Islam: The Middle and Moderate Path

Thus have We made of you a Middle Ummah, that you might be witnesses over the people, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves… ( al-Baqarah 2:143)


Say: "O People of the Book! Make no excess in your religion, trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by, who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the even Way. ( al-Ma'idah 5:77)

Muslims are called Ummatan Wasatan . The commentators of the Qur'an explain the word “wasat” as “justly balanced”, “the best (khiyar or khayr)”. ( see al-Tabari, al-Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir etc.) Yusuf Ali says: “The essence of Islam is to avoid all extravagances on either side. It is a sober, practical religion.” ( note 143 on 2:143)

Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala has made this Ummah a moderate Ummah. Muslims have to follow the middle path, the path that has no extremes or excesses.
It is a path that brings together in a harmonious balance:
Revelation and Reason ( Wahy and ‘Aql )
Individual and Community ( Fard and Mujtama ')
Religion and World ( Din and Dunya )
This World and the Other World ( Dunya and ‘Akhirah )
Islam teaches gentleness and softness ( rifq ) in everything. Harshness and hardness ( ghilzah ) is not accepted in Islam. Islam is the religion of peace and mercy ( salam and rahmah ). (The Qur'an tells the believers to show “ ghilzah ” only in the battlefield (see al-Tawbah 9:73; 123; al-Tahrim 66:9). Also it says that do not ignore or avoid Allah's Hudud out of compassion to the criminals. ( al-Nur 24:2) Otherwise it always speaks about gentleness and kindness.)
Islam has middle position in:

* Beliefs (‘Aqidah)
* Acts of worship (‘Ibadah)
* Laws (Shari'ah)
* Morals and manners (Akhlaq)

Let us look briefly on these four areas in Islamic teachings:

I. Beliefs:

1. Belief about Allah's being ( dhat) :
a) Neither atheism nor polytheism – meaning that God does not exist or there are many gods

b) Neither monism nor pantheism – meaning that only God exists and nothing else exists or that everything is God.

c) Neither anthropomorphism or incarnationism nor nihilism –meaning that God is like human beings or God becomes a human being or to say that God is abstract as an energy and power.

d) Islam teaches Tawhid – There is only one God with beautiful names and attributes. He exists and He has given existence to everything. There is nothing like Him, but He hears and sees everything.

2. Belief about Allah's nature ( sifat) :

a) He is neither so loving that He does not care about the right and wrong, nor is He so harsh that he cannot forgive and He must punish for every sin and mistake. He is both loving , kind and compassionate but He is also a judge. His justice is so much that he would not do wrong to any one, but his love is so much that when there is sincere faith and repentance He is ready to forgive.

b) He is neither too transcendent that He become remote and unapproachable not He is so accessible that humans can manipulate Him, make Him to suffer and even kill him. He is very close to us. He loves us and hears our prayers, but He is above and beyond. The eyes cannot catch Him, but He catches the eyes.

c) He is neither so powerful that we have no freedom. Nor is He so helpless that He does not even know what we are doing and cannot stop us from wrong or help us when we need Him. We believe that He has power over everything. Nothing moves without His permission. He knows the past, present and future, but He out of His grace has given freedom to human being to think, move and work. He will judge them in the things in which He has given freedom to them.

3. Belief about Human Beings:

a) Neither animals nor angels. We believe that they are a special and honored creation of Allah. They have the possibility to go higher and higher and they can become the lowest of the low.

b) Neither born in sin nor perfect. They can succumb to temptations, but they are not helpless before the powers of evil.

c) Neither absolutely helpless and powerless and not free to do anything, nor absolutely free to do whatever they wish or become fully autonomous. They have a lot of freedom, but they must follow the basic rules of God and must live in obedience to Him.

4. Belief about the Prophets of Allah:

a) They were great human beings, but they were not God, the incarnation of God or the sons of God. We must respect them, honor them and follow their way but we must not deify them or worship them.

b) Prophets were chosen by God. They did not become prophets by their own achievements. They did perform miracles occasionally by the permission of God, but most of the time they had to go through the same pains, trials as other human beings go through.

c) God sent the prophets in the past, but He made Prophet Muhammad as His last Prophet. There is no new Prophet who will come after him. Thus we believe in the continuation of prophecy but after him there is no prophecy, only inspiration and illumination. Prophets were infallible teachers, but there is no one after them who has this protection. People are allowed to make interpretation but no one other than prophets can claim absolute authority for his/her interpretation.

5. Belief about the world:

a) Not a bad place, the place of suffering and pain but also not a heaven or a permanent place. Allah has created this world and it is a good place, but Hereafter is better.

b) Take your share of this world but do not forget the Hereafter. Do not neglect this world, rather you should try to build, improve, cultivate and plan in this world. Whatever good you do here you shall receive the reward in the hereafter. This is a place of your test.

c) You are not the master of this world or its slave, but you are Allah's Khalifah in this world. Everything is a trust and your are given this trust (amanah). Use the resources of this world carefully. Take care of the environment. Do not waste or be extravagant.

II. Acts of Worship:

1. Concept of Worship:

a) Islam gives us some special acts of worship: Salat, Siyam , Zakat and Hajj. These are the main acts of worship.

b) But worship is not some rituals only, it is the whole life. Whatever a person does in obedience to Allah is worship. Even the most worldly and mundane activities are worship.

c) Acts of worship (‘Ibadat) are specified and not left to people's own experiments. This brings unity and harmony.

2. Methods of Worship:

a) Islam emphasizes both the individual Ibadah as well as collective ‘Ibadah.

b) Acts of worship include time, space and money. There are Ibadat Zamaniya (related to time), ‘ Ibadat Makaniyah (related to space) and Ibadat Maliyah (related to wealth). Salat and Siyam are ‘Ibadat Zamaniyah . Hajj is ‘Ibadah Zamaniyah and Makaniyah both, while ‘Umrah is ‘Ibadah Makaniyah. Zakat and Sadaqat are ‘ Ibadat Maliyah.

c) In all ‘Ibadat there is a balance between the obligatory and the voluntary aspects. Minimum is made obligatory and Nawafil are left to the individual's choice.

d) In prayer especially, there is a harmony and balance between the physical, verbal, mental and spiritual aspects.

e) In fasting there are timings. One is not asked to fast for too long, but it is also not left to one's choice to choose whenever and whatever one wants to fast from.

III. Laws (Shari'ah)

The Law in Islam is Universal and comprehensive. It Promotes human dignity, equality and honor. Its basic principles are permanent and it has flexibility according to the conditions of the people and their needs. The basic philosophy of Law in Islam:

1. No obligation beyond capacity (taklif ma la yutaq ).

2. All good things are permissible and all bad things are forbidden.

3. The basic purpose in obligations is honor and purification, not putting burden or humiliation. ( al-isr and al-aghlal).

4. Recognition of extreme necessity ( idtirar )

IV. Morals and Manners (Akhlaq)

Islam gives very high place to ethics and morality. It says that a person who has no character has no religion. The basic nature of Islamic teachings on ethics and morality are:

1. Universal Values – not promoting any specific culture, race or country.

2. Positive and life affirming – it teaches that you can enjoy the good things of this life.

3. Not ascetic, monastic, morbid or moribund in nature. Islam wants people to be happy, healthy, optimistic and forward looking.

4. Practical – take into account human needs, emotions, desires, and aspirations and provides opportunities for their growth.

5. Egalitarian – There are no double standards – one for religious class and other for laity.

Conclusion:

There are some Muslims who do not know Islam and there are some who do not practice Islam in the right way. It is important that we learn Islam and we should learn it in the right way. Islam is neither harsh nor difficult. There is nothing in Islam that is not practical or impossible.

The Prophet –peace be upon him- said:

“ The religion is easy and whosoever will deal with religion harshly, it will defeat him. So be straight, follow the middle course, give good news and seek help by moving in the morning or the evening or part of the night .”

(Al-Bukhari 38)

In order to follow Islam you must make an effort and be serious. Learn your faith and pay some attention to it. Do not take your religion casually. Islam is not just a social and cultural thing. Islam is the religion of Allah and it is the most moderate, balanced, beautiful and perfect religion

Miracle of Al-Isra & Al-Miraj

Miracle of Al-Isra & Al-Miraj

(The night journey and the ascension of Prophet Muhammad( Peace be upon him)
Praise be to Allah, the Lord of t he Worlds, the One Who exists without a place. To Him belong the endowments and proper commendations. May Allah raise the rank of Prophet Muhammad and his kind Al and Companions and protect his nation from what he fears for them. May the Lord of Heavens and Earth grant us the sincere intentions and guide us to the acceptable deeds.

Thereafter, Allah sent the prophets as a mercy to the slaves and supported them with miracles to indicate the truthfulness of their message. Of all the prophets, our Prophet, Muhammad, was blessed with the most miracles. Al-Isra' and al-Mi^raj are among the many miracles of Prophet Muhammad. The miracle of al-Isra' is confirmed in the Qur'an. In Surat al-Isra', Ayah 1, Allah said:

which means: [Praise be to Allah Who enabled His slave, Muhammad, to make the journey at night from Masjid al-Haram in Makkah to Masjid al-Aqsain Jerusalem, which is surrounded a blessed land.]

which means: [Praise be to Allah Who enabled His slave, Muhammad, to make the journey at night from Masjid al-Haram in Makkah to Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem, which is surrounded a blessed land.] This journey is also confirmed in the sahih hadith. As such, there is scholarly consensus (ijma^) Prophet Muhammad journeyed in body and soul the night of al-Isra' from Masjid al-Haram in Makkah to Masjid al-Aqsain Jerusalem. Moreover, these scholars indicated the person who denies al-Isra' is a blasphemer for belying the explicit text of the Qur'an.

Before the Prophet took this night journey, the ceiling of the house in which he was staying was opened, and Jibril descended. He cut open the chest of Prophet Muhammad and washed that open area with Zamzam water. Then he emptied something from a container into the chest of the Prophet to increase his wisdom as well as the strength of his belief. This was done to prepare the Messenger of Allah for that which he had yet to see in the upper world from among the wonders of the creation of Allah.

Al-Isra'

After the Prophet performed the Evening Prayer (^Isha'), Jibril came to him with a white animal, slightly larger than a donkey yet smaller than a mule. This animal was the buraq,--one of the animals of Paradise. Jibril held the buraq by his ear and told the Prophet to mount it. When the buraq was mounted, the Prophet set forth.
The buraqis a very fast animal; the length of the buraq's stride is the farthest distance it's eye can see. The Prophet and Jibril arrived to a land with palm trees. Jibril told the Prophet to dismount and pray, so the Prophet dismounted the buraq and prayed two rak^as. Jibril asked him, "Do you know where you prayed?" and the Prophet answered, "Allah knows best." Jibril told him, "This is Yathrib; this is Taybah. "." (These are two names for the city of al-Madinah.) Before the Prophet emigrated to al-Madinah, it was called Taybah and Yathrib. It earned the name al-Madinah after the Prophet emigrated to it.

The buraq continued with the Prophet and Jibril until they reached another place. Again Jibril told the Prophet to get down and pray. The Prophet dismounted there and prayed two rak^as. Jibril informed the Prophet of the name of that place; it was Tur Sina'.

Once again the buraq took off with the Prophet and Jibril. Once again it stopped, and the Prophet dismounted and prayed two rak^as. This was in Bayt Lahm, where Prophet ^Isa (Jesus) was born. Then the buraq continued with the Messenger of Allah until they entered the city of Jerusalem. There the Prophet went to Masjid al-Aqsa. Outside was a ring used by the Messengers of Allah to tie their animals. The Prophet tied his buraq to this ring. Then the Prophet entered the masjid where Allah assembled for him all the Prophets--from Adam to ^Isa. Prophet Muhammad moved forward and led them all in prayer. This is an indication the Prophet is higher in status than all the rest of the prophets and messengers.



1- On Prophet Muhammad's journey from Masjid al-Haram to Masjid al-Aqsa, Allah enabled him to see some of His wondrous creations. Allah enabled the Prophet to see the world (dunya) like an old woman. However, this old woman was wearing a great deal of jewelry, and in this there is an indication signifying the reality of the world.

2- Allah enabled the Prophet to see Iblis. The Prophet saw something on the side of the road which did not dare to stand in his way or speak to him. What the Prophet saw was Iblis. Originally, Iblis was a believer and lived with the angels in Paradise. When Allah ordered the angels to prostrate (sujud) to Prophet Adam, Iblis was ordered to prostrate to him as well. The angels prostrated to Adam in obedience to Allah, because angels do not disobey Allah. However, Iblis did not obey, and he objected to the order of Allah. He said, "You created me out of fire, and You created him out of clay. How do You order me to prostrate to him?" So this objection by Iblis to the order of Allah was the first blasphemy he committed.

3- On his journey, the Prophet smelled a very nice odor. He asked Jibril about this pleasant scent and Jibril informed him this good smell was coming from the grave of the woman whose duty used to be to comb Pharaoh's daughter's hair. This woman was a good, pious believer. One day, as she was combing Pharaoh's daughter's hair, the comb fell from her hand. At this she said, ""Bismillah. "Pharaoh's daughter asked her, "Do you have a god other than my father?" The woman said, "Yes. My Lord and the Lord of your father is Allah." Pharaoh's daughter told her father what had happened. Pharaoh demanded this woman blaspheme and leave Islam, but she refused. At that, Pharaoh threatened to kill her children. He brought a great pot of water and built a great fire under it. When the water boiled, Pharaoh brought her children and started to drop them into that pot one after the other. Throughout all this, the woman remained steadfast to Islam, even when Pharaoh reached her youngest child--a little boy still breast feeding--but she felt pity for him. At that, Allah enabled this child to speak. He said to his mother, "O Mother, be patient. The torture of the Hereafter is far more severe than the torture of this life, and do not be reluctant, because you are right." At this the woman requested Pharaoh collect her bones and the bones of her children and bury them in the same grave. Pharaoh promised her that--then dropped her into that boiling water. She died as a martyr. The good odor the Prophet smelled coming from her grave is an indication of her high status.
4- During his trip, the Prophet saw people who were planting and reaping in two days. Jibril told the Prophet, "These were the people who fight for the sake of Allah (mujahidun). ")."

5- The Prophet also saw people whose lips and tongues were clipped with scissors made of fire. Jibril told the Prophet, "These are the speakers of sedition (fitna) who call people to misguidance."

6- He also saw a bull which exited a very small outlet, then was trying in vain to return through that small outlet. Jibril told the Prophet, "This is the example of the bad word--once spoken, it cannot be returned."

7- The Prophet saw people grazing like animals, with very little clothing on their private parts. Jibril told the Prophet, "These are the ones who refused to pay zakat. "."

8- The Prophet saw angels smashing some people's heads with rocks. These heads would return to the shape they had been, and then the angels would smash their heads again--and so on. Jibril told the Prophet, "These are the ones whose heads felt too heavy to perform prayer--the ones who used to sleep without praying."

9- On his journey the Prophet saw people who were competing to eat some rotten meat--ignoring meat that was sliced and unspoiled. Jibril told the Prophet, "These are people from your nation who leave out that which is permissible (halal), and consume that which is forbidden ((haram). "This reference was to the fornicators, that is, the ones who left out the permissible (marriage) and committed sins (fornication).

10- Also, the Prophet saw people who were drinking from the fluid coming from the bodies of the fornicators, (water mixed with blood). Jibril indicated to the Prophet these were the ones who were drinking the alcohol which is prohibited in this world.
11- The Prophet saw people scratching their faces and chests with brass finger nails. Jibril said, "These are the examples of those who commit gossip ((ghibah). ")."


Al-Mi^raj

1- After the Prophet took this night journey from Masjid al-Haram to Masjid al-Aqsa, he ascended to the upper heavens. The Prophet ascended to the heaven on stairs, called al-mirqat, in which one step is made of gold and the next of silver, and so on. These stairs are veiled from us. The Prophet ascended these stairs until he reached the first heaven. When the Prophet and Jibril arrived at the first heaven, Jibril requested the gate to be opened. The angel assigned to that gate asked Jibril, "Who is with you?" Jibril answered, "It is Muhammad." The angel asked Jibril, "Was he dispatched? Is it time for him to ascend to the heaven?" Jibril said, "Yes." So, the gate was opened for him, and Prophet Muhammad entered the first heaven.

There, Prophet Muhammad saw Prophet Adam. To Adam's right, the Prophet saw some bodies, and to Adam's left, other bodies. If Adam would look to his right he would laugh, and if he would look to his left he would cry. Adam was seeing the souls of his descendants. Those on his right were his descendants who would die as believers and those on his left were his descendants who would die as non-believers.
Then the Prophet ascended to the second heaven. In this second heaven was where Prophet Muhammad saw Prophets ^Isa and Yahya. ^Isa and Yahya are cousins; their mothers were sisters. They welcomed the Prophet and made supplication (du^a') for him for good things. The Prophet ascended to the third heaven, where he found Prophet Yusuf. Prophet Yusuf was extremely handsome. Allah bestowed half the beauty on Yusuf. Yusuf received the Prophet with a warm welcome and made supplication (du^a') for him for good things. Then the Prophet ascended to the fourth heaven, where he found Prophet Idris. Idris welcomed the Prophet and made supplication (du^a') for him for good things. In the fifth heaven, the Prophet encountered Harun, the brother of Prophet Musa. In the sixth heaven, he encountered Prophet Musa. Each of these Prophets received Prophet Muhammad with a warm welcome and made supplication (du^a')') for him for good things. Then the Prophet ascended to the seventh heaven, and that is where our Messenger saw Prophet Ibrahim. Prophet Ibrahim is the best of the prophets after our prophet, Muhammad. The Prophet saw Prophet Ibrahim with his back against al-Bayt al-Ma^mur. To the inhabitants of the skies, al-Bayt al-Ma^mur is like the Ka^bah is to us, the inhabitants of the earth. Every day 70,000 angels go there; then exit from it, and never return. The next day another 70,000 angels go, come out, and never return. This will continue until the Day of Judgment. In this, there is an indication as to the greatness of the numbers of the angels--their numbers are far more than the numbers of the humans and the jinns together.

In the seventh heaven, Prophet Muhammad saw Sidrat al-Muntaha--a very big tree of sidr. Each of the fruits of this tree is as large as a big jar. The leaves of this tree are similar to the ears of the elephants. Sidrat al-Muntahais an extremely beautiful tree. It is visited by butterflies made of gold. When these butterflies gather on this tree, its beauty is beyond description.

Then the Prophet ascended to what is beyond the seven skies; he entered Paradise. He saw examples of the inhabitants of Paradise and how their situation would be. He saw most of the inhabitants of Paradise are the poor people .
The Prophet saw other things on the night of his ascension. He saw Malik, the angel in charge of the Hellfire. Malik did not smile at the Prophet when he saw him, and the Prophet asked why. In answer to the Prophet's question, Jibril said, "Malik did not smile since the day Allah created him. Had he smiled for anyone, he would have smiled for you."

In Paradise, the Prophet saw some of the bounties Allah prepared for the inhabitants of Paradise. He saw the Hur ul-^In: females Allah created who are not humans or jinn. They are in Paradise and will be married to those men Allah willed them to marry.
The Prophet saw the wildan ul-mukhalladun: creations of Allah who are not human, jinn, or angels. They are a very beautiful creation of Allah whose appearance is like laid-out pearls. They are servants of the inhabitants of Paradise. The least in status of the People of Paradise will have 10,000 wildan ul-mukhalladun to serve him. Each one of them would carry a tray of gold in one hand and a tray of silver in the other hand.

The Prophet saw the Throne (^Arsh), which is the ceiling of Paradise. The Throne is the largest creation of Allah in size; Allah did not create anything bigger in size than it. The seven heavens and the earth in comparison to the Kursiyy, are like a ring thrown in a desert, and the Kursiyy in comparison to the Throne, is like a ring thrown in a desert. The seven heavens and the earth in comparison to the Throne are like a seed of mustard compared to the ocean. Allah created the Throne as a sign of His Power and He did not create the Throne to sit on it.

Allah created the Throne to show His Power. It is carried by four angels, and on the Day of Judgment, it will be carried by eight. The Prophet said he was permitted to speak about one of these angels who carry the Throne. In describing this angel, the Prophet told us the distance between his ear lobe and shoulder is the distance a fast-flying bird would cover in 700 years.

Then the Prophet ascended beyond Paradise. He reached a place where he heard the creaking of the pens used by the angels who are copying from the Preserved Tablet. It is at that location Prophet Muhammad heard the Kalam of Allah, which is an attribute of the Self of Allah. He heard the Kalam of Allah which does not resemble our speech--so it is not something that occurs bit after bit. It is not letter after letter or a word that comes after another word. Rather, it is an attribute of Allah which is eternal and everlasting. It does not resemble our attributes. The Kalam of Allah has neither silence nor interruptions. It is an attribute of Allah, and it does not resemble the attributes of the creation.

The Prophet understood several things from hearing this Kalam of Allah. He understood the obligation of the five Obligatory Prayers. At first, Allah obligated fifty prayers. When Prophet Muhammad encountered Musa, Musa told him to make supplication (du^a') to his Lord to ease the obligation of fifty (50) prayers, because his nation could not handle that. Musa said, "I have experience with the people of Israel, and I know your nation cannot bear that." So the Prophet asked his Lord to lessen these prayers for his people. Five prayers were eliminated. Once again, Musa told the Prophet to ask Allah to lessen the number of prayers. Allah did. Nine times the Prophet made supplication to Allah to lessen these prayers--until these prayers were lessened to five Obligatory Prayers. So Prophet Musa was a great benefit to us. Had we been obligated to pray fifty prayers a day, this would have been a difficult matter for us.

From the Kalam of Allah, the Prophet also understood that a good deed would be written for the person who intends to do a good deed, even if he did not do it. Also, the good deed performed would be registered for he who performs it as at least ten good deeds--up to 700 good deeds. For some people, Allah would multiply the reward of their deeds more than that. Additionally, if one performs a bad deed, it is registered for him as one bad deed; yet for he who inclines towards committing a bad deed and then refrains from committing it, a good deed would be registered for him. Here one should note the difference between two matters. If a thought crossed a person's mind about doing something sinful, and this person wavered in this thinking, i.e., considered whether he should do it or not, then he refrained from doing this for the sake of Allah, this is written as a good deed. However, if a person has the firm intention in his heart that he wants to commit a sin, it would be written for him as a sin, even if he does not do it.
The Prophet returns to Makkah.

After all these matters took place with the Prophet, he returned to the city of Makkah. Some scholars said the Prophet's journey took about one-third of the night, i.e., his journey from Makkah to Jerusalem, then to the heavens and what is above them, and then back to Makkah The next day the Prophet told the people what happened to him the previous night. The blasphemers belied the Prophet and mocked him, saying, "We need a month to get there and back, and you are claiming to have done all this in one night?" They said to Abu Bakr, "Look at what your companion is saying. He says he went to Jerusalem and came back in one night." Abu Bakr told them, "If he said that, then he is truthful. I believe him concerning the news of the heavens--that an angel descends to him from the heavens. How could I not believe he went to Jerusalem and came back in a short period of time--when these are on earth?" At that, the Companion, Abu Bakr, was called "as-Siddiq"--because of how strongly he believed all what the Prophet said.

The blasphemous people questioned the Prophet: "If you are truthful, then describe to us Masjid al-Aqsa and its surroundings." They asked this because they knew Prophet Muhammad had never been there before the previous night. Allah enabled the Messenger to see Masjid al-Aqsa, and he described the masjid and its surroundings in exact detail. Moreover, the Prophet said, "On my way back, I saw some of your shepherds grazing their animals in a particular location. They were searching for a camel they had lost." The Prophet continued by giving the description of the camel. When these shepherds came back, they told their people what happened to them--precisely as the Prophet had already told them.

These blasphemers admitted the Prophet's description was exact. Despite that, they were still stubborn and rejected the faith. They did not accept Islam. Only those whom Allah willed to be guided, will be guided. The person whom Allah did not will to be guided, will not believe--regardless of how much explanation or how many proofs he is shown. The person whom Allah willed to be guided, surely he will be a believer. Many people witnessed miracles and still did not believe. Many people witnessed the miracle of the Prophet's splitting of the moon. Those who refused to embrace Islam said, "This is magic. Muhammad played a magic trick on our eyes." They even asked the people of a faraway land who witnessed the moon split in two. Despite this, they still did not believe. They said, "The magic of Muhammad is powerful; it even reached the faraway lands!" This was their response to witnessing a miracle--instead of believing and becoming Muslims.

We ask Allah that we would all die as Muslims. We ask Allah to bestow on us the bounty of entering Paradise without torture.
And Allah knows best.

Practical Guide to Ramadan for Children

The blessed month of Ramadan is a gift from Allah for the Muslims to purify themselves from their all past sins and negligent actions. Various authentic hadith states that all our past sins are forgiven in this month. We also have the blessed Night of Power (Laylatul Qadr) to earn virtues of 1000 months during Ramadan. Much has been written about the virtues of this month and we all possess considerable knowledge as well.

I want to discus some pratical things we can do with our children. Far too often, when it comes to religious matters, we get very serious, especially with our children. We tend to separate religion from rest of our lives, forgetting that our beloved Prophet Muhammad (saw) never taught us to have double life; one religious and one secular. Because how we portray religious affairs to our children, they often view complying with them more as punishment from parents than our duty toward Allah. I have seen parents making their children doing extra prayer or recitation of Quran as a form of punishment for something he/she may have done. No wonder so many children grow up viewing praying/reciting as punishment!

On the contrary, that was not how our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing of Allah upon him) was. He was a jolly person who often laughed and even made jokes, even with children!

Narrated Anas bin Malik (r), The Prophet (s) used to mix with us to the extent that he would say to a younger brother of mine (he had a bird called Umair), "O father of Umair! What you did to the Nughair (a kind of bird)?" [Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, #150]

The hadith doesn't sound “funny” if you do not know the background of the hadith. Anas bin Malik (r) himself was quite young and he is referring to a younger brother of his who had a bird called Umair. However Umair died and the younger brother would not stop crying. When the prophet came, he jokingly addressed the younger brother as “father of Umair” (or father of the bird!) and rhymed Nughair with Umair. Now, of course we are dealing with translation here, also what was said was at a different time and different geographical place. So the humor may be lost a bit in translation.

The fact, however remains, that our prophet had a sense of humor. So did his companions.

Narrated 'Uqba bin Al-Harith: I saw Abu Bakr carrying Al-Hasan and saying, "Let my father be sacrificed for you; you resemble the Prophet and not 'Ali," while 'Ali was laughing at this. [Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, 93]

There are many other Hadiths out there that shows the sense of humor, jolly nature of the Prophet of Allah and his companions and the love and compassion between them.

The Prophet also advised us to speak to people at their level. Therefore it is only normal that we should communicate with our children at their level. We should try to raise their interest about Islam and not try to shove it down their throat. Unless the children develop genuine interest in Islam, the long-term outlook is not good. How long can you really force them to pray or fast, if they do not develop any understanding or desire for those themselves?

Practical Guide to Ramadan for Children

1. Hold a family meeting about Ramadan

A week before Ramadan, hold a family meeting to explain what Ramadan is, that the sighting of the moon indicates it’s beginning, what Muslims do and how the family's schedule will change. Also ask for suggestions of what everyone would like to do during the month. For instance, may be set up a specific goal for the month such as fasting a certain number of days, or memorize few suras, etc. Be creative and let the children speak!

2. Welcome the month with balloons, banners and more

Say "Ramadan Mubarak" with the standard party fare: balloons, a great banner and decorations galore. Get the kids to help decorate the house and ask for their ideas and suggestions so they feel included. People decorate the house for many occasions, so why not for Ramadan!

3. Tell a Ramadan story during bedtime every night

Don't just rely on children's books about Ramadan to share stories. Describe what Ramadan was like when you were a kid. You can also make some tales up with your child as the main character in a Ramadan adventure!

4. Let them fast even a quarter of the day and celebrate

Kids often want to fast as they see their parents and older siblings do. This year, let them fast for a couple of hours. Prepare a special "Iftar" for them when they break fast with a couple of their favorite foods. In time, the couple of hour of fasting will turn into a complete fasting. So many of us started our fasting that way. I know I have!

5. Make Ramadan arts and crafts at home

Art is a great way to learn more about Ramadan. Have the kids make the different shapes of the moon and show which one indicates the beginning of the month, which one the middle and which one the end; have them make special Ramadan placemats for the dinner table.

6. Remember the poor

Explain to the children that there are many poor and less fortunate ones out there that are fasting everyday of their life! For them Ramadan is year around, 365 days a year, not just a special month where special foods are served. Have the children involved in donating food, money and clothing to the poor and needy.

7. Spend time with the children

Do not spend all your time outside the house at Masjid or other places. Spend time with your children for some time every single day. Have a family gathering each night (even a 10-15 minute one is great) and discuss how their day went and share some information about Ramadan or any Islamic topic. Remember, you are dealing with children. Speak at their level. Make it enjoyable and fun for them. Make sure that they enjoy this and not consider it as a punishment.

8. Make and send homemade Ramadan cards

Before the month starts, have an arts and crafts session to make Ramadan Mubarak cards for siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles. Send the cards soon though, time's running out!

9. Take them to Tarawih prayer

Nothing teaches community spirit like congregational prayer. Take the kids with you to the mosque for Tarawih prayer occasionally, even if they stay for only few Rakats.

10. Help them understand the true meaning of Ramadan

Children need to understand that Ramadan is not just abstaining from food during the daytime, and then having a HUGE meal for Iftar or the typical shopping spree that everyone gets into in this month. Help them see the true beauty of Ramadan (and Islam). The only way you can do it if YOU are doing it yourself.

These are just some suggestions. They can be modified to adjust to the family needs. I would like to hear from you, if you have more practical tips for children during Ramadan.

Remember, you are dealing with children. Make things interesting, fun, and joyous for them. And always speak at their level!

Islam and the Environment

Prophet Muhammad

Sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam

A Pioneer of the Environment

“There is none amongst the believers who plants a tree, or sows a seed, and then a bird, or a person, or an animal eats thereof, but it is regarded as having given a charitable gift [for which there is great recompense].” [Al-Bukhaari, III:513].

The idea of the Prophet Muhammad sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam as a pioneer of environmentalism will initially strike many as strange: indeed, the term “environment” and related concepts like “ecology”, “environmental awareness” and “sustainability”, are modern-day inventions, terms that were formulated in the face of the growing concerns about the contemporary state of the natural world around us.

And yet a closer reading of the hadeeth, the body of work that recounts significant events in the Prophet sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam’s life, reveals that he was a staunch advocate of environmental protection. One could say he was an “environmentalist avant la lettre”, a pioneer in the domain of conservation, sustainable development and resource management, and one who constantly sought to maintain a harmonious balance between man and nature. From all accounts of his life and deeds, we read that the Prophet sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam had a profound respect for fauna and flora, as well as an almost visceral connection to the four elements, earth, water, fire and air.

He was a strong proponent of the sustainable use and cultivation of land and water, proper treatment of animals, plants and birds, and the equal rights of users. In this context the modernity of the Prophet sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam’s view of the environment and the concepts he introduced to his followers is particularly striking; certain passages of the hadeeth could easily be mistaken for discussions about contemporary environmental issues.

Three Principles

The Prophet sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam’s environmental philosophy is first of all holistic: it assumes a fundamental link and interdependency between all natural elements and bases its teachings on the premise that if man abuses or exhausts one element, the natural world as a whole will suffer direct consequences. This belief is nowhere formulated in one concise phrase; it is rather an underlying principle that forms the foundation of all the Prophet sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam’s actions and words, a life philosophy that defined him as a person.

The three most important principles of the Prophet sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam’s philosophy of nature are based on the Qur`aanic teachings and the concepts of Tawheed (unity), Khaleefa (stewardship) and Amaana (trust).

Tawheed, the oneness of Allaah Subhaanahu wa Ta`aala, is a cornerstone of the Islamic faith. It recognizes the fact that there is one absolute Creator and that man is responsible to Him for all his actions:

“To Allaah belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth, for Allaah encompasses everything [4:126].”

The Prophet sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam acknowledges that Allaah Subhaanahu wa Ta`aala’s knowledge and power covers everything. Therefore abusing one of his creations, whether it is a living being or a natural resource, is a sin. The Prophet sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam considered all of Allaah Subhaanahu wa Ta`aala’s creations to be equal before Allaah and he believed animals, but also land, forests and watercourses should have rights.

The concepts of Khaleefa, Stewardship, and Amaana, Trust, emerge from the principle of Tawheed. The Qur`aan explains that mankind holds a privileged position among Allaah’s creations on earth: he is chosen as Khaleefa, “vice-regent” and carries the responsibility of caring for Allaah Subhaanahu wa Ta`aala’s earthly creations. Each individual is given this task and privilege in the form of Allaah Subhaanahu wa Ta`aala’s trust. But the Qur`aan repeatedly warns believers against arrogance: they are no better than other creatures.

“No creature is there on earth nor a bird flying with its wings but they are nations like you [6:38]”;

“Surely the creation of the heavens and the earth is greater than the creation of man; but most people know not”. [40:57]

The Prophet sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam believed that the universe and the creations in it – animals, plants, water, land – were not created for mankind. Man is allowed to use the resources but he can never own them. Thus while Islam allows land ownership, it has limitations: an owner can, for example, only own land if he uses it; once he ceases to use it, he has to part with his possession.

The Prophet sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam recognized man’s responsibility to Allaah Subhaanahu wa Ta`aala but always maintained humility. Thus he said: “When doomsday comes, if someone has a palm shoot in his hand, he should plant it,” suggesting that even when all hope is lost for mankind, one should sustain nature’s growth. He believed that nature remains a good in itself, even if man does not benefit from it.

Similarly, the Prophet sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam incited believers to share the earth’s resources. He said: “Muslims share alike in three things – water, herbage and fire,” and he considered it a sin to withhold water from the thirsty. “No one can refuse surplus water without sinning against Allaah and against man”. [Mishkat al Masabih].

The Prophet sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam’s attitude towards sustainable use of land, conservation of water and the treatment of animals is a further illustration of the humility of his environmental philosophy.

Sustainable Use of Land

“The earth has been created for me as a mosque and as a means of purification.” [Al-Bukhaari I:331] With these words the Prophet sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam emphasizes the sacred nature of earth or soil, not only as a pure entity but also as a purifying agent. This reverence towards soil is also demonstrated in the ritual of tayammum, or “dry wudoo” which permits the use of dust in the performance of ritual purification before prayer when water is not available.

The Prophet sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam saw earth as subservient to man, but recognised that it should not be overexploited or abused, and that it had rights, like the trees and wildlife living on it. In order to protect land, forests and wildlife, the Prophet sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam created inviolable zones known as himaa and haraam, in which resources were to be left untouched. Both are still in use today: haraam areas are often drawn up around wells and water sources to protect the groundwater table from over-pumping. Himaa applies particularly to wildlife and forestry and usually designates an area of land where grazing and woodcutting are restricted, or where certain animal species are protected.

The Prophet sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam not only encouraged the sustainable use of fertile lands, he also told his followers of the benefits of making unused land productive: planting a tree, sowing a seed and irrigating dry land were all regarded as charitable deeds. “Whoever brings dead land to life, that is, cultivates wasteland, for him is a reward therein.” Thus any person who irrigates a plot of “dead”, or desert land becomes its rightful owner.

Conservation of Water

In the harsh desert environment where the Prophet sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam lived, water was synonymous to life. Water was a gift from Allaah, the source of all life on earth as is testified in the Qur`aan:

“We made from water every living thing” [21:30].

The Qur`aan constantly reminds believers that they are but the guardians of Allaah Subhaanahu wa Ta`aala’s creation on earth and that they should never take this creation for granted:

“Consider the water which you drink. Was it you that brought it down from the rain cloud or We? If We had pleased, We could make it bitter” [56:68-70].

Saving water and safeguarding its purity were two important issues for the Prophet: we have seen that his concern about the sustainable use of water led to the creation of haraam zones in the vicinity of water sources. But even when water was abundant, he advocated thriftiness: thus he recommended that believers perform wudoo no more than three times, even if they were near to a flowing spring or river.

Imaam Al-Bukhaari added: “The men of science disapprove of exaggeration and also of exceeding the number of ablutions of the Prophet.”

The Prophet sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam also warned against water pollution by forbidding urination in stagnant water.

The Treatment of Animals

“If anyone wrongfully kills even a sparrow let alone anything greater, he will face Allaah’s interrogation” [Mishkat al Masabih]. These words reflect the great reverence, respect and love that the Prophet always showed towards animals. He believed that as part of Allaah Subhaanahu wa Ta`aala’s creation, animals should be treated with dignity, and the hadeeth contains a large collection of traditions, admonitions and stories about his relationship to animals. It shows that he had particular consideration for horses and camels: to him they were valiant companions during journey and battle, and he found great solace and wisdom in their presence as the following tradition reveals:

“In the forehead of horses are tied up welfare and bliss until the Day of Resurrection.”

Even in the slaughter of animals, the Prophet sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam showed great gentleness and sensitivity. While he did not practice vegetarianism, the ahadeeth clearly show that the Prophet sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam was extremely sensitive to the suffering of animals, almost as though he shared their pain viscerally. Thus he recommends using sharp knives and a good method so that the animal can die a quick death with as little pain as possible. He also warned against slaughtering an animal in the presence of other animals, or letting the animal witness the sharpening of blades: to him that was equal to “slaughtering the animal twice” and he emphatically condemned such practices as “abominable”.

Conclusion

It is impossible to do justice to the full scope and significance of Prophet Muhammad sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam’s environmental philosophy in this short article. His holistic view of nature and his understanding of man’s place within the natural world pioneered environmental awareness within the Muslim community.

Sadly, the harmony that the Prophet sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam advocated between man and his environment has today all too often been lost. As we face the effects of pollution and overexploitation, desertification and water scarcity in some parts of the world and floods and violent storms elsewhere, it is perhaps time for the world community as a whole, Muslims, Christians and Jews, Hindus and Buddhists, atheists and agnostics, to take a leaf out of the Prophet sall Allaahu`alayhi wa sallam’s book and address the current environmental crisis seriously and wisely.

Belief in a Creator Must be Rational

The greatest question

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, p. 236)

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 n.

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, p. 139)

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.