Islam

Some Audio Talks on different aspect of Islam...

Sheikh Dr. Muhammad Malkawi's Tafseer sessions and other talks are now available. Some of Brother Muhammad Hannini's talks are now also available. They are available from:http://www.esnips.com/web/oneummahaudio

To download the files you need to Login to esnips.
Labels: Multimedia

Belief

Belief in a Creator must be Rational

The greatest question humanity faces is as follows: “is there a God?”

While the choice of this to be the greatest question for humanity may appear odd the truth can be ascertained simply. We have all had come to our own personal conclusions on the matter in some way. By definition even atheists have, otherwise they would not have come to any conclusion. Some of us grapple with it constantly. Others will only consider it again if close to death, serious injury, dealing with bereavement or languishing in jail. However, no one has completely avoided the question and our individual responses have undoubtedly and significantly shaped us. This is because all other questions are potentially affected by the answer and a particular direction in life is fixed once a decision is made.

On every major issue today there is dispute between the secular and the religious. Consider how your own answer to the greatest question affects your view on topics ranging from abortion to euthanasia to homosexuality to the death penalty to legalising drugs and prostitution to blasphemy laws stifling free speech to public breastfeeding to animal rights to foreign policy etc.

Other, similar questions such as “are we created?” or even “why are we here?” could have been chosen but the point is the same. The answer to this question is critical because one’s choice clearly manifests itself in everyday life and our answers to this one query undoubtedly affect how we live. In any case, the fault line between the secular and the religious has become abundantly clear and may even be widening in an increasingly polarised world.

A fresh approach

The aim of this chapter is not to preach but to mark out how best to look at the question of belief (or disbelief) in a Creator. Like the other chapters ahead the line of reasoning is that difficult questions must be tackled with a fresh and sincere approach. If we remain bitterly entrenched within our respective viewpoints we can only arrive back at an intellectual dead-end.

Furthermore there must be agreement that one can only impartially assess other approaches to life by first removing all previous convictions. Judging a point of view of reality (and not the reality itself) through another point of view is unreasonable and can only lead to a distorted outlook. Take for example the tendency for secular audiences to examine Islam (a view) through the lens of ‘modernity’ (another view). Any look at Islam from a secular point of view reduces it to a personal affair, an individual moral code and a set of ethics with little to say about life’s affairs. To do so is to fail to appreciate that Islam has its own worldview, ideology and complete way of life distinct from any other including the Enlightenment model of the Philosophes like Voltaire and Diderot or the Communism of Marx and Lenin.

It is only by returning to a discussion on the reality at hand that productive debate can flourish. It could be nothing except beneficial to examine key topics free from the influence of preconceived notions. Only then could we arrive at a view. Whilst we aim to address contemporary issues such as politics and equality vis-à-vis Islam it should be clear that prejudging the debate is of little help to anyone.

It is not only a view such as Islam that suffers when viewed through a secular prism. The subject of ‘belief’ does too. When western liberals discuss ‘belief’ they betray a practised ease in portraying it in stark contrast to reason. The secular assumption is that belief in a Higher Being cannot be based on reason and is, to a greater or lesser degree, based upon emotion, hence the words ‘rational belief’ appear contradictory. Of course liberals have often had just cause to do so with many notable examples throughout history. St. Thomas Aquinas argued belief in the Trinity must be based on faith alone and Danish religious philosopher, Soren Aabye Kierkegaard felt it was inappropriate to base belief in a Creator on reason, even emphasising the necessity of irrational leaps of faith.

However not all believers in a Creator do so on the basis of pure emotion. How could they? It goes without saying that absolutely nothing can be proved, confirmed or established through emotion. Could emotion prove what DNA is made of? Could emotion confirm the Congo lies south of the equator? Or could emotion conceivably establish that the political instability in the Balkans during the 1990’s was exacerbated by American determination to reduce Russia’s influence in the region, increase Europe’s dependency upon her and confer new legitimacy to NATO when it appeared increasingly redundant after the Cold War? We can agree, in fact we must surely agree, that the answer is no but that only discounts ‘belief’ based on pure emotion which was an unfounded assumption to begin with. It certainly does not eliminate ‘belief’ itself as an option especially if we can verify that ‘belief’ in a single Almighty Creator can be based on reason and ration.

Ironically, secular liberals are often quite patronising to believers, even if believers themselves, but there’s little that can be done about it if ‘belief’ is permanently tainted with the brush of emotion, leaps of faith or even imitation. It becomes easy to dismiss the idea of believing in a Creator. The point to note is that the vacuum left by this manoeuvre (implying ‘belief’ is always emotional) allows secular liberals to promote their own framework to tackle the greatest question i.e. the scientific method.

Science against certainty?

The scientific method was a result of the Enlightenment that began in Europe in the late 17th Century. It is important to note the ultimate aim of the Enlightenment was freedom, in particular the liberation of people from the influence of religion. It was widely known that the Church had hindered progress in all fields of life socially, economically and scientifically via the intolerance to inquiry it had imposed upon the continent. The intellectual elite of Europe saw this as backward superstition, obsolete tradition and narrow-minded bigotry and hoped their own project would smash the domination of the Church and lead to ‘modernity’. The European scientists and philosophers felt reason was the most central human faculty so they argued to be allowed to exercise it by questioning everything through scientific endeavour. They sought to challenge ideas that were held in a dogmatic manner i.e. where questioning was not allowed. This led them to clash directly with Church leaders and the political establishment who both maintained that some things were totally certain, sacred and should not be questioned.

On the surface, the determination to question to arrive at conclusions and also to use reason instead of emotion cannot be faulted. However the ‘modernist’ trend went further. Anything that claimed to be certain (i.e. claimed to be Divine) had to be confronted and opposed via reason, questioning and scientific enquiry. The commitment to use reason in all cases was hostile to any idea on life that did not originate from the human mind. This included religious guidance. Enlightenment philosophers refused to give anything an amnesty from debate and called for people to be brave enough to do without ‘belief’. Immanuel Kant eloquently summed up the Enlightenment mission as the:

“…emergence of man from his self-imposed infancy. Infancy is the inability to use one’s reason without the guidance of another. It is self-imposed, when it depends on a deficiency, not of reason but of the resolve and courage to use it without external guidance. Thus the watchword of the enlightenment is Sapere aude! Have the courage to use’s own reason! ”.

(Kant, ‘Religion Within the Bounds of Reason Only’ quoted in Honderich, 1995, p236)

Sapere aude means ‘dare to know’ but Enlightenment philosophers felt being certain was never a possibility. They equated certainty with dogma and felt compelled to fight it. After they won their intellectual clash in Europe they set about introducing secularism at a state level. Secularism is not the absolute denial of religion. It is generally not that antagonistic to religion as long as religious guidance is prevented from taking part in decisions and denied a role in public life. When this step was taken, the secular liberal democratic nation-state, a new model for organising society, was born.

17th Century empiricists such as Locke, as well as his 18th Century successors Berkeley and Hume, felt knowledge was not innate but was instead based on the senses alone. The 19th Century positivist movement of Comte developed from these ideas and felt thought would evolve from religious thinking (the lowest, most immature level) up to the highest ‘positive’ level (science). Once it had evolved it would be used in every issue. Science was seen as the height of knowledge since it never left itself open to dogma. Science challenged everything and never lapsed into certainty and absolute truths. We also find logical positivism and analytic philosophy lead by the Vienna Circle and Wittgenstein of the 20th Century. British philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell summed up the position when he wrote:

“To teach how to live without certainty and yet without being paralysed by hesitation is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can do for those who study it”

(Russell. B. ‘A History of Western Philosophy’)

From this brief timeline we witness the development of an agenda deep within the modernist project that has filtered through somewhat to today’s scientific and philosophical establishments; there is a hatred for absolute certainty.

It is correct to dismiss unquestioning dogma since it is irrational, unstable and no different to emotional faith. Questioning is clearly imperative if one is to answer the greatest question satisfactorily but the secular fear of certainty does not seem particularly rational either. Scientific thought therefore does not prize certainty but instead asks an unending, ever-increasing set of questions.

The scientific model

If one were to ask exactly how to apply scientific thought the answer should soon be familiar, as we were all taught the scientific model at school. Although the terminology differs at times the stages are roughly the same across the globe. They begin with a hypothesis followed by the design for an experiment. The next three steps of testing, observation and ongoing recording are repeated as often as necessary. Finally a conclusion is reached and an evaluation of the experiment conducted. The scientific model is widely held to be capable of assessing any issue.

Three aspects of the model stand out.

The first aspect is that subjectivity cannot be completely eliminated e.g. linguists argue that the words with which we set out a scientific project reveal inevitable preconceptions.

The second aspect is that any results are speculative. The probability of error is an accepted constant in the scientific model so other conditions exist to minimise these facts. They include ensuring a fair test, ensuring the sample population is representative and also considering a control sample.

Thirdly is the requirement for identifying a variable so it can be isolated from other variables, subjected to new conditions and observed.

From this we can see a variable must be identified, isolated, manipulated and observed for the scientific model to apply. Let’s examine these four steps in turn:

a)If variables cannot be identified the scientist would have nothing to test.

b)Without a variable isolated from other variables there is no way of knowing what the results of testing are a consequence of. One could be testing multiple variables. The trials would be useless.

c)If a variable can be identified and isolated but not manipulated then no experiment can proceed.

d)If a variable can be identified, isolated and manipulated but no observation is possible then no conclusions can be drawn, nothing can be verified and the true scientist would not waste the time or effort.

So only if a variable can be identified, isolated, manipulated and observed could we then begin the remaining stages of the scientific model i.e. hypothesis, plan, test, subjugate, observe, record, retest and conclude. If no single variable can be identified, isolated, manipulated or observed then it is clear that the scientific model cannot apply.

This leads us to a dilemma. What if we can find instances where the scientific model cannot apply, where no single variable can be identified, isolated, manipulated or observed? This would conclusively disprove that the scientific model is capable of answering every query or even that science is the most evolved form of thinking. This would necessarily lead us to conclude that science is a branch of thinking applicable only in certain instances leaving us to locate another form of thought.

An example would be the following: What leads people in Athens, Greece to live longer on average than those in Mumbai, India? The query is too vague for the scientific model to apply especially if we find that relative life expectancy differs widely based on date of birth, household income and access to basic health care. A more defined query would be: Exactly what leads socially excluded, female teenagers from broken homes in the 10% most deprived wards in Athens, Greece to live longer on average than those in Mumbai, India?

Even though we have delineated the question further a number of variables still remain such as diet, sanitation, disease, relative cost of living and road deaths. We should also consider climate, pollution, state welfare and violent crime. Police brutality, government corruption, unemployment, the expertise of emergency services and literacy should not be ignored. What about the strength of civil society, religious observance, divorce rates, prevalence of drug abuse, quality of food hygiene and level of sex education?

Would it be possible to isolate just a single variable? Would it be possible to subject individuals to new conditions under a controlled environment to ascertain findings? For the scientific model to apply here, only one variable should be tested at a time so it would not be possible to provide a ‘scientific’ response. The only answer possible would be that there are many factors, some of more weight than others but this not a very ‘scientific’ conclusion.

We could also ask, for example, how to construct experiments based on the scientific model to address these statements: i. Sport - Was Mike Tyson a better boxer than Muhammed Ali? ii. Language – Which piece of literary work rates higher: Chaucer’s Wife of Bath, Shakespeare’s Hamlet or Dickens’ Hard Times? iii.Politics – Was Margaret Thatcher a more successful Prime Minister than Tony Blair? iv. Life – Why do we exist? v.History – Was Muslim Spain the most tolerant place on Earth during the 13th Century?

To answer the final query a single variable that leads to tolerance would have to be identified and scientifically defined. We would then need to be capable of subjecting other societies during the period to laboratory conditions in order to isolate the variable leading to tolerance. A criterion for evaluation, comparison and measurement would be required and the experiment would have to conclude objectively. The scientific model is clearly not built for all types of enquiry.

The question is never why… only how

It is also important to note that the scientific model is concerned with questions of how things work rather than why. So science would be interested in answering how the universe began, not why the universe began. How does a scientist begin to answer why the universe began? The questions of how and why are completely different but scientists unable to answer why instead often answer how and expect it to be sufficient.

Science can answer how things rust, not why and how we see the colour orange. Take an example of grass. Why is it green not bright blue or deep red? The scientific answer is that chlorophyll absorbs blue and red light while reflecting green. Of course this is an answer for how but we are expected to accept it as the answer for why as well.

That is not to say the scientific model itself is fatally flawed. It is not. It just has a place and cannot be used to answer every question. The scientific method is fantastic when dealing with technology, which must always be challenged. Imagine no entrepreneur ever sought to build safer motorcars since they were certain they had the safest or if attempts to eradicate all known diseases ended in hopelessness and despair. The scientific model provides us with the framework necessary to deal with these and other inconclusive matters. However it has definite limitations that render it incapable of tackling other questions and, after all, we are examining the model with a view to answering a particular question i.e. why are we here? With this in mind there can be no doubt that the scientific model cannot apply here in a discussion of why we exist (rather than how we exist).

So how best to answer the greatest question?

To this point emotional faith and the scientific model have both been found wanting when answering the greatest question. This is since emotion confirms absolutely nothing and the scientific method does not apply to questions of why things happen, only how and only in instances where the subject matter is tangible, variables can be isolated, manipulated and repeated testing can take place.

If we are to accept the scientific model of the positivists was the highest, most evolved method of thought there is the vexing question of what kind of thought process human beings had to utilise before the Enlightenment. There was certainly no reference to the scientific method in the Dark Ages of Europe. Were human beings primitive ‘thinkers’ before the work of Bacon, Kepler, Descartes, Fermat, Pascal and Newton in the 17th Century? This would mean Copernicus was a primitive thinker despite formulating heliocentric theory in 1541 CE. This would mean Avicenna (Ibn Sina) was a primitive thinker since he died in 1037 CE despite writing Al-Qanun fi-l Tibb (the Canon). What opinion should we have on the thought of Albategnius (Ibn Sinan al-Battani) when his experiments in the late 9th Century led to determination of astronomical coefficients like the precession 54.5” a year and inclination of the ecliptic 23º 35’ with stunning accuracy. He also noticed an increase of 16º 47’ in the longitude of the sun’s apogee since the time of Ptolemy which led to the discovery of the motion of solar episodes. The mathematician Al-Khwarizmi lent his name to the algorithms he developed and founded modern algebra (from his book Kitab al-Jabr wal-Muqabalah). Fibonacci translated his work but he died in 850 CE. Let us go back even further to Euclid, Zeno, Aristotle, Plato and Socrates all active between 400 and 300 BCE and Pythagoras even earlier. Were they all primitive thinkers?

If not, then we are looking for an alternative way to think, one more natural, suited to the nature of humans, one without an irrational fear of certainty, the way humans think regardless of circumstance, time and place. We are searching for the rational method of thinking.

We can examine this method of thinking individually. If one were to ask you how you think about things, what would your answer be?

I answer in the following manner. Look around you. The images of what you see transfer into your head. Reach out and touch an inanimate object such as a wall, a chair, a desk, a PC, a book. Your senses are transferring impressions into you so you can ponder over them.

What stages of the process of thought can we determine from this?

Sensation took place, without which one could not ponder over things. There is also a need for reality as our senses can only be aware of things if they exist in a tangible form. There’s definitely some transfer of the sensed reality, as the sensation must get to your mind so you can ‘think’ about the sensed reality. Lastly there’s a judgement.

However something intrinsic is missing from the steps outlined thus far. This is so as sensation alone is not enough to understand a reality. One could sense a new reality forever and still move no closer to comprehension if one had no information on the issue to explain the reality. Both sensation and some degree of information are necessary.

The following examples should illustrate this. Let us begin within an example of language. If one were to pick up a book in classical (fusHa) Arabic and stare at the letters, word after word, page after page without having some understanding of Arabic (the previous information) it would not matter how much sensation took place. Reading and understanding Arabic would be impossible if one did not have the slightest appreciation of the Arabic language. Sensation alone is not enough.

Let us imagine one who had never left a primitive village and had absolutely no idea of life outside of the rural sphere. What would a complete newcomer to a big city make of simple things like double yellow lines, zebra crossings and post boxes using sensation alone (i.e. without having any previous information on them)? Completely alone on the street at night a set of traffic lights could be sensed but would make no sense. The sensation of the sequence (red man, green man for pedestrians and red, amber, green, amber, red for vehicles) would take place but what next? In order to comprehend them the villager would be forced to look elsewhere for information either by asking others or attempting to collect some information. Observing (sensing) the response of pedestrians and traffic to the lights would provide the information. What happens when the lights go red? Why do some stop and others go? What was the flashing light when a car speeds through a red light? What was that loud, beeping sound from that angry driver?

Once the information was collected the villager could face the reality (lights go green), sense (see the green light), transfer the sensation to the brain, link it to the information already held (green man means walk as the vehicles are not free to go) and would lead to judgement (the villager would cross the road).

What about a grown man who had been kept in a cave from birth, had never even seen daylight and only been subjected to the most rudimentary ideas and information on life. He would surely struggle in the cockpit of a Boeing 747 or operating the safety controls of a nuclear power plant as without previous information no thought could take place.

The necessity of previous information for thought

What is missing from all the examples above is the previous information that explains the reality. Linking this previous information to the sensation is what leads to thinking. Sensation alone is not enough. This is also solves the problematic question of what the mind is. The mind is the previous information. From this we can now place the five stages of the method of thinking in correct order.

1.Reality

2.Sensation of the reality

3.Transference of the sensed reality to the brain

4.Linking the sensation with the previous information, which is the mind. The linking is the actual process of thinking leading to thought 5. Judgement upon the reality

This is the process we all use to think about things. We would not utilise emotion or the scientific model to read a magazine, visit the WC or work out if the car was out of petrol. We would use the five-stage process outlined above and it is necessary to use this rational method to answer the greatest question.

The rational method is the basis of all thinking, even science. No experiment could be constructed without previous information (e.g. how to read and write). In fact the rational method can be found directly in many of the social sciences such as sociology and psychology. Science is incapable of testing human behaviour, as it requires tangible matter to experiment on. Social scientists either resort to prescribing Prozac for depression or follow a model of observation. Psychologists and sociologists make multiple observations of subjects over set periods without attempting to scientifically subject them to new conditions. An example of how to do so would be to take the human being out of the natural environment into a controlled environment (which incidentally is not natural for humans) and attempt to isolate what makes the human behave in certain ways. Periodic observation leading to a conclusion, without manipulation, is a part of the rational method not the scientific. Specific elements of the social sciences are also not scientific. Psychoanalysis (studying dreams etc.) fails as a science as its answers can never be verified and depend upon repeated observation without manipulation i.e. it is part of the rational method.

The rational method is clearly the natural thinking process at the base of other forms of thought (scientific, logical, philosophical, legislative etc.). It is the only method of thought that leads to certain knowledge, definite answers and truth. Use the five-stage rational method to answer basic question such as if you exist (“cogito ergo sum”/“I think therefore I am”), if you have hair, if you have ever drunk water, if you can fly etc. The answers are certain if the sensation and linking to previous information is done correctly so now all that is left is to utilise it to find the answer to the greatest question.

It would, of course, be inappropriate to come this far in the discourse and only apply thought in a lazy, irresponsible and shallow manner. Rational thinking requires us to sense precisely, ponder over the information deeply and link this to the information we already hold in a profound and enlightened way.

When we examine everything within the range of our sensations we come to the following two conclusions:

1.We cannot sense (see, touch, hear, smell or taste) a Creator

2.Everything we can sense is dependent on something else and has a limit of some kind that it cannot surpass

We must be clear on the first point. We cannot sense a Creator. Some would have us believe in aliens or in ‘mother nature’ but this cannot be accepted as we have already denied emotion and blind imitation a role in this endeavour. Others would have us end the discussion here since no Creator can be sensed. Such people cite the phrase ‘seeing is believing’. The predicament with this is that this implies the opposite (i.e. ‘not seeing equals nothing to believe in’). This is blank, vacuous and weak.

Sensing a Creator is not a prerequisite to prove a Creator exists and never has been. We see many things in our daily lives without knowing who exactly is responsible but the result leads us to believe something definitely was responsible e.g. a sculpture requires a sculptor etc. The material cause of the sculpture would be clay but the efficient cause of the artwork would be the sculptor.

The proof of a Creator is in whether we can find evidence of creation.

This can only be proved or disproved by applying rational thought. So far the first conclusion (cannot sense a Creator) is of little help. So any answer will have to come from the second conclusion, which is the deep enlightened view on all we sense i.e. everything is limited and dependent.

Is everything we can sense limited?

We should examine the statement and particularly what a limit means in this context. Here’s a passable working definition:

Whatever is limited has a dependency somewhere or how. It is limited if it depends on something else. This can be in many ways. Does it depend on a space to exist within? Something is limited if it is contingent and requires something peripheral to it in order to bring it into existence i.e. a cause. It cannot sustain itself forever and deteriorates accordingly. We can find or deduce either a beginning or end point or both. The space it occupies can be measured and its attributes quantified. It has boundaries it cannot exceed and obstacles it cannot overcome. It is conditional; unable to prevent itself from being affected and swayed by external factors. It can be contained and is subject to constraints and thresholds. It is limited since its constituent parts are limited as they can be measured. Also it can produce or reproduce but cannot create something else out of nothing. It can be increased and/or reduced. In short it is finite since its restrictions are inherent and unavoidable. Such a thing can be marked out as limited and dependent i.e. created.

So is everything we can sense limited and dependent? Let us examine a few options. atoms require a space to exist within. Human beings are limited as we cannot fly, see into the future or escape death. Space, and the entire universe, consists of limited things such as atoms planets, stars and comets which themselves are measurable and we know the sum of limited things must be limited.

To ask if cold is limited is to ask an incoherent question. Cold cannot be measured as it is not a thing, it is the absence of a thing i.e. heat. Heat can be measured (the SI measurement is in joules), can be increased and, like all other forms of energy, requires a cause to initiate it. When we want to feel warmer we switch on radiators or light campfires. Heat results from something and is therefore limited.

Light and sound are waves. Sound is a mechanical wave. A mechanical wave can be described as a disturbance that travels through a medium, transporting energy from one location to another location. A light wave can travel through a vacuum since it does not require a medium. Both are characterised by definable properties. Light waves have intensity (brightness), polarisation (angle or vector) and frequency (colour) so the colour red is the reflection of light at a specific wavelength.

Sound waves are characterised by velocity, frequency, its wavelength and its amplitude so the intensity of sound is measured in decibels.

Both the speed of light and sound are measurable. Furthermore light is definitely limited otherwise it would always be daylight or to put it another way it would never be dark. By the same token if there is ever silence then sound must also be limited.

Can we think of infinite length? Length is measurement of something and is not a thing itself. The same can be said of numbers, which are simply a chronological form of measurement of other things. The question should not be if numbers reach infinity but if the items represented by numbers can reach infinity. We cannot guess out of our own desire for it to be true (that would be irrational, emotional belief) and we have no such previous information. Also numbers themselves cannot be without limit since every number is finite, as is the following number. Since whenever we proceed upwards we proceed towards another finite number we can never exceed the barrier of infinity.

Are ideas such as love limited? This can be answered by reference to the working definition of a limit. Is the idea of love able to exist independently of anything else or is it contingent and dependent on something else to initiate it? Ideas are inherently conditional on a mind to think of them. Ideas have no independent existence external to a mind so they are limited. Therefore love, like all other ideas, is limited. Of course if someone was willing to attempt to prove that an idea, like love, had an independent existence they are most welcome to try but both the rational and scientific methods require a reality to examine and ideas are clearly not tangible.

We can conclude that everything we can all sense is limited to some degree. One may wonder why this conclusion is important but it matters as it narrows down the options available in our search for a conclusive answer to the greatest question.

Do limited things equal a Creator?

Now we accept that all things we can sense are limited and have the rational framework of thinking in place there can now only be four possible answers to the greatest question:

1.The universe has existed for an infinite length of time so no creation ever took place regardless of the existence of limited things (No Creator)

2. Limited things bought other limited things into existence (No Creator)

3.Limited things all depend upon each other in an unlimited cyclical chain of mutual dependencies (No Creator)

4.Limited things were bought into existence by an unlimited cause (Creator)

We can be sure there are no other possible answers and that these four choices are all mutually exclusive i.e. that none of these options can be true at the same time as another. Therefore, let us examine these alternatives in turn beginning with the possibility that the universe has existed for an infinite length of time.

The idea of infinity has always been problematic since there is a distinction between a possible infinite and actual infinite. A figure can increase towards infinity but will never get there (since numbers are limited). We can therefore say this process is indefinite rather than infinite. Students of calculus will recognise this for the example of the function f(x) = 1/x. If one increases x indefinitely, one increases it without limit, and as x becomes very large, the function f(x) becomes very small. The graph of the function (a hyperbola) provides a straight line that is tangential to the curve at infinity, nevertheless, this will never be actualised; it will never be the case. A line on a graph that tends towards infinity will edge closer to the axis (towards a possible infinite) but will never get to the axis let alone cross it (actual infinite). Even Aristotle argued against an actual infinite; a fact which the Arab philosopher Al-Kindi famously used against him in his refutation.

Georg Cantor, perhaps the greatest mathematician of the 19th Century, initiated the mathematics of the infinite (along with Weierstrass and Dedekind) known as transfinite arithmetic. Though the discipline aims to deal with the paradoxes of infinity ‘it offends common sense at every point’ (Monk, 1997). Even if we acknowledge that real numbers are greater than natural numbers (because natural numbers are a sub-set of the reals) and that there is no such thing as the next point in a continuous series of points can there really be ‘higher infinities’?

While Cantor argued for higher infinity he denied actual infinity and his work on set theory is fundamentally problematic for supporters of actual infinity. Set theory can be understood utilising the examples of axes. All things that can be used to attack others can be placed in a collection or set called ‘weapons’. The set called ‘weapons’ has subsets such as swords, guns and axes.

To a set theorist the sentence ‘all axes are weapons’ is really saying ‘the set of axes is a subset of weapons’. In other words ‘every member of the first set (axes) is a member of the second (weapons)’. A dilemma arises when we discover that Cantor proved that for any set, another set with more members (the original set’s power set – consisting of all its subsets) is constructible. If a set has n members then there will be at least 2n subsets of it and 2n is always greater than.

This leads us to the Cantor Paradox that states that a set of all sets cannot exist since each attempt at a total set would immediately produce a larger one. Thus there is no greatest set (cf. Zuckerman, 1974) and no infinity.

Even David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of the 20th Century, has similarly argued against actual infinity:

“…the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea”.

(Hilbert, 1964, p139)

However despite these concerns let us examine the claim in the best traditions of debate and discourse. If the universe has always existed then the claim is that there has been an unlimited, infinite length of time before now; this known as regressus ad infinitum or infinite regression, which means continual subtraction by one. It is helpful in this instance to think of time as a chain of events. Things happen in sequential order, one moment after another so an infinite length of time can be equated with an endless chain of events. The claim that the universe has always existed is a claim that the universe has always existed up this moment. This means an eternity has passed up to this moment. This means we are currently at the end of an endless chain of events. This is impossible.

If an endless chain of events had to occur before this point we would never exist since an endless chain could never finish. I would not be writing these words and you would not be reading them now. This is so because the event in the unlimited chain of events immediately preceding our current actions (indeed our very existence) would depend upon the one before it and the one before it but this chain would never get to this moment as it is eternal and endless.

Since we do exist, I am writing this chapter and you are reading this chapter the contradiction of the claim of infinite regression should now be apparent.

This can be thought of like reserving a book from the university library that is in heavy demand (for the sake of argument let us agree this is the only copy available). If there were four people in the queue before you for the book then you would have to wait for the four to finish before using it for your assignment. Similarly if there were four thousand people in the queue before you for the book then you would have to wait for the four thousand to finish before using it. If an unlimited, infinite (i.e. endless) number of reservations stood between you and the book you would never receive it as an endless number sequence would never end.

The same example is often illustrated by reference to a sniper requiring an instruction from his superior in his chain of command to open fire. Of course his superior has to wait till his own superior directs him and so on up the chain. If the chain of command were only ten minutes long the sniper would have to wait ten minutes for the command to fire. If it were one hundred years long the sniper would take one hundred years for the command to fire. If the chain were unlimited, it would be infinite, endless and the sniper would never receive the order to fire. It is not possible for an event to exist at the end of an endless chain of event thus we cannot exist at the end of infinity. The universe has not always existed.

Many thinkers and philosophers from John Philoponus to Al-Ash‘ari to Al-Ghazali to Kant proposed similar arguments. Aquinas partially assimilated the work of Averroes (Ibn Rushd) - who believed in the eternity of the universe - to offer his own variant refutation known as the ‘traversal of the infinite’. Unlimited time before now means an infinite series of events has been completed. This means an endless journey across infinity has ended (infinity has been travelled across/traversed). Traversal requires both a beginning and end like any other journey but any start point we can think of for our journey is only a finite amount of time ago. Thus infinity cannot have been traversed since that is the whole point of infinity. It therefore cannot be true that the universe has always existed.

We must also be aware that saying the universe has always existed leaves one open to contradiction. If one said it then repeated a year later this implies infinity has just increased by a year. This contradicts the work of Ibn Hazm on the temporality of the universe when he stated that infinity cannot increase (reductio ad absurdum, third proof). This would mean the time elapsed from the beginning of time to the Norman Conquest of 1066 is also the same as the time elapsed from the beginning of time to the Fall of Saigon (Vietnam War) in 1975 and so on until today.

Others have questioned whether we could exist within an infinite chain of events, which is tantamount to proposing there is an infinite sum of finite events. Let us suppose we are exactly half way within the infinite chain of events. Infinity would have then been halved. If we were to picture the same with matchsticks then we select the median matchstick (the one exactly in the middle) of an infinite number of matchsticks. The infinite number of matchsticks is halved. Both halves add up to infinity but are infinite themselves. In fact any fraction of the infinite sum of matchsticks would equal infinity. This then produces apparent contradictions that the part is equal to the whole and that there could loads of infinities.

Now let us remove three matchsticks from the infinite sum. We have established that any fraction of the infinite sum is equal to infinity but we can be sure that three matchsticks do not add up to infinity. Thus something cannot be infinite and finite at the same time, because of this and many other contradictions it is absolutely clear that the sum of finite events must be finite. We can thus conclude that we could not exist within an infinite chain of events.

Also after removing three matchsticks would both halves still add up to infinity or have we actually reduced the number of matchsticks? If one were to argue that removing three matchsticks would not reduce the amount from infinity then this is tantamount to arguing we have an infinite number of matchsticks no matter how many are removed. Now let us propose that we remove all the matchsticks. Do we still have an infinite number or just no matchsticks? Remember infinity cannot be reduced. We must point out here that whether we remove three or all we are still reducing the amount of matchsticks and this contradicts infinity since infinity cannot be reduced.

The second answer i.e. that limited things bought other limited things into existence if true would mean there was no need for a Creator but it contradicts reality. Could a limited thing bring itself into existence without need of something else? Could it survive and subsist without dependency on other things? Could a limited thing have always existed? Could a limited thing bring other things into existence from nothing?

These notions flatly contradict the previous information we possess on limited, dependent things. The previous information we have is that limited things do not and cannot bring themselves other things into existence and that there is always some dependency. This is part of the definition of a limited thing.

Arguing that the original limited object could have always existed (without a cause) means it is not limited, rather it is unlimited. This is the same as the first assertion that there was no start point and the universe has always existed. In effect it is another claim for an unlimited chain of events before this point and we have already refuted this.

The third answer was that all limited things depend upon each other in an unlimited cyclical chain of mutual dependencies. The proposal is that all limited things manage their dependencies in a flawless system whereby each limited thing supports another in some intricate web. Therefore the claim is there is no need for a Creator, as this web would mean no requirement for a beginning or a cause. While is suggests that all limited things would continue to exist forever due to the support each limited thing receives from others this clearly is not the case as things die out, fade and deteriorate constantly. Instead it is often illustrated with other examples such as when humans are buried where they become fertiliser for the trees and plants so they can themselves eat the plants before being buried. The most famous example is the water cycle where for water to exist it depends upon rain and for rain to exist it depends upon clouds and clouds depend upon evaporation of water.

The flaw here is that nothing in the cycle can exist until something initiates the cycle. We know A depends upon B and B depends upon A, this is a form of mutual dependence. So for A to exist B needs to exist but B doesn’t exist until A exists, therefore nothing would exist. This simple demonstration proves that things cannot depend upon other things in the form of a cycle i.e. mutual dependence without something external first initiating the cycle.

If it is agreed that these three options have been rebutted then we arrive at the fourth and final option, which was that limited things were bought into existence by an unlimited first cause (Creator). This cause has to be eternal, without bounds otherwise it would be limited and dependent. The Creator is something unlimited and independent that every other thing ultimately depends upon. For this independent force to exist then it must be other than limited, i.e. other than quantifiable and definable. Therefore this independent thing must be unlimited. This necessitates that this unlimited, independent force chose to create and was not forced to create. Choice signifies will and intelligence. As a result we come to the rational conclusion that a limitless, infinite, intelligent force created the universe.

This is the proof that there is a Creator.

This unlimited cause (Creator) can only be one. If there are two or more then none of these causes can be unlimited. If the causes can each be separated, isolated and counted then they cannot be unlimited. The cause can only be unlimited if it is one, alone without partner, all-powerful, without beginning or end.

We can conclude this section by adding that the greatest question can be answered conclusively without resorting to emotion or by stretching the scientific model into realms it cannot deal with. Belief does not have to be emotional. In fact if it is built on rational thought, then is inherently built upon the greatest faculty of humanity, the mind.

Why can we not sense the Creator?

From the rational method we know we can only think about reality. Our senses can only pick up on reality so the question is whether the Creator is a reality within the reach of our senses? This can be understood in another way. Can a limited being ever conceive of the unlimited?

It could not be possible to sense something unlimited. No one would rationally argue the five senses of human beings could pick up anything beyond the universe. To perceive or sense the Creator would to contend that the Creator is within the bounds of the known universe. By definition whatever is unlimited cannot be contained by anything even the universe (otherwise we would have found a limit). The unlimited has no boundaries, constraints or restrictions.

Now we have established that we have a Creator it may feel natural that we should pause, if even for a second, to ponder over the enormity of the conclusion.

We are created. Creation is proof of a Creator. There is a Creator.

However we cannot rest now. The question of a Creator is the greatest because it affects the direction of our lives. So the next stage of the discussion is critical. We cannot pretend to have any conception of what is beyond our senses. That would contradict the rational method. We need to be informed by the unlimited Creator. It is completely irrational to think otherwise but since we cannot sense the Creator we have to now decide on the next step. One option is to guess blindly, using one’s own limited mind to decide right and wrong, on why we were created, if there is a purpose, what we should expect in terms of accountability, punishment and reward etc. This step cannot be discouraged enough. One would not hear a knock at the door and just ‘guess’ it was a visit from the local dentist to pull out one’s front teeth. One would not buy a can of cola and just ‘guess’ the can was full of nerve gas. So why guess when it comes to the answer to the greatest question? Human beings are rational, using thought to elevate the social condition. We have already refuted emotion, blind imitation and leaps of faith and instead emphasised using reason and ration. It is still necessary to hold to this principle. The only reality we have is that a Creator exists.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and Hindu Scriptures

Muhammad (pbuh) prophesised in Bhavishya Purana

According to Bhavishya Purana in the Prati Sarag Parv III Khand 3 Adhay 3 Shloka 5 to 8.

"A malecha (belonging to a foreign country and speaking a foreign language) spiritual teacher will appear with his companions. His name will be Mohammad. Raja (Bhoj) after giving this Maha Dev Arab (of angelic disposition) a bath in the Panchgavya and the Ganga water (i.e. purifying him of all sins) offered him the present of his sincere devotion and showing him all reverence said, "I make obeisance to thee. O ye! The pride of mankind, the dweller in Arabia, Ye have collected a great force to kill the Devil and you yourself have been protected from the malecha opponents."

The Prophecy clearly states:

The name of the Prophet as Mohammad.

He will belong to Arabia. The Sanskrit word Marusthal means a sandy track of land or a desert.

Special mention is made of the companions of the Prophet, i.e. the Sahabas. No other Prophet had as many companions as Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

He is referred as the pride of mankind (Parbatis nath). The Glorious Qur’an reconfirms this

"And thou (standest) on an exalted standard of character"

[Al-Qur'an 68:4]

"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah, a beautiful pattern (of conduct)".

[Al-Qur'an 33:21]

He will kill the devil, i.e. abolish idol worship and all sorts of vices.

The Prophet will be given protection against his enemy.

Some people may argue that ‘Raja’ Bhoj mentioned in the prophecy lived in the 11th century C.E. 500 years after the advent of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and was the descendant in the 10th generation of Raja Shalivahan. These people fail to realise that there was not only one Raja of the name Bhoj. The Egyptian Monarchs were called as Pharaoh and the Roman Kings were known as Caesar, similarly the Indian Rajas were given the title of Bhoj. There were several Raja Bhoj who came before the one in 11th Century C.E

The Prophet did not physically take a bath in the Panchgavya and the water of Ganges. Since the water of Ganges is considered holy, taking bath in the Ganges is an idiom, which means washing away sins or immunity from all sorts of sins. Here the prophecy implies that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was sinless, i.e. Maasoom.

According to Bhavishya Purana in the Pratisarag Parv III Khand 3 Adhay 3 Shloka 10 to 27 Maharishi Vyas has prophesised:

"The Malecha have spoiled the well-known land of the Arabs. Arya Dharma is not to be found in the country. Before also there appeared a misguided fiend whom I had killed; he has now again appeared being sent by a powerful enemy. To show these enemies the right path and to give them guidance, the well-known Muhammad (pbuh), is busy in bringing the Pishachas to the right path. O Raja, You need not go to the land of the foolish Pishachas, you will be purified through my kindness even where you are. At night, he of the angelic disposition, the shrewd man, in the guise of Pishacha said to Raja Bhoj, "O Raja! Your Arya Dharma has been made to prevail over all religions, but according to the commandments of Ishwar Parmatma, I shall enforce the strong creed of the meat eaters. My followers will be men circumcised, without a tail (on his head), keeping beard, creating a revolution announcing the Aadhaan (the Muslim call for prayer) and will be eating all lawful things. He will eat all sorts of animals except swine. They will not seek purification from the holy shrubs, but will be purified through warfare. On account of their fighting the irreligious nations, they will be known as Musalmaans. I shall be the originator of this religion of the meat-eating nations."

The Prophecy states that:

The evil doers have corrupted the Arab land.

Arya Dharma is not found in that land.

The Indian Raja need not go the Arab land since his purification will take place in India after the musalmaan will arrive in India.

The coming Prophet will attest the truth of the Aryan faith, i.e. Monotheism and will reform the misguided people.

The Prophet’s followers will be circumcised. They will be without a tail on the head and bear a beard and will create a great revolution.

They will announce the Aadhaan, i.e. ‘the Muslim call for prayer’.

He will only eat lawful things and animals but will not eat pork. The Qur’an confirms this in no less than 4 different places:

In Surah Al-Baqarah chapter 2 verse 173

In Surah Al-Maidah chapter 5 verse 3

In Surah Al-Anam chapter 6 verse 145

In Surah Al-Nahl chapter 16 verse 115

"Forbidden to you for food are dead meat, blood, flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah".

They will not purify with grass like the Hindus but by means of sword they will fight their irreligious people.
They will be called musalmaan.
They will be a meat-eating nation.

The eating of herbivorous animals is confirmed by the Qur’an in Surah Maidah, chapter 5 verse 1 and in Surah Muminun chapter 23 verse 21

According to Bhavishya Purana, Parv - III Khand 1 Adhay 3 Shloka 21-23:

"Corruption and persecution are found in seven sacred cities of Kashi, etc. India is inhabited by Rakshas, Shabor, Bhil and other foolish people. In the land of Malechhas, the followers of the Malechha dharma (Islam) are wise and brave people. All good qualities are found in Musalmaans and all sorts of vices have accumulated in the land of the Aryas. Islam will rule in India and its islands. Having known these facts, O Muni, glorify the name of thy lord".

The Qur’an confirms this in Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 33 and in Surah Al Saff chapter 61 verse 9:

"It is He who hath sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it)".

A similar message is given in Surah Fatah chapter 48 verses 28 ending with, "and enough is Allah as a witness".

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) Prophesised in Atharvaveda

In the 20th book of Atharvaveda Hymn 127 Some Suktas (chapters) are known as Kuntap Sukta. Kuntap means the consumer of misery and troubles. Thus meaning the message of peace and safety and if translated in Arabic means Islam.

Kuntap also means hidden glands in the abdomen. These mantras are called so probably because their true meaning was hidden and was to be revealed in future. Its hidden meaning is also connected with the navel or the middle point of this earth. Makkah is called the Ummul Qur’a the mother of the towns or the naval of the earth. In many revealed books it was the first house of Divine worship where God Almighty gave spiritual nourishment to the world. The Qur’an says in Surah Ali-Imran chapter 3, verse 96:

"The first house (of worship) appointed for men was that at Bakkah (Makkah) full of blessings and of guidance and for all kinds of beings". Thus Kuntap stands for Makkah or Bakkah.

Several people have translated these Kuntap Suktas like M. Bloomfield, Prof. Ralph Griffith, Pandit Rajaram, Pandit Khem Karan, etc.

The main points mentioned in the Kuntap Suktas i.e. in Atharvaveda book 20 Hymn 127 verses 1-13 are:

Mantra 1 He is Narashansah or the praised one (Muhammad). He is Kaurama: the prince of peace or the emigrant, who is safe, even amongst a host of 60,090 enemies.
Mantra 2 He is a camel-riding Rishi, whose chariot touches the heaven.
Mantra 3 He is Mamah Rishi who is given a hundred gold coins, ten chaplets (necklaces), three hundred good steeds and ten thousand cows.
Mantra 4 Vachyesv rebh. ‘Oh! ye who glorifies’.

The Sanskrit word Narashansah means ‘the praised one’, which is the literal translation of the Arabic word Muhammad (pbuh).

The Sanskrit word Kaurama means ‘one who spreads and promotes peace’. The holy Prophet was the ‘Prince of Peace’ and he preached equality of human kind and universal brotherhood. Kaurama also means an emigrant. The Prophet migrated from Makkah to Madinah and was thus also an Emigrant.

He will be protected from 60,090 enemies, which was the population of Makkah. The Prophet would ride a camel. This clearly indicates that it cannot be an Indian Rishi, since it is forbidden for a Brahman to ride a camel according to the Sacred Books of the East, volume 25, Laws of Manu pg. 472. According to Manu Smirti chapter 11 verse 202, "A Brahman is prohibited from riding a camel or an ass and to bathe naked. He should purify himself by suppressing his breath".

This mantra gave the Rishi's name as Mamah. No rishi in India or another Prophet had this name Mamah which is derived from Mah which means to esteem highly, or to revere, to exalt, etc. Some Sanskrit books give the Prophet’s name as ‘Mohammad’, but this word according to Sanskrit grammar can also be used in the bad sense. It is incorrect to apply grammar to an Arabic word. Actually shas the same meaning and somewhat similar pronunciation as the word Muhammad (pbuh).

He is given 100 gold coins, which refers to the believers and the earlier companions of the Prophet during his turbulent Makkan life. Later on due to persecution they migrated from Makkah to Abysinia. Later when Prophet migrated to Madinah all of them joined him in Madinah.

The 10 chaplets or necklaces were the 10 best companions of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) known as Ashra-Mubbashshira (10 bestowed with good news). These were foretold in this world of their salvation in the hereafter i.e. they were given the good news of entering paradise by the Prophet’s own lips and after naming each one he said "in Paradise". They were Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Talha, Zubair, Abdur Rahman Ibn Auf, Saad bin Abi Waqqas, Saad bin Zaid and Abu Ubaidah (May Allah be well-pleased with all of them).

The Sanskrit word Go is derived from Gaw which means ‘to go to war’. A cow is also called Go and is a symbol of war as well as peace. The 10,000 cows refer to the 10,000 companions who accompanied the Prophet (pbuh) when he entered Makkah during Fateh Makkah which was a unique victory in the history of mankind in which there was no blood shed. The 10,000 companions were pious and compassionate like cows and were at the same time strong and fierce and are described in the Holy Quran in Surah Fatah:

"Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other."

[Al-Qur'an 48:29]

This mantra calls the Prophet as Rebh which means one who praises, which when translated into Arabic is Ahmed, which is another name for the Holy Prophet (pbuh).

Battle of the Allies described in the Vedas.

It is mentioned in Atharvaveda Book XX Hymn 21 verse 6, "Lord of the truthful! These liberators drink these feats of bravery and the inspiring songs gladdened thee in the field of battle. When thou renders vanquished without fight the ten thousand opponents of the praying one, the adoring one."

This Prophecy of the Veda describes the well-known battle of Ahzab or the battle of the Allies during the time of Prophet Muhammed. The Prophet was victorious without an actual conflict which is mentioned in the Qur’an in Surah Ahzab:

"When the believers saw the confederate forces they said, "This is what Allah and His Messenger had promised us and Allah and His Messenger told us what was true." And it only added to their faith and their zeal in obedience."

[Al-Qur'an 33:22]

The Sanskrit word karo in the Mantra means the ‘praying one’ which when translated into Arabic means ‘Ahmed’, the second name of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh).

The 10,000 opponents mentioned in the Mantra were the enemies of the Prophet and the Muslims were only 3000 in number.

The last words of the Mantra aprati ni bashayah means the defeat was given to the enemies without an actual fight.

The enemies’ defeat in the conquest of Makkah is mentioned in Atharvaveda book 20 Hymn 21 verse no 9:

"You have O Indra, overthrown 20 kings and 60,099 men with an outstripping Chariot wheel who came to fight the praised one or far famed (Muhammad) orphan."

The population of Makkah at the time of Prophet’s advent was nearly 60,000.

There were several clans in Makkah each having its own chief. Totally there were about 20 chiefs to rule the population of Makkah.

An Abandhu meaning a helpless man who was far-famed and ‘praised one’. Muhammad (pbuh) overcame his enemies with the help of God.

Muhammad (pbuh) prophesised in the Rigveda

A similar prophecy is also found in Rigveda Book I, Hymn 53 verse 9:

The Sanskrit word used is Sushrama, which means praiseworthy or well praised which in Arabic

means Muhammad (pbuh).

Muhummad (pbuh) is also prophesised in the Samveda

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is also prophesised in the Samveda Book II Hymn 6 verse 8:

"Ahmed acquired from his Lord the knowledge of eternal law. I received light from him just as from the sun."

The Prophecy confirms:

"The name of the Prophet as Ahmed since Ahmed is an Arabic name. Many translators misunderstood it to be Ahm at hi and translated the mantra as "I alone have acquired the real wisdom of my father".

Prophet was given eternal law, i.e. the Shariah.

The Rishi was enlightened by the Shariah of Prophet Muhammad. The Qur’an says in Surah Saba chapter 34 verse 28

"We have not sent thee but as a universal (Messenger) to men, giving them glad tidings and warning them (against sin), but most men understand not."

[Al-Qur'an 34:28]

Actions in Islam

Actions

Many instances we hear statements such as ''what does Islam say about computers'' or ''where in Islam does it mention the internet,'' all of which are tantamount to mocking the notion that Islam is complete. Such statements are reflective of a confused mentality that fails to distinguish between the actions of human beings, and the objects and tools that may or may not be associated with our actions. Understanding the distinction between actions and objects is needed to eliminate this confusion.

Actions

When we look to the human being, the life of the human being can essentially be said to consist of all the thoughts that he adopts and all the actions he carries out. Therefore, when we say that Islam is a ''complete way of life,'' Islam provides a system of thoughts that answers all of the fundamental questions needed for the human being to proceed through life and provides the human being with a comprehensive outlook. In addition, Islam provides a comprehensive system of life from which emanates solutions to all issues that human beings may face related to the life affairs as well as rules and regulations that address all the actions that the human being carries out. In this regard, the completeness of Islam is realized.

The evidence that establishes that Islam is complete are two. First, Allah (swt) affirms in the Qur'an that Islam is complete in the following ayahs:

''It (the Qur'an) is not a forged statement, but a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation of everything.''

[Yusuf: 111]

''And We have revealed the Book unto you explaining all matters''

[An-Nahl: 89]

Secondly, Allah (swt) states in the Qur'an that He will hold us accountable for everything that we do, meaning that we will be held accountable on the Day of Judgment for every action that we take and every belief that we decide to adopt. Therefore, Allah (swt) must provide an Islamic answer for every action that we take and every belief that we adopt in order for a fair judgment to take place on the Day of Judgment. If Islam is not complete (meaning that there are actions, issues, problems, or beliefs for which Islam did not provide an answer), then this means that Allah (swt) will judge us for things that He did not provide an answer for, which will imply that Allah (swt) is not just. Such a deficiency cannot be attributed to Allah the All-Mighty.

When it comes to our actions and the problems and issues we face as human beings, we must refer exclusively to Islam, feeling content that Islam is complete enough to supply an answer for all of our problems in life and a rule for every action that we do. Thus, every action that we carry out must have an evidence from the Islamic legislative sources.

Two questions may arise. First, one may ask, what about issues and problems in science and technology? Secondly, what about general actions of the human being such as seeing, walking, eating, and talking? To answer the first question, we must realize that Islam is complete inasmuch as it addresses the human being in a comprehensive manner. The subject matter of Islam is the human being and not science and technology. Therefore, Islam will address the thoughts and actions of the human being and provide solutions to the issues that human beings face, regardless of the level of science and technology that exist. By doing so, Islam retains its relevance because, while science and technology always change, the human being does not change. Human beings two thousand years ago possess the same instincts and needs as the human beings today, and this situation will remain unchanged for human beings two thousand years in the future. Regardless of the age, all human beings possessed sexual desire, the need to get married and have families, the need to acquire and own wealth, the need to get educated and participate in politics, and the need to live under justice and security. Similarly, all societies must have an economic system to deal with the distribution of wealth, a judicial system to settle disputes, an educational system to cultivate certain ideas and values, a social system to organize the relations between man and woman, a political system to implement the other systems, and a system for dealing with other societies and nations - regardless of the level of science and technology. And Islam came to deal with the problems and issues that stem from the human being with his instincts and needs, as well as the problems and issues that stem from the complex relationships that exist in any society.

Also, science and technology are universal, meaning that they are not unique to a specific outlook on life. Science is the process of discovering the natural universe that Allah (swt) created, and technology is the process of utilizing science in order to build tools, machines, and objects to fulfill a specific function. The requirements to be a competent scientist will not be decided by the belief system of the individual or what way of life he submits to, but rather his ability to setup and conduct an experiment and to operate whatever instruments are needed to perform the desired measurements. Similarly, competency in engineering or programming necessitates for one to understand the principles of engineering, mathematics, and computers, not for one to be an Atheist, Christian, Muslim, or Capitalist. Therefore, the ever-changing fields of science and technology have no bearing on the applicability or relevance of Islam because the scope of Islam does not include such fields to start with. Allah (swt) gave the human being the full authority to explore the natural universe which He created and to utilize this understanding to build whatever machines, tools, and structures are needed to enhance the quality of life.

As for addressing the second question, Islam did not come to address the natural human actions that Allah (swt) endowed all human beings with. We do not need a permission to look, speak, walk, eat, and drink per se because such actions are part of the makeup of the human being. Thus, the general rule in Islam is that such actions are permitted, with the exception of those specific actions that are mentioned explicitly in the text. Thus, we are allowed to look, but we cannot look at the private parts of someone, unless there is an exception that is mentioned in the text (such as a doctor examining a patient for medical reasons). Also, we are allowed to talk, but we are not permitted to say anything that insults or degrades Islam or any aspect of the Islamic belief, nor are we allowed to verbally abuse other Muslims or our parents. In all of these instances, there is a text that specifically prohibit these actions.

Objects

In contrast to actions, where every action must have an Islamic evidence, the rule for objects is different. For objects and things, the general rule is that all objects and things are permissible, with the exception of those items that are specifically mentioned in the text. Thus, alcohol, pork, and intoxicating drugs are prohibited for consumption because there exists a text that specifically prohibits the consumption of these items.

The evidence that allows objects and things is the ayahs in the Qur'an which state that Allah (swt) has created the universe and everything within it for our disposal. Thus, in the example of foodstuff and drink, we do not require an evidence that permits fish, beef, vegetable, fruits, nuts, water, juice, and every single consumable item. Rather, the evidence that establishes the permissibility of all of these foodstuffs is the general rule derived from the ayahs in which Allah (swt) says that He created everything for our utilization.

With this understanding, the issue of computers, internet, automobiles, fax, and all other objects and things is decisively resolved. By issuing a general rule permitting all objects and exempting only a few items (such as pork for consumption and wearing gold for men), Islam saves us from being needlessly overburdened. The realm of the permissible (mubah) is by far the widest; by comparison, very few objects and items are haram. And as a result, this will shift the focus of our attention upon the ACTIONS that we carry out and not on the OBJECTS, TOOLS, AND ITEMS that we may or may not utilize to carry out our actions and resolve our problems and issues. In this context, one will notice that, because Islam was sent to address the human being, the focus of the Islamic message is upon the actions, thoughts, values, and issues that face the human being and not on the objects, tools, and things. Thus, Islam directs the human being to utilize his thinking process in a profound manner to arrive at the truthfulness of the Islamic Aqeedah while denouncing the notions of building belief based on ''faith,'' imitation of others, emotions, and speculation - WITHOUT giving any regard as to whether the people live in huts in a village or in cities laced with skyscrapers or in outer space.

The focus of the Islamic message is the human being, and hence Islam works to shape the thinking of the human being and regulate his behavior by governing his actions. What structure the human being resides in, his mode of transportation, the tools that he utilizes for communication, the weapons that he uses in war, are not the issue in Islam. The act of killing for an unjust cause is prohibited, whether the killing is done with swords and arrows or with B-2 fighter jets and artillery. The act of cheating others is not allowed, whether the act involves a wealthy merchant cheating poor villagers or the IMF and World Bank cheating the Third World. Cutting the hand of the thief is an obligation, whether the thief's hand is cut with a sword or with a laser. The act of promoting Kufr ideas and values is prohibited, regardless of whether such ideas and concepts are promoted by word of mouth or through the internet and mass media. The act of ruling by Islam and implementing the Islamic system is an obligation, whether the society is composed of villages in the desert or cities laced with skyscrapers or bubble colonies on the moon.

In conclusion, we must maintain the understanding of how Islam deals with the actions, thoughts, and issues related to the human being on the one hand, and how Islam views the objects, tools, and things that may or may not be associated with our actions and thoughts. More importantly, this comes in the context of understanding what the scope of Islam (the human being - his thoughts, actions, issues, and problems) is and what is outside this scope (such as science and technology). When this understanding is clear, we can safely dismiss such questions as ''where in Islam is there any mention of computers'' and ''where in Islam does it mention space exploration'' as utter nonsense.

The Coming

The Coming of Imam Mahdi, Sayyidna Isa(as) and Ad Dajjal

Humanity has seen many problems and experienced many crises and calamities throughout its history, from the time of Aadam (as) to the current age. Today, the current generation is witnessing an extreme form of corruption and brutality which is spreading misery over the whole world. The capitalist ideology has made the world a playground for the powerful and rich to pillage and plunder the land, lives and wealth of the masses.

As a result of these circumstances and this onslaught many people can start to feel overwhelmed and feel that they themselves are completely unable to change their situation. The Christians and the Jews were the first who when facing hardships instead of increasing their resolve to tackle them began to talk about the end of the world and the second coming. They justified their fatalistic behaviour and inaction to tackle the problems they faced by stating that they would be saved by the second coming. Today when Muslims face tremendous difficulties and challenges it is saddening to see that so many of them have also begun to adopt this mentality.

Some Muslims who have fallen into this trap have begun to justify their view by interpreting the Islamic texts in a way which has led to inactivity and fatalism. The effect of this interpretation has led many Muslims to do nothing to remove the causes that have led to the predicament of the Islamic Ummah. Rather, they spend much of their time justifying inactivity by looking for the signs of Dajaal and waiting for the Al-Mahdi and the return of Isa (as) to rescue the Ummah from the clutches of the West.

It is important to understand the mentality we need to have when looking to the divine texts and how they should regulate our behaviour and attitudes.

It is clear that the attitude of fatalism that affects some Muslims is something which is not applied in all aspects of life. We see many who have a fatalistic attitude towards the political situation, but do not have it when it comes to seeking the rizq (provisions) which Allah (subhanhu wa ta'aala), Ar-Raziq provides. Many Muslims work extremely hard, sacrificing time, effort and even emigrating, leaving behind families and loved ones in order to find work. This is despite the fact that it is proven through definitive text (qati thaboot) that is definitive in meaning (qati dalalah) that Allah (subhanhu wa ta'aala) provides the rizq.

It is also evidently clear that many Muslims who have a fatalistic attitude when it comes to their own life, will protect it. They will not stay in front of the bus, when it is racing towards them. When an illness comes to them, they will seek treatment from their doctor and if he is unable to help, they strive hard to seek the best possible treatment. They will refrain from going to dangerous places to protect their own lives and will also protect others whom they love. This is despite the fact that Allah (subhanhu wa ta'aala) has stated in many definitive texts (qati thaboot) that are definitive in meaning (qati dalalah) that Allah (subhanhu wa ta'aala) is the cause of death and the expiration of the ajal (life span).

When we look to the divine texts, some of them come to us dealing with matters of Iman. These texts have a bearing on our Iman (decisive belief) and must be based on text which is definite, and the meaning must be definite too. There are many ayat of the Qur'an which determine elements to do with Iman such as the ayah:

O you who believe! Believe in Allah (subhanhu wa ta'aala) and His Messenger and the scripture which He has sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denies Allah (subhanhu wa ta'aala), His angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Day Of Judgement, has gone far, far astray''

[ An-Nisa: 136].

The Sunnah which is definite in text [thaboot] and meaning [dalalah] is the Mutawatir. The Mutawatir report is divided into two categories. Firstly, verbal (lafzun) Mutawatir like the hadith:

''Whosoever intentionally lies about me let him reserve his place in the Hellfire.''

Secondly, the Mutawatir by meaning (manawi), such as when the transmitters concur on a matter occurring in different incidents such as the Sunnah of the morning prayer being two rakats.

As far as hadith of prophecies, they discuss about things that are not in the reality and are therefore beyond the limits of our minds. Hence we cannot make a judgement on these matters. We can only fully understand and confirm them as the reality plays out. The honourable Sahabah (ra) knew many hadith of prophecies but they only understood them as the situations actually played out in front of their eyes. Also more importantly they did not use these hadith as a means to sit back and do nothing, waiting for the event to happen, but they worked hard to carry out the obligation which was set by Allah (subhanhu wa ta'aala).

So for example Ibn Hisham relates it in his Seerah through Ibn Ishaq that:

Salman al-Farsi said:

''(During the battle of Khandaq) I was digging in one corner of the trench at which time one rock gave me difficulty. Allah's Messenger came near me and saw my difficulty as I was digging. He came down and took the pick from my hands. Then he struck and a great spark flashed under the pick. He struck again and another spark flashed. He struck a third time and a third spark flashed. I said to him: My father and mother (be ransomed) for you, O Messenger of Allah! What is that I saw flashing under the pick as you were striking? He said: Did you see this, O Salman? I said: Yes! He said: The first time, Allah opened Yemen [in the South] for me; the second time, He opened the North (al-Sham) and the west (al-Maghrib) for me; and the third time, he opened the East (al-Mashriq).''

(Ibn Hisham relates it in his Seerah (Beirut, dar al-wifaq ed. 3-4: 219)

After this news spread amongst the Sahabah, they did not sit back, and wait for it to occur. On the contrary, they strived hard, expending their utmost effort to achieve the obligation of opening up new lands for the sake of Allah (subhanhu wa ta'aala).

It is very important to keep the correct viewpoint when reading such informative hadith about events that are to occur in the future. In summary there are 5 key points to keep in mind.

1) The first thing to look for in these hadith whether they instruct Muslims to perform actions in advance of the event occurring

The Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) is reported to have told the Sahabah (ra) to seek protection from the tribulations of ad-Dajaal with the following dua;

Abu Hurairah (ra) reported: The Messenger of Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) said:

When anyone of you utters Tashahhud (athahiyaathu in Dhivehi) he must seek refuge with Allah from four (trials) and should thus say: O Allah! I seek refuge with You from the torment of Hell, from the torment of the grave, from the trial of life and death and from the evil of the trial of Meshih Al-Dajaal.

2) The next thing to look for is whether they offer any course of action for Muslims when the event happens.

An-Nawwas ibn Sam' an reported that the Sahabah asked Allah's Apostle, how long will he (Ad-Dajaal) stay on earth?' He (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) said,

'For forty days, one day like a year, one day like a month, one day like a week, and the rest of the days will be like your days'. We said, 'Allah's Apostle, will one day's prayer suffice for the day equal to a year?' Thereupon he said, ‘No, but you must make an estimate of the time (and then observe prayer).

[Sahih Muslim]

In this hadith Muslims are instructed to calculate the times of prayer, as opposed to missing them, at the time when we experience the 'one day like a year' which corresponds with the coming of Ad-Dajaal.

3) Encouragement for those striving on the path towards the re-establishment, protection, and conveyance of the deen of Allah

In a hadith from Abu Umamah, the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) said:

''A group of my Community will remain constant to the truth, conquering their enemy until the command of Allah comes to them while they are still in that condition.'' He was asked, ''Messenger of Allah, where are they?'' He replied: ''In Jerusalem.''

[Ahmad and Tabarani]

4) Another important matter is not discussing in the detailed matter related to the unseen.

Discussion in the metaphysics and what is beyond the sensed reality, debating it and claiming that one's opinion is better than the others is a debate which takes up precious time, and takes the attention away from the vital work that is required from the Muslims. Allah (subhanhu wa ta'aala) mentions this regarding debating with the people of the book the number of men who sought refuge in a cave from their corrupt community.

''So the people will now say, ''They are three, their dog is the fourth''; and some will say, ''They are five, their dog is the sixth'' - just blind guesses; and some will say, ''They are seven, and their dog is the eighth''; proclaim ''My Lord well knows their number - no one knows them except a few''; therefore do not debate concerning them except what has occurred, and do not ask any of the People of the Book(s) anything concerning them'.

[ Al-Kahf: 22]

5) These hadith must never be used as a basis of inactivity, hopelessness and laziness

These hadith are not a means to ignore the obligations set by Allah (subhanhu wa ta'aala), such as the work for the Islamic revival, just because they inform us that the revival will one day occur. An even more dangerous and incorrect view than this is the mentality that working for these obligations, such as the work to resume the Khilafah Rashida, is something impossible to achieve by our own work because Allah (subhanhu wa ta'aala) will establish this for us at a time of His (swt) choosing.

The coming of Imam Mahdi

If we look to some of the hadith regarding Imam Mahdi such as the one below

Abu Dawud also published from Umm Salamah by way of Salih Abu'l-Khaleel from a companion of his from Umm Sal amah, that he said,

''There will be disagreement at the death of a Khilafah, so a man from Madinah will come out fleeing to Makkah, and the people of Makkah will come to him and bring him out (as a claimant for the Khilafah) against his will and swear allegiance to him between the Corner (of the Ka'bah in which the black stone is) and the station (of Ibrahim). An expeditionary force will be sent against him from Sham (Syria) and the earth will swallow them up in the waterless desert between Makkah and Madinah. When people see that, the Abdal of the people of Sham will come to him and the companies of the people of Iraq and they will swear allegiance to him. Then a man of Quraysh will arise (in rebellion) whose maternal uncles are (the tribe of) Kalb, and an expeditionary force will be sent against them and they will conquer them, and that is the expeditionary force of Kalb, and there is disappointment for whoever does not attend (the division of) the spoils of Kalb. So he will divide up the wealth, and he will act among people according to their Prophet's Sunnah and he will throw Islam by its neck on the earth. He will remain seven years then die and the Muslims will pray over him''

[Abu Dawud Book 36, Number 427]

The hadith on Imam Mahdi show us a number of things. He will be one of the Muslims from this Ummah, with some hadith indicating he will be a descendent of Muhammad (salAllahu alaihi wasallam). He will not carry out any miracles or receive any revelation but will rule with justice which will bring prosperity for the Khilafah state. He will not know that he is the Mahdi, as the hadith indicates that he will be reluctant to take the allegiance (bay'ah), and he will need to be convinced to take it. The Hadith explicitly states that he will follow the death of a Khaleefah, and there will be a dispute about the next one. The Ummah will be debating who to give bay'ah to, and they will give it to him. All this indicates that the Ummah will have a Khilafah state, and that they will know how to appoint a Khaleefah.

These points also indicate that the Mahdi will learn Islam from around them, as he will receive no revelation. The hadith states what he will act among the people according to the Sunnah which again indicates that it is the Ummah which will have to be ready to teach and groom the Mahdi to take up the tasks of Khaleefah.

Therefore there is no indication for some Muslims to remain inactive and do nothing; certain event must pass before his arrival such as the re-establishment of Khilafah state, and the preparation of the Ummah to resume the Islamic way of life. This obligation still lies upon the Muslims and not upon Imam Mahdi.

The descent of Isa (as) and the destruction of Dajaal

And (remember) when Allah (subhanhu wa ta'aala) said:

''O 'Isa! I will take you and raise you to Myself.''

[ Al-Imran: 55]

The meaning here is that Isa (as) was raised up by Allah (subhanhu wa ta'aala) and his mission had ended. There are many hadith regarding his return,

By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, the son of Maryam ('Isa) will shortly descend among you as a just ruler, and will break the cross, kill the pig and abolish the Jizyah. Then there will be an abundance of wealth and nobody will accept charitable gifts any more. At that time, one prostration will be better for them than this life and all that is in it.

Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Hurairah said that the Messenger of Allah(salAllahu alaihi wasallam) said,

How will you be when Al-Masih, son of Maryam ('Isa) descends among you while your Imam is from among yourselves

In another long hadith narrated in Sahih Muslim by Abu Hurairah it mentions the fitna of Dajaal and the power of the illusions that he will have to confuse the Muslims, it also mentions the descent of Isa (as).

Like the storm when driven by the wind. He will come to a people and will call them (to his worship), and they will believe in him and accept his call. He will order the sky and it will rain, the land and it will grow (vegetation). Their cattle will return to them with their hair the longest, their udders the fullest (with milk) and their stomachs the fattest. He will come to a different people and will call them (to his worship), and they will reject his call. He will then leave them. They will wake up in the morning destitute, missing all of their possessions. He will pass by a deserted land and will say to it, 'Bring out your treasures', and its treasures will follow him just like swarms of bees. He will summon a man full of youth and will strike him with the sword once and will cut him into two pieces (and will separate between them like) the distance (between the hunter and) the game. He will call the dead man and he will come, and his face will radiant with pleasure and laughter.

Afterwards (while all this is happening with Ad-Dajaal), Allah will send Al-Masih ('Isa), son of Maryam down. He will descend close to the white minaret to the east of Damascus. He will be wearing garments lightly coloured with saffron and his hands will be placed on the wings of two angels. Whenever he lowers his head droplets fall. Whenever he raises his head, precious stones that look like pearls fall. No disbeliever can survive 'Isa's breath, which reaches the distance of his sight. He will pursue Ad-Dajaal and will follow him to the doors of (the Palestinian city of) Ludd where he will kill him. A group of people, who, by Allah's help, resisted and survived Ad-Dajaal, will pass by 'Isa and he will anoint their faces and inform them about their grades in Paradise.

Shortly afterwards, while this is happening with 'Isa, Allah will reveal to him, 'I raised a people of my creation that no one can fight. Therefore, gather my servants to At-Tur (the mountain of Musa in Sinai).' Then, Allah will raise Gog and Magog and they will swiftly swarm from every mound. Their front forces will reach Lake Tabariah (Sea of Galilee) and will drink all its water. The last of their forces will say as they pass by the lake, 'This lake once had water!'

Meanwhile, Isa, Allah's Prophet, will be cornered along with his companions until the head of a bull will be more precious to them than a hundred Dinars to you today. Isa, Allah's Prophet, and his companions will invoke Allah for help and Allah will send An-Naghaf (a worm) into the necks of Gog and Magog! The morning will come, and they will all be dead as if it was the death of one soul. Afterwards, 'Isa, the Prophet of Allah, will come down with his companions to the low grounds (from Mount At-Tur). They will find that no space of a hand-span on the earth was free of their fat and rot (rotten corpses). 'Isa, the Prophet of Allah, and his companions will seek Allah in supplication. Allah will send birds as large as the necks of camels. They will carry them (the corpses of Gog and Magog) and will throw them wherever Allah wills. Afterwards, Allah will send rain that no house made of mud or animal hair will be saved from, and it will cleanse the earth until it is as clean as a mirror. The earth will be commanded (by Allah), 'Produce your fruits and regain your blessing.' Then, the group will eat from a pomegranate and will take shelter under the shade of its skin. Milk will be blessed, so much so that the milk-producing camel will yield large amounts that suffice for a large group of people. Meanwhile, Allah will send a pure wind that will overcome Muslims from under their arms and will take the soul of every believer and Muslim. Only the evildoers among people will remain. They will indulge in shameless public sex like that of donkeys. On them, the Hour will begin.

For anyone who contemplates on this hadith it is clear that Isa (as) will return, he will be a ruler, and follow the Shariah of Muhammad (salAllahu alaihi wasallam). Many hadith will indicate that he will have a discussion with the Khaleefah of the Muslims i.e. there will already be a Khaleefah/Imam of the Muslims and Isa will be a citizen of the Islamic state. This again indicates, that the situation for the return of Isa (as) will be when the Khilafah state exists, which again is motivation for us to work to re-establish it, as Isa (as) will not return until it is established. Also the hadith explicitly links the fact that the Khilafah state will be the shield from the fitnah of ad-Dajaal. This is one of the reasons why Muhammad (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) said;

The Prophet of Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) said:

A Imam (Khaleefah) is a shield for them. They fight behind him and they are protected by (him from tyrants and aggressors). If he enjoins fear of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, and dispenses justice, there will be a (great) reward for him; and if he enjoins otherwise, it redounds on him.

So going through the hadith on this subject there is no basis found why anyone should be inactive and rely upon these honourable hadith as a means to do nothing and sit idle waiting for the return of Imam Mahdi and Isa (as).

Many Muslims use these Ahadith to justify their inactivity in working to change the political situation and to bring back the Khilafah State. They incorrectly believe that this earth will be filled with injustice until Imam Mahdi appears and revives the Muslim Ummah. There is in fact no indication from these, or other Ahadith, that we are relieved from fulfilling our obligation of comprehensively establishing Islam if the Islamic State is absent, and working in all situations to make the deen of Allah (subhanhu wa ta'aala) dominant.