Contents

Chapter 1. Page: 1|2|3

BELIEF in God is as natural as any instinct can be. An atheist asked Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq how could he convince him about the existence of God. Coming to know that the man had gone several times on sea voyages, Imam asked him:

"Have you ever been caught in a fierce storm in middle of nowhere, your rudder gone, your sails torn away, trying desperately to keep your boat afloat?"

The answer was 'Yes'

Then Imam asked: "And sometimes perhaps even that leaking boat went down leaving you exhausted and helpless on the mercy of raging waves?"

The answer was again 'Yes',

Then Imam asked: "Was not there, in all that black despair, a glimmer of hope in your heart that some unnamed and unknown power could still save you?" When he agreed, Imam said: "That power is God."

That atheist was intelligent. He knew the truth when he saw it.

We think about thousands and thousands of things. We imagine a horse, a man, an aeroplane, the earth, a train and a book. We see the pictures of these things displayed on the screen of our imagination.

This is called' the existence in imagination, (Wujud-e Zehni).

And also a horse, a man, an aeroplane, the earth, a train or a book has its own existence outside our imagination. That is called' existence outside imagination. ' This is the real existence (Wujud-e khareji).

Sometimes, we imagine such ideas, which can never be found outside our imagination. We may imagine '2 + 2 = 5.' But can 2 + 2 be 5 in real existence? No. We may imagine that a thing exists and also does not exist at the same place at the same time. But can this happen in the world of reality? Certainly not.

Such imagined ideas, which can never exist in reality, are called 'impossible' (mumtane-ul-vojoud).

Also we imagine a man walking at a certain time. Can this happen in reality? Remove all other ideas from your mind. Just look at the imagined picture of that man walking at a particular time. Now say, is it necessary that that man should be walking at that time? Or, on the other side, is it impossible of him to be walking at that time? The answer to both questions is 'No'. Why? Because it is neither essential nor impossible for any man to walk at a given time. He may be walking; he may not be walking. So far as the reason and logic is concerned both his walking and not walking are possible -possible, but not necessary.

Such imagined ideas which have equal relation with existence and non-existence, are called (Mumkenul-Wujoud.) possible, or transient. They may exist in reality; they may not exist. There is nothing in their nature to demand this or that. So far as their nature is concerned, 'To be' and 'Not to be' both are equal to them.

So far we have seen two categories of relationship between an imagined idea and its existence in reality.

1. Where that idea has equal relation with existence and non-existence. It may exist; it may not exist. There is nothing in its nature to prefer either side.
2. Where that idea can have absolutely no relation with existence. It, by its very nature is non-existence.
   

It will appear from above classification that there should be a third category which would be opposite of 'Impossible' (Mumtane-ul-Wojoud) mentioned in (2) above. This third category is of the idea, which can have absolutely no relation with non-existence. By its very definition, it is self-existent. Such an idea is called (Wajebu'l-Wojoud.) 'Essential Existence' or 'Absolute Existence '.

Now the picture is complete.

There is much conflict between the points of views of atheists and those who believe in a Supreme-Being Who created the world. Still, there is one important point where both are in complete agreement.

Both agree that the basic source or cause of the universe is Eternal- has no beginning and no end; was always and will remain forever. In other words, it is 'self-existent' or 'Wajebu'l-Wojoud'. The reason for this idea is very simple: As every thing in this universe falls under the category of 'Mumkenul-Wujoud' "Transient," it has equal relation with existence and non-existence. Once these things did not exist; now they exist; sometime in future they will cease to exist. By their nature, they cannot demand to exist or to cease to exist. Therefore, there must be a source or cause to bring them to existence or to terminate their existence. And (it is the important point) that source or cause should not itself be just a 'Transient'; otherwise it will itself need a source or cause to bring into existence. And this chain of cause and effect must stop on a cause, which needs no outside source, or cause for its existence. It means that the final source or cause of bringing this universe into existence must be 'self-existent.'

It is interesting to note that even the atheists accept this point, because they say that nothing can come out of nothing, and, therefore, the basic source of existence must be eternal. It is from ever and will remain forever.

Now comes the first difference. The atheists say that, that eternal source of existence is 'Matter.' The believers say that, that eternal source of existence is God.

We will discuss it afterwards. Here it is enough to establish a common ground of belief, and that is the faith that the basic source or cause of the existence of the universe is Eternal without beginning and without end.

A. By its very definition, Eternal is self-existent, it could never have been non-existent nor can it ever be terminated. In other words, it has no beginning because if we suppose for it a beginning we must admit that it was non-existent before that beginning. But we already know that it could never have been non-existent.

Therefore, we must accept that the Eternal has no beginning it is ever existent.

B. By the same reason, it can have no end. It is ever lasting, because it can never be non-existent.

C. The Eternal must be self-sufficient. In other words it should be above all needs; it should not be in need of anything. Because, if it needs anything, it will be dependent upon that thing. But by its very definition, .the Eternal does not depend upon anything, as it is Self-existent. In other words, the Eternal must have absolute perfection.

D. The Eternal can be neither, compound nor mixture.

A compound or mixture depends for its existence upon its parts or components. As we accept that Eternal is Self-existent, we cannot admit that its existence depends upon its components or parts.

Moreover, look at any mixture or compound. You will find that the components or parts existed before the resulting mixture or compound. As the Eternal has no beginning, we cannot say that anything preceded it in existence. Otherwise, we will have to imagine a beginning point for the Eternal, which is admittedly wrong.

E. The Eternal can be neither a body nor a surface, neither a line nor a point.
A body, by its very nature, needs space to be in. As we have already seen, the Eternal should not be in need of anything. It follows that the Eternal cannot be a body. In real existence, a surface needs a body; a line needs a surface; a point needs a line.

Eternal needs nothing. Therefore, the eternal is neither a surface, line nor a point. Nor can it be anything which is found in a body, like dimension, color, smell, position, condition or other such things which are called 'incorporeal' ('Arz') in philosophical language, because such things depend on a substance or body for their existence -they are not self-existent.

F. The Eternal should not be subject to any change, because if that change be for better, it would mean that the Eternal before that change was not perfect, that is, it was in need of something. But we have already said that the Eternal cannot need anything. And if that change be for worse, it would mean that the Eternal is now in need of something to make it perfect. And, as just explained, it is not possible.

And if that change is just to the same level of perfection, then what is the need or use of such a change?

In fact, the changes may occur either in a substance (body, matter) or in its incorporeal qualities like color, dimension etc.

But it has just been proved that the Eternal can be neither a substance nor an incorporeal quality of another substance.

G. The Eternal must be a living being. Because it is agreed that the Eternal is the source and cause of the existence of the universe. And also it is agreed that nothing can come out of nothing. Now, as we find abundance of life in the universe, we have to admit that the source of all these living things must itself be All-life. It could not bestow life if it had itself no life.

H. The Eternal source of world must be all-knowing (Omniscient). The intricate design of a single atom shows the perfect wisdom embodied in it. The elaborate system and perfect design of universe leaves no doubt that whoever or whatever is the source or cause of the universe is all knowing.

I. By the same reasoning the Eternal source or cause of the universe must be all-powerful (Omnipotent).

The atheists maintain that the matter is the Eternal source of the universe. It needs no great intelligence to see that matter does not possess any of the qualities of the Eternal mentioned in the previous chapter.

Matter has a body and as such it needs space. It is divisible and as such it is made up of several parts. It is constantly changing. But the atheists maintain that matter has no beginning and no end; and therefore, it is eternal.

But the recent theories challenge these two last stands of atheism.

What is 'matter'? It is "substance of which a physical thing is made. " Or " anything which has the property of occupying space and the attributes of gravity and inertia;"

Before going further it is necessary to point out one important thing. There are, in every branch of science, certain ideas, which have no existence in reality. Yet they are assumed to exist in reality just to make it easy for the beginners to understand the arguments of that subject.

Take for example geometry. They teach the children that 'point' is a thing having neither length, breadth nor depth. Such a thing has no physical existence. They teach that 'line', is a thing having only length, but neither breadth nor depth. This also has no physical existence. In fact, it is only by taking a body (which has all three dimensions -length, breadth and depth) and sub-dividing it in imagination that we can understand the conception of surface, line and point.

Still students of geometry are taught as though these things have real physical existence. It is done not to deceive the student, but to make it easier for him to understand geometry.

Likewise, in chemistry, the student is taught that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. But it is just a stepping-stone so that student can understand further arguments. Also, it is for this reason that chemistry students are taught separate conservation of matter and energy.

But read the following quotation carefully: -

"In classical mechanics, mass and energy are considered to be conserved separately; in atomic and nuclear reactions, matter can be converted into energy and vice versa...So far as chemistry is concerned, the law of conservation of matter, that is, matter can neither be created nor destroyed can be assumed to be true. "

So you see, the theory that matter is eternal (it is neither created nor destroyed) is just an assumption for the purpose of simplifying the subject for chemistry students. It is a fact that matter changes into energy. So it is not a thing ever lasting nor is it a thing, which does not change. Thus, we see that matter does not pass the test of eternity -it is not without end, and it is not without change. And as it is supposed that energy can be changed into matter, it is admitted that matter has a beginning. So it is not eternal -it is not without beginning.

It is assumed that when the matter changes into energy, it exists in that form, and, thus they try to prove that matter is everlasting. But what is Energy? It is "Capacity of matter to perform work as the result of its motion or its position in relation to forces acting upon it." So, the energy is not a thing having independent existence. It is an incorporeal thing, that is, it depends upon a matter or substance for its existence. By its very definition, it cannot be found except in a matter. As energy is a dependent thing, it cannot be an eternal thing.

Now, it should be mentioned here that there are two hypotheses, that is, tentative theories, in science about the creation or beginning of the universe (Universe: All created or existing things). First there is the evolutionary theory. This theory says that all the material in the universe was formally concentrated in a sort of' primeval ' (that is, ancient) atom; that the universe was created at one particular moment and that it will eventually die.

If this idea is correct then that primitive atom cannot be said to be eternal. A thing, which dies, which comes to an end, cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination, to be self-existence, ever lasting or eternal.

The second hypothesis is called' Steady state' theory. It maintains that the universe has always existed and will exist forever, and that fresh matter is continually being created. Now the universe is a collection of matter; and they believe that matter is continually being created.
In other words, the universe is a compound of created things. How can a collection of created things be called "Eternal" (without beginning) is beyond credulity.
Thus it is clear that, whatever view one takes matter cannot be proved to be eternal (without beginning and without end).

Now, that matter is believed to be constantly created afresh, is known to change into energy, is known to need a shape and a place, is subject to division and constant changes, can it be said that matter is eternal when all its qualities are those of Transient.
Five atheists had a discussion with the Holy Prophet, at the end of which the Holy Prophet told them:

"This universe is of such a nature that some of its parts are dependent on some other parts; they cannot exist without those other parts, just as some parts of a structure depend upon other parts for their strength and existence. And that whole universe is, in this respect like that building. Now, tell me, if that part (which is dependent upon other parts for its strength and existence) is eternal in spite of its dependence and need, then what would have been its quality had it been just transient (possible, not eternal)? "

Yes. Let the atheists say what it would have been like if the matter were not eternal?

Now, we come to the last three qualities mentioned in chapter 4. We have already accepted the atheists' notion that nothing comes out of nothing. Now, we see in the universe a most intelligent design and pattern and a most perfect coordination in this unparalleled system. And we see it teeming with life. And, admittedly, matter has no life, and hence no power or knowledge.
Had the matter been the cause or source of the universe, the universe would have been without life; it would have been without system and coordination, because it could not give to universe what it did not possess itself. Is there still need to emphasize in so many words that matter cannot be considered as the source of universe?

Here I give the translation of the discussion of the Holy Prophet with the atheists, a part of which has been mentioned earlier:-

The Holy Prophet asked them: "What is the reason of your belief that the universe has neither beginning nor end and that these things are from ever and will remain for ever?"

Atheists: " We believe only what we see. As we have not seen the beginning of the universe, therefore we say that it has always existed, and as we have not seen its extinction, we say that it will remain for ever."

Holy Prophet: "Well, have you seen that the universe is without beginning and without end?"

Atheists: "No, we have not seen its being without beginning nor have we seen its being without end. "

Holy Prophet: " Then how do you believe in its eternity? And why should your view be preferred to the view of that person who believes the universe to be transient because he has not seen it being without beginning or without end?"

Then after some more arguments the Holy Prophet asked: " Can you tell me whether the days (time) which have passed on this earth were finite (limited) or infinite (limitless)? If you say that the time, which has passed so far was limitless, then how the later time came in if the former did not pass away?

"And if you say that the time is finite (limited) then you will have to admit that it is not eternal."

Atheists: " Yes, it is finite. "

Holy Prophet: " Well, you were saying that universe is eternal, not created nor finite. Do you realize what is the implication of your admission that time is finite? What were you denying? What have you admitted?"

Atheists accepted that their belief was not correct.

Incidentally, this argument of the Holy Prophet shows that 'time' has unbreakable relation with matter. Otherwise, he could not have introduced the element of time in the discussion about matter. The beauty of this can best be appreciated by only those who have studied the theory of Relativity

The simplest arguments of ancients on these topics are still valid, in spite of all the complexity of the modern science.

An old woman was spinning yarn. Someone asked her why she did believe in God. She stopped her hand and the spindle stopped. She said: " You see, a simple spindle needs a hand to make it revolve. Can you think that this sun, this moon, these stars, all this world moves without any guiding hand?"

Imam 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (peace be upon him) was asked for a proof of the existence of the Almighty Designer. He replied: "The faces of camel and of donkey lead one to conclude that such animals have passed that way. The traces of human feet indicate a man's trek. Do not this magnificent universe, with all its sublimity and this lowly point (the earth) with all its solidity point to the existence of the Almighty Allah, the Sublime and the Omniscient?"

Once Abu Shakir ad-Daysani (an atheist) came to Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (p.b.u.h.) and asked him to guide him to the recognition of "my Supreme Lord". The Imam asked him to take his seat. There arrived a small child with an egg in his hand. The Imam, taking the egg from him, addressed Abu Shakir ad-Daysani:

"Here is a mysterious fortress enclosed within a hard shell, underneath which is a fine wrapping which covers molten silver (the albumen of the egg) and some molten gold (the yellow yolk). The molten gold does not get alloyed with the molten silver, nor does the molten silver get mixed with the molten gold. (Yet both are semi fluid and they should have mixed together on jerking.) They retain their separate states. No artist comes out of it to say that he has made any changes therein, nor does any vitiating agent enter it to tell of any vitiation therein. Nor is it known whether it is designed to produce a male or a female. Pea-birds of florid coloration issue therefrom. Do you think it has a Designer (the Omniscient Creator)? Who has painted all this inside it? And how did the chick come about? Who designed all these variegated hues, the feathers, the limbs, the paintings, the feet, the beak, the wings, the eyes, the ears, the nose, the bowels, the crop, the joints, etc., etc. seeing that no one entered it? " Abu Shakir, according to the narration, was absorbed in his thoughts for sometime with his head downcast and then suddenly proclaimed, "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, the one with out peer, and I bear witness that Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny) is His servant and prophet, and that you are Imam and Proof of Allah for His creation, and I turn away from my erstwhile attitude."