You are on page 1of 2

Article appeared Friday, March 28th, 2014 in The News Today, Bangladesh

The Revelation !21"

yo#s#$ %ah&#&#l 'sla%, (h)

's there a di$$erence &etween the way &elievers and dis&elievers thin*+ 's &elie$ or dis&elie$ si%ply a&o#t clever arg#%ents to see whether one can o#twit the other+ Analy,ing the thin*ing involved, i.e. &elie$ vs- non.&elie$ %athe%atically or scienti$ically, there are only T/0 possi&ilities 1 either the 2reator e3ists or does not- 4o, i$ given the 5o&, how wo#ld a %athe%atician or scientist go a&o#t proving either possi&ility+ 6iven e%pirical evidence or ideas &ased on concepts, scientists propose a hypothesis and then proceed to collect data7evidence to prove or disprove it- 6enerally, however, in the case o$ the 2reator, scientists arg#e against applying a hypothesis7scienti$ic %ethod to the 8#estion o$ e3istence o$ the 2reator- Their %ain o&5ection is that evidence %#st &e 9o&serva&le:- ;et once $acts are o&served, scientists avoid deciding on the 9ca#se: &ehind the consistently o&served pheno%ena and laws- 'n a p#&lic de&ate regarding the e3istence o$ 6od at the <niversity o$ 6eorgia, /illia% =ane 2raig {1} opened the de&ate with the $ollowing words, Now in raising the 8#estion o$ 6od>s e3istence, we are in e$$ect engaging in the assess%ent o$ a hypothesis a&o#t the world, na%ely, the hypothesis that 6od e3ists- '$ o#r goal is to deter%ine rationally whether or not this hypothesis is tr#e, we %#st cond#ct o#r in8#iry according to the &asic r#les o$ logic- Arg#%ents &ased on invalid logic, however e%otionally appealing, are worthless in providing any rational warrant $or their concl#sions- {1} A pop#lar scienti$ic %ethod is application o$ a n#ll hypothesis- (roving the n#ll hypothesis in this case wo#ld %ean that the 2reator does not e3ist- '$ the n#ll hypothesis cannot &e proven, it wo#ld %ean that the 2reator e3ists- <sing this %ethod, i$ we ass#%e that a (ower &ehind creation does not e3ist, what wo#ld it %ean+ /itho#t a director or direction, o&served pheno%ena wo#ld o&vio#sly have to have a random orientation, i.e. the things that we o&serve daily wo#ld not necessarily repeat the sa%e &ehavior every day- 'n addition, two or %#ltiple o&5ects wo#ld not necessarily %atch or &e co%pati&le with each other- =et?s loo* at so%e e3a%ples@ . Food sho#ld grow rando%ly and not necessarily %atch the taste &#ds and the digestive syste% o$ h#%an &eings- ;et the $ood that we eat grows consistently each day and it not only s#its o#r taste &#ds and the digestive syste%, it $#l$ills the needs o$ the &ody. A#%an &eings sho#ld grow rando%ly and %ay not have the sa%e general overall shapeThe reg#lar %ale.$e%ale co%pati&ility %ay not necessarily e3ist- ;et h#%an &eings have the sa%e overall shape and $#l$ill the needs $or co%panionship. The planets sho#ld %ove rando%ly witho#t direction- ;et the planets %ove with acc#rate %athe%atical precision. /itho#t direction, the shape o$ the nests nat#ral hives" that honey&ees %a*e all over the world sho#ld &e rando%- ;et the &asic nest architect#re $or all honey&ees all over the world is the sa%e and %athe%atically the sa%e, etcAll syste%s on earth are consistent and are co%pati&le with the o&5ects that they need to %atch with- 4#ch %atching not only re8#ires %athe%atical precision, &#t re8#ires well tho#ght o#t and planned design to &e a&le to do so- The designed %atch is not necessarily co%pati&ility o$ 5#st one thing with another- 0ne single o&5ect %ay have %any co%pati&le #ses and there$ore need %#ltiple %atches- For e3a%ple, in how %any ways does one &ene$it $ro% water+ As another e3a%ple, the cocon#t $r#it has at least a 100 #ses {2}- For each #se to &e co%pati&le, detail designing at %icro level with precision engineering %#st ta*e place- 4#ch %atching can, &y no stretch o$ the i%agination, ta*e place witho#t intelligent design or direction-

The n#ll hypothesis there$ore cannot &e proved- The analysis a&ove shows that a )irector or (ower %#st e3ist who has planned, designed and i%ple%ented every aspect o$ the #niverseA#%an &eings however, contin#e to arg#e against the e3istence o$ the 2reator- Bhalid A&o#lela as*s #s to &e beware of the inner disbeliever {3} in each o$ #s iss#ing a warning regarding the tho#ght processes o$ a dis&eliever/e sho#ld &e %ore concerned with the dis&eliever that lies within each individ#al- 't is the ego that re$#ses to accept any Aigher (ower- 't is the ego that re$#ses to %a*e prostration to its 2reator- 't is the dis&eliever inside #s that" we sho#ld $oc#s on and not point C$ingersD at others as saying, Ethis one is M#sli%, this one is o$ the people o$ the &oo*, this one is a dis&eliever, this one is a hypocrite, etc- The ego changes, develops and %oves thro#gh each and every one o$ these Echaracters? or phases"- {3} Bhalid {3} is s#ggesting that we sho#ld loo* inward and ta*e stoc* o$ o#r own tho#ghts a&o#t the 2reator- /e can only do this i$ we p#t aside o#r egos and &eco%e h#%&le- 't is si%ply &y #sing logic and intelligence that one can concl#de on the e3istence o$ the 2reator and esta&lish &elie$- /e sho#ld, in addition, &e wary o$ the tric*ery o$ o#r egos, as pointed o#t &y the )anish philosopher 4oren Bier*egaard 181! 1 18FF"@ The self-assured &eliever is a greater sinner in the eyes o$ 6od than the tro#&led dis&eliever. {4} There is no roo% $or ego or pride with the 2reator- The tro#&led dis&eliever %ay end #p as*ing 8#estions that %ay #lti%ately lead to &elie$, whereas the person $#ll o$ hi%sel$7hersel$ %ay $eel that he7she *nows everything and is ha&it#ally critical o$ others instead o$ 8#estioning his7her own tho#ghts- Be$ore &eco%ing a &eliever, what are the tho#ght processes a dis&eliever %ay go thro#gh+ /hile a &eliever has only the 2reator to t#rn to $or co%$ort, s#pport, reass#rance, tr#st, protection and acco#nta&ility who can a dis&eliever t#rn to+ A dis&eliever?s tho#ghts %ay &e attracted to %#ltiple things that he7she ass#%es have power 1 there is also no acco#nta&ility- A dis&elievers %ind there$ore has %any see%ingly possi&le 9powers: to consider $or s#pport, incl#ding the 2reator- The %ind wo#ld there$ore &e in a constant state o$ r#nning &etween 9powers:- This is why, d#ring the Military G3pedition o$ Ta&#* H!0 A)", the 2reator warned (rophet M#ha%%ad p&#h" o$ the nat#re o$ dis&elievers who clai%ed to &e &elievers i.e. those who were hypocritical"- The episode is cited in 4#ra At.Ta#&a- The 2reator warned that they wo#ld, instead o$ adding strength to the e3pedition, create chaos and con$#sion within the ran*s'$ they had co%e o#t with yo# they wo#ld not have added to yo#r strength &#t only incite disorder r#shing to and $ro in yo#r %idst and plotting sedition a%ong yo# and there wo#ld have &een so%e a%ong yo# who wo#ld have listened to the%- B#t Allah *nows well those who do wrong- CI-4JD /hen hypocrites see the tr#th o$ the 2reator tri#%ph, they are disg#sted as they are proven wrong and shown to &e o$ $ic*le %ind-

9.48 Indeed, they had plotted sedition before and confuse atters for you until the !ruth re"ealed itself and the #ecree of $llah beca e anifest uch to their annoyance.
..... {%otes}@ {1} http@77www-reasona&le$aith-org7does.god.e3ist.the.craig.pigli#cci.de&ate {2} http@77travel%an1IJ1-h#&pages-co%7h#&7100.<ses.o$.2ocon#t {3} http@77t%ihi5a&i-co%7+pKF04! {4} https@77www-goodreads-co%7a#thor78#otes7H1J2-4LrenLBier*egaard