The Logic of Correspondence

Every craving or necessity embedded into our biological system finds an objective correspondence in the external world. Thirst corresponds to the existence of water; the innate capacity for sight corresponds to the reality of light. This holds true for all biological needs, including hunger and the requirement for oxygen. Our internal states exist because there is an external reality that meets them.

This principle holds true not only for our physical systems but for our mental domain as well. Our cognitive faculties are designed to interface with an external reality that fulfils them just as purposefully as our biological systems do. This suggests that our fundamental intuitions are not merely ‘social constructs’ or ‘learned behaviours’, but are ‘hard-wired’ into the human cognitive framework—an internal ‘firmware’ installed within us from the beginning.

The Coordinates of the Primordial Mind

This principle is best observed in the cognition of children. To observe a child—hitherto uninfluenced by societal directives—is to view the primordial blueprint of human reasoning in its rawest form, before it is overlaid by the veneer of cultural conditioning. To understand the “blueprint” of the human mind, we must look at the axiomatic coordinates that appear in children long before formal education begins. These are not mere preferences; they are the fundamental “operating system” that allows a child to make sense of the world—traits supported by a wealth of empirical data.

1. The Law of Causality (The “Why” Instinct)

The human mind is not a passive recorder of random sequences; it is a meaning-seeking engine. We are hard-wired to perceive the world through the lens of cause and effect—an intuition so fundamental that we cannot conceive of a reality where events occur without a primary mover. This “Why” instinct is the primary driver of all human enquiry, existing long before we are taught the formal laws of physics.

From the earliest stages of development, children possess this innate expectation. Developmental psychologists, such as Elizabeth Spelke, have demonstrated this through “violation of expectation” experiments. Even four-month-old infants are startled when an object appears to move without a physical cause. In these studies, when infants see a ball move without being hit by another object, they stare longer, indicating that their internal “firmware” has been violated. They are born expecting a world governed by Causality.

2. The Moral Compass (The Justice Instinct)

Morality is often described as a social construct learned through discipline, but the evidence suggests it is something much more primal. Long before a child can speak, they possess a pre-rational “gut feeling” regarding fairness and harm. This internal scale weighs the actions of others automatically, suggesting that our sense of “right” is not a cultural byproduct, but a foundational behavioural coordinate designed to navigate a social reality.

Perhaps the most striking evidence of this pre-loaded mind comes from the Yale University “Baby Lab.” Researchers Paul Bloom and Karen Wynn found that infants as young as three months old possess a rudimentary sense of Justice. In their experiments, infants were shown a puppet show where one character helped another, while a second character hindered them. When given the choice, the infants overwhelmingly preferred the “helper” and even showed a desire to see the “hinderer” punished.

Our sense of fairness is not a social construct; it is a biological fact.

3. Numerosity (The Mathematical Intuition)

Mathematics is often viewed as an abstract academic language, but it begins as an innate perception of the world’s underlying structure. We arrive in the world with a mental “number line” already installed, allowing us to quantify the “Territory” around us intuitively. We do not merely learn mathematics; we recognise it as the inherent logic of the universe.

Humans are born with what scientists call an “Approximate Number System.” Before a child can count, they can intuitively distinguish between different quantities and understand basic arithmetic. A child does not ‘learn’ that three is more than one; they arrive with the cognitive hardware required to recognize it. This suggests that the mind is not projecting numerical value onto a chaotic world, but is instead perceiving the mathematical structure of the universe as an objective reality.

The Agreed-Upon Territory

These coordinates—Causality, Justice, and Number—are the pillars of human reason. There is unanimous agreement that these are hard-wired because the scientific data is irrefutable. However, if we accept that the child arrives with a ‘Map’ that perfectly corresponds to the physical laws of causality and the social reality of justice, we must enquire whether that map is incomplete.

Does the same ‘firmware’ that demands a cause for every effect not also seek the ultimate Cause behind all effects, and even the causes of those effects?

The Logic of Correspondence suggests that just as thirst corresponds to the existence of water, and our innate sense of causality corresponds to a world governed by physical laws, the mind’s search for an Origin implies a destination. This brings us to the final, and perhaps most profound, coordinate of the primordial mind.

The Origin Instinct: Theomorphism in the Primordial Mind

While the materialist approach claims that the concept of a Creator is a “learnt” cultural myth, modern cognitive science suggests the exact opposite. This is not the result of isolated studies, but a consistent finding across independent bodies of research. It reveals a natural human inclination toward theomorphism—a hard-wired tendency to attribute the complex design of the natural world to a non-human, intelligent agent.

The Petrovich Findings: A Cross-Cultural Universal

To test whether the “God-intuition” is merely a product of religious upbringing, Dr Olivera Petrovich conducted landmark studies comparing children from vastly different environments: the UK (a historically Christian/secular culture) and Japan (a predominantly Shinto-Buddhist culture).

• The Distinction: Regardless of their background, children as young as four instinctively distinguish between “man-made” objects and “natural” ones.

• The Attribution: When asked about the origin of mountains or animals, even Japanese children—raised in a culture without a monotheistic Creator concept—spontaneously attributed the natural world to a non-human, powerful agent. They rejected the idea that “people” or “nothing” were responsible, proving that the Creator-intuition is a biological universal rather than a cultural import.

The Barrett Research: The “Born Believer” Thesis

Dr Justin Barrett’s research further establishes that the child’s mind is naturally “tilted” toward theism due to the way our brains process agency and purpose.

• Teleological Reasoning: Children are “intuitive theists” who naturally prefer “purpose-based” explanations for the world—such as “clouds are for raining”—rather than purely accidental ones. This teleological lens is the default setting of the human mind.

• Super-Properties: Barrett found that children find it significantly easier to conceptualise an eternal, all-knowing Being than to grasp the idea of “nothingness” or a universe that popped into existence randomly. To a child, the idea of a Primary Cause is more intuitive than a fallible human parent.

• Agency Detection: We are born with a “Hypersensitive Agency Detection Device” (HADD), which prompts us to look for the “Who” behind the “What.”

The Momentum of Truth: From Instinct to Reality

These innate coordinates—Causality, Justice, and Agency—are not merely pragmatic survival tools; they are internal compasses that point toward objective realities.

This establishes that nature does not produce universal cravings for non-existent realities.

• Physical: Our hunger points to the existence of food; our need to breathe points to the existence of oxygen.

• Cognitive: Our curiosity points to the existence of knowledge; our sense of causality points to a logical universe.

• Metaphysical: Our innate sense of justice points to a moral order, and our universal “Origin Instinct” points to a Creator.

If the human mind possesses a universal, “hard-wired” expectation for a Primary Cause, we are witnessing a biological pointer to an external reality that fulfils it.

To accept the child’s map when it identifies the laws of causality or the foundations of morality, but to dismiss it when it identifies a Designer, is a failure of logic.

If the map is 100% accurate regarding the physical and moral laws of the territory, it is irrational to claim it suddenly fails when it identifies the very Source those laws imply.

Subjective Phantoms vs Objective Universals

A shallow objection often arises: “If a child imagines a one-eyed monster or a fire-breathing dragon, does that monster or dragon exist in reality then?”

Such queries betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the principle. The one-eyed monster—or a teapot orbiting the sun—is an artificial projection of a specific, immature mind; it is a transient, idiosyncratic reflection of immediate cultural exposure. A century ago, that same child would have imagined something entirely different, influenced by the folklore of the time rather than modern media.

These are particulars—temporary ‘malware’ injected by the environment. Unlike the foundational firmware of the mind, these ‘bugs’ are superficial, inconsistent, and ultimately vanish when the system is restored to its original state.

Conversely, the innate grasp of causality, the thirst for justice, and the intuitive recognition of a Creator are not subjective phenomena echoed by local cultural projections; they are universals. They are the “hard-wired” coordinates of our existence, remaining constant across every geography, era, and culture, independent of external suggestion.

If the map in our mind consistently points to a destination, it is because that destination exists in the territory.

Why the “Monster” Argument Fails

To further grasp this point, consider how these two categories differ in their logical “weight”:

• Subjective Projections (The Monster): These are mere ‘composite ideas’. A child takes fragments of sensory experience—teeth, claws, or shadows—and reassembles them into a frightening whole. Because these are built from external stimuli, they are culturally fluid and invariably dissolve as the mind matures and gathers more accurate data.

• Objective Innate Universals (The Hard-wired Concepts): These are the foundational frameworks of the human operating system. They do not disappear with “better data” because they are the very tools used to process that data. We do not, for instance, “outgrow” the law of causality; we simply refine our application of it. Without these universals, science and logic would collapse into incoherence.

The intuition of a Creator belongs firmly to this second category, fundamentally differing from the “monster” in two ways:

1. It is not a reassembly of data: A monster is an extrapolation of the visible (parts of animals or humans). Conversely, you cannot construct the concept of an immaterial, eternal First Cause out of material “scrap metal” like teeth or eyes. It is a category leap from the physical to the metaphysical that the mind makes spontaneously.

2. It is not abolished by maturity: While a child’s simplistic imagery of God may be shed, the underlying intuition of a Primary Cause and a Purpose-Giver persists. Even in adulthood, this “hard-wiring” often resurfaces in the language of the most ardent materialists who find themselves speaking of what ‘Nature intended’—involuntarily attributing agency to a mindless universe, even as they deny the existence of that very agency in their formal philosophy.

Logic vs. Materialism

The materialist worldview often dismisses these innate qualities as “evolutionary glitches”—byproducts of a brain that evolved to see patterns where none exist. However, this creates a logical paradox: if we cannot trust our most fundamental, innate intuitions (like causality or the existence of an objective reality), we lose the very foundation upon which scientific enquiry is built!

The materialist faces a fundamental epistemic crisis: if our cognitive faculties are merely the products of blind evolutionary pressures aimed solely at survival, then their ability to perceive objective ‘Truth’ is an unverified accident.

To dismiss the ‘God-instinct’ as a biological glitch while simultaneously trusting the same ‘glitchy’ hardware to validate Materialism is a logical contradiction. One cannot claim the compass is broken only when it points North.

The Scientific Challenge: Survival Noise vs. Axiomatic Truth

Scientifically, it is a logical absurdity to maintain that a species could be universally “wrong” about a fundamental aspect of its own perception and still be considered a reliable observer of the universe.

Science itself rests upon the Reliability of Cognitive Faculties. We assume that our foundational logic—causality, mathematics, and induction—maps accurately to the external world. If the materialist claims our “firmware” is programmed to hallucinate a “Primary Cause” or “Objective Justice,” they are effectively admitting that the human instrument is fundamentally broken.

Signal vs. Noise: Distinguishing Instinct from Axiom

Far from refuting the argument from correspondence, the presence of human flaw actually clarifies it. To maintain logical rigour, we must distinguish between the transient noise of our lower nature and the permanent signal of our design:

• Survival Instincts (The Biological Noise): The Challenges of the Nafs [Base Ego] as a Form of Test

These are the localised, animalistic reactions—such as tribal bias, greed, or selfishness—required to navigate a competitive physical environment. In this framework, the nafs represents the “biological noise” or the “malware” of our finite nature. It is the friction against which our character is forged, serving as a form of existential test rather than a reflection of objective truth.

• Axiomatic Intuitions (The Functional Firmware): Fitrah – The Universal Template that Maps to Truths and Realities

These are the universal coordinates—such as Justice, Causality, and the Divine—that allow us to perceive a coherent reality. This is the fitrah: the primordial “firmware” that acts as a universal template. It does not merely suggest a preference; it maps directly to the objective architecture of the universe.

Crucially, we only recognise a behaviour as “nasty” because we are measuring it against the very coordinate of Justice that the child already possesses. We cannot call a line crooked unless we have an innate conception of what is straight. The “nasty” impulse is simply the misapplication of a universal engine to a selfish, local data set.

This logic applies to the Divine as well. The materialist argues that a ‘broken’ world disproves a Creator, yet they fail to realise that they only perceive the world as ‘broken’ because they are comparing it to an innate, internal standard of Objective Order. We cannot call a line crooked unless we first possess a conception of what is straight. The presence of the shadow does not disprove the light; it confirms the existence of the architecture that casts it. If there were no Sun, there would be no shadows—and if there were no Divine North, we would not even have the compass required to feel lost.

The Materialist’s Paradox

To dismiss the child’s universal intuitions as mere “evolutionary glitches,” the materialist must argue that our mental firmware is designed for fitness rather than truth. According to this view, if a “useful fiction”—such as the intuition of a Creator or an objective moral law—helped our ancestors survive, evolution would hard-wire that falsehood into our biology.

However, this creates a fatal, self-defeating paradox. If our cognitive faculties are programmed to provide “useful fictions” for survival rather than objective realities, then the materialist’s own “scientific” conclusion is also just a biological output—a useful fiction that has no claim to objective truth.

One cannot claim the instrument is broken only when it points to God, but perfectly functional when it points to Materialism.

If the mind is a “deception machine” designed to hallucinate a Primary Cause, we have no logical ground left to trust that same mind when it argues for a purposeless universe. If the firmware is fundamentally unreliable, the materialist’s entire worldview is built upon a foundation of sand.

The Verdict

To argue that the “God-intuition” is an error is to argue that the human mind is a “deception machine.” If the materialist is right, then human nature is a mistake that cannot trust itself. But if we can trust our minds to do science and logic, then we must also take seriously the universal maps those same minds provide—including the one that points toward the Divine.

The materialist must choose: either the human mind is a reliable guide to reality (meaning the universal intuition of God has merit), or it is a fundamental error (meaning the materialist’s own arguments are untrustworthy).

The “universal innate qualities” found in children are not mere childish fantasies; they are the raw data of the human condition. Just as we accept their grasp of cause and effect as a valid perception of reality, we must acknowledge and accept that their intuitive recognition of a Divine presence is an equally valid perception of a higher truth.

The materialist cannot explain why we have the second category at all. If we were only products of a purposeless, material evolution, we would have the “nasty” survival traits, but we would have no concept of “Justice” or “God” to even measure them against.

The fact that we recognise bias as a “flaw” is the ultimate proof that we are wired for a higher “Truth.”

Share

Recommended Reading:

Can something come from nothing?

Wired to believe?

Introduction

We often view history as a series of disconnected chapters. We assume that every major system of belief must be a novel invention of its era. This focus on “the new” often obscures a far older and deeper reality. This truth is not defined by a specific century; it is woven into the fundamental nature of existence itself.

Consider the physical cosmos. From vast galaxies to the smallest cell, the universe operates according to precise laws. Nothing resists them. Every orbiting planet, every grain of dust, every beating heart functions in quiet submission to its Creator. This submission is not voluntary. It is built into the fabric of existence.

Human beings are equally bound by this physical reality. From the formation of the foetus to the rhythm of the heart, our bodies follow a biological design. We did not author this system, nor can we suspend it. It is within this framework of universal order that the concept of ultimate submission—the literal translation of the word ‘Islam’—must be understood.

While many assume that Islam emerged in the seventh century as an entirely new religion, this view overlooks the deeper continuity of history. Submission to the Creator has been a constant across civilisations. It existed long before the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). It represents the conscious choice to align human volition with the same divine laws that already govern the stars. The universe submits by necessity; human beings are granted the unique ability to submit by choice.

The Qur’an itself affirms that this submission existed long before the advent of what we recognise as formal, seventh-century ‘Islam’. It emphasises the act rather than the label:

“Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was a devoted monotheist — one who submitted himself to God (Muslim).” (Qur’an 3:67)

The Muslim testimony of faith declares: “There is no god but Allah (The Only Deity), and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” For earlier communities, the same affirmation would have recognised their own prophets in their respective declaration of faiths: Moses in his time, and Jesus in his. The core message remained unchanged. Only the messenger differed.

The Linguistic Reality of the Divine Name

Another factor contributing to the perception of Islam as entirely separate is linguistic. In many Western contexts, the word “Allah” is treated as the name of a distinct, foreign deity. Historically, this distinction did not exist. It is an illusion of translation.

Jesus (peace be upon him) did not speak English or Latin. His native language was Aramaic. In that tongue, the word for God was Alaha (or Elaha). This is closely related to the Hebrew Eloah and the Arabic Allah. These are not different gods. They are cognate terms from the same linguistic family.

Over centuries, translation and cultural distance created the impression of difference where there was none.

The Preservation of the Law

Before examining specific practices, an important theological question arises: Did Jesus abolish the earlier law of the prophets?

Many Christian traditions understand Jesus’ mission as transforming that law. They often emphasise an era of grace over strict legal observance. Yet the Gospel accounts preserve statements that strongly affirm continuity:

“Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:18)

Whatever one’s interpretation, this statement underscores a vital point. Jesus did not present himself as the author of a disconnected religion. He stood firmly within an existing prophetic tradition.

Core Theological Principles

The Prohibition of Idolatry

Modern observers often associate strict aniconism—the rejection of religious images—primarily with Islam. Yet the biblical tradition contains the same uncompromising command:

“You shall not make for yourself an image… You shall not bow down to them or worship them.” (Exodus 20:4–5)

This emphasis directs worship toward an unseen Creator rather than material representations. It is a principle preserved with absolute rigour in Islam.

Individual Moral Responsibility

Islam teaches that each person is accountable for their own actions. While doctrines of inherited sin are central to many traditions, the Hebrew Bible also emphasises personal responsibility:

“The one who sins is the one who will die… The child will not share the guilt of the parent.” (Ezekiel 18:20)

This principle of individual accountability presents a direct scriptural challenge to the doctrines of original sin and vicarious atonement. If the ‘child will not share the guilt of the parent,’ then the very foundation of inherited ancestral guilt collapses. Without that inherited debt, the logical necessity for a sacrificial mediator to pay it is also dismantled. In this framework, salvation is not a communal inheritance. It is a direct result of individual conduct and personal alignment with divine law.

The Humanity of Jesus

The Gospels record several statements in which Jesus (peace be upon him) speaks of himself as subordinate to the Divine order:

“By myself I can do nothing…” (John 5:30) and “The Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)

These passages highlight a prophetic model of obedience. They resonate strongly with the Islamic understanding of Jesus as a messenger of God. In this framework, the prophet is not the object of worship, but the ultimate example of submission to the one God.

Rituals of Worship: The Physical Geometry

The physical expression of worship demonstrates the most striking parallels. Scripture repeatedly depicts the prophets in states of total prostration. This is the exact posture preserved uniquely in Islamic practice today:

• Abraham fell on his face (Genesis 17:3).

• Moses bowed to the ground (Exodus 34:8).

• Joshua fell on his face and worshipped (Joshua 5:14).

• Jesus (peace be upon him) fell with his face to the ground in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:39).

This act of placing the forehead to the earth is not a seventh-century innovation. It is the primordial posture of the prophets. It represents a logical alignment of the human body with the Divine order.

Other structured devotional practices show similar continuity:

• Structured Prayer: Prayer at specific times (Acts 3:1).

• Ablution: Ritual washing before worship (Exodus 40:31–32).

• Removing Shoes: Standing on holy ground (Exodus 3:5).

• Sacred Space: Calling places of worship “houses of prayer” (Matthew 21:13).

Dietary and Social Continuity

Continuity is equally evident in daily conduct and social identity. These practices were not “added” by Islam; they were maintained as part of the original prophetic directive:

• Fasting: Practised by Jesus for forty days (Matthew 4:2).

• Dietary Laws: Prohibitions against pork (Leviticus 11:7–8) and warnings against intoxication (Proverbs 20:1).

• Economic Ethics: The explicit condemnation of usury (Exodus 22:25).

• Circumcision: Established as a perpetual covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17:10–12), formalised in the Law through Moses (Leviticus 12:3), and practised by Jesus himself (Luke 2:21).

• Modesty: The use of veils and head coverings (Genesis 24:65; 1 Corinthians 11:6).

• The Beard: The instruction to maintain the beard (Leviticus 19:27).

• Polygyny: Practised by several biblical patriarchs and regulated rather than prohibited (Exodus 21:10).

Everyday Expressions of Faith

Even common phrases reveal a profound continuity in social and spiritual etiquette. Jesus (peace be upon him) greeted his disciples with words of peace:

“Peace be with you.” (John 20:19)

This is an exact linguistic and functional parallel to the Islamic greeting Assalamu Alaikum (Peace be upon you). Similarly, the practice of acknowledging Divine providence when planning for the future is explicitly recorded in the New Testament:

“You ought to say, ‘If it is the Lord’s will…’” (James 4:15)

This directive aligns precisely with the Qur’anic exhortation to utilise the phrase In-sha-Allah (if God wills). This standard of speech remains a hallmark of Muslim identity today. It reinforces the concept that human volition is always subordinate to the Divine decree.

The Unbroken Thread

Across beliefs, laws, rituals, and daily life, a consistent pattern emerges. The prophets did not present unrelated religions competing for allegiance. They delivered chapters of a single directive.

A strictly materialist reading of history tends toward fragmentation. It views the development of faith as a series of isolated cultural shifts. However, a systemic analysis suggests a more coherent design. It points toward a single, unbroken continuity.

From Abraham to Moses to Jesus to Muhammad (peace be upon them all), the call remains the same: to recognise the Creator and willingly align one’s life with His will. True submission is not the adoption of something novel. It is the conscious harmonisation of human freedom with the timeless, unified rhythm that governs the universe.

Share

Recommended Reading:

Did the Quran reveal what others missed?

Wired to believe?

The “Longer” Shortcut

A few days ago, I was travelling with a close friend to a destination that wasn’t too far away. Out of habit, I had Google Maps running to guide us.

Soon after we set off, my friend alerted me: “The map is showing a longer route. Shall we just follow the normal way?”

He was right—geographically, the map was taking us the long way round. My instinct was to reach for the phone and turn it off. Why take a detour when a straight line is available? But then a thought paused my hand.

“Maybe,” I replied, “it is doing this because it has calculated the time based on unusually heavy traffic on the shorter route.”

I kept the navigation running and took the ‘long’ way. Upon arrival, we learned that the shorter, normal route was indeed gridlocked. The delay would have been massive.

Here is the realisation: The device in my hand—a mere collection of glass, metal, and silicon—was running a system that pre-calculates resistance (traffic) and proposes the most time-effective route, even if it means a longer distance.

This efficiency was undoubtedly the outcome of a mind at work. The physical phone in my hand wasn’t “thinking.” The plastic casing didn’t calculate the route. The “thinking” was executed by the engineers who designed the algorithm long before I ever got in the car.

The Illusion of the Straight Line

Now, consider a beam of light. If I shine a torch from the air into a pool of water at an object deep below, my human intuition expects a straight line. I want to draw a ruler line from the torch (A) to the object (B). But if you trace the beam, light refuses to take this path.

This refusal creates an illusion we have all seen. If you look at a fish in a tank, or try to reach for a coin at the bottom of a pool, it isn’t where your eyes tell you it is.

A spear-fisherman knows that if he aims exactly where he sees the fish, he will miss. Why? Because his brain assumes light travels in a straight line. But the eye is seeing an illusion; the light is following a hidden, more complex logic.

The light bends at the surface, shifting the apparent position of the object. Our senses are fooled by the geometry, while the universe operates on a hidden efficiency.

Just like a navigation app, light detects resistance and selects the path of least time, not the path of least distance.

The Lifeguard’s Dilemma

In physics, this is known as Fermat’s Principle of Least Time. It states that light always takes the path that requires the minimum amount of time, not the minimum amount of distance.

To understand why, consider the “Lifeguard Problem.”

Imagine a lifeguard on the beach sees a drowning swimmer diagonally offshore. The lifeguard can run fast on sand but swims slowly in water.

1. The “Straight Line” Error: If he runs in a straight line toward the swimmer, he spends too much time swimming.

2. The Intelligent Solution: He should run further up the beach (staying on the sand longer) and enter the water at a specific angle that minimises his swim time.

Light faces the exact same constraints. It travels at roughly 300,000 km/s in air but slows to 225,000 km/s in water. Because of this massive ‘traffic jam’ in the water, light behaves like the intelligent lifeguard. It knows that continuing in a straight line means spending too much time in the slow zone. Consequently, the beam bends its trajectory, extending its path in the air to shorten its journey through the water.

So, light “runs” further through the air (the fast route) and cuts a steeper angle into the water to minimise its travel time in the slow medium. The path is physically longer, but temporally shorter.

And this is not merely a convenient metaphor. It is fundamental to how the universe operates. The Nobel laureate Richard Feynman famously used this exact 'lifeguard' analogy to explain Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). He showed that light doesn't just 'choose' the path; it explores every path, but the mathematics of the universe cancels out the inefficient ones, leaving only the path of least time.

The Calculus of Creation

This is where the concept of an “Intelligent Mind” moves from a poetic metaphor to a rigorous argument.

In a university calculus classroom, if we asked a student to calculate this optimal path, they would have to set up a complex function and find the derivative—mathematically determining the exact point where the rate of change is zero (dT/dx = 0). It is a sophisticated and calculated mathematical operation that demands intentionality.

Light does not have a brain. It does not have a CPU. It cannot perform derivatives. Yet, every single photon that hits your eye behaves exactly as if the equation had already been solved.

Before the light even finishes its journey, it has “sampled” the resistance of the water and the air and collapsed into the single, mathematically perfect path of least time.

Consider the difference in processing power. To solve this problem, a calculus professor would need extensive calculations and considerable time to take the derivative and solve for zero.

The beam of light, however, performs this operation in less than a billionth of a second. It out-computes the professor — without a brain, without a whiteboard, and without any formal training. While the mathematician labours to describe the path, the light simply manifests it—every single time, without error, and in an instant.

Materialist interpretations suggest this may arise from physical laws alone—that a “blind” universe just happens to act with the foresight of a calculus professor.

However, this is akin to standing before the Burj Khalifa and crediting gravity for its existence. Gravity explains why the tower stands; it explains the tension in the steel and the load on the concrete. But gravity did not design the spire, build the foundation, or engineer the masterpiece. The laws of physics explain how the building holds together, but they cannot explain how it came to be.

The Great Cancellation: How Truth Survives

Skeptics might ask: ‘But how? If there is no brain to calculate the path, what is the physical mechanism?’

The answer, found in Wave Optics, is even more profound. According to quantum physics, light actually attempts every possible path simultaneously. It tries the straight line, the curved line, and the zigzag.

This is not to say that light consciously chooses a path, but that the laws governing it are such that only the optimal outcome is ever realised.

But here is the mechanism of the Master Designer: On all the “wrong” paths (the inefficient ones), the light waves are out of sync. They crash into each other and destroy themselves through destructive interference. They cancel each other out into darkness.

Only on the single, most efficient path—the path of Least Time—do the waves line up perfectly. They amplify one another through constructive interference, creating the solid beam of light we see.

In other words, the universe is designed so that inefficiency is self-cancelling, and only the “intelligent” path is allowed to manifest into reality. It is a physical demonstration of a spiritual law: that truth survives, while falsehood—by its very nature—is self-destructive.

The Odds of Perfection

Consider the magnitude of this choice. The number of paths a photon could theoretically take is not ten, or a million, or a billion. It is mathematically infinite. Out of this infinite sea of possibilities—paths that are slightly too curved, too straight, or too slow—light selects the one solitary path of absolute perfection.

And most remarkably, it does not do this occasionally. It does not get “lucky.” It hits this mathematical bullseye every time you blink, every time a star shines, and every time you turn on a lamp.

If you were to throw a dart at a board infinite in size and hit the exact centre every single time, forever, no one would call it chance. They would call it Mathematical Certainty and Immutable Law.

The Universal Lens

This principle of “Intelligent Bending” isn’t limited to water; it governs our entire view of the cosmos.

Consider the sunset. When you watch the sun touch the horizon in the evening, the sun has, in physical reality, already set. It is geometrically below the horizon. But the atmosphere is thicker near the ground (heavier traffic for light) and thinner higher up.

Following Fermat’s Principle, the light from the sun bends around the curve of the Earth. It hugs the thinner upper atmosphere (the fast lane) for as long as possible before diving down to your eye. Through this mechanism, the Intellect behind the universe effectively curves the light to squeeze out a few more minutes of daylight. It is a calibrated nudge—strong enough to prolong the sunset, but gentle enough to let the night fall.

Conclusion: The Signature of Design

When I looked at my phone during that drive with my friend, I didn’t praise the silicon chip for avoiding the traffic; I recognised the invisible mind of the programmer behind the software.

When we look at a beam of light bending in water, or the sun lingering on the horizon, we are seeing the same principle on a cosmic scale. The universe is not a collection of random, chaotic collisions. It is underwritten by an efficiency that mirrors—perfectly—the concept of Planning.

The light does not “think,” just as my phone does not think. But the path it takes reveals that it is operating within a system designed by a Thinker. It follows an algorithm of “Least Time” that prioritises the outcome over the geometry.

If even a mere beam of light refuses to follow a blind, straight line, choosing instead a path defined by mathematical foresight and incredible efficiency, we are forced to reconsider the nature of our reality. A random, chaotic universe should produce random, chaotic paths. But our universe produces optimised ones.

The “bent” path of light is more than just a quirk of physics; it is a signature. It reveals that the cosmos is not merely existing; rather, it is orchestrated according to an intelligent blueprint—pointing us directly past the photon, and back to the Engineer who set its course.

This reminds us of the conclusion reached by the physicist Sir James Jeans:

‘The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine.’

We have followed the light to the source of that thought. And we have found that it does not point to chance—it points to an Architect.

“He who perfected everything which He created.” (Qur’an 32:7)

Share

Recommended Reading:

Can We Outrun Time?

The Physics of Light

Introduction

In Surah An-Nur, the Qur’an presents one of the most beautiful and profound verses:

۞ ٱللَّهُ نُورُ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ ۚ

“Allah (God) is the Light of the heavens and the earth...”1

— (Qur’an 24:35)

For centuries, theologians have pondered this similitude. Why Light? Why did the Creator choose this specific physical phenomenon to describe His relation to the universe?

While classical scholars focused on light as the source of knowledge and guidance, modern physics offers a startling new layer of depth to this analogy. When we study light itself (and its photons), we discover that it is unlike anything else in the universe. It does not obey the rules governing matter. It does not experience time in the way objects with mass do. It is the absolute constant.

Here are ten reasons why the physics of light is the perfect metaphor for the Attributes of the Creator.

1. The Source of Matter: Al-Mubdi (The Originator)

For centuries, science believed that matter (solid stuff) and energy (light/heat) were two totally different realities. We thought the physical world was permanent, solid, and heavy, while energy was fleeting.

In Physics:

Then came Albert Einstein’s famous equation: (E=mc^2).

This equation revealed a startling truth: Matter is, in a sense, a bound form of energy.

If you unravel an atom, it releases an immense amount of light and heat. Fundamentally, the solid world we touch is just a condensed manifestation of energy. Energy functions as the underlying currency of the physical universe; without it, matter ceases to exist.

In Theology:

This physical reality unlocks a deeper understanding of God as The Originator (Al-Mubdi).

The universe has no independent reality; it is not self-sustaining. Just as matter is a derived state of energy, all of existence is a derived state of God’s Command (‘Kun’— or ‘Be’). He is the Originator by whose Command all reality is brought into existence.

The Parallel in Man

This physical law also serves as a profound introduction to the creation of man.

The Qur’an tells us that the first human, Adam (pbuh), was created from clay—dense, heavy matter. But he remained a lifeless statue, a mere “shell” of earth, until a subtle reality was introduced.

“So when I have proportioned him and breathed into him of My Spirit...”

— (Qur’an 15:29)

Just as physics teaches us that dead matter is animated by invisible energy, the Qur’an teaches us that the clay of the human body is animated by the Spirit.

• The Clay (Mass): The dense vessel.

• The Spirit (Rūḥ): A subtle, life-giving command from God — not physical energy, but a created reality beyond matter.

By understanding that even a stone is not fundamentally ‘solid,’ but a bound state of energy, it becomes easier to accept that a human is dust sustained by a Divine Breath. We are not just biological machines; we are vessels of a higher, subtle reality.

2. The Universal Constant: Al-Haqq (The Absolute Truth)

In a universe of change, we look for something permanent. Everything in the cosmos is relative—planets orbit, stars die, and galaxies drift. Even time and space are flexible; they stretch and shrink depending on gravity and speed.

However, modern physics rests on one unshakeable pillar: the Speed of Light, (c).

In Physics:

The speed of light is the universal constant. It never changes. Whether you are standing still or moving at a million miles an hour, light always moves at the exact same speed relative to you. It is the speed of light that is the anchor that holds the laws of physics together. If the speed of light were to fluctuate, the structure of physical reality would collapse.

In Theology:

This mirrors the attributes of Al-Haqq (The Absolute Truth) and Al-Qayyūm (The Self-Subsisting).

In a world where everything is “contingent”—meaning it changes, ages, and depends on external factors—God is the only Constant. Just as physical light defines the laws of the universe without being affected by them, the Creator sustains existence without being changed by it.

3. The Dissolution of Time: Al-Awwal wa Al-Ākhir (The First and The Last)

As discussed in our previous exploration of time dilation, time is a property of mass. The heavier you are, the more you are dragged by the flow of time.

In Physics:

Light is unique because it is massless. Because it has no mass, it does not experience the passage of time.

The journey of light—from the moment it is emitted from a star to the moment it strikes your eye—collapses billions of years of cosmic history into a single instant along its path. In relativistic terms, no time elapses along the trajectory of light. It frames history, but it is not aged by history.

In Theology:

This points to the Creator being Time-Transcendent. He is Al-Awwal (The First) with no beginning, and Al-Ākhir (The Last) with no end. He is not trapped in the timeline of past, present, and future. Like light, He encompasses the timeline without being subjected to its erosion.

4. Power Without Weight: Al-Laṭīf (The Subtle)

Everything in the physical universe is heavy. Planets, people, and atoms all have mass, which means they possess “inertia”—resistance to change in motion. Matter is ‘stubborn’—it resists the will to be moved from one condition to another.

In Physics:

Light carries energy, yet it carries no burden of mass. It is “Subtle.” It can pass through glass, water, and the vacuum of space without resistance. It is the most effective carrier of power precisely because it is free from the heaviness of matter.

In Theology:

This is the essence of Al-Laṭīf (The Subtle). God is not an object to be moved; He is the Originator who moves all things effortlessly. The Creator is not “heavy” or “dense” like His creation. He manages the affairs of the universe without effort or fatigue.

5. The Mystery of Visibility: Aẓ-Ẓāhir wa Al-Bāṭin (The Apparent and The Hidden)

One of the most fascinating qualities of light is how we perceive it.

In Physics:

Light is the medium through which we see everything, yet light itself is invisible. If a beam of pure light travels through a perfect vacuum (empty space), it is completely invisible. You cannot see the light traveling; you can only see the effect of the light when it hits an object (like a wall).

Note: Why do we then see beams of light?

You might wonder, “If light is invisible, why can I see a sunbeam coming through the window or the beam of a torch?” What you are seeing is not the light itself, but the light bouncing off millions of tiny dust particles floating in the air. If you were to remove all the dust and air (creating a vacuum), the “beam” would vanish into darkness, leaving only the illuminated spot on the wall.

• Light is Hidden in its transit (the invisible beam in the void).

• Light is Apparent in its impact (the illuminated object).

In Theology:

This perfectly explains the twin attributes Aẓ-Ẓāhir (The Apparent) and Al-Bāṭin (The Hidden).

• The Hidden: We cannot see God’s Essence directly in this life; He is veiled from our eyes.

• The Apparent: We see His “Signs” (Ayāt) everywhere. We cannot see Him, but we cannot see anything without Him. He is the Light that makes reality visible and intelligible.

6. Purity Par Excellence: Al-Quddūs

In our physical experience, interaction almost always comes with a cost: contamination. Purity is usually fragile. No material substance in this world can interact with filth without becoming contaminated itself. If clean water mixes with sewage, the water becomes impure. If a white cloth touches mud, the cloth gets stained.

In Physics:

Light demonstrates a unique property of non-contamination. You can shine a pure white beam onto a pile of trash, a muddy swamp, or a pool of blood. The light reveals the filth, but it itself never becomes tainted. It remains distinct and pristine. It touches the impurity to illuminate it, yet retains its own nature entirely.

In Theology:

This reflects the divine attribute of Al-Quddūs (The Pure/Transcendent). God is present everywhere with His knowledge and power. He observes human actions and sustains creation, yet His Essence remains untainted. His perfection is absolute, and His proximity to creation is one of mastery and awareness, not mixture or dependency.

7. The Guardian of Order: Al-Muhaimin (The Controller)

We often think the speed of light is just a “speed limit”—like a highway sign telling us not to go too fast. But in physics, it serves a much deeper purpose: it protects reality itself.

In Physics:

If anything could travel faster than light, it would break the law of Causality. You could technically send a message back in time to change the past before the future happened. The universe would dissolve into logical chaos.

The speed of light ($c$) acts as the Governor of the universe. It prevents the past from mixing with the future. It ensures that “Cause” always comes before “Effect.” It is the rigid barrier that keeps the universe rational, ordered, and safe from paradoxes.

In Theology:

This mirrors the attribute of Al-Muhaimin (The Guardian/Controller).

God is not just the Creator who starts the universe; He is the Sustainer who maintains its order at every moment. He sets limits (Hudūd) not to restrict us, but to protect existence. Just as Light (c) protects the timeline from collapsing, God’s Divine Order protects creation from disorder and confusion.

8. The Non-Accommodating Standard: Al-Ghanī (The Independent)

Light is the “Absolute” of the physical universe. It behaves differently than anything else.

In Physics:

In our daily lives, relative speeds change to accommodate us. If a car drives away from you at 40 mph and you chase it at 10 mph, it is effectively moving away at 30 mph.

Here is the logic:

• If you stand still: The car flies away at 40 mph.

• If you run: The car flies away at 30 mph.

• How it “helps”: You haven’t caught the car, but you have successfully influenced the math. You made the gap grow slower by running. Your effort mattered.

But Light is Independent. If you chase a beam of light, it does not get closer to you. It refuses to accommodate your speed. Whether you stand still or chase it at a million miles per hour, light travels away from you at exactly the same speed.

Because Light refuses to change, Time and Space are forced to change instead.

According to Einstein’s Special Relativity, your time literally slows down and your space shrinks just to ensure that the Light remains supreme and unaltered. The observer must warp to fit the Light; the Light never warps to fit the observer.

In Theology:

This is the physical echo of the Divine attribute Istighnā’ (Total Independence).

God is Al-Ghanī—the Unchanging Standard. He does not change to accommodate the logic or whims of His creation; rather, creation must change to accommodate His Will.

We cannot force Him to fit our limited understanding. He does not bend His Laws for us. Instead, we must bend our will, our time, and our lives to align with Him.

9. The Inescapable Reality — Al-Qāhir (The Subjugator)

A fundamental question in physics is: “Why can’t we just build a rocket with enough fuel to go faster than light?”

The answer lies in Inertia.

In Physics:

As an object accelerates towards the speed of light, its resistance to acceleration increases dramatically. The faster you try to go, the heavier you get.

To reach the speed of light, an object with mass would require Infinite Energy.

The universe literally prevents you from outstripping light. The harder you struggle to break the limit, the more burden (mass) you accumulate, until you are physically stopped by the laws of existence.

In Theology:

This mirrors the attribute of Al-Qāhir (The Subjugator).

“You cannot overpower Allah, neither on the earth nor in the heaven...”

— (Qur’an 29:22)

Just as a physical object creates its own resistance the harder it tries to break the speed limit, a human being creates their own spiritual burden the harder they try to flee from God. There is no exit. We cannot outrun the Creator because we do not possess “Infinite Energy.” We are finite; He is Infinite.

10. The Horizon of Knowledge: Al-ʿAlīm (The All-Knowing)

One of the inescapable truths about light is that it is the boundary of human knowledge.

In Physics:

Everything we know about the universe reaches us through light. Distance, age, motion, composition — all are inferred from photons. Yet despite this, light itself remains deeply mysterious.

We do not “see” objects as they are now, but as they were when their light left them. Distant galaxies are observed as they existed millions or billions of years ago. Even our most precise instruments can never observe beyond the cosmic light horizon; there are regions of the universe permanently hidden from us because their light will never reach Earth.

Thus, light is both:

• the means of knowledge, and

• the boundary of what we can know.
  

  It reveals reality up to a boundary — and then draws an unbreakable veil.

In Theology:

This mirrors the attribute of Al-ʿAlīm (The All-Knowing).

God’s knowledge is not acquired, delayed, or mediated. He does not “receive information” through signals, time, or distance. Past, present, and future are equally present to Him.

Where human knowledge is constrained by light-speed, horizons, and delay, Divine Knowledge is immediate and absolute.

Light teaches us humility: even when granted our most powerful tool of knowing, we remain confined to partial vision. The unseen (al-ghayb) remains unseen not due to lack of effort, but by design.

Conclusion: The Similitude, Not the Equation

We must end with a critical distinction. When the Qur’an says “Allah is the Light,” it is a similitude (Mathal), not a physical definition.

In Islamic theology, it is firmly held that “There is nothing like unto Him” (Laysa Kamithlihi Shay — 42:11). God is the Creator of physics, not the subject of it. He is not a photon, nor is He bound by the speed of light.

However, He chose this specific creation—one that is constant, timeless, weightless, pure, and the source of visibility—to help our finite minds grasp His Infinite Nature.

Physics studies the mechanics of light; Revelation points us to its Source. In studying the strange and beautiful laws of light, we find ourselves staring at a signpost pointing unambiguously to the Creator of the Worlds.

Share

Recommended Reading:

Can We Outrun Time?

Who is the Overarching Observer?

Introduction

Humanity has always been known to possess an unflinching urge to cross boundaries. We build ships to cross oceans and rockets to penetrate the skies. We are, without doubt, a species defined by our drive to go further.

But as we look deeper into the cosmos, we are beginning to discover that the universe is not an open field we can roam freely in. Rather, it is a place locked by invisible walls—woven from speed and time.

Is it possible that the cosmic boundaries discovered by modern physics are physical manifestations of a spiritual reality deeply embedded within existence?

It is as if the universe itself has a built-in ‘No Return’ policy, one that humbles even the fastest travelers and most daring explorers.

“It is as if the universe itself has a built-in ‘No Return’ policy, one that humbles even the fastest travelers and most daring explorers.”

1. The Scientific Limit: The Cage of Time

To understand the spiritual boundary, we must first appreciate the physical one.

In the 20th century, physics revealed that time is not a constant background; it is a flexible dimension that acts as a barrier against unrestricted travel. Among the most striking discoveries were the following:

• The Speed Limit: Nothing with mass can reach the speed of light.

• The Time Trap: As one approaches the speed of light, time slows down relative to the outside world. For light itself, time essentially stops—light does not experience the passage of time at all.

This exposes a fundamental limit of human existence. Near-light-speed travel could allow only a few subjective years to pass, while decades—or even centuries—elapse on Earth. Though one could return physically, the past they knew would be lost—an existential “No Return,” severed from the reality they left behind.

Beyond this, the universe imposes a literal boundary. Due to the accelerated expansion of space, some galaxies are receding faster than light relative to us—not because they move locally faster than light, but because space itself stretches. For any traveler attempting to reach them, even at near-light speed, arrival would be impossible. In this sense, the cosmos enforces a literal “No Return” horizon: beyond it, travel or communication is forever out of reach.

These boundaries are not merely physical; they point to authority—Sulṭān.

2. Sulṭān: The Authority Beyond the System

While science explains how these barriers operate, Revelation—long before modern discovery—laid down that such barriers exist and addresses why they exist.

The Qur’an describes a universe defined by strict limits—realms that cannot be crossed without divine sanction. In Chapter 55, a challenge is issued:

“O assembly of jinn and humans! If you can penetrate beyond the realms of the heavens and the earth, then do so—but you will not penetrate them except with Sulṭān.”
(Qur’an 55:33)

The modern discovery of time dilation echoes this Qur’anic assertion of authority.

“No being within the system can transcend it using tools found inside the system.”

The Meaning of Sulṭān

Sulṭān is often translated as “power,” but its classical meaning is deeper. It denotes overriding authority and conclusive proof (ḥujjah qāhirah). The verse establishes several metaphysical principles:

• The heavens are a created system.

• No being within the system can transcend it using tools found inside the system.

• Crossing the boundary requires authority external to the order—divine authority.

Just as physics dictates that infinite energy (an impossibility for created matter) would be required to break the light barrier, the Qur’an dictates that Sulṭān is required to cross cosmic limits.

3. Al-Laṭīf: The Subtle

Another reason we are constrained is our own physical nature—a limitation in stark contrast to the subtlety and transcendence of God, captured in His attribute Al-Laṭīf. We, as it were, are too “heavy” for the heavens.

Modern physics teaches a striking rule: mass is a trap. According to relativity, the faster an object moves, the more energy is required to keep accelerating it. Approaching the speed of light would demand effectively infinite energy.

We are grounded by our own density. Only light can reach the ultimate speed because it is massless, not because it ‘tries harder’.

The Subtlety of God

This physical reality reflects a beautiful divine attribute: Al-Laṭīf (The Subtle).

“No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision. He is Al-Laṭīf (The Subtle), the All-Aware.”
(Qur’an 6:103)

Al-Laṭīf expresses a subtlety beyond resistance or obstruction. The Creator is not dense like matter, nor bound by mass, gravity, or energy.

We are limited because we are dense—bound by physical law. The Creator is not bound, for He is Subtle.

4. Ad-Dahr: The Sovereign of Time

If physics reveals that time is a “cage” we cannot escape, we must ask: Who built the cage?

The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) revealed a profound reality when he stated:

“Do not curse Time (Ad-Dahr), for Allah (The Creator) is Ad-Dahr.”1

— (Sahih Muslim: 2246e)

This is a statement of ultimate ownership. Science maps the river; Revelation identifies the Source.

Time cannot be outrun, because our existence is carried by its current. The Creator alone is Sovereign of the stream; He creates the flow itself.

“We cannot outrun time because our very existence is carried by its current.”

The Dissolution of Causality

This understanding exposes the absurdity of the question: “Who created the Creator?”

Asking what came before the Creator of Time is like asking, “What is north of the North Pole?” At that point, the very definition of “north” ceases to exist.

Similarly, causality—the law that every effect requires a prior cause—is a property of time. It only functions inside the universe. Because the Creator is the Author of time and beyond the universe, He is not bound by its linear progression. There is no “before” to the One who created “before.” When we reach the Source, the laws of causality dissolve.

“Asking what came before the Creator of Time is like asking, ‘What is north of the North Pole?’ At that point, the very definition of ‘north’ ceases to exist.”

5. An-Nūr: The Transcendent Light

Finally, if mass is the trap and gravity is the cage, is there any way out? Physics offers one exception: Light.

Photons (particles of light) are massless. Because they have no mass, they do not experience time. For a beam of light, the journey from a distant star to Earth—which takes billions of years for us—happens in an instant.

To outrun time, one must become like light.

The Journey Beyond Physics

This brings a profound new dimension to one of the most significant events in Islamic history: the Isra and Mi’raj (The Night Journey and Ascension).

Recorded in the Qur’an and detailed in the Hadith (traditions of the Prophet pbuh), this event describes the miraculous journey where the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) traveled from Makkah to Jerusalem, ascended through the seven heavens to the Divine Presence, and returned—all within a single night, or mere moments thereof.

From a material perspective, this is impossible. Crossing the Aqtār (cosmic zones) to reach the boundaries of the universe would take millions of years. Yet, the narration offers specific details that align startlingly well with the physics of “No Time.”

The Conveyance of Light & Folding Space

Authentic narrations describe the Prophet being carried on a mount called the Buraq. The name itself shares the same Arabic root as Barq (Lightning), suggesting a vehicle of light.

However, the narrations describe its movement in a way that implies folding space rather than merely traveling through it: “It places its hoof at the farthest point its sight can reach.”

This description mirrors the modern physics concept of a Wormhole (Einstein-Rosen bridge) or Quantum Teleportation, where space itself is folded to connect two distant points instantly. In the Islamic spiritual tradition, this phenomenon is known as Tayy al-Ard (The Folding of the Earth/Space). Unlike linear speed—which would cause years to pass on Earth due to time dilation—folding space allows the traveler to step across the universe without the heavy cost of time.

The Stopping of Time

The result of this journey was a miraculous exemption from the flow of time.

The Prophet (pbuh) engaged in long conversations with previous prophets, witnessed the realities of the Afterlife, and communed with the Creator. In a normal physical trajectory based on speed alone, the earth should have aged centuries during his absence. Yet, he returned in moments. Some traditional accounts describe the journey happening so rapidly that his bed was still warm upon his return.

• In Physics: Massive gravity or high velocity can warp time, and wormholes can bypass it entirely.

• In The Prophetic Biography: When carried by Divine Authority (Sulṭān) and Light (Nūr), the constraints of time dissolve.

This confirms that the light barrier cannot be broken by our own power. But when the Creator of Light (An-Nūr) wishes, He lifts the barrier of time, proving that the laws of physics are not limits for Him—they are the established order governing us.

“The laws of physics are not limits for Him—they are the established order governing us.”

Important clarification: References to light, speed, or time in this discussion are illustrative, not mechanistic. The Night Journey (al-Isrāʾ wa al-Miʿrāj) is a divine miracle (muʿjizah), not an event bound by physical laws such as relativity or light-speed travel. Modern physics may help us imagine how time and experience can differ, but it does not explain the miracle, nor does it limit what God can do beyond creation.

Conclusion: Humility Before the Horizon

The convergence of modern physics and Islamic theology is not about proving the Qur’an with science. It is about recognising our place in the cosmos.

Both frameworks converge on a humbling truth: we are not masters of the exit, nor were we masters of the entry.

Physics reveals a universe constrained by speed and time. The Qur’an reveals a universe governed by Sulṭān.

We can map the walls of existence, but we cannot break through them. True transcendence is not found in a rocket ship, but in submission to the Creator of the worlds.

“There is no “before” to the One who created “before.” When we reach the Source, the laws of causality dissolve.”

Share

Recommended Reading:

Wired to Believe?

The Art of Submission

Imagine paying a premium for a cup of coffee that has been eaten, partially digested, and then excreted by an animal. While this may sound like a bizarre joke, this is the actual reality behind one of the world’s most expensive brews: Civet Coffee, also known as Kopi Luwak.

At first glance, Civet Coffee might seem like just another exotic variety. Yet, the process behind it—though seemingly natural—is anything but ordinary, and certainly far from appealing. A civet, a cat-like mammal, is made to eat ripe coffee cherries. The beans, having passed through its digestive system, supposedly break down proteins and reduce bitterness, before being excreted by the animal. These beans are then collected from the civet’s droppings, cleaned, roasted, and sold at astronomically high prices.

The Brutal Reality Behind the Hype

The glossy marketing behind Kopi Luwak hides another grim truth. While promoters boast about beans being “wild-collected,” the reality is otherwise; as the vast majority of production nowadays comes primarily from factory farms. Civets, within these farms, are kept in cages, often in deplorable conditions, and force-fed coffee cherries in unnatural quantities. Deprived of their natural diet and surroundings, these poor animals suffer from stress, malnutrition, and diseases.

Behind the veneer of glittery branding lies human exploitation, greed, and utter cruelty. This then raises a deeper question: how can something rooted in suffering and filth be celebrated as refinement and sophistication, and become the choice of the social elite?

And this surely is not an isolated occurrence; it is symptomatic of a wider moral confusion. When man disconnects from Divine guidance, he inevitably begins crafting ethical (or rather unethical) systems shaped by profit, pleasure, and popularity. In such systems, the suffering of animals or the impurity of origin can easily be overlooked as long as the end product promises prestige, financial gains and sensory delight.

Consumption and Spiritual Consequences

What we consume affects more than just our bodies—it affects our hearts and souls too. We are required to eat what is halal and tayyib (lawful and pure), linking sustenance directly with ethical considerations.

Today, many assume that halal simply refers to the method of slaughtering an animal. In reality, halal encompasses everything that is lawful, wholesome, and beneficial, while avoiding what is harmful, exploitative, or impure, reflecting both physical purity and ethical responsibility in all aspects of life.

Seen from this perspective, food is not just fuel; it becomes part of our very essence and being, influencing our minds and spiritual state. When something is born of filth or cruelty, it can never be a source of good. Civet Coffee, no matter how expensive, is the opposite of tayyib. It enters the realm of khabith—impure, harmful, and unworthy of a conscientious person.

Even if one tried to argue that such coffee could somehow be “purified” by roasting, its origin and the cruelty involved leave no doubt about its true nature and status. It remains a product tainted both physically and ethically, despite the marketing and presentation. Its status is not only a matter of taste or preference—it reflects a failure in moral responsibility that we cannot ignore.

The Principle of Ihsan Toward Animals

Another dimension that is so conveniently ignored is our responsibility towards animals. Prophetic guidance teaches us that every act of kindness to a living being carries reward, and every act of cruelty is blameworthy. A woman was condemned for imprisoning a cat, while another person was promised forgiveness for giving water to a thirsty dog.

How then can the deliberate caging, force-feeding, and torment of civets for luxury consumption ever be justified? Such practices undoubtedly stand in stark contrast to ihsan—excellence in treating creation with mercy. Prophetic teachings elevate even small acts of kindness toward animals, whereas civet coffee normalises cruelty for the sake of novelty and profit.

The Trust of Khalifah

We humans have been given the designation of khalifah (custodians or caretakers) on earth, entrusted with responsibility toward all creation. This trust means that our choices must reflect stewardship, not exploitation. Chasing after trends that involve harming creatures for fleeting enjoyment is a betrayal of that trust.

Civet Coffee is a stark example of the ethical downfall and outright corruption: subjecting a harmless animal to unnatural conditions and justifying it with luxury branding. Such behaviour not only reflects humanity’s moral failure but is a stark reminder that desire has overtaken duty.

The Allure of Luxury vs. The Call of Purity

Part of the fascination with Civet Coffee lies in its rarity and price tag. In modern consumer culture, luxury is often confused with value, and deviation is mistaken for sophistication. Divine revelation, however, provides a counterweight to these illusions. It teaches us that true refinement is not in chasing exotic indulgences but in pursuing purity, moderation and altruism.

Man is not to be deceived by abundance or outward glitter:

“Say: Not equal are the impure and the pure, even though the abundance of the impure may please you. So fear God, O people of understanding, that you may be successful.” (Qur’an 5:100)

And this is not just related to food; it rather encompasses all aspects of life. The abundance of what is khabith—whether in wealth, trends, or desires—may dazzle the eye, but success lies in choosing what is tayyib—wholesome, clean, and aligned with Divine guidance.

A Higher Guidance for Modern Times

Human intellect is a gift, but it is not infallible. Left unguided, it can justify cruelty in the name of culture, or filth in the name of luxury. Revelation protects us from such delusions. It equips us with principles that remain timeless, shielding us from being swept away by every new trend.

Civet Coffee is just one example. Today it is this that is taking the fancy of the ‘sophisticated’. Tomorrow it may be another bizarre fad. What remains constant is the need for a Divine compass that distinguishes not only what nourishes the body, but also what purifies the soul.

Conclusion

So, the next time you encounter the enticing sign for “Civet Coffee,” pause and reflect. Is it truly a delicacy—or is it a deception dressed as luxury? Divine revelation calls us to something far greater: to live with purity, compassion, and God-consciousness in every choice we make.

True dignity is not in consuming what is born of cruelty and filth, but in choosing purity, compassion, and responsibility, aligning our lives with the eternal guidance that leads to success.

Share

Recommended Reading:

The Rules Are Set

The Art of Submission

Subscribe now

In modern-day discussions on the existence of God, a frequently asked question is: Who bears the burden of proof? Is it the believer who asserts God exists, or the one who denies it? The answer rests on logic, history, and innate human psychology.

Redefining the Burden of Proof

It's commonly assumed the burden of proof falls on the person making a positive claim. However, in reality, the burden actually lies with the one who challenges the apparent or established norm. When something is generally accepted or intuitively understood, the onus is on the disrupter to justify their claim.

Consider this: If someone enters a city and claims the water is poisoned, while it has always been accepted as safe, the burden of proof rests on the claimant. If, on the other hand, the water is widely presumed poisoned, and someone asserts it's safe, the burden lies on them. In both cases, the form of the claim-–regardless of it being positive or negative—is less important than the fact that the claimant is challenging the general presumption or accepted norm. No one is expected to prove otherwise unless a valid reason arises to doubt it.

Shouldn't we apply the same criteria to the question of God's existence? As historically, naturally, and logically, it is the denier, not the believer, who challenges the status quo across these domains.

To fully justify what is being claimed here, let's first explore these domains a little vis-a-vis the existence of God.

Historical and Logical Belief in God

1. A Historical Norm:

Belief in a divine being is neither a recent development nor a fringe idea. It has been a near-universal feature of human societies across time and cultures. From ancient civilizations to the modern era, belief in a higher power has profoundly influenced laws, governance, culture, and moral frameworks. Indeed, throughout recorded history, widespread societal atheism has been a rare anomaly, primarily emerging as a significant social movement only in more recent centuries. This pervasive historical consistency underscores the deeply ingrained nature of belief within the human experience, forming the bedrock upon which countless civilizations have built their understanding of the world and their place within it.

2. Innate Disposition (Fitrah):

This widespread belief is not merely inherited through culture but emanates from a natural disposition toward the divine. In Islamic theology, this is called fitrah—part of which is an inclination that intuitively leads to the recognition of the Creator, leading on to seek His revelations, if indeed it has not been inhibited by inhibiting factors۔

Findings from developmental studies within children, including work found in the Oxford Studies in the Psychology of Religion and studies by Olivera Petrovich, indicate that children intuitively believe in purposeful design and a transcendent cause. Even without religious instruction, they tend not to default to atheism but rather to forms of rudimentary theism. These studies suggest that denial of God is not the natural starting point, but rather a deviation from these innate cognitive tendencies.

• Justin L. Barrett's Research on Children's Theistic Tendencies: Barrett, a prominent cognitive scientist primarily associated with the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, conducted extensive research on children’s cognitive development and psychological behaviour. The research indicates a strong predisposition to cognitive biases that point to theistic belief (e.g., agency detection, teleology). According to this study atheism is certainly not the intuitive default.

  His studies, which often involved cross-cultural samples from various countries (e.g., studies referenced in his 2012 book "Born Believers"), also reveal that children instinctively attribute purpose and design to the world around them. For instance, children often perceive natural objects like rivers and mountains as existing for specific purposes, suggesting an inherent bias toward seeing the world as ‘intentionally designed’. Barrett also notes that children tend to ascribe superhuman qualities to the supreme deity, such as omniscience and immortality, even before fully grasping these concepts in humans. This implies that the concept of a supreme being with extraordinary attributes emerges naturally in children's cognition.

• Dr. Olivera Petrovich's Cross-Cultural Findings: Dr. Olivera Petrovich, a psychologist at the University of Oxford's Department of Experimental Psychology, carried out cross-cultural studies that further support the notion of an innate belief in a creator. In her research, notably including studies from the early 2000s onwards (e.g., her 2000 publication comparing Japanese and UK children's explanations), she discovered that many Japanese preschoolers—children raised in a predominantly non-theistic culture—attributed the existence of natural objects to a creator deity, despite minimal or no exposure to religious teachings. When asked about the origins of entities like trees and rivers, a significant number of these children responded with answers that indicated a spontaneous inclination toward theistic explanations.

These findings challenge the assertion that belief in God is purely a result of cultural indoctrination. Instead, they suggest that theism aligns with our natural cognitive tendencies. Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that it is the skeptic who challenges this natural disposition regarding the existence of God and, consequently, bears the burden of proof to justify their departure from this innate human inclination.

Logic, Testimony, and the Human Way of Knowing

There are those who argue on the basis of pure empirical observation, with statements such as: "I cannot believe in God because I've never seen Him." While superficially strong, such objections are philosophically weak and logically superficial. This is primarily because human beings don't operate purely on what they can see. In fact, the vast majority of our beliefs are based on logic, inference, and testimony.

As a way to counter such arguments one only needs to ask such individuals whether or not they believe in their 20th-generation ancestor? The answer will surely be a definite yes—even without a photograph or physical evidence of that forebear. This conviction arises purely from logical inference, which, in such contexts, serves as good as, in fact weightier than, their standard ‘evidence’. This illustrates that our understanding of 'facts' extends beyond what is solely scientifically proven, as much of our accepted knowledge is based on reasoned deduction.

A similar question that can be posed is: ‘Do you believe in historical events or places beyond your direct experience?’ Again, the belief rests on indirect sources and reasoned trust.

This highlights that a significant portion of our functioning in the world depends not on direct evidence but on inferential and testimonial knowledge. So why should this principle be suspended when it comes to the existence of God?

The Field vs. the City: A Compelling Analogy

Consider two distinct scenarios:

1. The Empty Field: Two men stand in an empty, level field. If one claims an architect or engineer was involved at some point here, the burden of proof would rightly be upon them.

2. The Developed City: Now, consider these same two men standing amidst intricately designed buildings, bridges, and machinery in a developed city. If one denies the existence of an architect or engineer here, the burden of proof rests squarely upon them.

As these scenarios illustrate, the burden of proof undeniably shifts based on the context. In the first case, it falls on the claimant of a designer; in the second, it falls on the one denying design.

This is how human logic naturally operates. When faced with clear evidence of intelligent design, it's the denial—not the affirmation—of a designer that requires justification. Likewise, when we observe the complexity, order, and fine-tuning of the universe—from DNA and galaxies to moral awareness and consciousness—the claim that no intelligent cause exists is the one demanding proof.

The Illusion of "Neutrality" in Denial

Modern discourse often frames atheism as the "neutral" position and theism as the "positive claim." But this framing is misleading.

• Theism isn't making a wild leap—it aligns with history, psychology, and human nature.

• Atheism, in contrast, makes a substantial metaphysical claim: that all of reality, with its intelligence, energy, morality, and order, is an accident or the product of blind processes.

This is far from a neutral stance; it is a bold philosophical assertion that must be argued for, not merely assumed.

The Fish in the Tank: On the Limits of Perception

Imagine a fish in a tank within a living room. No matter how intelligent the fish may be, we can be certain that it couldn't comprehend the world beyond its tank. It might see shadows, but it would never attempt to grasp the nature of the house, the people, or the city beyond.

We humans, in many ways, are like that fish. Our universe is the tank. We are bound by space, time, and limited perception. And yet—against all expectations—we constantly ponder what lies outside the universe. We ask questions about the Creator, the origins and meaning of life, and what awaits us after death.

Why should this be so? If we were purely material creatures bound to a material world, the thought of something beyond should never even occur to us. But it not only occurs—it often dominates our consciousness. Even those who wish to deny God feel compelled to address and refute the idea repeatedly. One wonders, why this obsession with something that, according to them, "doesn't exist"?

While some propose explanations for religious belief such as "evolutionary hangover" or "psychological projection," these theories remain insufficient to explain the full phenomenon of human consciousness, intellect, design and spiritual seeking, amongst numerous other aspects.

When Evidence Is Felt, Not Sought

Proof is often unnecessary when a person confronts serious realities—such as the experience of intense pain—even in the absence of material evidence.

Consider a rock striking the back of someone’s head. With no visible indication to themselves or others, the resulting intense pain serves as direct, undeniable proof for the injured person. The sheer force of this experience compels an unshakable certainty in its reality.

Belief in God is a truth deeply felt by both the conscious mind and the human collective conscience and experience—a reality difficult to avoid. One must make a deliberate effort to reject this belief and adopt atheism; the reverse demands no such struggle. This, in itself, can be seen as evidence that belief in God is a natural and innate inclination of humanity. And this is evidenced by studies and research, as explained earlier.

If one finds themselves not conforming to this trend; i.e., a natural inclination to believe in the Divine Creator, this may possibly be because of the modern push towards atheism, through education, media and similar institutions.

Conclusion: A Rethink on the Burden of Proof

The existence of God is not an outlandish belief requiring defenders to stand trial. It is the intuitive, historical, and rational starting point for much of humanity.

It is not the theist who must explain why they believe in God—but the atheist who must explain why not. Why reject what has been accepted across cultures and centuries? Why discard what our inner nature affirms and what logic supports?

Until the skeptic can provide a coherent, evidence-based reason for denying what has always been known, it is the skeptic—not the believer—who bears the burden of proof.

Share

Recommended Reading:

The Matrix of all Matter

Can Something Come from Nothing?

Subscribe now

Introduction to Hieroglyphics

Hieroglyphics was a system of writing used by ancient Egyptians, represented by symbols that conveyed sounds, words, or ideas. The word "Hieroglyphics" comes from the Greek terms hieros (sacred) and glyphe (carving), meaning "sacred engraving." This script, introduced around 3,300 BC, was employed in temples, tombs, statues, scrolls, and other inscriptions to record Egypt's history, religion, and governance.

While hieroglyphics remained central to Egyptian life for millennia, the subsequent shifts in regional power began to impact the script's usage.

The use of hieroglyphics began to decline as Egypt was invaded by powerful empires, such as the Persian Empire (in 525 BC), and then the Kingdom of Macedonia (in 332 BC), followed by the Roman Empire (in 30 BC).

These foreign invasions brought cultural, linguistic, and religious changes that heavily impacted Egypt’s native traditions. The Romans, with Greek and Latin as their official languages, played a major role in the decline of hieroglyphic writing. By the 4th century AD, when Rome adopted Christianity as its official religion, hieroglyphs were not only overshadowed by the new language but were also banned in religious contexts. Temples were destroyed, and the script was soon forgotten, known only to a few priests and scholars. Hieroglyphics gradually fell into disuse and became incomprehensible.

In 1799, during a military expedition led by French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte in Egypt, an engineering officer named Pierre Bouchard discovered a black granite slab while constructing a fortress near Rosetta in northern Egypt. This slab, later known as the Rosetta Stone, was inscribed with three scripts:

• Hieroglyphics — the sacred script of ancient Egypt
  

• Demotic — the everyday script of ancient Egyptians
  

• Greek — the language of the ruling class at the time
  

The Rosetta Stone, found and dated to 196 BC, turned out to be the key to cracking the code of this lost language. The same text was written in all three scripts, making the stone a key to understanding ancient Egyptian writing.

While the stone offered a key, the complexity of the ancient language still posed a significant challenge. Hundreds of scholars attempted to decode the hieroglyphs, but it wasn't until 1822—23 years after its discovery—that French linguist Jean-François Champollion successfully deciphered the hieroglyphs using the Greek text. This breakthrough revolutionised the study of ancient Egypt and laid the foundation for modern Egyptology.

Given this historical overview, we now consider how the Qur’an addresses information that remained hidden for a long period, and was eventually understood."

The Test of Scriptures: The Qur’an as Muhaymin

The Qur’an describes itself as Muhaymin over previous scriptures, meaning it acts as a guardian, preserver, and criterion for distinguishing truth from distortion. Rather than replacing earlier revelations, the Qur’an confirms the original divine messages while correcting the alterations made over time (Bucaille, 1976). It provides an unaltered standard, ensuring that God's guidance remains intact and accessible to all people, across all eras (Nasr, 2015).

When we consider modern-day discoveries, Muhaymin becomes especially significant, particularly when examining religious texts. The Qur’an asserts that while previous scriptures originated from divine revelation, they have been altered through human interference.

Elaboration on "Muhaymin"

The Qur'anic term Muhaymin carries significant theological weight and is central to understanding the Qur'an's relationship with previous scriptures. While often translated as "guardian" or "preserver", its implications extend beyond these terms.

The root of "Muhaymin" suggests a multifaceted role involving:

• Oversight and Supervision: It implies a position of authority and control, in which the Qur'an oversees and judges the authenticity of earlier revelations.

• Protection and Preservation: "It signifies a safeguarding of the original divine message, protecting it from distortions and alterations that may have occurred over time.

• Criterion and Standard: It establishes the Qur'an as a benchmark against which the truth and accuracy of previous scriptures can be measured.

Furthermore, the concept of "Muhaymin" implies a continuity of divine guidance, suggesting that God's message remains relevant and accessible to all people, across all eras. It reinforces the idea that the Qur'an is not a replacement for earlier scriptures but a culmination and completion of them.

Understanding the multifaceted nature of "Muhaymin" is crucial for understanding the Qur'an's claims regarding its relationship with the Torah and the Gospels. It provides a framework for evaluating the Qur'an's assertions of accuracy.

The Qur’an’s assertions in reference to Muhaymin can be tested through historical, linguistic, and archaeological findings. But does the Qur'an’s claim as 'Muhaymin' hold up against historical scrutiny? Let’s put it to the test.

1 - The Weeping of the Skies for Pharaoh

Ancient Egyptian texts, including the Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts, suggest that the heavens and earth mourned the death of great rulers, particularly Pharaohs (Allen, 2000). These inscriptions describe the sky shedding tears for the deceased king—a belief confirmed by Egyptologist James Allen through hieroglyphic records.

However, the Qur’an directly refutes this notion, stating:

”Neither the heavens nor the earth wept for them, nor were they reprieved." (Qur’an 44:29)

This verse challenges the Egyptian worldview, rejecting the idea that Pharaoh's death was a cosmic event worthy of grief. Instead, it portrays his downfall as one of disgrace, and not divine mourning.

A Belief Unknown to Arabia

The most striking aspect of this Qur’anic statement is that the idea of the heavens weeping for Pharaoh remained virtually unknown for centuries. Consider the following:

• The Bible makes no mention of the heavens or earth mourning Pharaoh's death.
  

• Arab traditions had no recorded knowledge of this ancient Egyptian belief.
  

• Hieroglyphics remained undeciphered until the 19th century—long after the Qur’an’s revelation.

Why is this significant? The Qur’an does not merely omit or ignore this Egyptian belief—it actively negates it, correcting an idea that was only rediscovered after the deciphering of hieroglyphics. This raises a profound question: If the Qur’an had been derived from earlier scriptures, why would it uniquely refute a belief that neither the Bible nor any other source contained?

Furthermore, the Qur'an's precision extends beyond challenging existing beliefs, to the very terminology it uses in its historical accounts. Thus, the Qur’an not only rejects a belief lost to time but does so with precision that aligns with rediscovered hieroglyphic records.

2 - Chronological Terminology in the Qur'an and Historical Records

The Qur’an's accuracy in distinguishing the titles of Egyptian rulers is a fascinating example of its historical precision. While the Bible consistently refers to the Egyptian ruler as "Pharaoh" in both periods (e.g., Genesis 41:14, 41:39-41, 47:5-6), the Qur’an makes a distinction between the two periods. It refers to the ruler in Joseph's time as "King" (Malik) (e.g., 12:54), and the ruler in Moses’ time as "Pharaoh" (Fir'awn) (e.g., 28:38, 7:103) (Kitchen, 2003).

This distinction holds significant historical importance, only confirmed by modern Egyptology after the deciphering of hieroglyphics in the 19th century (Finkelstein & Silberman, 2001).

Confirmation from Hieroglyphics

For centuries, it was unknown that the title "Pharaoh" was not used for Egyptian rulers in all periods. The discovery and deciphering of hieroglyphics revealed that the term "Pharaoh" was not used for Egyptian rulers during Prophet Joseph’s era (Middle Kingdom, approximately 2000–1700 BCE). The title "Pharaoh" became common only in the New Kingdom (around 1500 BCE), which corresponds to Moses’ time. Ancient Egyptian inscriptions confirm that rulers in Joseph’s period were called "King," and not "Pharaoh."

A Comparison of Terminology

No historical records available in Arabia at the time contained this distinction. The Bible, which was accessible to Arabian Jews and Christians, consistently used "Pharaoh" for all Egyptian rulers, making the Qur’an’s differentiation even more remarkable.

This level of accuracy raises profound questions. Could someone as far back as the 7th century, without access to historical Egyptian records or the ability to read hieroglyphics, have highlighted such a distinction purely by chance? Had the Qur'an been influenced by existing scriptures, it would have inherited the same error. Instead, it stands apart, using terminology only confirmed centuries later.

3 - Haman: The Chief of Construction under Pharaoh

Haman is mentioned six times in the Qur’an (Surah 28:6, 8, 38; Surah 29:39; Surah 40:24, 36) as a high-ranking official under Pharaoh, overseeing major construction projects. Surah Al-Qasas records Pharaoh commanding him:

“O Chiefs! I know of no other god for you but myself. So, bake bricks out of clay for me, O Haman, and build a high tower so I may look at the god of Moses, although I am sure he is a liar.”

(Qur’an 28:38)

For centuries, critics argued that the Qur’anic mention of Haman was an anachronism, pointing out that no such figure appeared in historical records of ancient Egypt. The only known "Haman" in religious texts was from the Book of Esther, set in Persia nearly a thousand years after the time of Moses. This led some Western scholars to claim that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had mistakenly borrowed the name from Biblical sources.

The Rediscovery of Haman

This criticism persisted until the deciphering of hieroglyphics in the 19th century. In 1935, German Egyptologist Hermann Ranke, in his work Die Ägyptischen Personennamen (The Egyptian Personal Names), documented a name phonetically similar to "Haman" in inscriptions dating to the New Kingdom period (circa 1550–1070 BCE). This individual was associated with construction projects, aligning perfectly with the Qur’anic description.

Further supporting evidence emerged from artifacts housed in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. One such artifact is a doorpost from the tomb of Hemen-hetep, who held the title "Overseer of the Stonemasons of Amun." This artifact dates to the New Kingdom, the period traditionally associated with Pharaoh Ramesses II (1279–1213 BCE), often identified as the Pharaoh of Moses.

Maurice Bucaille on ‘Haman’

Maurice Bucaille, in The Bible, The Qur’an, and Science (Bucaille, 1976), discusses this discovery, noting that the Qur’an correctly places Haman in an Egyptian context rather than in Persia, where the Biblical Haman appears. Bucaille emphasised that it is extraordinary that the Qur’an mentions such an obscure historical figure, who was unknown in the Torah and other sources available in 7th-century Arabia (Ranke, 1935). He saw this as evidence of the Qur’an’s historical accuracy, challenging conventional explanations of its origins.

This raises an intriguing question: How did the Qur'an accurately identify an obscure figure and his role—something unknown even to the Jews and Christians of that time?

Apart from discoveries clearly validated by hieroglyphics, there are other remarkable findings that, while exhibiting indirect support from hieroglyphic texts, strikingly align with historical reality. Below, I present two such examples.

4 - The Case of Brick-Making in Ancient Egypt

Another instance where the Qur’an could have erred, but did not, is in its mention of brick-making in ancient Egypt.

The Qur’an narrates Pharaoh instructing Haman:

“So kindle for me, O Haman, a fire on the clay and build for me a tower…” (Qur’an 28:38)

This verse references the process of baking bricks, which, at first glance, may seem more characteristic of Mesopotamian architecture than Egyptian. Ancient Egypt predominantly used sun-dried mud bricks for construction. However, archaeological discoveries have shown that kiln-fired bricks were indeed used in Egypt, particularly during later periods (Parker, 2015; Lehner, 1997).

It is noteworthy that the Qur’an reflects a practice that would only be confirmed by archaeology centuries later. It shows a precise understanding of historical practices that was unknown at the time.

These examples demonstrate that the Qur'an presents details that align with later historical discoveries. Far from borrowing from contemporary sources, its descriptions are consistent with later discoveries, or at the very least, free from the historical errors known to us today.

5. The Preservation of Pharaoh’s Body

The Qur’an states:

"So today We will save your body so that you may be a sign for those after you. But most people are heedless of Our signs."
(Qur’an: 10:92)

For centuries, scholars debated the meaning of this verse, as there was no known record of a Pharaoh's body being preserved after drowning. However, with the 19th-century rediscovery of hieroglyphics and advancements in Egyptology, the mummies of several New Kingdom rulers, including Merneptah, were found and analysed.

Hieroglyphic inscriptions confirm that Pharaohs underwent elaborate mummification processes, but they do not describe the preservation of a drowned ruler. However, forensic studies of Merneptah’s mummy—which was discovered in 1898 in the Royal Cache at Deir el-Bahari—suggest unusual damage to his body. Some researchers, including Dr. Maurice Bucaille, have argued that his remains exhibit characteristics consistent with rapid death, possibly due to drowning, followed by mummification.

Key observations include:

1. Well-Preserved Mummy – Despite significant damage to the body, the mummy was well-preserved, aligning with the Qur'anic claim that his body was saved as a sign.
   

2. Possible Asphyxiation Indicators – Forensic analyses conducted on the mummy suggest that his posture and physical condition could be consistent with drowning.
   

3. Non-Battle Wounds – Unlike Pharaohs who died in battle, Merneptah’s body does not show injuries typically associated with warfare, which raises questions about the cause of his death.
   

Though hieroglyphic records meticulously document mummification, they remain silent on the preservation of a drowned Pharaoh. The Qur'an's specific claim, therefore, stands out as exceptionally remarkable.

Conclusion

In the modern era, a wealth of discoveries—from ancient manuscripts to archaeological findings—has illuminated details within the Qur’an, particularly regarding ancient civilisations, lost knowledge, and prophetic narratives. The deciphering of hieroglyphics, for instance, has revealed historical facts about ancient Egypt that align with certain Qur’anic accounts, such as the references to 'Haman' and the descriptions of construction practices like brick-making. These facts, confirmed only after the rediscovery of hieroglyphics, present intriguing points of comparison with modern archaeological and historical discoveries.

Bibliography

• Bucaille, M. (1976). The Bible, the Qur’an, and science: The Holy Scriptures in the light of modern knowledge. Islamic Book Trust.

• Lehner, M. (1997). The complete pyramids: Solving the mysteries of the world's largest buildings. Thames & Hudson.

• Nasr, S. H., Dagli, M. F., Dakake, M. M., Lumbard, J. E. B., & Rustom, D. (Eds.). (2015). The study Quran: A new translation and commentary. HarperOne.

• Parker, R. A. (2015). The archaeology of ancient Egypt: An introduction. Routledge.

• Ranke, H. (1935). Die Ägyptischen Personennamen (The Egyptian personal names). Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft.

Share

Recommended Reading:

Murad's Story

The Conformity Trap

Subscribe now

Introduction

In contemporary discourse, two terms—Methodological Naturalism (MN) and Philosophical Naturalism (PN)—are often used loosely and sometimes interchangeably, despite each representing a completely distinct concept. Understanding the distinction between the two is crucial for achieving clarity in discussions within the domains of science, philosophy, and theology. This article delves into their differences, exploring the historical shift from MN to PN, and examining the implications of conflating these concepts. Let us begin by defining both terms.

Methodological Naturalism

Methodological Naturalism (MN) is the scientific approach that limits its investigations to natural causes and processes alone. MN asserts that all phenomena can be explained through observable, testable, and repeatable mechanisms in the natural world; it discourages resorting to supernatural explanations when studying nature. Advocates of MN do not claim that the supernatural does not exist; rather, they consider it a practical framework for focusing scientific inquiry on what can be empirically studied.

Philosophical Naturalism

Philosophical Naturalism (also known as ontological or metaphysical naturalism), on the other hand, states that everything that exists can be explained entirely by natural causes, laws, and processes. Philosophical Naturalism, venturing into the metaphysical, rejects the idea of the supernatural or anything beyond the physical universe, claiming that nature is all there is and scientific inquiry is the only reliable means of understanding it.

Key Differences

The difference can be summarized as follows:

Methodological Naturalism:

• What It Is: A practical strategy used in scientific inquiry.

• Purpose: To limit research to natural causes and processes.

• Scope: It’s a methodological tool focusing on what can be empirically studied.

• Implication: It does not make any claims about the existence or non-existence of the supernatural; it confines itself to what is accessible to scientific methods.

Philosophical Naturalism:

• What It Is: An ontological worldview asserting that the natural world is all that exists.

• Purpose: To provide a comprehensive explanation of reality by attributing every phenomenon to natural causes and processes.

• Scope: It covers the entirety of existence—from physical phenomena to consciousness, ethics, and beyond—insisting that all aspects of reality must be understood in natural, materialistic terms.

• Implication: It rejects any appeal to the supernatural in all domains, influencing not only scientific inquiry but also areas like philosophy and ethics.

The Major Shift

Certain historical developments contributed to reshaping our understanding of these terms, thereby blurring the lines between them.

The shift from MN to PN can be largely attributed to at least two factors. One key factor was the Enlightenment in Europe (late 17th century onwards), which emphasised reliance on human reason, primarily within the scientific domain. Over time, this approach extended beyond science, leading to a broader rejection of religion in all aspects of life—not just within the physical domain.

Another factor was that philosophical thinkers and naturalists began to view physical science not merely as a tool for understanding nature but also as a means for defining reality and the nature of existence itself.

The Elephant in the Room

Despite the clear distinction between MN and PN, the two are often, intentionally or inadvertently, conflated. This blending of methodological practices with metaphysical assertions is the elephant in the room, a glaring oversight that leads to significant misunderstandings. When MN is mistaken for PN, we risk extending empirical findings into realms where they do not belong, effectively transforming a practical scientific tool into a broad philosophical claim.

The problem arises when scientific inquiry, under the guise of MN, is manipulated to support conclusions that extend into PN. So, for instance, the same investigative process is commended when it attempts to indicate the absence of the metaphysical, yet condemned as "pseudoscience" when it challenges that paradigm by suggesting the possibility of a transcendent cause.

If one scientist is not allowed to infer Divine intervention from empirical investigation, then another should not be permitted to make sweeping metaphysical claims from the same foundations.

Exclusion without Justification

Operating within the MN framework, concepts such as Intelligent Design—and anything beyond the material, including 'God'—have been excluded from the domain of science and consequently dismissed by scientific and academic institutions. Nonetheless, when Intelligent Design or any metaphysical idea is suggested, critics are quick to object: "Where are the peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting this?" Such responses overlook a significant paradox: if the prevailing scientific paradigm precludes non-natural explanations from the outset, how can such perspectives ever gain acceptance in peer-reviewed literature?

To get a clearer understanding of the MN approach, consider the example of a principal addressing teachers in a meeting, instructing them to assume, purely as a strategy for increasing effort, that the pupils’ parents do not exist. This directive is obviously not meant to deny the actual existence of parents but rather to ensure that teachers take full responsibility for their students' education without deferring to external influences.

Similarly, MN functions as a practical guideline in science, requiring researchers to limit their explanations to natural causes without resorting to the supernatural. However, just as it would be absurd to infer from the principal’s instruction that parents do not exist, it is equally wrong to conclude, based solely on scientific experimentation, that nothing beyond the natural world exists.

This distinction, however, is frequently overlooked. In many academic and popular discussions, MN is subtly reinterpreted as PN, effectively pushing a metaphysical claim under the guise of scientific inquiry.

A Case of Misplaced Conclusions

To illustrate this further, imagine a college lecturer appointed to teach a car mechanics course. Throughout the duration of the course, the lecturer covers various aspects of a car’s mechanisms within the allocated time. However, because he makes no mention of the designer and inventor of the car (due to not being part of the course), some students mistakenly conclude that this omission necessarily proves no such originator ever existed. In this example, the tutor operates within the framework of MN, whereas the students who reach such a conclusion have ventured beyond MN and, so to speak, entered the realm of the philosophical.

A similar misunderstanding can be observed in a different scenario. Suppose a group of students, all recipients of stipends from their college, regularly gather for meals, each time one of them covering the cost of the meal. However, whenever someone asks, "Who paid for today’s meal?", there is a particular student among the group who, instead of naming the person who paid the bill, invariably responds, "It’s the college who’s actually paid for the meal"—referring to the stipends given for the term.

As is evidently clear, while this individual’s statement is technically true in a broader sense, it ignores the immediate and direct cause, shifting focus away from the conversation at hand and detracting from the justice of the immediate context.

Contradiction Par Excellence

This was the purpose of MN and why it was considered an integral part of science by earlier scientists, most of whom were theists. The explanation and examples above demonstrate why, despite their strong theistic backgrounds and beliefs, Muslims and Christians—who were at the forefront of science in different eras—had no issues with scientific inquiry or its conclusions.

However, something quite disconcerting has been occurring recently within the scientific domain: any concept of the metaphysical, such as the mention of God, is strictly required to be excluded from all equations. For purely academic reasons, this is understandable, as the empirical relies solely on the physical and observable. Yet, to then allow researchers to pass judgments on the metaphysical purely based on the underpinnings of the physical defies both logic and justice.

Share

Recommended Reading:

Can something come from nothing?

‘Nature’ and ‘Natural’

Subscribe now

Introduction

Throughout history, the relationship between science and religion has sparked intense discussion. For centuries, people have turned to faith, both in the presence and absence of scientific explanations. Today, however, with the rapid advancement of scientific knowledge, many argue that belief in God is becoming increasingly irrelevant, often framed within the concept of the "God of the gaps"—where faith is seen as a means to fill the voids left by scientific ignorance. Yet, this perspective oversimplifies the intricate ways in which faith and knowledge intersect. In this article, we will explore how the concept of God extends far beyond merely filling gaps in scientific understanding, highlighting how faith and reason can coexist and complement each other within a broader, more holistic worldview.

The Definition

The ‘God of the gaps’ concept claims that when ancient people did not understand the actual reasons behind certain phenomena, they ascribed them to an invisible deity, or God. Citing examples such as the striking of lightning and the affliction of sickness, they claim that people at the time, due to their ignorance of the actual scientific causes, resorted to utter submission to imaginary deities, to whom they showed reverence and paid allegiance. But, proponents argue, equipped as we are with modern empirical scientific knowledge, we now know far better about the underlying mechanisms and scientific causes behind such phenomena and therefore are in a better position to understand, and subsequently reject the premise of the existence of God. Now, more than ever before, they say, we can confidently put our faith in ‘science’ alone and abandon the archaic beliefs and practices which we had once held on to.

The Origins: Misunderstandings in Historical Context

The "God of the gaps" argument emerged initially within certain segments of the secular camp as a critique of what they perceived to be a religious tendency to attribute unexplained natural phenomena to divine intervention, particularly, in light of the advancement of scientific understanding in the latter centuries. While such tendencies may have existed within certain theological groups, the broader understanding stood in clear opposition to this claim, highlighting that the critique rests largely on a misconception. And although the responses to this critique came from various religious traditions, since the argument was advanced from Europe, it seems fitting to highlight some dissenting voices from there too.

Henry Drummond, a 19th-century theologian, for instance, explained that since God was working through all natural processes, it is foolish to seek God "in the gaps" of scientific knowledge. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a 20th-century theologian, shared the same sentiments, warning that grounding belief in God on gaps in knowledge was dangerous, as these gaps inevitably shrink with scientific progress. Both emphasised that God should not be confined to areas of ignorance but understood as foundational to all existence.

The Misconception: Faith Misunderstood

The primary misconception behind this argument is the assumption that people of faith invoke God only to fill gaps in scientific understanding. This notion is flawed from the very outset, reflecting a misunderstanding of both faith and the concept of God. Consider, for example, an engineering feat such as the Burj Khalifa. Even if a group of scientists and engineers explained every minute detail of its structure and design from a technical perspective, would that negate the existence of the architect and engineer who conceptualised and designed it? On the contrary, wouldn’t a deeper understanding of the intricate mechanisms behind such an architectural marvel further affirm the presence of an intelligent mind behind its creation?

A Complexity Comparison: The Architect Analogy

The Burj Khalifa too, while impressive, is not an ideal comparison in this context, as anyone with a basic understanding of biology can appreciate that a single cell of a bird, plant, or human is millions of times more complex and exhibits a far greater degree of intricate design than this architectural structure. Indeed, biologists have often likened a single cell to a fully functioning, bustling metropolis like London. However, they caution that while this analogy too is useful for educational purposes, it is an oversimplification, as even microscopic cells are far more dynamic and complex than any human-made system.

Challenging Superstitious Beliefs

This misconception has likely been perpetuated by Western media, which often portrays primitive societies ascribing natural phenomena to divine forces. In one recent movie, for instance, a community is depicted halting human sacrifices after witnessing a solar eclipse, interpreting it as a sign of divine intervention. Such portrayals reinforce the idea that religious belief stems primarily from ignorance of natural causes, suggesting this as the foundation of all religious beliefs. However, this tendency sharply contrasts with the teachings of the Prophets, whose mission was to guide people from the darkness of superstition to the light of knowledge.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), for instance, exemplified this by decisively refuting superstition-driven beliefs. When a solar eclipse occurred in his time and people attributed it to the passing of his son, Ibrahim, the Prophet (pbuh) firmly rejected this notion, stating:

'The sun and the moon are two signs from the signs of Allah; they do not eclipse on the death or birth of anyone.' [Bukhari: 1042/1044]

This incident underscores the importance of a rational approach to understanding natural phenomena and emphasises that belief in God is not contingent on gaps in knowledge but rather on a deeper, and a more comprehensive worldview.

The Extent of Truth: Broader Contexts

The 'God of the gaps' concept may hold true for certain communities that lacked exposure to revealed scriptures and the guidance of Prophets. However, to claim that this concept underpins all belief in God is, at best, misleading and, at worst, deceptive. Imagine, for instance, a group of villagers living in a remote part of the world, who rely on charlatans for their medical remedies due to the absence of genuine alternatives. Does their misguided reliance on these dubious practitioners imply that genuine medicine and qualified medical practitioners do not exist elsewhere in the world? Does it prove that other societies elsewhere are unaware of authentic medical expertise, and are not seeking genuine solutions? To isolate one segment of reality and generalise it as a universal truth is both dishonest and harmful.

Mechanical vs. Ultimate Cause

It is also crucial to distinguish between the mechanical explanation of a process and its ultimate cause. The Qur'an beautifully illustrates this distinction in the following verse:

'Do they not see the birds above them with wings outspread and folded in? None holds them aloft except the Most Merciful. Indeed, He is the observer of all things.' (Qur'an 67:19)

As can be seen, this verse acknowledges the mechanics of flight—the spreading and folding of wings—as the apparent cause of a bird's ability to fly. However, it also draws attention to the ultimate cause that sustains this process: God Himself. This perspective integrates observable phenomena with its underlying mechanism within a broader framework that transcends material explanations, emphasising that even the laws governing nature operate under divine will.

Is Theism Based on a Single Premise?

It is evident to anyone with a basic understanding of theology that the 'God of the gaps' argument is fundamentally superficial. And that is because the argument rests entirely on a single, flawed premise, as established earlier. Furthermore, this position completely overlooks other theological arguments. While the preceding paragraphs should be sufficient to dismantle this argument entirely, let’s briefly consider a few more points that will help dispel any lingering misconceptions.

Belief in God is due to a range of reasons, including philosophical arguments and historical evidence; it is not based simply on gaps in scientific knowledge, as is commonly presumed. To assert this would be an egregious misrepresentation of the theistic understanding of God. Furthermore, many aspects of our existence are beyond the scope of empirical science, such as the origin of the universe, the nature of consciousness, human emotions, spiritual experiences and objective moral values. These are metaphysical questions that cannot be resolved by empirically-driven scientific methods.

Another point to note is that science, while undoubtedly powerful, has its limits. Science deals with the natural world while the metaphysical is beyond its scope of inquiry. The assumption that science will eventually explain everything seems more like a forced attempt to extend scientific capability into areas where it is not applicable.

The Irony: Materialism of the Gaps

Critics who advance the 'gaps' argument ironically commit a 'gaps' fallacy themselves. In doing so, they inadvertently acknowledge gaps within the materialist perspective, relying on the assumption that these gaps will eventually be resolved through scientific discovery. This approach can aptly be described as 'materialism of the gaps' or 'science of the gaps.' The irony lies in a dogmatic adherence to scientism—the belief that science is the sole valid form of knowledge. It is important to note that theism is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. Theistic belief is rooted in a holistic worldview that embraces multiple forms of knowledge, including science.

Conclusion

The "God of the Gaps" objection argues that belief in God arose from attributing unexplained natural phenomena to deities. As science explains more, these "gaps" shrink, supposedly making belief in God obsolete. However, this critique misunderstands theistic beliefs. Theists often define God as the ultimate cause of existence, not just a deity explaining specific natural events. Even if science explains every natural phenomenon, the question of why the universe exists at all remains. God, defined as pure existence or the simplest explanation for reality, addresses this broader question. And it is here that the "God of the Gaps" argument fails because it conflates explaining specific phenomena with addressing the cause of all existence.

Share

Recommended Reading:

Who set off the dominoes?

Unveiling the moral divide

Subscribe now

Origins of Universal Regularities

One of the tragedies we face in the modern era is that we have stopped thinking about the fundamental questions that relate to our very existence.

As human beings, among the  fundamental questions that should engage our minds are: 'Why do regularities exist in this universe of ours?', and, 'Why should there be consistent patterns and behaviours in a universe that is so often characterised as random and irregular?' Our observing of patterns and regularities throughout the cosmos ought to compel us to ponder their origins.

Consider this: If everything in the universe were random, as it is claimed, would there be any regularity, and hence predictability, at all? The answer to this, as we know, is a resounding no, as we can appreciate that predictability does exist within the universe. From the movements of the sun and other stars to the cycles in the natural world, wherever we look, we observe phenomena that are invariably defined by patterns and regularities that generate predictability.

The Foundation of Scientific Inquiry

Even the very premise of scientific inquiry, upon which the emerging ideology of ‘the random universe’ relies, exists only upon the robust underpinning of predictable regularities. Progress in science is predicated on the assumption that natural laws and phenomena are consistent and repeatable. The absence of such regularities renders the scientific methodology totally ineffective, as the reproducibility of experiments and observations would not be possible otherwise.

Without these regularities, making any meaningful progress in any field of activity would be inconceivable. How would any achievement be possible without coherence and logic in any field of operation? In such an incoherent and unpredictable world, any experiment conducted might produce a particular result one day and a completely different one the next.

Moreover, rather than being a remote irrelevant phenomenon, isolated from our day-to-day interactions, these regularities form the essence of the universe and underpin our very existence. 

And it is this consistency that allows us to progress and advance in the various fields of knowledge and activity. This then tells us that these principles are certainly not arbitrary, but rather exhibit a fundamental order that has to be intended.

The Source of Universal Order

Having acknowledged that regularities exist and play a vital role in our universe, the next important question to address is: where do these regularities come from?

It is insufficient to assume they have appeared suddenly without any cause. If a random, irregular entity or force demands an explanation for its existence, then surely the emergence of a coherent, logical, and regulated system requires even more substantial justification. The existence of a regulated entity or force actually suggests a deeper underlying principle and cause.

The position that regularities are simply a result of the natural properties of the universe, operating independent of any external influence, does not appeal to logic or science, as the universe’s coherence and predictability cannot merely be coincidental but indicates an underlying purpose or design, pointing to a higher form of intelligence.

Regularity and Intent

Imagine you see a person arriving at a specific place at the exact same time every day without fail. Would you not infer from this level of order, predictability, and precision of destination that there is a conscious intent behind this behaviour? Can such predictability arise from randomness? Rather, does this behaviour of this person not imply a deliberate effort to adhere to a schedule, reflecting the individual's intent and planning? 

Similarly, the consistent regularities observed in the natural world – such as the precise movements of celestial bodies or the predictable cycles in nature – suggest an underlying order and purpose, pointing to a higher intelligence rather than mere chance.

The Nomological Argument

The Nomological Argument – propounded by Hildebrand and Metcalf1 –  is a philosophical argument that suggests that order and regularity observed in the natural world can only be traced to a Higher power. It posits that the consistent laws and patterns in the universe suggest an underlying rational principle or designer, who intentionally created and sustains this order.

Citing the distinction between Humeanism2 and Divine Voluntarism3, the advocates for this position argue that the regularity and order found in the universe cannot be explained solely by natural causes or pure chance; there has to be an underlying explanation for this order. They conclude that the existence of God provides the best explanation for this. God's will has to be responsible for this regularity and order. God, being a rational being, has to have intentionally designed the universe in a way that allows for predictability and scientific inquiry.

Hildebrand and Metcalf draw an analogy between the regularities in nature and the fairness of a poker game to illustrate their point about intelligent design.

Imagine you are playing poker, and in several consecutive games, one player keeps getting royal flushes, which are extremely rare. If this improbable sequence continues, you might start to suspect that the game is rigged rather than the cards being fairly shuffled. This suspicion arises because the odds of such a consistent pattern occurring by chance are incredibly low.

Similarly, Hildebrand and Metcalf argue that the consistent and sophisticated regularities we observe in nature – such as the precise laws of physics, the complex yet orderly structures of biological organisms, and the predictable patterns in the cosmos – are unlikely to result from random chance. Instead, these patterns suggest the presence of an intelligent designer who has arranged the universe with purpose and intention. Just as the repeated royal flushes imply cheating in a poker game, the regularities in nature imply a higher intelligence behind their existence.

Final Thoughts

The presence of regularities within our universe, from the predictable movements of celestial bodies to the consistency observed in scientific experimentation, highlights a fundamental aspect of existence that transcends mere chance. These patterns are not just anomalies in an otherwise chaotic cosmos but rather suggest an underlying order that points to a deeper principle or intelligence. The Nomological Argument strengthens the notion that such regularities are indicative of an intentional design. As we continue to explore and understand the universe, acknowledging the possibility, or rather the certainty, of a purposeful framework behind its order can enrich our perspective and deepen our understanding into the nature of existence itself.

Share

Subscribe now

The Chain Reaction 

Let's start by considering the following scenario:  

A designer of dominos places a number of dominos on a table, in a perfect line and within a close distance of each other. The person himself sits behind the table with the index finger of his right hand positioned close to the first domino. With a slight nudge he pushes the first domino, setting off a chain reaction, with each domino pushing the next one. Every piece, from the first to the one before the last, leans on the next one as it pushes it as part of this chain reaction. With the finger of the designer’s left hand now supporting the last piece, none of the dominos fall completely; each piece of the entire set stands slanted against the other, with the last one leaning against the finger of the person behind the table. If he were to pull his supporting finger from the last domino, the entire set would come crashing down.  

The Role of the Designer 

The person behind the table in this example is the 'creator' of the dominos, who has created them for a particular purpose. He is the one who sets in motion the chain reaction with the support of his right finger, becoming the first cause of that system. He is the one who holds them together in stability on the table with the support of his left finger. All the dominos are contingent and he, solely for the purposes of this example, is akin to the non-contingent entity.  

The question, ‘where does the designer fit in the system?’, and ‘who is supporting him, if indeed every unit of the system draws support from the other?’ does not arise here, as the designer is outside the system.   

This is precisely how the universe can be described. It has been started off by a powerful, willing Force, who is outside this contingent system, yet is in full control of it. This Force is the First and Primary Cause that triggered the chain reaction of all dependent causes and contingent entities. 

As can be inferred from the example of dominos, the question ‘who created the creator?’ becomes redundant. This is because we see only contingent entities around us, all of which depend on other equally contingent entities, the inevitable conclusion being there must be a necessary, non-contingent entity preceding all contingent ones. This non-contingent entity is the First Cause who is outside the dependent realm of time and space.  

The Necessary Existence 

What is the definition of Necessary Existence?  

The Necessary Existence is one which cannot be any other way. It cannot be dependent in any shape, form or manner. It cannot be composed of parts (as parts necessitate dependence). It also needs to be outside of the realm of time and space (as this too implies dependence).  

Everything else, aside from the Necessary Existence is a contingent existence, including the universe, as it simply does not fit the bill. The Necessary Existence must have infinite power and energy to have been the creator behind all existence and to remain in continual process of creation. It must be a willing agent for it to have willed entities into existence at a particular point in a continuum. It must be conscious itself for originating consciousness in the first place. It must bear inordinate amount of intelligence for having created all forms of intelligence. It must be wise and good for it to have infused our conscience to intuitively despise and repel evil.  

The Problem of Infinite Regress 

As we see dependent entities preceding each other, we must logically presume that after a long chain of dependent entities there must be an independent one. Going infinitely backwards with dependent entities results in logical impossibility also known as infinite regress. More precisely, infinite regress is when a phenomenon is explained by tracing its cause backward in an endless chain of events or explanations.  

Infinite regress is considered impossible for at least three reasons: 

1. Logical Impossibility: It leads to an infinite chain of causes or explanations, which violates the principles of logic. 

2. Infinite Resources: It requires an infinite supply of resources, whether it’s time, energy, or explanations.  

3. Lack of Explanation: Infinite regress fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for the phenomenon in question. It delays understanding indefinitely, preventing any meaningful conclusion or understanding. 

Let’s take an example. Imagine a person (Person A) who seeks to place an order for a product from Person B. However, Person B needs to seek permission from Person C. And Person C, in turn, relies on Person D. And this chain continues infinitely, with each person in the sequence relying on another. The problem here is the order will never get fulfilled.  

By the same token, the problem with dependent causes going backwards infinitely is that we would not be here today at our current standpoint. 

Infinity, within this contingent universe, aside from existing in the abstract (such as mathematics), has no existence in actual reality. 

Is Science Primed for Truth? 

Science is certainly not primed for truth. It is primed for the best explanation to create a workable model that benefits humankind.  

Let’s look at a few examples: 

Ships in ancient times were designed only from wood, as the understanding then was that wood was the only sturdy material that was light enough to float on water. It was believed that anything else, such as metal, would not accommodate the law of flotation. However, despite this skewed understanding of reality, there was obviously no disruption in sea transport, as wooden ships worked just fine until the actual law of floating was discovered. Hence simply because wooden ships continued to fulfil the requirements did not mean the scientific understanding upon which this design was predicated was entirely accurate.  

Gravity is another case in point. Gravity, according to Newton, was limited to being a force of attraction between masses. It was much later (thanks to Einstein in the beginning of the 20th century) that our understanding of gravity expanded to include the concept of spacetime curvature. However, regardless of the way gravity was seen, it made absolutely no difference on actual physics. That is because physical science can work just as well with ‘known scientific facts’ and does not need to know the full reality behind things. We relied on the earlier (Newtonian) concept for centuries, and it worked brilliantly well, even though it did not correspond with the complete truth.  

Furthermore, owing to its inherent limitations, physical science does not and cannot have the crucial answers that we yearn for so much from a philosophical and spiritual perspective. And the blame for this cannot be laid solely at its door, for such questions are outside of its realm; hence why it is labelled physical and not metaphysical. 

In Closing 

The chain of contingent entities illustrates the presence of a Transcendent Force, much like the designer guiding the cascade of dominos in the example above. This Necessary Existence serves as the creator and designer of all existence. Since the dilemma of infinite regress highlights the logical constraints of tracing causality endlessly, we are compelled to acknowledge a First Cause preceding all causes; the Independent Entity behind all dependent entities. 

Share

Recommended Reading:

The rules are set

Who is the overarching observer?

Subscribe now

The Ship of Theseus 

Plutarch, a Roman writer, wrote about the ‘Ship of Theseus’, with a view to engage in a deeper philosophical exploration. The story goes like this:

A man named Theseus owned a ship that was well known among the local populace, who simply referred to it as the ‘Ship of Theseus’. As time passed, parts of the ship were replaced with new ones. This went on for some time until the entire ship was rid of its old parts and replaced completely with new ones.  

A man who worked for Theseus (we'll call him Simon) collected all the unwanted parts from the original ship and stored them in a safe location. When the ship was entirely replaced, Simon, who now possessed all the old parts of the ship, reconstructed the ship with the old parts.  

The Deeper Questions 

Plutarch posed the question: ‘how many ships of Theseus are there now, and which one should truly bear the title of 'The Ship of Theseus'?’   

The one in possession of Theseus apparently deserved to be called that since he (Theseus) was the owner of it, and it is the one to which people would continue to refer as that. Yet the one in possession of Simon merits the title of the ‘Ship of Theseus’ too, as it is, undeniably, the ‘original’ ship. 

There are deeper philosophical layers to this concept to ponder within this simple thought experiment, however since they have little bearing for us in this article, we will look only at what is relevant.  

The Ever-changing Anatomy 

Much like the 'Ship of Theseus,' the human body undergoes significant transformations too. Cells are destroyed and replaced all the time, until new cells completely replace old ones, and ultimately the entire body is replaced. We may very well then ask ourselves the same question: ‘Who is the real me?’ The one prior to the transformation, or the one after it?  

While the body undergoes physical transformation, the mind experiences a similar process too, albeit in a non-physical manner. The mind continues to develop gradually, cultivating new ideas and concepts, all the while discarding old ones. Indeed, how many people, in their latter years, talk about their pasts, marvelling at the extent of their ideological and intellectual evolution, particularly in comparison to their earlier years. 

Moreover, just as the individual mind experiences change and development, the collective minds of societies also experience a similar transition, but in a collective fashion. It is due to this reason that we see that no society is static in any aspect of its existence. In fact, throughout history, no human society has ever been stagnant in any sphere, whether in political beliefs, social values, or economic judgements. 

The Human Inadequacies 

The dynamism of human societies in all spheres of life suggests something very important. Societies are always in a state of development; they can never be characterised as complete and free from the need for further development. An entity that bears the above characteristic, i.e., is in a continual state of development, can never be said to be competent to make judgements on itself or others.  

By observing historical data and societal tendencies, we can safely conclude that the future trajectory, in terms of being dynamic or stagnant, will be no different from the past; that is, we will continue to develop throughout the life of our existence. This only reinforces the incompleteness that is so inherent a part of our beings. And while we must acknowledge that we are not responsible for this deficiency in any way, there is no doubt that this is a flaw that blemishes our judgements and jeopardises our wellbeing. 

The above indicates how poorly equipped we are in forming judgements, especially those that pertain to the fundamental aspects of our life and existence. If we cannot allow an ill-equipped individual to pass verdicts and make judgements on the smallest of matters in a courtroom, how can we rely on a society that isn’t fully developed yet? And that too on matters most critical to it? 

The Impact of Direct Observations 

Our paradigms are slaves to emotions and direct observations. Emotions play a significant role in shaping our perceptions and beliefs, impairing our judgement and influencing our decisions. Likewise, our direct observations, while valuable, can be limited and biased, as they are filtered through our subjective experiences and preconceptions.  

Imagine walking down your local neighbourhood and witnessing a heinous atrocity unfolding right before your eyes. The horror and intense emotions that you will experience in that moment are incomparable to anything you might feel from hearing about a similar incident in another part of the country, or the world. The visceral experience of being a direct witness to such a tragedy is bound to be etched into your memory, haunting you for a long period of time. And even though both events are identical, the impact and reactions will be a world apart. 

Paradigm Shift - The Child on the Train 

Let's consider a scenario. You are travelling in a train, sharing the carriage with a few strangers. At one stop a man and a boy enter and take their seats in the same carriage. As soon as the train resumes its journey, the boy starts behaving in a rather annoying manner and moves around the carriage agitatedly with apparently no reason and disturbing the other passengers in the process. You notice that despite the obvious nuisance on the child’s part and the inconvenience caused to fellow passengers, the child's father appears totally unperturbed. After enduring the child's disruptive behaviour for what seems like an extended period, one passenger, overcome with frustration, finally speaks up. He bitterly scolds the man for his inconsiderate behaviour and criticises his parenting. Other passengers join in, echoing similar sentiments. 

Compelled to respond, the man finally breaks his silence. He explains that his wife had recently gone to visit her parents, and a few hours earlier, he had received the devastating news of her sudden passing. He acknowledges the profound shock he himself had experienced but reveals that his 7-year-old son was struck dumb and had lost his bearings altogether.  

Upon hearing this, the passengers who had previously been harshly berating the man and bitterly criticising the child just moments ago, now sincerely apologise to the man, and take their turns to console the grieving child. 

In the above example, we observe a remarkable shift in the passengers' attitudes, undergoing a complete turnaround after being reminded of the 'actual facts’.  

We are reminded as to how great a transformation can take place within the human mind through the introduction of a new development or a new piece of knowledge. It underscores the potential for flawed judgements in the absence of critical information and compels us to reflect on the fallibility of our perceptions, even when we believe ourselves to be unequivocally correct. 

The Operation Theatre 

Consider another scenario:   

A rustic from a remote, undeveloped region of the world, unfamiliar with hospital settings, witnesses a distressing scene. He sees a man making an incision on a woman's stomach, unaware that the man is a qualified surgeon performing a critical, life-saving procedure. The woman lying on the table is a patient undergoing a caesarean section under general anaesthetic, a procedure that could mean life and death for both her and her unborn child. 

We are reminded as to how great a transformation can take place within the human mind through the introduction of a new development or a new piece of knowledge.

The Reality 

There is a common factor in both the above-mentioned scenarios: what initially appears to be the case at face value is actually not. A snapshot can never represent the whole story or convey the true complexity of it. 

It is crucial to acknowledge the inherent weaknesses of human intellect and understanding. Despite our intellectual superiority over other creatures, we are fundamentally limited in all aspects of life. Our capacity for judgement too is clouded by inherent biases, shortsightedness, and ignorance. We are susceptible to fallacy at all times, unable to grasp the full truth of a situation. Given these inherent limitations, the question that needs to be asked is: why should we be entrusted to determine our own destinies?  

This question prompts us to consider the implications of our flawed judgement and the need for humility in observing this world of ours and the realities within, no matter how uncomfortable they seem. 

Who is Truly Fit to Judge? 

Just as we are not the creators of ourselves or the sources of our fulfilment and satisfaction, we cannot arrogate to ourselves the role of creating the principles that govern us. Just as everything else we rely upon is not the result of our own creation, logically, neither should the fundamental regulations that govern us and our societies. 

The truth is, in matters of governance too, as with anything else, we require an objective and external source to provide us with guidance. This is because, for such a purpose, we require access to comprehensive and perfect data that spans the entirety of human existence, from its inception to the end of time. We need to be able to perfectly analyse all variables across ages and aspects of life to arrive at sound and definitive judgements of what is right and wrong, and what laws would best serve a given situation. Until such comprehensive data - encompassing both the past and the future from our current standpoint - is made available to us, we cannot be deemed fit to make such critical judgements. Only the One who has provided us with all other aspects of existence and fulfilment can offer such guidance.  

Just as we are not the creators of ourselves or the sources of our fulfilment and satisfaction, we cannot arrogate to ourselves the role of creating the principles that govern us.

Conclusion 

The examples mentioned above betray the limitations of our capacity for comprehension and judgement, revealing that our perceptions are often marred by our narrow perspectives and vision. By acknowledging our own limitations and embracing humility, we can start to look for wisdom from a Higher Power; a Power that surpasses our finite minds and sees the entirety of existence across all eras; past, present, and future. Once we acknowledge this and are mentally prepared to seek this comprehensive guidance, we will be better placed to receive it and avail of it. 

Share

Recommended Reading:

Nature and Natural

Do We Have Another Dimension?

Subscribe now

Introduction

In the vast web of the universe, success is influenced by unchanging laws that govern science, medicine, and existence itself. This exploration focuses on the philosophy of submission, unravelling the core of success through adherence to predetermined laws. From science labs to hospitals, every endeavour involves submitting to forces beyond human control. Join us on a reflective journey through success, where submission serves as the gateway to unlocking the mysteries of the universe.

Science Lab - A Place of Ultimate Submission

Let's embark on our exploration in a space universally recognised: the science lab. Within its confines, the fundamental principle of ultimate submission takes centre stage. Scientists do not and cannot create their own laws; instead, they submissively yield to laws preordained. It is through this profound act of submission that they find the key to success. Indeed, a scientist's triumph is tied to their willingness to align with the laws of divine nature. Without such submission, their endeavours are destined to falter. This critical acknowledgment underscores that success within the scientific realm is not a product of defiance but, rather, a harmonious submission to pre-existing laws.  

A science lab is essentially a place where divine principles are taught. It is designed to subject men to these preordained laws. 

A student of science is taught, for example, that gravity causes objects to fall towards the Earth. Subsequently, she is meticulously trained not to challenge this natural law but, instead, to gracefully submit to it, thereby ensuring the realisation of successful outcomes. Failure to embrace this fundamental principle results in her own detriment, as the unyielding nature of such laws leaves no room for deviation. It's a poignant realisation that the laws governing natural phenomena do not conform to individual will; rather, individuals must humbly bow to the inherent order, exemplifying submission par excellence. And this principle extends universally to all existing laws.

Moreover, as we trace this educational lineage backward, we realise that the current generation of teachers in the labs received their education from their predecessors, forming an upward chain of tutelage. If we were to extend this continuum back to its origins, it becomes evident that no individual within the human community can be attributed as the creator of these fundamental laws. Remarkably, these laws predated the arrival of humanity on the scene. In essence, humans can only be credited with discovering these laws. This, in itself, though immensely valuable and commendable, underscores a crucial point: discovery, regardless of its significance, remains a revelation and not an act of creation.

A science lab is essentially a place where divine principles are taught. It is designed to subject men to these preordained laws. 

It was the famous Thomas Troward who stated:

"Let the electrician try to go counter to the principle that electricity must always pass from a higher to a lower potential, and he will effect nothing; but let him submit in all things to this one fundamental law, and he can make whatever particular applications of electrical power he will." 

[Edinburgh lectures on mental science]

All Things Point to the Same Direction

Let’s take a look at other necessary areas of our existence. 

In hospitals, the act of submission manifests in its purest form, as every endeavour within these walls strives to restore entities to their original state. This pursuit implies that the original condition represents the pinnacle; an unparalleled and optimal form that transcends any attempt at improvement. The entire infrastructure of hospitals, from knowledge to cutting-edge equipment, is meticulously designed for a singular purpose - to return individuals to the optimal state with which they were inherently endowed. It's crucial to recognise that the responsibility for this original state lies beyond the realm of human agency.

This philosophy extends to medical schools, where students are imparted with the same guiding principle. Indeed, the uniformity of this principle prevails across all educational institutions - schools, colleges, and more - each navigating within the predefined boundaries and limitations.

If we were to delve deeper, we would realise that everything is subject to the dictates of a powerful Force, from which deviation is impossible.

Similarly, transportation systems adhere strictly to their designated laws and cannot deviate. Gyms also align their efforts with the intended fitness and muscular development outlined by existing laws. Supermarkets, eateries, entertainment centres and other institutions are confined to the parameters of human needs and desires, where the interplay between desires and the available means of satisfaction is predetermined.

This concept of submission to preordained laws extends universally across all diverse systems, establishments, and services, emphasising a shared acknowledgment of inherent limitations and boundaries.

In the primary domains of science too, like physics, chemistry, and biology, our efforts are focused on uncovering phenomena that have existed all along.

Who is Subject to Who?

Legend recounts that Thomas Edison encountered a multitude of failures before finally witnessing success in illuminating a light bulb. Likewise, Abbas ibn Firnas in the 9th century and the Wright Brothers in the early 20th century faced numerous setbacks in their relentless pursuit of successful flight. This pattern persists across the spectrum of inventors, with persistent challenges often preceding breakthroughs - unless, of course, the discovery happened serendipitously.

If nature itself (that is the divine system that manifests in the world) bowed to us human beings, invention (rather discovery, as we will learn) would have been possible at the very first attempt, and scientists would not have needed to wait for as long. Needless to say scientists are compelled to find the way to nature's laws and not the other way around. The laws of nature are set and determined. The scientists have to sail forth to reach the place where those laws reside; the laws of nature never travel to them. 

This illustrates a profound truth: it is not humans who influence the divine laws but, rather, it is the divine laws that influence human beings. This revelation unveils the hierarchical relationship between humans and the divine laws, establishing a clear understanding of who is subject to whom. The ultimate key to success for humanity lies in a singular principle - wholehearted submission to the preordained laws and, by extension, to the Creator of these laws.

In the primary domains of science too, like physics, chemistry, and biology, our efforts are focused on uncovering phenomena that have existed all along.

Creation or Discovery?

It's crucial to grasp that, in reality, we never truly create or invent; rather, our endeavours are rooted entirely in discovery. The label of 'creator' eludes us, for we lack the ability to bring forth existence from non-existence. As humans, our role is that of assemblers, tapping into the vast repository of tools and materials already in existence, graciously provided for us.

Consider the realm of Mathematics as an example. Despite its intricacies and the exhaustive human efforts invested in its exploration, Mathematics remains a discovery. The elaborate rules of Maths existed even when humanity was unaware of them - indeed, even before our existence.

Consider this. In the pursuit of scientific progress, we employ tools and materials - already provided; utilise time and space - already provided; engage various parts of our bodies - already provided; employ our minds - already provided; One wonders, precisely what it is that we can truly credit to our own ingenuity.

If we were to delve deeper, we would realise that everything is subject to the dictates of a powerful Force, from which deviation is impossible. 

Humbling Limitations

Let's take a look at our own selves. Apart from the freedom of choosing our actions we are actually quite constrained, and we cannot outgrow these constraints that have been imposed on us. From the location of our birth, to all the limiting factors of our being resulting from the genes we are born with, to the unpredictability of our future. The laws of hunger and thirst, injury and harm, pain and pleasure, all are subject to the same laws and limitations. There is little choice that life gives us. It is as if, by default, almost all the necessary aspects of our existence are subjected to submission by no choice of their own. Every cell in the body and every drop of blood follows laws that have been predetermined for it. Like us, it does not and cannot go against these set laws. The only aspect of our lives that lies in our control is our choice of actions. 

If nature itself bowed to us human beings, invention (rather discovery, as we will learn) would have been possible at the very first attempt.

When we contemplate aspects beyond our control, we should feel an urge to humble ourselves before the Force that governs all things.

Embracing Cosmic Harmony

In the symphony of existence, it becomes evident that true success lies not in defiance but in submission. The laws that govern our world, whether observed in a laboratory, a hospital, or within the field of mathematics, reveal a consistent pattern - the yielding to divine order. Scientists, inventors, and individuals alike are not creators but humble discoverers, navigating the preordained pathways of laws woven into the fabric of our reality. As we peer into the intricacies of our own existence, we find ourselves bound by laws that transcend our choices. In this contemplation, there arises a compelling call to bow before the Force that shapes our journey, recognising that ultimate success is bestowed upon those who humbly submit to the laws of the universe, and thereby its Creator. 

It's as if the Omnipotent Force of the universe is saying: 'Fail if you do it your way, but succeed when you do it my way!' Herein lies the secret to success: ‘Ultimate Submission to the One Almighty Force.’

Share

Recommended Reading:

The Rules are Set

The Laws of the Universe

Subscribe now

The ‘Faulty’ Appliance

Many years ago I recall discussing an issue with a washing machine engineer whom we had called out shortly after purchasing our new appliance. We had observed an unusual behaviour, prompting us to seek clarification on what we perceived as a 'fault'. Despite being a brand new machine, it had displayed a certain ‘erratic behaviour’ from the very start. 

When I detailed the condition to the engineer, I was surprised when he calmly responded, "It is meant to be like that." Initially thinking there was a misunderstanding, I reiterated my concerns, only to receive the same response: "Yes, I understand, and I still maintain, it is meant to be like that." 

The reason for reiterating my description of the perceived fault stemmed from our prior experience with washing machines, where we had never encountered such behaviour. It later became clear that this was a result of new technology introduced to enhance the machine's functionality. What we had initially deemed a 'fault' turned out to be a surprising and beneficial feature for the machine, ultimately proving advantageous for us as well.

Limitations of Human Capacities

As humans, our knowledge and comprehension of various matters, even those crafted by fellow humans, remains incomplete. Our perceptions, moulded by this inherent deficiency are consequently flawed. This deficiency echoes through our final conclusions and judgements as well. While such limitations or attitudes may not pose significant risks insofar as they relate to the material aspects of this world (such as my washing machine), adopting a similar attitude towards the products of the ultimate Creator may be less forgivable.

And this is why it is imperative to adopt humility and appreciate the perfection dispersed across the universe. As what may seem flawed or unjust to us may be just as perfect. Only that we may not know it to be so due to our incomplete knowledge and flawed understanding. 

It seems like the unquestioning compliance and silent obedience of the entities within the universe are crying out to us: ‘It is meant to be like that’.

“What may seem flawed or unjust to us may be just as perfect.”

‘Falling in Line’

It is this unwavering behaviour of the universe that the title of this article alludes to.

When a person joins an organisation, or a similar establishment, they are required to align themselves with its rules and regulations and adhere to the expected standards of behaviour. Likewise, when someone enrols in an educational institution, or begins working at a new job, or visits a foreign country, they encounter a similar phenomenon - rules that govern that specific environment. To remain there, compliance with those rules becomes imperative, and there would be little room for disagreement and deviation. In case of violation of the laws in operation, those in breach of the laws will face the inevitable consequences, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with the instituted rules.  

What is most important to understand is that the terms followed are always those of the establishment and not of those who join it. And that is the standard behaviour across the board.

“The terms followed are always those of the establishment and not of those who join it.”

Approaching the Divine Laws

By the same token, as we enter this universe, we find that there are laws and regulations already in existence. 

It is only natural and logical that we respect these governing principles, just as we would in any educational institution, workplace, or a country we visit or desire to live in. This requirement of compliance holds true irrespective of whether we agree or disagree with these principles, and whether they are perceived as flawless or flawed. 

These principles form the foundation of the 'universal society' (in the context of the universe). And just as with any institution, what truly matters is the perspective of the one who created the system, and not the opinions of those wishing to reside within it or benefit from it.

In the case of human beings presiding over countries and organisations, due to their inherent tendency to err and falter, there is a possibility, rather a certainty, of error and deficiency in the operation of their controlled establishments; however with respect to a perfect Creator there isn’t the least possibility of such an error creeping in. 

The Neutral Lens

The rules and regulations in operation within the universe are as perfect as they can be. However this can only be acknowledged if seen with a neutral lens. That is, a lens that is strictly free of any paradigms. 

Once we put on such a lens we begin to truly appreciate the universe and its Creator. We also start to realise that any judgement we form regarding the universe, is simply a projection of our own minds and the associated paradigms.

We begin to realise that all perception of good and evil is purely the construct of our own perspective and understanding of things - a tool that definitely serves us well for the purpose of our existence - but is something that should not be projected onto the neutral canvas of the universe.

In this regard it is certainly helpful to take a leaf from the attitudes of the existing inhabitants of the universe. The ‘universal society’ (minus human beings) never disagrees with any principles in operation here, nor does it ever question them. Entities here simply submit.

“The ‘universal society’ never disagrees with any principles in operation here, nor does it ever question them.”

Perfection vis-à-vis Imperfection 

In light of the above, the cause of questioning or objection does not arise. As when an entity is deficient by its very nature and design, it can only object to and attempt to correct that which is equal to it or lower than it. To do so otherwise would be highly unreasonable; that is to object to or question something that is beyond one’s own level; especially when the superiority of that is far above one’s own.  

Take the example of proficiency in a science or language. If you have a certain level of knowledge and proficiency in a discipline, you can only correct someone to the extent of your knowledge and level of understanding in that particular field of expertise. It would be unreasonable for someone to judge and correct one who is far above their level. 

If such is the case with a fallible human being, who could certainly be wrong in any given discipline, what would you say of the Almighty whose knowledge and wisdom far surpasses that of any sentient being and extends beyond all limits of knowledge and wisdom?

Perfection in its truest sense demands that it is not questioned and never attempted to be corrected. Imperfection on the other hand cries out for both. It is another matter that hubris and arrogance or poor perception of one's own intellectual capacity may prevent one from doing so. 

In a factory where there are seasoned workers operating intricate machinery, envision a novice seeking a tour there, who raises objections and offers suggestions. One can only wonder about the experts' reactions to such impertinence and presumptuous behaviour. And this is a very crude comparison as there can be no comparison between the Creator and the Creation.

“Perfection in its truest sense demands that it is not questioned and never attempted to be corrected. Imperfection on the other hand cries out for both.”

Who Needs to Change? 

The Creator is absolutely perfect and so are His workings in the universe. Everything that stems from Him is as perfect as can be. Deficiency exists only in the perception of the observers. Reality is a drawing of this Perfect Artist and is absolutely free from all flaws. The flaws that we see are the result of the lens that we put on. People with inner purity learn to see without this lens and that is where the perfection of the Art begins to manifest.

Reality will not change for you; you would need to change for it. Your perceptions may be true or false and you ultimately pay the price of it if they are false. When you enter this world you need to gain knowledge of the laws in operation here (some from experience but majority from those you trust) in order to avoid the pitfalls. 

Consider a person aboard a high-speed train, who is fully convinced that leaping from the fast-moving carriage won't cause him any harm. While reality may not be so harsh for his misguided beliefs, when the moment of truth arrives however, there is no doubt that reality will strike, and strike hard, debunking any flawed beliefs, as the tangible incident is bound to prevail over subjective convictions.

Just as there are laws that relate to this world, there are also laws that pertain to the Afterlife. And the consequences of these laws will play out in the Afterlife just as those of this world invariably play out in this world. It is only that the moment of truth is yet to arrive. 

“Reality is a drawing of a perfect Artist and is absolutely free from all flaws”

“Surely, in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are signs for people of understanding. Those who remember God while standing, sitting or (reclining) on their backs, and reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth, (saying): 'Our Lord! You have not created (all) this in vain.” [Quran - 3:190-191]

Share

Recommended Reading:

Nature & Natural

The Conformity Trap

In our quest to unravel the profound mysteries of quantum physics, one question looms large: Why is there a change in behaviour among particles when under observation? Embarking on this exploration leads us into the intricate realm of quantum physics, where we trace back to the original cosmic phenomenon that set off the dominoes of existence.

Subscribe now

What is Quantum Physics?

Quantum Physics, also known as Quantum Mechanics, is the study of the branch of physics that deals with physical entities at the atomic and subatomic levels. The science of quantum physics has not only revolutionised our understanding of the physical world but has also led us to appreciate the astonishing workings of the world that lie beyond our immediate observation.

Beyond the visible spectrum, quantum physics reveals the bizarre and intricate actions of particles at the smallest scale, challenging conventional notions of classical physics. It has significantly altered our comprehension of physics by revealing the subtleties and secrets hidden in reality and enhancing our awareness of the universe that exists beyond our direct observation. 

This brief article delves into a particular aspect of Quantum Physics, revolving around one of the most renowned experiments within the field. It will concentrate on the remarkable phenomenon of the Double-slit Experiment, aiming to explore its profound implications.

The Double-slit Experiment

The double-slit experiment is a famous experiment conducted by some physicists in the nineteenth century and which gained prominence in the early part of the twentieth century. 

The experiment was designed to understand the nature of particles and waves and generated some shocking revelations in relation to reality, or at least, as we knew it.

Let’s take a closer look.

A beam of particles, typically electrons or photons, is directed at a barrier that bears two narrow slits. When directed at the two slits, the projected particles exhibit wave-like behaviour, by displaying an interference pattern. That is they do not behave like discrete, localised particles, but as waves passing through both slits simultaneously. 

This behavioural change naturally came as a shock to the physicists conducting the experiment. And no matter how many times the experiment was repeated the results were always the same. The particles simply did not behave like particles, as we would expect them to, but instead behaved like waves. 

The Observer Effect

The most astounding aspect of the experiment, however, was yet to come. When scientists actually observed the experiment (by placing a measuring device), the wave-like behaviour of these particles disappeared, and instead, the particles began to behave like classical particles, landing in specific positions and not creating the interference pattern.

The double-slit experiment challenged classical physics and led to the development of various interpretations. 

The Copenhagen Interpretation

The Copenhagen Interpretation, a fundamental foundation in quantum physics, is at the centre of these interpretations. Developed by two scientists, Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, this understanding of Quantum Physics presents basic ideas that upend conventional conceptions of reality and usher in a world ruled by ideas like wave-particle duality, uncertainty, and the importance of observation in determining the state of particles. Exploring the Copenhagen Interpretation redefines our knowledge of the universe's building blocks by revealing the mysterious and paradoxical nature of the quantum realm.

Key Ideas of the Copenhagen Interpretation

Wave-particle Duality

According to the theory known as the "wave-particle duality," depending on how they are perceived, particles (like electrons) can behave in both particle and wave forms. The sharp division between particles and waves in classical physics is called into question by this duality.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

A cornerstone of the Copenhagen interpretation is the uncertainty principle. Formulated by Werner Heisenberg, the principle states that a particle's precise position and momentum cannot be known at the same time. Quantum systems are inherently unpredictable since measuring one attribute disrupts the other.

Probability and Superposition

Until they are noticed, quantum particles live in a superposition of several states rather than having distinct states. They 'collapse' into a single state when measured or observed, with a probability-based consequence.

Observer Effect

A key concept in quantum physics is observation. The traditional idea of an objective, independent reality is called into question by the fact that measurement and observation have an impact on the condition of the system under observation. The act of measurement, according to the theory, disturbs the system being measured. And this is not due to experimental limitations but it is an inherent aspect of the quantum world.

In summary, the Copenhagen Interpretation introduces several key ideas that challenge classical notions of particles and waves in physics. Together, these concepts form the foundation of the Copenhagen Interpretation, to provide a unique perspective on the nature of reality at the quantum level.

Analysing The Observer Effect 

The observer effect is among the double slit experiment's most thought-provoking features. It explains how quantum particle activity is impacted by measurement or observation. The particles change from being like waves to being like particles just by virtue of the act of measuring or observing them.

According to the Copenhagen interpretation, particles are in a state of superposition until they are detected, at which point their wave-functions collapse into distinct states as a result of measurement. 

The interesting part of the experiment comes when we try to measure or watch which slit the particle passes through. Something strange happens. The interference pattern vanishes, leaving a view of only two lines. It's as if the particles were ‘conscious’ and had to ‘decide’ to be particles and not waves as they were being observed or measured.

This is known as the observer effect. It suggests that a quantum system's behaviour can be affected by the act of measuring or monitoring it. The particles appear to ‘know’ they are being observed and adjust their behaviour accordingly.

Some physicists have attempted to explain this by delving into elaborate and fantastical hypotheses that are impossible to validate or verify. One of these is the ‘Multiverse Theory'. The Multiverse Theory suggests that every quantum event spawns multiple outcomes, resulting in a branching multiverse (multiple universes) where every possibility plays out in a separate universe, leading to an infinite amount of universes. This obviously is a highly far-fetched hypothesis and defies belief.

The Ultimate Observer

We have seen that according to the Observer Effect, particles, when observed, exhibit a singular state, collapsing from myriad potential states to a singular reality, almost as if their existence depends on being observed. This phenomenon isn't confined to certain quantum settings. As from the minutest atoms to the vast expanse of galaxies, the observer effect remains an intrinsic reality.

This leads to an even more intriguing revelation. By reversing the order of events, we can conclude that even the very inception of our universe, the cosmic phenomenon of the Big Bang, would have necessitated an observer. In the absence of observers like us, this points to the existence of an ultimate observer preceding all others, initiating the very fabric of our reality. That is, there was, and is, a singular observer, orchestrating the manifestation of one conceivable reality amid countless possibilities. 

We will soon show them Our signs in the universe (at the macro level) and within themselves (at the micro level) until it becomes clear to them that (only) He is the Reality. Is it not sufficient that your Lord is the Observer over all things? (Quran 41:53)

Share

Recommended Reading:

The Purpose Behind Purpose

Can Something Come From Nothing?

Subscribe now

The Role of Nature 

Nature's role seems to be exaggerated. The word ‘nature’, as I will argue in this article, represents something that does not even exist. 'Nature' seems to have assumed, or been made to assume, a position it was never meant to have. It has been credited with developments and phenomena for which it was never responsible. Additionally, it has been endowed with characteristics it never possessed. In the following lines, you will understand why. 

You may wonder, why is there any confusion at all regarding this? 

Well, with our deep fascination for mythology, which has cleverly found a permanent place in our psyche (from novels and movies to intentionally addictive computer games), we have unwittingly allowed a significant amount of mythological data to blur the lines between reality and fiction. It seems as if corporate commercial interests (as well as other institutions) have muddied the waters that were once quite clear. Riding on the back of all this, nature seems to have taken on a mythological form of its own, assuming an almost mystical and divine persona.

Mother Nature 

During my school days, I remember that whenever someone posed a somewhat challenging question on this topic, our teacher consistently responded with the phrase: 'Mother Nature is amazingly intelligent and had it all planned out for us.'

And it wasn't just my teacher who was prefixing 'nature' with the word 'mother,' as I later realised. This phrase is part of the English language, defined as "the personification of nature as a maternal figure or as a powerful and nurturing woman."

I am certainly not suggesting any conspiracy here, as it is perfectly fine to use the above phrase linguistically, as such phrases exist in all languages. However, the problem arises when its metaphorical aspect is used to obscure and conceal the actual reality.

Manifestation of 'Injustice' 

In simple terms, we have ascribed consciousness and intelligence to nature, an essentially non-conscious and unintelligent entity (if it even is that). This reinforces the belief that we already internalise through other channels, making it an integral part of our cognitive system, something our minds accept without question or consideration. The only thing this accomplishes is to reinforce the anomaly and aberration that it actually is. To elaborate, by assigning 'nature' the ultimate role, perhaps subconsciously and inadvertently, we are acknowledging all the necessary attributes that rationally explain existence (pre-existence, consciousness, will, intelligence, and power). Yet, we conveniently dissociate these attributes from their true origin and misdirect them where they do not belong. This, in essence, defines (and manifests) 'injustice,' placing something where it doesn't belong and unjustly removing attributes from their rightful owner.

Have Your Cake or Eat It! 

We have limited choices here regarding whom we bestow the above-mentioned necessary attributes, which underlie rationally explicable existence. We either accept nature as a perfectly intelligent force, in which case we must clearly define it, acknowledging its consciousness and intelligence (which we clearly do not); or we attribute the underpinning intelligence (alongside other otherwise inexplicable qualities) elsewhere, again in a lucid manner. 

We can then either attribute it to the bearer of intelligence, i.e., the living entity itself. In this case, the question that arises is, 'Was the living entity itself the creator of its own life and intelligence, or was it another entity?' The former is an absurdity that asserts self-creation, while the latter brings us back to square one, which is 'nature.' The blind forces of evolution do not lend themselves to intelligence and rationality either. The problem is that you can either acknowledge intelligence and rationality, in which case you have to move away from ascribing them to non-conscious and unintelligent conceptions, such as nature (and ascribe them to a rational force), or deny rationality and intelligence that exists within the world and the universe at large altogether, in which case you are denying the obvious!

Particulars vs. Universals: Unpacking the Concept 

Before delving further into this realm, let's understand the terms 'particulars' and 'universals.' While they may sound complex, trust me, they are not. These concepts help us explore how we perceive and categorise the world around us. In this article, we'll break down 'particulars' and 'universals' in simple terms to help us grasp their significance. 

Let's start with 'particulars.' Think of particulars as the unique, individual things or entities that exist in the world. They can be tangible objects like a book, a dog, or even a specific tree in your backyard. Particulars are distinct from one another, each with its own characteristics, such as shape, size, colour, and location. 

Universals, on the other hand, are general concepts or qualities that multiple particulars can share. These are the common characteristics or properties that help us categorise and understand the world. Think of universals as the shared traits or attributes that different things have in common. To illustrate this concept, let's use the universal concept of 'colour.' Colour is universal because it is a quality that can be found in many different particulars. For instance, the redness of an apple, the green of grass, and the blue of the sky are all instances of the universal concept of colour.

Key Differences 

Now that we've introduced both particulars and universals, let's highlight their key differences: 

1. Uniqueness vs. Commonality: Particulars are unique and individual, while universals are shared qualities or concepts that multiple particulars can have in common. 

2. Concrete vs. Abstract: Particulars are concrete and tangible, like specific objects or entities. Universals are abstract concepts or qualities that exist in the realm of ideas.

3. Diversity vs. Generalisation: Particulars represent the diversity and variety in the world, while universals allow us to generalise and categorise these diverse particulars based on shared traits. 

In essence, the concepts of particulars and universals help us make sense of the world around us. Particulars are the unique individuals, and universals are the shared qualities that allow us to understand and classify these individuals. By grasping this fundamental philosophical distinction, you can gain a deeper insight into how we perceive and organise the vast complexity of our universe.

Let's take the example of a hat. Suppose 20 different types of hats were shown to a child, and then the child was shown the 21st, which was completely different (in every aspect) from all the others. The child will invariably label the 21st as a 'hat.' This is because the child has identified the last one (21st) with a 'universal' that they have now created in their mind. That 'universal form,' however, exists only in the child’s mind and does not have an actual existence in the world.

Difference Between Distinct and Indistinct Universals 

Distinct universals are labels for a group of particulars that are bound by a common characteristic. They can be referred to as the genus or class, such as 'humanity' and generic nouns such as 'justice.' 

Conversely, indistinct universals are intensely vague ideas we have become accustomed to accepting, as they are widely (and wildly) generalised to fit into many and all types of existences and phenomena, and cannot be defined in a specific manner. It seems like we are trying to escape from the reality that certain particulars point in the direction of. 

The socialisation aspect complicates our efforts to break free from this pattern, even in the face of obvious and undeniable evidence. 'Nature' has, in effect, concealed the marvels that unmistakably suggest an external form of intelligence.

'Nature of the Gaps' 

The concept of 'nature' is more than just a concept in the mind without actual existence. It is more than just a universal like any other. It is essentially an indistinct universal; that is a universal of universals. When particulars are lumped together shared by a characteristic, we label the group as a universal; however, 'nature' represents not the group of particulars but of universals, and many universals for that matter. If universals themselves have no actual existence, what would you say of an ambiguous amalgam such as 'nature'? 

It seems that anything we observe empirically, can rationalise, but fail to comprehend the cause of rationality, we almost reflexively attribute it to 'nature' and label its operations as 'natural’. The question is: Is this an escape route from the actual source of rational and intelligent operations of the observable phenomena that we have been schooled not to accept any other way? I say this because 'scientism' is forced to seek explanations by randomness owing to the belief that no rationality and intelligence can ever underpin any existence.

The Magic Word 

Scientism needs a magic word. A word that would encapsulate the inexplicably rational and intelligent phenomena and ascribe all intelligence and rationality to it, yet in a very abstruse manner, almost making it mysteriously esoteric and sacred. Subsequently, we have intelligent people who would normally never make such irrational judgments but are perfectly okay with attributing countless purely rational actions to an apparently irrational conception. 

Hence when a person is given the example of a phenomenon and they attribute it to 'nature,' they are essentially referring to an abstract concept and not to the tangible reality before them. 

This seems to be the most egregious form of misdirection. Our minds look at things in a particular way. The fact that this helps us group things mentally is fine; however, it becomes a problem when we begin to consider it a reality that exists in its own right and invest unwarranted powers in it. Had we grown up on an island free from modern societal influences, this is surely not the way we would have reacted.

Putting the Cart Before the Horse 

To sum up, particulars are real, and universals are not; they are simply concepts that our minds create to facilitate comprehension. Particulars, along with their rational underpinnings, inevitably lead to conclusions that are too obvious to be denied. However, if the mind, from the outset, is repeatedly tricked into jumping to other distant conclusions, that is what it will continue to do. 

Looking at a 'particular' and attributing it to nature or to an automated system like evolution (without acknowledging an external programmer and designer) is a dishonest way of understanding the intricacies and complexities that underlie the existence and development of life forms. It disregards the potential for purposeful creation and instead limits the perspective to purely mechanistic processes, omitting the existence of a higher intelligence or guiding force behind the design and function of the natural world. This approach, though it may offer insights into the mechanics of things, overlooks the profound questions of origin and intention, ultimately resulting in an incomplete and potentially misleading interpretation of the broader narrative of existence. 

This narrative purposely moves in the wrong direction. It traces a 'particular' back to an 'indistinct universal' when asked about its origin and design. It employs a tactic that artfully sidesteps the actual response. It is akin to asking, 'What is the source of a car's coherent and intelligent design?' and receiving the reply, 'It all boils down to the remarkable transportation system,' where 'transportation' stands as the 'universal.' Clearly, this response addresses a question but not the one posed, skillfully bypassing the actual answer and pointing to something that has no existence in real form. 

What also needs to be understood is that 'particulars' precede 'universals' in human minds. In fact, there can be no universals without particulars, as the former can only come about as a result of the latter.

'Particulars' Are The Deal 

Suppose you were an artist and had created a fine piece of art after much time and effort. How would you react if someone saw it and remarked, 'This is truly an amazing creation of nature!' associating the artistry with the non-existent 'universal' of nature and taking all credit away from you? 

Reflecting on particulars is what drives a person to directly trace the Creator, just as someone would when they see a perfect piece of art. 

This is what all the previously revealed Divine Revelations, as well as the Qur’an, repeatedly remind us. They ask us to look at the 'particulars' and unshackle our minds from the deception of society-constructed 'universals,' especially those that are vague and indistinct - much like 'Nature.'

Share

Recommended Reading:

The Conformity Trap

The Purpose Behind Purpose

Subscribe now

The Young Boy 

Murad was a young boy who had lost his father at a young age. As he grew up he began to hear much about the great talent of his late father who was known to create brilliant jigsaw puzzles. His father created magnificently large and beautiful jigsaws which remained unmatched by competitors, and attracted the fascination of friends and foes alike. Murad had heard that people travelled long distances just to see and buy these mind-boggling puzzles. As he constantly heard praises of his father, he became more and more proud of his father’s talent and genius. 

One day Murad was visited by a group of people who mentioned they were aware of his father’s profession and popularity. However these people, unlike those Murad had come to know all these years, did not seem to be impressed with his father’s skills, and they tried to convince Murad of the same. When they realised that their explanations were cutting no ice on the young boy, they finally opened a box they had brought with them and took out a jigsaw puzzle from inside; one which they had created themselves. Murad noted that this puzzle of theirs had a number of pieces missing. They asked Murad to fetch any of the puzzles left behind by his father. Murad complied and brought a favourite puzzle he had safely kept of his father. Needless to say, both of these puzzles were completely different from each other; in colour, design, and picture, as well as the shapes and sizes of the cut-out pieces.

Turning Point

When Murad handed the puzzle to them, they took out a few pieces from that puzzle and placed them into the empty slots of their own puzzle. Since the pieces were of completely different sizes and shapes, they had to force them in, resulting in much twisting and distorting, with the ends of some even jutting out. The outcome of this laboured and awkward exercise was an extremely unsightly and grotesque looking puzzle that did not deserve a second glance, let alone any degree of fascination.  

They then showed the terribly assembled puzzle to Murad and explained what they had meant when they said his father’s puzzles were far from perfect. They remarked, ‘Since it cannot fit into this puzzle of ours, it has to be flawed and doomed’. 

Unfortunately, Murad was too young to realise the foolishness of their thinking and action. He thought he had been ignorant all along not to realise this. The more he looked at the new hideous looking puzzle, the more his fascination for his father’s greatness diminished. This new development was shocking for Murad and thence onwards he began to entertain doubts about his father and his own identity which had been a source of pride for him his entire life.

The Principles of an Ecosystem

Murad’s character is obviously a fictional one, and so is the above story. However, the import of the story isn’t, if seen within its intended context. And here it is: 

Every unit belonging to a whole and every element belonging to a system has its natural place of existence within that structure and system. Outside of this, they either have no existence at all or are deficient at best. We can refer to this as the ‘ecosystem’ of that unit and element. 

Let's take the example of the renowned tech company Apple. The Apple ecosystem refers to the integration and compatibility among various Apple devices, software, and services, enabling smooth interaction between the company's diverse products. This principle of interconnectedness extends universally to all company ecosystems and ecosystems in general.

The point being made here is once you take an element (such as a particular software, designed to run on Mac in our example) out of its ecosystem, its failure becomes all too obvious. And this of course is no fault of the software, nor the ecosystem to which it belongs; and neither are the designers of the system to blame for this. Needless to say, it is simply the folly of the one who attempted the misapplication.   

Inconsistency in Application

Although the foolishness of such an exercise is evidently recognised anywhere else, it seems faith systems seem not to enjoy that luxury. And though other religions may somewhat experience this too but on the whole Islam is usually on the receiving side of such irrationalities. 

Typically when a question or objection is raised against Islam in particular, the prevailing tendency is to isolate a small element of the Faith (which was a perfect fit in the corresponding whole), and see it either in complete isolation or in the backdrop of a completely alien and an incompatible system. This can logically never work in any sphere of activity, and neither should it be expected here. 

Rightly, such a concept is never applied to any other field, such as, science, education, social matters, political and economic domains, etc. We never take a single element from any of the above disciplines and forcefully patch it with elements from another field altogether (or from the same field but within a different framework) and expect it to function seamlessly.

Fallacies and Misconceptions

There are several fallacies and misconceptions surrounding the Islamic Faith. These are mainly a result of the following:

• Oversimplification of a concept.

• Decontextualisation of a concept.

• Isolation of a concept and, usually, superimposition of it on a foreign system. 

Though all these issues warrant a lengthy discussion in themselves, our focus today is on the last one.

Islam as a whole is a perfect fit; not Islam in part, and not Islamic elements patched up with foreign elements. In fact all this does is distort even the original and create misunderstandings for the whole.

A Simple Example 

There can be many examples from across various disciplines, however a simple example from the Islamic laws of inheritance should suffice to demonstrate our point.

The main argument is that the Islamic laws of inheritance are biased against women for typically allocating half the share of the man in certain situations. 

The following example should serve to disprove this.

Say a man (let’s call him Amir) has an average job paying him £3000 a month. Islamically, he is responsible for his entire household which includes his wife, children, and more often than not one or both of his elderly parents. This is because parents are not to be separated from their sons, especially when they are old, unless they expressly desire separation themselves. Amir can be expected to be assisted by his brothers, if he has any, in regard to the parents. 

Some Calculations 

Let's assume Amir’s income is allocated in the following way:

£1700 for household expenses 

£600 for various members of the family (equitably distributed)

£300 for future savings

£100 for contingencies 

£300 for other less fortunate relatives 

As Amir is responsible for his family, he aspires the following (for the entire family and not just for himself):

1. Build a business

2. Buy a house 

3. Provide education for the children when they grow up

4. Improve the general quality of life

Who Bears the Financial Responsibility? 

According to Islamic principles, Amir's wife (we'll call her Huda) will carry no financial responsibility whatsoever, neither for herself nor her family. 

If Huda ever received any income, through a business she started for instance, or gifts, or any other means, she would have total ownership of that income and could spend it on herself or wherever she pleased. There can be no pressure from her husband or anyone else with regard to her choice of disposal.

Considering the above, if Amir received a share of inheritance, say, £50,000 (from a larger legacy) and Huda received £25,000, Amir, due to the pressure of liabilities, would naturally be forced to allocate his share to the interests of the household. This may include running costs of the house, possible accumulated debt, future plans as mentioned above in regard to purchase of property, children's education, etc. On the other hand, Huda's full share of £25000 would be entirely pocketed by Huda without being required to contribute to any of the above costs.

The Overarching Principle

Men and women are expected to assume distinct roles, resulting in different responsibilities. From the Islamic perspective, financial responsibilities are assigned to men.

Hence under Islam a girl will receive full financial support from her father (or other older male relatives in the absence of the father) until she gets married. After marriage, the financial responsibility will shift to her husband. In the unfortunate events of bereavement or divorce, her financial support would be provided by her sons, brothers or other male relatives.

Once this overarching principle is understood, other subordinate principles may not appear as unfair or prejudiced.

The Right Lens

A closer examination reveals that these laws are designed to allocate financial responsibilities in a comprehensive manner. In the Islamic framework, women are granted complete financial security. Understanding this principle provides a clearer perspective on the rationale behind specific inheritance allocations.

If we were to apply the aforementioned Islamic rule to the current system of a Western country, while keeping the country's status quo intact regarding other family laws and regulations, a stark contrast of discrimination and inequality would become evident. This arises from the fundamental difference in operation between the prevailing frameworks. The root of misunderstandings does not lie in inherent flaws within a system but rather in the attempt to forcibly integrate elements from one system into an entirely different one, without due consideration of the universal and overarching frameworks.

Unfortunately, this investigative lens is not limited to just this case alone but is applied to all comparative analyses concerning Islam.

The Principle of Justice 

Islamic inheritance law is guided by the principle of balanced justice, which ensures fair distribution of inheritance rights based on responsibilities and needs. It aims to achieve justice for all heirs, regardless of gender, age, or status.

In Islam, justice in inheritance is not about equal shares but rather proportional to one's role in family and community life. Men and women receive shares based on their obligations and requirements. Men may receive larger shares in certain cases, owing to their financial responsibilities within the family.

Wrapping Up

In conclusion, just as the analogy of ecosystems highlights the significance of elements functioning cohesively within their respective systems, faith systems too, especially Islam, need to be perceived as complete entities rather than isolating individual aspects. Misconceptions often arise when these elements are taken out of context and imposed on unrelated systems.

To truly grasp the essence of Islamic principles, akin to elements in harmonious ecosystems, a holistic understanding is paramount for comprehensive comprehension. By recognising the interconnectedness and broader context within the faith system, we can dispel misconceptions and cultivate a more nuanced and respectful dialogue.

Share

Subscribe now

The Conformist Approach

Reflecting on my childhood experiences, I vividly recall the challenges of not conforming to prevailing trends. This phenomenon, prevalent in both school and street environments, remains a common experience even today. However, at that time, I failed to grasp the lasting impact this cultural dynamic would have as I matured and entered the realm of adulthood.

To my dismay, I discovered that little had changed as I confronted the expectations and norms of the 'grown-up' or 'mature' society. It appeared as if the same children I once knew had simply grown older, maintaining their cocoons created by their established paradigms. These paradigms, in turn, were shaped by the limitations and influences of their immediate environment.

A Rude Awakening

In our daily lives, many of us navigate through existence without pausing to contemplate the crucial aspects that truly matter.

Let's imagine a scenario: One day, you awaken in a completely unfamiliar place. As you explore the surroundings, you discover the presence of other individuals too who inhabit this place. These individuals, you learn, follow a fixed routine. Each morning, they rise and diligently venture off to their designated workplaces, only to return in the evening. The place offers various amenities too such as eateries, games and sports grounds, gyms and entertainment areas. The men and women adhere to the cycle of awakening, rushing to work, earning money, and eventually spending it on themselves.

Seeing this, you begin to seek answers to the questions that had surfaced in your mind since you had awakened there and which continue to haunt you. To your astonishment, you discover that these individuals are so consumed by their daily routines that they cannot spare a moment to ponder and reflect upon these fundamental enquiries.

The Burning Questions

What would you expect a person to do in such a scenario?

Would you not expect them to try to: 

• Find out the answers to the fundamental questions, and not simply wake up and start following others? 

• Know where they came from; where they are headed to; and who had brought them there?

• Seek answers to these questions, with or without memory of the past? 

• Find out who presided over the system there and try to seek access to them?

And if someone from among the people there did claim to have communicated with those at the top, would you not want to validate their authenticity and concentrate your resources and time to seek out the truth from them?  

An Occasion for Self Reflection 

Similar to the model described above, individuals in our own world too often find themselves consumed by their daily lives and trivial amusements, leaving little room for contemplation on life's crucial questions. These profound enquiries include our origins, our ultimate destination, and the purpose of our existence.

When we observe the intricate design and purpose behind everything we encounter in this world, it becomes evident that there is intention behind each creation. Therefore, why should we be content with merely existing without a purpose?

These reflections urge us to delve into the deeper meaning of our lives, and to seek answers to these fundamental questions that shape our existence. By engaging with these enquiries, we have the opportunity to discover our purpose and contribute to the greater goal of the world in a meaningful way.

The Power of Perceived Authority 

People also often place a certain level of trust and respect in individuals who are perceived as ‘authorities’ or ‘professionals’. This inclination can stem from the belief that those who appear professional must have expertise or knowledge in their field. This may be true to a certain extent, however, as human beings, we have a strong tendency to go overboard with this.

This concept is closely related to the psychological principle known as "social proof," where people look to others for guidance on how to behave in uncertain situations. When individuals perceive someone as an authority figure, they often assume that the person possesses superior knowledge or expertise in a particular domain and that following their guidance will lead to desirable outcomes.

The Milgram Experiments

The Milgram Experiments (conducted in the early 1960s) are a good indicator in this regard. 

The experiments were designed to investigate the willingness of participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform actions that conflicted with their personal conscience.

The experiments involved participants who were asked to administer increasingly strong electric shocks to another person (who was actually a confederate of the experimenter and not actually receiving any shocks). The participant was told that the shocks were part of a learning experiment, but in reality, they were meant to simulate the effects of electric shocks on human behaviour.

The results of these experiments were startling, as the majority of participants obeyed the authority figure's instructions to continue administering shocks even when they believed they were causing serious harm to the other person. 

The experiments raised important ethical questions about the power of authority figures, especially those displaying professionalism, to influence human behaviour.

The Asch Experiments

Other conformity experiments involved participants conforming to the wrong answers despite knowing the truth. 

One of the most famous studies in this area is the Asch conformity experiments conducted by Solomon Asch in the 1950s.

In the Asch experiments, participants were placed in a group setting with several confederates who were instructed to give incorrect answers to a simple perceptual judgement task. 

The participants, who were unaware that the other individuals were confederates, were then asked to provide their own judgments. The confederates would consistently choose the wrong answer, creating a situation where the participant was faced with the choice of either conforming to the group's incorrect answer or giving their own independent response.

The results of the Asch conformity experiments demonstrated that a significant number of participants conformed to the incorrect group consensus, even when they knew the truth. This demonstrated the strong influence of social pressure and the tendency to conform to the majority opinion, even when it contradicts one's own perception or knowledge.

The Asch conformity experiments have had a significant impact on our understanding of social influence and the power of conformity in human behaviour.

Through the above-mentioned experiments as well as our collective experiences, it becomes evident that a significant portion of the population, whether consciously or unconsciously, is susceptible to the influence of their paradigms. This susceptibility often leads individuals to wittingly or unwittingly subordinate themselves to perceived authorities, granting them an aura of infallibility in their subconscious perception.

These phenomena highlight the power of paradigms in shaping our thoughts, actions, and judgments. People tend to align themselves with those they consider authoritative figures, placing unwavering trust and ascribing a sense of unquestionable reliability to them. 

Need for Introspection

Ultimately, the concept of "escaping the herd mentality" compels us to reflect on our own tendencies towards conformity and invites us to embrace the discomfort of being wrong. This reminds us that true growth lies not in the illusion of infallibility, but in the courage to confront our fallibility head-on. By doing so, we can liberate ourselves from the conformity trap, foster a culture of intellectual honesty, and chart a course towards a more enlightened future.

Share

Subscribe now

Objective Morality 

Theists assert that moral principles and values are universal and apply to all individuals and cultures, regardless of their beliefs or traditions. Moral truths, according to them, exist in reality; independently of human opinion or consensus, and can be discovered through reason and intuition alone. 

Examples of objective moral truths include the belief that crimes like murder and rape are always wrong, regardless of the cultural or social context in which they occur. Similarly, actions such as honesty, kindness, and compassion, are universally valued and invariably praiseworthy. 

From a purely atheistic perspective, however, objective morality does not exist. Atheism typically rejects the notion of a higher power or divine authority that provides an absolute moral framework for human behaviour. Without a transcendent source of morality, the foundation of ethical principles becomes subjective, shaped by individual beliefs, societal norms, and cultural values. This subjectivity implies that moral judgments are contingent upon human interpretation and are susceptible to variation and disagreement. Without a universally recognised moral code, atheists often rely on reason, empathy, and a shared understanding of human wellbeing to establish an alternative approach to ethics. 

Reality Check

In addition, theism differentiates between what takes place within the animal kingdom and what happens among the human species through the exercise of free will and the inherent conscience placed within all humans. The instinctive perception of God and accountability before Him strongly augments the above and directs it to its correct ethical course, serving as an effective deterrent even in the absence of surveillance and observation.

Contrarily, we are faced with some irksome questions. For instance, why should a rapist and a murderer be wrong in what they are doing? Are they simply not fulfilling the Darwinian model by bringing satisfaction to themselves at the expense of others? A more apt question may be, ‘why should such criminals be punished for something they were ‘designed’ to do by nature?’ 

In fact, atheistic societies are forced to adopt ‘objective morality’ and its political formulations. This is because objective moral principles - regardless of belief (or lack thereof) in them - must be adhered to, to prevent crime and deter criminals, and run a safe and successfully functioning society. No society can afford to leave such principles at the mercy of democratic decisions, which essentially is the predominance of subjective values. 

Some Points to Consider

In the realm of animal behaviour, we often observe instances where animals treat other animals unfavourably. In such instances we usually refrain from employing the terms used for human beings. So, for instance, if one animal kills another of its own species, we describe it as “killing” but do not call it "murder"; understandably, as the term murder carries moral undertones.  

Similarly, in the domain of sexual interactions, there can be instances where one individual (like a male goat) forces itself upon another (female of its kind). Such an act, as abhorrent as it may seem, is not labeled as ‘rape’. And rightly so! For animals do not possess the same moral agency as we do; hence why applying the same terms would ​​evidently be unjust. 

If someone were to say this is all semantics, and in reality, it is all the same, the question that arises then is, 'why do we then not hold animals accountable for the same actions?' Or 'why do we not let human criminals off the hook, if indeed it is all the same?'

The truth of the matter is we know deep down that there are clear differences that separate us from the animal kingdom. And it is not just about the higher level of consciousness that humans have - though that is part of the equation; it is mainly to do with the moral agency - reflecting objective morality - that we implicitly acknowledge and understand. 

‘Should’ Vs ‘Would’

If accountability to man-made laws deterred someone from committing crimes such as murder, theft and rape, what should / would happen in the absence of such deterrents?

The moral ‘should’ stipulates what ought to be done; something which cannot be determined purely by scientific means, and where atheism finds its resting place too. And the inevitable ‘would’ - where objective morality is non-existent - is where the Darwinian model, equating humans to animals, asserts that in the absence of deterrents, and where accountability before a ‘Higher Power’ does not exist, the ‘law of the jungle’ would kick into action and people will do as they desire and please.  

From the above we can see that theism, especially where reverence to God is paramount and sins are not considered lightly, exists to protect the human race, and beyond. 

Indeed, this may have been the impetus behind the famous statement of the French philosopher Voltaire who said: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him". 

The Darwinian Model & Hitler

Furthermore, if morality is not deemed as an objective truth, we are faced with dangerous implications. Nazis, for instance, believed in the superiority of race and its proponents insisted it to be morally correct. How would atheism counter such a narrative from a purely scientific perspective?

Recently some academics have asserted that Hitler was driven by social Darwinism (a concept which seeks to apply principles of natural selection to human societies). Though it needs to be emphasised that Hitler's beliefs and the actions of the Nazi regime were rooted in a variety of ideological factors, the fact, according to these academics, is that Darwinian evolution and eugenics did contribute to the rise of fascism and the ensuing genocidal campaigns. 

Weikart, in his book "From Darwin to Hitler" (2004), argues that Darwinism and eugenics had paved the way for Nazi ideology, although the exact path may have been indirect. In his subsequent book, "Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress" (2009), Weikart goes further, suggesting that Darwin's "evolutionary ethics" motivated Hitler to engage in the abhorrent behaviour that he did engage in.

The documentary ‘Expelled’ (2008)1 suggests a possible connection too. In the film, philosopher David Berlinski, who received his training at Princeton, asserts during a conversation with Weikart that if one reads "Mein Kampf" (Hitler’s philosophical autobiography), particularly in German, the correspondence between Darwinian ideas and Nazi ideas becomes apparent and striking.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while atheism struggles to provide a solid foundation for moral principles, theism acknowledges the presence of objective moral values and the concept of accountability to a higher power. By actively striving to truly recognise and uphold 'universal' and 'objective' moral principles, can society shape a more compassionate and just world, ensuring the unwavering adherence to moral standards in all circumstances, irrespective of scrutiny or the fear of consequences.

Share