ABOUT THE MAGAZINE
Spirit of Islam is a monthly magazine which is now in its Eighth
year of publication. The aim of this journal is to present Islam in
the contemporary idiom, while at the same time the contents are
of universal appeal and of interest to a wider circle of spiritual
seekers. It is our desire to help Muslims rediscover Islam, focusing
on its message of peace and spirituality as derived from the Quran
and the teachings of the Prophet, and in general we strive towards
religious understanding for bringing about greater harmony.
Another purpose of this magazine is to assist its readers to deal
with life’s challenges, deriving positivity even from negative
occurrences, gaining in spirituality and developing themselves
intellectually so that they may contribute constructively to society.
The magazine’s regular readers will appreciate that the entire
thrust of its articles is directed to the individual—a collection of
intellectually prepared individuals being the sole foundation on
which a peaceful and harmonious society can be built.
As the subtitle indicates, Spirit of Islam is working towards
enlightening people on the subject of global peace and regularly
addresses relevant contemporary issues. The articles on peace
based on the teachings of the Prophet of Islam offer us an ideology
of peace—principles which lay down how peace may be established
between conflicting groups, controversies resolved and conflicts
defused. We believe that violence begins in the mind and so an
effective ideology of peace needs to be presented to counter its
influence.
We hope and pray that God helps us in this noble endeavour
and grants us His special blessings!
FROM MAULANAS DESK
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, born in 1925, in Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, is an Islamic spiritual scholar who is well-versed in both classical Islamic learning and modern disciplines. The mission of his life has been the establishment of worldwide peace. He has received the Padma Bhushan, the Demiurgus Peace International Award and Sayyidina Imam Al Hassan Peace award for promoting peace in Muslim societies. He has been called ’Islam’s spiritual ambassador to the world’ and is recognized as one of its most influential Muslims . His books have been translated into sixteen languages and are part of university curricula in six countries. He is the founder of the Centre for Peace and Spirituality based in New Delhi.
A MESSAGE OF HOPE
THESE DAYS, after waking up, I hear people talking of despairing
things. News broadcasts are filled with gloomy updates of
the coronavirus pandemic. Then I observe the sun rising. This
natural and everyday occurrence of the sun rising gives me a most
hopeful lesson. The world is moving from darkness towards light, while
the people of the world were speaking as if the world was going toward
darkness. This is against nature. The world of nature is so designed
that here, one state gives way to another. There is a system in place
in this world which brings light after darkness. Human beings are no
exception to this principle.
The present crisis humankind is facing reminds me of an incident. A
woman from Delhi went to Germany with her husband and stayed there
for some time. There she met a German lady, and they became friends.
Once, the girl from Delhi said to her German friend that she believed
in Paradise. The German lady replied: “Why do we need Paradise? We
can have everything from our marketplaces.” This is a common feeling
amongst most people today.
This culture prevalent in the world today is the fundamental reason for
humans having gone against nature. God settled man on Earth so that
he remembers God and lives as per the creation plan*. The Creator
has created man as a seeker of Paradise, but man forgets Paradise and
becomes a seeker of the world.
After finding ourselves in this predicament, we need to return to our
original nature. We need to return to our Creator. The Creator gives
us glad tidings of hope in the Quran: “Your Lord has not forsaken you,
nor is He displeased with you.” (
addresses all human beings. God is saying: ‘O man, don’t think that your
Creator has forsaken you! In fact, this situation
of yours is a reminder for you. You need to
understand the system of nature, understand
your Creator. This is a time of rediscovery. You
need to rediscover that the Creator has made
this world in such a way that every situation
will make way for another brighter situation’.
This is the message the universe is giving out
every day. Every morning is a testimony to
this law of nature.
The world is moving
from darkness
towards light, while
the people of the
world were speaking
as if the world
was going toward
darkness. This is
against nature. The
world of nature is so
designed that here
one state gives way
to another.
God is Eternal, Living and All-encompassing.
His angels are always ready to comply with His
commands. Therefore, we have no reason to
despair. What we really need is to turn to Him.
We need to be convinced that the Creator is
a Living Creator. He will surely turn to us in
mercy. Through these words of the Quran,
God gives us consolation and hope: ‘O people, I have not abandoned
you. Every negative experience is a shock-treatment for you, and a
reminder to turn in repentance towards Me. You need to change your
lifestyle and your way of thinking. Understand the creation plan of God,
and all of God’s blessings will return to you, just as the sun rises again
in the morning.’
The Merciful Creator is reminding us to rethink. There is no need to
despair in the current situation. Every dawn is full of hope that the
world in which the sun rises every day leaves no place to sink into
despair and despondency. This is the message sent out every day by
the Lord of the heavens and the earth.
Gloomy situations can be overcome only through faith in God. We can
change our situation by way of rethinking, re-planning and rediscovering
lost lessons. If yesterday was a dark day, why will the next day not be
full of light? We need to have this conviction and pray to God.
In my native village, I used to go out in the morning towards the river.
This was my daily habit—I used to witness the scene of sunrise every
morning. Perhaps the Creator desired that I understand the truth that
the world is moving from darkness towards
light.
Do not fear the
darkness of night, but
focus your eyes on
daylight. Remove the
word ‘hopelessness’
from your dictionary.
Do not think that the
Lord has forgotten
His people, His
creation.
My advice to all of you is—do not fear the
darkness of night, but focus your eyes on
daylight. Remove the word ‘hopelessness’
from your dictionary. Do not think that the
Lord has forgotten His people, His creation.
Re-plan your life. Stop using negative,
despairing words and think with hope; not
with hopelessness, then God will certainly
turn His attention to you. No mother is ever
angry with her child. No father is ever angry
with his child. The same is true of the Creator
who has created us. He will never forget us. We only need to model our
lives all over again. We need to develop positive thinking. We need to
find out where we went wrong.
If our life has been derailed from the track, we must come back on
track. We must make every mental effort to return to the straight path.
We need to stop thinking in a despairing way and begin to think again
with hope.
I have always experienced that when I made living with hope my goal,
in strange ways, paths were opened up for me. It seemed that the sun
which was hidden in shade had come back again in full view. We must
forget that we faced darkness yesterday and focus on the light that the
sunrise will bring the next day.
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Follow Maulana at http://www.speakingtree.in (The Times of India)
FROM THE EDITORIAL DIRECTOR
Prof. Farida Khanam is an author, editor, translator, public speaker and former
professor of Islamic Studies at Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. Among her books are
‘A Simple Guide to Sufism’ and ‘A Study of World’s Major Religions’. She has translated
into English many books authored by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan. Currently the
chairperson of CPS International, she is a regular contributor of articles to various
publications. Prof. Khanam has edited Maulana’s English translation of the Quran
and has also translated his Urdu commentary of the Quran into English. She can be
reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
FAKE NEWS
SPREADING fake news and rumours is a grave offence. Intentional
or unintentional circulation of fake news adds to public frenzy
and chaos, and causes a situation to go out of control. In these
uncertain times, creating and spreading lies through social media has
become an organized endeavour. To put a curb on this phenomenon,
governmental as well as non-governmental agencies the world over are
working to find ways of solving this grim issue. Recently, social media
platforms, including Facebook, Google and Twitter, initiated talks to
form an industry-wide alliance to tackle fake news on their platforms
in India. (Economic Times, February 19, 2020)
The proposed alliance, Information Trust Alliance (ITA), will bring
together social media platforms, digital
publishers, content creators, fact-checkers,
civil society actors and academics to spread
awareness about fake news and harmful
misinformation among netizens through
collaborative efforts. The companies are also
discussing a possible ‘Code of Practice’ to
curb misinformation.
Islam takes a harsh
stand against
the spread of
lies, calumny and
rumours.
The alliance proposes to run public
awareness campaigns in schools, colleges
and universities, conduct workshops with content creators, and work
with academia to find innovative solutions. The Centre’s nodal agency
for issuing releases to the public, the Press Information Bureau (PIB),
has created a fact checking unit in order to tackle fake news on social media. Social media platforms had been key factors in spreading
misinformation and creating panic among citizens related to the
coronavirus pandemic, according to media reports. But now these
platforms have announced a crackdown on misinformation in the light
of the pandemic.
Islam takes a harsh stand against the spread of lies, calumny and
rumours. Fully aware of the scale of injury and damage a lie can inflict,
the Prophet of Islam said, “The Impact of the tongue is harsher than
the impact of the sword.” (Abu Dawood)
According to Islam, every news that reaches you should be verified
before it is passed on. The Quran says:
Believers, if an evil-doer brings you news, ascertain the
correctness of the report fully, lest you unwittingly harm
others, and then regret what you have done. (
To be labelled as a liar, one need not tell lies intentionally. Islam labels
one as liar if one passes on unverified news. The Prophet said:
“It is enough lying for a man to speak of everything
that he hears.” (Muslim)
Thus, spreading misinformation is not just a crime in the worldly sense
but also a grave sin. God takes a very serious account of it. According
to the Quran:
When you were spreading it with your tongues and saying
with your mouths things of which you had no knowledge, you
considered it to be a trivial matter, but, in God’s sight,
it was very serious. (
Islamic injunctions in this regard ask us to
verify news before we take action. If we are
not in a position to verify news items, we
can put the matter before experts. These
experts can bring to the fore the facts of the
matter and remove any misperception or
misrepresentation.
To be labelled as a
liar, one need not
tell lies intentionally.
Islam labels one as
liar if one passes on
unverified news.
Mental agony and physical injury caused by
fake news or lies are of a very serious nature.
Fake news and rumours can corrupt and
damage our societies critically. To inculcate the spirit of speaking truth in society, Islam
has set down specific guidelines. The Quran
asks its readers to hold truth dearer than
their kith and kin:
"Believers, be strict in upholding justice
and bear witness for the sake of God,
even though it be against yourselves, your
parents, or your kindred. Be they rich or
poor, God knows better about them both.
Do not, then, follow your own desires, lest
you swerve from justice. If you conceal the
truth or evade it, then remember that God
is well aware of all that you do." (
People should be
extremely cautious
about every word
that they utter.
They will be held
accountable for not
only the deeds they
perform, but also for
the words they speak.
Unintentional spreading of lies and rumours is attributed to the hasty
and impulsive nature of human beings. To dissuade people from being
overhasty and imprudent, the Prophet said:
“Patient deliberation is from God and haste is from the Satan.”
(Tirmidhi)
People should be extremely cautious about every word that they utter.
They will be held accountable for not only the deeds they perform,
but also for the words they speak. God has an impeccable system of
recording our words. “Each word a person utters shall be noted down
by a vigilant guardian.” (
and say the right word.” (
Prof. Farida Khanam
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
SPRINGCLEAN YOUR MIND
Prepare Yourself
A MILKMAN, deeply influenced by Gautam Buddha, insisted that
Buddha visit him and share his nuggets of wisdom. In lieu of
this, the milkman offered to present milk to Buddha. He agreed.
In the evening, when Buddha set out to visit the milkman, he took with
him a container in which he intentionally put some mud. The milkman
took the container but just as he was about to pour milk into it, the
milkman realized that the container had some impurities. The milkman
cleansed the container and removed all impurities. He then poured
the milk into it and gave it to Buddha. Upon getting the container,
Buddha got up to leave. Surprised, the milkman asked Buddha why
was he leaving before imparting any wisdom. Buddha replied that
he just had. Unable to comprehend it, the milkman urged Buddha to
explain the learning to him. Buddha told the milkman that our mind is
similar to the container, and the thoughts that preoccupy us are like
the impurities in the container. In order to
attain wisdom, we must purify our mind and
make it free of all impure thoughts. Buddha
asked the milkman to cleanse himself of his
thoughts for only then would he be able to
imbibe any further learning.
This illustration depicts the case of every
individual. We cannot add more water to a
glass full of water; it will only spill. The glass
must be empty in order to imbibe wisdom. It
is only a prepared mind that meets the right
kind of situations that further harness one’s
potential. Living with a narcissistic mindset is
injurious to one’s development. Such a way
of life leaves no room for receptivity as one
thinks about none but one’s own self.
In order to be
receptive to truth,
one must make
efforts to develop
a prepared mind.
Man, by virtue
of his societal
existence, becomes
a conditioned entity.
It is this conditioning
that is a major
obstacle in his way
Trying to deride the discovery of a scientist, a man said to him that all
discoveries were nothing but chance occurrences. Calmly the scientist
replied that the man was right, but such chances took place only with
scientists. This was a befitting answer.
It is only a prepared mind that is able to achieve the goal assigned. There
is nothing mysterious about this. It is quite understandable that only a
mind that has engrossed itself in trying to unravel a phenomenon that can eventually decipher it. However, a price must be paid to attain such
a state where one can be referred to as a prepared mind. One must
be sincere in one’s efforts, objective and unbiased in one’s approach
and ready to admit a mistake and reassess the approach towards the
target.
In order to attain
wisdom, we must
purify our mind and
make it free of all
impure thoughts.
In order to be receptive to truth, one must
make efforts to develop a prepared mind. Man,
by virtue of his societal existence, becomes a
conditioned entity. It is this conditioning that
is a major obstacle in his way. To be able to
overcome this hurdle, man must be ready to
revisit his existing ideas. He must be willing to
rise above all kinds of biases and prejudices
and become receptive to truth that may come
to him from anywhere.
INTELLECTUAL FOG
Clear Your Vision
PARTS of northern India get very cold in winter, resulting in thick
fog. Trains get held up in the fog or move very slowly. To solve
this problem, the Indian Railways have developed a ‘fog-safe
device’ and plan to equip more than 2,000 trains with the device. These
portable GPS driven anti-fog or fog-safe devices will track in real time
the location of the next signal on the train’s route. This will let the driver
know exactly how many metres away he is from the signal. This device
now enables trains to be driven at high speeds even in dense fog and
ensures they reach their destination safely.
While this anti-fog device relates to material fog, there is also
something that can be called ‘intellectual fog’ that hampers intellectual
development. In ancient times, the means
of acquiring knowledge were limited. With
the prevalence of print and electronic media
it has now become very simple to acquire
knowledge. People express themselves
through writing and speech, and with new
forms of communications and media, the
volume and exchange of such expression
has increased enormously. The Internet has
made it very easy to access information on
any subject.
Eliminating the
irrelevant from the
relevant is critical for
success. This ensures
that our thinking
remains untouched
by the intellectual
fog that is present all
around us.
But there is a problem with this information
overload. Despite access to a wealth of
material on any subject, many people are
unable to decipher a clear understanding of the issues. The information
overload has only resulted in a jungle of confusion for them, and it is
easy to get trapped in this ‘intellectual fog’. One’s thoughts and actions
will then get determined by the ‘thick fog’ that surrounds them.
How do you keep yourself safe from this fog? How do you maintain
right thinking in the midst of such intellectual darkness?
The ‘fog-safe device’ that trains use illustrates a solution to this problem.
We need to have our own ‘intellectual fog-safe device’. This device is an
internally prepared mind trained in the art of differentiation.
For this device to work one should develop the capacity to put aside all
unrelated matters and only extract information relevant to the subject.
This technique can be called the principle of elimination. Eliminating
the irrelevant from the relevant is critical for success. This ensures that
our thinking remains untouched by the intellectual fog that is present
all around us. In line with the laws of nature, this external fog will never
end. All we can do is to develop the skills to stay safe from its negative
effects and proceed on our intellectual journey, just as the train moves
ahead and reaches its destination in spite of the fog.
IN PURSUIT OF TRUTH
A Meaningful Life
IN The Story of an African Farm, Olive Schreiner (1855-1920), a noted
South African novelist, recounts the story of a hunter who goes in
search of the beautiful White Bird of Truth. All he had seen of it was
its reflection in a lake once while he was out shooting. He tried to catch
the bird in the snares of credulity and the cage of imagination, but he
realized that the bird of truth could be obtained only through truth. He
left the Valley of Superstitions and started climbing up the Mountain
of Truth. He continued climbing till he reached a high precipice. He
started cutting rocks and making steps in the stone. He continued
doing this for years, till, old and wizened, he managed to reach the
summit. But, on arriving there, he found another range, higher than
the previous one. Here, overwhelmed by old age and weariness, he
laid himself down to die, but as he lay dying, a white feather fell close
to him from above.
Now he felt sure that the bird he sought
existed on the next range. Even though he
could not reach the bird of truth, he died with
the solace that those who followed him would
not have to cut the first steps. His last words
were: “Where I lie down, worn out, other men
will stand young and fresh. By the steps that I
have cut they will climb. They will never know
the name of the man who made them…But
they will mount on my work. They will climb
and by my stair. They will find truth and
through me.” This story illustrates our quest
for truth.
The quest for truth
is embedded in the
human psyche. Life
will be rendered
meaningless unless it
is anchored in some
sort of truth.
The pursuit of truth is the oldest adventure of humankind. It is innate
in human nature. Mahatma Gandhi, a great champion of truth and
nonviolence in the 20th century, put it quite aptly, “I have nothing new
to teach the world. Truth and nonviolence are as old as the hills.” The
quest for truth is embedded in the human psyche. Life will be rendered
meaningless unless it is anchored in some sort of truth.
We are encouraged to pray in the following words: O God! Show us the
truth as truth, and inspire us to follow it. Show us falsehood as falsehood,
and inspire us to abstain from it.
FATE OF THE TRUTHTELLER
Identity at Risk
NAPOLEON HILL, an American self-help author, mentions an
interesting true story in his best-selling book The Law of Success.
A Greenland Eskimo was taken on one of the American North
Polar expeditions. Later, as a reward for faithful service, he was brought
to New York for a short visit. He was filled with amazement and wonder
at the miracles of sight and sound that he saw there. When he returned
to his native village, he told stories of buildings that rose to the very
face of the sky; of tram cars, which he described as houses that moved
along a track; of artificial lights and all the other dazzling concomitants
of the metropolis.
His people looked at him coldly and walked
away, and forthwith throughout the village
he was dubbed Sagdluk, meaning the Liar.
In shame, he carried this name to his grave.
Long before his death his original name was
entirely forgotten. The simple minds of the
Eskimos were unable to visualize the startling
pictures drawn by Sagdluk, so they simply
rejected the truth.
In this world, a veil
of falsehood clouds
the truth. Man has
not seen the world in
which truth will come
into its own. The
prophets were made
to see that world
before its coming so
that they could warn
man of its advent.
Just as the Eskimo was made to see a hitherto
unknown world, so God gave the prophets a
glimpse of the world that lies beyond death.
They came to their peoples and conveyed to
them the truths that God had embedded in
their consciousness. But since these truths
belonged to an unseen world, which man was unable to visualize,
people dubbed them madmen and liars (QURAN 11: 27). This was the fate
of all the prophets of God. (QURAN 36: 30)
Indeed, every truth-teller in the history of man has had to tread the
same rocky path. In this world, a veil of falsehood clouds the truth.
Man has not seen the world in which truth will come into its own. The
prophets were made to see that world before its coming so that they
could warn man of its advent. But they met with disbelief from people
who had seen nothing beyond the world which meets the eye.
SEEKER OF TRUTH
What is the Purpose of Truth?
TRUTH gives us conviction. Only with conviction can we undertake
any purposeful action. Our behaviour is governed by our
conviction. Man is a born seeker—a veritable truth-seeking
being. Every human being regards himself as incomplete until he has
found that supreme principle by which he can explain his existence in
this world and discover the purpose and meaning of his life.
A seeker aims at a rational explanation of the world and endeavours
to discover a definite principle by which he may successfully plan his
present life. A seeker of truth is looking for the answer to the question:
‘What is that knowledge by which I may believe? Or, what may be the
valid basis of my belief?’ When he finds truth, he makes it his supreme
concern.
Oneness of Truth
If truth is more than one, it cannot give us any conviction. If we all
believe in one God, then it is not possible that the guidance He sent to
people at different times was inherently different. The truth or the true
message has to be universal, identical and one.
Who is a True Seeker of Truth?
• A true seeker is sincere in his search and contemplates on the
related questions. He rises above worldly considerations before
drawing conclusions.
• A true seeker desires to seek out the hidden realities behind external
appearances. He rises above emotional bias in his discovery of truth.
• He discards all assumptions and preceding notions seeking the
truth with an open mind.
• A true seeker will use the right criterion in determining the truth.
• A true seeker will speak in a language understandable and rational
or analytical. A true seeker shows humility in the face of truth. Truth
is always presented by man and not directly by God.
• A true seeker looks not at the person who presents the truth but at
the truth itself.
• A true seeker will surrender to the truth on discovering it. Truth is
his supreme concern.
• A true seeker is potentially spiritual.
Everyone is a seeker. True. But few are finders. Why? Because, where
seeking is instinctive, finding is the outcome of one’s own conscious
effort.
TRUTHAN ANALYSIS
Relative or Absolute
IT IS GENERALLY believed that truth is not something absolute.
People have different perceptions or criteria for truth. That which is
truth for one, may not be truth for another. In other words, truth is
something relative not real, known in other words as ‘personal truth’. A
philosopher has described it in the following words:
There are no full stops in Truth, but only commas.
Some people think in this way, but this is a notion that stands rejected
prima facie. This supposition does not have any logic or rational ground
to stand on. In this world, whatever man believes in, he does so in an
absolute sense. This is human nature. If man is not able to decipher
a thing in its absolute sense, he continues his research until he has
discovered it.
For example, in ancient times, man knew very little about the sun and
the solar system. His search continued for thousands of years till he
came to discover the overall system of the
planets. As long as man had not reached this
discovery, he continued his investigation.
The same is the case with other fields of
knowledge. For thousands of years man has
engaged himself in research and investigation
in various disciplines of knowledge. This
quest is ongoing till date and will continue till
man comprehends the actual reality. This is
because to man everything has an absolute
form; from the stars to an atom, there is no
exception to this rule.
Denying truth to
be absolute is akin
to mental suicide.
Those who hold
this belief are not
serious in their
utterance. Refusing
to accept the truth in
its absolute form is
similar to refusing to
accept one’s mother
in the absolute form.
It appears that the human mind takes
everything in an absolute form. This is the
conviction on the basis of which the process
of search and research continued for thousands of years. If man were
to believe that things did not occur in their absolute form, scientific
activities would come to a complete halt. Scientific discoveries would
come to a standstill.
The same principle applies to personal matters. Man considers himself
to be absolute. If he doesn’t think this way, he cannot stay alive for even a single day. Man takes his mother, his wife, and his children in an
absolute sense—the very survival of the family system is based upon
this. In its absence, the entire system of human life would be shattered.
Similarly, man considers his belongings like his house, his business
and his bank balance, to be absolute. If he did not think like this, his
economic life would never take shape.
In such a situation, it would be an exception to consider that truth
is not absolute. It would mean that in an absolute world truth has a
non-absolute existence. But, there is no logical basis for accepting this
concept. It is incomprehensible to believe that in this vast universe,
where everything else is in its absolute sense, truth, as an exception to
this rule, is not in its absolute form. This would be a contradiction in
logical terms and would never be acceptable to thinking people.
This is not a simple matter. Upon reflection,
we find that man has a dual existence—body,
and mind. Except for truth, everything caters
to fulfilling the physical needs of man. Truth is
the only thing that man requires for fulfilling
his spiritual needs. Now, it is inconceivable
that all objects of fulfilment of our physical
needs are in their absolute form while truth,
that fulfils our spiritual needs, is not absolute.
To accept this division we would have to
admit that there is a big contradiction in this
world, that the objects of our material needs
are available here in an absolute form while
the objects of our spiritual needs are, by
way of an exception, not available here in an
absolute form.
In this world,
whatever man
believes upon,
he does it in an
absolute sense. This
is human nature. If
man is not able to
decipher a thing in
its absolute sense,
then he continues his
research until he has
discovered it.
Truth is the biggest requirement of man. Without it, man is totally
incomplete. The truth is that the denial of truth as absolute is akin
to mental suicide. Those who hold this belief are not serious in their
utterance. Refusing to accept the truth in its absolute form is similar to
refusing to accept one’s mother in the absolute form.
Another possibility is that nothing is true, that truth is something
different altogether, or that truth has no existence. This kind of thought
is without doubt an intellectual luxury that no serious man can afford
to indulge in.
On a serious note, a person can, however, say that he has not found
the truth, or that he is just a seeker. But no serious man can say that truth is not absolute. A seeker of truth is looking for the answer to the
question: “What is that knowledge by which I may believe?” When he
finds truth, he makes it supreme.
In the universe that man lives in, everything is known to be absolute,
and if something has not yet been discovered in its absolute sense, then
man is continuously struggling hard to discover its absolute position.
The same is the case with man’s identity. Man, by his very nature, is
an absolute-loving person. He wants to live in conviction. Truth gives
him this conviction. Only with conviction can he take any action. His
behaviour is governed by his conviction. If he knows a woman to be his
mother, he wants to have an absolute belief in the fact that she is his
mother. Similarly, when he owns a property, his ownership should be in
the absolute sense. If this does not happen, man will be in an uncertain
state of mind about everything. And it is a fact that man cannot live in
uncertainty.
These facts make it clear that the concept of absoluteness is exactly
in accordance with human nature. On the other hand, regarding
everything as non-absolute is against the very nature of human beings.
As far as truth is concerned, if it is not absolute, it cannot give us any
conviction. To say that truth is not absolute is like saying that one does
not believe in anything to be true. With such a belief, a person can only
become a skeptic. And to be a skeptic is not a practical position for any
human being.
AN OVERVIEW OF MODERN ATHEISM
An Unsatisfactory Explanation of Nature
IDEOLOGICALLY, human history can be divided into two major
phases—the pre-scientific age, and the scientific age. In the
former period, religion was the trendsetter for man. But after the
emergence of modern science, this situation underwent a complete
change. Now it is science—without itself being either for or against
religion—which has acquired the position of trendsetter. Despite the
non-partisan role of science, due to certain reasons, the atheistic
ideology has come to dominate all intellectual disciplines. How did this
happen? The following is a brief review of the situation.
Man, who has inhabited planet Earth for
thousands of years, continues to see many
things happening on a daily basis—for
instance, the rising of the sun, the falling
of the rain, the blowing of the winds, etc.
Traditionally, man believed that God was
instrumental in all these happenings. This
belief had become for man an established
axiom. Both theist and idolater believed this
to be the reality, in one form or another.
In the twenty-first
century, further
research has been
carried out which
demonstrates that
this period of the
world’s demise has
come very close.
Now it is believed
that soon all those
resources will be
exhausted with the
help of which the
supposed material
paradise was being
constructed.
After the emergence of modern science,
however, it was learnt that apparently there
existed a material cause behind all happenings.
For instance, once while Sir Isaac Newton
(d. 1727), the founder of modern science,
was in his garden, he witnessed an apple
drop from a tree. Newton began pondering
about why the apple had fallen straight to
the ground rather than going sideways or
upward. After giving this matter deep thought,
he succeeded in deducing from this the Law of Gravity. It was because
of gravity that things fell downwards.
Thus, scientific study made great progress. Finally, scientists discovered
that all the events happening in this world invariably have a cause.
They formulated the principle of causation. This thinking, that all
happenings are the result of some cause, continued to grow, until it
finally dominated all scientific and academic human activities. Prior
to this, happenings had been explained with reference to God. Now references to God were replaced with references to cause. This thinking
was epitomized in these words: If events are due to natural causes,
they are not due to supernatural causes. (Religion without Revelation,
New York, 1958)
This scientific discovery initially had a purely physical connotation, and
although natural phenomena were now explained with reference to
cause instead of God, this did not amount to a
denial of God. It was the atheist thinkers, rather
than the scientists who, by appropriating
this concept of causation, equated this with
the denial of God. From this point onwards,
modern atheism began to hold sway.
By laying much emphasis on the scientific
discovery of cause and effect, modern atheists
sought to convince people that there was no
longer any need to make any reference to
God for an explanation of events. For, if events
were due to natural causes, they were not due to
supernatural causes.
The scientific
discovery of ‘cause
and effect’ initially
had a purely physical
connotation, and
although natural
phenomena were
now explained with
reference to cause
instead of God, this
did not amount to a
denial of God. It was
the atheist thinkers
who equated this to
the denial of God.
We shall soon see how there is an irrefutable
gap in the logic of this argument. This
gap notwithstanding, this theory gained
extraordinary popularity among modern
scholars. Consciously or unconsciously, they
began to regard the concept of cause and effect as a substitute for
God. This way of thinking dominated all scientific disciplines. Here are
a few examples to illustrate this point.
Materialism
Materialism is a philosophy as well as a culture. Looked at practically,
materialism is the notion that there is now no need to wait for the
next world where God will bless us with Paradise, a world where all
desires can be fulfilled, because the ‘cause’ by which Paradise can be
built right here on this Earth has finally been understood. And this
‘cause’ is modern technology. That is why ‘Paradise’ on Earth began to
be ‘constructed’ by means of modern technology and modern industry.
A whole civilization was brought into being in the name of materialism.
Today’s man, totally oblivious of God, rushed towards the acquisition
of this ‘Paradise on Earth’ in the concrete forms of modern civilization.
Houses were built and cities developed with the help of modern
technology, and a modern lifestyle could be seen everywhere. This
material Paradise in the wake of modern civilization has yet to be
completed. But the latest research has proved that it is impossible
to build Paradise on Earth. Moreover, further studies in the physical
sciences have shown that the law of entropy applies to our world.
That means in submission to this law, the world is irrevocably moving
towards its end. A day will come when it will become extinct.
In the twenty-first century, further research has been carried out which
demonstrates that this period of the world’s demise has come very
close. Now it is believed that soon, all those resources will be destroyed
or exhausted with the help of which the supposed material ‘Paradise’
is being constructed. In other words, soon, those ‘causes’ will no longer
be there on the basis of which the plans for a material Paradise were
conceived.
Darwinism, or Organic Evolution
For thousands of years, man believed that all living species, including
man, were created by God—that it was the Lord of the world who
brought into existence all the living species by directly creating them.
But Charles Darwin (d. 1802) supposedly managed to find a ‘cause’
here as well. According to him, this ‘cause’—‘natural selection’—was
responsible for bringing into existence all living species. That is, in the
biological process resulting from various physical causes, many living
species continued to evolve one from another. That is to say, all living
species, including man, were brought into existence by a material cause
rather than a non-material God.
This ‘cause’ discovered by Darwin has never been scientifically proven.
It is only a supposition or a theory. Even biologists have given it the
status of a working hypothesis, rather than an established fact. Darwin
himself had doubts about this theory in the last stage of his life. That is
why he died in a state of frustration.
In spite of this flaw, Darwin’s theory gained general acceptance in
modern academic circles. Even today this unsubstantiated theory is
taught in universities all over the world.
Marxism
Another such example is provided by Marxism. Karl Marx (d. 1883)
tried to apply this principle to the field of society and the economy.
He constructed the theory that the cause of the revolutionary changes in human society is an automatic process of material action and
reaction—or class conflict.
Karl Marx called this ‘historical determinism’ or ‘dialectical materialism’.
He argued that, as a result of ineluctable factors inherent in society, two
classes are produced. For historical reasons, there is a clash between
the two classes, which leads to the obliteration of one class, and thus
one class is replaced by another. In this way, owing to these internal
causes, human society continues to make progress.
This ‘cause’ discovered by Karl Marx and his colleagues proved to
be a mere supposition, however. Marx’s
predictions were disproved and attempts to
translate them into reality in the long run
proved abortive. It is common knowledge that
a revolution was brought about by the use
of force in the Soviet Union in 1917, under
the banner of Marx’s communist ideology.
But after attempts to put this ideology into
practice on a large scale, it had to be finally
discarded.
The truth is that the
principle of causation
was based originally
on supposition. It
was not an academic
argument. But
people, in their
haste, were willing
to give credence to a
‘concept’ which was
a mere supposition
rather than a reality
Modern Consumerism
Modern consumerism is another example
of this nature. Man has a limitless desire to
accumulate goods of all kinds which will bring
him comfort and luxury. Industrial progress
appeared to make this feasible. It was as if
modern industry was the cause which could result in all kinds of instant
gratification.
People all over the world then rushed to shopping centres to buy goods,
only to find that this ‘cause’ again proved to be a supposition. They did
not take into consideration the fact that the production of these goods
was never going to bring them Paradise, as the production of consumer
goods came at the cost of making the present world uninhabitable for
man. For instance, cars and aeroplanes made travelling very easy, but
their functioning resulted—to an unmanageable extent—in the carbon
emissions known as green-house gases. Scientists the world over
have failed to find a solution to this problem. Air conditioning and the
refrigeration of perishable goods have also contributed to tearing a
large hole in the life-giving ozone layer of the upper atmosphere. This
has proved to be an insolvable challenge to all life forms. This shows that industries have to be pollution-free so that consumer goods
may be produced in a non-injurious way. But it has proved well-nigh
impossible for man to rid industry of its pollutant factors.
The truth is that the principle of causation was based originally on
supposition. It was not an academic argument. But people, in their
haste, were willing to give credence to a ‘concept’ which was a mere
supposition rather than a reality. And indeed, its popularity was due
less to its academic weight than to its sentimental value.
In this argument put forward by modern atheists there was clearly a
great logical flaw. It did not take into account the fact that according to
science, the proximate or immediate ‘cause’ of any event is not the final
word. Even after that, the question remains to be answered: How did
that cause come into existence? The truth is that this ‘cause’ does not
explain anything. The ‘cause’ itself is in need of an explanation.
(For further details, see the book, ‘God Arises’, by Maulana Wahiduddin
Khan at www.cpsglobal.org/books/god-arises
FROM THE SPIRITUAL TREE
There is a tree beside my house. I call
it the 'Spiritual Tree'. I derive spiritual
inspiration from it. A tree is an evergrowing being that was initially a seed
possessing the potential of becoming a
full-grown tree. A seed takes food from the
universe around it and then grows into a
tree. The same is true with spirituality,
the desire for which is intrinsic to, and an
integral part of, the very nature of every
human being. To realize this spirituality,
man must derive spiritual food from the
universe around him. A tree converts
carbon-dioxide into oxygen; a spiritual person is one who can take positive lessons
from negative situations. From this perspective, a tree is an embodiment of a
spiritual personality. —Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE TRUTH
GOD manifests Himself on earth through truth. Disbelief in the
truth is disbelief in God. There is no greater crime than to
refuse to accept the truth after it has been made plain. Truth
emanates from God. Whoever rejects it is, in
fact, rejecting God.
Rejecting truth
on the grounds of
prejudice, pride or
expediency, is to
reject God Himself.
It is a failure to
recognize God in the
truth. It is equivalent
to placing yourself
above God and
giving precedence
to your own petty
requirements.
There is nothing strange about the truth.
It is inherent to human nature, yet people
fail to accept it. This is because they are
psychologically inhibited from doing so.
Acceptance of the truth might disrupt their
materialistic life-pattern. They might have
to lower their worldly status. If the truth
is presented by some insignificant person
against whom they are prejudiced, they are
reluctant to acknowledge it. Psychological
barriers such as these dominate their minds,
preventing straight thinking. They reject
matters which a little honest thought would
surely have led them to accept as the truth.
Since man is being tested in this world, God does not make Himself
manifest in visible form; He appears in the form of truth. Man must
recognize God as enshrined in truth and bow down before it. When
truth appears on earth, it is as if God has appeared in all His majesty.
Rejecting truth on the grounds of prejudice, pride or expediency, is
to reject God Himself. It is a failure to recognize God in the truth. It is
equivalent to placing yourself above God and giving precedence to your
own petty requirements. God will have scant regard for such people on
the Day of Judgement, and whomsoever God scorns will find no refuge
on earth or in the heavens. They will wander helplessly, forever abject
and forlorn.
ATHEISM REFUTED
A Causeless Cause
ATHEISM is an outcome of being against theism. It does not result
from a discovery of the non-existence of God. Earlier, atheism
was based on claims of scientific validation. However, it has now
lost its foundations and adherence to it has become anachronistic in
nature. Those who claim scientific backing for atheism now have to
face observations of other scientific authorities which run contrary to
their claim.
Einstein, when asked whether he was an atheist replied, “You may call
me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional
atheist whose fervour is mostly due to painful act of liberation from the
fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth”. (Letter to Guy H
Raner Jr)
This means scientists are not in a position
to say that there is a God, or that there is
no God. They can just take a sceptical stand
on the existence of God. This is because the
accepted base for belief in something in the
intellectual world is scientific. Since there is no
clear scientific discovery on the non-existence
of God, this is still subject to interpretation.
One of the most
amazing qualities
of the universe is
that there is no
interpretation or
explanation of it,
other than that which
allows for God’s
existence, despite
the fact that the best
brains in every age
have attempted to
unravel its mysteries.
Towards the end of the 19th century, there
was a strong wave of what was popularly
called ‘scientific atheism’. The argument
often offered to negate the existence of God
was His being invisible. But new scientific
investigations, carried out at the beginning
of the 20th century, started turning the tide
against the credibility of this position. It
became apparent and accepted that there are
many aspects of nature that are invisible and yet they exist. One of the
books written on this new world discovered by science is Science and
the Unseen World by Sir Arthur Eddington.
At the beginning of the 20th century, Sir James Jeans declared that
the universe which had been discovered by modern science was
not compatible with the mechanical interpretation that had gained
ground since past several decades. The age of quantum mechanics
has established that nothing is fully observable. Contrary to previous belief, it was not the atom that was the last fundamental particle that
constituted matter; rather there were unobservable subatomic particles
that served as the building blocks of atoms. In a book published in
1988, entitled A Brief History of Time, Stephen W. Hawking (one of the
foremost physicists of recent times, 1942-2018) explains the Big Bang
Theory, according to which the universe is constantly expanding.
After working out the relevant mathematical equations, Hawking
reached the conclusion that the expansion of the universe is taking
place according to a well-calculated scheme. The initial rate of
expansion must have been fixed with great accuracy so that it would
always be less than the critical rate, i.e., the rate at which the universe
would begin to collapse again. This view cannot be explained unless
it is accepted that the rate of expansion of the universe has been
determined with the utmost precision.
Hawking writes:
It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have
begun in just this way, except as the act of God who intended to
create beings like us.
One of the most amazing qualities of the
universe is that there is no interpretation or
explanation of it other than that which allows
for God’s existence, despite the fact that the
best brains in every age have attempted to
unravel its mysteries.
The accepted
base for belief in
something in the
intellectual world is
scientific. Since there
is no clear scientific
discovery on the
non-existence of God,
this is still subject to
interpretation.
It has been claimed that the universe has
always been in existence in its present form. It
has also been claimed that it came into being
on its own and that it goes on its own. Cause
and effect have been said to have created
everything, and attempts have also been
made to prove the law of organic evolution to be the creator of the
universe; which however can be only a process of nature, but never its
creator. But the more a man learns about the universe, the more absurd
do these theories appear to him and the stranger does it seem that
something, or some being other than God Almighty should be the Lord
and Master of the universe. The universe, by its very existence, testifies
to the fact that God is its Creator. Whatever arguments or opinions
have been expressed to counter this fact have proved erroneous by the
knowledge acquired to date through human research.
APPEARANCE AND REALITY
Looking Beyond the Veil
APPEARANCE veils reality. In this world, man is put to the test of
recognizing appearances for what they are, and of penetrating
them in order to reach the reality hidden beyond them. If he
is to be successful, he must refrain from becoming obsessed with
appearances. He must rise above the level of the seen and pass
beyond, to the level of the unseen. There, on this higher plane, the
hidden realities of life will stand out clearly before his eyes.
How does one free oneself from obsession with appearances? It means,
primarily, looking at things in an entirely different way. For example, it
means recognizing that something which is ostensibly a purchasable
item is actually a gift from God. It means having a grasp of the fact
that the merchandises of the marketplace have come not just from the
hands of the craftsman or the assembly line of a factory, but from the
treasure house of the universe. Faith in the
unseen means the realization that the things
which we seem to receive from the hands of
men, come in actuality, from the hands of
God. It is only those who are at one with their
Maker, who can attain this degree of finelytuned perception.
In the Hereafter, that
which we receive
shall be in direct
proportion to what
we have discerned
behind the veil of
appearances. Those
who have never torn
that veil apart can
expect to receive
nothing.
In this world, we have the option of living like
the blind, or of living with our eyes wide open.
The test we are set in the present world forces
us to make this choice. One who remains blind
to the realities of this world of trial will—due
to his blindness—be stranded in the world to
come. On the other hand, one who lives with
his eyes open to the divine truth will be blessed with heavenly vision
in the life beyond the grave. There, all the blessings of the world—and
even more—will be given to him for all eternity.
The ‘blind’ man, sitting at the dining table, will look upon the milk, fruit,
vegetables as items which have been bought from vendors, and then
brought to him and prepared for him so that his palate and hunger
may be satisfied. Content with this thought, or not even thinking about
his food at all, he eats his fill, and then is off on his way to some other
activity, without having acknowledged, even for a second, that the
eatables he consumed were actually gifts from God. He simply cannot see that these are some of nature’s greatest masterpieces. He does not
give a single thought to the long and infinitely complex development
of the entire universe which made it possible for such things to come
into existence.
The man who has his eyes open to the truth thinks in quite a different
way when the same set of eatables is set before him. He is intensely
aware at all times that these are the products of nature’s ‘factory’. He
reflects upon how cattle eat grass and then convert it into milk. He
thinks of how the tree takes in water and nutrients from the soil and
then converts them into flowers and fruit.
When he ponders upon how such ‘factories’
could come into existence, the system of the
entire universe begins to unfold itself before
him. He considers how it was only after this
limitless universe had evolved for millions
and millions of years that the system of the
present world could be established. The
present world, vast and varied as it may seem,
accords with the systematic organization of
the universe in every detail. It is only because
this is so that the tree can yield fruit and the
cow can give milk.
Faith in the unseen
means the realization
that the things which
we seem to receive
from the hands
of men, come in
actuality, from the
hands of God.
When he thinks of all this, he experiences a strange kind of thrill and
a sense of wonder and awe. Now, when he drinks milk, or puts a piece
of fruit into his mouth, he feels that it is a unique blessing from God.
It is obvious that eating, as a normal human activity, is not the same
for the ‘blind’ as it is for the ‘seeing’. Neither can the consequences
be the same for both. In the Hereafter, that which we receive shall
be in direct proportion to what we have discerned behind the veil of
appearances. Those who have never torn that veil apart can expect to
receive nothing.
FAITH AND REASON
An Objective Study
IN ITS ISSUE No.
Manchester College, Oxford (England), published an article titled,
‘The Relationship between Faith and Reason’, by Dr Paul Badham.
Paul Badham is professor emeritus of Theology and Religious Studies
at St. David’s College, Lampeter, in the University of Wales. His paper
in this issue had been presented at a Conference of the Institute of
Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Science in Moscow in November
1991.
Professor Badham’s paper can indeed be called thought-provoking
and, as such, is worth reading, but he has made certain points with
which I do not agree. He states that philosophical certainty should
not be confused with religious certitude. He writes: ‘As a philosopher
of religion I feel compelled to acknowledge that faith could never be
placed on the same level of certainty as scientific knowledge’.
In contrast, I feel that faith and belief can indeed be placed on the same
level of certainty as scientific theory. In the twenty-first century, there
is no real difference between the two.
Religion and Science—At Same Level of Certainty
As Bertrand Russell puts it, knowledge is of two kinds—knowledge of
things and knowledge of truths. This dichotomy exists in religion as
well as in science. For instance, to the scientist who regards biological
evolution as a scientific fact, there are two aspects to be considered.
One is related to the organic part of species, and the other relates to
the law of evolution which is inherently and covertly operative in the
continuing process of change among the species.
When an evolutionist studies the outward physical appearance of
species, he may be said to be studying ‘things’. On the other hand,
when he studies the law of evolution, he deals with that aspect of the
subject, which is termed as the study, or knowledge of ‘truths.’
Every evolutionist knows that there is a basic difference between the
two aspects. As far as the study of things or the phenomena of evolution
is concerned, direct evidence is available. For instance, because the
study of fossils found in various layers of the earth’s crust is possible
at the level of observation, working hypotheses may be based thereon.
On the contrary, as far as facts about the law of evolution are concerned,
due to the impossibility of objective observation, direct argument is not
possible. For instance, the concept of sudden mutations in organs is
entirely based on assumptions, rather than on direct observation. In the
case of mutations, external changes are observable, but the cause, that
is, the law of nature, is totally unobservable. That is why all evolutionists
make use of indirect argument, which in logic is known as inferential
argument.
The concept of mutation forms the basis of the theory of evolution.
However, there are two aspects to the matter. One comes under
observation, but the second part is totally unobservable. It is only
by making use of the principle of inference that this second part of
evolution may be included in the theory of evolution.
It is a commonplace that all the offspring of men or animals are not
uniform. Differences of one kind or another are to be found among
them. In modern times, this biological phenomenon has been
scientifically studied. These studies have revealed that spontaneous
changes are suddenly produced in the foetus in the mother’s womb. It is
these changes that are responsible for the differences between children
of the same parents.
These differences between offspring are
observable. But the philosophy of evolution
subsequently formed on the basis of this
observation is totally unobservable and is
based only on inferential argument. That
is to say, that the ‘things’ of evolution are
observable, while the ‘truths’ inferred from
observation are unobservable.
The same
inferential logic
employed to prove
newly discovered
concepts of science
is applicable to
religious faiths to
prove their veracity
Now, what the evolutionist does—as an
example—is put a goat at one end and a
giraffe at the other. Then, taking some middle
specimens of fossils, he forms a theory that
the neck of one of the offspring of the earlier
generation of the goat was somewhat taller. Then, when this particular
offspring with the taller neck gave birth, this tallness for generations
spanning millions of years ultimately converted the initial goat with a
taller neck into a species like the giraffe in its advanced stage. Charles
Darwin writes of this change in his book The Origin of Species: “It seems
to me almost certain that an ordinary hoofed quadrupled might be
converted into a giraffe”.
In this case, the existence of differences between the various offspring
of a goat is itself a known fact. But the accumulation of this difference,
generation after generation, over millions of years resulting in a new
species known as ‘giraffe’ is wholly unobservable and unrepeatable.
This conclusion has been inferred from observation; the whole process
of mutation developing into a new species has never come under direct
observation.
Exactly the same is true of the subject of religion. One aspect of the study
of religion is the study of its history, its personalities, its injunctions,
its rites and its rituals. The above division (knowledge of things and
knowledge of truths) amounts to a study of the ‘things’ of religion. In
respect of religion, objective information is likewise available. As such,
the study of religion too can be done on the basis of direct observations
exactly as is done in the study of biological evolution.
Faith and belief
can be placed on
the same level of
certainty as scientific
theory. In the twentyfirst century there
is no real difference
between the two.
The second aspect of the study of religion is
what is termed, in general, beliefs pertaining
to the unseen world. These are the beliefs
that are beyond our known sensory world.
That is, the existence of God and the angels,
revelation, Hell and Heaven, etc. In this other
aspect of religion, direct observations do not
exist. The study of religion must, therefore,
be done in the light of that logical principle
called inference on the basis of observation,
that is, the same logical principle which the
evolutionists employ in the second aspect of
their theory.
Looked at in the light of this principle, both religion and science are at
par. Both have two equally different parts. One part is based on such
scientific certainty as permits direct argument. The other part is based
on scientific inference, to prove which only the principle of indirect
argument may be used. Keeping this logical division before us, we can
find no actual difference between the two.
The unnecessary apologia for religious uncertainty made by Professor
Badham is occasioned by his inability to consider this difference and
his confusing one area of study with another. Making the error of false
analogy, he is comparing the first part of science to the second part of
religion and looking at the second part of religion in the light of the first
part of science. This meaningless comparison is responsible for the ill considered conclusions he has arrived at in his article.
Had the Professor compared the first part of science to the first part of
religion and the second part of science to the second part of religion, his
inferiority complex (as a man of religion) would have ceased to exist. He
would have felt that, purely as a matter of principle, wrong parallels had
been drawn. The argument used in the first part of science is equally
applicable to the first part of religion. Similarly, the argument applied
to the second part of science is equally applicable to the second part of
religion.
This is a truth which has been acknowledged even by a staunch and
leading atheist like Bertrand Russell. At the beginning of his book
Why I am not a Christian, he has set forth what he considers a valid
argument. He points out that in his view, all the great religions of the
world Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Communism—were
all untrue and harmful and that it is not possible to prove their validity
from the logical point of view. Those who have opted for one religion
or the other have done so, according to Russell, under the influence
of their traditions and environment, rather than on the strength of
argument.
However, Bertrand Russell has admitted this fact—that a belief based
on rational argument is valid—when he says, “There is one of these
arguments which is not purely illogical. I mean the argument from
design. This argument, however, was destroyed by Darwin.”
He intends here to say that the existence of God is proved by the
argument that in this world where there is design there should be a
designer. He admits that this method of argument in its nature is the
same as that used to prove scientific concepts. However, even after this
admission, he rejects this argument by saying that it has been destroyed
by Darwinism.
This is, however, a wholly baseless point, as Darwin’s theory is related
to the Creator’s process of creation rather than to the existence of the
Creator. To put it briefly, Darwinism states that the various species
found in the world were not separate creations but had changed from
one species into separate species over a prolonged period of evolution
by a process of natural selection.
It is obvious that this theory is not related to the existence or nonexistence of God. It deals with the process of creation instead of the
Creator. That is to say, if it was hitherto believed that God created each
species separately, now, after accepting the theory of evolution,
it has to be believed that God originally created an initial species which was invested with the capability of multiplying into numerous
species. And, then, He set in motion a natural process in the universe
favourable to such multiplication. In this way, over a long period
of time, this primary species fulfilled its potential by changing into
innumerable species. To put it another way, the theory of evolution
is not a study of the existence of God but, simply, of how God
displayed in the universe His power of creation. That is why Darwin
himself has concluded his famous book The Origin of Species with
these words:
There is grandeur in this view of life, that having been originally
breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that,
whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed
law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most
beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
It is true that the new facts regarding the universe discovered in the
twentieth century have revolutionized the world of logic. The difference
between religious argument and scientific argument which had been
erroneously conceived has been eliminated. In respect of argument, the
case of science too has reached exactly the same point as religion.
Both Direct and Inferential Argument are Valid
Newton (1642-1727) made a special study of the solar system,
discovering laws governing the revolution of planets around the sun.
His study was, however, confined to astronomical bodies, which can be
called the macroworld. It is possible in the macroworld to weigh and
measure things. As a result of the immediate impact of these discoveries,
many began to think along the lines that reality was observable and that
the proper and valid argument was one based on observation. It was
under the influence of this concept that the philosophy generally known
as logical positivism came into being.
However, the discoveries made in the first quarter of the twentieth
century shook the very foundation of the preliminary theories. These
later discoveries revealed that beyond this world of appearance, a whole
world was hidden, a world which does not come under observation. It
is only indirectly possible to understand this hidden world and present
arguments in its favour. That is, by observing the effects of something,
we arrive at an understanding of its existence.
This discovery altered the whole picture. When the access of human
knowledge was limited to the macrocosmic world, man was a prey to the misapprehension—that reality is only that which is observable. But
when human knowledge penetrated the microworld, the academic
situation underwent a paradigm shift.
Now it was revealed that the field of direct argument was extremely
limited. New facts which came to the knowledge of man were so
abstruse that indirect or inferential argument alone was applicable.
For instance, in 1895, the German scientist Wilhelm Konrad Roentgen
found during an experiment that on a glass before him some effects
were observable despite the fact that there was no known link between
his experiment and the glass. He concluded that there was an invisible
radiation, which was travelling at the speed of 186,000 miles per second.
Due to the unknown nature of this radiation, Roentgen named it X-ray.
The twentieth century brought forth the discoveries of a number of
things like X-rays which do not come under direct human observation.
However, due to their effects having come to the knowledge of man, it
was not possible to deny their existence. As a result of modern research,
not only were different departments of science revolutionized but the
science of logic too witnessed fundamental changes.
Now inferential reasoning was also accepted as a valid method of
reasoning, for, without discoveries like X-rays, the scientific structure
of the atom, the existence of dark matter, etc., could not be explained.
After the extension of this method of reasoning in modern times,
argument on religious faith has become as valid as reasoning on
scientific concepts. Exactly the same inferential logic, which was
employed to prove the newly discovered concepts of science, was
applicable to religious faiths to prove their veracity. Differences in the
criterion of logic have now vanished.
Believers fasting has been
prescribed for you. Just
as it was for those before
you. So that you may guard
yourselves against evil.
The
RATIONALITY OF FAITH
An Academic Approach to Religion
IT IS THROUGH reason that man justifies his faith. Rational
justification strengthens his convictions. Rational argument is thus
an intellectual need of every believer. Without this, he would not
be able to stand firmly by his faith. It is reason which transforms blind
faith into a matter of intellectual choice.
History shows that man has employed four kinds of argument to find
rational grounds for his faith. Each of these reflects different stages in
his intellectual development.
Natural Argument
The first kind of argument is one based on nature, i.e. simple facts or
common experiences. This has been the most commonly used since
ancient times. Some examples of this kind are found in the Quran, one
of which relates to the Prophet Abraham. It is stated as follows in the
Quran:
Have you not heard of him (Nimrod) who argued with Abraham
about his Lord, because God had bestowed the kingdom upon
him? Abraham said: ‘My Lord is the one who gives life and brings
death.’ He answered, ‘I [too] give life and bring death!’ Abraham
said, ‘God brings up the sun from the east, so bring it up yourself
from the west.’ Then the disbeliever was confounded. God does
not guide the wrongdoers. (
We find another example of the argument based on natural reasoning
in the Quran:
In this way We showed Abraham Our kingdom of the heavens
and the earth, so that he might have certainty of faith. When
night descended on him, he saw a star. He said: ‘This is my Lord!’
Then when it set, he said: ‘I do not love things that set.’ When
he saw the moon rise and spread its light, he said: ‘This is my
Lord.’ But when it set, he said: ‘If my Lord does not guide me, I
will be one of the misguided people.’ Then when he saw the sun
shining, he said: ‘This is my Lord. This is the greatest of all!’ Then
when it set, he said: ‘My people, I disown all that you worship
besides with God.’ (
Argument of this kind may appear to be simple, but they are invested
with deeper meaning. For this reason, they have been relied upon as
much in the past as today.
Philosophical Argument
The second kind of argument is that first propounded by Greek
philosophers. Based on pure logic, it was so popular in the medieval
ages that Jews, Christians and Muslims all incorporated it into their
theological system. Commonly known as the First Cause, it may be
summed up as follows:
The world man observes with his senses must have been brought
into being by God as the First Cause. Philosophers have argued that
the observable order of causation is not self-explanatory. It can only
be accounted for by the existence of a First Cause. This First Cause,
however, must not be considered simply as the first in a series of
successive causes, but rather as the First Cause in the sense of being
the cause for the whole series of observable causes.
The Prime Mover or First Cause theory,
although obviously very sound, has constantly
been under attack from secular circles, and
critics have raised a variety of objections. To
begin with, they say that it is only guesswork,
and not an undeniable fact. Some critics also
object that the actions or free will of subatomic
particles are uncaused; so, why not also the
world as a whole? Moreover, even if all things
in the world are caused, this may not be true
of the world itself, because no one knows
whether the whole is sufficiently like its parts
to warrant such a generalization.
The truth is
that, without a
belief in God, the
universe remains
as unexplainable
as the entire
mechanism of light
is, without a belief
in electromagnetic
waves.
Spiritual Argument
Yet another argument is that which is based on spiritual experience.
Some people who engage in spiritual exercises and have spiritual
experiences say that when they reach the deeper levels of the human
consciousness, they find an unlimited world which cannot be described
in limited language. They insist that this limitless, unexplainable
phenomenon is nothing but God Almighty Himself.
Critics say that even if this spiritual state is as real as is claimed by
those who enter it, it is still a subjective experience; that it conveys
nothing to those who have not experienced the same spiritual state.
All the above arguments are in one way or another inferential in
nature and not of the direct kind. In view of this fact, critics hold that
all faiths, including Islam, have no scientific basis. They contend that
Islamic theology is not based on primary rationalism, but on secondary
rationalism.
However, these contentions appeared to be valid only till the end of
the nineteenth century. The previous century closed the chapter on all
such debates. Now, according to modern developments in science, one
can safely say that religious tenets can be proved on the same logical
plane as the concepts of science. There is now no difference between
the two in terms of scientific reasoning. Let us, then, see what modern
scientific reasoning is all about.
Scientific Argument
Religion, or faith, relates to issues such as the existence of God,
something intangible and unobservable, unlike non-religious things
like the sun, which has a tangible and observable existence. Therefore,
it came to be held that only non-religious matters might be established
by direct argument, while it is only indirect or inferential argument
which can be used to prove religious propositions.
It was believed, therefore, that rational argument was possible only in
non-religious matters, and as far as religious matters were concerned,
rational argument was not applicable at all. That is to say, it was only
in non-religious areas that primary rationalism was possible, while in
religion, only secondary rationalism could be applied.
In the past, arguments based on Aristotelean
logic used to be applied to faith. By its very
nature, it was an indirect argument. Modern
critics, therefore, labelled such arguments
as unworthy of consideration. That is why
religion was not thought worthy of being paid
any attention to by rational people. This state
of affairs presented a challenge not only to
other religions but to Islam as well.
The existence of God,
as a designer (cause)
was presumed
because His design
(effect) could be seen
to exist.
About five hundred years ago, with the
emergence of science, this state of affairs
did not change. Scientists in the wake of the Renaissance, believed
that matter, in fact, the entire material world, was something solid
which could be observed. Newton had even formed a theory that
light consisted of tiny corpuscles. As such, it was possible to apply direct argument as an explanation of material things. It continued to
be believed that the kind of argument which is applied to apparently
tangible things could not be applied in the case of religion.
But by the early twentieth century, specifically after the First World
War, this mental climate changed completely. The ancient Greek
philosophers believed that matter, in the last analysis, was composed of
atoms. And the atom, though very tiny, was a piece of solid matter. But
with the breaking of the atom in the twentieth century, all the popular
scientific concepts underwent a sea change. The theories about faith
and reason seemed relevant only while science was confined to the
macrocosmic level. Later, when science advanced to the microcosmic
level, it underwent a revolution, and along with it, the method of
argument also changed.
Till then, science had been based on the
proposition that all the things it believed in,
like the atom, could be directly explained.
But when the atom, the smallest part of an
element, was smashed, it was revealed that
it was not a material entity, but just another
name for unobservable waves of electrons.
Reason and faith are
now standing on the
same ground. No
one can legitimately
reject faith as
something irrational,
unless one is ready to
reject the rationality
of scientific theories
as well.
This discovery demonstrated how a scientist
could see only the effect of a thing and not
the thing itself. For instance, the atom, after
being split, produces energy which can be
converted into electricity. This runs along a
wire in the form of a current, yet this event is
not observable even by a scientist. But when
such an event produces an effect, for instance, it lights up a bulb or sets
a motor in motion, this effect comes under a scientist’s observation.
Similarly, the waves from an X-ray machine are not observable by a
scientist, but when they produce the image of a human body on a plate,
then it becomes observable.
Now the question arose as to what stand a scientist must take. Should
he believe only in a tangible effect, or the intangible thing as well which
produced that effect? Since the scientist was bound to believe in the
tangible effect, he had no choice but to believe in its intangible cause.
Here the scientist felt that direct argument could be applied to the
tangible effect, but that it was not at all possible to apply direct argument
to the intangible cause. The most important of all the changes brought
about by this new development in the world of science was that it was admitted in scientific circles that inferential argument was as valid as
direct argument. That is, if a cause consistently gives rise to an effect,
the existence of the intangible cause will be accepted as a proven fact,
just as the existence of the tangible effect is accepted because it is
observable. In modern times, all the concepts of science held to be
established have been proven by this very logic.
After reaching this stage of rational argument, the difference between
religious argument and scientific argument ceases to exist. The problem
faced earlier was that religious realities, such as the existence of God,
could be proved only by inference or indirect argument. For instance,
the existence of God as the Designer (First Cause) was presumed
because His design (effect) could be seen to exist. But now the same
method of indirect argument has been generally held to be valid in the
world of science. Bertrand Russel, famed for his atheistic views, also
accepted the veracity of inferential argument. He wrote:
I commit myself to the view that there are valid processes of
inference from events to other events….more particularly, from
events from which I am aware without reference to events of
which I have no such awareness. (Human Knowledge)
There are numerous meaningful things in the universe which are
brought to the knowledge of human beings for which no explanation
is possible. It has simply to be accepted that there is a meaningful
cause, that is God. The truth is that without belief in God, the universe
remains inexplicable just as the entire mechanism of light and motion
is inexplicable without a belief in electromagnetic waves.
Thus, the option one has to take is not between the universe without
God and the universe with God. Rather, the option actually is between
the universe with God and no universe at all. Since we cannot, for
obvious reasons, opt for the latter proposition, we are, in fact, left with
no other option except the former, that is, the universe with God.
In view of the recent advancements in scientific reasoning, a true faith
has proved to be as rational as any other scientific theory. Reason
and faith are now standing on the same ground. In fact, no one can
legitimately reject faith as something irrational unless one is ready to
reject the rationality of scientific theories as well. For, all the modern
scientific theories are accepted as proven on the basis of the same
rational criterion by which a matter of faith would be equally proven
true. After the river of knowledge has reached this advanced stage,
there remains no logical difference between the two.
DENIAL OF TRUTH
Psychology at Work
THE HUMAN mind is a mirror of reality. Everyone knows the
function of a mirror. It reproduces the image of anything that is
placed in front of it. The image it produces corresponds exactly
to the reflected object, leaving nothing out and adding nothing of its
own. So it is with the human mind. When reality is placed before this
mirror, it is reproduced exactly. The image of truth which is reflected in
the human mind is exactly the same as that which stands before it. It
recognizes the truth for what it is and accepts it as such.
This being the case, why is it that truth comes
before many people and yet they fail to accept
it? The answer to this question is that it is always
personal attachments and commitments that
prevent one from accepting truth. There can
be no sound reason for denying the truth.
Those that do so are motivated by their
attachment to something else which prevents
them from attaching themselves to truth.
Truth only accepts
one who has
accepted it without
any reservation,
who has given
himself entirely up
to it. Those who
are attached to
something else which
they cannot break
away from can never
find truth, for they
cannot give it the
attention it demands.
If a third object is placed in between a mirror
and the thing that is meant to be reflected,
the image will be obscured. So it is with
truth and the human mind. If something
else comes in between the two, the image
of truth that should be cast on to the mind
becomes obscured. It is essential, therefore,
that nothing should be allowed to come in
between oneself and truth. There should be
nothing to prevent one from accepting truth. This is a prerequisite for
realizing the truth, yet it is one that people are usually unable to fulfil.
All too often they let something else come in between themselves and
the reality that has been placed before the mirror of their minds.
Sometimes, it is people to whom one is attached who come in the way
of truth. Sometimes, it is self-interest, or some other commitment.
In every day and age people have let some unconnected thing come
in between themselves and truth, with the result that they remained
bereft of what should have been lodged in their souls.
Some do not accept the truth for fear of losing their power and
position. Some because the presenter of the truth appears to them an insignificant person. They question—Is truth being promulgated by
one who does not rank high among the mighty of this world?
Some others do not accept the truth as they do not want to become
isolated from their people. Each case is a case of denial without valid
grounds, only their blind commitment to something else which they do
not want to break away from.
Truth will be attained by one who has accepted it without any
reservation, who has given himself up entirely to it. Those who are
attached to something else that they cannot break away from, can
never find truth, for they cannot give it the attention it demands. Only
those succeed in the search for truth who forsake everything else and
give themselves up to it entirely when truth comes before them.
ACTIONS MATTER
Sincerity
AT THE TIME of the Prophet of Islam, there were certain people
in Madinah who talked of truth, yet did nothing for its sake
and used beautiful words to cover up their misdeeds. Exposing
them, the Quran says:
Those who exult in their misdeeds and love to be praised for
what they have not done should not suppose that they are secure
from punishment; they shall suffer a grievous punishment. (
One who talks of
the truth, yet does
nothing for the truth
is guilty of falsity. He
is trying to receive
credit for something
which he never did.
He will be discredited
before God.
According to this divine principle set forth in the Quran, it is only real
action that matters. Empty words have no value in the eyes of God.
Those who utter such words are referred to in the Quran as hypocrites.
One who talks of the truth, yet does nothing for the truth is guilty of
falsity. He is trying to receive credit for something which he never did.
He will be discredited before God.
Why do some people speak like this? They
utter beautiful words or write charming
essays to please others. These people may be
applauded by their audiences, but this kind of
speech or writing has no value before God.
There are always people who can be fooled
by false words, but God Almighty, who is all
knowing, cannot be fooled in this way.
According to the Quran, mere lip service—for
example, just saying sorry when a mistake is
made, or saying thank you when receiving
help—is not enough.
When a mistake is made, you have to repent in your heart, and when
you are given much-needed assistance, you have to be grateful with all
your heart and soul. Words are no alternative to deeds.
There is a great difference between social manners and real morality.
Social manners are only at a superficial level; while real moral value is
quite different, being based on great moral and ethical sensibility.
THE MOMENT OF TRUTH
Believing When it Matters
IN THE PRESENT world, man believes in God on the basis of argument.
In the Hereafter, he will believe in God on the basis of God’s might
and power, for God will be visible to all.
It is as if in the present world argument is the representative of God.
On the other hand, in the Hereafter, God will appear before men in all
His glory. There will then be no choice but to believe in Him.
The true believers are those who believe in God on the basis of
argument, who bow to truth while there is no other incentive at work.
On the other hand, the deniers are those who fail to believe in truth for
the sake of truth, who believe in truth only when they have no choice.
A truth bereft of power and glory fails to impress them. Such people,
who accept as their object of worship visible might and power and not
the invisible God are not true believers.
God wants to test
whether or not
people truly believe
in the sphere of the
unseen, but people
want to prove their
belief in terms of
what can be seen. A
true believer is one
who sees the world
of eternity within the
present world.
God wants to test whether or not people
truly believe in the sphere of the unseen, but
people want to prove their belief in terms of
what can be seen. Thus, the true believer is
one who sees the world of eternity within the
present world. He lives as if the realities of the
next, unseen world were present before him.
Unbelievers will also see the next world, but
this will only be when all veils have been torn
asunder by the shrill sound of the Trumpet
announcing the resurrection of man. Then, all
unseen realities will be visible to man. Man’s
vision will not profit him on that day. It will
be a time of retribution, not a time to give
evidence of one’s faith in God.
Here man can pretend to be great, but it will not be long before his
real position is exposed. On that day, many who have honour in this
world will be debased, and many who claim to be friends of justice
and humanity will be exposed as enemies of the very causes they
ostensibly espoused; many who are acclaimed amongst the brave
will be condemned as cowards; many who denied bowing to the truth
will be exposed as shams; many who thought that they had reserved
Heaven for themselves will find themselves at the gates of Hell. The
more fearless of God a man has become, the more fearful is the
moment which awaits him!
THE WORD OF GOD
From The Scriptures
The Quran is the book of God. It has been preserved in
its entirety since its revelation to the Prophet of Islam
between AD 610 and 632. It is a book that brings glad
tidings to humankind, along with divine admonition,
and stresses the importance of man’s discovery of the
Truth on a spiritual and intellectual level.
Translated from Arabic and commentary by
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
We sent messengers before you [Prophet] to many communities and
afflicted their people with suffering and hardship, so that they might
humble themselves. When the affliction decreed by Us befell them,
they did not humble themselves, but rather their hearts hardened,
for Satan had made all their doings seem fair to them. When they had
forgotten Our admonition, We granted them all that they desired; but
just as they were rejoicing in what they were given, We seized them
suddenly and they were plunged into despair. The wrongdoers were
thus annihilated. All praise be to God, the Lord of the Worlds. (
When a man is faced with the truth and he does not accept it, God
does not seize him immediately, but gives him some jolts by way of
monetary loss or physical trouble, so that he should review his way
of life, and his thinking should be revolutionized. Life’s events are not
mere happenings but vibrant messages from God sent to wake a man
up from his sleep of forgetfulness. But man learns nothing from these
things. He consoles himself by saying that these are normal ups and
downs and that such ups and downs do occur in life. In this way, Satan
all too often diverts the mind of the individual from possible divine
disfavour and pushes him into negligence of his religious duties by
providing him with plausible justifications. When a man indulges in this
type of behaviour again and again, his heart loses all sensitivity to what
is true or false, right or wrong. His conscience eventually becomes
totally blunted.
When a man ignores the warnings received from God, His approach
towards him changes. Now, God’s decision for him is that the doors
to comfort and success should be opened for him; he should be
granted prosperity in full measure; his honour and popularity should increase. This is, in reality, a punishment, so that the evil hidden in him
should come out clearly. Under these prosperous conditions the man
feels satisfied with himself and becomes more and more insensitive
and much bolder in ignoring the Truth. And, as a result, his meriting
punishment is fully established. When this purpose is achieved, God’s
retribution suddenly overwhelms him. He is deprived of worldly life
and presented before the court of the Hereafter, so that he may be
awarded the punishment of Hell.
This world is God’s world. Here the right to have one’s greatness extolled
belongs to only one Being. So, if a man ignores the divine truth, he is
in fact disrespecting God. In a world overarched by the majesty of the
Almighty, he wants to establish his own greatness. In this way he is
indulging in unparalleled transgression. He is being insolent to God
before whom no behaviour other than that of the utmost humility is
proper.
Say, ‘If God should take away your hearing and your sight and seal
your hearts, who is the deity who could restore it to you save God?’
See how We explain the signs to them in diverse ways, yet they turn
away. Ask them, ‘Tell me, if the punishment of God came upon you
suddenly or predictably, would any but the wrongdoers be destroyed?’
(
The granting of ears, eyes and heart to man indicates what his Creator
wants from him. The Creator wants man to hear and see His signs
and accept them using rational arguments. If a man does not utilize
these God-given capabilities for the purpose they are meant, then he is
running the risk that he may be declared incapable and his capabilities
may be snatched from him. How helpless is one who is rendered blind,
deaf and mentally disabled because such a person will remain of no
social value. But there is a kind of helplessness greater than this: it is
to have ears but be deaf to the Truth; it is to have eyes but be blind
to the Truth; it is to have a heart in one’s breast but be incapable of
understanding the Truth. This deprivation is much more serious than
the first kind, because it makes a man debased and worthless in respect
of the Hereafter; there is no shortcoming more heinous than this.
If a man is warned of the result of the denial of truth, and has the bravado
to respond insolently, it is because, being well placed in the world, he
thinks that he need not fear the scourge of God. Indeed, he imagines he
is exempt from divine retribution. And the more daring ones, such as
he, challenge God’s messenger and say, ‘If you are truthful, bring down
upon us God’s wrath, and let us see.’ They do not understand that if God
vents His anger, it will be on them and not on anyone else.
ASK MAULANA
Your Questions Answered
The remedy for ignorance is asking questions. (Prophet Muhammad)
The spirit of enquiry is the hallmark of an open society and the above
saying of the Prophet aptly illustrates this principle. A culture of
curiosity and open-mindedness will foster development in any society
by motivating its members to learn enthusiastically and enrich their
knowledge. This is because awareness of one’s ignorance is half of
knowledge, as it becomes a stepping-stone to seeking and finding
answers. A questioning mind is like a flowing river that is replenished
with fresh thoughts and ideas and continues on its journey.
Are reason and revelation contradictory to each other?
Reason and revelation are not contradictory to each other. Revelation
is a source of knowledge, while reason is a means of comprehension.
When a person believes in what has been revealed, he does so by
application of his God-given reason to reflect and determine with
certainty the truthfulness and veracity of the knowledge he has gained
through revelation. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to say
that reason supplements the understanding of revelation and is not
opposed or inconsistent to it.
All of the tasks a human being does are dependent on reason. No
development or progress can happen without the application of
intelligence. Without the mind, a person would be reduced to a statue,
being unable to differentiate between right and wrong. Reason is in
itself not a criterion which determines good and evil. Rather, it is the
ability to understand and discern. By definition, reason is the intellectual
ability by which conclusions are drawn from premises. Thus, reason is
not an objective judge by itself.
Reason is an ability granted by God. It is not any person’s own invention.
The word aql, or reason, has been used in the Quran about fifty times.
The Quran repeatedly enjoins the reader to discover the credibility
of revelation by putting to use reason and rationale. For example, a
verse in the Quran instructs: “We have sent down the Quran in Arabic,
so that you may understand [by applying reason].” (
another verse a Prophet urges his people to reflect and determine the
integrity of his claim to prophethood: ‘If God had so wished, I would not
have recited it to you, nor would He have brought it to your knowledge.
Indeed, I have spent a whole lifetime among you before it came to me.
How can you not use your reason?’ (
What were the reasons behind people separating reason from
revelation?
In this matter, deviation happened when some people came to believe
in an extreme version of reason, that is, they began to regard reason as a
means of acquiring knowledge. Certain religious groups reacted to this
conception of reason and began to consider reason-based discussions
as inimical to religion. Due to this mindset, they wrongly started claiming
that the spheres of reason and revelation were separate and that the
domain of revelation begins where reason reaches its limits. The truth
is that there is a difference between utilizing reason to understand
realities and considering reason as the only source of knowledge.
A human being has been given various kinds of capabilities: hands
to hold, legs to walk, eyes to see, ears to hear, and so on. Similarly,
humans have been granted reason so that they may ponder over issues
and comprehend through rational analysis. Along with this, humans
have been given total freedom, which means that they can either make
proper use of their reason or put it to improper use.
The real purpose of reason is for man to collect data or information
and then, through examination and deliberation, arrive at useful
knowledge. However, reason in itself is not an authority, which is why
one can be either right or wrong in taking support of reason in one’s
pursuit of knowledge. Taking reason as the sole source of knowledge is
a fallacy, yet it is a phenomenon observed everywhere, including within
the sphere of religion.
What is the solution to the problems of humankind?
The Islamic solution to the problems of man is the same as that which
has been ordained for the rest of the universe. Like the universe, if
man follows God’s scheme of creation, he can live with the same peace,
coherence and harmony which the cosmos already exhibits. That is
why the Quran points out that the universe is faultless. (
The path of truth is in compliance with God’s scheme of creation, which
is another name for the laws of nature. However, as man is free to act
as he likes, he tends to misuse his freedom. He follows his desires and
forsakes the true path. The result is corruption and disorder in the
human world. The solution is for us to discover the Creator and His
creation plan and to play our role accordingly.
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan (1925-2021) was an Islamic scholar, spiritual guide, and an Ambassador of Peace. He authored over 200 books and recorded thousands of lectures giving the rational interpretation of Islamic concepts, prophetic wisdom, and the spiritual meaning of the Quran in the contemporary style. His English translation, The Quran, is widely appreciated as simple, clear and in contemporary style. He founded Centre for Peace and Spirituality (CPS) International in 2001 to re-engineer minds towards God-oriented living and present Islam as it is, based on the principles of peace, spirituality, and co-existence. Maulana breathed his last on 21 April, 2021 in New Delhi, India. His legacy is being carried forward through the CPS International Network.
What God most earnestly desires from human beings is worship. The Quran says: “I have not created jinn and mankind except to worship Me.” ( 51:56 )
