Belief in God and Western Researchers

Before concluding this discussion, I would like to say something about the Western researchers who are accustomed to studying everything in the light of science and philosophy. Those who deny the existence of God in the West base their conclusion on modern scientific and philosophical ideas. They believe that matter has an inherent quality of transformation and it evolves from a lower to a higher state with the passage of time. They proclaim that this material world has developed as a result of several such transformations, according to the theory of evolution. For instance, they say that man has not always existed in his present form and shape but in ages gone by he was in an extremely primitive state that has gradually evolved to his present form and shape. The same applies to other things in this world; i.e. in their initial state they were lowly and simple but evolved later in accordance with this theory of evolution. Similarly, they claim that most of the things in this world that appear so varied in their sex, form, and features did not vary so much in ages gone by, but the world in its early stages consisted of a few limited and simple things that have evolved gradually into this wondrous universe of today. Thus they argue that the present universe and its elaborate and judicious system cannot be presented as an evidence for an external Creator, for all this has developed naturally as a result of evolution.

Second, Western researchers state that this world has always been operating according to a definitive law and continues to do so, and that with scientific research we can learn the cause of every change and every motion or stillness. They claim that, day by day, they are more fully understanding the law of nature, the properties of matter, and the relationship between various things, and that great progress has been made in various fields of science, such as physics, chemistry, mechanics, anthropology, geology, botany, zoology, anatomy, physiology, astronomy, and psychology. The progress is such that innumerable facts, which earlier were mysteries and completely hidden from our eyes, have been unravelled as manifest realities, and hundreds of false notions, which were established among us as a result of ignorance and established tradition, are disappearing in the light of recent advances in knowledge; and new realities of life and continuance of the universe are being discovered every day. In other words, the things that were previously considered beyond human reason and thus attributed to a Higher Being, in the light of new sciences, can now be established to be the result of some definitive laws of nature. Therefore, to attribute this universe to a Creator, who has not been seen or perceived by anyone, is deemed ignorance.

This is the objection raised by Western research scholars against the existence of God. But if examined carefully, the objection is absolutely absurd. We need not go into detail here, but whether it is wholly or partly correct, the process of evolution does not stand as an argument against the existence of God. Evolution does not shed any light on the genesis of this universe, but refers only to the fact that the things in this world did not always exist in their present form but have evolved from a primitive state. The question is, from where did these primitive types originate? The protagonists of evolution do not shed any definite light on this academically, and unless they do, evolution alone is totally ineffective as evidence for the non-existence of God. Even if it can be proven that man or other things in this world existed in a primitive form initially and have evolved gradually to their present form, does this constitute evidence that this universe does not have a Creator? Certainly not!

One may argue that it has been established that this universe was in a primitive state initially and evolved to a higher and more perfect form as a result of inherent qualities in matter, and that this invalidates the argument given above—i.e. the universe, which is a compendium of innumerable objects, is operating in accordance with an extremely subtle and judicious law and therefore it is under the control of an external Creator and an All-Knowing and Governing Being. This too is a statement born out of ignorance. The existence of such inherent qualities in matter that give it the potential to evolve into a wondrous universe, with parallel development of an extremely judicious law to govern these is in itself a great wonder. If viewed carefully, the initial state of matter as it is described, correctly or incorrectly, is even more wondrous and baffling than the present universe. Obviously the initial state was a seed for the present universe and every wise person can understand that a seed is more wonderful and profound because, although small in size and simple in form, it has all the potential powers, qualities, and perfections hidden in it that subsequently unfold in the tree. Thus, the initial primitive state of this universe proves it to be even more profound and mysterious and constitutes further evidence for the existence of a Creator of this universe. This is because the Creator endowed this initial primitive matter with potential to develop into a magnificent, awe-inspiring, and profound universe, and from it, simultaneously, should come into being supportive and prudent laws of nature, in accordance to which innumerable objects in this universe operate in their corresponding spheres to every one’s amazement. Hence, it is naïve to argue against the existence of God on the basis of evolution. In fact, this theory gives even more support to the concept of His profound powers and outstanding creation.

The second objection is that everything in the world, each transformation, each motion, and each stillness is in accordance with a particular law, and, day by day, we are acquiring more and more knowledge about this hidden law of nature, and it is becoming more and more obvious that everything happening in this world is in accordance with some definite law, and that this proves that the law is the only thing and there is no such thing as God. This objection, too, is highly absurd and weak. We have never claimed that the universe is not subservient to any law or a series of causes and is instead governed directly by God without establishing any laws or processes. We agree, nay, we claim and Islam teaches us, that the whole of this universe is subservient to an extremely profound law and intricate processes. Indeed, this law is evidence of the existence of God. So, proving that everything in this universe operates in accordance with a definitive law carries no weight against us. Atheists are unable to adequately answer the question about the origin of this complete and perfect law. Some people would answer that this is an inherent quality of matter, and one law comes into operation as a result of another law, and thus has it been happening and thus will it continue. We ask: From where did this inherent property come? Indeed, one set of laws leads to another, but we will have to believe that this chain of cause and effect, however long, certainly must have a starting point wherefrom it all originated. For instance, scientists assert that it is a law of nature that the earth revolves around the sun. They add further that this law is the result of another law that when two or more forces exert their effect from different directions on something, the latter starts moving in a third direction known as the resultant direction. As the earth is being influenced by forces from different directions, it has started revolving around the sun in a third direction. We agree to that in principle, but our question still stands: From where did these effective forces originate? If it is said that these forces resulted from ‘xyz’, the question will be: Whence came this ‘xyz’? In short, we will have to accept that this universe, and its system, has a starting point incorporating the potential for all the excellences, laws, and properties found in it. Thus, the discussion has now reached the point that has been answered above.

In short, seeking a way to deny the existence of God by proclaiming intermediary systems and processes is deceitful, and we are not sure how this has come to be accepted by some Western scholars. As far as we are concerned, progress in the knowledge, understanding, and discovery of hidden secrets of the laws of nature only helps to enlighten us and consolidate our belief in God. We realise that this universe, with its extremely judicious laws, is run by a Creator and Master, who is All-Knowing and Wise, and an Omnipotent and Governing Being. If by looking at an ordinary thing we infer that it must have a maker, then looking at this wondrous and judicious universe must greatly strengthen our conviction that this could not possibly have come into existence on its own, but is the clear manifestation of the creative powers of an Omnipotent Higher Being. My dear ones! Think hard. These new sciences and investigations cannot but prove that the law of this universe is far more elaborate and profound than previously thought and that the different objects in this world are governed collectively by a judicious and influential chain of commands. Under these judicious laws, different parts of the universe are not just subservient to their own individual laws, but can influence each other in a wonderful and fascinating manner. Moreover, nothing in this world is useless and superfluous; rather, everything is doing its job, in its own sphere, according to its own law. This ‘discovery’, if it can be called that, supports us. This does not support any argument against the existence of God. On the contrary, it is a clear manifestation of the great powers of our All- Powerful God.

The truth is that, in principle, this is not a new discovery. The Holy Quran had already given a compendious account of this, fourteen centuries ago, as it said:

1

Do people not observe the creation of Allah the Exalted: how everything is affecting its right and left, being subservient to Allah, and everything in the earth and the heavens submits to Divine laws?

2

That is, and We created not the heaven and the earth and all that is between the two in sport, without any purpose but with a specific purpose.

The researchers of Europe and America have spent their lifetime aiming to discover these realities, but being blind of faith some of them unfortunately believe that their findings are an attack on religion and the existence of God. The fact of the matter remains that, as knowledge of the universe’s perfect organisation and the law of nature is enriched, this simply becomes a clearer indicator of a Wise, All-Knowing, Omnipotent, and Governing Creator, for the discerning. There are a fair number of Western researchers who believe in God, and recent discoveries do not affect their faith; rather, they use it as a tool against atheism. So, my dear ones, do not be afraid of modern knowledge—it is subservient to you. Any progress in modern knowledge can only enhance people’s comprehension of the miracles of your God’s Omnipotence. This also establishes with greater certainty that everything in the earth and the heaven is, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of man, as declared in the Holy Quran fourteen centuries ago:

3

Whatsoever is in the world, whether in the earth or in the heaven, has been created by Him for your benefit.

4

And Allah the Exalted has subjected all these things to you that you may learn their properties and benefit from them.

Woe be to man! That which his Master had created for his guidance and progress, he has turned it into a cause for his error and ruin.

5

Ruin seize man! How ungrateful he is!

Surely, this ingratitude can lead man to nowhere except ruin. It should be remembered here that the question of whether or not there is a God is truly beyond the scope of science and the boundaries within which scientists work. Science deals with the discovery of properties and laws pertaining to matter, and discussion of non-matter or metaphysics is beyond its current scope. Moreover, science does not generally deal with what is not in existence; rather, it deals with what exists, what it is, and the law that governs it. Thus, proving the non-existence of God is beyond the scope of scientific deliberation, at least currently. Of course, the questions as to how did this world begin, what is in this world, how did the world come into existence, how did life start, etc., are within the scope of scientific deliberations. Therefore, scientists can, at most, claim that they have discovered this universe is eternal and that it is governed by a certain set of laws which are automatic and that life started by itself, and on the basis of this research they can conclude academically that there is no God. However, the non-existence of God in itself is not directly within the scope of scientific inquiry.

Moreover, it is also worth remembering that, unfortunately, people have generally fallen into dangerous error in that they do not distinguish between the hypotheses of scientists and established scientific facts. Obviously, scientific declarations can be divided into three types:

First, the hypotheses of scientists

Second, incomplete scientific experiments

Third, established scientific facts

Each of these has a different status and grade, and to attach equivalent significance to all would be a grave error. But the naïve do just that, and regard every statement that emanates from the mouths of scientists and every idea which is expressed by them, including their incomplete experiments or scientific observations, as established facts. Thus, instead of following the truth, because of their ignorance they become blind followers of scientists. Everyone with even an elementary amount of knowledge knows that only those facts can be declared scientifically sound that have proven to be correct through repeated experimentation by multiple scientists over a period of time and continue to be so confirmed, and the underlying reality of which has been validated and also proven academically in a most thorough manner on the basis of general scientific principles by way of cause and effect. Other than that, the views and theories of the scientists or their unfinished experiments can certainly not be called established facts, as they carry the same risk of being erroneous as the statements by other wise and learned people. The truth of the matter is that when some new phenomenon comes to the fore or is discovered based on scientific experiments, it is experimentally studied repeatedly by different people under varying circumstances before it is declared to have arrived at the stage of having been proved true; also, it is studied further and examined in the light of general scientific principles, and if no aspect of it is found to contain any doubt based on such analysis it is only then that it is declared to be a proven and established reality. Before attaining this status, even though some scientific experiments may indeed shed light on the matter, and even though some scientists may have become convinced of its truth, it is nevertheless not designated as an established and accepted reality and truth. Unfortunately, laymen cannot differentiate between the two and accept everything as an established fact. It is yet more outrageous that the hypotheses and theories put forward by scientists on the basis of their research are held as established scientific facts. In other words, three different stages of scientific developments—that are completely distinct from, and unlike each other—are conflated. Thus, science, which is meant to enlighten the human mind with knowledge, ends up doing exactly the opposite: leading one to ignorance and darkness. Once something is established as a fact on the basis of scientific experiments and observations, it is clear that the academic circles in the world are stirred up and different scientists start positing various ideas and theories in light of the new research; thus, with each new piece of research, new ideas and new theories crop up. The laymen, overawed by the word ‘science’ or for some other reason, regard all these suggestions as established scientific facts, whereas the real established facts are scarce and the rest are all theories, hypotheses, and ideas of the scientists that not only change every day, but are also disputed among scientists themselves. In short, it is a grave error not to differentiate between scientific hypotheses, incomplete experiments of scientists, and established scientific facts, and to submit slavishly to everything stated or written by any scientist. Unfortunately, this mental and academic slavery has been a characteristic largely of the people of the East, whereas Europeans and Americans usually make a distinction, and accept only those facts as scientific truths that have been confirmed after repeated tests and are also not found lacking in any way when examined on the basis of generally accepted scientific principles.

If we view the topic under discussion according to this principle, we do not see any established scientific fact that can form the basis of any objection to the existence of God. A small proof of this statement is as follows: When some new piece of research is actually confirmed to be an established truth, it becomes an undeniable reality that no scientist can deny. Confirmation requires not only academic certainty but also its practical demonstration by repeated tests under different circumstances in a way that leaves no doubt whatsoever. Obviously, by this stage, no scientist or anyone with a bit of sense can deny it. We observe that, in practice, every established scientific fact is accepted by all scientists, without detraction. Disagreements arise concerning only those matters which have not yet been fully established, or concerning theories put forward by scientists based on their ideas and hypotheses which they have reasoned from established facts.

In short, we observe no disagreement whatsoever regarding established scientific facts. However, with regard to belief in a Higher Being, we observe that many scientists believe in God; in fact, very few of them deny God, and the majority are not deniers. Thus, it is confirmed that there is no established scientific fact from which it can be reasoned with certainty that this universe is operating by itself without any Creator or Master; otherwise, this disagreement among scientists would not exist.

If someone were to ask, what if in the future we have evidence proving that all that exists has come into being on its own and is operating by itself, then what would be the answer? First, such a hypothesis is absurd and childish. But if we must raise such questions, then our answer would be that we seek the truth and would not deny anything that is established as a fact. Whatsoever is proven to be really true and correct cannot be denied by us. Our God told our Messenger(saw) (may my life be sacrificed for him) to say to the Christians: God has no son; nay, ascribing a son to Him is such an utter lie and grave act that the earth and heaven might well nigh reduce to ruin. But despite that, tell them: If a son of God is confirmed then, 6 meaning that, in this scenario, I would be the first to worship him. Thirsting for truth is our second nature, which we have inherited from our beloved Messenger(saw). So, in principle, our answer would be that we will believe in whatever is truly established, no matter what that is. But the reality is that nothing can ever be established that puts the being of God in doubt, as that would amount to two established facts contradicting each other, and this is clearly impossible. Is it possible, for instance, that, on the one hand, a magnet is scientifically established to attract iron to itself, and, on the other, that under similar circumstances it does not? Obviously not. As a remote possibility, if we did observe this, we will have to reject one of the two statements; i.e. we would have to believe that one of the two was not really an established fact but was mistakenly regarded as such. Therefore, if we were to say hypothetically that scientific research established that the universe has existed by itself since eternity and is operating by itself, even then we will not deny God simply for this reason, because the existence of God is also fundamentally an established scientific fact. There is no reason that, on the basis of so-called research, we should give up an established fact, supported by observation since the beginning of creation. In this circumstance we will have to ponder over how far the new research put forward is established scientific fact, correct, and acceptable.

Ponder deeply that scientific facts are accepted because they are based on logic, common sense, and academic and reasonable arguments based on observation and experiments. When experiment and observation combine with logical argument, this leaves little chance of error (unless the observation is flawed). This, indeed, is the best way of research, and for that reason scientifically established facts are regarded most highly in worldly knowledge. The arguments that establish the existence of God are also based on the same scientific approach. As stated above, the existence of God is established not only by logical arguments but also by experience and observation, like scientific facts. In fact, this experience and observation far exceeds that for scientific facts, both in quantity and quality. Reason can reach only as far as ‘there ought to be a God’; only experience and observation can take one further, to the stage of ‘God truly exists’. Such experience and observation are bestowed by God Himself so that the capacity of a man to appreciate God is not left incomplete. He says:

7

That is, the human eye cannot reach God (i.e. knowledge of God cannot be gained by reasoning alone) but God Himself reaches the human eye.

Meaning God Himself makes such arrangements that enable man to perceive Him, so that his cognizance of God should not remain deficient and wanting. And how exactly does one perceive God? This is a vast question and its detailed answer is given in the second part of this book. Here, it would suffice to indicate briefly that God can be seen by virtue of the words He reveals to His pious servants, which are heavily laden with Divine Signs. This is like a good fruit-bearing tree, full of fruit in fruit-bearing season. After tasting the fruit of a fruit-bearing tree in the spring, one can remain in no doubt about the identity of the tree; in the same manner, after tasting the fruit of spirituality, one can identify God as clear as day.

Anyhow, evidence of the existence of God is based, just like scientific facts, on experience and observation (though far more elaborate in its perfection) in addition to logical arguments. Thus, if, for the sake of argument, some scientific research emerges that appears to contradict the existence of God, even then we would not reject the existence of God, but would rather examine this new research to determine to what degree it is correct and acceptable. We believe that a detailed assessment will only lead to the conclusion that God does exist. The scientific evidence that appears to contradict the presence of God is either misunderstood or based on flawed observation.

The existence of God, as it will be proved later, is established by such complete and perfect observation that to suggest that any real scientific research can oppose it is putting two truths in contradiction to one another, which is impossible. If science attacks our observation, it will be laying the axe on its own root, because its own basis is observation. Anyway, this is a superfluous and premature question; what happens in the future will be dealt with in the future. There is absolutely no doubt that, up till now, there is no established scientific fact which can be presented against the existence of God in a logically valid manner. The everlasting truth is that this universe, with all its innumerable, varied, and wondrous objects, and extremely judicious law operating in all things, and an amazing organisation, has brought together its innumerable objects of divergent nature into a single string. Because of this, innumerable natural mechanisms are in operation at a distance of thousands or millions of miles to provide for the needs of the tiniest of objects in this world; this indeed constitutes strong evidence to support the fact that this universe is ruled by a Wise, All- Knowing, Omnipotent, and a Governing Being whose dominion encompasses everything.