Prophet Muhammad: Different levels of aspiration

Prophet Muhammad: Different levels of aspiration

The Muslim society the Prophet (peace be upon him) established was a model society to the standards of which all subsequent Muslim generations aspired.

The Prophet’s companions were keenly aware of the change that occurred in their lives as a result of their adoption of Islam and implementing it. The gulf that separated their lives before and after Islam was great indeed. Hence they appreciated the meaning of a quality the Prophet indicated of true believers: that they should hate to relapse into disbelief as much as they would hate to be thrown into fire.

However, the community that lived in that society was a community of ordinary human beings, with diverse characters and divergent interests. They experienced all the feelings and desires that motivate ordinary people. If they were prepared to work hard and go to war in support of their faith, they would certainly have preferred a comfortable and easy life. They withstood much hardship, leading a life of poverty for many years. This, however, did not change the fact that, like everyone of us, they would have preferred a better standard of living. When the Battle of Hunayn was over, the Muslims gained great wealth. According to the rules Allah states in the Qur’an, one-fifth of all spoils of war go to the state. The others are equally divided among the soldiers, according to well-defined criteria. The Prophet gave a number of notables from Makkah very large gifts that made them truly rich. Until very recently, these were fighting hard to suppress Islam. Now, they were new Muslims, and indeed one or two of them were still unbelievers. Since these commanded positions of authority among their people, the Prophet wanted to purge their old hatred of Islam and to ensure that they were now committed to it.

The Prophet did not give any such gifts to anyone of the Ansar, the people who never faltered in their commitment to Islam, enduring much hardship in the process. It was natural that they should feel that with such prizes available to the Prophet, they would receive their fair share. Therefore, when they realized that there was nothing coming their way, apart from their rightful shares, they complained. Their spokesman made their feelings clear to the Prophet, showing all due respect.

The Prophet spoke to the Ansar and reminded them of the great change Islam brought into their lives. They acknowledged this and expressed their gratitude to Allah and to the Prophet. He then stated his own indebtedness to them, acknowledging that they gave him shelter when his own people were plotting to kill him, and they supported him against all enemies.

The Prophet then stated the situation that gave rise to their complaint, and he made the issues underlining it very clear. Those gifts went to people who knew very little about Islam so that they would feel that they would lose nothing of their material world when they accepted Islam. On the other hand, the Ansar were keenly aware of what Islam meant to them. He said: “People of the Ansar, are you aggrieved over a trifle of this world which I have given out to certain people in order to win their hearts over to Islam and left you to rely on your faith? Are you not satisfied, people of the Ansar, that other people should go to their quarters with sheep and camels while you go back to your own quarters with Allah’s Messenger? By Him who holds Muhammad’s soul in His hand, had it not been for my emigration I would have been one of the Ansar. If all people went one way and the Ansar went another way, I would take the way of the Ansar. My Lord, shower your mercy on the Ansar, and the Ansar’s children and the children of their children.”

- By NAUSHAD SHAMIM AL-HAQ

Permission is granted to circulate among private individuals and groups, to post on Internet sites and to publish in full text and subject title in not-for-profit publications.

Umars (may Allah be pleased with him) golden words on success

In the name of Allah, the Most-Merciful, the All-Compassionate

“Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining Al-Ma’roof (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam orders one to do) and forbidding Al-Munkar (polytheism and disbelief and all that Islam has forbidden). And it is they who are successful.” (Qur’an, 3:104)

---

Bismillah Walhamdulillah Was Salaatu Was Salaam 'ala Rasulillah

As-Salaam Alaikum Wa-Rahmatullahi Wa-Barakatuhu

Umars (may Allah be pleased with him) golden words on success

PRAISE BE TO ALLAH

UMAR Bin Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) was on his way to take over Jerusalem from the Romans. They insisted that they would hand over the keys of the city only to the leader of Muslims, whose power and might was well-known.

His journey was special. He would take turns with his slave to ride the camel. If for some distance he rode and the slave walked pulling the camel, then for the next equal distance the slave would ride and Umar would walk, pulling the camel. Jerusalem was near, the citys gates were almost in sight, and it was the slaves turn to ride the camel. While Umar walked, he passed through a pool of mud, so his clothes got soiled.

Abu Ubaidah Bin Al-Jarrah, commander of the Muslim army, was worried. He came to Umar and suggested that he rode the camel as they were about to enter Jerusalem. He thought the Romans, who are used to pomp and glory, will not respect Umar if he entered with such simplicity.

At first, Umar was taken aback, as. he didnt expect it from a revered companion like Abu Ubaidah

Then Umar spoke one of the most powerful statements ever to go down in history. He said, We were a people who lived in humiliation before. Allah gave us honor through Islam. If we sought honor through anything else (at the cost of Islam) then Allah will humiliate us again.

Surely enough, what was the Arabian peninsula before Islam? It was steeped deep into ignorance that rulers would pass by and would not bother conquering it.

People would bury their female babies alive; wars would start at the drop of a hat and continue for hundreds of years; immoral practices were rampant; and most importantly idols were worshipped.

Who could have thought during the time that in less than 100 years the same people would be ruling from Spain to the Indian subcontinent? But that is what Islam did to them, that is what standing firm upon the truth brought them.

They were the best generation. They practiced Islam with full conviction and obeyed Allah with full submission. This is what we lack today. We lack knowledge that precedes action, and faith that turns knowledge into deeds. If we set that right, Allah promises us the success we so desperately seek.

And Allah Knows Best.

---

The Prophet (PBUH) said "Pass on knowledge from me even if it is only one verse"

MAY ALLAH GUIDE US ALL TO THE STRAIGHT PATH

Your richness before your poverty

Your richness before your poverty

One day we might not have anything, and the next day we might have much more than we need. One day, a person has a great job and a fat pay check, yet the next day, something happens and he does not have that job anymore and loses his source of income. So, the wise person uses his richness before he becomes poor. He invests for his future.

As for the investments of this world, then the Muslims and non-Muslims are somewhat same, in the sense they both invest in it. The Prophet (peace be upon him) would store staple food items up to a year. Sometimes he would store barley and grain for a whole year for his family. This is obviously something Halaal as the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself did it, and we should do it too. We should make sure we have enough money for our family, so we do not turn beggars. There is no doubt that this is part of our Shariah.

But while we do this, let us not forget that we should also invest for the hereafter. Should we not think about investing money so we can pluck its fruits in the hereafter, where we will need it far more than currently in this world? We should invest for the real future – in our life after death.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) once asked his companions, “Who amongst you loves his inheritors’ money more than his own money?”

A father, for example, will love his own money more than his son’s money. This is something natural. Every person will love his own money more than other people’s money.

The Companions said, “O Messenger of Allah, all of us love our own money more than we love the money of our inheritors. We all love our own money. We guard it and protect it more than the money of our inheritors.”

Then the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “Verily, the money that you spend in charity is your money, and the money that you leave behind is the money of your inheritors.” (Al-Bukhari, 4/217)

Ponder over that Hadith for a while. How true it is. Do we not realize that all our lifelong savings enough to feed generations of people will be of no benefit to us? It will all be our inheritors’ money. But the money we spend in our lifetime for the sake of Allah will be ours permanently.

Remember that feeding your family is a type of worship if you are doing it for the sake of Allah.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “Whatever you spend in Allah’s Cause, you will get reward for it, even for the morsel of food which you put in your wife’s mouth.” (Al-Bukhari)

Now everybody feeds his family. But will everybody be rewarded? No. Because only the one who does it remembering Allah, thinking about Allah, and doing it for the sake of Allah will be rewarded.

Ask yourself if the last time you went shopping, was Allah in your mind? Did you think of doing this for Allah? When you picked up the milk and the bread, was your heart thinking,

“O Allah, I am buying this food through Halaal money, and this is Halaal food, because I want to feed my family and this is an obligation that You have put upon me, therefore, I am doing it for your sake.” Who amongst us has this in the mind?

When we say, “Money that is spent for the sake of Allah,” we are not just talking about Zakat and charity. They are among the most virtuous deeds no doubt. But do not forget that the majority of income we spend can all be for the sake of Allah if we have the right intention. Such consciousness of Allah all the time will also prevent us from extravagance and wasting our money.

Permission is granted to circulate among private individuals and groups, to post on Internet sites and to publish in full text and subject title in not-for-profit publications.

THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD'S LAST SERMON

(This Sermon was delivered on the Ninth Day of Dhul
Hijjah 10 A.H in the Uranah Valley of mount Arafat )

"O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I don't know whether,
after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefore
listen to what I am saying to you carefully and TAKE THIS WORDS
TO THOSE WHO COULD NOT BE PRESENT HERE TODAY.

O People, just as you regard this month, this day, this city as
Sacred, so regard the life and property of every Muslim as a
sacred trust. Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful
owners. Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that
you will indeed meet your LORD, and that HE will indeed reckon
your deeds. ALLAH has forbidden you to take usury (Interest),
therefore all interest obligation shall henceforth be waived...

Beware of Satan, for your safety of your religion. He has lost
all hope that he will ever be able to lead you astray in big
things, so beware of following him in small things.

O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to
your women, but they also have right over you. If they abide by
your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed
in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for
they are your partners and comitted helpers. And it is your right
that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not
approve, as well as never to commit adultery.

O People, listen to me in earnest, whorship ALLAH, say your five
daily prayers (Salah), fast during the month of Ramadhan, and give
your wealth in Zakat. Perform Hajj if you can afford to. You know
that every Muslim is the brother of another Muslim. YOU ARE ALL
EQUAL. NOBODY HAS SUPERIORITY OVER OTHER EXCEPT BY PIETY AND GOOD
ACTION.

Remember, one day you will appear before ALLAH and answer for your
deeds. So beware, do not astray from the path of righteousness
after I am gone.

O People, NO PROPHET OR APOSTLE WILL COME AFTER ME AND NO NEW
FAITH WILL BE BORN. Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand
my words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the
QUR'AN and my example, the SUNNAH and if you follow these you will
never go astray.

All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and
those to others again; and may the last ones understand my words
better than those who listen to me direcly. BE MY WITNESS O ALLAH
THAT I HAVE CONVEYED YOUR MESSAGE TO YOUR PEOPLE."


from www.jannah.org

do you believe in soul mate?

1.
And wide eyed companions,
Like hidden pearls.
- The Quran, the Inevitable, 56:22-23

We have made them pure - virginal -
friends - lovers - for the Companions of the Right Side. - 56:36-37

Your partners are your garments and your are their garments.
- The Quran, the Heifer, 2:187


2.
“What you think of soul mate?”

“Do you believe in soul mate?”

Someone asked those questions to me few months back. Do I believe in such concept, I was asked.

I didn’t answer that day because I do not know. I did not know.

Few days after that I had a chance to spend some quiet time in a nearby, narrow road and it was so lovely that rain started as I was strolling in the park and I found myself taking shelter on a floating barge. The view from the barge met the rain drops coming down and kissing the surface of the Lanao lake. There is so much beauty in the world, so often so hidden from our eyes and heart! While enjoying the rain, I sat down and wrote this small piece on the inspiration about soul mate.

3.
From my limited life experience so far I have no doubt about human heart’s infinite capacity to love another human heart, and the human being to whom that heart belongs to. And why this should be surprising when each human being has as his or her essence – the divine quality, al-Wadud: the Lover, the Beloved and the Love – the Source of All Three.

Each human being has tremendous capacity to love. The person whom you can give the most amount of love, and / or from whom you can attract or receive the most amount of love unrestrained – is your soul mate: The friend of the soul, the soul's beloved, the beloved at the soul level, the anam cara, al habib.

Through many life time, this tremendous capacity of our soul, for some, remain only an unrealized possibility unfortunately. Such possibility doesn’t always find their reciprocity and the story doesn’t always end as ‘...and they lived with each other happily ever after’ - fashion. But this never invalidate the domain of true lovers or the manifestation of soul mate. Infact the greatest love stories known to mankind became great only in their separation, not in their union - such is the paradox of love.

Yes there are human characteristic trait which make us attracted to certain person / personality and make us not so attracted to others / types of personality. This does not mean that we can not transcend our limitations to love anyone or anybody with our highest love that our heart is gifted with. Infact the wise ones say that the ones most difficult to love, deserve the most love from us. Remember how its the sick ones who need medicine. And infact to direct our heart to love whom our ego find most resistance to love is perhaps the most effective spiritual practice to widen our heart's capacity for love. It is like an exercise for the nafs (ego) and the qalb (heart).

Due to our heedlessness, due to our too much absorption into the material world we begin to lose our pure capacity to love with which we were born into this world. With time many of us actually forget to love that encompasses in a grand way. The boundless love of ar Rahman and ar Rahim - two essential and most encompassing attribute of God.The great beings who lived among us, whom many hearts came to love, receive that love because they were human beings who were able to maximize their heart's capacity to love. If you think, you will understand that the great ones we remember, our heart is made to remember, who perhaps lived in thousands of years back, are remembered exactly because they could love others with an uncompromising love the ordinary mind can not even imagine.To humann history such beings we call luminous beings, the divine messengers, the saints, the awliyas.

Those whom we adore, whom many hearts love with such single pointed devotion, the great godly beings (rabbani), they succeeded in doing exactly so. Such quest to love more fully is the quest which all mystics have.

Just as one is his or her destiny and the destiny does not wait somewhere else outside of themselves but it is through them that their destiny manifest - the same parable applies for soul mate. In our new age discourse, often time an illusion is created that there is one, only one in the whole universe who is your soul mate and unless you have not found him or her, you haven't found your love truly. Well, in a sense it is true, but not like how it is thought or imagined to be true.

Popularly some believe that there is only one soul mate for us out there, which is right and wrong at the same time (yes reality permits such paradoxes, the simplest example is a glass half full and half empty at the same time). When one is able to love another human being with perfect love, then that person become the focus of the heart and hence become the unique and one 'soul mate' for the person and since within human breast there is only one heart, so the perfected love becomes arrested to only one as well. In that state, there is only one beloved, one soul mate. So from post-love perspective, there can only be one soul mate for individual soul in the moment; but from another perspective, the possibility for the heart's ability to love any human being with a more perfected love and hence embracing that human being as soul mate is an open possibility and dynamic. The soul mate is not a static possibility with a single person waiting somewhere. It is an ever dynamic possibility, always present knowing no limitations.

Once we learn or be in the context when we can unconditionally love someone or we are all loved by someone (when we are the locus of love, as beloved or more ideal is when it happens simultaneously), then the lover and beloved call each other soul mates.

So there is a discovery awaiting for each of us. The discovery to find the soul mate. Not somewhere else but by being more loving and being more open to love. It is not subject to speed dating but even the long married spouse whom one partner never allowed himself or herself to love or let be loved so completely, can also become the soul mate for the rest of the life time once the love is perfected. To allow others to love us takes much much courage because it transports us into a very vulnerable place where we have to let go the last boundaries by which we separate and (tend to) protect out individuality.

You may find your soul mate in any person if you are able to love that person with a love that your heart is capable of to the highest degree, with the highest unconditionality, so unconditionally that your eyes can never look upon anybody else like that, so unconditionally that your heart has no more space for anyone else.

"God has not placed two hearts in the bosom of men." - as says the revelation.

And Allah knows the best, the Exalted, the Bestower of Wisdom.

4.
The moment I first heard about my love story
I was looking for you,
Not knowing that lovers don't meet anywhere,
they are inside each other, all along.
- Hafiz

Islamic perspective on personal privacy

Islamic perspective on personal privacy

Personal privacy of the individual is an integral part of his dignity. The private dwelling is therefore made immune against intrusion of all kind. Strangers who wish to enter private homes are required to greet the inhabitants and familiarize themselves with courtesy and respect (See: Qur’an, 24:27). Permission to enter a private home is thus to be solicited thrice, and if it is still not granted, there should be no further repetition and the stranger must leave. This is clearly stated in a Hadith which directed the believers that “asking for permission is (allowed up to) three times. If it is not granted to you, you must return.” (Sahih Muslim)

The Hadith here elaborates on the two requirements of familiarization (isti’nas) and greeting (taslim) that are laid down in the above-mentioned Qur’anic verse. The order of priority between these two requirements has also been specified in another Hadith which simply declared that “The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Greeting precedes the speech.” (Mubarakfuri, ‘Aradat Al-Ahwadhi, Sharh Jami’ Al-Tirmidhi)

Spying (tajassus) is forbidden by the clear text of the Qur’an, and so is indulgence in suspicion and surreptitious activities that are degrading and offensive to the personal dignity of the individual (Qur’an, 49:12). The Qur’anic prohibition on spying occurs in general terms.

One must act on the basis of what he knows through direct observation without recourse to spying, eavesdropping and other methods of searching for evidence. (Al-Dughmi, Ahkam Al-Tajassus, p. 149)

The second Caliph, Umar Bin Al-Khattab has clarified the government position when he said that the government acts on what is evident; one who exhibits good character should not be suspected of anything but good; for the inner secrets of people are only known to Allah Most High. (Al-Tabari, Tarikh, v. 26)

The general text of the Qur’an on the prohibition of spying similarly means that all varieties of espionage are included. Furthermore the Qur’anic text on espionage is immediately preceded by an address to the believers to “avoid indulgence in suspicion, for surely suspicion in most cases is sinful, and spy not...” (Qur’an, 49:12)

Espionage originates in suspicion, which is also to be avoided as far as possible, although the wording of the text is not as categorical on suspicion as it is on spying. The text here seems to permit suspicion that is based on reasonable grounds. The point, however, is that both are seen as a threat to personal dignity and a violation of the individual’s right to privacy.

The prohibition of spying also includes opening of personal letters and confidential correspondence. This is, in fact, the subject of a Hadith to the effect that “one who looks into the letter of his brother without his permission is like looking into the fire of Hell.” (Al-Suyuti, Al-Jami’ As-Saghir, p. 165; Ibn Majah, Al-Adab Al-Shar`iyya, vol. 2, p. 166)

The prohibition of espionage is thus addressed to everyone and to all concerned, including, that is, the law enforcement agencies, the individuals and the government leaders.

– The Dignity of Man, Ilmiah Publishers

Permission is granted to circulate among private individuals and groups, to post on Internet sites and to publish in full text and subject title in not-for-profit publications.

Better to Give

A young man, a student in one of the universities, was one day taking a walk with a Professor, who was commonly called the student’s friend, from his kindness to those who waited on his instructions.

As they went along,they saw lying in the path a pair of old shoes, which they supposed to belong to a poor man who was employed in a field close by,and who had nearly finished his day’s work.

The student turned to the professor, saying: “Let us play the man a trick: we will hide his shoes, and conceal ourselves behind those bushes, and wait to see his perplexity when he cannot find them.”

“My young friend,” answered the professor, “we should never amuse ourselves at the expense of the poor. But you are rich, and may give yourself a much greater pleasure by means of this poor man. Put a coin in each shoe, and then we will hide ourselves and watch how this affects him.”

The student did so and they both placed themselves behind the bushes close by. The poor man soon finished his work, and came across the field to the path where he had left his coat and shoes.

While putting on his coat he slipped his foot into one of his shoes, but feeling something hard, he stooped down to feel what it was, and found the coin. Astonishment and wonder were seen upon his countenance. He gazed upon the coin, turned it around, and looked at it again and again.

He then looked around him on all sides, but no person was to be seen. He now put the money into his pocket, and proceeded to put on the other shoe; but his surprise was doubled on finding the other coin.

His feelings overcame him; he fell upon his knees, looked up to the heavens and uttered aloud a fervent thanksgiving in which he spoke of his wife who was sick and helpless, and his children without bread, whom this timely bounty, from some unknown hand,would save from perishing.

The student stood there deeply affected, and his eyes filled with tears. “Now,” said the professor, are you not much better pleased than if you had played your intended trick?”

The youth replied, “You have taught me a lesson which I will never forget. I feel now the truth of these words, which I never understood before: “It’s more blessed to give than to receive.”

Abdullah bin Abbas (radi Allahu anhu) reported that the Prophet (sallAllahu alaiyhi wassallam) said that encouraging good, prohibiting evil, lifting the burden of the weak person and removing an offensive thing from a path are all acceptable prayers to Allah.
[ibn Majah]

Scars of Love

Some years ago on a hot summer day in south Florida a little boy decided to go for a swim in the old swimming hole behind his house.

In a hurry to dive into the cool water, he ran out the back door, leaving behind shoes, socks, and shirt as he went. He flew into the water, not realizing that as he swam toward the middle of the lake, an alligator was swimming toward the shore.

His mother, in the house, was looking out the window and saw the two as they got closer and closer together. In utter fear, she ran toward the water, yelling to her son as loudly as she could. Hearing her voice, the little boy became alarmed and made a U-turn to swim to his mother.

It was too late. Just as he reached her, the alligator reached him. From the dock, the mother grabbed her little boy by the arms just as the alligator snatched his legs. That began an incredible tug-of-war between the two.

The alligator was much stronger than the mother, but the mother was much too passionate to let go.

A farmer happened to drive by, heard her screams, raced from his truck, took aim and shot the alligator. Remarkably, after weeks and weeks in the hospital, the little boy survived.

His legs were extremely scarred by the vicious attack of the animal. And, on his arms, were deep scratches where his mother’s fingernails dug into his flesh in her effort to hang on to the son she loved.

The newspaper reporter who interviewed the boy after the trauma, asked if he would show him his scars. The boy lifted his pant legs; and then, with obvious pride, he said to the reporter, “But look at my arms. I have great scars on my arms, too. I have them because my mom wouldn’t let go.”

You and I can identify with that little boy. We have scars, too.

No, not from an alligator, or anything quite so dramatic. But, the scars of a painful past. Some of those scars are unsightly and have caused us deep regret. But, some wounds, my friend, are because God has refused to let go.

In the midst of your struggle, He’s been there holding on to you.

This teaches us that God loves us. But sometimes we foolishly wade into dangerous situations. The swimming hole of life is filled with peril -and we forget that the enemy is waiting to attack. That’s when the tug-o-war begins - and if you have the scars of His love on your arms, be very, very grateful. He did not - and will not - let you go.

Importance of Good Companionship

Importance of Good Companionship

GOOD companionship, choosing and having good companions is extremely important for many reasons and from many aspects. Man cannot live alone; every individual must live and interact with others.

Those people with whom you interact and make friends with are inevitably going to fall into one of two categories. Either they are going to be good individuals - who guide and encourage you towards what is good, and help you to accomplish that which Allah has ordered, or they are going to be bad - encouraging you to do what is pleasing to Satan, that which misleads you and leads you to the Hellfire.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) explained the matter of good companionship, so that no room is left for doubt or confusion, when he said : "A person is affected by the manners of his close friend, so look at whom you befriend." (Abu Dawud & Tirmidhi)

There is an Arabic expression - 'Your companion is what pulls you to something.' So if your companion is good, he will pull you towards that which is good. But if your companion is bad, he will only pull you towards that which is evil. We must choose our friends and companions carefully so that we take for friends who are sincere, and who will command us with what is good and forbid us from what is evil. If he observes us committing sins he would warn us, if he becomes aware of our shortcomings he would advise us, and if he finds a fault in us he would cover it.

Concerning this point the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "A Muslim is the brother of another Muslim. He neither betrays him nor tells him a lie, nor humiliates him." (Tirmidhi)

So should you see a fault in your brother, you should wish to remove that fault from him and not expose it to the people. This is what is required by brotherhood and again stresses the importance of choosing friends who are on the right path, who are loyal, and who hide your faults whilst ordering you to do good and forbidding you from evil, who stand beside you and support you, and co-operate with you in all that is good.

A good example of this can be found in Prophet (peace be upon him )who was free from making sins. When he was making the hijrah (migration) from Makkah to Madina he would not leave until he had chosen a companion to accompany him on his journey.

Abu Bakr offered to go with him and make the hijrah also, but the Prophet (peace be upon him) ordered him to wait until Allah allowed him to do so.

This implies that the fact that Abu Bakr was to be the Prophet's companion on this hijrah was a choice from Allah, and so great a choice and such a blessing that Allah mentioned it in the Qur'an:

"Allah did indeed help him (Muhammad [pbuh]) when the disbelievers drove him out. The second of the two, when they (Muhammad [pbuh] and Abu Bakr) were in the cave, and he said to his companion, 'Be not sad (or afraid), surely Allah is with us. '" (Qur'an 9:40)

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "surely Allah is with us," not "with me." since Abu Bakr had supported the Prophet (peace be upon him) in establishing Islam, he had thus earned the right to be supported by Allah also.

Abu Bakr - a good friend and companion, one who was willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of Allah and to the service of His Messenger (peace be upon him); his life, his wealth, his sweat, his tears and everything that he owned he gave for Allah 's sake. Abu Bakr sets for us this great example of the good companionship.

Compiled from various sources.

Permission is granted to circulate among private individuals and groups, to post on Internet sites and to p ublish in full text and subject title in not-for-profit publications.

Note that an English translation of the Qur'an is an interpretation of the Qur'an, and does not have the perfect status as the Qur'an in its original Arabic form.

.

__

The Existence of a Creator: An Intellectual Argument

The Existence of a Creator: An Intellectual Argument

By Sharif Abu Laith

http://www.theinimi tablequran. com/TheExistence OfACreatorAnInte llectualArgument .html

We shall focus on two main areas:

- Firstly the correct process of thought by which we can assess the proofs in order to establish a sound conclusion.

- And secondly some of the various arguments and rebuttals that are used to establish the belief in the creator.

Concept of Proof

The Collins Dictionary defines 'Proof' as, 'any evidence that establishes or helps to
establish the truth, validity, quality, etc of something'. To better understand the concept
of 'proof' let us consider an example; imagine not knowing today's date, so you decide to
check the newspaper for it. As a result the newspaper forms the proof to substantiate
your belief in today's date. The conclusion of the date and its correctness is based upon
the correctness of the proof. Now, what if the newspaper we used in order to know the
date was in fact yesterday’s. That means we incorrectly assumed the date, however,
such an individual not knowing this error would feel assured in a truth that only he
perceives due to the misunderstanding of the evidence. Thus, what is considered as
'proof' is of paramount concern, because although we may feel assured in the
conclusion we obtained from what we perceive to be correct and valid proofs, we could in
fact be completely wrong.

With regards to belief, there are three general ways, or three proofs that individuals use
to adopt a particular set of beliefs. A person may adopt a belief through imitating the rest
of society or following their forefathers. Similarly some base their belief upon the
emotional satisfaction or contentment the particular belief gives them. Finally one may
adopt a belief through the use of the intellect. With regards to the incorrectness of
imitation as a method to establish ones' belief, it is self-evident. As for emotions being
the basis of adopting a belief, then this too can easily dismissed as an invalid proof, and
I will not pursue to invalidate them. This then leaves us with the use of the intellect as the
way to ascertain the proofs of the existence of the Creator. We thus need to ascertain
how the intellect is used to obtain the correct conclusion. There are three general
understandings as to the manner by which the mind/intellect could be used correctly in
order to obtain objective knowledge. They are rational thought, empirical thought and
the use of logic. Once we have obtained the correct manner in which to think we can
then assess the proofs upon which any argument is to be built.

The use of Logic

The classical Greeks used a manner or style of thinking called 'logic', its most useful and
strongest form was called deductive logic. By deductive logic they described how a
conclusion would be built upon its premises, thus the correctness of the conclusion
depended upon the correctness of the premises. Deductive logic therefore was built
upon four components: the two premises, the link between the two premises and the
conclusion which resulted from this link.

One of the most important features of the logic was the structure of the sentences i.e.
semantics and terminology. So discussion branched out to discuss the theory of ideas
and the theory of universals. In essence philosophers were trying to construct
arguments built upon the correct use of semantics. So for example if I were to find out
whether humans are warm blooded or not by using the logical approach then I may use
the following premises; all mammals are warm blooded, all humans are mammals,
therefore humans are warm blooded. Here the link between humans to mammals is
based upon the definition we give to mammals. If our definition differs of mammals then
our conclusion would change. Hence amongst the logicians’, discussion on language,
terminology and construct of sentences became an important feature. In this example,
the understanding of the whether humans are mammals, is a discussion of the universal
features that all mammals share, and thus do humans share this common feature. This
discussion of universals and ideas are the two theories that distinguished Aristotle from
Plato when understanding the commonalities that things share. So what we find, and it
certainly is the case, that the use of logic can become complicated due to semantics.
And we find that many philosophers fall into the trap of semantics, thus missing the wood
from the trees so to say.

Further to the problem of semantics, logic also suffers from hidden defects that may not
be known from the link between the two premises. This is due to the fact that the
conclusion is not directly sensed but is built upon two base thoughts that may or may not
have been sensed. So for example we could state oxygen is gas at room temperature
and that hydrogen is also gas at room temperature thus we can conclude that oxygen
combined with hydrogen would produce a gas at room temperature. But this is not the
case for hydrogen combined with oxygen produces a liquid at room temperature. Such
hidden defects can not be noticed when building thought upon thought and thus logic
can not be used as the basis of building conclusions.

Empirical Thought

Discussion arose as to whether thought originated before matter or whether the matter
was the source of thought. So the rationalists, and we should distinguish here between
the ‘rationalists’ and what is meant by ‘rational thought’, they stated that humans were
born with innate thoughts. One such exponent was Emannuel Kant the German
philosopher. In response to this, the empiricists stated that such conclusion wasn't based
upon any evidences and was merely an assumption. Further, in their zeal to remove the
creator from the equation the empiricists (such as the communists) stated that thought
resulted from matter itself. Thus, they stated that the first step in the process of
acquiring knowledge is the primary contact with the external environment - this is the
stage of sensory perception. The second stage is the accumulation and the organisation
of the information which is gathered from the sensory perception. This description of
empirical thought was succinctly put by Mao Tse tung. In essence the thinking process
according to them is produced by the sensation of the environment around them. Thus
thought was a mere reflection of the matter onto the brain. This they said was the basis
of thinking; so that no thought could exist except if reality exists for it.

However, they misunderstood the reality of thinking as we clearly know. So a simple
example of a doctor undertaking tests proves that such tests doesn’t establish the
disease of his patient unless he has previous information as to what the tests are meant
to yield. To further clarify this, a doctor must know the average blood sugar level in the
body for a normal healthy patient, and then when subsequent tests are made and it is
found that the patients blood sugar level is higher than the average for a normal patient,
one can say he has hyperglycemia i.e. diabetes. So a simple analogy throws doubt on
the empirical method of thinking as the sole basis of thought.

Further, while conducting experiments at school where we are told, in order to put into
practice the empirical approach - we first formulate a hypothesis then a method to test
the above hypothesis then record the results obtained from tests finally concluding
whether the tests substantiates the hypothesis or not. The very fact that we had a
hypothesis clearly demonstrates that there was previous information upon which the
experimentation was built. Therefore, simply stating that thought arises from purely
sensing the environment or the reality is completely false when practically employing the
empirical method. In fact due to the presence of previous information i.e. the hypothesis
we understand that the empirical method is a branch of rational thought not its source.

To further clarify this point in order to establish a conclusion based upon
experimentation we need to use the rational method of thinking. That is to say we link the
experimental data to the previous knowledge we have to extrapolate a conclusion based
on the least amount of doubt. So as an example, we have a patient who shows weight
loss and urinates frequently the doctor hypothesises that the patient may have diabetes,
as weight loss and urinating a lot are signs of that disease. So the doctor then tests his
blood sugar level after which he establishes whether his original hypothesis is
substantiated by his tests. So here he has linked the results from the tests to previous
information of the normal blood sugar levels assessing whether this proves his initial
hypothesis or not.

Finally with regards to empirical thought, due to the fact that the empiricists state that
thought is directly built upon reality, meaning that each thought is a reflection of a
specific reality. Then thoughts that do not have a representation in reality are not true
thoughts. Then the empiricists firmly state that belief in God is an incorrect thought
because such thought is not a reflection on reality as there is no sensation of the
creator. However, they have failed to appreciate and understand the thinking process
because if they are correct in stating that thinking is a direct reflection on reality, i.e. no
reality no thought. Then one would ask where did such a thought come from with
regards to the belief in a God? This sufficiently disproves their concept of the thought
process.

In addition, causal relationships cannot be directly sensed, does that mean causal
relations do not exist? If that is the case then the whole process of empirical thought
wouldn’t exist as this depends on the necessary causal relationship. Thus, the claim that
empirical thought is the source of thought stating that thought results in reflection of
matter onto the brain, has glaring contradictions.

Rational thought

Finally on this section of the thinking process we come to rational thought and how this is
the source of thinking. We state that thought came before matter because by merely
sensing matter we do not establish any thought. The inability of sensing the syriac
language without previous information of the syriac language shows that sensation alone
will not allow us to understand the language. Instead we must have the previous
information together with the reality which is sensed (sensory perception) and the
distinguishing mind - to make the link between the reality and the previous information to
produce thought.

Further we understand that the mind has the ability to produce thought based upon one
reality and extrapolate a principle. So when we sense a ball on the ground with no force
applied to it we see it stationary and when force is applied to the ball we see it move. We
would understand that after observing the ball moving after applying force to it then this
would be true each time we apply force to the ball and not just for that particular time. In
fact this is true for all types of balls.

Further our mind is able to extract the general principle of cause and effect based upon
all things which are finite and limited after simply observing the ball moving after force
was applied. So there doesn’t just exist a simple relationship between the observed
reality and its representation as a thought, which is the case with empirical thinking, but
in fact the mind is able to establish principles and use those principles to establish other
thoughts. Again, as an example a person may have a thought of a mountain and a
thought of gold, his mind has then the capacity to link the two thoughts and produce a
thought of a mountain of gold even though he hasn’t sensed this. Therefore rational
thought is built upon the reality together with the previous information further the mind
has the ability to extrapolate general principles and produce thoughts that may not be
directly sensed. This is the clearest understanding of thought and this is how humans
produce thought and live their life according to established thought.

Therefore the use of the rational method is the only definite way to assess the proofs in
order to produce a conclusion. It is therefore the method of thinking we employ when
discussing the subject matter of the proof of God.

Argument by design

This argument has been presented by various muslim and non muslim thinkers. So Imam
Ahmed bin Hanbal gave the example of the egg and Thomas Aqinas gave the example
of finding a watch in the middle of a desert. The argument is simple: complicated things
require a designer. So taking the watch as an example we see it is complex, we also
know the watch has a watch maker, thus an analogy can be made between the watch
and the universe as the universe around us is also complex in its nature. Thus if the
watch is complex requiring a designer then what about the complexities of the universe?
So some would naturally conclude that such complexity that exists in the universe would
require a designer and that designer would thus be the Creator. Although it is a simple
argument it is at face value quite compelling, however many thinkers have criticised this
argument. They have stated that how can an analogy be made between the watch and
the universe. For instance we have previous information that the watch was made by a
watchmaker. But such previous information doesn’t exist for the universe. The critics of
this argument would also question as to whether the universe and all that it contains is
truly complex, and state that it is just simply randomly arranged.

Those who try to defend the argument have stated that the universe is truly complex and
that if one of the laws of nature was different by a very small amount then this would
preclude the chances of life. Similarly if the expansion rate of the universe was greater
or smaller then the universe would not exist. In essence they are stating that the
probability of the universe coming into existence as it is allowing life to exist is so small
that this would have to compel an observer to believe in a master designer. However,
this argument isn't sound, for example if I were to take a ball and randomly throw it up in
the air and for it to fall unto a particular piece of ground. Then we would ask, that for it to
have fallen on that piece of ground and not another piece of ground then the probability
would be extremely low. But just because the probability was extremely low doesn’t mean
that the ball was directed at that region, especially when the ball was thrown in a random
way. Similarly the universe having its particular laws of nature and rate of expansion
doesn’t necessarily mean it was designed in such a manner. For the universe to have
different laws of nature or different rate of expansion then the probability would be
equally as low. So such arguments as a rebuttal against those critics of the argument by
design would be incorrect.

However, with regards to the critics they have failed to appreciate the manner by which
the individual considers and thinks about the complexity of the universe and all that it
contains. For instance, when we look at a table we establish that it is made of wood. But
simply having the wood doesn’t necessarily follow we have a table. Thus, there must be
something other than the wood to have fashioned it into a table. The philosophers
therefore state that the ‘material cause’ of the table (i.e. what it is made out of) is the
wood, but it has another cause i.e. its ‘efficient cause’. That is to say that there is
something other than the wood required to fashion it into a table. That other would be
different to the wood or material cause itself. So if we look at the life, man and the
universe we find that the material cause is the same for all of these things, yet they differ
from one another. In addition, by having the material cause that makes up man and life
then this doesn’t necessarily follow that we have a man or life. So if we have the
elements that make up man, it does not follow that we have a human. Therefore, there
must be something other than these elements that make up a human, i.e. an efficient
cause. Again what distinguishes man life and the universe isn't the material cause
therefore there must be something other than the material cause that distinguishes man
from the universe and the different life forms. This means there exists an efficient cause
separate from the universe man and life. That is the creator.

Some may argue that if the premise is laid down that complicated things require a
designer then wouldn’t the creator be complex and thus also require a designer. Here
they are using deductive logic to try and show an inherent contradiction within the
argument by design. Remember how deductive logic has four components to it. Here
they use the two premises: 1. Complex things require a designer, 2. The universe is
complex, the conclusion built upon the link is that the universe is therefore designed by a
Creator. They would argue that the creator is complex therefore it would fit within the
logical style as mentioned above. However, if their argument is accepted then one would
ask who designed the designer of the designer. In fact we will fall into infinite regression.

Infinite regression means continual subtraction by one. Meaning that if the creator
designed the universe and that another designer designed the creator and this keeps
continuing. This is impossible because there must be a first cause i.e. something that
doesn’t depend upon something prior to it for its existence. In order to understand why
infinite regression is impossible the simple analogy of dominoes can be considered. For
the last domino to fall over, it would need to be hit by the domino before it and each
domino must be hit by a prior domino. Now if there was no starting domino that initiates
the process of each domino falling over then none of the dominoes would fall over. So if
everything that is complex requires a prior designer, then we would face a situation
where nothing would exist but would wait for that first cause to initiate the process and
because there is no first cause then nothing would exist. Yet we see things in existence.
Therefore infinite regression is impossible.

Further, they are incorrect in making the assumption that because the creator is complex
that this creator would also require a designer. We have established that the designer
and creator of the universe must exist based upon the sensation of reality, hence the
thought is rational. Whereas, stating that there must exist a designer for the creator is
not built upon sensing the reality but is mere logic. That is to say building thought upon
thought. And as mentioned before building thought upon thought can carry with it hidden
defects in its conclusion thus, we would reject any such argument stating clearly that an
infinite regression is impossible and any such thought is irrational (not based upon
reality). So the argument by design although having its critics has the ability to establish
firm belief in the need for the creator.

Kalam Cosmological argument

This is the argument originally developed by the muslim thinkers. It clearly states that
everything we perceive in the universe is limited and finite and that everything that is
limited and finite is dependent. The universe is the sum of limited finite things therefore
the universe is limited and because it is limited it is thus dependent upon something else.
As mentioned previously: because infinite regression cannot exist, then everything
ultimately depends upon the independent creator who is unlimited and infinite. This is
the basic argument however, it has slight variations.

The first variance is that limited objects in the universe depend upon something else in
order for it to exist. So for example, a computer depends upon electricity and electricity
depends upon a power station which has a magnet rotating in a metal coil. The rotation
of the magnet requires the turbines to spin the magnet, the turbines spin because of the
steam produced by the water boiling. The heat is produced by the coal burning and the
coal required decay of wood under pressure, the wood required sunlight to produce
photosynthesis in converting carbon dioxide into wood, and so on. Thus we see that
everything which is limited depends upon something else limited. So the question may
arise: does this series of inter-dependant things go on for infinity or does it stop
somewhere? Because we have established that infinite regression is an impossibility
then it must stop with a first cause i.e. something independent. Now for this thing to be
independent then it must be other than what is dependent i.e. limited and finite.
Therefore it is unlimited and infinite as well as independent.

Now some may criticise this argument by saying that we have assumed that a linear
relationship exists between limited finite things. Thus A depends upon B and B depends
upon C and so on in a linear relationship. And for things that depend upon each other in
a linear relationship then it is true that there must be something independent. However,
some may argue: what if there exists a cyclical dependency as is the cause with the
water cycle. So the seas depend upon the rain, the rain depends upon the clouds and
the clouds depend upon evaporation of water from the seas. Thus each up holds the
other. This is how they say the universe preserves its existence. Therefore the universe
goes through a cycle from the big bang to a big crunch and so on for infinity. Yet we
would clearly ask what initiated the cycle in the first place? For instance if the seas
require the rain before seas are produced and if the rain requires clouds for the rain to
exist and the clouds initially require the seas to exist then we know that each thing
cannot sustain the other without their originally existing a first cause. Otherwise the seas,
clouds and rain wouldn’t exist. Similarly each finite thing within the universe cannot
depend upon another finite thing within an elaborate cycle as is the case in the water
cycle. That is to say that a first cause i.e. something independent is required to exist. So
if the big bang depended upon the big crunch and that big crunch was dependant upon
a previous big bang then if there was no start to the cycle then neither the big bang nor
the big crunch would exist.

Therefore things which are limited are themselves dependent upon other things and
definitely they require something independent and unlimited to bring them into being in
the first place.

After this has been established still some atheists tried to bring other arguments. So
Bertrand Russel stated that if we accept the premise that every thing has a cause then
the creator is also a thing, therefore who caused the creator?. Again using the logical
style of argumentation they state that there is an inherent contradiction within this
argument. If we were to say that God is uncaused then the atheist would say that we
have contradicted our original premise which was everything has a cause. As a result
they would claim that the universe is uncaused just as some would say that God is
uncaused. However, even if we use the logical style of argumentation, we do not state
that every thing has a cause. Rather from understanding the reality we conclude that
everything that is limited and finite is dependant, or has a cause and that because
infinite regression is impossible there must exist a first cause i.e. something
independent. That thing which is independent must therefore be something other than
finite and limited. Thus, we would state that it necessarily follows that this independent
thing, which is the sole creator must be infinite and unlimited. So there is no inherent
contradiction and it is unfortunate that such a simple point was missed by a philosopher
whom they called the Socrates of our time.

With regards to this argument that finite limited things depend upon other finite limited
things, certain philosophers state that we presume the relationship of cause and effect.
In essence they deny that cause and effect is an established fact that is true for all
things that are limited. They base their objection to the certainty of cause and effect
upon two areas: firstly they state that cause and effect can not be proven from the use
of empirical thought. And secondly they state that 'empirical' propositions can not yield
certain knowledge. By 'empirical' propositions they mean knowledge which is established
upon experience. For the philosophers they divide knowledge into two kinds one which is
known prior to experience and one which is established upon experience. So for example
mathematics, they would say, is knowledge known prior to experience and this type of
knowledge is true and establishes certainty. Whereas knowledge built upon experience
does not establish absolute certainty. The strength of knowledge built upon experience
is only as strong as the reality we have observed; it could be that there is something we
have not observed or experienced which would change our conclusions. Thus they say
such knowledge is speculative. Because cause and effect is built upon experience they
state that it does not necessarily follow that everything follows this relationship, just what
we have seen so far has followed this relationship.

With regards to the argument that cause and effect can not be established by the use of
empirical thought, it was proposed by David Hume. He stated that it was mere
coincidence that causal relations seem to exist and that nothing compels one to believe
it to be an actual certainty. So as an example he stated that in order for one to produce
fire a person would need to strike a match. But how can someone sense the future
event. Remember empirical thinking is a reflection of reality yet future events are not
reality thus they cannot be sensed and therefore no certain thought can be established.
However, as we have previously mentioned it is incorrect to assume that thought is
simply a reflection of matter onto the brain. The thinking process does not work like that.
So as an example to illustrate this point, imagine sensing a liquid. After sensing the liquid
we find that it is odourless and colourless and remains liquid at remain temperature.
Hence for that liquid under room conditions it exudes those characteristics. This would
be the absolute thought about such a liquid, meaning we have sensed its whole reality
under room conditions. If we subject this liquid to different conditions for example adding
heat to the liquid and we find that under these conditions it boils at 100 degrees celcius.
Then we have conclusively determined that such a liquid exhibits such behaviour. In fact
we identify objects by the attributes it exhibits at different conditions. We also distinguish
attributes according to the different attributes they exhibit under the same conditions. So
if I add heat to two odourless colourless liquids and I find that one boils at 100 degrees
celcius and the other boils at 70 degrees celcius then I distinguish the two different
liquids accordingly. So David Hume wrongly assumed that future events are speculative,
that’s because we identify realities according to the specific attributes that are observed
under different conditions. If for instance we boil a liquid and it did not boil at 100
degrees celcius then we would not call it water we would term it differently. For it to be
called water then such a liquid must always exhibit the same attribute under the same
conditions. If objects did not exhibit continuous attributes then it would be impossible to
distinguish between the reality we live. But the fact is that we do distinguish between a
chair and a table or water and alcohol.

As to the other argument David Hume had against causal relations he stated that such
relationships could not be sensed. So water boiling could be sensed, the heat produced
by the fire underneath the water could also be sensed, but the relationship between the
fire boiling the water could not be sensed as a result thought about causal relations
couldn’t be established. However, we have already shown the limitations of empirical
thought. In fact, if based upon the use of empirical thinking we deny cause and effect
(causal relations) then we deny empirical thinking itself. This is because empirical
thought requires the implicit acceptance of cause and effect. So experimentation and
testing is done upon matter and the results are observed. Based upon the results
conclusions are made. So the results are but effects resulting from causes. As a result to
deny cause and effect based upon the fact that it doesn’t fit within the empirical thinking
is a circular argument which ultimately requires one to also deny empirical thought itself.

As to the final argument against the certainty of cause and effect they state that such
belief of cause and effect is established upon experience and experience doesn’t yield
certainty. However, if again we understand the thought process we would understand
that cause and effect can be applied to any given reality that is limited. So let consider
the example of water. Let us say that we were unaware that the particular reality before
us was water. The first thing we sense about this reality is the fact that it is limited. We
also establish that this limited thing (i.e. water) is liquid at room conditions. When we
change the conditions and add heat it boils at 100 degrees celcius and when we reduce
the heat we find that it freezes at 0 degrees celcius. We thus determine this reality by its
attributes of being liquid at room temperature, boiling at 100 degrees and freezing at 0
degrees. As a result we give a term to this reality and call it water. As mentioned
previously if the attributes change then we describe the reality by a different name.
Thus, by sensing the reality of water we have determined two things. Firstly, that water
exhibits specific characteristics e.g. boiling 100 degrees celcius, and secondly that
limited and finite things require a cause (which in the case of water was specific
conditions) in order to produce an effect (i.e, the observation of the attributes).
Therefore, in order to distinguish limited things we need to know its attributes, and
attributes are determined according to its cause and effect. Thus, for something not to
be determined according to cause and effect then it would have to be other than limited.
Similarly for something to be other than water it must have different attributes to water.
To be other than limited would require it to be unlimited, yet everything we sense is
limited, thus it is determined by cause and effect and for it to be unlimited it must be the
Creator and as a result we can state that the creator is not determined by cause and
effect.

What has been demonstrated is that cause and effect is a definite reality when
associated with things that are limited and finite. Hence, the argument that has been
used above to prove that the creator exists based upon the fact that limited things within
the universe depend upon other limited things which ultimately require something
independent and unlimited is a true argument.

The argument above is a particular variance of the kalam cosmological argument.
Another variance of this argument is to establish that the universe is limited. Because we
have proven the general principle that limited things are dependent then if the universe
is limited then it too is dependant. In order to prove the universe is limited then we state
that the universe is the sum of limited things. And the sum of limited things is irrefutably
limited. Some thinkers have tried to argue that the sum of limited things can add up to
infinity. They give as an example numbers, which they say, goes on forever. However,
does that mean we can count to infinity? The answer is definitely no. It is impossible to
start from something which is finite and count to infinity, that’s because every number
you reach is a finite number thus we cannot cross the infinite barrier. Some have argued
that although starting from a finite number that it is true one cannot then reach infinity
but what if in origin infinity always existed? Meaning that there already existed an infinite
sum of finite things. David Hilbert the famous mathematician discussed this and
concluded that absurdities arise when infinite sum of finite things is assumed. In order to
understand this, imagine if you will an infinite sum of marbles. If we were to halve the
marbles then both halves would be equal to infinity. In fact any fraction of the infinite sum
of marbles would equal infinity. This then produces an apparent contradiction that the
part is equal to the whole. Further if we were to take three marbles out of the infinite sum
of marbles then the remaining marbles would still equal to infinity. But the 3 marbles that
have been taken out would be a fraction of the overall marbles. Yet this contradicts the
principle we established earlier which is that every fraction of the infinite sum of marbles
would equal to infinity. Yet the three marbles do not equal infinity. Thus something
cannot be infinite and finite at the same time, because of this and many other
contradictions it is absolutely clear that the sum of finite things must be finite. And
because the universe is made up of finite bodies within space, and because we can
measure parts of the universe which are finite distances then the whole universe is finite.
Similarly another analogy can be used, imagine standing on an island and all around the
island is the ocean. Although, one may not see the end of the ocean we can establish
that the ocean is finite and doesn’t go on forever. That is done by simply taking a glass
of water out from the ocean, hence decreasing the ocean. Infinity cannot be increased
nor decreased yet the sum of finite things is something that can be increased and
decreased.

Therefore, the universe which is the sum of limited things must be limited and all limited
things are subject to cause and effect and thus depend upon something other than itself
i.e. a Creator.

Similarly time which is the interval between series of events taking place in a
chronological order must have a beginning. This is due to two reasons, firstly, the sum of
events must be finite and not infinite, because of the principle proven above which states
the sum of finite things is irrefutably finite. In addition, if time had no beginning then we
would not reach this moment in time. This is because, this moment in time is dependent
upon a series of past events. If there was no beginning event in time then we would not
reach the present. By proving, that time has a beginning we have proven that anything
that resides in time including the universe must have a beginning also. Therefore, only
something that is independent of time could have originated time and the universe itself,
that is to say the Creator.

As a concluding remark, in order to appreciate the various proofs of the creator one
must be fully acquainted with the correct method of thinking. Through the correct method
of thinking we are able to assess the proofs to establish our arguments. Further, the
refutation of the counter arguments can be clearly understood by understanding the
method or style of thinking they employ. By understanding logic and empirical thinking
we can understand its strengths and weaknesses and when it can be applied and when
it fails to establish any proofs. Thus we avoid falling into error and by using the rational
method of thinking we can establish the correct conclusion about man, life and the
universe.

That is to say that man life and the universe are all limited and all things that are limited
are dependant, further all of the things that are limited cannot arrange a system for
themselves but depend upon some other to determine its system for organising society.
Clearly then there must exist an all powerful independent Creator, who decided to
create. That is the Lord and Creator of everything.