficient cause separate from the universe man and life. That is the creator.
Some may argue that if the premise is laid down that complicated things require a designer then wouldn’t the creator be complex and thus also require a designer. Here they are using deductive logic to try and show an inherent contradiction within the argument by design. Remember how deductive logic has four components to it. Here they use the two premises: 1. Complex things require a designer, 2. The universe is complex, the conclusion built upon the link is that the universe is therefore designed by a Creator. They would argue that the creator is complex therefore it would fit within the logical style as mentioned above. However, if their argument is accepted then one would ask who designed the designer of the designer. In fact we will fall into infinite regression.
Infinite regression means continual subtraction by one. Meaning that if the creator designed the universe and that another designer designed the creator and this keeps continuing. This is impossible because there must be a first cause i.e. something that doesn’t depend upon something prior to it for its existence. In order to understand why infinite regression is impossible the simple analogy of dominoes can be considered. For the last domino to fall over, it would need to be hit by the domino before it and each domino must be hit by a prior domino. Now if there was no starting domino that initiates the process of each domino falling over then none of the dominoes would fall over. So if everything that is complex requires a prior designer, then we would face a situation where nothing would exist but would wait for that first cause to initiate the process and because there is no first cause then nothing would exist. Yet we see things in existence. Therefore infinite regression is impossible.
Further, they are incorrect in making the assumption that because the creator is complex that this creator would also require a designer. We have established that the designer and creator of the universe must exist based upon the sensation of reality, hence the thought is rational. Whereas, stating that there must exist a designer for the creator is not built upon sensing the reality but is mere logic. That is to say building thought upon thought. And as mentioned before building thought upon thought can carry with it hidden defects in its conclusion thus, we would reject any such argument stating clearly that an infinite regression is impossible and any such thought is irrational (not based upon reality). So the argument by design although having its critics has the ability to establish firm belief in the need for the creator.
Kalam Cosmological argument
This is the argument originally developed by the muslim thinkers. It clearly states that everything we perceive in the universe is limited and finite and that everything that is limited and finite is dependent. The universe is the sum of limited finite things therefore the universe is limited and because it is limited it is thus dependent upon something else. As mentioned previously: because infinite regression cannot exist, then everything ultimately depends upon the independent creator who is unlimited and infinite. This is the basic argument however, it has slight variations.
The first variance is that limited objects in the universe depend upon something else in order for it to exist. So for example, a computer depends upon electricity and electricity depends upon a power station which has a magnet rotating in a metal coil. The rotation of the magnet requires the turbines to spin the magnet, the turbines spin because of the steam produced by the water boiling. The heat is produced by the coal burning and the coal required decay of wood under pressure, the wood required sunlight to produce photosynthesis in converting carbon dioxide into wood, and so on.
Thus we see that everything which is limited depends upon something else limited. So the question may arise: does this series of inter-dependant things go on for infinity or does it stop somewhere? Because we haveestablished that infinite regression is an impossibility then it must stop with a first cause i.e. something independent. Now for this thing to be independent then it must be other than what is dependent i.e. limited and finite. Therefore it is unlimited and infinite as well as independent.
Now some may criticise this argument by saying that we have assumed that a linear relationship exists between limited finite things. Thus A depends upon B and B depends upon C and so on in a linear relationship. And for things that depend upon each other in a linear relationship then it is true that there must be something independent. However, some may argue: what if there exists a cyclical dependency as is the cause with the water cycle. So the seas depend upon the rain, the rain depends upon the clouds and the clouds depend upon evaporation of water fromthe seas. Thus each up holds the other. This is how they say the universe preserves its existence. Therefore the universe goes through a cycle from the big bang to a big crunch and so on for infinity.
Yet we would clearly ask what initiated the cycle in the first place? For instance if the seas require the rain before seas are produced and if the rain requires clouds for the rain to exist and the clouds initially require the seas to exist then we know that each thing cannot sustain the other without their originally existing a first cause. Otherwise the seas, clouds and rain wouldn’t exist. Similarly each finite thing within the universe cannot depend upon another finite thing within an elaborate cycle as is the case in the water cycle. That is to say that a first cause i.e. something independent is required to exist. So if the big bang depended upon the big crunch and that big crunch was dependant upon a previous big bang then if there was no start to the cycle then neither the big bang nor the big crunch would exist.
Therefore things which are limited are themselves dependent upon other things and definitely they require something independent and unlimited to bring them into being in the first place.
After this has been established still some atheists tried to bring other arguments. So Bertrand Russel stated that if we accept the premise that every thing has a cause then the creator is also a thing, therefore who caused the creator?. Again using the logical style of argumentation they state that there is an inherent contradiction within this argument. If we were to say that God is uncaused then the atheist would say that we have contradicted our original premise which was everything has a cause. As a result they would claim that the universe is uncaused just as some would say that God is uncaused.
However, even if we use the logical style of argumentation, we do not state that every thing has a cause. Rather from understanding the reality we conclude that everything that is limited and finite is dependant, or has a cause and that because infinite regression is impossible there must exist a first cause i.e. something independent. That thing which is independent must therefore be something other than finite and limited. Thus, we would state that it necessarily follows that this independent thing, which is the sole creator must be infinite and unlimited. So there is no inherent contradiction and it is unfortunate that such a simple point was missed by a philosopher whom they called the Socrates of our time.
With regards to this argument that finite limited things depend upon other finite limited things, certain philosophers state that we presume the relationship of cause and effect. In essence they deny that cause and effect is an established fact that is true for all things that are limited. They base their objection to the certainty of cause and effect upon two areas: firstly they state that cause and effect can not be proven from the use of empirical thought. And secondly they state that 'empirical' propositions can not yield certain knowledge.
By 'empirical' propositions they mean knowledge which is established upon experience. For the philosophers they divide knowledge into two kinds one which is known prior to experience and one which is established upon experience. So for example mathematics, they would say, is knowledge known prior to experience and this type of knowledge is true and establishes certainty. Whereas knowledge built upon experience does not establish absolute certainty.
The strength of knowledge built upon experience is only as strong as the reality we have observed; it could be that there is something we have not observed or experienced which would change our conclusions. Thus they say such knowledge is speculative. Because cause and effect is built upon experience they state that it does not necessarily follow that everything follows this relationship, just what we have seen so far has followed this relationship.
With regards to the argument that cause and effect can not be established by the use of empirical thought, it was proposed by David Hume. He stated that it was mere coincidence that causal relations seem to exist and that nothing compels one to believe it to be an actual certainty. So as an example he stated that in order for one to produce fire a person would need to strike a match. But how can someone sense the future event. Remember empirical thinking is a reflection of reality yet future events are not reality thus they cannot be sensed and therefore no certain thought can be established.
However, as we have previously mentioned it is incorrect to assume that thought is simply a reflection of matter onto the brain. The thinking process does not work like that. So as an example to illustrate this point, imagine sensing a liquid. After sensing the liquid we find that it is odourless and colourless and remains liquidat remain temperature. Hence for that liquid under room conditions it exudes those characteristics. This would be the absolute thought about such a liquid, meaning we have sensed its whole reality under room conditions. If we subject this liquid to different conditions for example adding heat to the liquid and we find that under these conditions it boils at 100 degrees celcius. Then we have conclusively determined that such a liquid exhibits such behaviour. In fact we identify objects by the attributes it exhibits at different conditions. We also distinguish attributes according to the different attributes they exhibit under the same conditions. So if I add heat to two odourless colourless liquids and I find that one boils at 100 degrees celcius and the other boils at 70 degrees celcius then I distinguish the two different liquids accordingly.
So David Hume wrongly assumed that future events are speculative, that’s because we identify realities according to the specific attributes that are observed under different conditions. If for instance we boil a liquid and it did not boil at 100 degrees celcius then we would not call it water we would term it differently. For it to be called water then such a liquid must always exhibit the same attribute under the same conditions. If objects did not exhibit continuous attributes then it would be impossible to distinguish between the reality we live. But the fact is that we do distinguish between a chair and a table or water and alcohol.
As to the other argument David Hume had against causal relations he stated that such relationships could not be sensed. So water boiling could be sensed, the heat produced by the fire underneath the water could also be sensed, but the relationship between the fire boiling the water could not be sensed as a result thought about causal relations couldn’t be established. However, we have already shown the limitations of empirical thought.
In fact, if based upon the use of empirical thinking we deny cause and effect (causal relations) then we deny empirical thinking itself. This is because empirical thought requires the implicit acceptance of cause and effect. So experimentation and testing is done upon matter and the results are observed. Based upon the results conclusions are made. So the results are but effects resulting from causes. As a result to deny cause and effect based upon the fact that it doesn’t fit within the empirical thinking is a circular argument which ultimately requires one to also deny empirical thought itself.
As to the final argument against the certainty of cause and effect they state that such belief of cause and effect is established upon experience and experience doesn’t yield certainty. However, if again we understand the thought process we would understand that cause and effect can be applied to any given reality that is limited. So let consider the example of water. Let us say that we were unaware that the particular reality before us was water.
The first thing we sense about this reality is the fact that it is limited. We also establish that this limited thing (i.e. water) is liquid at room conditions. When we change the conditions and add heat it boils at 100 degrees celcius and when we reduce the heat we find that it freezes at 0 degrees celcius. We thus determine this reality by its attributes of being liquid at room temperature, boiling at 100 degrees and freezing at 0 degrees. As a result we give a term to this reality and call it water. As mentioned previously if the attributes change then we describe the reality by a different name. Thus, by sensing the reality of water we have determined two things. Firstly, that water exhibits specific characteristics e.g. boiling 100 degrees celcius, and secondly that limited and finite things require a cause (which in the case of water was specific conditions) in order to produce an effect (i.e, the observation of the attributes).
Therefore, in order to distinguish limited things we need to know its attributes, and attributes are determined according to its cause and effect. Thus, for something not to be determined according to cause and effect then it would have to be other than limited. Similarly for something to be other than water it must have different attributes to water. To be other than limited would require it to be unlimited, yet everything we sense is limited, thus it is determined by cause and effect and for it to be unlimited it must be the Creator and as a result we can state that the creator is not determined by cause and effect.
What has been demonstrated is that cause and effect is a definite reality when associated with things that are limited and finite. Hence, the argument that has been used above to prove that the creator exists based upon the fact that limited things within the universe depend upon other limited things which ultimately require something independent and unlimited is a true argument.
The argument above is a particular variance of the kalam cosmological argument. Another variance of this argument is to establish that the universe is limited. Because we have proven the general principle that limited things are dependent then if the universe is limited then it too is dependant. In order to prove the universe is limited then we state that the universe is the sum of limited things. And the sum of limited things is irrefutably limited. Some thinkers have tried to argue that the sum of limited things can add up to infinity. They give as an example numbers, which they say, goes on forever. However, does that mean we can count to infinity?
The answer is definitely no. It is impossible to start from something which is finite and count to infinity, that’s because every number you reach is a finite number thus we cannot cross the infinite barrier. Some have argued that although starting from a finite number that it is true one cannot then reach infinity but what if in origin infinity always existed? Meaning that there already existed an infinite sum of finite things. David Hilbert the famous mathematician discussed this and concluded that absurdities arise when infinite sum of finite things 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. Similarly another analogy can be used, imagine standing on an island and all around the island is the ocean. Although, one may not see the end of the ocean we can establish that the ocean is finite and doesn’t go on forever. That is done by simply taking a glass of water out from the ocean, hence decreasing the ocean. Infinity cannot be increased nor decreased yet the sum of finite things is something that can be increased and decreased.
Therefore, the universe which is the sum of limited things must be limited and all limited things are subject to cause and effect and thus depend upon something other than itself i.e. a Creator.
Similarly time which is the interval between series of events taking place in a chronological order must have a beginning. This is due to two reasons, firstly, the sum of events must be finite and not infinite, because of the principle proven above which states the sum of finite things is irrefutably finite. In addition, if time had no beginning then we would not reach this moment in time. This is because, this moment in time is dependent upon a series of past events. If there was no beginning event in time then we would not reach the present. By proving, that time has a beginning we have proven that anything that resides in time including the universe must have a beginning also. Therefore, only something that is independent of time could have originated time and the universe itself, that is to say the Creator.
As a concluding remark, in order to appreciate the various proofs of the creator one must be fully acquainted with the correct method of thinking. Through the correct method of thinking we are able to assess the proofs to establish our arguments. Further, the refutation of the counter arguments can be clearly understood by understanding the method or style of thinking they employ. By understanding logic and empirical thinking we can understand its strengths and weaknesses and when it can be applied and when it fails to establish any proofs. Thus we avoid falling into error and by using the rational method of thinking we can establish the correct conclusion about man, life and the universe.
That is to say that man life and the universe are all limited and all things that are limited are dependant, further all of the things that are limited cannot arrange a system for themselves but depend upon some other to determine its system for organising society. Clearly then there must exist an all powerful independent Creator, who decided to create.
To better understand the concept of 'proof' let us consider an example; imagine not knowing today's date, so you decide to check the newspaper for it. As a result the newspaper forms the proof to substantiate your belief in today's date. The conclusion of the date and its correctness is based upon the correctness of the proof. Now, what if the newspaper we used in order to know the date was in fact yesterday’s. That means we incorrectly assumed the date, however, such an individual not knowing this error would feel assured in a truth that only he perceives due to the misunderstanding of the evidence. Thus, what is considered as 'proof' is of paramount concern, because although we may feel assured in the conclusion we obtained from what we perceive to be correct and valid proofs, we could in fact be completely wrong.
With regards to belief, there are three general ways, or three proofs that individuals use to adopt a particular set of beliefs. A person may adopt a belief through imitating the rest of society or following their forefathers. Similarly some base their belief upon the emotional satisfaction or contentment the particular belief gives them. Finally one may adopt a belief through the use of the intellect. With regards to the incorrectness of imitation as a method to establish ones' belief, it is self-evident.
As for emotions being the basis of adopting a belief, then this too can easily dismissed as an invalid proof, and I will not pursue to invalidate them. This then leaves us with the use of the intellect as the way to ascertain the proofs of the existence of the Creator. We thus need to ascertain how the intellect is used to obtain the correct conclusion. There are three general understandings as to the manner by which the mind/intellect could be used correctly in order to obtain objective knowledge. They are rational thought, empirical thought and the use of logic. Once we have obtained the correct manner in which to think we can then assess the proofs upon which any argument is to be built.
The use of Logic
The classical Greeks used a manner or style of thinking called 'logic', its most useful and strongest form was called deductive logic. By deductive logic they described how a conclusion would be built upon its premises, thus the correctness of the conclusion depended upon the correctness of the premises. Deductive logic therefore was built upon four components: the two premises, the link between the two premises and the conclusion which resulted from this link.
One of the most important features of the logic was the structure of the sentences i.e. semantics and terminology. So discussion branched out to discuss the theory of ideas and the theory of universals. In essence philosophers were trying to construct arguments built upon the correct use of semantics. So for example if I were to find out whether humans are warm blooded or not by using the logical approach then I may use the following premises; all mammals are warm blooded, all humans are mammals, therefore humans are warm blooded. Here the link between humans to mammals is based upon the definition we give to mammals. If our definition differs of mammals then our conclusion would change.
Hence amongst the logicians’, discussion on language, terminology and construct of sentences became an important feature. In this example, the understanding of the whether humans are mammals, is a discussion of the universal features that all mammals share, and thus do humans share this common feature. This discussion of universals and ideas are the two theories that distinguished Aristotle from Plato when understanding the commonalities that things share. So what we find, and it certainly is the case, that the use of logic can become complicated due to semantics. And we find that many philosophers fall into the trap of semantics, thus missing the wood from the trees so to say.
Further to the problem of semantics, logic also suffers from hidden defects that may not be known from the link between the two premises. This is due to the fact that the conclusion is not directly sensed but is built upon two base thoughts that may or may not have been sensed. So for example we could state oxygen is gas at room temperature and that hydrogen is also gas at room temperature thus we can conclude that oxygen combined with hydrogen would produce a gas at room temperature. But this is not the case for hydrogen combined with oxygen produces a liquid at room temperature. Such hidden defects can not be noticed when building thought upon thought and thus logic can not be used as the basis of building conclusions.
Empirical Thought
Discussion arose as to whether thought originated before matter or whether the matter was the source of thought. So the rationalists, and we should distinguish here between the ‘rationalists’ and what is meant by ‘rational thought’, they stated that humans were born with innate thoughts. One such exponent was Emannuel Kant the German philosopher. In response to this, the empiricists stated that such conclusion wasn't based upon any evidences and was merely an assumption. Further, in their zeal to remove the creator from the equation the empiricists (such as the communists) stated that thought resulted from matter itself.
Thus, they stated that the first step in the process of acquiring knowledge is the primary contact with the external environment - this is the stage of sensory perception. The second stage is the accumulation and the organisation of the information which is gathered from the sensory perception. This description of empirical thought was succinctly put by Mao Tse tung. In essence the thinking process according to them is produced by the sensation of the environment around them. Thus thought was a mere reflection of the matter onto the brain. This they said was the basis of thinking; so that no thought could exist except if reality exists for it.
However, they misunderstood the reality of thinking as we clearly know. So a simple example of a doctor undertaking tests proves that such tests doesn’t establish the disease of his patient unless he has previous information as to what the tests are meant to yield. To further clarify this, a doctor must know the average blood sugar level in the body for a normal healthy patient, and then when subsequent tests are made and it is found that the patients blood sugar level is higher than the average for a normal patient, one can say he has hyperglycemia i.e. diabetes. So a simple analogy throws doubt on the empirical method of thinking as the sole basis of thought.
Further, while conducting experiments at school where we are told, in order to put into practice the empirical approach - we first formulate a hypothesis then a method to test the above hypothesis then record the results obtained from tests finally concluding whether the tests substantiates the hypothesis or not. The very fact that we had a hypothesis clearly demonstrates that there was previous information upon which the experimentation was built. Therefore, simply stating that thought arises from purely sensing the environment or the reality is completely false when practically employing the empirical method. In fact due to the presence of previous information i.e. the hypothesis we understand that the empirical method is a branch of rational thought not its source.
To further clarify this point in order to establish a conclusion based upon experimentation we need to use the rational method of thinking. That is to say we link the experimental data to the previous knowledge we have to extrapolate a conclusion based on the least amount of doubt. So as an example, we have a patient who shows weight loss and urinates frequently the doctor hypothesises that the patient may have diabetes, as weight loss and urinating a lot are signs of that disease. So the doctor then tests his blood sugar level after which he establishes whether his original hypothesis is substantiated by his tests. So here he has linked the results from the tests to previous information of the normal blood sugar levels assessing whether this proves his initial hypothesis or not.
Finally with regards to empirical thought, due to the fact that the empiricists state that thought is directly built upon reality, meaning that each thought is a reflection of a specific reality. Then thoughts that do not have a representation in reality are not true thoughts. Then the empiricists firmly state that belief in God is an incorrect thought because such thought is not a reflection on reality as there is no sensation of the creator. However, they have failed to appreciate and understand the thinking process because if they are correct in stating that thinking is a direct reflection on reality, i.e. no reality no thought. Then one would ask where did such a thought come from with regards to the belief in a God? This sufficiently disproves their concept of the thought process.
In addition, causal relationships cannot be directly sensed, does that mean causal relations do not exist? If that is the case then the whole process of empirical thought wouldn’t exist as this depends on the necessary causal relationship. Thus, the claim that empirical thought is the source of thought stating that thought results in reflection of matter onto the brain, has glaring contradictions.
Rational thought
Finally on this section of the thinking process we come to rational thought and how this is the source of thinking. We state that thought came before matter because by merely sensing matter we do not establish any thought. The inability of sensing the syriac language without previous information of the syriac language shows that sensation alone will not allow us to understand the language. Instead we must have the previous information together with the reality which is sensed (sensory perception) and the distinguishing mind - to make the link between the reality and the previous information to produce thought.
Further we understand that the mind has the ability to produce thought based upon one reality and extrapolate a principle. So when we sense a ball on the ground with no force applied to it we see it stationary and when force is applied to the ball we see it move. We would understand that after observing the ball moving after applying force to it then this would be true each time we apply force to the ball and not just for that particular time. In fact this is true for all types of balls.
Further our mind is able to extract the general principle of cause and effect based upon all things which are finite and limited after simply observing the ball moving after force was applied. So there doesn’t just exist a simple relationship between the observed reality and its representation as a thought, which is the case with empirical thinking, but in fact the mind is able to establish principles and use those principles to establish other thoughts. Again, as an example a person may have a thought of a mountain and a thought of gold, his mind has then the capacity to link the two thoughts and produce a thought of a mountain of gold even though he hasn’t sensed this. Therefore rational thought is built upon the reality together with the previous information further the mind has the ability to extrapolate general principles and produce thoughts that may not be directly sensed. This is the clearest understanding of thought and this is how humans produce thought and live their life according to established thought.
Therefore the use of the rational method is the only definite way to assess the proofs in order to produce a conclusion. It is therefore the method of thinking we employ when discussing the subject matter of the proof of God.
Argument by design
This argument has been presented by various muslim and non muslim thinkers. So Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal gave the example of the egg and Thomas Aqinas gave the example of finding a watch in the middle of a desert. The argument is simple: complicated things require a designer. So taking the watch as an example we see it is complex, we also know the watch has a watch maker, thus an analogy can be made between the watch and the universe as the universe around us is also complex in its nature.
Thus if the watch is complex requiring a designer then what about the complexities of the universe? So some would naturally conclude that such complexity that exists in the universe would require a designer and that designer would thus be the Creator.
Although it is a simple argument it is at face value quite compelling, however many thinkers have criticised this argument. They have stated that how can an analogy be made between the watch and the universe. For instance we have previous information that the watch was made by a watchmaker. But such previous information doesn’t exist for the universe. The critics of this argument would also question as to whether the universe and all that it contains is truly complex, and state that it is just simply randomly arranged.
Those who try to defend the argument have stated that the universe is truly complex and that if one of the laws of nature was different by a very small amount then this would preclude the chances of life. Similarly if the expansion rate of the universe was greater or smaller then the universe would not exist. In essence they are stating that the probability of the universe coming into existence as it is allowing life to exist is so small that this would have to compel an observer to believe in a master designer. However, this argument isn't sound, for example if I were totake a ball and randomly throw it up in the air and for it to fall unto a particular piece of ground.
Then we would ask, that for it to have fallen on that piece of ground and not another piece of ground then the probability would be extremely low. But just because the probability was extremely low doesn’t mean that the ball was directed at that region, especially when the ball was thrown in a random way. Similarly the universe having its particular laws of nature and rate of expansion doesn’t necessarily mean it was designed in such a manner. For the universe to have different laws of nature or different rate of expansion then the probability would be equally as low. So such arguments as a rebuttal against those critics of the argument by design would be incorrect.
However, with regards to the critics they have failed to appreciate the manner by which the individual considers and thinks about the complexity of the universe and all that it contains. For instance, when we look at a table we establish that it is made of wood. But simply having the wood doesn’t necessarily follow we have a table. Thus, there must be something other than the wood to have fashioned it into a table. The philosophers therefore state that the ‘material cause’ of the table (i.e. what it is made out of) is the wood, but it has another cause i.e. its ‘efficient cause’. That is to say that there is something other than the wood required to fashion it into a table. That other would be different to the wood or material cause itself. So if we look at the life, man and the universe we find that the material cause is the same for all of these things, yet they differ from one another.
In addition, by having the material cause that makes up man and life then this doesn’t necessarily follow that we have a man or life. So if we have the elements that make up man, it does not follow that we have a human. Therefore, there must be something other than these elements that make up a human, i.e. an efficient cause. Again what distinguishes man life and the universe isn't the material cause therefore there must be something other than the material cause that distinguishes man from the universe and the different life forms. This means there exists an efficient cause separate from the universe man and life. That is the creator.
Some may argue that if the premise is laid down that complicated things require a designer then wouldn’t the creator be complex and thus also require a designer. Here they are using deductive logic to try and show an inherent contradiction within the argument by design. Remember how deductive logic has four components to it. Here they use the two premises: 1. Complex things require a designer, 2. The universe is complex, the conclusion built upon the link is that the universe is therefore designed by a Creator. They would argue that the creator is complex therefore it would fit within the logical style as mentioned above. However, if their argument is accepted then one would ask who designed the designer of the designer. In fact we will fall into infinite regression.
Infinite regression means continual subtraction by one. Meaning that if the creator designed the universe and that another designer designed the creator and this keeps continuing. This is impossible because there must be a first cause i.e. something that doesn’t depend upon something prior to it for its existence. In order to understand why infinite regression is impossible the simple analogy of dominoes can be considered. For the last domino to fall over, it would need to be hit by the domino before it and each domino must be hit by a prior domino. Now if there was no starting domino that initiates the process of each domino falling over then none of the dominoes would fall over. So if everything that is complex requires a prior designer, then we would face a situation where nothing would exist but would wait for that first cause to initiate the process and because there is no first cause then nothing would exist. Yet we see things in existence. Therefore infinite regression is impossible.
Further, they are incorrect in making the assumption that because the creator is complex that this creator would also require a designer. We have established that the designer and creator of the universe must exist based upon the sensation of reality, hence the thought is rational. Whereas, stating that there must exist a designer for the creator is not built upon sensing the reality but is mere logic. That is to say building thought upon thought. And as mentioned before building thought upon thought can carry with it hidden defects in its conclusion thus, we would reject any such argument stating clearly that an infinite regression is impossible and any such thought is irrational (not based upon reality). So the argument by design although having its critics has the ability to establish firm belief in the need for the creator.
Kalam Cosmological argument
This is the argument originally developed by the muslim thinkers. It clearly states that everything we perceive in the universe is limited and finite and that everything that is limited and finite is dependent. The universe is the sum of limited finite things therefore the universe is limited and because it is limited it is thus dependent upon something else. As mentioned previously: because infinite regression cannot exist, then everything ultimately depends upon the independent creator who is unlimited and infinite. This is the basic argument however, it has slight variations.
The first variance is that limited objects in the universe depend upon something else in order for it to exist. So for example, a computer depends upon electricity and electricity depends upon a power station which has a magnet rotating in a metal coil. The rotation of the magnet requires the turbines to spin the magnet, the turbines spin because of the steam produced by the water boiling. The heat is produced by the coal burning and the coal required decay of wood under pressure, the wood required sunlight to produce photosynthesis in converting carbon dioxide into wood, and so on.
Thus we see that everything which is limited depends upon something else limited. So the question may arise: does this series of inter-dependant things go on for infinity or does it stop somewhere? Because we haveestablished that infinite regression is an impossibility then it must stop with a first cause i.e. something independent. Now for this thing to be independent then it must be other than what is dependent i.e. limited and finite. Therefore it is unlimited and infinite as well as independent.
Now some may criticise this argument by saying that we have assumed that a linear relationship exists between limited finite things. Thus A depends upon B and B depends upon C and so on in a linear relationship. And for things that depend upon each other in a linear relationship then it is true that there must be something independent. However, some may argue: what if there exists a cyclical dependency as is the cause with the water cycle. So the seas depend upon the rain, the rain depends upon the clouds and the clouds depend upon evaporation of water fromthe seas. Thus each up holds the other. This is how they say the universe preserves its existence. Therefore the universe goes through a cycle from the big bang to a big crunch and so on for infinity.
Yet we would clearly ask what initiated the cycle in the first place? For instance if the seas require the rain before seas are produced and if the rain requires clouds for the rain to exist and the clouds initially require the seas to exist then we know that each thing cannot sustain the other without their originally existing a first cause. Otherwise the seas, clouds and rain wouldn’t exist. Similarly each finite thing within the universe cannot depend upon another finite thing within an elaborate cycle as is the case in the water cycle. That is to say that a first cause i.e. something independent is required to exist. So if the big bang depended upon the big crunch and that big crunch was dependant upon a previous big bang then if there was no start to the cycle then neither the big bang nor the big crunch would exist.
Therefore things which are limited are themselves dependent upon other things and definitely they require something independent and unlimited to bring them into being in the first place.
After this has been established still some atheists tried to bring other arguments. So Bertrand Russel stated that if we accept the premise that every thing has a cause then the creator is also a thing, therefore who caused the creator?. Again using the logical style of argumentation they state that there is an inherent contradiction within this argument. If we were to say that God is uncaused then the atheist would say that we have contradicted our original premise which was everything has a cause. As a result they would claim that the universe is uncaused just as some would say that God is uncaused.
However, even if we use the logical style of argumentation, we do not state that every thing has a cause. Rather from understanding the reality we conclude that everything that is limited and finite is dependant, or has a cause and that because infinite regression is impossible there must exist a first cause i.e. something independent. That thing which is independent must therefore be something other than finite and limited. Thus, we would state that it necessarily follows that this independent thing, which is the sole creator must be infinite and unlimited. So there is no inherent contradiction and it is unfortunate that such a simple point was missed by a philosopher whom they called the Socrates of our time.
With regards to this argument that finite limited things depend upon other finite limited things, certain philosophers state that we presume the relationship of cause and effect. In essence they deny that cause and effect is an established fact that is true for all things that are limited. They base their objection to the certainty of cause and effect upon two areas: firstly they state that cause and effect can not be proven from the use of empirical thought. And secondly they state that 'empirical' propositions can not yield certain knowledge.
By 'empirical' propositions they mean knowledge which is established upon experience. For the philosophers they divide knowledge into two kinds one which is known prior to experience and one which is established upon experience. So for example mathematics, they would say, is knowledge known prior to experience and this type of knowledge is true and establishes certainty. Whereas knowledge built upon experience does not establish absolute certainty.
The strength of knowledge built upon experience is only as strong as the reality we have observed; it could be that there is something we have not observed or experienced which would change our conclusions. Thus they say such knowledge is speculative. Because cause and effect is built upon experience they state that it does not necessarily follow that everything follows this relationship, just what we have seen so far has followed this relationship.
With regards to the argument that cause and effect can not be established by the use of empirical thought, it was proposed by David Hume. He stated that it was mere coincidence that causal relations seem to exist and that nothing compels one to believe it to be an actual certainty. So as an example he stated that in order for one to produce fire a person would need to strike a match. But how can someone sense the future event. Remember empirical thinking is a reflection of reality yet future events are not reality thus they cannot be sensed and therefore no certain thought can be established.
However, as we have previously mentioned it is incorrect to assume that thought is simply a reflection of matter onto the brain. The thinking process does not work like that. So as an example to illustrate this point, imagine sensing a liquid. After sensing the liquid we find that it is odourless and colourless and remains liquidat remain temperature. Hence for that liquid under room conditions it exudes those characteristics. This would be the absolute thought about such a liquid, meaning we have sensed its whole reality under room conditions. If we subject this liquid to different conditions for example adding heat to the liquid and we find that under these conditions it boils at 100 degrees celcius. Then we have conclusively determined that such a liquid exhibits such behaviour. In fact we identify objects by the attributes it exhibits at different conditions. We also distinguish attributes according to the different attributes they exhibit under the same conditions. So if I add heat to two odourless colourless liquids and I find that one boils at 100 degrees celcius and the other boils at 70 degrees celcius then I distinguish the two different liquids accordingly.
So David Hume wrongly assumed that future events are speculative, that’s because we identify realities according to the specific attributes that are observed under different conditions. If for instance we boil a liquid and it did not boil at 100 degrees celcius then we would not call it water we would term it differently. For it to be called water then such a liquid must always exhibit the same attribute under the same conditions. If objects did not exhibit continuous attributes then it would be impossible to distinguish between the reality we live. But the fact is that we do distinguish between a chair and a table or water and alcohol.
As to the other argument David Hume had against causal relations he stated that such relationships could not be sensed. So water boiling could be sensed, the heat produced by the fire underneath the water could also be sensed, but the relationship between the fire boiling the water could not be sensed as a result thought about causal relations couldn’t be established. However, we have already shown the limitations of empirical thought.
In fact, if based upon the use of empirical thinking we deny cause and effect (causal relations) then we deny empirical thinking itself. This is because empirical thought requires the implicit acceptance of cause and effect. So experimentation and testing is done upon matter and the results are observed. Based upon the results conclusions are made. So the results are but effects resulting from causes. As a result to deny cause and effect based upon the fact that it doesn’t fit within the empirical thinking is a circular argument which ultimately requires one to also deny empirical thought itself.
As to the final argument against the certainty of cause and effect they state that such belief of cause and effect is established upon experience and experience doesn’t yield certainty. However, if again we understand the thought process we would understand that cause and effect can be applied to any given reality that is limited. So let consider the example of water. Let us say that we were unaware that the particular reality before us was water.
The first thing we sense about this reality is the fact that it is limited. We also establish that this limited thing (i.e. water) is liquid at room conditions. When we change the conditions and add heat it boils at 100 degrees celcius and when we reduce the heat we find that it freezes at 0 degrees celcius. We thus determine this reality by its attributes of being liquid at room temperature, boiling at 100 degrees and freezing at 0 degrees. As a result we give a term to this reality and call it water. As mentioned previously if the attributes change then we describe the reality by a different name. Thus, by sensing the reality of water we have determined two things. Firstly, that water exhibits specific characteristics e.g. boiling 100 degrees celcius, and secondly that limited and finite things require a cause (which in the case of water was specific conditions) in order to produce an effect (i.e, the observation of the attributes).
Therefore, in order to distinguish limited things we need to know its attributes, and attributes are determined according to its cause and effect. Thus, for something not to be determined according to cause and effect then it would have to be other than limited. Similarly for something to be other than water it must have different attributes to water. To be other than limited would require it to be unlimited, yet everything we sense is limited, thus it is determined by cause and effect and for it to be unlimited it must be the Creator and as a result we can state that the creator is not determined by cause and effect.
What has been demonstrated is that cause and effect is a definite reality when associated with things that are limited and finite. Hence, the argument that has been used above to prove that the creator exists based upon the fact that limited things within the universe depend upon other limited things which ultimately require something independent and unlimited is a true argument.
The argument above is a particular variance of the kalam cosmological argument. Another variance of this argument is to establish that the universe is limited. Because we have proven the general principle that limited things are dependent then if the universe is limited then it too is dependant. In order to prove the universe is limited then we state that the universe is the sum of limited things. And the sum of limited things is irrefutably limited. Some thinkers have tried to argue that the sum of limited things can add up to infinity. They give as an example numbers, which they say, goes on forever. However, does that mean we can count to infinity?
The answer is definitely no. It is impossible to start from something which is finite and count to infinity, that’s because every number you reach is a finite number thus we cannot cross the infinite barrier. Some have argued that although starting from a finite number that it is true one cannot then reach infinity but what if in origin infinity always existed? Meaning that there already existed an infinite sum of finite things. David Hilbert the famous mathematician discussed this and concluded that absurdities arise when infinite sum of finite things 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. Similarly another analogy can be used, imagine standing on an island and all around the island is the ocean. Although, one may not see the end of the ocean we can establish that the ocean is finite and doesn’t go on forever. That is done by simply taking a glass of water out from the ocean, hence decreasing the ocean. Infinity cannot be increased nor decreased yet the sum of finite things is something that can be increased and decreased.
Therefore, the universe which is the sum of limited things must be limited and all limited things are subject to cause and effect and thus depend upon something other than itself i.e. a Creator.
Similarly time which is the interval between series of events taking place in a chronological order must have a beginning. This is due to two reasons, firstly, the sum of events must be finite and not infinite, because of the principle proven above which states the sum of finite things is irrefutably finite. In addition, if time had no beginning then we would not reach this moment in time. This is because, this moment in time is dependent upon a series of past events. If there was no beginning event in time then we would not reach the present. By proving, that time has a beginning we have proven that anything that resides in time including the universe must have a beginning also. Therefore, only something that is independent of time could have originated time and the universe itself, that is to say the Creator.
As a concluding remark, in order to appreciate the various proofs of the creator one must be fully acquainted with the correct method of thinking. Through the correct method of thinking we are able to assess the proofs to establish our arguments. Further, the refutation of the counter arguments can be clearly understood by understanding the method or style of thinking they employ. By understanding logic and empirical thinking we can understand its strengths and weaknesses and when it can be applied and when it fails to establish any proofs. Thus we avoid falling into error and by using the rational method of thinking we can establish the correct conclusion about man, life and the universe.
That is to say that man life and the universe are all limited and all things that are limited are dependant, further all of the things that are limited cannot arrange a system for themselves but depend upon some other to determine its system for organising society. Clearly then there must exist an all powerful independent Creator, who decided to create.
Source: http://islamicresponse.blogspot.com/2009/12/proof-for-existence-of-creator.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)