In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Gracious

The Breakthrough
of a Mind
By :
Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim

Translated by :
Saada Magdy

This is a free book, No part of this book

may be reproduced in any form without
the written permission of the author….
Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim: wetawdt@gmail.com

To read the book Online:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ls_dEgZZuXPm0IIqP8O_a5btBcA
s7ahMj1z4s1m8uvg/mobilebasic

1
Foreword
Many are the minds that have been leading humanity in the various roads of
knowledge for years and years, but as these roads can lead to evil as well as
goodness, intelligence requires that a person seeks to examine this knowledge
through a screen of the foundations of sound thought and opinion, in order to
verify whether it`s in accordance with the integrity of both mind and intuition, or
whether this knowledge is contradictory and destructive.
That is why there was a dire need for us to produce this series of "atruhat fikria” –
Dissertations for Thought.

In this book, a young mind,Dr.Ahmed Ibrahim takes us in a journey through

various evidence of belief, to answer the scientific and intellectual arguments of
the skeptics and the atheists as we will soon experience together, in his unique
style that combines between skillful presentation, thorough reference, and strong
logic, and vast scientific knowledge of biology, physics, and mathematics, as well as
perfect knowledge of one of the biggest weak points in the evolution theory, known
as the tragedy of the commons. He has already published scientific papers about
this tragedy, and it`s one of the most beautiful things he wrote in this book.

Dalail Center

***

2
 Dedication:
To my precious mother`s soul,
may God mercy her and forgive her
and accept her among His good servants.

3
Index:
Foreword

Introduction

Chapter 1: The Nature and Properties of the evidence for the Existence of a Creator

• Is the belief in the creator associated with the basis of all sciences and
intuitive truths?

• The difference between intuition and primitive perception of things?

• Why don`t we see God directly, or why the evidence for His existence isn`t
direct?

• Answering the claim that there can be no certainty

• The Agnostic when they resort to their best protective corner!!

• Does experimental scientific method support atheism?

• The Difference Between the attitude of an agnostic and that of a seeker of

the truth of the existence of a creator

• Is believing in the creator, an appeal to mystery, or for the god of the gaps?

Chapter 2: The Evidence of causality :

• What is the evidence of causality and how can it prove the existence of the
creator?

• When is Causality ineffective?

• Answering the most famous arguments against causality

• Did quantum physics destroy causality?

• Brief examples of Quantum Physics wonders

• Believing in eternity or Eternalism.

• Relative Causality, or Einstein`s relativistic principle of Causality.

4
• But what about Casimir Effect? Isn`t this a proof that vacuum energy exists?

• What about hypothetical particles? Doesn`t the existence of such particles

prove that vacuum energy exists?

• What About Anti-matter?

• Are There Real Infinities in the Material World and the Quantum Field?

• The centers of black holes Possess Infinite Mass?

• The Argument for the Absence of a Scientific Proof that Eternalism in the Past
is Possible

• Can We Arrive at a Theory that Can Explain Everything and Prove that We
Don`t Need a God?

• Is the Question about the Cause of the Big Bang Invalid?

• Is the Law of Preservation of energy means that Energy is Eternal?

• Does the experiment of delayed choice violate the principle of Causality?

• The Summary of This Chapter and the Answers it Provided for the arguments

Chapter 3 : The Evidence For Perfection, Precision and Provision

• Some of the most famous evidence of evolution:

• The Tree of Life

• Building Darwin`s tree by using genetic similarity.

• Building Darwin`s tree using similar proteins

• Building Darwin`s tree by investigating the fossil record

• Building Darwin`s tree by means of similarities of the outward appearance

• Junk DNA

• Bad Design

5
• The problem of coding

• The problem of consciousness

• The problem of Irreducible Complexity

• The problem of the Cambrian Explosion

• The problem of the tragedy of common resources, an obstacle that the

evolution theory can`t overcome

• Evolution Theory and Cooperative traits

• What is the tragedy of the commons?

• Comparison between Evolution and Intelligent Design

Chapter 4 : The Qualities of the Creator and their Requirements Which Can Be
Deduced From the Previous Two Proofs

• Is there an intellectual evidence for the absolute perfection of the creator?

• Why can`t there be more than one creator for the universe?

• Is sending messages and messengers a requirement necessitated by the

creator`s qualities?

Chapter 5: Why Islam?

Chapter 6: post- evidence phase (varied philosophical and religious research)

• How do you answer the problem of evil?

• the materialist solution for the problem of evil : is it atheism or sadism?

• Why all the adversities inflicting Muslims today? Aren`t some of them able
enough to deserve to be leaders of successful communities?

• Is Atheism an enemy of paganism or is it its faithful offspring?

• Why do we say that there can be no ethics without religion?

• What did religion give to humanity?

6
• Which is vaster and inclusive: humanitarianism or Islam?

• Why would genius people and those who give great services to humanity be
tortured in hell?

• Why Does God create us for venerating and worshipping Him when He
doesn`t need anything? isn`t He self-sufficient?

• Can God Create a rock which He can`t carry? Or Can He create something like
Him?

• How do we answer Euthyphro dilemma?

• A disbeliever`s life is finite on this earth, so how come they will suffer in hell
infinitely??

• Why can`t the disbeliever just turn into dust after they die and go to
nothingness after they die, instead of going to hell for an indefinite period of time?

• Why those who imitate Muslims (being born for example in a Muslim family)
go to heaven, unlike those who imitate disbelievers?

• How can a human have free choice, when they are already predestined by
God`s knowledge to do what they do?

• If God`s capability is manifested in His creation, where is His capability in

eternity?

• Is there a conflict between Islam and experimental science?

• What is the use of reliance upon God and not employing the necessary
means to reach our objectives only?

• Why do intelligent people go astray if religion is so clear and irrefutable?

• Why does God care for the disobedience of a human on a tiny planet in this
vast universe?

• Where is the wisdom in killing an apostate?

7
• Why doesn’t Islam allow the freedom to invite people for polytheistic
religions in its state?

• Does Islam degrade women?

• False Signal

• Can a human think that they are the product of a deterministic materialist
process, lead by Darwinian evolution, and at the same time think that they are a
human who enjoys and is endowed with values and morals which matter doesn`t
have ?

• Does a disbeliever have the right to refuse going through this test, which
result is eternal hell?

8
 Introduction
This book …
Praises be to Allah, we praise Him and seek His help and forgiveness, and
take refuge in Him from the evils of ourselves and the ramifications of our bad
deeds. Whomever God guides is truly guided, and those who are misled, no one
will ever be able to guide them, and I bear witness that Allah is the One and only
God, He has no partners, and I bear witness that our prophet Muhammed is His
servant and messenger.
The Breakthrough of a Mind is a book that reviews some of the evidence and signs
that prove the existence of the Creator- be He exalted, and prove that Islam is the
truest and perfect religion. The book never claims or aims at compiling every
evidence under the sun, and no one can ever accomplish that. It might not even
contain “new” evidence other than the evidence God embedded in all of us and
around us, and shown in His honored book. We don’t need new evidence, because
God has perfected His religion, as He said:
“Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has
been dedicated to other than Allah, and [those animals] killed by strangling or by
a violent blow or by a head-long fall or by the goring of horns, and those from
which a wild animal has eaten, except what you [are able to] slaughter [before
its death], and those which are sacrificed on stone altars, and [prohibited is] that
you seek decision through divining arrows. That is grave disobedience. This day
those who disbelieve have despaired of [defeating] your religion; so fear them
not, but fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed
My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion. But whoever is
forced by severe hunger with no inclination to sin - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving
and Merciful.” (Surah Al-Ma’idah: 3)
And there is no doubt that the evidence for the presence of the creator is one of
the most important requirements of faith, because it’s the foundation upon which
the structure of faith is erected, but like the rest of the foundations of faith, it needs
to be purified of the impurities which might have accumulated during one’s journey
(for various reasons), and to show the strength of its argument in order to face the
newest challenges.

9
The prophet (peace and praises be upon him) said: “Allah sends to this nation
people who revive the faith at the beginning of every hundred years.” )1(
What’s meant by reviving is not inventing new foundations for this faith, or new
beliefs, but rather to revive the faith already existing in people’s selves, by
diagnosing the diseases of this nation and preparing the necessary remedies from
within the never-depleting reservoir and the ever streaming river of the honored
Book (the Qur’an) and the pure Hadith.
The Breakthrough of a Mind is one of those books that follow the light of the perfect
evidence inspired by God to His prophet and messenger, Muhammad (peace and
praises be upon him) to remedy and deal with those modern skeptic thoughts
around the issue of faith, and certainly it won’t be the last book of this kind, as
these efforts remain part of God’s plan for our existence until God inherits the earth
and everything on it.
The battle will always continue between the forces of good and evil, and humanity
will always continue to question and stir confusion about those deeply-rooted
intuitive and natural knowledge and clear evidence during the entirety of its
journey in this life, so those whose hearts are diseased will always find something
to cling to in order to justify for themselves why they’re incapable of seeing the
shining light of the evidence. There are many books specialized in answering the
newest heresies and even answering the Jewish and Christian orientalists, but we
are in shortage of books specialized in answering atheism and irreligiosity. The
reason for this is that the root of this evil weed -atheism- was planted in places far
away from the Islamic lands, but in our time and age, geographical distances have
become obsolete, and most of the barriers and obstacles that separate between
the different cultures don’t exist anymore, so, it has become our necessary duty to
deal with this issue.
There is another reason: atheism in the previous ages was only a heresy uttered by
someone here or there, or at best, the beliefs of secluded groups, but it’s different
today. For example, we have what’s known today as New Atheism, which has many
advocates and outspoken theorists and philosophers, and will never be satisfied
with a silent and peaceful place in one corner of the human thought, but it rather
strongly desires to be in the front of the scene, attacking religion and the faith in
the Creator, disguised in the cloak of science and philosophy, which requires the

(1) A correct hadith in the Book of Battles (Kitab Al-Malahim) number 3740, Al-Mustadrak (4/225), Al-Bayhaqi
(p52) , Al-Khatib in the history of Baghdad (2/61), and corrected by Al-Albani in his series (599), (2/150)

10
vigilant person to view all of their claims so they can be answered in the best
possible ways, and God is the best helper.

How do you read this book?

The book will cover some of the basic and fundamental evidence for the existence
of the Creator- be He exalted- and that Islam is the truest religion. Understanding
this part of the book is in the capacity of everyone, and they might not even need
this book in order to understand this much, but the book will also deal with the
arguments of the atheists and irreligious people against this evidence, and provide
the refutations for them. This will require going deep into problematic scientific
and philosophical subjects, which might be too complex for some people to grasp.
There are people who are fond of scientific subjects and prefer those to
philosophical subjects, and other people who prefer philosophy to science, so you
might find some satisfaction in learning key words and general definitions without
neglecting the whole subject, because that will save a lot of time and effort if you’d
like to search deeply into that subject and understand it thoroughly one day, and
you might use it to help someone who has questions and doubts by giving them the
suitable references for the subjects they need to learn about.
Lastly, most of the questions I included in this book are questions I was asked by
atheists in one-on-one debates and general discussions on internet websites, or by
Muslims who have questions or want to have the necessary knowledge in order to
answer these arguments.
Ahmed Ibrahim

***

11
 Chapter (1)
The Nature and Properties of the Evidence for the Existence of a Creator

This chapter will discuss the methodology of the evidence that lead to the belief in
a creator, and not the evidence themselves in detail; because this part must be
clarified first before getting into a debate with agnostics, or atheists, or those
sophists who just deny everything. Without a clear method and basic principles
agreed upon between the two parties, any such debate will be fruitless.
The Noble Quran depicts the stubbornness of those people who refused to believe
the messengers in the past, when they demanded specific proofs, and said that
they would never believe unless their prophets brought forth those specific proofs,
just to deny everything afterwards and continue to disbelieve, even after the
prophets showed them the proofs they asked for, just as Pharaoh said : ”Then why
have there not been placed upon him bracelets of gold or come with him the
angels in conjunction?" (Surah Az-Zukhruf : 53).
Instead of looking at the evidences the prophet Moses (peace be upon him) had
shown him, the Egyptian Pharaoh turned away from them, and asked for another
evidence, claiming that the proofs he now wanted would satisfactorily prove to him
that Moses is a prophet, and that if Moses made this happen, he would only then
follow him.
Thus was always what disbelievers used to say to the messengers, that if they were
real prophets, then they must be able to bring their dead ancestors back to life:
“And when Our verses are recited to them as clear evidences, their argument is
only that they say, ‘Bring [back] our forefathers, if you should be truthful.’" (Surah
Al-Jathiyah: 25).
The same way the polytheists of Quraysh said to prophet Muhammad (peace and
praises upon him) that they won't believe him unless he breaks open a spring for
them from the ground, and so on and so forth, endlessly arguing and asking for
more evidence, which only led them to more denial and stubbornness : “And they
say, ‘We will not believe you until you break open for us from the ground a spring.
Or [until] you have a garden of palm trees and grapes and make rivers gush forth
within them in force [and abundance]. Or you make the heaven fall upon us in
fragments as you have claimed or you bring Allah and the angels before [us]. Or
you have a house of gold or you ascend into the sky. And [even then], we will not

12
believe in your ascension until you bring down to us a book we may read.’ Say,
‘Exalted is my Lord! Was I ever but a human messenger?’” (Surah Al- Isra: 90-93)
This avoidance of rational discussion of the evidence, by demanding different
proofs other than the ones their prophets brought, stabs at the very
methodological structure of the evidence, meaning that this denial gives the
impression (or illusion) that the proofs the prophets (peace be upon them) brought
forward to their people at the beginning of their invitation to God were not enough
for one to open their eyes to knowledge and certainty, as if those proofs were only
“probabilities,” “mental suggestions,” or maybe even “fallacies”.
Disbelievers often argued that only when the prophets show them the proofs
they suggest, then (and only then) they will believe in God’s messages. And today,
those who choose to disbelieve in a creator practice these same old ways, in their
attempts to disprove the evidence for belief, as based on incomplete knowledge,
or that it contains flaws or fallacies, or that they don’t really serve the purpose they
are supposed to be serving.
Then, instead of honestly and carefully analyzing the proofs in detail, they deny the
whole thing, saying that the method is wrong, and then they propose “the right”
method by which a proof should be judged as sound and true. They, for example,
say that only experimental evidence can be the way to know any truth, and since
we can’t experimentally verify the existence of a creator, then it can’t be a truth.
And consequently, any proofs that the believers in a creator present, are of no
value, and are not worthy of a serious discussion. An atheist or an agnostic then
says to you, “Bring me an experimental proof that a creator exists, or just forget it.”
But, is the experimental method really the only way to acquiring knowledge? And
is this approach able to explain all kinds of truth? This is what we will be discussing
shortly.
There are also those who say, “Why should all the proofs for the existence of a
creator be inferential? If Allah wants us to believe in Him, why doesn’t He end all
of this confusion and just let us see Him? Isn’t a direct sensory evidence the
strongest and the most appropriate evidence for a fateful matter like this?
There are also those whose exaggerations leads them to sophistry, eventually
losing any kind of certainty in everything. For those people, neither experimental
sciences nor direct evidence of the senses can be satisfactory, and they’re not even
able to know whether this world really exists or if it’s only an illusion in their heads,
because, to them, there is no way to be certain of anything, and anyone who seeks

13
certainty is asking for an illusion or an impossibility, at least from their point of
view.
There are also those who claim that there are no real evidence in the case of
believing in a creator, and that it is, at best, not more than guesswork and filling
gaps in our limited knowledge.
All of those people refuse the method and the accuracy of the evidence supporting
a belief in the creator, without discussing the evidence directly or in detail. How to
answer those people? How strong is the evidence for belief really? This and more
is what will be discussed in this chapter, Allah willing.

Is the belief in the creator associated with the basis of all sciences and axioms?
It is of Allah’s grace that He doesn’t burden anyone beyond their capacity, and since
every sane person is invited to believe, then it must be within their capacity to
verify the truths of a belief system for themselves, no matter how simple-minded
they are or what kind of education they received, He (be He glorified and exalted)
is the most generous, the most patient. For this reason, He made those truths
simple and instinctive, self-evident and a basis to any knowledge out there (such as
the causality principle, which will be explained shortly).
The principles upon which humankind have built all of our knowledge and sciences
are themselves evidence for the existence of a creator, before being evidence to
anything else. A human being is unable to know anything in the world unless this
knowledge is based upon those basic principles, which are themselves evidence for
belief. This puts every skeptic in the evidences of belief between two choices:
1. Either they deny all the knowledge they gained during their lives, in order to
deny the evidence for belief, and in this case they won’t be able to claim that
their opinion about the issue of belief has any value.
2. Or they accept those basics when it comes to sciences, only to reject them
when they debate the issue of belief in the creator, thus they reveal their
self-contradiction, pride, ingratitude and stubbornness.
And this shows how strong the argument for the evidence of belief is, and the solid
connection between this evidence and the basic principles on which all science is
based upon. In fact, the deeper the knowledge of mankind and their awareness of
themselves and their place in the universe, the stronger the evidence for belief in

14
a creator. This is exactly the opposite of what irreligious people claim, that belief is
based upon primitive perceptions, and that religious concepts are continually
fading away as human knowledge and awareness are progressing.
But the truth is exactly the opposite, because each new knowledge humanity
acquires should be a reminder of the basics upon which this knowledge is built, and
these basics are what verify all knowledge, as there is nothing we humans know
that is not based on the principle of causality. And if causality is a major proof that
a single creator exists, and it represents the basis of all science and certainties, then
what knowledge do we have that’s more strongly proven than the knowledge that
a creator exists? Certainly none.
This might be – and Allah knows best – what Moses (peace be upon him) alluded
to as he spoke to the Pharaoh : “Pharaoh said: ‘And what is the Lord of the
worlds?’ Moses said, ‘Lord of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between
them, if you seek to be convinced with certainty.” (Surah Ash-Shu’ara: 23-24).
Meaning: if you’re really certain of anything, you must first be certain of Allah’s
existence and His divinity.
The explanation of Fat-hul-kadeer – a Quranic interpretation – says: (“If you are
certain”, means, if you are certain of anything in life, then you should be certain of
this first.))2(
Another Quranic interpretation, Al-Kashaf, says: (If you are ever certain in anything,
then this – the existence of a creator – should be the first certain knowledge,
because of its clarity and shining truth))3(
Al-Tabari – a third Quranic interpretation – says: (“If you are certain”, Moses says:
if you are certain that what you are perceiving or experiencing – around you – truly
exists, then you must also be certain that Allah is the lord of the heavens and earth
and everything between them))4(
So, you, who claims to know anything, on what basis do you claim you do know it?
Was it something other than the principle of causality?
Causality is, first and foremost, a proof of the existence of a creator. That is why
believing in a creator is the first certainty and the basis of all certainties. And, there
is another great benefit in observing the inseparability of, and correlation between,

(2) Fathul-Kadeer Quran interpretation by Shawkany (1/1055)

(3) Al-Kashaf Quran interpretation (4/186)
(4) Al-Tabari Quran interpretation (19/344)

15
the evidence of a creator and the things you consider certain in life, and that is your
own independence to know this truth, whilst not needing other people to verify it
for you. You will not feel inferior to those intelligent knowledgeable people who
choose to disbelieve, because even if these people’s own intelligence and
knowledge help them gain knowledge in ways you can’t, their knowledge doesn’t
help them see the forest for the trees, for the simple reason that a basic principle
can’t be negated by a branch of knowledge.
Basic principles are the foundations of every knowledge and science, and
everything else is equal in front of this truth (unless someone claims that their
branch of knowledge allowed them to discover that the evidence for belief in a
creator is not in accordance with the basic principles which we all approve of, then
this is a different issue).
The statement “the whole is bigger than its individual parts” is an axiom known by
all people, whether they’re simple-minded or extremely intelligent, and it’s a truth
that a simple-minded person doesn’t require the approval of this intelligent
individual in order for them to believe it. They are simply certain of it without the
need of anyone else’s opinion. This, in and of itself, ensures the survival of everyone
from a great affliction, namely the following of other opinions without verification
for oneself.
This is a fallacy known as “appeal to authority,” where as soon as this or that great
scientist or great wise person says something, it soon becomes a solid and non-
negotiable truth for some people, who, unfortunately, disable their faculties of
reasoning, even though they don’t really have a single proof for what that person
is saying. And instead of verifying the truth for themselves and finding the evidence
that led and urged this scientist or wise person to make their claims, the exact
opposite happens: they blindly believe whatever that authority is stating to be a
truth, and the case is closed, where those statements become final, instead of
being a starting point to learn, just because someone they respect and revere had
said it.
And that is why those people won’t have an excuse to present to God on Judgement
Day, as Allah says:
“The Day their faces will be turned about in the Fire, they will say, ‘How we wish
we had obeyed Allah and obeyed the Messenger.’ And they will say, ‘Our Lord,
indeed we obeyed our masters and our dignitaries, and they led us astray from
the right way.’” (Surah Al-Ahzab: 66-67)

16
The difference between natural disposition or intuition, and primitive perception
of things?
Intuition (or al-fitrah) resembles a shining dot)5( at the center of the heart of every
human being that God created, and it guides each one of us throughout their life
journey. This dot contains all goodness and is highly repulsive towards evil, and this
shows clearly in the innocence of children (prophet Muhammad [peace and praises
be upon him] said: “No child is born except upon the natural disposition (al-
fitrah) …”))6(
Within this shining dot, there are imprinted basic guidelines which constantly work
on straightening and correcting one’s understanding, and enable each person to
understand, gain knowledge, and be creative. There are also, within this dot,
intuitive truths that a person can successfully use with ease, without having to exert
any effort to prove them. It becomes the foundation upon which a person bases
their life, day after day, during their life journey. And without doubt there are those
who go astray and build their lives upon wrong foundations, and there are those
who build it on straight and strong foundations.
For this reason, and because that dot is the point of beginning, and because it is
the deepest place within ourselves, when a non-believer repents and chooses
Islam, they feel a great comfort, like a traveler who has been travelling for a long
time, and finally comes back home. It is also for the same reason that all people,
including atheists and those who worship other gods, resort to God alone and
forget everything else when they face adversity, because when someone is in a
time of great distress and fear, they will most likely reach for the most deeply-
rooted truths within themselves, and find this deep shining spot within themselves
to cling to.

(5) As Ibn Al-Qayyim said in his book “The Congregation of Islamic Armies to fight the Annulers and the Jahmis”:
“in Allah`s words: “Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The example of His light is like a niche within
which is a lamp, the lamp is within glass, the glass as if it were a pearly [white] star lit from [the oil of] a blessed olive
tree, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil would almost glow even if untouched by fire. Light upon light.
Allah guides to His light whom He wills. And Allah presents examples for the people, and Allah is Knowing of all
things.” (Surah An-Nur:35). And light upon light is the light of the sound intuition, sound awareness, and the light of
the holy inspiration and the Book”. End of quote.
(6) Sahih Al-Bukhari, book of funerals, chapter: “The (dead) children of Al-Mushrikun” (1319); and Sahih Muslim,
book of destiny, chapter: “The Meaning Of "Every Child Is Born In A State Of Fitrah" And The Ruling On The Dead
Children Of The Disbelievers And Of The Muslims.” (2658)

17
To this effect, Allah says: “And when adversity touches you at sea, lost are [all]
those you invoke except for Him. But when He delivers you to the land, you turn
away [from Him]. And ever is man ungrateful.” (Surah Al-Isra: 67)
And He also says: “And when affliction touches man, he calls upon Us, whether
lying on his side or sitting or standing; but when We remove from him his
affliction, he continues [in disobedience] as if he had never called upon Us to
[remove] an affliction that touched him. Thus is made pleasing to the
transgressors that which they have been doing” (Surah Yunu: 12).
He also said: “And when adversity touches man, he calls upon his Lord, turning to
Him [alone]; then when He bestows on him a favor from Himself, he forgets Him
whom he called upon before, and he attributes to Allah partners to mislead
[people] from His way. Say, ‘Enjoy your disbelief for a little; indeed, you are of the
companions of the Fire.’” (Surah Az-Zumar: 8).
But there is a very dangerous notion, which is to confuse intuition or instinct with
“primitive perceptions.” The existence of intuition in a human being since birth
equips them with the ability to identify the truth, and the ability to accept it and
cherish it. This applies to all walks of life, especially when it comes to knowing God
and true religion.
But intuition alone doesn’t allow a person to know everything, and it doesn’t make
them immune from forming, because of various factors, wrong perceptions about
themselves and about the universe around them.
That is why God (be He blessed and glorified) clarifies that a human being is born
without any knowledge whatsoever, but He still bestows on them the tools
necessary to gain knowledge: the faculties of hearing and seeing (senses to
experiment and directly observe phenomena) and intellect (mental and analytical
tools to understand and explain those phenomena and know the difference
between things and the correlation between them), as Allah says: “And Allah has
extracted you from the wombs of your mothers not knowing a thing, and He made
for you hearing and vision and intellect that perhaps you would be
grateful.” (Surah Al-Nahl: 78)
Primitive perceptions about things should never be considered intuitive or
instinctive because that might indicate that those perceptions are truths that we
were taught by God through intuition, and this is certainly not the case. When a
primitive perception is proven wrong by science, those who think that those
perceptions are the same as intuition would mistrust intuition as an honest guide
18
to the truth. And this is precisely what atheists exploit in their claim that religion is
a primitive perception which science will completely defeat one day.
For example, when a person looks up at the sun and moon and finds them in
constant motion, then looks at the earth and finds it standing still, they would
initially think that the sun and moon are rotating around the earth. But we now
know that this is false, and that this was a primitive notion that’s no longer held.
And if you ask a blind person about this matter, they wouldn’t be able to tell, even
though the blind person is in possession of the same intuitive capability that a
person with sound sight possesses.
The same thing applies to the way we perceive colors. We look around and we see
green, yellow and red items, and think that those colors are innate qualities of
them, while in truth those items have absorbed the rest of the wavelengths from
the white light, reflecting only the wavelength for the color that we see. Similarly,
black items are black because they absorb all the light and don’t reflect any colors.
However, if you ask a blind person about the color of things, they won’t know the
answer.
This all shows us that these are only primitive perceptions about things, which have
nothing to do with intuition. The same thing can also be applied to the perception
of time, the nature of matter and waves, and many other things that science
completely changed our perception about. Many people refused these scientific
prepositions at first, because they thought they were contradicting what they
“naturally know.” On the other hand, many others refused all talk about intuition,
on the basis that science proved the wrongness of our primitive thoughts. However,
both sides are wrong.

Why don’t we see God directly, or the evidence for His existence direct?
If we require direct evidence of God instead of inferential and intellectual evidence
for His existence, then there won’t be any meaning or need for things like the mind,
free will, or choice, and there wouldn’t be room for testing the human being, who
God had distinguished from all other creatures by entrusting them with the most
precious gift : the mind, and made this world a test for them.
Most living beings, specifically animals and humans, including the mentally healthy
and mentally incompetent ones, are able to perceive things. But only the mentally
sound person is capable of inferential reasoning to connect between things and

19
events which might not be experienced together. And since the objective of any
test is to show the distinction between the examinees and not what they are all
equally capable of doing, then inferential evidence is the most appropriate form of
testing human kind, because it targets the intellect, the only quality that
distinguishes humans from animals, and that is the reason why - in Islam - only sane
people are held responsible for knowing God (be He glorified and exalted) and
insane people are excused because they are not in possession of the tool that
enables them to know God.
Inferential reasoning is a scientific method used by all sciences. For example, even
though we’ve never really “seen” gravity or subatomic particles, we know that they
exist and know what characteristics they have by observing their indirect effects.
This is inferential reasoning as used in science.
This answers those who argue that true and conclusive evidence can only be the
one that we can test through our direct senses, and who regard inferential evidence
as insufficient for true knowledge and certainty.

Answering the claim that there can be no certainty

There are those who claim that certainty can never be attained, and that we cannot
be certain of anything because the foundations upon which one builds their
knowledge, namely scientific theories, constantly change, and that the conclusions
our minds draw from our experiences cannot always be trusted.
Such things can be heard from a teenager who happened to hear some scientific
and philosophical terms of which they don’t really have deep or sufficient
knowledge about, then you hear them parroting to you that truth is relative,
because of Einstein’s theory of relativity. This is completely untrue, because the
theory has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth being relative or not, and
anyone who does that shows that they don’t know anything about Einstein’s theory
except its name. They might have also heard about Karl Popper’s scientific principle
of falsifiability, which states that the scientific method is central to skepticism, and
that scientific theories cannot be 100% verified by any possible accumulation of
observational evidence. They can be provisionally accepted if they survive serious
attempts to falsify them, but at the same time, they can never be established
conclusively.

20
Such phrases could lead one to a generalized state of doubt about everything under
the sun, but the truth of the matter is not so, as all those statements do not mean
that we don’t have evidence for our current knowledge, but the objective is that
we should never fall into the trap of Inductive Generalization fallacy: if all the swans
we see in Europe are white, then we can’t say that there can’t be other colors for
swans, because there could be black swans in Australia.
Similarly, the evidence that could disprove something that we believe as true
shouldn’t be refused, because, if such refuting evidence is true, it has a stronger
position than the supportive evidence. This is undoubtedly true, but it doesn’t lead
to the exaggerated conclusion of those who say that there can be no certainty.
I’ll use an example that combines all the previous ideas, so that it can be clear to
the reader the path of those who are lost in their reasoning, and the path which
rational people should take:
For example, the classic Galilean relativity/invariance is a principle that we all can
experience when we deal with conventional velocity. For, as we all know, if we
travel at a speed of 100 km per hour, and another object travels beside us in the
same direction at a speed of 200 km per hour, we will see it travelling at our own
speed, 100 km per hour. But if the object travels in the opposite direction, we see
it travelling at a speed of 300 km per hour.
What happens here is that speed differs with the different motion of the observer,
but if we deal with great speed approaching the speed of light (0.8, 0.9 and 0.99 of
the speed of light) we will start to feel that there is a mistake in the detection of
speed, and that something went wrong, such that if we start to deal with the speed
of light, we get into a really strange dilemma, that is, the speed of light is always
constant, as if we travel at such great speed, and a beam of light passes beside us,
we will see it travelling at the normal speed of light, similar to what we measure if
we stood still on the ground! The same thing will happen if it travelled in the
opposite direction! This observation is the one that refuted the Galilean relativity,
which we saw and still see it as very accurate in our daily experiences.
This shows us that the concepts and principles which we thought they apply
to all cases, are actually only true within specific conditions and limitations. We
then sought a different approach to describe the relationships of time, space and
motion, namely the relativity theory of Einstein, who, looking for an appropriate
solution to this dilemma, has found that time “dilates” and that length “contracts”

21
whenever speed approaches the speed of light, because time is not constant as we
used to think, but rather, it is the speed of light that is constant.
So, the theory of relativity doesn’t really say that everything is relative, but rather
states that the speed of light is constant, and not time or space as we used to think.
Consequently, there is no such thing as an absolute frame reference, as
Newtonian’s mechanics used to describe the cosmos as a huge theater stage over
which all events are taking place. Therefore, the relativity theory replaced those
old paradigms, but it didn’t state that there are no certainties, as some people
might deduce from its name. That scientific theories can be refuted and replaced
by other new ones after presenting supportive evidence, this is what the
philosophy of science achieves by means of the falsification principle, and they
don’t mean that there can never be true evidence for anything in this world.
But if we put aside this teen talk and began to investigate the philosophers’ sayings,
we will find that some philosophers did indeed, and still do, carry the flag of
skepticism, both in the old and modern times, and you could notice that even
though some scientists quote such ideas in their popular books or TV interviews,
they won’t apply them to their serious peer-reviewed research or academic books,
because these exaggerations have nothing to do with science or intellect in reality,
as I will now show, God willing.

The agnostic when they resort to their most protective corner!!

The agnostic always thinks that they have a protective corner they can resort to
whenever they feel that they are bombarded by arguments, and that is to dig
themselves in more and more skepticism, thinking that they can go on questioning
everything endlessly, including logical facts, our mental faculties, and our
perception of reality. But the truth of the matter is not anything like what the
agnostic thinks.
Let’s assume the following conversation between a believer (let’s call him “Amr”)
and an agnostic (named “Zayd”), and that, for example, Amr’s argument now is the
imperative fact that two opposite things cannot exist at the same time and place.
The agnostic will then resort to their best protective corner and start questioning
this fact, in order to escape from the idea of faith and its shackling responsibilities
that began to appear on the horizon.
Zayd: How do we know that logical axioms are true?

22
Amr: Excuse me… do you mean that a thing can be itself and its exact opposite at
the same time? What does this even mean?
Zayd: This means that there is a possibility that a thing can have a property and its
exact opposite in certain conditions, or some other universe perhaps, or...
Amr: Wait! Wait a minute my agnostic friend, I didn’t mean that with my question,
but I meant that you have just unintentionally employed the same principle that
you’re trying to refute..
Zayd: How so?
Amr: Because when you try to question the impossibility of the union of two
opposite things, you begin by the assumption that there is a contradiction between
thinking that two opposites can exist together, and that two things cannot exist
together, and that if one of these two propositions is true, the other is not true,
and consequently, these two propositions can’t exist together.
What is happening here is that you aren’t able to go on with skepticism indefinitely
as you might think, because, in the end, you will find yourself appealing to the very
logic that you’re trying to refute. This happens because these facts are the very
cognitive content and the very truth that we’re trying to discover with our minds,
as they are related to existence itself, independent of our minds, and this is why
they stay resistant whenever we try to manipulate them, because without these
facts, there is no existence, no meaning, no knowledge, and no truth.
These facts are not a part of our knowledge, they are knowledge itself, they are the
truth itself. And this puts an agnostic in a situation where they have to choose
between two things, either their mind stops doing its job, that is acquiring
knowledge, or they admit to the fact that there is an independent truth whose
origins and fundamentals are deeply rooted in the mind, in the form of intuitive
truths, so the mind can’t proceed a single step unless it finds a possible path, even
if this step is towards skepticism. Because there is no functioning, no proceeding
forward unless there is a path.
Zayd: All so-called facts could be wrong, because there is no way we can be sure
about them except by using our minds, and our minds are themselves forced to
employ the same logic that we are trying to verify, we are forced to use our minds
even though we don’t know whether they are the right means to obtain knowledge
or not, therefore we can’t be certain of anything, and we should maintain our
skepticism, and question everything.

23
Amr: It isn’t like that, but you didn’t pay attention to something very important,
that is, if we choose to say that these logical facts are true or false, or even if we
say that we don’t know whether they’re true or not, all of those choices lead to the
same conclusion, that these facts are true. Because of the existence of different
choices, if we choose one, we can’t choose the other, this means that we’re still
employing the same logical fact, that two opposites can’t unite.
This rule is the very meaning of knowledge, and it’s an independent meaning, not
an invention of the mind, but it’s rather already there, and the mind only discovers
it.
Just like using our senses to discover things around us, there are people who say
that what we are detecting with our senses could be wrong, this is possible, but
anyone who refuses to use the senses themselves to discover the surroundings,
doesn’t have the right to “invent” another way. You either use your eyes to look at
things or you just close them, but to use your eyes to hear or to not see what you’re
actually seeing, is complete nonsense.
The same thing happens with using the mind to discover and infer meanings that
might or might not describe reality. What you’re trying to do, for example, is using
the mind to doubt simple logical axioms, by way of doubting the mind itself, and
yet you did that by using the mind and these logical axioms themselves as basis for
this skepticism.
So you either use the mind to observe and deduce obvious logical axioms, or not
use it at all, but you can’t use it to question logical axioms.
And the conclusion is therefore, one of these things:
1. I use my mind, and the logical axioms are true.
2. I don’t use my mind at all.
But it can never be: I use my mind, and I trust nothing that my mind tells me, or
that the logical axioms are doubtful.
Whomever wants to refuse all of these options, because, again, they are inferences
of the mind, they must understand that this doesn’t mean that they discovered that
logic is wrong, because all they did in this case is that they stopped discovering logic.
No more, no less.
Zayd: Look, Amr. Just pick any logical conclusion, however highly certain it is, then
tell me, how do you know that this conclusion is true?
24
Amr: Because its premises are correct.
Zayd: And how do you know that its premises are correct?
Amr: By using my mind.
Zayd: And how do you know that your mind is an appropriate tool to make correct
judgements? Suppose that your mind has a defect of some kind, it would be
impossible for you to know that it has a defect, and so, the correct conclusion is
that everything the mind judges is questionable, no matter how certain you think
it is. Can you tell me where the fallacy is in this conclusion?
Amr: The fallacy is that you think that you can build a logical argument to conclude
that logical axioms are wrong, and this is impossible, because to say that they are
wrong, is to admit that there can be “wrong” things, in opposition to “right” and
“true” things. Therefore there must be an essence that things possess, and there
must be opposites to them, and this conclusion means that there are facts, there
are logical axioms, but you took this conclusion and gave it another name, a useless
name, that these facts are not true.
It’s as if you’re making the conclusion that you exist because you’re thinking, but
then you call this existence absence, as if you are saying “I’m absent, because I’m
thinking”. You can’t escape logical consistency, but you can take a conclusion
(existence) and change its name (absence), this is the same as concluding that
logical axioms are wrong, because there are no right or wrong things, in spite of
this being an evidence for the existence of right and wrong, just like concluding that
the process of thinking is evidence for the “absence” of a thinking being, even
though it is evidence for the opposite, for the existence of a thinking being.
So, doubting logical axioms is a conclusion that can itself be a premise for another
inference, that is, there is a difference between the truth, which we just concluded
(in the example of the existence of a thinking being), and between falsehood, which
we have deceived our minds with before.
Therefore, your conclusion is not the end of the road as it might seem at first
glance, but rather, it leads to other necessary conclusions, as you can’t use your
mind to question logical axioms, but you can stop using your mind altogether
(which is equally impossible). Which means that an axiom, an obvious logical fact,
is the starting point in any knowledge we acquire, while skepticism isn’t the starting
nor is it the ending point of any knowledge we acquire, nor is it abstract non-
knowledge that isn’t founded on a previous logical structure, but skepticism is

25
rather a cognitive product of previous axioms which enabled you to think that there
might be other possibilities other than what we think as absolute truths.
And despite the simplicity of this statement, it can only be based on intuitive
abilities to distinguish between right and wrong, as opposites that can never be
combined. The mix-up in your proposition happens when you change the
definitions, putting skepticism as a beginning point to acquire any knowledge,
justifying that by thinking that skepticism means total ignorance which isn’t based
on any previous knowledge, then you go on and think of axioms as the end product
of knowledge which requires prior skepticism in order to get to that conclusion or
axiom.
So, switching names and places is the root of the problem you have. But to base
this conclusion of yours on the imperfection of our minds and knowledge, or that
we don’t have evidence to prove that what our minds interpret for us is true, is
irrational. Because even though all the knowledge that we ever have is dependent
on the interpretations of our minds, that doesn’t mean that you can question basic
logical axioms (because you’ll need to prove the truth of axioms first in order for
you to doubt them, as I just explained).
And if you do this, you would abandon logical axioms and the process of thinking
altogether. But, even in the midst of this abandonment, there would still be one
piece of information that you can’t doubt, and that is you are an imperfect and
ignorant being, and that there is a great chance for you to be deceived. This
information can lead us to other conclusions and evidence for the existence of a
creator, through the evidence of causality.
Zayd: So you want to say that, since we can’t but believe what our minds are telling
us about logical axioms, then we must accept it because we have no other solution.
Amr: No, I didn’t say that, but I said that skepticism itself can be an illogical and
self-contradicting mental game, and this means that it is invalid, and that logical
axioms are true, and can’t be logically disproved, not because our minds are the
only means we have, and that the mind is programmed to use these logical axioms,
but rather because knowledge itself is comprised of those axioms, as you can’t
begin by assuming that they are wrong, then build a different cognitive structure,
even if it’s a very simple one, or even if it’s one simple statement that says that
logical axioms are questionable.
Zayd: But I still think that if we don’t have any other means to gain knowledge
except our minds, and therefore we cannot evaluate our own minds, then
26
everything we know must be questionable, and there is no other method with
which we can escape this situation, because everything that was said about the
mind, can be said of any other method.
I don’t know. Maybe there is no way out of this dilemma, except for each one of us
to be a god unto themselves, inherently knowledgeable of all things, without
reasons or causes.
Amr: The way out of this state is to discover the fallacy. Where is the fallacy?
The fallacy is that you are using the same logical axioms that you are trying to
refute, and this means that you are not doubting everything as you are trying to
convince yourself, and you haven’t found a shred of evidence to doubt the logical
axioms as you think, and you can’t use the fact that you don’t know everything as
a basis to think that there might be something out there, which if we find, will give
us reason to question simple logical axioms, as you are deluding yourself.
Why am I saying that you are deluding yourself? Because you can’t use axioms as a
starting point to arrive to doubt, and you can’t doubt anything unless you use these
very axioms.
For example: if I use Aladdin’s magical lamp to prove that Aladdin’s magical lamp is
a myth that doesn’t exist, I would then be doing something ridiculous, because if I
use the lamp, then it does exist, and if I proved that it doesn’t exist, then I could
never have used the lamp.
The same thing applies to logical and mathematical proof. You begin with a
proposition, and if by using the correct sequence you arrive at the conclusion that
the proposition is incorrect, in fact it’s just the opposite of what the proposition
states, then this is a proof that the proposition is incorrect, you can’t combine
between the wrong proposition, the contradicting result and the correct
sequence, unless you give each one the wrong name, and this is fallacious.
Disposing of logical axioms by naming them “wrong” is meaningless in this case.
Zayd: Why couldn’t it be that our minds are convincing us with all of these things?
They could be convincing us with things like the impossibility of the coexistence of
two contradictions, or that if something is true then it can’t be false, and if it is false,
then it can’t be true. Why couldn’t it be true and false at the same time, or maybe
a truth isn’t as it seems, maybe what we deem as the truth is falsehood, and the
falsehood is truth.

27
Amr: Once again, all you did now is give things different names, and you used the
same axioms that you’re trying to refute. Because you yourself consider what
you’re saying is true, or at least possibly true. And if what you’re saying is true, then
it can’t be false, and if what you’re saying can’t be true and false at the same time,
then this logical axiom is true, even if you gave it a different name. Therefore, your
skepticism can’t be true unless if there is a possibility that it’s false, or if skepticism
to you can at the same time mean the impossibility of skepticism.
How so?
Because it would be meaningless to be skeptic about something unless there is a
meaning for what is true and what is false. Therefore, logical axioms can’t be
subject to skepticism, unless you get into a logical paradox that impairs the very
evidence that skepticism is trying to provide to prove that something is untrue.
Zayd: OK, this is all fine. We won’t question logical axioms, but what about the
possibility that our minds deceived us, by letting us perceive what seem to be very
solid and integral facts that we think we can’t question, but then if they were seen
from a different perspective, a different dimension outside our minds, we would
discover that they are only mental tricks, and that there are no concepts of right
and wrong. And we wouldn’t even know how these concepts will look like, because
there would be a totally different perspective that has nothing to do with our
senses, or what we deem as facts, or anything in the world as we know it. Let’s call
this “reality B” for example.
Amr: And this possibility you just proposed, of a “reality B”, will everything in this
“reality B” be true and in harmony within it or not?
If your answer is yes, then “reality B” will have many similarities with our current
reality, because things like truth and harmony are the logic of our current reality, if
they describe the reality you proposed and apply to it, then it is based on logical
axioms. And since our reality bears such similarities to “reality B”, then “reality B”
has the same logical axioms we know.
And if your answer is no, then this proposal is just a meaningless thought, and it’s
only another fallacious attempt to escape reality. All you did was that you created
an illusion and just called it “reality B”.
Therefore, this leads us to these conclusions:
1. You can’t doubt logical axioms, because they are consistent and self-evident.

28
 2. You can’t depend on the deficiency of the mind or the possibility of self-
deception in order to hypothesize a different logical reality that invalidates
ours.
Zayd: This is all great, but it’s only according to the standards of our minds, and we
can’t be certain that this standard is true.
Amr: If we are deceived, and we somehow managed to find a way to see ourselves
and our current reality from inside “reality B”, will we be able to see those inside
this current reality as deceived or no?
If your answer is yes, then this means that the people who inhabit this parallel
reality that functions according to “reality B” are employing the principle of
causality, just like we do. Because deception means that you weren’t able (for some
reason) to obtain the correct knowledge, or that you weren’t able to join “reality
B”, and if the principle of causality exists in their reality, then they will have the
same logical principles as ours.
If your answer is no, then the argument is over, and everything we see here in this
world is true, and we won’t experience anything different if we joined “reality B”.
What I wanted to clarify is that there is no logical possibility that invalidates our
existent logical principles, and the imperfection of our knowledge doesn’t mean
that all the logical principles are wrong, or that if we have perfect knowledge, we’d
be able to see that those logical principles are wrong.
And even though these possibilities could seem plausible at first glance, that since
we aren’t capable of knowing everything, then there is a possibility that everything
we know might be untrue or that we might be deceiving ourselves. However, if you
look closely, you will find that our logical principles must be true, and that they are
so deep that they represent the essence of knowledge itself, where we either know
them or we don’t know anything at all, but we can’t ‘know’ that these principles
are wrong or a deception.
In the end, religion doesn’t request from you certainty of the kind that makes you
perfectly knowledgeable of everything. Rather, it asks of you the kind of certain
knowledge that fits you as an imperfect being, this kind of certainty that is provided
by the logical and self-evident principles that humans base all their knowledge and
sciences on. And because they are self-evident, you can’t doubt them, if you think
you know anything in life (even if it is your knowledge that there is a possibility that

29
logical principles are wrong, and that our minds could be deceiving us), then by
default you know that self-evident logical axioms are true.
And these self-evident logical axioms are evidence for belief in a creator, before
they can be evidence for anything else.
Allah said: “Lord of the heavens and the earth and that between them, if you
would be certain.” (Surah Ad-Dukhan:7)

***

The previous discussion was regarding the agnostic who questions logical axioms
and basic thought principles. But what about the agnostic who accepts these
principles as basic components of the universe that originated one way or another,
but they question our interpretations for everything around us, standing midway
between logical axioms and their necessary results?
With this agnostic that suffers a state of loss and denial of their mental faculties,
we can reach the first step towards certainty. And the first step towards certainty
in this case, which cannot be refuted by these delusions and mental puzzles and
mazes, is asking them this question: “Do you consider yourself an ignorant who
lacks knowledge, or not?”
If their answer is a certain “No,” then they are cured from this sophistry (even
though their answer itself is incorrect since in reality we’re actually knowledge-
deficient individuals). And if their answer is “Yes,” then by simply acknowledging
that they know something without any doubt, they’re also cured from this state of
mind.
But they still need to invest in this information to reach with it achieved certainty,
which can be achieved by employing the principle of causality )7(, that is the logical
inference that, since they acknowledge that they don’t know (and can’t know)
everything, then they are not perfect, and since they can see that they are not
perfect, and that no other beings who share this world with them is perfect, then
there is perfection somewhere, a perfect being, because a being like them (and us),
who are inherently imperfect, and who needs certain conditions to exist, cannot be
imagined to exist, until after those conditions are met, and consequently, this being

(7) Will be discussed further in the next chapter.

30
is superseded by something. A being who is superseded by something, is one who
is being acted upon, so, there must be some force that is acting on them.
So, if they doubt all their inductive knowledge on the basis that it’s imperfect, there
is, however, a perfect piece of information that they have, namely that they’re
ignorant and imperfect, which should be enough for them to be certain of the
existence of a creator, if they follow the right way to deduce knowledge from then
on.
For this reason, we always repeat, that the evidence for a belief in God is associated
with the basis of all sciences and intuitive truths. And here I’m reminded with a
practical example of this idea, which is a quote from the atheist physicist Stephen
Hawking, in his book “The Grand Design”, as he said, exaggerating a bit on his
agnosticism: ”Might not we ourselves also be inside some big goldfish bowl and
have our vision distorted by an enormous lens?”)8(
We say to him, “So be it. Let whomever you think put you in this big bowl deceive
you as they wish, keep doubting all your knowledge that you have, based on these
illusions. But, doubting all you can, you can never doubt that you are an ignorant
(being) who always needs to learn more, and this you can’t do except through
observation and reasoning, isn’t this right?
This truth you cannot doubt, because if you already know everything, and if you
don’t need to learn in order to know about yourself, there wouldn’t have been
room for doubt within yourself, and there wouldn’t have been room to deceive
you, and ignorance wouldn’t have been a possibility for you at any moment, and –
since you know everything – everything will be a certainty to you. Knowledge will
be an inherent quality in yourself, not something that you acquire, since your very
existence cannot be imagined without this complete knowledge.
So now you have the following:
1. Certain knowledge that you are an imperfect being, who needs certain
conditions to exist.
2. Certain knowledge that an imperfect thing or being is in need of a cause that
made these conditions and the existence and sustenance of this being
possible.

(8) Hawking, S. (2011). The Grand Design. Random House LLC – Chapter 3, what is reality – p. 37

31
 3. Certain knowledge that anything that needs something is inherently
imperfect.
These natural conclusions are what constitute the evidence of causality which leads
you to the proof that a creator exists.”
Here, Hawking can be certain that a creator exists, while at the same time
entertaining his doubts about everything else that his senses convey to him about
his sense of self and the outside world.

Does the experimental scientific method support atheism?

Or is the inadequacy of the experimental method to explain all kinds of facts, is
what makes the views of atheism more appealing?
Truth is, a scientific theory draws a picture of a certain phenomenon, and that
picture contains facts, observations, and hypotheses. So, without a doubt, it has a
mental inferential aspect to it. But that is only true if we are dealing with physical
entities, meaning that this approach had doubtlessly proved its success when
applying it to a physical phenomena.
But, what if we are dealing with conceptual things, or abstract values, such as a
creative design, or a purpose, or a drawing, or the meaning of literature works, or
anything within the domain of humanities, or even when dealing with logical and
mathematical subjects?
In any of these cases, we would be in a real dilemma when we try to verify them
using an experimental method. This shows that the wonderful success of scientific
experimental methods in dealing with concrete material things is not the only way
to discover truths, and it’s certainly not the perfect approach to deal with
everything in life. If, for example, I ask you if you could present an empirical
evidence to prove that the Mona Lisa painting is better than the random colorful
drawings that your little child draws on the house walls? The answer will be a “no.”
And this inability to provide evidence is not a result of the absence of truths that
experimental science can not deal with, because this can be true when it comes to
comparing the works of an artist like Michelangelo and Da Vinci, for example,
because this is subject to personal taste, which is relative. But if the comparison is
between something we all can see as ugly (ex: a pile of waste) and between what
we all are capable of judging as beautiful (ex: a lush tree or a butterfly), here is a

32
truth that we can all acknowledge, but are incapable of dealing with it using a
purely materialist experimental method, because the method is really inadequate
for dealing with this kind of abstract truths, since they are not “testable”. We all
know for certain the difference between the random drawings of the little boy and
the Mona Lisa, but materialist experimental science doesn’t “see” this difference.
To it, they are both equal, as long as the quantity of colors and the colored areas
match.
Empirical testability distinguishes real science from pseudoscience, according to
the experimental method, but if you are incapable of presenting an experiment to
prove or disprove the existence of a purpose for any entity, then this, from the
experimental science’s point of view, makes such things as “purpose” and “design”
pseudosciences. This is the argument that the scientific community resorts to as a
reason for rejecting the theory of Intelligent Design and accepting the theory of
evolution.
However, this argument is completely invalid, because if we apply it to the Mona
Lisa example above, we would be incapable of presenting an “experiment” to prove
that the Mona Lisa is better than the random colorful drawings, and the scientific
judgment will be that whoever claims that it’s better has presented a
pseudoscientific judgment. In the same way, the theory of Intelligent Design was -
and still is - considered pseudoscience, but we all know that there is something
wrong with this concept.
And this is what I meant when I said that restricting knowledge to such a narrow
perception is a big mistake, because otherwise science becomes only whatever that
you can prove by presenting empirical and testable predictions, meaning that only
empirical evidence would confirm or disprove a theoretical hypothesis, and
anything that cannot be tested experimentally becomes pseudoscience, a myth, or
at best, a relative concept that has no absolute truth in it.
This is doing injustice to empirical science, by forcing it into areas inappropriate for
its use, and using its authority to oppose the human intellect and the truth. By
shoving truths into a narrow frame like this, even though we know for certain that
there are truths that are outside that frame, and that making it the reference to
judge these areas of knowledge produces totally wrong results.
The fact that there are things that cannot be proven experimentally totally refutes
this concept and shows its inadequacy to accommodate all kinds of truths.
Therefore we should give up the business of generalization and the claim that

33
anything that cannot be proven through experiments (also known as “Scientism”)
is a myth or pseudoscience. To be more precise, we say that the scientific
experimental method should only be applied to natural phenomenons, and that it
would be meaningless to apply it to abstract objects, because the evidence to an
abstract object should be of the same nature, i.e. a logical evidence, just like the
evidence for a natural phenomenon should be of the same kind: a physical and
testable evidence.
Mathematics is the perfect example to demonstrate the inadequacy of
experimental science to explain all kinds of facts. This is because mathematics are
truths, but, according to the positive experimental concept, it cannot exactly be
considered science, because it doesn’t offer testable predictions that can be
experimentally verified, especially pure mathematics, which, unlike applied
mathematics, inclines towards generality and deals with totalities.
Pure mathematics are independent of the physical world. They depend only on
logical evidence, which makes it the perfect example for our subject. That is why
the famous British mathematician, G.H. Hardy, said that “a mathematician, like a
painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than
theirs, it is because they are made with ideas”)9(
The dilemma here is that we can’t but consider mathematical theorems as
established facts (e.g. Pythagorean theorem), even though they aren’t subject to
empirical verification, and cannot produce an experimental evidence to support it,
and this is because of the independence of mathematics from the physical reality.
So whether it’s a mathematical hypothesis or a conjecture, practical evidence
cannot be considered as evidence, even if we use supercomputers that can solve
millions of complex equations in a matter of seconds, because even if you do a
billion experiments, you can’t guarantee that the next billion experiments will
produce the same results. For example, Collatz conjecture, including the Collatz
Fractal, was checked by supercomputers for values up to 2.88 x 10 18. Are these
experiments considered an experimental evidence that proves this mathematical
hypothesis?
The answer is no, because you can’t guarantee that the result will be infinitely true,
as mistakes could begin to show if the numbers are too big, as happened with both
mathematical conjectures: Pólya conjecture Skewes' number, and Mertens

(9) A Mathematician's Apology- G. H. Hardy - 10 – p. 13 - London 1940.

34
conjecture. The last one - the Mertens conjecture)10( - stays true until it reaches the
value 1.004 x 10 33 , which is a massive number of course.
This inductive problem, which took mathematics outside the realm of the scientific
experimental method, applies to the experimental method itself, if you want to
prove its own validity as a method. Because the experimental method then will face
a big problem, which is what David Hume called “the Problem of Induction”, which
means that the experimental method itself cannot be proven experimentally. This
is because we don’t have evidence to prove that our past inductive conclusions for
phenomena will stay true in the future, except through the same inductive method
that we applied in the past, which creates a vicious cycle and a circular argument,
which is when the thing that we want to prove is also the very thing that we use in
order to prove it, or for it to be a cause for itself. This undoubtedly also proves the
inadequacy of the experimental method to accommodate all kinds of facts.
I would like to conclude with a simple example: a self-evident fact (such as the fact
that if two things are complete opposites to each other, they cannot exist together,
or the fact that an object cannot be a square and a circle at the same level and at
the same time), such facts like these cannot be proven by the experimental
method, because if you search the entire universe looking for that squared circle
and you couldn’t find it, then it could be in some nearby universe, which would
require an eternity to search for it, but we know, with logical evidence, that this
description (circle) contradicts the other description (square), so it’s meaningless
to combine.
The evidence for a belief in a creator is mostly inferential and logical (design,
purpose, and causality), meaning they are abstract things that can be dealt with by
using one’s mind and intellect, as they don’t have physical existence. The evidence
of causality, for example, is not concerned with the nature or characteristics of
things, but it’s an abstract thought that’s concerned with the governing
relationships between things or meanings, regardless of the characteristics of these
things or meanings, and this is a mathematical logical relationship in the first place.
That is why the problem of appealing to empirical science to explain and prove
everything must be resolved first before getting involved in any debate between
religious thought and materialist thought. Because the inadequacy of empirical
science to deal with some (abstract) facts can be misused to discredit all logical

(10) Saouter, Y., & Riele, H. (2014). Improved results on the Mertens conjecture. Mathematics of Computation,
83(285), 421-433

35
facts and abstract values, and make it seem as though empirical science had
presented the evidence that there are no truths except the truths that are within
its grip and that are subject to its terms, while in reality, empirical science fails to
recognize the truths that don’t yield to its terms and cannot be dealt with
empirically.
And the difference between the ability to present a proof and the inability to
comprehend something is the difference between truth and falsehood, and it’s the
difference between the claim that empirical science supports atheism, while (in
reality) exploiting the existing insufficiency of empirical science to deal with all the
facts of life in order to support atheism.
That is why, when getting into a debate with an atheist, I almost always start by
saying: “I will prove to you that a creator exists using the same proof that you will
use to prove that you are a sane person”, because even though we both know that
he or she is sane and they know what kind of thought they are thinking at this
moment, or a minute ago, they are of course incapable of proving such things
empirically. They can only know these things logically, as a person knows the
difference between abstract truths like sanity and insanity, truth and falsehood, by
detecting and observing the effects of these traits on the doer.
So if they can realize that saying or putting the right words in the right place is
evidence for wisdom and intellect, and can use that to prove that they have a sound
mind, then they are depending on a logical evidence (purpose), and they don’t
depend upon empirical evidence to prove that. If they don’t doubt that the
evidence they depended on is true, in spite of the lack of an empirical evidence in
this case, then they can see without a doubt that empirical science is not the only
means to acquire truths, and they can then see clearly, without a doubt, that the
lack of empirical evidence to prove that something is true is not an evidence against
it, and this prepares the ground for beginning the debate. But if they doubt their
own sanity, then the debate is over before it begins.

The difference between the attitude of an agnostic and that of a seeker of the
existence of a creator
A believer claims that they have evidence to prove their case, and an atheist claims
that they went through this evidence and found it to be untrue, while an agnostic
claims that there can be no definite evidence to either prove or disprove this issue.

36
These are three claims, and everyone is required to present the evidence for what
they believe in.
One could think that an agnostic’s attitude is like that of a seeker, they both are
searching for the truth, but it should be known that an agnostic has already formed
an opinion, a rigid claim that this matter cannot be proved or disproved)11(, just like
the famous Bertrand Russell’s flying teapot that keeps on revolving about the sun
between Earth and Mars and no telescope can see it.
This is an example that Russel gave to depict a case which no one can either prove
or disprove, and so it stays a matter of personal preference or a hypothesis, but for
this matter to become a subject for dispute between people, to divide themselves
into believers and disbelievers is considered criminal and crazy, according to
Russell. We might agree with Russell’s teapot, but the claim that the existence of
evidence for belief in a creator is just as fictional as that teapot is a superficial claim
and a form of blindness.
The agnostic claims that the nature of evidence and the methodology used by the
believer are defective in the first place, therefore they are unworthy of serious
discussion, thus, an agnostic can be considered “an atheist who lost their
enthusiasm”. This attitude is completely different from the attitude of a seeker, it
could even be the total opposite. A seeker doesn’t have an opinion about this
matter just yet, as they still think that truth must lie somewhere, unlike a believer
or an atheist, whose very descriptions indicate their positive stances, and final
judgment. A seeker shares the opinion with both the believer and the atheist, that
truth can be attained, except that, to them, the problem is still unsolved yet, but
they don’t have anything in common with the agnostic. If a seeker is now standing
on the beginning of a path that diverges into two other paths, at the end of which
stands the believer, and the atheist, and you look for the agnostic, you won’t find
them, they might be in a nearby city.
We conclude then, that there is a big difference between an agnostic and a truth
seeker, and that a believer, an atheist, and an agnostic, they all have a special claim,
therefore, each are required to prove their claim. To say that the believer is the
only one who has a claim, and that the burden of proof lies with them is completely
erroneous.

(11 ) Russell, Bertrand. "Is There a God? [1952]" The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, Vol. 11: Last
Philosophical Testament, 1943–68. Routledge. pp. 547–548. Retrieved 1 December 2013

37
Is believing in the creator an appeal to ignorance or for the “god of the gaps”?
The objective of atheists is to prove that the universe and living beings don’t need
a creator in order for them to exist, and that the laws of physics are in themselves
enough for giving existence to the universe with all its complex mechanisms, big or
minute, and are enough to explain everything, and that biological laws (genetics,
mutations and natural selection…etc.) are enough to create and sustain living
beings, and enough to explain their existence and diversity.
On the other hand, our objective, we believers, is to present sufficient evidence to
prove that this universe must have a creator, and cannot be independent with its
existence and laws, there are laws that govern it, yes, but they can’t bring it into
being, like atheists imagine. We know that the laws of physics and biology are
principles which God made as causes to sustain the universe, of this we have no
doubt, and there is nothing in it that contradicts Islam, as Islam always states that
Allah – be He exalted and praised- effect things with their causes, but we know for
certain, that it’s impossible for these causes to be independent by themselves, and
they can’t possibly by themselves present a sufficient explanation for the existence
of the universe or living beings.
We don’t deny the material causes that Allah put in the universe. Neither mind or
Islamic laws approve of denying those causes (as healing is affected by medicine,
and giving birth is a result of marriage, and faith and good deeds are reasons to
obtain Allah’s approval…etc.), and at the same time, the reason for our belief in
God, is not because we are “ignorant” or incapable of explaining some of those
causes of natural phenomena, and thus we considered our lack of knowledge an
evidence for His existence- and this is what is called god of the gaps, or appeal to
mystery fallacy, but rather, we “know” that cosmic events can’t cause themselves,
and we “know” that this vast and diverse kingdom of living beings can’t have been
caused by blind natural mechanisms, and there are many other evidence for the
existence of a creator which we “know”.
Our evidence, therefore, is based on knowledge and not on lack of knowledge, as
atheists claim. You could say that the truth is entirely the opposite of this claim,
because, while the god of the gaps theory is based on apparent presence of missing
links between cause and effect in some of the natural phenomena, that causes to
think that the phenomena has no (cause), which leads to the assumption that, since
we don’t know its cause, then its cause must be supernatural, its cause must be
God, while this is what this theory means, we say that the intactness of the law of
causality and its governance for everything in the universe is our evidence for the
38
existence of Allah- be He exalted and praised. As the more we get to know about a
phenomenon and its causes and the principles that govern it, the more confident
we are in our evidence for the existence of a creator, and every cause unknown to
those who worship the god of the gaps increase their faith in their god, there exists
a huge difference between the two evidences and the two methods.
And if some believers do fall in some of these fallacies, therefore refusing the
existence of some or all laws and natural mechanisms, in order to completely shut
the door in the face of atheist claims, they are mistaken, because the existence of
the laws which God uses to sustain the universe and everything in it is deeply
rooted in our Islamic faith, and because if we would like to successfully refute pure
materialist thought, we do that by showing that those laws and causes are
incapable of presenting a complete and valid explanation for the phenomena of life
and the existence of the universe, not by refusing the existence of those laws.
For example: the sun exists, and it’s the source of energy on the planets of the solar
system. Suppose we observe the existence of nuclear reactors on planet Pluto, and
someone came to claim that it is the solar energy that created those reactors,
because the solar energy is generated from nuclear fusion, and since the sun is the
source of energy on planet Pluto, then it is the direct reason for the existence of
the nuclear reactors, therefore, no creator is needed. If someone came along to say
this to us, we would admit that yes, there is no sufficient reason for the
phenomenon, would we say that the sun doesn’t exist? Of course not.
There are those who misunderstand the law of cause and effect, who think that
when God says that He created something, then this means there is no need for a
material cause. Truth is, when God attributes the existence of things to His creative
powers, the objective here is not to deny the law of cause and effect, but to remind
people that He is the one who creates and guides these things, and that if He didn’t
exist, there wouldn’t exist anything, and that He is the source of all bounties and
good things, this is not to deny the causes He created for these things to exist,
because it’s of God’s wisdom that He created this law. Whomever claims that the
evidence for the existence of God is that this or that thing doesn’t have a cause to
effect its existence, then they don’t know what Islam is. The principles of Sunni
Islam (which some innovative cults differ with) that proving those causes is an
important Islamic principle. For example, we prove that fire burns, but at the same
time we don’t see fire as an independent cause for burning, as God is able to cancel
out its ability to burn if He wills.

39
Ibn al-qayyim- a prominent Islamic scholar- said commenting on this issue: “ It is a
great injustice to divine laws and prophethood and monotheism, to delude people
by trying to convince them that in order to not to set partners with Allah, then they
must deny the existence of causes, if rational people think that this is a requirement
to prove that there is only one God- be He exalted, then this is an awful thing to say
about faith and the messengers. You can never find a book like Quran to prove the
existence of causes more vehemently")12(
Even the miracles of the prophets that don’t adhere to the laws and principles that
God put in the universe, God made them happen with causes, in accordance with
this holistic principle in religion. When God wanted to part the sea for Moses for
example, He ordered him to strike the sea with his staff, making this a cause for
parting the sea, Allah said: “ Then We inspired to Moses, "Strike with your staff
the sea," and it parted, and each portion was like a great towering mountain.” –
(Surah Ash-shu’ara: 63)
And when He wanted to open water streams for Israelites, He ordered him to strike
the stones with his staff, Allah said: “And [recall] when Moses prayed for water
for his people, so We said, "Strike with your staff the stone." And there gushed
forth from it twelve springs, and every people knew its watering place. "Eat and
drink from the provision of Allah, and do not commit abuse on the earth,
spreading corruption." – (Surah Al-Baqarah: 60)
And when He wanted to make prophet Muhammad victorious over his enemies
during the battle of Badr, He ordered him to throw sand onto the army of the
polytheists, as Allah said:
“And you did not kill them, but it was Allah who killed them. And you threw not,
[O Muhammad], when you threw, but it was Allah who threw that He might test
the believers with a good test. Indeed, Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” (Surah Al-
Anfal :17)
And when he wanted to give Mariam from His bounties when she was very weak
and tired after she gave birth to Jesus, He ordered her to shake the palm tree, which
cannot be shaken by a dozen strong men. Allah said :
” And shake towards you the trunk of the palm tree, it will drop on you fresh ripe
dates” – (Surah Maryam : 25)

(12) Healing the sick in matters of fate and destiny, wisdom and reasoning'. By Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (691/1292
- 751/1380)

40
All these are miracles, and they all happened outside the realm of cosmic laws, and
were all done with causes, even though those causes can never affect such events,
but this happened in consideration to this great principle.

***

41
 Chapter (2)
The Evidence of Causality
What is the evidence of causality, and how does it prove the existence of the
Creator?

Some of the greatest names of Allah- be He exalted- are the names of : Al-Hayy
(The Eternally Living One), Al-Qayyum (The Self-Subsisting One), Al-Ahad (The Sole
One), and As-Samad (The Supreme Provider). These names signify the total self-
sufficiency of Allah, and total independence of everything. They also signify total
perfection to Him- be He exalted. In a Hadith narrated by Buraydah “that as he
entered the mosque with the prophet, they found a man praying and saying :” Oh,
Allah, I ask that I make you witness that there is no God but you, The Sole One, The
Supreme Provider, the One who neither begets nor is born, nor is there to Him any
equivalent. The Prophet then said : (I swear by the One in whose hand is my life,
he just asked Allah by invoking His greatest name, with which if He was asked, He
gives, and if called by it, He responds.)) (13)
And in another Hadith, that the Prophet (peace and praises be upon him) heard a
man says at the end of his prayers (Oh, Allah, I ask of you, by praising you, there is
no god but you, you alone, who has no partners, the giver of favors, you who
created the heavens and earth in the most beautiful form, you, The Possessor of
Majesty and Honour, you Eternal Living One, you Self-Subsisting One, I ask of you
to make me an inheritor of paradise, and I seek your protection from hell. The
prophet then said to his companions : do you know with what did he ask Allah?
They said: Allah and his messenger know best. He said: I swear by the One in
whose hand is my life, he called Allah with His great name- in another narration:
the greatest name- the name with which if He was called, He responds, and if
asked, He gives))14(
And also the hadith about the merits of reciting Ayat Al-Kursi (Al-Baqarah:255): (Oh,
Aba Al-Munthir! Do you know which verse of the Quran is greatest? He said: Allah
and His messenger know best. He said: oh, Aba Al-Munthir! Do you know which
verse of the Quran you have is greatest? He said: I said: Allah - there is no deity
except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of all existence. He said: then he- the

(13) Sahih Ibn Hibban , number (891)

(14) Corrected by Al-Albani in Sahih Sunan Abu Dawud number (1495)

42
prophet punched me lightly in my chest and said: by Allah! The great knowledge
you have will reward you and make you happy, Aba Al-Munthir) (15)
And the hadith : (the greatest name of Allah is in those two verses: “and your God
is one, there is no God but He, the most merciful, the most gracious” and the
beginning of Surah Ali’Imran : “Alif, Lam, Meem, Allah - there is no deity except
Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of existence” (Surah Ali’Imran: 1-2)) )16(
Knowing the beautiful names of Allah and their meanings gives us awareness of the
attributes of the creator, and to know the difference between the creator and the
creation. They also guide us to the places and things around us where we should
look, and study, so we could infer the existence of the creator by means of His
creation, as these intellectual and canonical proofs can be a source of guidance for
muslims and non-muslims alike.
That is because they are intellectual evidences independent from faith and
presupposed belief that Islam is the truest religion. And one of the best things that
Islam guides us to contemplate, is the governance and indication of the law of
causality (cause and effect), and how this serves as guidance to observe the
qualities of our surroundings, and what evidence these created beings and
surroundings give for the existence of a creator, and what qualities can be inferred
from these observations to describe the creator.
This law is rich with impressive and valuable meanings to everyone who observes
its workings. And because causality is a self-evident fact, a lot of people thought
that it doesn’t need a lot of explanation and that it wouldn’t be subject for dispute,
a lot of people would even regard someone who questions this law to be
pretentious and fanatical, because obvious things don’t need a lot of scrutiny and
re-evaluation. But those who know the amount of the hype and the commotion
atheists made around the evidence of causality, will get to understand the value of
these wonderful observations in freeing the meaning of causality and its regular
effects.
Causality is one of the most important features that signifies the imperfection and
limited ability of all beings and things and the self-sufficiency of God. It exemplifies
the meaning of the self-subsistence of God and His self-sufficiency on the one hand,
and on the other hand, shows the insufficiency and neediness of all beings, and that
all beings are dominated and powerless, no matter what qualities they have.

(15( Sahih Muslim, The Book of Prayer - Travellers , Chapter: The virtue of Surat al-Kahf and Ayat al-Kursi (810)
(16( Sahih Al-Jami` , number (980)

43
Causality means that everything in this existence has characteristics and limitations
that they can’t supersede. They lose their inner qualities if they lose the cause(s) of
their existence. And the qualities they don’t possess, because the causes weren’t
there or weren’t sought, In both cases, everything is always dependent and in need
of something else, of a cause, whether it is a cause for its existence with its current
qualities or the qualities they don’t possess.
This is unlike the creator, who is self-subsistent, independent of any cause, whose
attributes are eternal and unchanging, because these attributes don’t need causes
to exist. This total self-sufficiency is absolute perfection, and it is the difference
between the Self-subsistence and anything else. That is why this attribute is both a
proper noun and a name of His names, for if you think that God alone is the self-
subsistent one, it would be easy for you to know that the existence of anything else
is dependent and in need of other things. These conclusions reflect two things:
The first one: that everything in this universe has limitations, characteristics and
qualities. If the cause for their existence are not present, they disappear. If an
object or a thing loses all the causes that make its existence possible, it just
disappears and becomes nothing. Therefore, anything in this universe is imperfect,
always in need of the causes of its existence.
The second one: without a cause there would be no effect, as everything in the
universe is unable to acquire anything or any quality unless the primary causes are
in place. Therefore, it’s unable to supersede itself or its function in the universe.
Causality then means lack of ability, imperfection, and insufficiency, and signifies
the existence of The Self-Subsistence, The Sole, The All-Prevailing one. And if we
wanted to search for an equivalent definition of causality, it would be the governing
principle that God enforced upon everything. This is what we today call, physical
laws, these laws are particular conditions that govern physical phenomena, as a
phenomenon can’t exist unless the conditions necessary to produce it exist first. If
those conditions don’t exist, the physical phenomenon disappears.
That is why the compliance of objects and phenomena to physical laws and their
transformation to other states in accordance with these laws is evidence for their
occurrence, because transformation of any substance is a process where it loses its
current state, and this happens when the cause for its current effect changes or is
absent. The presence of an effect is contingent upon its particular cause, and this
process of change opposes the concept of self-subsistence, as self-subsistence and
sufficiency is the state of being that doesn’t need a cause to effect it. Also,

44
transformation, as it happens in accordance with laws, oppose eternality, because
an eternal being is not preceded by anything, and who wasn’t preceded by anything
is independent in presence of any cause and anything, unlike any “event”, a state
that needs a cause or a series of causes in order for it to happen, which presence
changes as those causes change, and as an event or a substance must be preceded
by causes, then there must have been “something” that preceded its existence.
Therefore, it is an occurrence, that has an origination, and not eternal, and the
evidence for its occurrence is its causes or the physical laws that govern it, and its
observed transformation in accordance with these laws.
This condition which I just explained, that regulates the occurrence of things, is the
same as the great Islamic scholar “Ibn Taymiyyah” described as the Quranic method
in proving occurrence and transformation. And he offered examples from within
the Quran, of how God affects transformation from a state to another according to
causes, like bringing the living out of the dead, and the dead out of the living, and
other examples. This can described as governing physical laws, which are but a
demonstration of how phenomena and things change as particular causes and
conditions change. Nothing in this universe exists unless it’s governed by laws. This
shows us that the universe, and everything in it is in a state of imperfection, and
dependency.
Ibn Taymiyyah says: “ It is known that we can observe the phenomena of absence
after presence, and presence after absence of many things in this world, like the
states of animals, plants, metals and many other states, and this- by evidence of
the senses- shows clearly that these things cannot exist by themselves, but rather,
their existence is possible because they are subject to non-existence.”)17(
He also says- May Allah mercy him:” Beings can either be all events or all eternal,
or at least some of them are events, and the others are eternal. The first case is
impossible, because events need a cause to originate them, and since an originator
can’t be subject to annihilation, therefore, not all beings are events, and this is self-
evident. The other case is also impossible, because it’s in opposition of what we
observe, and of the evidence of the senses, because if all beings are eternal, they
wouldn’t be subject to change and annihilation, therefore, beings must be divided
into eternal and incidental, and an incidental event or thing must have an eternal
originator”)18(

(17( Ibn Taymiyyah: Answering the Sophists, Qarmatians and Batiniyyah (1/430)
(18( Ibn Taymiyyah: Resolving the Conflict between Revelation and Reason

45
He also says:” Inferring that there must be a creator, by looking into the creation of
a human being in such a state of beauty and perfection, is a correct intellectual
observation. And it is encouraged and highlighted by the Quran. It is an intellectual
inference that observes the existence of a human being occurred after a state of
non-being, having been born, created from a single sperm, then a clot. All this
wasn’t known only because of the prophet’s message, but rather, all people were
and are able to learn that by means of observation and reasoning, whether the
messenger said it or not. But the prophet used it and encouraged -ordered- people
to use it, and use their intellectual faculties of observation and reasoning so they
could know the answers to timeless and fateful questions.
A lot of theologians who quarrel over the issue of whether knowledge is acquired
by using the mind only or using the scripture, forget this evidence, and many other
clues that guide human’s intellect in the Quran, like observing natural phenomena
like the clouds and the rain. As mentioned in the Quran in many verses, as Allah-
be He exalted- says : “ Have they not seen that We drive the water [in clouds] to
barren land and bring forth thereby crops from which their livestock eat and
[they] themselves? Then do they not see?” – (Surah Al-Sajda: 27), as this is visible
to one’s eyes. And He said: “ We will show them Our signs in the horizons and
within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth.”, then He
said:” But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a
Witness?” – (Surah Fussilat : 53).
The signs God made clearly visible and observable by humankind, so they can know
that the Quran is true, are intellectual, from which the mind can infer the truth of
what the Quran says. And it is ligitmally from Sharia’ - Islamic law-, as the Quran
encourages and acknowledges it.”)19(

When is causality ineffective?

Causality becomes ineffective only if and when we are able to find something in
this universe that doesn’t change in its nature and doesn’t go away when the causes
for its existence are absent. We would then know that this particular thing doesn’t
need anything in order for it to exist. i.e. this thing doesn’t need anything outside
of itself in order for it to exist.

(19( Ibn Taymiyyah : Kitab Al-Nubuwwat, edition of the Islamic Univeristy in Medina (1/292- 292)

46
Causality also becomes ineffective if we find something that has no limits for it to
surpass, and which quality can’t be affected by certain causes, but rather, it’s
always capable of possessing all qualities and also able to do everything without
the need for any cause to do it. Such a thing isn’t subjected to the laws of cause
and effect.
And so we know that this doesn’t happen, and has never happened, and it will
never happen, because if there ever exists such a thing, it would supersede
everything else, and then, there will be no order or law in this universe. Things will
no longer be indistinguishable from each other, because they won’t have the
characteristics particular to each one of them the way they are now.
Anyone who claims that it is possible to breach the law of causality in this universe
of ours or even in any other universes of which existence we are yet unaware, we
say to them, if this happens, then this will destroy the very -ontic- structure of
reality as exemplified by the laws of physics, and not only the -epistemic- system of
knowledge we have. Why so?
Well, because if we assume that an event or a thing did successfully breach the law
of causality, and was able to do or be something without a cause that necessitated
that, what on earth could stop it from doing anything and everything afterwards??
What makes something incapable of affecting a certain action is the absence of a
cause or causes for this action, and what stops something from possessing a certain
quality is the absence of a cause to affect such a quality, similarly, what makes
something incapable of having a certain result is the absence of a cause that affects
that result. For as long as this thing that we’re assuming that it breached the law of
causality doesn’t need causes in the first place, what would stop it from doing
anything at any time? Or everything and anytime and even at all times??
If this is possible, we wouldn’t be here now, and we wouldn’t even be able to
distinguish a “thing” called the law of causality, or any other governing physical
laws, because we would be seeing everything happening for no reason. Nothing
would be incapable of doing anything, and anything can possess any or all qualities,
and if any of us lived in a universe without causality, they wouldn’t be ignorant of
anything, because ignorance as a quality means the absence of causes for
knowledge and inability to acquire it for any bunch of reasons. In a world where
there is no causality, the meaning of incapability exists no more. Moreover, if any
of us lived in a world without causality, they also wouldn’t be able to know

47
anything, because there would be no certain qualities of any of the things, by which
they would be recognized and known. Everything can be anything.
And if you don’t need a reason to do anything, it’s then logical that you have been
like this since eternity (because it’s unimaginable that independence of all causes
is a quality that can be acquired, because “acquired” means “it now exists after it
was absent”. An acquired quality doesn’t exist and doesn’t stay, unless its cause
exists and stays, and self-sufficiency is a quality that contradicts all that. If you don’t
need a reason to do anything, you will stay like this forever (because it’s
unimaginable that you would lose such a quality, because losing it must be done
with eradicating its cause, and since you didn’t need a cause in order for you to
possess such a quality, then there is no meaning for cause)
This shows that it’s impossible to think that the law of causality can be breached at
any point in time or space, and the evidence for this impossibility is the very
existence of this universe and its laws, because the existence of causality is in itself
an evidence that this law can’t be nullified in anytime or space. We don’t need to
observe every little detail in the universe to figure out how prevailing is the law of
causality and that it’s impossible to breach, it’s enough to observe the consistency
of its workings in the universe. Our knowledge of one real and functional law in this
universe is enough to show that there has never existed anything that could work
outside the law of causality, because if such a thing ever existed, it would have
taken over everything, including that one law we know, and it would be impossible
to have any order in this universe.
This observation was pointed at by the Quran, where Allah- be He exalted- says:
“Had there been within the heavens and earth gods besides Allah, they both
would have been ruined. So exalted is Allah, Lord of the Throne, above what they
describe.”- (Surah Al-Anbiyaa: 22), because as I explained before, if we assume the
existence of something, anytime, anywhere that is not governed by the law of
causality, nothing will stop it from taking over everything, surpass any other law, or
change the characteristics of things uncontrollably.
This thing would just be like another god who willed any other law than the law of
causality which Allah willed for it to regulate this universe. Knowing that this has
never happened, we know now that we have a single system (there is nothing
outside of this system, and this demonstrates the totality of the law of causality).
The existence of one regular law in this universe is enough to prove that the law of
cause and effect governs everything every time and everywhere, and as soon as we

48
learn that there exists an order in this universe, it would be impossible to assume
the imperfection of causality.
These same observations that show the perfect consistency of causality is mirrored
in the inseparability of God’s name “The One” and His name “The All Prevailing
One” in the Quran, in more than a place.
Allah-be He exalted- says:” O [my] two companions of prison, are separate lords
better or Allah, the One, the Prevailing?”- (Surah Yussuf: 39), He also says: “ Say,
"Who is Lord of the heavens and earth?" Say, " Allah." Say, "Have you then taken
besides Him allies not possessing [even] for themselves any benefit or any harm?"
Say, "Is the blind equivalent to the seeing? Or is darkness equivalent to light? Or
have they attributed to Allah partners who created like His creation so that the
creation [of each] seemed similar to them?" Say, " Allah is the Creator of all
things, and He is the One, the Prevailing."- (Surah Ar-Ra’d :16)
Allah says: “ [It will be] on the Day the earth will be replaced by another earth,
and the heavens [as well], and all creatures will come out before Allah, the One,
the Prevailing.”- (Surah Ibrahim: 48), Allah also said: “Say, [O Muhammad], "I am
only a warner, and there is not any deity except Allah, the One, the Prevailing.”-
(Surah Sad: 65), and He also said :” If Allah had intended to take a son, He could
have chosen from what He creates whatever He willed. Exalted is He; He is Allah,
the One, the Prevailing.”- (Surah Al-Zumar:4)
Allah- be He exalted- said:” The Day they come forth nothing concerning them will
be concealed from Allah. To whom belongs [all] sovereignty this Day? To Allah,
the One, the Prevailing.”- (Surah Ghafir:16)
Ibn Al-Qayyim linked this association between prevailingness and oneness in the
Quran to the most important principle that’s governing the universe: causality,
where he said:
“The prevailing can only be one, it’s impossible that there can be more than one.
Prevailingness and oneness are inseparable, as sovereignty and power and ability
and superiority are all possessed by Allah, The One, The Prevailing, everything else
is subject to His sovereignty, everything else has an opposite, and a partner. He
created the winds and gave them power to mitigate each other, and created water
and gave power to the wind to carry it to other places and to break it, and He
created fire and gave power to the water to break it and extinguish it, and created
metals and gave power to fire to melt it down and break its power, and created
rocks and gave power to metal to break it into little parts, and created Adam and
49
his progeny and made Satan and his progeny enemies for them, and created Satan
and his progeny and gave power to the angels to disperse them and drive them
away.. and therefore, it became clear to the minds and natural guiding system that
the prevailing power that takes over everything is single and one, and that, in order
to show the perfection of His supreme authority, He created the world this way,
connected everything to each other, and made everything need the other, and gave
power to things over others, and tested everything with others”)20(
He – Ibn Al-Qayyim- also said in his Nooniyyah : “ and both supreme authority and
oneness are witnesses to each other, as they are inseparable, and that is why both
these names always come together. Look this up in the Quran, The One The
Prevailing cannot be possessed by two beings”)21(
And now after I described the meaning of causality, and the impossibility of
assuming that it can be nullified anywhere in this universe, I now get to explain how
we can infer from this information, the existence of a creator:
1. If a thing is imperfect, unable to exist by itself for itself, it will naturally need
causes for its existence and being, and its existence and non-existence are
both dependent on these causes, as this thing or event is an occurrence, a
manifestation that was preceded by the causes of its existence:
2. Nothing in this universe is self-reliant, or isn’t subject to laws that govern its
existence.
3. This universe then is – with everything in it – is an occurrence, the result of a
series of events. Because a thing that’s governed by laws is subject to the law
of cause and effect, and a thing which is subject to the law of cause and effect
is an occurrence, as I previously clarified.
4. A series of events, if it is self- subsistent and has a beginning, then its
existence would be contingent upon the existence of the first cause in this
series, which is an event that happened without a cause, and that is
impossible. If this series of events causes itself, and had no beginning in the
past, it would have been an imaginary thing that cannot in reality exist of
itself and therefore, the chain of events cannot be self-subsistent.)22(

(20( Ibn Al-Qayyim : The road to the Two Hijras (p 233)

(21( The famous Nooniyah of Ibn Al-Qayyim , last three verses of the chapter: the sayings of Sufi pantheists about
Allah`s words – be He exalted.
(22( For example like an army soldier wouldn’t shoot with his weapon until he gets the order from the higher ranking
officer and that officer won`t say the order unless the senior officer conveys that order.. and son on… if we hypothesize

50
 5. In a chain of events, the first event (or any link in it) cannot exist by itself,
because if it was, it must change and transform in order for it to become the
second link, so the chain can begin and continue, and “change” is opposite
to self-subsistence, because in order for something to change, it has to lose
its characteristics, and this means that it must lose the cause for its existence
as it is, and if this cause returns, this thing or event will regain its original
characteristics, while self-subsistence is defined by existence without any
cause.
6. It then should be clear that the initiator of this chain of events is self-
subsistent, independent of this chain. And therefore, the evidence of
causality leads us to the initiator, the Self-Subsistent, The Self-Sufficient, The
One who doesn’t need anything, the Creator of everything.

Answering the most famous arguments against causality

As the evidence of causality has such a strong intuitive imprint within all kinds of
people, the illiterate as well as the scholar, in its strength to prove the existence of
a great Creator, it lately had the lion’s share of atheist attempts to refute it, in any
way possible, even if they have to say that it might not apply to everything in this
world, taking science as a shield to spread their claims. Some of the most famous
claims are these:
1. Quantum mechanics destroys causality.
2. There is no cause that determines the place and velocity of the electron, and
there is no cause that makes an atom decompose before another atom, as
all these things are completely random.
3. There is no causality in the quantum world, but only absolute randomness.
4. An electron can exist in more than one place at the same time, even if there
are vast spaces between these places.
5. An electron is able to penetrate through a potential energy barrier that is
higher in energy than the particle’s kinetic energy, so it looks as if you throw

= that there is an indefinite chain of those officers who convey the order to shoot without a final authority, there won’t
be any shooting. So, shooting fire is an evidence for the existence of a source of authority, and the impossibility for
the chain of the officers who convey the order to exist by themselves without this authority.

51
 a ball against a wall enough times eventually it would pass straight through
the wall.
6. In the quantum world, an effect can happen before the cause, and the future
can influence the past, and antimatter particles can travel from the future to
the past.
7. Hypothetical particles can come to existence from nothingness and borrow
energy from the future by violating the law of conservation of energy for a
short period of time, which makes it acquire energy from nothing. Infinite
number of universes can come to existence this way, and our universe is one
of them.
8. The positron is an observed particle, and it is a positively charged electron
that travels from the future to the past.
9. Boson -w is an observed particle that can violate the law of conservation of
energy in beta decay.
10. General relativity permits travelling in the past, and the events of the future
can influence the past.
11. It is meaningless to ask what caused the big bang, because there was no time
before the big bang, and therefore there is no “before”.
12. Vacuum energy which vibration causes the hypothetical particles to appear
has been experimentally proven to exist by means of Casimir effect.
13. Subatomic particles behave like particles and also like waves.
14. Time is only an illusion. It is an unstable constant, and therefore it can’t be a
valid evidence for whether the universe had a beginning or was it eternal.
15. The law of conservation of energy means that energy is eternal.
16. Infinite chains or things that have infinite value do exist in physics. Black
holes and quantum field theory are examples, and mathematics also
revealed that The sum of all positive integers equals -1/12, so why can’t the
universe be a self-subsistent chain that existed since eternity??
17. There is no scientific evidence that proves that it’s impossible that the world
is eternal, it has always existed, and it’s self-subsistent, and this claim,
although it doesn’t refute causality, it does refuse to use causality as proof
for the existence of the creator, because the universe doesn’t need a creator.

52
 18. Someday we will find a theory that explains everything, and then we will be
able to explain that the whole universe existed because of pure material
causes, without the need of a god.
19. Does Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment violate causality?
In this chapter, we- God willing- will answer these arguments and others too in
detail. But if one would answer these in just one word, it would be (jargon).
Because the use of terminologies like (void, nothingness, energy, time, causality,
hypothetical particles…etc.) in physics does never equal the linguistic or
philosophical meanings we infer from the languages we use, as scientific
terminologies or the terminology in any field in general mostly have nothing to
do with the linguistic or philosophical meaning of those words. A professional
person could understand the correct meanings of these words, but they would
cause a great misunderstanding for the layperson, and these terminologies are
called jargon.
This is something that Dr.Matt Strassler, a teacher of theoretical physics in
Harvard University pointed out in his blog on the internet, where he said:
"But in physics, energy is none of these things. You’d be making a big physics
error if you mix and match one of the English definitions with the physics
definition! Within physics, you must stick with the physics term, or you’ll get
wrong answers and end up very confused". )23(
This gap between natural language meaning and professional terminology had
indeed found who could manipulate it in their speech to laypeople, without
falling into scientific errors, and to those people, it was okay to cheaply misuse
science in order to serve their atheism.

Did quantum physics undermine causality?

This is the most famous argument of all, which branches into most of the other
arguments these people use against causality, and this is because quantum physics
is one of the strongest and most complicated human science, as it now has the
highest scientific authority, and if it can really refute causality it would have had a
great impact on people. It is also a field of science that’s full of outstanding puzzles
that captivated the most brilliant brains. There is no wonder then that it’s being
(23( The blog is titled “Of Particular Significance”, and the subject`s titled “Mass and Energy”:
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/mass-and-energy/

53
used for this misleading objective. But first, we must get to know some of those
wonders within this science, before we discuss whether it does or doesn’t violate
the principle of causality.

Some examples of the wonders of quantum physics

It has been proved that electrons and photons have both particle and wave
properties, they behave sometimes like particles and other times as waves, a
phenomenon called wave-particle duality, and this in itself is an obvious
contradiction, because a particle is bound in a definite way and position in space,
and a wave is not bound by these limitations, but this has been observed about the
nature of these sub-atomic particles, although the most precise description which
professional physics books always mention is that these particles are only waves)24(,
and not particles at all, then they mention the reasons we observe this
phenomenon as particles.
All this started with the famous experiment known as Double- slit experiment)25(,
where if you bring a board with two slits cut in it, and put a barrier behind it, then
you put in front of the board a source of light, then, light as a wave, should be split
by the board into two separate waves, which will weld together again into a single
beam of light directly after they pass the slits, but this doesn’t happen, as the
welding won’t make them a single beam again, but rather, they will turn into two
interfering waves in a phenomenon called Interference Pattern, which makes the
light on the back board strong in some parts, the parts where the two waves
strengthen each other, and the same light will be weak on the spots where the two
waves weaken each other, and this interference will cover the whole back board or
the largest part of it, and its size will be different that the size of the two slits in the
board. (figure 1)
This is a consistent experiment and it is expected of light to behave this way (but
there is also a proof that light behaves as separate particles too, which is the
phenomenon of Photoelectric effect):

(24( Nikolić, H. (2007). Quantum mechanics: Myths and facts. Foundations of Physics, 37 (11), 1563-1611.
(25( Lederman, Leon M.; Christopher T. Hill (2011). Quantum Physics for Poets. US: Prometheus Books. pp. 102–
111. ISBN 1616142812

54
 Figure 1
But if we replace the light source in the double-slit experiment with a source that
shoots electrons instead of a light beam, then we will be expected to see on the
back board two lines equal in size with the size of the two slits (figure 2)

Figure 2
And it’s never expected for the electrons organizing themselves on the board to
behave like light waves, because electrons should be the particles that constitute
matter around us, and they are not waves spreading in space. But the big surprise

55
is that the result on the back board will be exactly the same as the behavior of
waves, as the background will be totally covered with interfering wave patterns,
where there will be interfering dark areas and lighter shades areas, just as if they
are light waves, and this will happen even if you shoot the electrons one after the
other, and not all at once. You will find dots gradually organizing together to draw
a neutral shape in the end (figure 3) (as this is a single background over which
electrons gradually accumulate)

figure 3
This proves that electrons possess both wave and particle properties, just like
photons do, and this one of the greatest wonders in science, but here is what’s
better than that: if you close one of the slits in order to focus the discharge of
56
electrons through one opening, the deviation will disappear and you will obtain the
particle behavior once again, as electrons will form a shape that’s identical with the
opened slit!! And the same thing will happen if you open the two slits, but keeping
a ‫ كاش ف ف‬on one of them to focus the streaming of the electrons, the electrons will
gather to form two forms on the background identical to the slits, this strange
phenomenon is known as Measurement Problem, and it’s one of the puzzles in
Quantum Physics that hasn’t been solved until now, it shows that measurement is
what gives the quantum world its defined existence which we deal with as results,
and thus, disappears the speculative nature of quantum physics, meaning, that the
wave particle duality of the electron is no more, because we are able to measure it
and locate it. And De Broglie dealt with this dual nature of electrons and photons,
showing the relationship between wavelength and movement (equation (1)).

Equation (1)
Then Schrödinger put an equation that describes the development of this quantum
state with time: the wave function, which became a mathematical tool that
describes this world with great precision (and this a hypothetical mathematical
description, meaning, it describes the possibilities of the quantum state and not
the reality, a rule known as Born Rule, which name is derived from his name Max
Born)26( and this has become known as wave mechanics.
On the other hand, while both Heisenberg and Max Born were working on
developing their own mathematics in order to deal with this double natured
quantum world, already developing what is known as Matrix Mechanics, they both
produced identical mathematical results) 27( , but each scientist had different
philosophical interpretations for the results of their equations, which was
completely opposite to one another. As while Schrödinger, De Broglie and Einstein
were proponents of Determinism doctrine, and believed that there are hidden
variables which they hoped they could one day discover, in order to get a complete

(26( Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge, Max Born, Zeitschrift für Physik, 37, #12 (Dec. 1926), pp. 863–867
(German); English translation, On the quantum mechanics of collisions, in Quantum theory and measurement, section
I.2, J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1983, ISBN 0-691-
08316-9.
(27( Hanle, P.A. (1977), "Erwin Schrodinger's Reaction to Louis de Broglie's Thesis on the Quantum Theory.", Isis
68 -4.

57
and clear picture about reality. The other team was proponents of endless
probability and nondeterminism.
Then Heisenberg founded the Uncertainty Principle, which states that it is
impossible to measure conjugate variables like movement and position at the same
time and with complete precision)28(, and this has nothing to do with the precision
of the tools used, but rather, a physical law that describes the truth of the natural
world. And this result which the Uncertainty Principle describes is a definite
mathematical result that is related to wave mechanics, which is known as Fourier
transform, as this logical mathematical relationship is what made it unlikely to
measure conjugate variables with complete precision. Therefore, there will always
be an amount of uncertainty that is impossible to overlook )29(.
What Heisenberg did is that he applied this mathematical truth to the quantum
world, which components have wave nature, as shown by the double slit
experiment, after all, mathematical relationships are but logical relationships. And
causality includes all physical and logical relationships, because it describes the
relationships between material or abstract things equally, therefore, if we presume
that something can breach causality, it will doubtlessly be something that is
opposite to logic, and which we can’t use mathematics to explain it, because if
Uncertainty Principle is originally a mathematical truth, and if this principle is one
of the most important laws of Quantum Mechanics, and it describes all the
phenomena which, some claim, breach causality, then without a doubt, the error
lies with those interpreters and not the phenomena, or the laws or the principle of
causality.
And whomever uses Uncertainty Principle (which is a mathematical fact), or one of
its applications, as a proof that causality can be violated, then they, at that moment,
are actually thinking that the logical and mathematical branch that proves the
Uncertainty Principle is accurate and irrefutable, while at the same time,
mathematics and logical relationships themselves are worthless, and that they
have collapsed completely, and this is clearly a contradiction and an obvious
delusion.

(28( Heisenberg, W. (1927), "Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik",
Zeitschrift für Physik (in German) 43 (3–4): 172–198, Bibcode:1927ZPhy...43..172H, doi:10.1007/BF01397280..
Annotated pre-publication proof sheet of Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und
Mechanik, March 23, 1927
(29( Fourier, Joseph (1822). Théorie analytique de la chaleur (in French). Paris: Firmin Didot Père et Fils. OCLC
2688081.

58
During the same period, The Copenhagen interpretation was devised by Niels Bohr
and Heisenberg in order to explain these wonders) 30( and they considered
measurement the reason for the Wave Function Collapse, the function that
expresses a probable nature and not exact existence, and they considered the
nature of things to be probable and not clearly defined, because of the duality
shown by electrons and photons, concluding that things acquire their defined
properties because of measurement, as measurement doesn’t only reveal a
property, but it also causes it, and there are other interpretations of Quantum
Mechanics, like Decoherence theory, which ascribes the wave function collapse to
its interaction with the environment and not only measurement )31(.
One of the wonders of Quantum Physics is that with irradiated atoms, you can’t
determine which atoms would start decaying before the other, and you would hear
that this process is completely random that happens without a reason. Such words
actually mean that there is no unknown reason (like the hidden variables that
Einstein suggested), which if we discover, would refute Heisenberg’s Uncertainty
Principle and acquired certain knowledge. It doesn’t mean that there are no laws.
Because Uncertainty Principle does govern this phenomenon and can’t be outdone,
as the more precisely the position of the decaying nuclei are determined, the less
precisely their momentum can be known, and vice versa. This is an established and
fixed law that expresses causality and the abiding of everything by the laws of its
properties and its inability to surpass these laws. As these atoms can’t all decay at
the same time, and the relationship between uncertainty and the number of atoms
can’t be directly proportional, etc.
One of the wonders of the Quantum Mechanics world is also what is known as
Quantum Entanglement, which means that pairs of electrons interact in specific
ways or are generated together from the same source, they stay connected and
entangled)32(, as electrons of the same atomic energy levels, if one of them spins
upward, the other one would be spinning downward, a law known as Pauli
exclusion principle, even if they are separated from each other for distances bigger
than those that light can travel, the two would still be entangled at the same time.

(30( Hermann Wimmel (1992). Quantum physics & observed reality: a critical interpretation of quantum mechanics.
World Scientific. p. 2. ISBN 978-981-02-1010-6. Retrieved 9 May 2011
(31( Schlosshauer, Maximilian (2005). "Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum
mechanics". Reviews of Modern Physics 76 (4): 1267–1305. arXiv:quant-ph/0312059.
Bibcode:2004RvMP...76.1267S. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1267
(32( Einstein A, Podolsky B, Rosen N; Podolsky; Rosen (1935). "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical
Reality Be Considered Complete?". Phys. Rev. 47 (10): 777–780. Bibcode:1935PhRv...47..777E. doi:10.1103/
PhysRev.47.777

59
Even if one of the two electrons is on one edge of the universe and the other is on
the other edge, they both get the same information at the same moment, and that
is a breach of locality, a principle that states that, an action at point (A) can have an
influence at another point (B), only if something in the space between those points
such as a field mediates the action, but this is in total harmony with the Uncertainty
Principle and Copenhagen interpretation, and at the same time in total
contradiction with determinism and locality and hidden variables. That is why the
verification of the phenomenon of quantum entanglement was a victory for
Copenhagen interpretation over the explanation provided by the hidden variables.
Another wonder of the Quantum Mechanics world’s is Quantum Superposition,
where an electron can exist in more than one place at the same time, and it’s also
a phenomenon governed by Schrodinger equation and Uncertainty Principle.
Another wonder is Quantum Tunneling, where a particle tunnels through a barrier
that is higher than the particle in energy, something that is impossible in classical
mechanics, because it’s like throwing a ball at the wall in front of you to find that
the ball penetrated the wall into the next room, but, because of the uncertainty
principle that governs the position and movement of subatomic particles, the
situation becomes different. Causality is contingent upon a law that governs a
thing, and it has nothing to do with the nature of this law or its formula, because
measuring things according to the properties of the things we can observe in our
big classical world is an erroneous measurement and it’s a fallacy known as
Inductive Generalization. Everything is governed by its own laws, and not by the
properties and laws of another.

(Figure 4)
60
We don’t use the upper left square (that represents classical physics in figure 4) to
conclude that God exists, but it’s causality that proves that truth, and there is no
meaning to causality other than that it’s the governing law and the condition that
necessitates the existence of things, and this is represented by all the squares in
figure 4.
Moving between the squares can’t also be done without conditions, as each law
works in its place, and nothing can work without a law. And this is what proves to
us that causality governs everything. The mystery that lies within the properties of
things which we are still working on understanding, never means that causality can
be nullified, but rather, it’s the nonexistence of any properties that can make the
principle of causality invalid, and this is impossible to happen. An example of this is
the mystery of the Self, the Self, or Soul which is the source of everything we are,
we do and think of, and which has characteristics that are much more bizarre than
all the wonders of quantum physics. The Soul that travels to other spheres during
our sleep, even though it’s still connected to the body at the same moment. Allah-
be He exalted- says :
“ Allah takes the souls at the time of their death, and those that do not die [He
takes] during their sleep. Then He keeps those for which He has decreed death
and releases the others for a specified term. Indeed in that are signs for a people
who give thought.” (Surah Az-Zumar :42). Even though it’s a great mystery, no
Muslim who believes in Quran ever thought that this contradicts the principle of
causality. This is because soul has its own properties that govern its existence.

Now, we go back to answering the question: does quantum physics destroy

causality?
Truth is quantum physics destroyed determinism, and not causality. The difference
between these two is explained by the Noble prize awarded Physicist Max Born,
one of the founders of Quantum Physics, in his book (Natural Philosophy of Cause
and chance), where he dedicated the first chapter titled “Causality and
Determinism”, to explain the difference between Determinism which is destroyed
by Quantum Physics, and the principle of Causality which still exists strongly, he
describes causality with great precision, and concludes the same meaning I clarified
in the beginning of this chapter, and here I quote from his book :

61
"Physics has given up causality is entirely unfounded. Modem physics, it is true, has
given up or modified many traditional ideas; but it would cease to be a science if it
had given up the search for the causes of phenomena")33(
Then he puts a definition of Determinism and a different one of Causality )34(, where
he says:
"Determinism postulates that events at different times are connected by laws in
such a way that predictions of unknown situations (past or future) can be made".
"By this formulation religious predestination is excluded, since it assumes that the
book of destiny is only open to God.
Causality postulates that there are laws by which the occurrence of an entity B of a
certain class depends on the occurrence of an entity A of another class, where the
word 'entity' means any physical object, phenomenon, situation, or event. A is
called the cause, B the effect."
He presents us with examples that show the difference between Causality and
Determinism, where he starts by clarifying that Causality governs the relationship
between all things, the effect being a necessary result of its cause, regardless of the
time and space of these relationships, as Causality exists in an absolute fashion,
regardless of time)35( :
'"Overpopulation is the cause of India's poverty'.
'The stability of British politics is caused by the institution of monarchy.'
'Wars are caused by the economic conditions.'
'There is no life on the moon because of the lack of an atmosphere containing
oxygen.'
'Chemical reactions are caused by the affinity of molecules.'
The common feature to which I wish to draw your attention is the fact that these
sentences state timeless relations. They say that one thing or one situation A causes
another B, meaning apparently that the existence of B depends on A, or that if A
were changed or absent, B would also be changed or absent".

(33( Born, M. (1949). Natural philosophy of cause and chance - The Waynflete lectures 1948 – p. 4.
(34( Born, M. (1949). Natural philosophy of cause and chance - The Waynflete lectures 1948 – p. 9.
(35( Born, M. (1949). Natural philosophy of cause and chance - The Waynflete lectures 1948 – p. 5- 6.

62
Then he made a comparison with similar statements, but fixed in time, explaining
Determinism in contrast with Causality:
'The Indian famine of 1946 was caused by a bad harvest'
'The fall of Hitler was caused by the defeat of his armies.'
'The American war of secession was caused by the economic situation of the slave
states'
'Life could develop on earth because of the formation of an atmosphere containing
oxygen'
'The destruction of Hiroshima was caused by the explosion of an atomic bomb'
In these sentences one definite event A is regarded as the cause of another B; both
events are more or less fixed in space and time".
Then he mentioned an example of a determined non-causal relationship: the time
table of a railway line)36(. Which is determined and fixed in time, but non-causal, as
there is no cause that controls this relationship, and that’s why we can change
these times whenever we wish:
"Another example is the timetable of a railway line. You can predict with its help
the arrival at King's Cross of the 10 o'clock from Waverley; but you can hardly say
that the timetable reveals a cause for this event. In other words, the law of the
time-table is deterministic: You can predict future events from it, but the question
'why?' makes no sense".
On the same page, he says:
"I prefer to use the expression 'causality' mainly for this timeless dependence. It is
exactly what experimentalists and observers mean when they trace a certain
phenomenon to a certain cause by systematic variation of conditions".
And lastly, he very clearly says that Determinism is not the same as Causality )37(,
and that Determinism is the one that killed Quantum Mechanics, whereas Causality
is the dependence of physical situations upon others, or certain conditions :
"can we be content with accepting chance, not Cause, as the supreme law of the
physical world?

(36( Born, M. (1949). Natural philosophy of cause and chance - The Waynflete lectures 1948 – p. 8.
(37( Born, M. (1949). Natural philosophy of cause and chance - The Waynflete lectures 1948 – p. 101- 102.

63
To this last question, I answer that not causality, properly understood, is
eliminated, but only a traditional interpretation of it, consisting in its identification
with determinism. I have taken pains to show that these two concepts are not
identical. Causality in my definition is the postulate that one physical situation
depends on the other, and causal research means the discovery of such
dependence. This is still true in quantum physics”.
And here we move from Max Born’s words to modern scientific research which
states that Determinism and Causality are two different things, and that if
Determinism was killed by Quantum Physics, Causality is still alive and well, this
principle is even the first axiom of Quantum Physics, as this research clarifies )38( :
"Causality in science is usually related to the cause-and-effect principle and is often
naively misinterpreted as a restatement of determinism. From this point of view, it
can be surprising that we take causality as the first axiom of Quantum Theory,
which is popularly known as the theory of the uncertainty principle. However, in
our precise formulation, causality only implies that communication in an
operational probabilistic theory cannot occur from the output to the input".
This research)39( done by the same teamwork also stated that Causality the first of
five elementary axioms of Quantum Physics theory:
"We derive Quantum Theory from purely informational principles. Five elementary
axioms : causality..".
These newest research papers, which are still in blueprint phase)40(, confirm the
same thing which the previous papers stated.
However, there is another paper )41( which clearly states that Causality is a totally
separate definition from Determinism, even though there are many connections
between them, and they prove that by presenting a definite non-causal model.
Here, Quantum Physics presents the non-deterministic causal model, while this
paper presents us with the opposite model, and this proves that the two ideas are
totally separate:

(38( Chiribella, G., D'Ariano, G. M., & Perinotti, P. (2012, March). Informational axioms for quantum theory. In
FOUNDATIONS OF PROBABILITY AND PHYSICS-6 (Vol. 1424, No. 1, pp. 270-281). AIP Publishing
(39( Chiribella, G., D’Ariano, G. M., & Perinotti, P. (2011). Informational derivation of quantum theory. Physical
Review A, 84(1), 012311.
(40( Chiribella, Giulio, Giacomo Mauro D'Ariano, and Paolo Perinotti. "Quantum from principles." arXiv preprint
arXiv:1506.00398 (2015).
(41( DʼAriano, G. M., Manessi, F., & Perinotti, P. (2014). Determinism without causality. Physica Scripta, 2014
(T163), 014013.

64
"Causality has often been confused with the notion of determinism. It is mandatory
to separate the two notions in view of the debate about quantum foundations.
Quantum theory provides an example of causal non-deterministic theory. Here we
introduce a toy operational theory that is deterministic and non-causal, thus
proving that the two notions of causality and determinism are totally
independent".
So, Quantum Physics didn’t kill Causality as the latest hype suggests, but rather, it
killed Determinism.
We could say that Determinism is the opposite of Causality, because the
relationship between Determinism and time is more important than its relationship
with cause and effect, as it can exist independently from the relationship between
cause and effect, but it can’t be independent of being fixed in time, whereas
Causality’s attachment with the relationship between cause and effect is the main
attachment that Causality can’t be independent of, while time, to causality is a
secondary factor, that it can do without.
And because of the inseparability between determinism and time, and definiteness
of matter and energy and events, it opposes Quantum Physics that states that
uncertainty and non-definiteness are some of nature’s qualities. and since
Einstein’s perception of time is entrenched in Determinism, as he believes that
past, present and future are definite things (this will be explained later), this belief
contradicts Quantum Physics that’s based on probability, because if you say to
someone who adopts Determinism that present is a probability, and measurement
can affect the future, to him it would be like saying that an event that took place in
the past is a changeable probability, and that is doubtlessly insane, and maybe that
is what caused the tension between the proponents of Determinism, led by
Einstein, and the proponents of the probability theory adopted by Quantum
Theory.
And that is the reason Einstein thought that Quantum Mechanics is incomplete,
and that there must be hidden variables, which if we know, we would be able to
acquire the determinism that lies within those probable results. Truth is, then, that
the conflict was always around Determinism and never Causality as some thought,
the best proof for that are the words of Max Born himself, who was a party in that
conflict, and there are many conversations between him and Einstein about this
matter which were published in a book titled (The Born Einstein Letters) )42(

(42( Einstein, A., Born, M., & Born, H. (1971). Born-Einstein Letters.

65
Then experiments that support Quantum Physics in opposition to Determinism and
hidden variables came in the end, and confirmed that there are limits to the
precision of things in nature. Adopting Determinism is really adopting Classical
Mechanics way of thinking, and this shows that Determinism didn’t emerge from
Causality, let alone being itself the same as the principle of Causality.
There is also what is known as Adequate Determinism, and it’s a quite correct
understanding, as it sees that the probabilities of Quantum Mechanics are not quite
random, but they are rather, part of the Natural Law. This is a form of determinism,
but it is different from the old understanding and nearer to the truth. This
understanding shows that the randomness of the quantum physics don’t mean that
Quantum Physics aren’t governed by laws or consistent relationships as some
would imagine. This new definition of Determinism was mentioned by Stephen
Hawking, the atheist physicist, in his book “Grand Design”)43(:
"Quantum physics might seem to undermine the idea that nature is governed by
laws, but that is not the case. Instead it leads us to accept a new form of
determinism: Given the state of a system at some time, the laws of nature
determine the probabilities of various futures and pasts rather than determining
the future and past with certainty".
But, on the other hand, there is a definition other than Determinism that could lead
to a lot of misunderstanding if you also deal with it philosophically only, and that is
the chronological order of events, or the concept of time itself. Time was, in
Newton’s time, had the same meaning that we all understand, that it is fixed and
absolute, but it isn’t like that anymore after Einstein’s special theory of relativity,
and this might even have started years before that, since Michael Faraday’s work,
then James Clerk Maxwell’s equations and Lorentz transformation derived from
those equations, and also the Michelson-Morley experiment, as all these leads
revealed one of the strangest facts about nature, that is the Light Speed Invariance,
the phenomenon which changed our perception of the universe, and space and
time for good.
Einstein’s relativity theory came to adopt this new understanding basing itself on
these previous efforts, the speed of light, or the fabric of space-time being
constant, but time itself or space itself are variant coordinates relative to an implied
observer. That perception that time is absolute has become obsolete, and there is
nothing that can be fixed that can be used as a reference frame, except the speed

(43( Grand Design - Stephen Hawking - Bantam (September 7, 2010) p. 72.

66
of light, and although Time Dilation seems very logical if we deal with it
mathematically, it becomes totally meaningless if we contemplate it
philosophically.
From a mathematical point of view it becomes very clear, because the distance
travelled by light, to a person on a moving frame of reference, presented in figure
5 by a person riding a missile and watching a light pulse shot from a light source
reflecting back and getting back to the same source, it must be less than the
distance that light would travel relative to the other observer in a non-inertial
frame of reference, relative to the missile, observing the same event from the
ground. If the event was the same, but the distance light had travelled is different,
and the speed of light is constant to all the observers, speed being distance divided
by time, this difference in distance can’t be compensated by anything but change
in time, and therefore time, to the man riding the missile would slow down every
time he approaches the speed of light, the amount of time dilation is what
compensates the difference of distance travelled by light.

Figure (5)
But if you now stop and try to contemplate the philosophical meaning of time this
time dilation equation expresses (Equation 2)

Equation (2)
67
You won’t be able to find such a meaning, and surely, this physical concept doesn’t
have anything to do with the philosophical meaning we aim in our colloquial use of
the word “time”. That is why, when some physicists wanted to define time with
words, and not with equations, all what they could say is : ” time is what is
measured by a clock”)44( and that is not a joke! it’s a very famous definition among
physicists, especially when they speak about relativity, and it’s often quoted in
physics books. And this physical concept of time has consequences like:

1. Believing in eternity or Eternalism

And that’s the belief that present, past and future all do exist in reality, and not
only mentally or conceptually, and this surely transforms the idea of time into
something totally different than what we think of when we hear someone speak of
time, it even renders meaningless the concept that time flows and consists of
consecutive periods of time or events, and Einstein did really believe that. This
understanding developed with time until the founders of Quantum Gravity Theory
started establishing models of the origin of the universe without time at all)45(, and
they consider time as a gauge redundancy. In opposition to the concept of
Eternalism there is the concept of Presentism, that is our familiar understanding of
time, where past and future only exist in our heads, and that only present has an
ontological meaning. But this is a philosophical contemplation and not a physical
one.
2. Relative causality, or Einstein’s relativistic principle of causality
And here appears the problem of Jargon again, because when you reduce a general
concept to a single fraction (the part your scientific field studies), you start to see
the contradictions and discrepancies in your philosophy, and the way you see
things, as the concept of Causality is a general concept that includes the fixed
relationships and co-relationships between material and even abstract things, thus
Causality includes all physical and logical laws and everything meaningful and
everything that has concrete existence, and even though cause and effect
relationships are active in Einstein’s relativistic causality, they are based on its
previous concept of time, space and speed of light, because, as time is not absolute
anymore, and for the causal relationship to exist between an event which physics
(44( Time Is What You Measure With a Clock - Posted by Chad Orzel on April 29, 2013.
http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2013/04/29/what-is-time/
(45( Barbour, J. B. (1994). The timelessness of quantum gravity: I. The evidence from the classical theory. Classical
and Quantum Gravity, 11(12), 2853

68
call “Cause” and another event “Effect”, it has to be based on something fixed,
otherwise, what separates between the two events on the time-like interval, is
exactly the same that separates between them on space-like interval, and that’s
why an observer can see the two events happening at the same time, but in a
different place, or see the effect happening before the cause, or a cause before the
effect, and for a cause to precede the effect, it’s a must to refer to the fixed factor,
which is the speed of light or space-time fabric, as each single dot or event localized
in time-space fabric has this light cone (figure 6), and all the results/ effects caused
by this event will fall on the future part (the upper part) of the cone that represents
that event, while all the causes which affect this event/dot will appear on the past
part (the downward part) of the event’s cone.

Figure (6)
So, when is Einstein’s relativistic causality violated?
It’s violated when a piece of information (like the emanation of an electro-magnetic
pulse from one point to another) with a speed greater than light’s, or an energy
moving with a greater speed than light’s, or a particle being accelerated with a
greater speed than light’s, or an object possessing mass is moving with the speed
of light. And that is because relativistic causality means you can’t get an information
or an energy to move with a greater speed than light speed. There are things that
travel speedier than light (Superluminal), but they don’t transport an information
69
or energy, so that’s not a violation of relativistic causality. It’s the same with the
theoretical hypothesis of Tachyonic particles which always travel speedier than
light, these particles aren’t being accelerated to be faster than light, they are just
always faster than light. This is not a violation of relativistic causality.
But what if there is an event in time-space fabric that has an effect outside its future
light cone?
When this happens, that effect will have happened simultaneously, and that
information or energy is transported faster than light, and this what Einstein was
vehemently asserting that it’s impossible during his debates with Neils Bohr )46(, but
Quantum Physics made has already made it possible, in a phenomena known as
Quantum Entanglement, which proved right the prophecies of Quantum Physics
and the wrongness of the expectations of the hidden variables of John Bell, known
as Bell’s Theorem, and this is considered violation of relativistic causality and the
hypothesis of the hidden variables.
Does this have anything to do with the causality we’re discussing?
Of course not. Because it’s not our concern whether information travels with a
speed greater than light (relativistic causality) or simultaneously (Quantum
Physics), and we aren’t trying to engage in this battle, and in our discussion about
causality as a self-evident principle, we’re not concerned with this particular aspect
about light speed, and we never found difficulty contemplating the existence of a
causal relationship called Quantum Entanglement, where cause influences effect in
a simultaneous fashion, because everything has its particular nature which
evidence reveals, and this doesn’t have anything to do with the meaning of
causality itself. And here is a scientific paper stating these words )47(:
"Some physicists argue that faster-than-light communication contradicts the
principle of causality, but this is also nothing but a myth".
Now, after we discussed some of the physical concepts about time, relativistic
causality and determinism, I would like to get back to finish answering the question
(does Quantum Physics destroy Causality?)
1-3 There also those who quote from scientific research that employs jargon to
refer to Causality, when it’s in fact discussing Determinism, or things related to

(46( Bohr N. The Value of Knowledge: A Miniature Library of Philosophy. Marxists Internet Archive. 30-08-2010.
From Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (1949), publ. Cambridge University Press, 1949. Niels Bohr's report of
conversations with Einstein.
(47( Nikolić, H. (2007). Quantum mechanics: Myths and facts. Foundations of Physics, 37(11), 1563-1611.

70
some of the physical consequences of time, then they claim that to be an evidence
against Causality, because papers like such, prove that in the Quantum world, the
effect happens before the cause, or that the effect influences its cause, etc. for
example, their quoting of Ognyan Oreshkov’s research)48(, carrying this hot title :
Quantum Correlations with no Causal Order.
And answering that research is as the following manner:
1-3-1 the research is a theoretical model and not a practical experiment:
"The natural question is whether 'non-causal' quantum correlations of the kind
described by our formalism can be found in nature. One can speculate that they
may exist in unprobed physical regimes, such as, for example, those in which
quantum mechanics and general relativity become relevant".
1-3-2 This model shows something similar to what John Bell did when he clarified
that Quantum Entanglement is correct, and that “determinism and not causality”
has been thus destroyed. But John worked on showing the effects of non-locality,
while this model works on showing entanglement in time. And if the two models
are compatible, and if it is a well-known fact that John Bell’s work was pouring in
an opposite direction to Determinism and hidden variables, and never discussed
Causality as it truly means, then Ognyan’s work is in the same direction.
1-3-3 the idea the researchers are discussing is that there is a quantum but non-
causal relationship, meaning that there is no “before” or “after”, and therefore,
there is no cause or effect (that is because the purpose of the research is showing
non-determinism in time), because this relationship is governed by the same
principles that govern the quantum world, being affected by the surrounding
environment and Measurement, just the same way they affect Superposition when
it collapses, or a wavefunction as it collapses as an effect of measurement, so, if we
must name it causality, then let it be indefinite Causality which have random
variables (non-deterministic), just similar to the atomic particles that are non-
definite in their speed or locality, i.e., it would also be governed by the uncertainty
principle that governs the Quantum world, meaning that all he wants is to undo
determinism in time which negates the uncertainty principle and its probabilistic
approach. Therefore, all the discussion answering the mistake of confounding
Determinism and Causality apply to this research, because Determinism is based
on the concept of fixed points in time, and it can’t abandon that, unlike Causality,

( 48( Oreshkov, O., Costa, F., & Brukner, Č. (2012). Quantum correlations with no causal order. Nature
communications, 3, 1092

71
which can function without time with the presence of causal relationships totally
independent of time; as shown in the examples out forward by Max Born which we
listed in the beginning of this chapter.
And this is a quote of another research)49( titled “Quantum Causality” by Caslav
Brukner, Ognyan’s partner in the research we are discussing :
"If one assumes that quantum mechanical laws can be applied to causal relations,
one might have situations in which the causal order of events is not always fixed,
but is subject to quantum uncertainty, just like position or momentum".
1-3-4- General Relativity because of the ripples in space-time fabric came with the
same theoretical expectation that states that a thing can affect its past, but it made
the same thing affects its cause, which resulted in the famous paradox known as
The Grandfather Paradox)50(, a paradox hypothesizing that a person has succeeded
in making a big wormhole and he travelled through it to the past and he killed his
grandfather or his father or himself when he was a kid, which really destroys
Causality if it happens, because here, there is a fixed cause and a fixed effect and it
is obvious that the specific result affected its specific cause.
That is why the Grandfather Paradox is a logical paradox that’s impossible to
happen, even if General Relativity allowed it, there must exist something else that
would prevent this from happening, and the famous atheist physicist Stephen
Hawking already presented a paper discussing the meaning of this)51(, and there
also exists a principle known as the Novikov self-consistency principle, which makes
the possibility that someone might succeed in changing something in the past
equals zero, and that this will throw him in a closed time loop.
The Grandfather Paradox is impossible to happen, and if it happens it would be a
real breach to Causality, because it takes “specificity” in cause and effect a point of
start, then the effect happens without its cause, but what researchers presented in
the research we’re discussing is not that, but something different that avoids the
Grandfather Paradox because it takes “non-specificity” of cause and effect as a
point of start (and proving this is the purpose of the research in the first place),
then follows the interchanging of causes and effects or the working of Uncertainty
Principle upon it.

(49( Brukner, Č. (2014). Quantum causality. Nature Physics, 10 (4), 259-263.

(50( Nahin, Paul J. (1999). Time Machines: Time Travel in Physics, Metaphysics, and Science Fiction. American
Institute of Physics. ISBN 0-387-98571-9
(51( Hawking, S. W. (1992). Chronology protection conjecture. Physical Review D, 46(2), 603

72
And here is a simple quote from Ognyan’s research after he mentions the
Grandfather Paradox :
"Yet paradoxes are avoided".
As that research proposes the hypothesis of the non-existence of a global
background time, and as we’ve seen from our previous discussion about the
meaning of Determinism and the difference between it and Causality, Causality
being an absolute relationship independent of time, and Determinism being
specificity in time, as assuming specificity or non-specificity in time greatly affects
determinism, but it doesn’t have any effect on Causality.
And here is another quote from Ognyan’s research explaining this once again:
"Figure 2: Local quantum experiments with no assumption of a pre-existing
background time or global causal structure".
The meaning of Causality which this research addresses is determined by the
definition of global background time. If Uncertainty Principle applies to time, there
won’t exist a global background time, and if something’s existence is contingent
upon existing at a fixed point in time, then this is a deterministic and not a causal
relationship, and even if the research is using the term “Causality”, it’s only using it
as jargon, thus we again state that the proposed model doesn’t contradict Causality
with its true meaning, because the model doesn’t first determine a cause and an
effect and then proves that the effect influences its cause, it then has nothing to do
with the Grandfather Paradox, and that’s why the researcher asserts that
paradoxes are avoided, as clarified by (figure 7) published in Caslav’s research,
that’s why he put his model (e) independent of the Grandfather Paradox’s (d).

Figure (7)
73
And he also said:
"All causal loops and paradoxes are avoided".

Do Hypothetical Particles emerge From Nothingness?

And now, to another important question; their claim that hypothetical particles
emerge into space from nothingness, and borrow energy from the future by
violating the law of conservation of energy for a short time, thus acquiring energy
from nothing, which gives the possibility for endless universes to appear this way,
out of nothingness, and our universe could be one of these endless possibilities?
And before we answer this question, I believe we need to learn something about
the background of this subject, and how physics define words like “nothingness” or
“void”, what are hypothetical particles and which physical principles govern these
phenomena...etc.

Introduction
We start by quoting from a simple physics book, titled “The Structured
Quote)53(: “no more important for the vacuum probably is the other uncertainty
relation, namely that between energy and time. This uncertainty relation tells us
that it is not possible to measure an energy absolutely accurately in a finite time. It
would take an infinite time to measure energy precisely. If one now has a vacuum
and looks at the vacuum for a certain short period of time, then the energy in this
vacuum is not well-defined.”
It also states)54(: “ If we were to make every effort to take all forms of energy from
this region, we could find some form of energy still inside as long as the period of
observation is sufficiently short…. I would define the vacuum now in the following
way : given a certain region of space, I would say that it is in its vacuum state when
on the average it has the lowest possible energy” or what’s called Zero-point-
energy. i.e. Physics define “the void” or “nothingness” as “the lowest possible
energy”, and not nothingness” as the word linguistically implies, and the reason we
think that there is no real void in the universe, and that there will always be a level

(52( Rafelski, J., & Müller, B. (1985). The Structured Vacuum: Thinking about Nothing. H. Deutsch.
(53( The Structured Vacuum p14
(54( The Structured Vacuum p15

74
of energy, that is the lowest possible energy, or zero-point-energy, or what can be
described as :” the relations of energy and time with Uncertainty Principle as Neils
Bohr concluded, similar to the relations of speed and location with Uncertainty
Principle as Heisenberg puts it.” and that’s because it requires non- precision of
energy measurement, always leaving a level of energy that can’t reach absolute
zero. This is also known as Vacuum Energy, and that’s why Stephen Hawking
says)55(:
"the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which we discussed in Chapter 4. It is not
obvious, but it turns out that with regard to that principle, the value of a field and
its rate of change play the same role as the position and velocity of a particle. That
is, the more accurately one is determined, the less accurately the other can be. An
important consequence of that is that there is no such thing as empty space. That
is because empty space means that both the value of a field and its rate of change
are exactly zero. (If the field’s rate of change were not zero, the space would not
remain empty.) Since the uncertainty principle does not allow the values of both
the field and the rate of change to be exact, space is never empty. It can have a
state of minimum energy, called the vacuum, but that state is subject to what are
called quantum jitters, or vacuum fluctuations particles and fields Quivering in and
out of Existence".

So, where do hypothetical particles come from?

Vacuum energy is like any quantum field, will vibrate and fluctuate, as this is
characteristic of quantum fields. These vacuum fluctuations generate virtual
particles, which supposedly go out into the universe, then they start annihilating
each other within a very short period of time determined by the principle of
Uncertainty, and there are those who argue that those particles violate the law of
conservation of energy, because their energy is much greater than the real particles
from which they emerge, they borrow energy from the future, then speedily give it
back, because they annihilate each other. Some of these concepts were already
utilized to create models of the beginning of the cosmos. For example, the theory
about the origin of the Universe as a quantum tunneling event, because of the
quantum process of transition from the false vacuum state to the true vacuum
state, true vacuum state meaning the lowest possible energy, illustrated in
figure 8 with a short intermittent line (to the left), representing a level of energy

(55( Stephen Hawking`s Grand Design, ch5, p178

75
that can’t reach zero, as true vacuum is not equivalent to “no energy”, or absolute
nothingness, as in Alexander Vilenkin’s theory)56(. The vibrations and fluctuations
of vacuum energy are also used by these models.

Figure (8)
There are many similar models, but unfortunately pop science articles and books
continue to propagate this notion, explained to people by famous atheist Physicists
like Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss, and others.
This was first suggested by Edward Tryon in the year 1973, in a paper )57( published
in Nature magazine, titled “Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation? “ where he based
his understanding on the assumption that the sum total of all quantities upon which
the laws of conservation of energy work equal zero, and since the sum total of
negative and positive energies is zero, then the universe might have emerged as a
result of quantum fluctuation, and according to the law of conservation of energy,
positive energy being represented by matter, equals negative energy which is
represented by gravity (they’re not necessarily always equal, as for example, planet
earth’s matter is greater than its gravity, and the gravity of a star is bigger than its
matter, and that is the reason why stars collapse and explode, formulating black
holes.
If the universe’s positive and negative energies are equal, this observation would
support this hypothesis, and this can be tested by measuring the shape of the
universe, if it’s a flat universe (Omega Ω = 1), then this means that both these
energies are equal. The experimental proof of a vacuum energy which cause

(56( Vilenkin, A. (1982). Creation of universes from nothing. Physics Letters B, 117, 25-28.
(57( Tryon, E. P. (1973). Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation?. Nature, 246, 396-397.

76
all these phenomena to spring into existence, is Casimir Effect) 58( , as Stephen
Weinberg asserts)59( :
"Perhaps surprisingly, it was along time before particle physicists began seriously
to worry about quantum zero point fluctuation contributions to λ despite the
demonstration in the Casimir effect of the reality of zero-point energies".
Also S.M. Carroll states)60( :
“And the vacuum fluctuations themselves are very real, as evidenced by the Casimir
Effect”
1-2- and now comes the time to answer the question, and also discuss the
introduction of this chapter a little more.
As certainty principle is in reality just the relationship between the momentum of
a particle (p) with its position (x), as illustrated in equation 3 :

Equation (3)
As for the relationship between time (t) and energy (e), it’s not a fixed principle :

Equation (4)
Because even though time and energy are conjugate variables, just like momentum
and position, and Fourier analysis will provide an amount of uncertainty necessary
to make the spreading of any wave energy possible, the relationship between time
and energy is still not fixed like the relationship between momentum and position,
because time is not an operator in Quantum Mechanics, but rather, an instrument
or a parameter, and models were already created where energy was successfully

(58( Casimir Effect: Casimir forces on parallel plates, The typical example is of the two uncharged conductive plates
in a vacuum, placed a few nanometers apart. In a classical description, the lack of an external field means that there is
no field between the plates, and no force would be measured between them.[1] When this field is instead studied using
the quantum electrodynamic vacuum, it is seen that the plates do affect the virtual photons which constitute the field,
and generate a net force[2] – either an attraction or a repulsion depending on the specific arrangement of the two
plates.
(59( Weinberg, S. (1989). The cosmological constant problem. Reviews of Modern Physics, 61(1), 1
(60( S. M. Carroll, Living Rev. Rel. 4, 1 (2001).

77
measured with perfect precision)61(. This breaches the relationship between the
uncertainty of time and energy, and invalidates it as a law.
The truth of the matter is, that nobody knows whether there really exists such a
thing as “vacuum energy” or not, especially in the absence of any experimental
proof of it, and even if we hypothetically believe that it vacuum energy exists, it is
not considered a violation of the law of conservation of energy, because what is
subject to measurement here is only a segment of vacuum fluctuations, and in
order for us to determine whether there is real violation, we must first be able to
measure all the vacuum energy that exists in the whole universe, and then find
actual changes in these measurements.
If we really could measure this energy, we would always find a fixed amount of it,
because fluctuations occurring in one place in the universe, would always be
compensated by other fluctuations in other places, as the sum total of the energy
is fixed always, as Luboš Motl, a professor of theoretical physics asserts in his
blog)62(, in his answers to those who expressed their desire to build a perpetual
motion machine that works with perpetual vacuum energy, exploiting the
possibility of violating the laws of conservation of energy, stating in the same
article:
“Quantum mechanics works perfectly, it works for all systems in the Universe
exactly, and it leads to many phenomena that weren't possible in any classical
theory. However, it also 100% confirms certain laws that have already existed in
classical physics. And the momentum and energy conservation laws belong to the
latter category".
And here is professor Steve Luttrell, also professor of theoretical physics, in one of
his articles on his blog)63( stating that there is no violation of the law of conservation
of energy anywhere, and that the common understanding that Uncertainty
Principle allows the violation of this law, even if for a very short period of time, is a
myth, and explaining that Feynman’s diagrams show that a system’s energy is
always preserved in all steps of the reaction :

(61( Aharonov, Y., & Bohm, D. (1961). Time in the quantum theory and the uncertainty relation for time and energy.
Physical Review, 122(5), 1649
(62( Is the vacuum empty and boring?
http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/05/is-vacuum-empty-and-boring.html
(63( Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
http://luttrellica.blogspot.com/2005/10/heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle.html

78
"I keep seeing Heisenberg's uncertainty principle described in popular journalese
as allowing a temporary violation of the law of energy conservation (or of the law
of momentum conservation). The argument goes that HUP allows you to lend or
borrow energy as long as settlement is made very soon, and that this arrangement
represents a temporary violation of the law of energy conservation.
The truth is that there is no violation of the law of energy conservation.
The lending or borrowing of energy (and momentum) is done in a way that always
respects energy (and momentum) conservation".
Steve and Luboš statements are based on the assumption that vacuum energy does
exist, considering that the uncertainty relationships between time and energy can
be passed as real, and can be dealt with like its counterpart relationship between
momentum and position, i.e. if we acknowledge that vacuum energy exists, it’s an
energy that appeared into existence as an effect of a physical law, and it never
violated the law of conservation of energy, and it didn’t appear out of
“nothingness”.
Even if we acknowledge that vacuum energy exists, this doesn’t mean that
something succeeded in violating the principle of Causality or that it managed to
exist without a cause, and the models that assume that the universe resulted from
vacuum energy have no value, not only because there is no proof that vacuum
energy is real, but also because if this could have happened, then vacuum energy
itself would be an “event”, just like all other things, because it, too, would be
governed by physical laws, and consequently, governed by Causality. Being one
event in a chain of events, and it can’t be described as “eternal”, nor does that
make the universe a self-created and a self-organizing phenomena, but the truth
is, that the relationship between time and energy is not equal to that between
momentum and position, as research shows, there is no principle that supports the
existence of vacuum energy.

2-2- But what about Casimir Effect? Isn’t this a proof that vacuum energy exists?
Casimir Effect can be explained without the need of vacuum energy, therefore, it
can’t be an evidence that vacuum energy exists, and here is a scientific paper
explaining this)64( :

(64( Jaffe, R. L. (2005). Casimir effect and the quantum vacuum. Physical Review D, 72(2), 021301

79
"I have presented an argument that the experimental confirmation of the Casimir
effect does not establish the reality of zero point fluctuations. Casimir forces can
be calculated without reference to the vacuum".

2-3- What about hypothetical particles? Doesn’t the existence of such particles
prove that vacuum energy exists?
The answer is of course not, because Quantum Field Theory can be completely
formulated and explained without the slightest reference of hypothetical particles
or to vacuum fluctuations (and quantum field is where these hypothetical
particles exist), as Schwinger did in his reference book)65( “Particles, Sources, and
Fields”.
Moreover, the very existence of the hypothesis of the existence of such particles
goes back to using an approximating mathematical method appropriate for the
indefinite and turbulent wavy nature of the quantum world, called perturbation
theory; a mathematical method that deals with “unsolvable” problems by providing
“approximate” solutions in order to override the problem, and not by presenting
“real” and “cut” solutions, but such a mathematical method can be dispensed with,
and therefore, the hypothetical particles will completely disappear, and this is what
exactly happened with Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), the theory that explains
the strong interaction between quarks and gluon, being one of the two branches
of QFT, the other branch being QED (Quantum Electrodynamics), which describe
the interactions between electrons and photons. QCD “abandoned” the
hypothetical particles because of a theory known as Lattice Gauge, where other
non-perturbative approaches to solving the quantum chromodynamics were used
and resulted in the “non-existence” of hypothetical particles)66(.
There is more to this, concerning the hypothetical particles, as this scientific
research)67( describes dealing with hypothetical particles as physical reality, as one
of the biggest myths, not only in the world of Quantum Physics, but also within the
entire Physics world :
"The calculational tool represented by Feynman diagrams suggests an often abused
picture according to which “real particles interact by exchanging virtual particles”.
Many physicists, especially nonexperts, take this picture literally, as something that

(65( J. Schwinger, Particles, Sources, and Fields I, II, and III AddisonWesley.
(66( Creutz, M. (1983). Quarks, gluons and lattices (Vol. 8). Cambridge University Press.
(67( Nikolić, H. (2007). Quantum mechanics: Myths and facts. Foundations of Physics, 37(11), 1563-1611.

80
really and objectively happens in nature. In fact, I have never seen a popular text
on particle physics in which this picture was not presented as something that really
happens. Therefore, this picture of quantum interactions as processes in which
virtual particles exchange is one of the most abused myths, not only in quantum
physics, but in physics in general. Indeed, there is a consensus among experts for
foundations of QFT that such a picture should not be taken literally.
The fundamental principles of quantum theory do not even contain a notion of a
“virtual” state. The notion of a “virtual particle” originates only from a specific
mathematical method of calculation, called perturbative expansion. In fact,
perturbative expansion represented by Feynman diagrams can be introduced even
in classical physics [52, 53], but nobody attempts to verbalize these classical
Feynman diagrams in terms of classical “virtual” processes.
So why such a verbalization is tolerated in quantum physics? The main reason is
the fact that the standard interpretation of quantum theory does not offer a clear
“canonical” ontological picture of the actual processes in nature, but only provides
the probabilities for the final results of measurement outcomes. In the absence of
such a “canonical” picture, physicists take the liberty to introduce various auxiliary
intuitive pictures that sometimes help them think about otherwise abstract
quantum formalism. Such auxiliary pictures, by themselves, are not a sin. However,
a potential problem occurs when one forgets why such a picture has been
introduced in the first place and starts to think on it too literally".
So, hypothetical particles are only a mathematical calculation, and what we see in
Feynman’s diagrams is not a description of a real phenomenon, but rather a
description of “our way” of calculating it. thus, the diagrams never claim that
hypothetical particles (the fluctuating lines in figure 9) is a reality that exists in the
world.

Figure (9)
81
Thus, it’s meaningless to speak of universes springing into existence because of
these particles, or that the void is not empty because it’s teeming with them. It’s
also meaningless to say that these particles appear into existence out of
nothingness, then go back to nothingness, or any similar deluding expressions.
Equally meaningless is the saying that these particles violate the law of
conservation of energy, because this law is fundamental to Quantum Physics (it’s
the foundation upon which Schrödinger built his equation) and also one of the
foundations of classical physics, an established fact that has been proved by
laboratory observations and mathematical proof, the mathematical expression of
Noether’s theorem, and a quantum equivalent to the Ward- Takahashi identities in
the equations of QFT, thus, in Feynman’s diagrams, energy must be conserved at
each interaction vertex)68(
"Energy and momentum are conserved at each vertex".
This causes the energy of the sum totality of the particles before and after the
interaction always fixed, and that’s the meaning of the law of conservation of
energy, therefore, measuring the energy of one particle is meaningless. We should
measure the total energy of the particles and also of all the diagrams, and then
we’d find that the system’s energy is always fixed, and conserved. The laws of
conservation of energy are presented by the vertexes, because these vertexes
represent the real particles “on shell”, with which the interaction began and ended.
As for the hypothetical particles “off shell”, their presence in the diagram doesn’t
mean they exist in reality, and they can never be verified in real existence, because
the very fact of them being “off shell” means that they can’t be observed, and the
impossibility of observing them doesn’t mean that they rapidly decay either. That
would be a great mistake, because unstable particles which rapidly decay, like w-
boson particles and others are actually “on shell” and not “off-shell” particles.
This causes a lot of confusion when you know that beta-decay for example, which
Feynman’s diagrams describe, includes w-boson, referring to it as a hypothetical
particle that possesses an energy greater than the particle from which it emanated,
which means that the law of conservation of energy is violated if that particle really
exists, then you come across a scientific research)69( speaking of observing the w-
boson. Truth is, the w-boson particle that is being observed is the real unstable
particle, and not a hypothetical one, and that’s because the real unstable particle

(68( Murihead, H. (2013). The physics of elementary particles. Elsevier

(69( Abe, F., Albrow, M. G., Amidei, D., Antos, J., Anway-Wiese, C., Apollinari, G.,... & Budd, H. S. (1995). Direct
measurement of the W boson width. Physical review letters, 74(3), 341

82
can exist in specific ways, but beta-decay is not one of these ways, because w-
boson is a hypothetical particle and a mathematical expression, and it doesn’t exist
in reality so it can be observed in the first place. Any particle is either real or
hypothetical (a real or a hypothetical photon- a real or a hypothetical
electron…etc.), but the existence of a real particle doesn’t mean that a hypothetical
particle also exists, because a real particle exists within certain conditions, while
hypothetical particles exist only in the mathematical world, inside diagrams and
calculations and can never get to be observed in the interactions where they’re
assumed to exist.

2-2-4 What about antimatter particles?

There is a situation very similar to that of the w-boson’s, that is anti-matter
particles, most famously, the positron. Also hypothesized by Feynman, it’s defined
as a positively charged electron that travels from the future into the past, which
makes its existence contradictory to the principle of causality, because it’s an effect
that happens before its cause. This phenomenon is known as retro-causality. But
positrons do exist, and they’re already used for medicinal purposes- Positron
Emission Tomography. So, does that mean that a positron, as it exists, really travels
from the future?
The answer is definitely no. that is only jargon expression describing a
mathematical tool that’s being used to facilitate calculations, by making the
positron’s time negative, so it seems to move backwards in time, but this can never
exist in reality, as Schumm asserts in his book )70( :
"Note that, regardless of whether the particle travels forward or backward in time
in our quantum field theory calculation, particles we observe in the laboratory
always travel forward in time".

Are there real infinities in the material world and the quantum field?
There is another argument, also related to QFT, that is the assumption by some
people that QFT theory reveals the factual existence of infinity in the material
world, and that mathematics also revealed that we are able to assign finite values
for infinite sums, and that that proves that the existence of infinite chains in the

(70( Schumm, B. A. (2004). Deep down things: The breathtaking beauty of particle physics. JHU Press.

83
material world is possible, so why can’t our universe be an eternal chain of infinite
self-subsisting events? There are indeed mathematical methods indicating that the
sum total of infinite positive integers equals = - 1/12. Moreover, this formula is used
employed by the most precise scientific theory that exists: QED theory, which
precision can reach 1/10 in a trillion.
This formula is directly used in measuring vacuum energy and hypothetical
particles, a process known as renormalization, so, does this mean that there can
exist a physical object that can be described as “infinite”? The answer is of course
not. Because hypothetical particles, as we previously discussed, are only
mathematical tools, and not a real phenomenon, therefore, to say that a
hypothetical electron possess an infinite mass for example, is not a description of
a real phenomenon, but only mathematical existences, and there exists no single
professional scientist who thinks of them as real when they use these expressions,
as mentioned in this book, titled “Achilles in the Quantum Universe”) 71( , when
mentioned that a hypothetical electron’s mass is infinite:
"The electron must have infinite mass. Of course, no one believes this is literally
true. But it happens to be true in the best theory that we have at the moment. And,
until a better theory comes along, viewing the electron in this manner will continue
to be unavoidable". So, in conclusion, all this doesn’t prove the existence of an
infinite object in the material existence. The same thing applies to the
mathematical methods that deal with these particles and assign definite values for
them. whomever propagates this assumption in order to make it seem that the
material world or even mathematics have finally acknowledged these infinities, are
actually practicing fraud, because renormalization is an approximating method that
assigns finite values for the infinite possibilities that these hypothetical particles
carry with them, for example, renormalization in QED is a process of reducing all
infinite possible solutions of this semi-triangular space in figure (10) :

Figure (10)

(71( Morris, R. (1998). Achilles in the quantum universe: The definitive history of infinity. Souvenir

84
To this specific path line marked with (x) in figure (11)

Figure (11)
And if we now know that hypothetical particles don’t have real existence, and that
the fallacious assumption about the existence of an infinite object in the physical
realm is invalid, there remains another problem, that is if the process of
renormalization turns infinite values into finite sums, then how did mathematics
permit assigning finite sums to infinite values?
Helge Kragh)72( had already communicated Paul Dirac’s vehement criticism towards
the scientists who are contently satisfied with the high precision results that QED
provide us with, and because they neglect the fact that these are only approximate
results or mathematical generalized reasoning, and that they neglect values when
they’re small, but at the same time neglect infinitely great values, just because they
don’t want them, and that is meaningless in mathematics :
"Most physicists are very satisfied with the situation. They say: 'Quantum
electrodynamics is a good theory and we do not have to worry about it anymore.'
I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation because this so-called 'good
theory' does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting
them in an arbitrary way.
This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a
quantity when it is small – not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you
do not want it!".
Feynman himself, the founder of QED, describes this practice as a “dippy process”,
and renormalization as “not mathematically legitimate”)73( :
"The shell game that we play... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter
how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to

(72( Kragh, H. (1990). Dirac: a scientific biography. Cambridge University Press, p. 184.
(73( Feynman, R. P. (1985). QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, P. 128.

85
such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum
electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory
still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that
renormalization is not mathematically legitimate".
And finally, the statement that the sum total of all positive integers equal -1/12 is
a statement that needs a lot of explanation, and if I’m to summarize my response,
I would that we have effectively returned to the game of jargon, because the sum
total of any group of infinite sums in the world of mathematics doesn’t imply
equality and containment, but they’re rather, mathematical methods that
sometimes uses geometry and other methods to simulate infinite values and try to
get an approximate idea about them, but in the end, this doesn’t mean that the
result equals in value the infinite group of numbers in reality, and also, the word
“sum” in the mathematics of infinite values doesn’t have the literal linguistic
meaning the word is implying.
The subject is similar to comparing sizes of different groups, as when you organize
objects in stacks, putting the one beside another, so you can compare between
them, even though you haven’t actually calculated the number of objects in these
groups. This is known as one-to-one correspondence, like these grains of sweets in
figure (12) :

Figure (12)
This allows one to make as many comparisons as they like between infinite groups
without needing to calculate the objects within these groups, as that would be
impossible, and those who desire to learn more about the subject can read a great

86
article)74( on a blog of an associate physics professor in Charlotte university, titled
“Infinite Series : Not Quite as Weird as Some Would Say”, where he responds in
detail to the claims that the value -1/12 really equals the sum total of all positive
integers.

Do the centers of black holes possess infinite mass?

There is another argument that states that the centers of black holes; singularity,
possess infinite mass, and this proves the existence of infinities in the material
world as well?
Black holes are one of predictions of General Relativity Theory, and their existence
cause a great distortion in the fabric of space-time, which cause the density of a
black hole’s center to be infinite, but nevertheless, its size is finite, which makes it
similar to Gabriel’s horn, illustrated in figure (13) :

Figure (13)
This hypothetical horn expands indefinitely, the space of its surface being infinite,
unlike its volume, which is finite and small, which makes one capable of filling it
with paint from inside, but equally incapable of painting it from outside, because it
expands indefinitely. The black hole of physics assume the same characteristics,
and, in general, the emergence of infinities in the results of any physical theory
means that there is some error within that theory, and that there is a missing link
somewhere. It never means that the theory proves the existence of anything
infinite in the material existence, and the best evidence for that is the phenomenon
known as Ultraviolet Catastrophe, as, according to Rayleigh Jeans’ equation of
classical physics, a black body would absorb all radiations incident upon it and
doesn’t reflect back any of them), it would emit radiations that possess infinite

(74( Infinite series: not quite as weird as some would say.

http://skullsinthestars.com/2014/01/18/infinite-series-not-quite-as-weird-as-some-would-say/

87
intensity, in all frequency ranges, if at thermal equilibrium, and that’s because the
wavelength of the radiations emitted by the black body will continue to decrease,
and as the wavelength decreases, frequency increases, and the intensity of the
radiation emitted also increases rapidly, and the wavelength becomes zero, and so,
the intensity of the radiations become infinite, such infinity which resulted from a
physical equation, the scientists didn’t consider it to be an evidence for the
presence of something infinite in material existence, but actually considered it to
be a flaw or imperfection in our understanding of the physical laws, and this was
the reason, at the beginnings of Quantum Physics, when Max plank published the
solution to this problem by assuming that radiations existed in spatially localized
packets which he called “quanta of light”, thus, the problem of an infinite density
of radiations was overcome. And that is why scientists deal with these infinities as
weak points in the theories of physics we have today, and that’s also why Paul Dirac
says)75( : “the most important challenge in physics was to get rid of infinity”.
And Paul Davies also says)76( :
“There is an unwritten rule in science that when anything potentially observable is
predicted to become infinite, it is a sure sign that the theory is breaking down
somehow.”

The argument for the absence of a scientific proof that past eternity is possible
Another argument claims that there is no scientific evidence that proves that it’s
impossible for the universe to have had an infinite past or that it’s an eternally self-
subsisting phenomenon. Although this argument doesn’t directly challenge the
principle of Causality, it does challenge using Causality as evidence to prove that a
creator exists, because the universe, then, won’t be needing any force to create
and sustain it?
When physicists provide models describing an eternal quantum vacuum capable of
producing as many universes as it wishes, by means of vibration, or quantum
tunneling, or models describing space-time as originating or emanating from a
previous space-time fabric, or hypothesizing that this universe of ours is one among
infinite and multiple universes, all this necessitates the question: ca there really
exist infinite chains of events in the material physical world? And can the universe

(75( Close, F. (2013). The Infinity Puzzle: The personalities, politics, and extraordinary science behind the Higgs
boson. Oxford University Press, USA
(76( Davies, P. (1996). About time: Einstein's unfinished revolution. Simon and Schuster.

88
be described as eternal, consisting of infinite chains of events extending indefinitely
in the past? This question was powerfully posed in a conference in Cambridge
University in the year 2013 titled :” Infinities and Cosmology” which was attended
by physicist, philosophers and mathematicians. They might not have reached a
consensus at the time, but let’s see whether that subject is really settled, or is there
a reason to suspect (!)
Chains or infinite groups are two types : the first one being potential infinities,
which means that you can divide things or quantities indefinitely, or add to them,
also indefinitely. As for this kind of division, it’s almost non-existent in the material
world, because there is the Plank length, which makes it impossible for anyone to
divide anything into smaller objects beyond Plank length, and there is also the
“quanta”, because of which, energy cannot be divided into smaller amounts…etc..
Quantum Physics makes infinite division theoretically impossible, and very limited
in material existence.
As for addition, it’s like future, for it’s possible for you to infinitely add time to
eternity.
One of the characteristics of potential infinities is that the totality of the elements
or individuals within these infinite groups, is a definitive value. It’s just like when
you divide one meter into an infinite number of small fractal distances, by dividing
it into two halves, then dividing each half into two more halves, and so on,
indefinitely, but the sum total of all these parts will always be one meter. In
mathematics, this process is known as Convergent Series.
As for the second type of infinities, it’s called Actual Infinities, which is an infinity
which boundaries or the total number of its elements are impossible to determine,
known in mathematics as Divergent Series, infinite regress, or, like a chain that has
infinite links that you can never get to the first one, and so on.
Physicists – especially atheist physicists- claim that the latter type can exist in
material existence, and they leave the door open for this option, as though it’s a
legitimate possibility, claiming that there is no definitive proof against it. but, in
reality, it is impossible, and can never exist in reality, because the existence of such
a chain in reality is impossible, as David Hilbert, a mathematician, showed in his
famous paradox : the paradox of the Grand Hotel, a mental experiment invented
by him to show the impossibility of the existence of infinities in the material world.
Hilbert’s hotel consists of an infinite number of rooms, inhabited by an infinite
number of guests, and no vacant rooms are available, but when a customer goes
89
to the hotel and asks for a room, his request is never denied, and a room can always
be arranged for them inside this infinite hotel. This is done by asking the guest in
room number 1 to move to room number 2, and the guest in room number 2 to
move to room number 3, and so, and so forth, indefinitely, moving infinite guests
to the next infinite rooms, indefinitely, thus, always having vacant rooms for infinite
number of new guests. This is an impossible paradox that shows the impossibility
of the existence of infinities in real existence. Hilbert’s proof is correct and
effective, because infinity is not a number, but an idea, a thought, and infinity
symbol (∞) in mathematics doesn’t describe a definitive value, but a thought,
because mathematics can’t restrict or reach the borders of infinity, because infinity
has no borders.
That’s why there are no numbers beyond infinity, but every number that you can
think of exists before eternity, so, if you’re incapable of dealing with any value as a
number, and if mathematics is incapable of including it as a definitive value, then
it’s all the more natural that the physical world can’t contain infinity or be described
as such, because the physical world is definitive, with everything in it existing with
perfect amounts, manifested in observable dimensions of space and time, then
how can a finite thing contain the infinite.
And if we assume that the past of our universe is endless and eternal, then we are
today living in the first moment after infinity, which is impossible. This argument is
used by William Lane Craig, one of the contemporary theologians, as an evidence
that the universe is an event, and not eternal, in what he names Kalam
Cosmological Argument, which he always mentions that he learned it from
Muslims)77(.
As any chain or an infinite eternal correlation of events which has no beginning or
end cannot exist or be observed in the physical world (even assuming the existence
of such a chain is impossible, because it leads one to a clear contradiction, that is,
describing the chain itself as finite and infinite at the same time), and that is why,
if the existence of a hotel like David Hilbert’s is impossible, then the existence of an
infinite past for this universe is equally impossible. And the paradox of Hilbert’s
hotel is sufficient to show this impossibility, and enough to show the impossibility
of the existence of any infinite chain in material existence. The universe is but a
chain of things, related and bound together by causes and conditions. Whether this

(77( He wrote a book about that titlted “The Kalām Cosmological Argument. And this is a video where he talks about
this experience and the meaning of infinity :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeKavDdRVIg

90
chain is the events of the cosmos or its characteristics, conditions and laws and so
on, it’s in the end, a chain. And Hilbert proved the impossibility of the existence of
such a chain if it’s to be described as eternal and self-subsistent, and consequently,
any chain that’s already in existence must be an event, non-eternal, and finite,
including the universe.
Carl Friedrich Gauss, one of the most important mathematicians in history,
referred to as the prince of mathematics says)78( : "I protest against the use of
infinite magnitude as something completed, which is never permissible in
mathematics". And Hilbert says)79(:
"The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor
provides a legitimate basis for rational thought…. The role that remains for the
infinite to play is solely that of an idea".
And that is why a great physicist like George Ellis refuses the idea of the existence
of infinity in the physical world, as he says, in an article he published in Nature
magazine)80(, criticizing the hypothesis of infinite multiverse :
''Greene, to his credit, devotes a chapter to the question of whether the multiverse
idea is a scientific theory or not. He believes it is, ………….. But again, there is no way
to test it, because infinity is always beyond reach - and so will not plausibly exist in
physical reality, as mathematician David Hilbert argued".
Here, George argues that any theory that speaks to us about a chain of events that’s
eternal in the past (an eternal cosmos) or an infinite chain of universes (Multiverse
theory) would be an unscientific theory, because it doesn’t meet the condition of
experimental testability, as we can’t possibly test it, because it speaks to us of
something that we can’t reach or observe, that is infinity, thus, it will always remain
an unscientific theory. He repeats these words in many researches and books, all
of which were published in strict scientific journals)81( )82( )83( )84( )85(.

(78( Stillwell, J. (2015). From the continuum to large cardinals. In Mathematics, Substance and Surmise (pp. 193-
211). Springer International Publishing.
(79( Hilbert, D. (1925). On the infinite (pp. 134-151). na.
(80( Ellis, G. (2011). The untestable multiverse. Nature, 469, 295
(81( Ellis, G. (2012). Multiverses, science, and ultimate causation (pp. 125-144). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
(82( Ellis, G. F. (2011). Fundamental Issues and Problems of Cosmology. In Astronomy at the Frontiers of Science
(pp. 309-320). Springer Netherlands.
(83( Ellis, G. F. R. (2014). On the philosophy of cosmology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B:
Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 46, 5-23.
(84( Ellis, G. (2008). Opposing the multiverse. Astronomy & Geophysics, 49(2), 2-33.
(85( Ellis, G. F., & Stoeger, W. R. (2009). A note on infinities in eternal inflation. General Relativity and Gravitation,
41(7), 1475-1484.

91
Whomever says that there is no scientific evidence that proves that it’s impossible
for the world to be eternal in the past or self-subsistent, to him we should say that
the truth points to an opposite direction, because saying that the cosmos is eternal,
or that there are eternal multiple universes, such a statement is the one that’s not
supported by any scientific evidence, and it’s even impossible to have a scientific
evidence for that, because any theory speaking of the existence of an infinite chain
in physical reality will always remain an intestable theory, and therefore, an
unscientific theory.
And maybe the real reason behind casting the lights on the hypothesis of
multiverse is that it makes the universe one among infinite universes, coming into
existence and fading away since eternity, which invalidates any attempt to prove
the existence of a creator by means of cause and effect (even if it doesn’t deny
Causality itself), because the universe then won’t be an event that needed a
creator, and on the other hand, it casts shadows on the manifestations of
perfection shown in the design and perfect precision of everything in the universe,
and this is also the role that the theory of evolution of living species plays, as the
theory of multiverse provide an arbitrary material explanation for the high
precision in cosmic constants, or what is known as fine- tuning, by telling us that
this one “trial” succeeded because there were on the other hand, infinite number
of trials and errors for other universes, and that’s why we, for instance, find
someone like Leonard Susskind, one of the founders of string theory saying in a T.V.
interview) 86( , that, in the face of the perfect precision of a value like the
cosmological constant 10−123, you are confronted with one of three choices:
1. God
2. Chance (silly and naïve)
3. Multiverse, which is one of the hypotheses of string theory.
There are obvious materialistic atheist ideologies behind this theory, and that is
why light is always focused on it, even though it’s an unscientific theory, and even
though it’s impossible to test it experimentally and empirically, you still hear it here
and there, and those people would invent the flimsiest proofs in order to put it in
the front always, just like Stephen Weinberg did during his latest interview with
Quanta magazine, when his interviewer said to him that the theory of multiverse is

(86( Closer To Truth, Leonard Susskind - Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cT4zZIHR3s

92
not testable)87(, and Weinberg dealt with the subject as a matter of “buy one pizza
and get another one for free”, and said that they accept the theory of multiverse
for the reason that it’s one of the hypotheses of String Theory, because if
experiment supports string theory, then we accept both hypotheses.
For someone who never heard of string theory before, they would think that it’s a
very well-established scientific theory, to the degree that it surely provides
legitimacy to its sister, multiverse. But the truth is completely different, because
string theory is also accused of being unscientific, because it, too, is not testable,
as many professionals, like Lee Smolin)88( and Peter Woit)89( explained.

Can we arrive at a theory that can explain everything and prove that we don’t
need a God?
Another argument says: someday, we will have a theory that explains everything,
and then we will be able to explain the whole universe with pure material reasons
without the need of a god?
And the answer is no, this will never happen. As natural law, since the time of
Archimedes, is comprised of principles and axioms that describe nature, and enable
one to make testable predictions, and that is the framework of the scientific theory
in general, and not just in physics, and the more we are able to unify the theories,
the less axioms we have and the broader our vision is, so can we discover a single
theory that describes everything and the natural material axioms that govern
everything? And here we first need to confirm that it’s a theory that describes
everything and not only one that describes and unifies basic Physics principles,
because there is a big difference between the two approaches, because there is no
problem with the second approach, and it doesn’t provide any support for the
materialist atheist claims, but the first approach implies that the universe is self-
created and self-subsisting and thus doesn’t need a creator, having appeared into
existence because of known materialist causes which we learned by the knowledge
of the basic physical laws that alleged final theory provides us with. The question
here is not how or when we get to have this a theory, but the real question is, is

(87( QUANTA, Science’s Path From Myth to Multiverse.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150317-sciences-path-from-myth-to-multiverse/
(88( Smolin, L., & Harnad, J. (2008). The trouble with physics: the rise of string theory, the fall of a science, and what
comes next. The Mathematical Intelligencer, 30(3), 66-69.
(89( Woit, P. (2011). Not even wrong: The failure of string theory and the continuing challenge to unify the laws of
physics. Random House.

93
the existence of such a theory really possible or is there conclusive evidence that
makes its existence impossible?
If the answer is : no, there is no such a conclusive evidence against a theory of
everything, then the possibility that the cosmos is self-subsisting is legitimate, and
this universe could really be the result of physical and materialist causes which
brought it into existence, and then Positivism philosophy wins, the philosophy
which core is to remove any supernatural causes, and considers nature to be the
only power in control.
But, thanks to God’s providence, the answer to this question is : yes. There is
conclusive evidence that proves the impossibility of the existence of such a theory,
examples are: Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and also Turing’s halting
problem, and many other proofs that destroy this ugly materialist nightmare,
because in fact, the theory of everything contains within it the paradox of self-
reference, and what Gödel did is that he presented a mathematical simulation of
the old Greek paradox, known as The Cretan Liar Paradox that goes like this : a man
from Crete says :”all Cretans are liars”, so do we believe him, even though he
himself is Cretan? Or likewise, do we believe a man when he says: ”what I’m saying
now is a lie”, if what he’s saying is the truth, then he is lying, and if he’s lying, then
he’s telling the truth.
This is called logical antinomy, which in turn shows that any chain of events, which
events are connected to each other by cause and effect, can’t be the cause of itself,
or, as Gödel puts it: there must remain in this chain even one sentence that can’t
be proved to be right or false from inside the order/ chain, but needs a proof from
outside that order or chain, and this applies to any logical mathematical system, or
any system governed by logical mathematical order.
So, whether you get to have the axioms or mechanisms or principles that describe
a certain system by means of observation as it is in Physics or Biology theories..
etc.) or have made your conclusions from logical premises (as it is in mathematical
theories), the result is one, that is you now have a system described and governed
by a finite set of axioms, so all subjects are governed by the same things that govern
the ruler, the ruler her being mathematics, and whatever this alleged theory claims
to do, it’s in the end a set of axioms that describe a system, so either this theory is
incomplete (and in this case, calling it a theory of everything would be misleading),
or it is inconsistent, meaning that it’s contradictory, stating something and its
opposite at the same time, which means that the theory is not correct. And the
impossibility of combining between completeness and consistency is what Gödel
94
proved. For example, the theory of special relativity is based on two axioms, the
first one is the principle of relativity, and the second one is the concept of the
stability of the speed of light. The concept of survival for the fittest is also an axiom
in evolution theory, and likewise, theories mostly depend on this kind of
mathematical construct of axioms, and the set of the axioms that describe any
system will always stay incomplete, and consequently there is no theory of
everything anywhere, whether in mathematics or in any system that could be
described as a logical mathematical system.
That is why, and in spite of all the big media noise, you find the atheist physicist
Stephen Hawking (the biggest advocate of the idea of looking for a theory of
everything), compelled to say that, unfortunately, Gödel makes it impossible to
have a theory of everything, and that was in the year 2002, in a memorial lecture
held in memory of Paul Dirac)90(:
"Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can
be formulated as a finite number of principles.I used to belong to that camp, but I
have changed my mind. I'm now glad that our search for understanding will never
come to an end, and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery.
without it, we would stagnate. Gödel’s theorem ensured there would always be a
job for mathematicians".
A great scholar in theoretical physics, an associate of Feynamn in founding the
Quantum Mechanics Theory : Freeman Dyson, said that mathematics and physics
are subject to the same principles, and if there can be no theory of everything in
mathematics, the same thing applies to physics as well)91(:
"Gödel's theorem implies that pure mathematics is inexhaustible. No matter how
many problems we solve, there will always be other problems that cannot be
solved within the existing rules. [...] Because of Gödel's theorem, physics is
inexhaustible too. The laws of physics are a finite set of rules, and include the rules
for doing mathematics, so that Gödel's theorem applies to them".
And here, Sten Odenwald said)92(:

(90( Lecture titled “Gödel and the end of physics”

(91( Dyson, F. (2004). The world on a string. New York review of books, (8), 16-19.
(92( Answering the question (Did the laws that govern quantum fluctuations exist prior to the Big Bang?) on his web-
site:Ask the Astronomer
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q508.html

95
" Gödel said that every mathematical system has at its roots a set of propositions
which are beyond the system to prove. This makes every logically consistent
system, fundamentally incomplete. The much-vaunted Theory of Everything will
doubtless be just such a system".
Rudy Rucker, professor of mathematics argues that Gödel’s theorem applies to
nature and the physical world)93(.
I think this puts an end to the dreams of man-made materialist philosophy and
those of atheist physicists, the nature worshippers, because nature cannot have
made itself, not with any chain of physical or causal relationships, and there is
always a need of something outside that system. This is what Gödel proved. This
thing is surely not part of that causal relationship and is not governed by it and is
not part of the natural systems, and all those systems need Him, as He is the Sole,
the Supreme Provider, who is needed by all His creation, and there is nothing like
Him.

Is the question about the cause of the Big Bang invalid?

Another argument states : there is no meaning to the question, what caused the
big bang, because the dimension of time didn’t exist before the big bang, therefore,
the word “before” is meaningless?
This statement was famously said by Stephen Hawking, and he used to reply those
who consider the big bang an evidence for the existence of the creator by saying:
big bang has no cause, because there was nothing before the big bang in the first
place, because time began with the big bang, therefore it’s meaningless to ask what
was before the big bang, because there was no such thing as “before”.
Hawking’s reply is very silly and naïve, because this statement was based on
Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems about the existence of a beginning to the
universe, the beginning of time and space and everything in existence, but this
theorem is based on classical physics, therefore, it doesn’t give a valid criteria to
judge what existed or didn’t exist before the big bang as Hawking uses it. therefore,
it didn’t limit those who put models for the beginning of the universe of quantum
origins, whether it’s quantum vacuum or anything else, even though that quantum
origin was “before” the big bang and we didn’t hear Hawking objects to that,

(93( Rucker, R. (2013). An incompleteness theorem for the natural world. In Irreducibility and Computational
Equivalence (pp. 185-198). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

96
because he simply knows that his theorem doesn’t absolutely refuse the possibility
of the existence of events before the big bang. Hawking himself adopts the
hypothesis of the origination of the universe from the quantum vacuum that
existed “before” the big bang, which was “caused” by gravity. But in any case, this
theorem failed because it’s founded on the general relativity’s Strong Energy
Condition, and this condition is violated by Inflation theory, which hypothesizes
that the world inflated exponentially in the very early stages of the beginning of the
universe (also a theory that lacks supportive evidence).
Hawking’s theorem of the beginning of the universe was replaced by another
one) 94( : Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Singularity theorem or (BGV), but nevertheless,
Alexander Vilenkin, one of three scientists who formulated the theorem is himself
the one who created the model of the origination of the universe as a quantum
tunneling event)95( which we referred to while discussing vacuum energy, and that’s
because of the lack of a theory that unifies between general relativity and quantum
mechanics, but I’d like to stress here two facts:
Firstly: Hawking’s theorem and Vilenkin and others have nothing to do with the
quantum events preceding the big bang, therefore, these theorems don’t prove
that the universe is an event, and at the same time, they don’t prevent anyone from
asking about what was existed before the big bang, as Hawking arrogantly claims.
Secondly: we don’t need the big bang theory in order for us to prove that the
universe is an event, because the evidence of Causality is strong and well-
established before and after we learned about the big bang, this evidence is
concrete and flawless, and is in accordance with human intuition and religion, and
it doesn’t only prove that the universe is an event, but also proves that God created
it. Causality evidence doesn’t have the slightest need of the big bang.

Does the Law of Preservation of Energy mean that energy is eternal?

Another question says: is the law of conservation of energy means that energy is
eternal?
The law of conservation of energy means that energy is a fixed amount, and not
that energy exists eternally. If you say the humans existed on earth for a million

(94( A. Borde, A.H. Guth and A. Vilenkin, Inflationary Spacetimes Are Incomplete in Past Directions, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 90, 151301 (2003).
(95( Vilenkin, A. (1982). Creation of universes from nothing. Physics Letters B, 117(1), 25-28.

97
years for example, you know that this doesn’t mean that a single certain human
being lived until the age of a million years. This kind of confusion happened with
the old philosophers and it’s only being rephrased in our time and age. There is a
difference between mental perception of existence and existence in reality, and of
energy we say, what the great Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyyah said of animals and
human beings in this quote:
“Do you mean by that the absolute universal meaning that only exists in the mind?
or the fixed perceived particulars in the external world?
As for the first one, it doesn’t exist in the outside world, just like a universal animal
doesn’t exist in the outside world, for a universal man or a universal animal
abstracted by the mind, can only exist in the outside world in particularized and
specific manner, and the same thing applies to any universal notion, it can only exist
in the outside world in particularized and specific manner. And they admit that
there can’t exist a universal entity in the outside world, but they think it exists as a
part of the whole, and that is also wrong, because there is only a particularized and
a specific entity, no particular and specific entity can be absolute, and no single part
can be whole, as it is impossible for the absolute to be restricted by what’s
particular and specific, and the whole can’t be restricted in the partial”)96(
He also said- may Allah have mercy on him- : “ and there is no doubt that bodies
share a certain measure of commonalities, like length, width and depth, and that is
the abstract measurement that is not peculiar to a certain body, but that abstract
measurement is only in the mind, and not in the outside world, like the abstract
number, the abstract surface, the abstract point surface, and like the educational
frame, long and wide and deep, but is not peculiar to a certain subject. As this
common substance they are mentioning is in the mind, and there is no certain
external quality that the two bodies share”)97(
We then infer that there is a specific and fixed amount of energy the same way we
infer the occurrence of anything else, that is, it’s governed by principles, as there
must firstly exist certain conditions superseding the emergence of something,
which without, that thing can’t exist. And anything that is superseded by something
is an occurrence, an event, and not eternal, because what eternal means is that it
has no beginning to it, and nothing before it. And it doesn’t matter if the chain of
the events is long and extended, as long as we know that it’s impossible for it to

(96( Ibn Taymiyyah: Absolving the Conflict Between Revelation and Reason
(97( Kitab Al-Nubuwwat (1/310)- Al-Riyadh 1420 A.H. – 2000 A.D.

98
have started itself. And for something to have been created by God from another
thing demonstrates supreme prevalence and subjugation than creating a thing
directly from nothing, as Shaykhul Islam here says:
“what is always perceivable and known to all people is that everything appears into
existence from something else, not out of nothing, that’s why Allah- be He exalted-
said: “ for I created you before, while you were nothing. " (Surah Mariam: 9), and
He didn’t say “I created you from nothing”. Allah also says : “ Allah has created
every [living] creature from water” (Surah Al-Nur: 45))98(
He also says- Allah may mercy him :” Also: that a thing is created from matter or an
element, makes it even more subjugated than being created from nothing, and
makes it far more impossible for anything or anyone to imitate Allah, for Allah is
one, the supreme provider, He neither begets nor is born, nor is there to Him any
equivalent. There is no source or origin from which He appeared into existence, nor
is there an extension or a helper. For if the creature has a source from which it
appeared into the outside world, that relationship of the creature with its source
would be like that between son and father, and if it is a father and a son, it would
be then furthest from being equal to being divine and unique, for it comes out of
something else and begets something else.”)99(

Does the experiment of delayed choice violate the principle of causality?

There are those who use the experiment of delayed choice and similar experiments
to arouse suspicion of Causality, and claims that our ability to observe and detect
the light that’s coming from the stars could change those events that took place in
the source(s) of that light in the past, which means that Causality is not true, and
that the effects we are observing at the present moment could change the cause
that occurred in the past.
And here is a scientific paper)100( that was especially prepared to answer the fallacy
that assumes that this experiment invalidates Causality, and that we can change
the past with our choices at the present moments. And after the author shows the
reasoning behind this fallacy, he shows that the experiment can be interpreted
independently from any notion of violating the principle of Causality:

(98( The Previous Reference (1/322)

(99( The Previous Reference (1/325)
(100( Ellerman, D. (2015). Why delayed choice experiments do Not imply retrocausality. Quantum Studies:
Mathematics and Foundations, 2(2), 183-199

99
The purpose of this paper is to show how the delayed-choice experiments can be
interpreted without involving retrocausality.

The summary of this chapter and the answers it provided for the arguments:
1. Does Quantum Mechanics undermine Causality?
Answer: No, it undermined determinism.
2. Is there really no Causality in the quantum world, and is that world run by total
haphazardness?
Answer: if what is meant by haphazardness is the opposite of Causality or lack of
governing principles, then that is wrong. And if it means the opposite of
Determinism then it’s mostly true (as previously explained). but I would like to add
something : there are scientific research that’s still arguing that quantum
mechanics is causal and also deterministic, and that determinism wasn’t killed,
basing their arguments on the Bohmian interpretation of quantum
mechanics)101(, among those scientists is the Nobel prize awarded physicist Gerard
Hooft)102( )103(.
3. Time is but an illusion and is a non-fixed variable, so it isn’t fit to be an evidence
to prove whether our world is an event or eternal.
Answer: There is a big difference between the physical definition and the
philosophical definition of time, but if we have to use the physical definition, then
we actually don’t need time as a regulator of the evidence for the fact that our
world is an event, because Causality functions independently of time, and it shows
that a cause must supersede any event or any effect that we observe in this world,
and this is a relationship that’s independent of time, and the evidence for it is the
same evidence for physical laws and the governing principles that must supersede
the existence of a phenomenon.
4. General Relativity permits travelling into the past, and this means that future
events could affect the past, so does that violate the principle of Causality?
Answer: That is impossible to happen, and if General Relativity permits it, then that
is because it’s an incomplete theory, and no scientist said that the paradox of

(101( Nikolić, H. (2007). Quantum mechanics: Myths and facts. Foundations of Physics, 37(11), 1563-1611.
(102( G. ’t Hooft, “Quantum gravity as a dissipative deterministic system,” Class. Quant. Grav. 16, 3263-3279 (1999).
(103( G. ’t Hooft, “Determinism in free bosons,” Int. J. Theor.Phys. 42, 355-361 (2003).

100
grandfather is possible and unproblematic, instead, they all agree that it’s an
impossible paradox, but they differ about the physical reason for this impossibility.
5. Do subatomic particles behave as both particles and waves?
Answer: Yes, and that doesn’t annul the principle of Causality, because everything
is still governed by its nature and laws.
6. Is there really no specific reason for the velocity and the position of the electron,
and no cause that makes an atom decays before another atom, and that all
these matters are completely haphazardous?
Answer: all these phenomena are governed by the uncertainty principle, and so,
that principle is their cause, as it’s a logical and a mathematical law before it can be
a physical law, and if we assume that something can violate Causality, then it should
be something that exists against logic, and can’t be obtained by a mathematical
method, and it will only be a physical observation. If the “randomness” in question
is the uncertainty principle, then the answer is yes, and causality exists as long as
long as natural laws exist. If the skeptic means by “randomness”, the absence of
natural laws, then the answer is definitely no.
7. Can the electron exist at more than one place at the same time, even if there is
a vast distance between these places, as superposition theorem implies?
Answer: is the same answer as question (6) answer, as all these phenomena are
governed by the uncertainty principle.
8. Can the electron cross over an energy barrier that is higher than the energy they
have themselves, so it seems like you are throwing a ball at the wall in front of
you and it would pass straight through the wall, the phenomenon known as
quantum tunneling?
Answer: the same as answer (6). All these phenomena are governed by the
Uncertainty Principle.
9. Hypothetical particles appear into existence out of nothingness and borrow
energy from the future by violating the law of conservation of energy for a short
period of time, and they can thus produce infinite numbers of universes, and
could our universe be one of those universes?
Answer: “nothingness here doesn’t have the connotation as the linguistic term
implies, it rather means the lowest possible energy, and there is no such thing as
violating the law of conservation of energy, and there is nothing that can appear
101
into existence out of real nothingness, whether we approve of the existence of
vacuum energy that was generated by time-energy uncertainty principle or didn’t
approve of the existence of vacuum energy, and by investigating this issue we
found that research proves that time-energy uncertainty principle shouldn’t be a
principle like its fellow principle: position-momentum uncertainty principle,
therefore, there is no evidence that proves that vacuum energy exists, and as for
hypothetical particles, we saw that they are really only mathematical methods that
exist only in the world of mathematics and equations, and not in the real world.
10. Vacuum energy out of which vibration, hypothetical particles appear into
existence, had been experimentally proved by Casimir effect?
Answer: no, there is no physical law that necessitates the existence of energy in
vacuum, and its existence hasn’t been experimentally proved, and Casimir Effect
that’s considered the greatest experimental proof of the existence of vacuum
energy can be totally explained without vacuum energy, therefore, it isn’t actually
considered an evidence for its existence. And even if we approve of the existence
of vacuum energy, it doesn’t violate the law of conservation of energy, and it didn’t
come from nothingness in reality. Its existence doesn’t mean that there is
something that succeeded in violating the principle of Causality or that it existed
without cause. And the models simulating the commencement of the universe
from vacuum energy have no value, not only because of the lack of evidence of the
existence of vacuum energy, but also because if this is what truly happened, then
vacuum energy too will be an event like all other things, because it too is governed
by the physical laws, and consequently governed by Causality,, and it’s one of the
links in a chain of events, and can’t be described as eternal, nor can it make the
universe a self-subsistent entity.
11. In the quantum world, an effect can happen before the cause, and the future
can affect the past, and anti-matter can travel from the future into the past ?
Answer: travelling from the future into the past is just a mathematical ways to solve
equations with easier means, it isn’t to be taken literally.
12. The positron is an observable particle and it’s a positively charged electron that
travels from the future into the past?
Answer: yes they detected the positron, but they didn’t observe it travelling from
the future into the past, and they don’t think that this happens for real, they’re only
trying to describe it with the best and easiest mathematical means, and not in a
philosophical contemplative way.
102
13. W-boson is an observable particle and it violates the law of conservation of
energy during beta decay?
Answer: the particle is observed during interactions where it isn’t a hypothetical
particle, as any particle (photon, electron, …etc.) can be either hypothetical or real,
but can only be detected during its real interactions, as for hypothetical
interactions, these belong to the world of equations and mathematics and not in
reality, i.e. w-boson hasn’t been detected and won’t be detected during beta decay
where it exists as a hypothetical particle.
14. Infinite chains or things that possess infinite values do exist in physics, and we
deal with them in black holes, and in quantum field theory, and also
mathematics revealed that the sum total of all positive integers equal -1/12, so
why can’t the universe be an eternal chain in the past that’s self-subsistent??
Answer: no, there are no infinities in the real physical world, but there are infinities
in our understanding of the physical world as a result of lack in our knowledge, and
these infinities have been always a beginning of revolutionary theories that present
radical solutions to remove infinities and match reality, as for mathematics, it
doesn’t have a rule or means to say that an infinite group (which both ends are
indefinite or the sum total of its elements is unknowable) can be equal to a definite
value in reality, because that would be a logical paradox that’s mathematically
impossible, but it provides us with approximate solutions for unsolvable problems,
using professional terminology, as there is actually nothing in physics or
mathematics that says that the existence of such infinities in the physical reality is
possible.
15. There is no scientific evidence that proves that it’s impossible for the universe
to be infinite in the past or eternal and self-subsistent, and even though this
doesn’t negate Causality, it does refuse to look at it as evidence for the existence
of a creator, because the universe then won’t be needing a power to create and
sustain it?
Answer: the truth is exactly the opposite, because saying that it’s possible for the
universe or multiple universes to be eternal is a statement that’s not based on
scientific evidence, it is the statement that is impossible to have a scientific
evidence that supports it, because any theory describing the existence of an infinite
chain in the physical reality will always remain an untestable theory, and that is
why it would be an unscientific theory, and Hilbert’s hotel paradox is sufficient to
show the impossibility of the existence of any infinite chain of events in the material

103
existence, and the universe is a chain of events linked together with causal and
conditional relations, as whether this chain represents the events of the universe
or its characteristics or conditions and governing principles or similar things, it is in
the end a chain. And Hilbert presented the clear evidence for the impossibility of
the existence of such a chain in reality, if that chain is eternal, self-subsistent and
infinite in the past. Consequently, any chain that does really exist must be a finite
event, including the universe.
16. One day, we will have a theory of everything, and then we will be able to explain
the whole existence of the universe with pure material causes without the need
of a god?
Answer: No, we will never have a theory of everything because it doesn’t exist, and
that’s because the world can’t explain itself by itself, and Gödel’s theorem testifies
that this is impossible.
17. There is no meaning to the question about what was there before the big bang
because there is no time, therefore there is no “before”?
Answer: this is only false pride of Hawking, and his theorem about the existence of
a beginning to the universe doesn’t give him the right to say that. And anyway, his
theorem isn’t valid anymore, as it was replaced by Vilenkin’s model of the
beginning of the universe from a quantum tunnel that existed “before” the big
bang. So by all means, what’s really meaningless is not the question about what
existed before the big bang, what’s really meaningless is that lying and false pride.
We don’t need the big bang anyway in order for us to prove that the universe had
a beginning, but we prove that by looking at the fact that it’s governed by laws and
causality, and the evidence of causality doesn’t have the least dependence on the
big bang.
18. Does the law of conservation of energy means that energy is eternal?
Answer: No, because the law of conservation of energy means that the amount of
energy is fixed, and not that energy itself is eternal, the rest of the conclusion is
purely mental, it’s just like saying that humans existed on planet earth for a million
years for example, this doesn’t mean that you are saying that a certain human being
had reached million years of age. And the fixed energy existing in the physical world
remains an event, like others, because it’s governed by laws.

***

104
 Chapter (3)
The Evidence For Perfection, Precision and Providence
Introduction:

Some of the greatest and clearest evidence of all for the existence of the creator-
be He exalted- is the obvious perfection and precision in the living creatures and
providing them with everything they need, Allah- be He exalted- said : “[Pharaoh]
said, "So who is the Lord of you two, O Moses?" He said, "Our Lord is He who gave
each thing its form and then guided [it]." (Tahaa:49-50)
Simple contemplation in ourselves and our surroundings makes us easily realize the
greatness of God’s creation and the vastness of His provision for us and all His
creation, as He gave each one of us what they need for living, then He taught all His
creation the best ways to sustain their lives and search for foods and provisions
suitable for their existence, rearing their offspring, and fleeing from their enemies
and many other ways of guidance.
And this is totally enough for one to be certain of the existence of an extremely
wise, omnipotent, all-knowing, must merciful creator, because an intelligent
human knows a thing by looking at its marks and imprints, and, when we find
something so intelligently and carefully and purposefully made, we would
immediately know that behind such precision a being who has tremendous
knowledge and wisdom, because randomness or a being or anything that’s
deprived of knowledge and wisdom could never produce anything orderly and
purposefully, hence was the great importance of the evolution theory for people
who are deluded and deceived, that theory that they use in order to instill
confusion and doubt about this clear, delightful evidence, a theory that tries to
present humanity with an alternative explanation of the existence of life with all its
rich manifestations, without the need of a knowing and wise creator, claiming that
there are pure material mechanisms that worked on producing this extremely
complicated and intricate biological system billions of years ago (almost 3.8 billion
years).
This theory gained supporters and even whole countries mobilizing their
laboratories and armies of professionals to swear by it, and since that time, people
were divided into all kinds of groups, some don’t know much about it, to these
people, the theory says that humans descended from apes, nothing more and

105
nothing less, and to some others, it’s the magical solution to get rid of the thought
of servitude and obedience to the great creator, and some of them know the gaps
in that theory and the evil it causes, and some others truly think that it’s the fruit
of science and enlightenment accumulating through the ages, and that it’s the
salvation for all humanity from the grip of evil and conflicts.
It’s needless to say that a believer must learn everything about this theory and
understand how to correctly discuss it, in order for them to be armed with the
necessary knowledge crucial for our time and age, and also teach their family. A
non-believer must also learn everything about this theory so they don’t fall into the
pit of delusion and mythology, thinking that science had already proved it all, even
though science has got little to do with the delusions of this theory.
But this time, our battle won’t be with the game of jargon, as it was in the previous
chapter, but a true battle with the theory itself, because there is no
misunderstanding here that we should correct, instead, we have two choices:
The first choice: accepting the evolution theory that claims that life can be
explained by material mechanisms without the need of a creator.
The second choice: is to destroy the theory and show the correctness of the
evidence for the perfection and precision that points to the one creator.
I won’t be addressing every single detail of the theory, because that would need an
independent book, but I will present some of the most famous evidence and their
refutations, I also will mention some dilemmas which stab into the heart of the
theory and destroy it, God willing.
The evolution theory hypothesizes that all the life forms we know originated in the
beginning by means of random mutations of the DNA of simple organisms we don’t
know where they came from or how they formed. And these mutations result in
new characteristics of the living organism, which might be useful or useless or even
harmful, and here comes the role of natural selection to “choose” and keep
everything useful for the organism in order for it to survive and reproduce, which
the organism acquired from successive strokes of luck. On the other hand, this
same process eliminates most of the traits that are useless or inadequate for living
and reproduction and survival, and this elimination would be effective due to the
persistent conflict over limited resources in nature. It seems that the origin of this
idea was economical, blossoming inside Darwin’s head after a lecture he heard
from the famous economist Thomas Malthus. The end result of this process is all
the beauty and creativity and perfection in the living organisms after this long
106
journey life had spent on earth, during which it formed this living kingdom in a very
slow and gradual manner that we can’t observe during our short lives, and every
time the theory faces a dilemma, it is transformed into a new alternative theory or
it too “evolves” into new theories so it can escape problems, and wow, how many
times it had shifted since Darwin’s time until today. Because what matters is that
evolution stays right in its pure material explanation of life without the need of a
creator, because then, all this precision would be a direct result of blind natural
mechanisms. And the notion of the existence of a wise and knowing creator would
be just an illusion. That is why any attempt to reconcile between evolution theory
and religion is in actuality fabrication and joining between paradoxes. But refusing
the existence of the natural mechanisms or their effects is also a wrong approach
to refute the theory, and this is what I alluded to in the last question in chapter one,
with the example about the sun and the nuclear reactors on planet Pluto. The true
battle field is proving or disproving that these mechanisms are capable of bringing
this living kingdom into existence or not, and if they are able to present a sufficient
explanation for the phenomenon of life or not. If they are, then evolution is true,
and if they aren’t, then evolution theory is wrong.
1. Some of the most famous evidence of evolution:
1. The Tree of Life:
One of the foundations of the evolution theory is that all living beings have a
common ancestor, that’s why Darwin depicted the scenario of life evolution as a
single tree which always branches indefinitely, and this is a picture of a paper from
Darwin’s notebook (figure 14) dating back to 1837, i.e. 20 years before publishing
the book of “Origin of Species” (1859).

Figure (14)
107
So the idea of the tree of life is essential to Darwin, and this is very logical, because
if species have really originated from each other by means of mutations and natural
selection, then surely if we go back in time, we will see the species merge together
until only one kind remains, that is the base of the tree from which life flourished.
But did science prove the accuracy of this original hypothesis in the evolution
theory?
The answer is no on all levels, even by using all what could constitute a
measurement of this alleged kinship between all living beings.
1. Building Darwin’s tree through genetic similarity
For example, if we find a gene in one living species and find the same gene in
another species, then this orthologous gene in different kinds of species within
different kinds of species can be evidence for the existence of a common ancestor
between these different species. But, studying this matter closely and attempting
to assemble a tree based on this phylogenetic approximation)104(, we find that such
a tree is pulled out from its roots and is ripped to shreds!
Because as this scientific paper says)105(:
"Such results suggested that the simple notion of a single Tree of Life that would
accurately and definitively depict the evolution of all life forms was gone forever".
And similarly states this other scientific paper )106(:
"A tree-thinker may choose to ignore conflicting signal as if it was noise even if
legitimate evolutionary events underlie it".
Also, from the same paper:
"In this paper, We investigate the phylogenetic signal of four datasets in order to
address a simple question: do the phylogenies of orthologs really favour tree-
thinking and thus justify attempts of tree-reconstruction? Can we be reasonably
confident that their history is free of LGT? We observe that no unique common
history can be established for these genes. In all cases, genes fail to favour a single
tree. We also observe that some of these genes support incongruent histories.

(104( a diagrammatic hypothesis about the history of the evolutionary relationships of a group of organisms.The tips
of a phylogenetic tree can be living organisms or fossils, and represent the "end", or the present, in an evolutionary
lineage
(105( Wolf, Y. I., Rogozin, I. B., Grishin, N. V., & Koonin, E. V. (2002). Genome trees and the tree of life. TRENDS
in Genetics, 18(9), 472-479.
(106( Bapteste, E., Susko, E., Leigh, J., MacLeod, D., Charlebois, R. L., & Doolittle, W. F. (2005). Do orthologous
gene phylogenies really support tree-thinking?. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 5(1), 33.

108
Consequently, the tree-thinking on which gene concatenations rest does not
proceed from phylogenetic conclusions, nor is it a priori a safe phylogenetic
practice". So, if we use genetics to depict the relationship between living beings,
we won’t find any tree, nor will we find any branches extending from each other,
and this is considered a refutation of the evolution theory and its prophecies.
1-1-2 Building Darwin’s tree through similar proteins
What if we put genes aside and try to assemble Darwin’s tree using a different
component: similar proteins in different species?
In reality, we will get the same result, and we won’t be able to find any trace of that
alleged common ancestor)107(
1-1-3 Building Darwin’s tree through the fossil record
Ok. Let’s put all of this aside, and go to the fossil record and dig through the layers
of the earth for traces and fossils of animals that lived millions of years ago, maybe
these can tell us the full story of life, or bring life to Darwin’s tree.
But truth is, that the fossil record doesn’t support the idea of the common ancestor,
nor it even supports gradual evolution from a being into another.
Here we quote from the book “The new evolutionary timetable: fossils, genes,
and the origin of species.”)108(:
"Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to
overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not
convincingly document a single transition from one species to another".
Another quote from the same book:
"The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity – of gradual
transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form".
And here is a quote from the book “Macroevolution ،pattern and process”)109(:
"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution
accomplishing a major morphologic transition".

(107( Koonin, E. V., & Wolf, Y. I. (2010). The common ancestry of life. Biol Direct, 5(1), 64-64.
(108( Stanley, S. M. (1981). The new evolutionary timetable: fossils, genes, and the origin of species. New York:
Basic Books. P.95
(109( Stanley, S. M. (1979). Macroevolution, pattern and process. p. 39.

109
1-1-4 Building Darwin’s tree through the external morphology
Alright. let’s just forget about all of this and try comparing between species by
means of the morphological appearance (the outward appearance of a living
organism), which was the basic method of observation in Darwin’s days that he
used to assemble his alleged tree, because during that time, information about
genes wasn’t available of course, for example, when you observe the resemblance
between humans and monkeys or between several living species, you could deduce
that these have a common ancestor, meaning that all these similar looking species
are grand daughters and grand sons of a single grandfather or grandmother who
could be extinct now, but is the origin from which all these species appeared into
life, and he is the focal point out of which extended these species like distant rays,
so if we see these similarities we easily conclude that they have a single origin, then
this idea expanded from morphological appearance to similarity of genetic makeup
or genes as discussed above.
So similarity (morphological or genetic) in the literature of evolution theory is an
evidence and a clue that proves the existence of common ancestor, and if we find
two species which are similar to the point that they are identical, and no common
ancestor could possibly link the two, then this will contradict the evolution theory
axiom that states that morphological appearance is evidence that the two species
have a common ancestor from which they both evolved. But evolutionists are
astonishing in their excessive use of logical paradoxes. They use morphological
appearance as “evidence” for the existence of common ancestor, which in turn
they consider an evidence for evolution “which is an effect”, so if the similarity can’t
be due to a common ancestor, they don’t admit that that evidence is refuted and
that it had lost its value, they rather use evolution as “evidence” for the evolution
of those similar and distant species, calling this Convergent Evolution, so similarity
here becomes “an effect” which happened some way or another because of the
evolution. And that is a logical fallacy known as Circular Argumentation, or arguing
from the point of difference, where the premise is just as much in need of proof or
evidence as the conclusion.
For example, if the chimpanzee has the most resemblance to humans of all animals,
then the evolution theory predicts that there is a common ancestor between
humans and chimpanzees, and also predicts that this common ancestor’s order on
the tree of life is closer than that of the common ancestor between humans and
cockroaches for example. Because a cockroach’s morphology is far different than
human’s, so if there is a new evidence that cockroaches are closer to humans than

110
chimps, then that would refute Darwin’s idea of considering the resemblance of
morphological appearance of different species as evidence that they evolved from
each other, and this would also destroy the tree Darwin imagined to be a big family
tree of all living species, and that is exactly what convergent evolution did when it
showed that morphological resemblance to the point of being identical is never an
evidence of kinship or the existence of a direct common ancestor.
For example, placental mammals (who give birth to fully developed offspring, like
humans, monkeys and elephants) and marsupials (whose fetuses’ formation is
perfected inside their marsupium, like kangaroos and flying squirrels), the
morphological resemblance between these cannot be due to a direct common
ancestor, because, according to the Darwinian scenario, their ancestors diverged
from each other before the extinction of dinosaurs, i.e. around 160 million years
ago, when that alleged common ancestor was an animal that looked more like
contemporary rats and rodents, and then placental animals evolved from each
other independently from the marsupials. Meaning that this placental flying
squirrel (in figure 15) is closer to elephants and humans than the marsupial flying
squirrel on the left, which in turn is closer to the kangaroo and kuala than it is to
the placental flying kangaroo.

Figure (15)
Similarly, when you look at these two fishes above in (figure 16), you would think
that they have a common ancestor, which is the fish underneath them, or so
predicts the evolution theory

111
 Figure (16)
But you could be shocked when you learn that the gray fishes below in (figure 17)
is much closer to the yellow fishes above, than the yellow fishes are close to each
other.

Figure (17)
The same thing is repeated in all these species (figure 18)

Figure (18)
112
As this is not an individual or an exceptional case, but rather, it’s the dominant case,
and tens of examples of this phenomenon can be observed in all living beings (birds,
reptiles, insects, fungus, fish, plants, amphibians, and proteins and enzymes too).
More examples can be referred to on Wikipedia, by searching under (List of
examples of convergent evolution), and here are some photos of some examples
of this convergent evolution that is not based on a direct common ancestor (figures
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27).
Old Dutch capuchine & komorner tumbler

Figure (19)

Figure (20)
113
 Euphorbia & Cactus

Figure (21)
Yellow-throated longclaw & Eastern Meadowlark

Figure (22)
Hedgehog & Tenrec

Figure (23)

114
Hypocnemis subflava & Hypocnemis peruviana

Figure (24)
Woodchuck & Wombat

Figure (25)

115
 Figure (26)
Praying mantis & Mantispidae

Figure (27)

1. Junk DNA:
One of the famous evidence of evolution is Junk DNA. These are parts of the DNA
that don’t carry the genetic codes necessary to create proteins, and which, until
now, have no known function, so evolutionists claim that this non-coded DNA is the
remains of the accumulations of the evolution theory that has been in action for
millions of years, and that all that junk used to be functional one day, but then were
116
replaced by better ones, therefore those were suspended from work until they are
completely gotten rid of. It’s like you have bought a new television set and threw
the old one in the place where you keep the old junk until you get rid of it. You
might get disappointed if you know that 98% of our DNA is junk DNA.
But this concept collapsed when a group of scientists developed a big international
project for the objective of creating an encyclopedia of human DNA called
“ENCODE”, where these non-coded parts of our DNA were examined. And they
concluded that 80% of this non-coded DNA perform biochemical activities)110(.
So, these perform a specific job inside the body that we are still discovering until
today. The researchers in this project published 30 scientific papers in one week, in
one of the most famous scientific magazines (Science-Nature), in an action that
looked like offering condolences to this theory of Junk DNA, which became among
the dead)111(:
"junk" or so it seemed.This week, 30 research papers, including six in Nature and
additional papers published by Science, sound the death knell for the idea that our
DNA is mostly littered with useless bases.
A decade-long project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) has found that
80% of the human genome serves some purpose, biochemically speaking “I don’t
think anyone would have anticipated even close to the amount of sequence that
ENCODE has uncovered that looks like it has functional importance" says John A.
2. Bad design:
Another favorite evidence among evolutionists is the bad design of some organs in
the living beings. One example they keep singing tirelessly is the “bad design” of
the inverted retina in humans especially and in the vertebrates in general, because
when light enters the eye, it has to pass through several inner layers of its neural
apparatus before reaching the photoreceptors, which prevents some of the light
from reaching the retina, causing blind spots. The atheist Richard Dawkins
mockingly says in his book “ The Blind Watchmaker”)112(: “ Any engineer would
naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires
leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the

(110( ENCODE Project Consortium. (2012). An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome.
Nature, 489(7414), 57-74.
(111( IUM, T. (2012). ENCODE project writes eulogy for junk DNA.
(112( Dawkins, R. (1986). The blind watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design.
WW Norton & Company, p. 100.

117
photocells might point away from the light, with their wires departing on the side
nearest the light.”
But again come the studies and research to reveal the fallibility of evolution
evidence, and to confirm the importance of the existence of the retina with this
specific bizarre design, because photosensitive retinal ganglion cells have high
metabolism rate and they need this direct supply of nutrition of the interacting
cells, and because the retina in vertebrates is distinctive from that of the
Cephalopod (where photosensitive cells exist in front of the network of nerves
and capillaries directly in front of the light), it is distinctive because of the
existence of the layer of Retinal pigment epithelium (RPE), and this strange
construction of the vertebrates’ eye performs an important role with respect to
this layer.
And there is also a recent study )113( that confirms that this situation is the most
“perfect” for us, because we need the red and green colors in our daylight vision,
and blue in our night vision, and this network of nerves in front of the
photosensitive cells intensify red and green colors more than ten times, focusing
them in rods and focal points on the photosensitive cells, especially on the cones,
which process the colors, and those are less sensitive than the rods, therefore
they needed this specific design to support this process. This was firstly proved
by using the computers, then with practical experiments on guinea pigs.
The conclusion is that evolution evidence is mostly based on fallacies supported
by a lot of noise, accompanied by oppression towards anyone who would dare
facing Darwinism with its problems to expose its fallacious arguments, or show
that there is an intelligent order created by the most genius of experts, and prove
that life phenomenon can’t be explained unless by attributing it to an all-knowing,
all-wise creator who created life in all perfection and beauty- be He exalted. That
or at least the arguments which support intelligent design, if we are to use
terminological language. And in the rest of the chapter, I will list a number of
arguments that contradict Darwinism and support intelligent design.
1. The problem of coding:
The revolution of communication we are witnessing is all based on the idea of
coding, and we’ve been using this simple idea much more developed ways since
Samuel Morris invented the telegraph, the result being great inventions like the

(113( Ribak, E., Labin, A., Safuri, S., & Perlman, I. (2015). Sorting of colors in the retina. Bulletin of the American
Physical Society, 60.

118
telephone, the radio, T.V., computers, faxes, printing devices, C.D.s and almost
everything around us. The case is simply to define the basics of the system you
want to encode then assign a specific code to each one of them, using your own
dictionary, then send it using a speedy medium (an electromagnetic wave for
example) to the receptive person after you previously inform them with the
dictionary you used for encoding, so he could decode the symbols, and this is how
the international Morse Code dictionary looks like (figure 28)

Figure (28)
If someone sent me a message like this (… --- …) and I don’t have Morris Code
dictionary, it won’t mean anything to me of course, or I could misunderstand it, I
could think that they’re being funny or something, but if I know Morris Code I will
understand that these symbols mean (SOS), a well-known expression that means
Save Our Souls.

119
And the conclusion is that the text has no value without a dictionary familiar to
both the sender and the receiver.
And as we know, the scientific name of DNA is the Genetic code, as it doubtlessly
is a code system, even our five senses are encoded too. The ear drum converts
the sound waves into different forms of mechanical energy, then they are sent to
the winding tunnels of the inner ear, and it transforms them into electromagnetic
pulses with different wavelengths and frequencies, then they are sent to the
brain which in turn decode these signals and we get to hear the different sounds
we hear. This is the same mechanism with which our senses of smell, taste and
vision and touch (modern technology is really impressive, but the great
mechanics of our bodies are even more mind blowing).
Decoding systems are everywhere around us, and with our good knowledge of
the decoding systems, we know the importance of the existence of an established
dictionary required for both the sender and the receiver.
And now the question is: if we assume the probability for a decoding system to
formulate in a random way, and if we assume that no one interfered in writing
that preserved text within each living being; the Genotype, and that no one also
interfered in understanding the meaning and significance of this text : the
Phenotype, and that all of this took place spontaneously and without intentional
planning from anyone, and that it happened in accordance with the well known
evolution mechanisms, all of that show that there is a dictionary that’s being used
to decode the genome, but it doesn’t tell us how this dictionary managed to stay
changeless in an environment that’s bombarded with mutations from every
direction? It also doesn’t tell us how this dictionary was imposed upon the
biological system?
As the principles of heredity do preserve the text, but there is no known
mechanism that guarantees preserving the dictionary itself, which is necessary
for decoding the text, and there is no mechanism that interprets why “nature”
chose this particular dictionary and not another one, nor does it tell us where it’s
kept. Because programming and decoding need both consciousness and will,
where out of an infinite number of symbols, specific ones are chosen, then each
one of this specific number of symbols is given a special interpretation which both
the sender and the receiver are obliged to use. This was a dilemma for the
materialist model that evolution theory employs to explain life. Some tried to find
a physical solution to this problem, assuming that the genetic code is only an
illusion, and that there is a chemical or a biological or a physical deterministic
120
 necessity that drove things into this direction. So is this materialist solution
actually possible?
2. We already know that there are 20 enzymes of Aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases
"AARSs", which serve to attach the appropriate amino acid onto its tRNA, and
each one of those twenty enzymes is assigned to a specific amino acid utilized
in producing all the proteins in the living organisms, as the enzyme chemically
and physically recognizes its specific amino acid, exactly like a key that fits a
specific lock. The enzyme here is the lock and the amino acid is the key, and
these locks are for the “boxes” of the tRNA, each one of these boxes is labeled
with an Anticodon, so if the message comes from the DNA by the mRNA,
carrying a group of specific codes and codons and enters into the Ribozyme,
which is the part responsible for interpreting this message, the result is then
that the boxes or the tRNAs that hold specific numbers are brought and they
consequently bring with them their keys and locks, then these keys are arranged
(amino acids) each beside each other according to the message’s instructions.
In the end, the totality of these keys will be the functional protein that’s utilized
to form part of the body structures of the living organism. (as shown in figure
29).

Figure (29)
But this can’t be a deterministic chemical explanation for the way the genetic
code works, for many reasons:

121
 1-1-2 The right-handed and the left-handed amino acids have the same
chemical composition, if chemical interactions are what control this process
(the attachment of codons- the number in the message- to the opposite codon-
the number on the box- to the specific enzymes -the locks- then the right-
handed amino acids will be also coded like the left-handed ones, because there
is no difference in their chemical composition, and because all the difference
there is the geometrical shape of the enzyme (the lock) which always matches
with the left-handed amino acids and never with the right-handed ones.
But this geometric shape of the enzyme is not a result of necessary chemical
reaction, but it’s a result of being formed that way, and that happened in
accordance with coded information and not by a chemical necessity
(stereochemical). And here we fall into contradiction, because we depend on
coding in order to deny that coding is needed and necessary.
2-1-2 there are other reasons for the inaccuracy of the stereochemical
interpretation, mentioned in this scientific paper )114( which when the authors
tried to go through all the possible solutions to explain the existence of this
genetic code, reviewing all the exiting theories, since the discovery of the DNA
until this day, and concluded the research with this question :
“Why is the genetic code the way it is, and how did it come to be?”
This question is still one of the most complicated ones facing the science of
biology, and it seems that we’re going to spend another 50 years in addition to
the previous 50, until we get to have a satisfying answer. the paper also says
that questions like : why are there only four nitrogenous bases, not more and
not less? Why the codon constitutes of only three nitrogenous bases? And why
only twenty amino acids? These are all legitimate questions we need to answer.
To the author, the stereochemical theory wasn’t a satisfying interpretation, and
he mentioned some of his reasons:
2-1-2-1 there are many amino acids that have more than one codon, like
Leucine who has six codons (schedule (1))

(114( Koonin, E. V., & Novozhilov, A. S. (2009). Origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma.
IUBMB life, 61(2), 99-111

122
 Schedule (1)
This goes against the stereochemical idea, because if the codon (the number in the
message) was stereochemically attached to a specific amino acid (the key), there
wouldn’t have been a space for multiple codons for one amino acid.
2-1-2-2 the paper also mentioned another reason, that is there are amino acids
other than the known twenty biological ones which are part of the protein
composition in the living organisms, and these were inserted in practical
experiments inside the cell with some genetic engineering, and they acquired
genetic codes, like this research shows)115(. And this is evidence that there doesn’t
exist any stereochemical necessity preventing the encoding of these amino acids,
likewise, there is no stereochemical necessity that require specifically twenty
amino acids out of a great number of them to perform the encoding.
2-1-2-3 It also mentions another reason: the existence of dictionaries )116( different
than the standard genetic code, in the mitochondria for example, and that’s the
reason this living organism is considered to be one who lives in symbiosis with
humans and other living organisms and not part of them. the existence of more
than one dictionary means that there is more than one way to decode the genome
and this clearly shows that the case is not a chemical or a physical necessity, but
(115( Wang, L., Xie, J., & Schultz, P. G. (2006). Expanding the genetic code. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct.,
35, 225-249.
(116( Can be reviewed from Wikipedia under the title “list of genetic codes”.

123
rather, it’s one of many possible codes that needs to be chosen out of all the others,
and this doesn’t have a satisfying explanation within the materialist frame that uses
blind mechanisms that don’t have a will. That’s why Francis Crick suggested, forty
years ago, the theory of “Frozen Accident”, which is like choosing 64 random
choices out of 10 84 then freezing the rest and making these a law!! What made
Crick say that is that he was trying to combine between the fact that there is an
mandatory dictionary and the absence of a chemical necessity to explain it, so he
devised this mythical solution, and it has been accepted, since it’s a materialist
solution, even though it’s an unsatisfactory one, the evidence that this is an
unsatisfactory solution is that the scientific community until this very moment still
see that it’s necessary to investigate the secret behind this magnificent code, so if
coding can’t be explained with pure materialist ways, then this invalidates the
evolution theory.

1. The problem of consciousness:

A lot of people think that science knows how the processes of consciousness and
rationalization take place, and that it’s a finished case. And they don’t know that all
what science has is a knowledge of the brain interactions with these processes, and
this happened by observing the loss of these processes for reasons of injuries in
certain areas of the brain, or by observing the brain’s activity during these states
by using some electrical and electromagnetic devices like Electroencephalography
or Magnetoencephalography. But do these provide us with an adequate analysis of
consciousness itself, how it happens and why are humans are endowed with this
special gift?
The answer is no.
As the proponents of materialist atheist thought always wish and sometimes think
that science proved that the brain or the nervous system possess something that
can give us a full explanation of the processes of thinking and realization, and
consequently be able to explain the phenomenon of consciousness in a materialist
way, and this can’t be done unless we first know what really happens during these
states and what are the mechanisms. This hasn’t happened yet, and it might never
happen.
For example, the part of the brain that’s responsible for thinking consists of the two
frontal lobes, these, like the rest of the brain, consist of nervous cells which have
the sole job of transmitting electrical and neurological signals (neurotransmitters),
124
these are chemical substances controlling the pathways of the signals so they can
be transmitted across the brain, examples of these are serotonin, dopamine,
norepinephrine, acetylcholine and gaba and others. And using psychoactive drugs
we can raise or lower the level of any of these chemicals. So, if consciousness is
restricted to the brain chemistry, it would be easy to create a drug that can make
you believe in an idea or disbelieve in it, and another that could make you love
something and hate another and a third one that could make you invent something
totally unique, and many other things that human consciousness unique, but all
this doesn’t exist, as all drugs affect the brain interactions necessary for
consciousness, but they don’t affect consciousness itself, because just like someone
can hit another on the head and make them lose conscience, having caused
alteration of the interactions necessary for consciousness but don’t alter
consciousness itself, and they can’t hit someone on the head in order to convince
them of some idea. This is what drugs do.
As changing the chemistry and the electricity of the brain don’t change
consciousness, but it can weaken or strengthen it, or affect its presence or absence.
That is why the physicist Leonard Mlodinow, said in a T.V. interview )117( that there
is no physical explanation for consciousness. The justification for the presence of
human consciousness had been always that humans had a relatively bigger cerebral
cortex than the other creatures, especially in the frontal lobes. This is like explaining
the existence of water with water, as it doesn’t provide us with any valuable
information to explain why and how and what consciousness is made of. But this
concept too was recently destroyed by studies scientists performed using MRI to
compare the cerebral cortex of humans to that of great apes )118(, based on the
belief that it grew bigger in humans on one of the happy evolution days. To their
surprise, there was no such difference in the size of the cerebral cortex between
humans and great apes.
As trying to portray the mind as merely the brain, or that it’s a process that can be
explained within the frame of natural materialist frame, is a delusional and a foolish
attempt. The same thing applies to the illusion of creating a computer that
possesses a human-like mind, because computers can’t understand and rationalize
and make decisions any more than what they are previously programmed to do,
and this is the core difference between algorithms and things like free will and
awareness. Because although the computer handles coded electrical signals just

(117( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGvzheu1JQA
(118( Semendeferi, K., Lu, A., Schenker, N., & Damásio, H. (2002). Humans and great apes share a large frontal
cortex. Nature neuroscience, 5(3), 272-276.

125
like a brain cell does, it’s impossible for the computer to understand or rationalize
something, which shows that consciousness is not mere handling of a bunch of
algorithms.
Gödel himself argued, based on his famous theorem we discussed in the previous
chapter- the Incompleteness Theorem) 119( - that it’s impossible to invent a
computer that can rationalize and have free will like humans, this argument has
been revived by Roger Penrose in his book )120( “The Emperor’s New Mind,” then
again in the book “Shadows of The Mind,” and also this scientific
magazine) 121( which is specialized in investigating the truth about human
consciousness, and the magazine listed these three questions in its introduction to
show that these puzzles are yet to be solved and they need more research:
"How does the mind relate to the brain?
Can computers ever be conscious?
What do we mean by subjectivity and the self?"
And there are those who think that self-learning skills in computers are considered
consciousness, and that’s not true, because that is called artificial intelligence and
not artificial awareness. It’s an unconscious way to achieve efficiency, meaning that
the machine performs data analysis and then adopts the strategies that achieve the
highest profitable actions.
And the wider the database gets with time, the more efficient the performance of
those computers get, and all of this take place without awareness or consciousness,
and there is no professional who questions that) 122( , because once again,
consciousness and awareness and feeling and free will are not data analysis and
following the pathways that achieve the highest profit.
If consciousness can’t be explained with purely materialist ways, then this
contradicts the evolution theory and materialist doctrines in general, and at the
same time a clear sign that we all have an awareness of something beyond the
world of matter within us, which can’t be explained unless by attributing this
awareness to powers superior to the limitations of nature.

(119( Gödel, K. (1931). Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I.
Monatshefte für mathematik und physic, 38(1), 173-198.
(120( Penrose, R. (1999). The emperor's new mind: Concerning computers, minds, and the laws of physics. Oxford
University Press.
(121( Penrose, R. (1994). Shadows of the Mind (Vol. 4). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(122( Journal of Consciousness Studies

126
3-The problem of irreducible complexity:
If evolution theory is based on the premise that the extremely complex functions
happening within the living organisms accumulated gradually through billions of
years, and that all the things beneficial to life had been selected during this period
of time, until these reached the current state of complexity we are witnessing
today, performing all these biological functions in the living organisms. Then such
a premise is doubtlessly in danger if we find in these living organisms irreducible
functions, impossible to have happened by gradual selection, and this is what
Darwin himself admitted in his book “The Origin of Species”)123(, where he says:
"IF it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not
possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my
theory would absolutely break down".
This means that such an organ is complex in a way that’s irreducible, i.e. the job it
performs can’t exist before all the parts consisting that organ are in place, and if a
single part is missing, the organ’s function absolutely disappears.
When you look at such an organ, you know for certain that it must have been
purposefully designed and perfected, because the function it performs, which is
the reason for keeping it (according to the materialist Darwinian theory) can only
exist as whole. So, if 99% of the organ is in place, its benefit to the body is zero, and
it won’t be able to perform the job it was assigned to. Just like the modern
complicated appliances, if you cut a single wire or took a small part out of it, they
would be completely non-functional.
It’s of course very unlikely that these appliances were assembled gradually because
of accumulation of the benefits and advantages offered by primitive parts of these
appliances. For example, the electric elevator’s job is to carry people from lower
levels of a building to the upper levels and vice versa, and this function can’t be
achieved before all parts of the elevator; wires, ropes, and engines and the big
cabin, and before all these things are in place and supplied by the necessary power.
All of this has to happen before the elevator can move one centimeter. This is
irreducible complexity and can’t exist randomly without previous planning or
wisdom and purpose.
But if an organ or an appliance that’s complex in a reducible way, meaning that its
parts can be independently used, doesn’t necessarily need a designer for it to exist

(123( Darwin, C. (1872) Origin of Species, 6th ed. (1988), New York University Press, New York, p. 154.

127
as whole, and it can be assembled by means of chance and the accumulation of the
benefits its parts provide, because each part performs the same job in the end but
with less efficiency (because if the parts are not beneficial, then natural selection
won’t find a “reason” to select them), and gradual accumulation is only helpful in
increasing the efficiency of the job and not the job itself. And compared to the
electric elevator as an example of irreducible complexity, an example of reducible
complexity would be the stairs.
One step in the stairs would elevate you one step from the ground, and if you have
25% of the steps necessary to build a staircase in a building the consists of 10 floors,
you would have the benefit of being able to move between two or three floors.
Unlike the elevator which can’t be useful at all unless you fully assemble its parts.
The staircase way is what Darwinism think that nature adopted in order to
accumulate the beneficial parts in the living organism so its current complex parts
can now perform their specific jobs, and this theory collapses if this is not the
general case for all the organic functions in the living organisms. The truth is, that
a lot of these organic functions are irreducibly complex, take the example of the
flagellum, blood coagulation, DNA coding and the immune system and a lot more
other examples.
Faced by these, the evolutionists invented the idea of Co-option, and said that all
these irreducibly complex organs, its parts indeed couldn’t indeed have the ability
to perform any job until all of them are completed, but they had other functions,
some of them disappeared and some others developed and merged into the final
function we currently know, and this is how we find the reason that makes natural
selection select these parts so they are gathered in order to perform this new
complex and irreducible function. Imagine how funny it would be if we apply this
concept to the example of the electric elevator, would be something that only
belongs to the children’s cartoon movies! Because we’d be required to use the
power of our imagination enough to believe that all the parts of the electric
elevator assembled themselves in one place and connected themselves together in
the right way, not with the intention of creating an electric elevator, but they had
completely different intentions. For example, the hard wire ropes hanging from the
top of the roof to the bottom of the building have been brought by a thief so he
can break into one of the apartments, and he also brought strong pulleys, so he can
use the ropes to lift a big safe he was going to take from inside that apartment, and
that safe was big enough to lift two or three people inside it. At the same time,
there was a person in the next building who vowed to God that if a certain wish

128
happens, he would buy an elevator engine and sneak into the next building to put
it in the hollow place in the middle of the building, and because of a stroke of luck,
there was a third person who’d put in this specific building too, electrical
transformers and connections in order to host a party for all the dwellers of the
building. And during the time the thief was moving the safe out of the building, his
foot slipped and the big safe fell on the engine and the wires mingled together and
the ropes were pulled and a primitive electric elevator appeared, which the
dwellers of the building could use later to develop a more sophisticated one.
Because even though it’s an irreducibly complex apparatus, it came into existence
for completely different reasons and purposes other than creating an elevator. This
is the logic of evolution which Dr. Michael Behe questioned)124( in his famous book
“Darwin’s Black Box”)125(. so, whomever doesn’t find the story of the thief and the
elevator difficult to believe, is rightfully an evolutionist.
And whomever can see this as a an extremely superficial way that no sane person
can believe or adopt, they are accused by the evolutionists to be irrational and a
believer in the myths and fictitious stories of the ancestors!! Moreover, any way of
thinking that goes against the logic of evolution is being criminalized and Michael
Behe and his likes should be presented at court as happened in the famous Dover
trial)126(, during which the judge issued a decision of prohibiting teaching the theory
of Intelligent Design.
On the other hand, evolutionists regard the theory of Co-option (the story of the
thief and the electric elevator) as hard science, and a scientific method that we can
use to interpret all cases of irreducible complexity. This is how the evolutionist
mentality deals with any crises or dilemmas as they reveal some aspects of its lethal
deficiencies.
And lastly, I’d like to mention something important, which is the fallacious
argument the Darwinists use to argue for partial organic functions or Co-option.
The complexity argument doesn’t refute the existence of partial functions of the
organs, but it disproves the notion that natural selection has any role in affecting

(124( Michael Behe is a An American Biochemist, He serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in
Pennsylvania. His book “Darwin`s Black Box” was named to the National Review's list “the 100 most important
nonfiction works of the twentieth century”.
(125( Behe, M. J. (1996). Darwin's black box: the biochemical challenge to evolution. Simon and Schuster.
(126( Where eleven parents of students in Dover, York County, Pennsylvania, near the city of York, sued the Dover
Area School District over the school board requirement that a statement presenting intelligent design as "an
explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view" was to be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes
when evolution was taught (2004). The outcome was that the statement is unconstitutional, and that I.D. is not science,
but a religious view that shouldn`t be imposed upon the students.

129
the current complex functions by means of accumulated partial functions that have
nothing to do with the desired complex function.
This means that the Darwinian hypothesis of partial organic functions is in truth
hollow, and what they’re saying doesn’t bring natural selection back into the scene,
they are only portraying this matter as pure chance, and saying that the existence
of these complex organic functions happened because of chance and without a
guiding mechanism like selection is an act of sheer folly that can’t be called a
scientific theory.
The example of the electric elevator didn’t say that its parts have no independent
partial functions, but it mentioned that each part had a function, and mentioned
the reason of assembling all these parts at one time, but even if each part had a
beneficial use on its own, and had been selected for a purpose, assembling a
complete elevator was complete chance, a chance that happened on separate
levels, but it’s a chance anyway. Imagine three people standing in front of the
elevator in the example, the first one says that the elevator was assembled by
chance, this person is foolish of course, the second one says it was intentionally
designed because it couldn’t have any beneficial use unless all its parts are in place
and in perfect coordination, and this can’t happen haphazardly, and the third one
says that it’s neither chance or design, and he tells them the story of the thief and
the elevator as a possible scenario, so is there a difference between the first person
and the third person’s stories?
The answer is no, as both of these stories support chance, only the first person’s
story depicts a single stroke of chance, and the third one’s story is also chance,
albeit divided into smaller strokes of chance, so it can seem more logical, but this
doesn’t actually change anything, because if natural selection selects things that
have nothing to do with the final function, in order to affect that function in the
end, this is really aimless and not a selective mechanism, but a completely random
process that could keep on moving between partial functions indefinitely without
ever affecting any irreducibly complex organ. Just like this rat (representing natural
selection) which keeps chasing the cheese parts in the opposite figure (which
represents partial functions), because there is no reason driving it to go for the
pizza (the irreducibly complex function), so it can’t be said that the rat possesses a
special sense or affinity with the pizza, and if it does reach the pizza one day, this
would happen because of pure luck, and it can keep on moving in these closed
paths forever, chasing and eating the cheese bits without ever reaching the pizza.

130
4. The problem of the Cambrian Explosion:
In the beginning of this chapter I mentioned some of the evidence that refutes
the idea of the tree of life which Darwin imagined, but there is no evidence
stronger than the Cambrian Explosion evidence, because it’s an observation that
completely contradicts the idea of gradual evolution by means of natural
selection (which is the core of the theory). The Cambrian Explosion is a term
assigned to a biological phenomenon that happened 550 million years ago.
Preserved in the fossil record, and it means the sudden appearance of most
major animal phyla (around 95% of the living animals phyla we know today), this
one contradicts the theory of evolution on two sides:
5-1- First : all these phyla appeared without having to have evolved from
common ancestors, then continued to exist the way they appeared during the
Cambrian period until this day, and this applies to the vast majority of the living
animals phyla.
The evolution theory predicts that the fossil record will reveal to us long chain
links of transitory animals in between all these phyla, as presented in (figure 30)

131
 Figure (30)
But then the data the scientists found in the Cambrian explosion indicates that
the relationships between these phyla are completely independent, they
started this way and remained that way, as shown in (figure 31)

Figure (31)

132
5-2- Second: the timespan of the Cambrian Explosion is believed to be around
13 million years, as this explosion took place sometime between the Cambrian
period and the precambrian period.
And this period of time, compared to lifetime on earth is considered a few
moments or a few minutes if we imagine that life began on earth 24 hours ago,
in other words, the earth would be devoid of almost all life forms, except for
some primitive forms of life and very few multicellular organisms, until 21 hours
pass, and within the next two or three minutes, the Cambrian explosion
happens and most of the animals we know today appear into existence. This
completely contradicts the idea of the slow gradual transformation with time,
the idea on which Darwin based his theory, as evolution theory predicts the
appearance of these phyla with such flowing gradual manner creschendoing
with time, as in (figure 32).

Figure (32)
But these observations and clues that the Cambrian explosion provide made the
appearance of the phyla happen with such a sudden way shown in (figure 33)

133
 Figure (33)
Which shows that the scientific evidence pointing in the different direction of
the predictions of the evolution theory, and this contradiction is so obvious that
it can be seen by everyone, as one just needs to put these observations beside
the predictions (as in figure 34)

Figure (34)
134
 And that’s why Darwin admitted that the Cambrian explosion is one of the
strongest evidence that refute his theory, where he says)127(:
"If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really
started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution
through natural selection".
But Darwin was depending on the incompleteness of the fossil record, and he
was predicting that the fossil record will be completed one day and become the
way the theory predicts, and then it will reveal the existence of creature before
the Cambrian period and then this big leap which destroys his theory would
finally get out of the way, but here we are after more than 150 years after this
theory was published and after the discovery of hundreds of thousands of
fossils, the Cambrian explosion is still the same as it was in Darwin’s time, and
this observation was proved to be completely true and not because of our lack
of knowledge about the remaining fossil record, and we verified that these
observations do certainly contradict the evolution theory’s predictions.

6-the problem of the tragedy of common resources, an obstacle that the

evolution theory can’t overcome :
Introduction:
This subject is an attempt to approach one of the most important paradoxes that
destroy the evolution theory, but it’s not only mere demonstration of the argument
that destroys the theory, but rather a showcase of what the evolutionists have
presented and what they are now presenting to deal with this problem, and a
demonstration of what they themselves admit, without question, because the
result is really shocking. And for the reader who is searching for the truth to become
a person who is able to make the correct judgement about this matter (even if
they’re not professional). Because even the solutions that can be presented to deal
with this problem can’t be attributed to the evolution theory, or its mechanisms,
and this means that when the atheist searches for an explanation of the presence
of life, they will find themselves facing one of two choices: believe in nothing, or
believe in the great creator, and evolution theory won’t be one of those choices.
This paradox doesn’t is only destroy the theory, but it also delicately proves direct
intervention of an expert and knowledgeable power, and the biggest advantage it

(127( Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1902 edition, Part Two, pp. 83, 88.

135
offers is that it achieves the condition of experimental testability like any
acceptable scientific theory, and this advantage allows it to overcome the biggest
obstacle intelligent design is also facing, because as I mentioned in the first chapter,
experimental science is unable to encompass all the truth, especially abstract truths
like the meaning of design, and this has been exploited by the evolutionists in order
to make intelligent design seem like pseudoscience, but with God’s help we can
make experimental science get to understand what design is, one way or another,
because this is not impossible. And this is indeed what this paradox will do to
experimental methodology.
In this chapter I will- God willing- explain what is the paradox of the tragedy of
common resources, and what kind of experimental evidence is used to prove it,
and why is it a dilemma that the evolution theory can’t overcome and at the same
time can’t ignore, and how is it a direct evidence of the intervention of an extremely
wise and knowledgeable power, and how can we verify it experimentally.
6-1- Evolution Theory and cooperative traits :
The cooperative behavior in living organisms was and still is the biggest challenges
confronting the evolutionists, as the presence of co-operative traits among living
organisms is a very perplexing evolution dilemma. It doesn’t just exist, but it’s a
very wide spread and a dominant phenomenon, as the living kingdom is rampant
with many forms of such cooperativeness from the smallest organism to the biggest
ones, but cooperativeness is always costly, because when you are able to give or
do something for the benefit of other members of your society, you are then
standing in an opposite direction of the materialist way of thinking, even in out
human society and our daily lives, because from the point of view of materialist
thinking, what could you possibly gain from regularly giving a certain amount of
your salary to the poor for example.
And what would you gain from sympathizing with others when they have problems
and giving them help and good advice. What would you gain from trying to rescue
someone from sinking or from burglary or killing or rape? All this might cause you
losses, and you could even lose your own life, and of course there is no material
gain worth mentioning if you do these things.
Cooperation is a real problem for the evolution theory as the theory embodies the
materialist thinking in dealing with animals and all living systems, and discussions
about this problem were heated during the sixties of the last century, until the
evolutionists came out with new inventions to enhance the situation and present

136
us with materialist and pragmatic interpretations for these cooperative traits,
saying that some of these traits benefit the cooperative individual one way or
another (mutualism), and when some behaviors don’t fit in this category, like
Altruism for example, can have an indirect benefit in cases of altruism among
relatives for example, because relatives carry the same genetics and they pass them
onto the next generations, and this benefits the individual who sacrificed
themselves (in other words, benefit to the genes which caused them to behave this
way), a mechanism known as Kin selection, as the higher the degree of the relativity
of these individuals who benefit from your cooperative traits, the more the benefit
you give them comes back to you, one way or another, because if these people
succeed in surviving, this will cause all of your genes or at least most of them to be
successfully transmitted to the next generations, and this is what supposedly
motivates the living beings to transcend their instincts (from the evolutionist point
of view).
There is also the mechanism of Spatial Structure, which is the result of the way
these animals grew, or them having to live separately for one reason or another, or
other restrictions imposed by the environment, which in the end guarantees that
all the creatures, living in this closed society are cooperative, and the costs of this
cooperation are equally divided between them, without any relative losses for the
cooperative individual among all others, and this is enough to guarantee the
continuation of cooperativeness.
Also, there is the mechanism of Punishment, employed by the insects, being
builders of large cooperative societies, like ants, bees and hives and others, as there
are individuals in these communities who punish those who fail to perform their
active roles inside these communities, by excommunicating them. There is also a
similar mechanism, that is Coercion, which consists of forcing the individuals to
behave cooperatively, or do behaviors beneficial for the community as a whole and
not the individual, like the pheromones which queens release in order to suppress
the ovaries of the worker bees, so they don’t produce eggs, to limit the sources of
eggs, because that would corrupt the bee cell and the queen’s eggs won’t get the
necessary attention and care. Another mechanism is the Diminishing Returns, and
it’s an attempt to restrain the competition for gaining benefits within the
community, in order to limit uncooperative or exploitive selfish behaviors. For
example, if you feel really thirsty, then the first glass of water would quench your
thirst 50% of and the second glass would make you 20% thirsty, and if you reach
for a third glass, you might not be able to drink all of it. This saturation performs a

137
role in limiting the competition for the resources, and consequently, has a role in
restraining the evolution mechanisms which push everyone to gain as many profits
and gains they can despite of any costs. For example, blood sucking bats compete
each other for the best position to suck the victim’s blood, but when they return to
their dwellings at the end of the day, there will be those who would be about to
burst from the loads of blood they had, and others whose bellies are empty, and
then, after they were competing for this blood, they begin to share some of it
among themselves, because of saturation.
And this cooperative behavior guarantees that everyone gets what they need, most
days, because the same individual who would share the blood it sucked with its
thirsty brother, could be unable to find its food in the next day, and then it could
borrow blood from others, and so on and so forth. So, saturation becomes the
reason for this cooperative behavior. There are other mechanisms the evolutionists
have been digging for, for years, so they can explain the presence of cooperative
traits among the living species.
But why did cooperative traits need all these efforts? Because if we are to ask for
the reason of the presence of any trait in any living being, the answer will be always
ready: mutations and natural selection. So what makes the basic evolution
mechanisms unable to find an explanation for these cooperative traits? Why did it
need outside help and many additional mechanisms like the ones I mentioned
above? And do these additional mechanisms really solve the problem or not?
The evolution theory predicts that the uncooperative, selfish individual within the
living community would gain bigger profits, because they are already inside a
cooperative community, without having to pay the expensive cooperation costs,
and so they would beat the cooperative individual anywhere, supported all the
time by natural selection wherever they go (as in Figure 35, symbolizing the
cooperative individual as (w) and the uncooperative as (c), so if any circumstances
arrive, like immigration or mutations, the cooperative individua is present in the
same society as well as the uncooperative, and so the inescapable result will be the
uncooperative individual beating the cooperative one, until cooperative individuals
get fully extinct, and this result is affected by the very mechanisms of
evolution)128(.

(128( Brown, S. P., West, S. A., Diggle, S. P., & Griffin, A. S. (2009). Social evolution in micro-organisms and a
Trojan horse approach to medical intervention strategies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci., 364(1533), 3157-
3168

138
 Figure (35)
And here appears the contradiction, because natural selection always selects those
who cause the deterioration of the group and their efficiency, instead of selecting
ones who raise the level of the well being of this group as time passes., because
when the uncooperative individual beats the cooperative one, they would lose the
cooperative traits on which the society basically depend, which would weaken the
whole community to the degree that it might get totally extinct, and this includes
the uncooperative individual too, in a phenomenon known as Evolutionary Suicide.
And also the mutations which are supposed to always bring with them new traits
for the community, will cause an inescapable confrontation between the
cooperative and uncooperative individuals. And consequently, the basic evolution
theory mechanisms lead to the extinction of the cooperative traits, then destroy all
life, instead of preserving life (and that’s why this theory needed resuscitation from
these additional mechanisms, which presented nothing in actuality, as we’ll see
later) and hence comes the problem, and failed all the attempts of begging mercy
from materialism, and this had been proved theoretically and experimentally.

139
Theoretical mathematical concept expresses this truth, using a method called The
Prisoner’s Dilemma), in this dilemma, the selfish strategies are always favored,
despite the lack of efficiency it causes for the whole community, and that’s why it’s
called a dilemma. The prisoner’s dilemma consists of a mathematical model of the
results of a meeting of all the different strategies, and what is the end result of this,
based on the resulting benefit: in which direction things will always evolve?
The dilemma consists of an offer from the police to two suspects, for whom the
police don’t have an evidence of criminal conviction, and this offer is presented to
each person independently, that if one of them confesses with what the other
person did, they will be rewarded by releasing them and their partner would get a
three-year sentence in prison. If the opposite happens, the person get imprisoned
for three years, and their partner gets to be released. And if none of them confess,
then each one would be punished with two years in prison. As shown in schedule
(2).

Schedule (2)
So, turning the partner in is selfishness (the bottom column of the schedule), and
being silent is the cooperation (the upper column of the schedule), so, selfishness
is always favored over cooperation, because each partner doesn’t know what the
other will do. If they keep silent, their partner might confess and they get
imprisoned for three years, and if his partner cooperates with them by being silent,
both of them will be imprisoned for two years, so he has only the choice of either
two or three years in prison, but if they are selfish enough, they will be released, or
in worst case scenario, they get imprisoned for two years, so he has a choice of
either two years in prison, or zero years.
So, everyone agrees that cooperation is subject all the time, anywhere, to be
exploited by uncooperative individuals, and agree that the result of this interaction
between the exploitative and the cooperative is in the interest of the exploitative.
But reality doesn’t support this premise, because living beings still exist, and their
communities are rampant with cooperative individuals, and evolutionists admit all
that, as whoever reads any scientific paper in the field of social evolution, for

140
example these ones)129( )130( )131(, they would find that all what I mentioned here are
axioms, which none of the evolutionists argues, and just some random quotes here
and there, and for example, I will mention something easier than this, from this
paper (the same reference 101) :
"Cooperative behaviors that benefit other individuals have posed particular
problems for evolutionary biologists".
From the same paper:
"If explaining cooperation is one of the greatest problems for evolutionary biology,
then explaining cooperation in microbes is one of the key aspects of this problem".
And also this paper which says)132(:
"Social evolution theory has devoted considerable attention to the fundamental
problem of the evolution of cooperative behavior".
And also in this paper)133(:
"The origin of altruism is a fundamental problem in evolution".
But despite these desperate attempts to present an evolutionist satisfying solution
and interpretation for these cooperative traits by means of those additional
mechanisms, after the fundamental mechanisms failed to do so, the problem is not
over yet. It might even has just started, because these mechanisms might explain
the birth of cooperation from the womb of materialism, but they soon fail to make
materialism mercy its offspring or let it reproduce and proliferate, as these are all
completely partial solutions, just like a painkiller that a patient takes to alleviate
their pain, the painkiller alleviates the pain a little bit, but it doesn’t remove the
cause of the disease, and as the effects of the painkiller go away, the pain comes
back. As all these partial mechanisms don’t deal with the source of the problem,
because it can never be solved with materialist ways (as I will show later), because
a solution like spatial distribution can limit the confrontation between cooperative
and uncooperative individuals in a society, but this of course doesn’t last for long,

(129( West, S. A., Diggle, S. P., Buckling, A., Gardner, A., & Griffin, A. S.(2007b). The social lives of.microbes.
ANNU. REV. ECOL.EVOL.S, 53-77.
(130( West, S. A., Griffin, A. S., Gardner, A., & Diggle, S. P. (2006). Social evolution theory for.microorganisms.
Nat. Rev. Microbiol, 4(8), 597-607
(131( Travisano, M., & Velicer, G. J. (2004). Strategies of microbial cheater control. Trends in.microbiology, 12(2),
72-78.
(132( Xavier, J. B. (2011). Social interaction in synthetic and natural microbial communities. Molecular.systems
biology, 7(1).
(133( Kreft, J. U. (2004). Biofilms promote altruism. Microbiology, 150(8),2751-2760.

141
and there is no mechanism among these present a general and substantial solution
to the problem. And as we mentioned, cooperation is really widespread in reality,
and even interconnecting with all forms of life, because using the general resources
in an organized way preserving the resources, is a cooperative behavior, and all
nature’s resources are considered general common resources, moreover,
cooperation is a helper in the production of these resources and not just a wise
consumer for them, as most simple celled organisms depend on resources
consisting of secretions produced by the cooperative individual, and this achieves
the well-being of both of them and not just the organism’s personal advantage, and
this happens in many forms, like absorbing and assimilating the nutrients,
reproduction and fighting against other species and other life essentials, as
cooperation is the producer of resources in the life of a big part of the animal
kingdom, and it’s the wise regulator of its consumption in the lives of the remaining
living beings, so, if materialism won’t heed wisdom and admits the importance of
cooperation in the living kingdom, there will be no resources, no life, and no
existence of anything.
This bias towards cooperation necessitates a general mechanism to change the
direction of things, and this mechanism doesn’t exist in the fundamental
mechanisms of the evolution theory, nor dies it exist in the additional ones either.
And if the mathematical modelling of the “problem” of the cooperative traits is the
Prisoner’s Dilemma, the real life modelling of it is the tragedy of the commons.
6-2- What is the tragedy of the commons?
The tragedy of the commons, or of the common resources, is a term invented by
Hardin in an important scientific paper)134(. it means that the competition among
individuals to consume a resource can result in the disappearance of the resource
itself, and consequently, the disappearance of the whole biological system, and this
can happen to all the natural resources because of the presence of uncooperative
individuals who destroy these resources because of their unwise consumption, or
by them beating the cooperative individuals and pushing them towards
extinction, so the whole community gets destroyed because of the disappearance
of the cooperative individuals (Evolutionary Suicide). And those exploiters can be
present in any living society, whether by means of mutations or by means of the
immigration of the individuals from one place to another, this means that life must
have ended billions of years ago, as it can never exist anywhere beyond the age of
protozoa, if things go normally. And evolution theory stays completely incapable of
(134( Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:12431248.

142
coming up with a solution that’s consistent with its materialist philosophy to this
lethal dilemma.
6-2-1 How is this dilemma a direct evidence of the intervention of a wise and
knowledgeable power (conscious intervention)?
Evolution goes only in one direction, that is pushing the individuals towards
acquiring the greatest amount possible of the benefits and gains without maximum
limit, and since there is a threshold beyond which resources can’t renew
themselves, if consumption reaches it. the presence of this threshold is a
fundamental condition for the existence of the resources, it’s similar to the capital
investment necessary for starting a business, which if any amount of it was
consumed, the whole business collapses.
Because if partners in any business happened to spend from the investment capital,
because they don’t count their profits and spend all the money coming into their
safe, thinking that all that money is their net profit and that their capital investment
is safe, then this business is unquestionably sinking into oblivion, and that’s why
counting the profits is the only way to avoid this problem. But this counting process
needs awareness (because there is no physical mark to distinguish between the
money that belongs to the capital investment and the profit money, but only
calculations mathematically distinguish between the), and this is what makes
things worse for the evolution theory, because this minimum limit has no physical
existence, but only a mental mathematical existence, that can only be recognized
by calculating it. Therefore, blind materialist mechanisms can’t deal with it. Only
one who has knowledge and wisdom can organize this by calculating this minimum
limit and preserving it, in spite of the materialist philosophy’s nose.
And the example Hardin puts forward in his paper to illustrate the tragedy of the
commons was an open pasture, where all shepherds were allowed to bring their
cattle, the grass in this pasture had a minimum limit which it needs in order to
renew itself, and if any of it is eaten, the whole pasture will be destroyed and it
won’t be able to renew itself, and this minimum limit has no physical existence, but
only mental mathematical one, which comes by calculating the number of
shepherds and the number of cattle owned by each shepherd, and the time the
grass needs to rebegin its cycle, so, it’s in everyone’s interest to commit to a specific
number of cattle, and to bring more into the pasture, but on the other hand, it’s
also in every shepherd’s interest to bring more cattle into the pasture, because that
would bring them more money, and the costs (the pasture) will be divided among

143
everybody, and hence transgression can occur, and the pasture gets damaged, and
everyone loses the pasture they depended on.
So all the solutions Hardin put forward in his paper required great skills and
awareness, he suggested that the government gets involved in organizing this
matter, or privatization, to assign a care provider for each section of the pasture.
And all studies in this matter revolve around the same solutions: negotiation,
agreements..etc. And this necessary intervention of ones who have knowledge and
wisdom to organize this matter, is shyly proved by the research, and this completely
destroys the materialist approach adopted by the evolution theory, which is devoid
of any awareness or intelligence of one who has wisdom and knowledge, but this
simple example shows the need for such an intelligent care provider, and here,
blind materialism commits suicide and all attempts to revive it fail.
Conscious intervention is the only general mechanism capable of handling infinite
possibilities of the tragedy of the commons to take place in any society and in
anytime, by preventing selfish exploitation of the resources which causes the
society to surpass the minimum limit necessary for the existence of these
resources, and this can only be done by intricate mathematics, which can only be
done by an all-knowing, all-wise being, and impossible to be subject to a blind
materialist mechanism.
6-2-2 What are the experimental evidence for the occurrence of the tragedy of
the commons?
Scientific research provided experimental evidence detecting the way this tragedy
took place or almost did in reality, and these are few, because the basic principle is
that this tragedy is rarely allowed to happen, because there is organization and
care, unexpected if things were at the mercy of blind purposeless mechanisms. But
– because of God’s providence- these few occasions took place or almost did to
give a clear proof that solidifies the mathematical and logical proofs, for example :
6-2-2-1 a kind of cooperative bacteria called Myxococcus Xanthus )135(, and this is a
bacteria that lives in groups and attack its victims in collective swarms, and when
the food supply diminishes, it builds something called Fruiting Body, which is a way
to survive harsh conditions, by producing germs that can endure enough to
reproduce their next generations in better future conditions. Be He exalted, the

(135( Fiegna, F. and Velicer, G. J. (2003). Competitive fates of bacterial social parasites: persistence and self-induced
extinction of Myxococcus xanthus cheaters./Proc. R. Soc. B 270: 1527/1534.

144
one who thus inspired such weak creatures. The fruiting body’s lower half consists
of supportive rod-shaped spore producers and its upper half consists of spores (as
in figure 36)

Figure (36)
And each individual can either invest in building those rods, or building spores, but,
without question, those who invest in building the spores are the ones whose
offspring survive, because each spore will turn into a new bacterial colony, while
those who continue to build the rods, won’t be able to survive, as if the dominant
strategy of a certain strain is noncooperative exploitation (the green colored ones
“Cheaters” in figure 36), as because these want the biggest share possible, and so
they only invest in building the spores, the result will be that those get to survive,
and the cooperative strain which invests in building both rods and spores will be
extinct (those colored in red (figure 36)) because they will keep producing only rods
because of this uncooperative competition, and in the end, the selfish
exploitative strain fails to build the fruiting body on its own, because all its
individuals are looking for the biggest profit, the result of which is that both strains

145
get extinct. So, here in this example, the resource which should be preserved is the
minimum amount of the cooperative strain, which can only be detected by study,
and they can only be preserved by restricting the selfish strain from being with the
cooperative one, and all this can’t be regulated by any blind mechanism.
6-2-2-2 bacteriophages) 136( , or the viruses that invade the bacteria cell and
proliferate inside it, eventually destroying the cell. Here, the bacteria is the prey
and the resource the viruses compete each other in order to obtain. There are
those who consume this resource wisely, and these are the cooperative strains, and
there are other most vicious strains, and these are the exploitative strains which
consume the bacteria in a very short period of time, and this causes them to take
over the cooperative ones, because they are stronger and they proliferate faster,
and exist in greater numbers, but they at the same time destroy themselves,
because they proliferate strongly and in great numbers and consume all the
existing bacteria, destroying the resource on which they feed.
And this vicious proliferation can happen with all living beings, because if mutations
favored the exploitative vicious individuals, nothing can stop them, and natural
selection will support them as we previously showed, because they are the
strongest in acquiring profits. Therefore, the ability to consume the resources must
be determined and their reproduction regulated earlier, and regulated according
to previous knowledge. There is no room for experimentation in reality, because
the balance of the biological system can’t afford it, especially that it consists of food
chains. If each living being’s reproduction is left unchecked, or reproduced beyond
a certain limit or less than their necessary needs, this will cause a general disaster
in the food chain of which they are part, and that’s because each species are both
hunters and preys at the same time, and all this proves the existence of high
precision and balance, and previous planning for everything, and that there is no
room for random experiments inside the biological system.
6-2-2-3 cancerous cells are strongest in proliferation and spreading, and enduring
lack of oxygen than all the other body cells. They are death-resistant and have
multiple strategies which make them more efficient than normal cells, therefore
they are more profitable, and mutations and natural selection powerfully support
their existence. Cancer eventually causes the death of the patient, and
consequently, cancer itself dies, as this evolutionary suicide that cancer commits is
the natural result of the evolution mechanisms, which in reality is hostile towards

(136( Kerr, B. et al. (2006) Local migration promoted competitive restraint in a host-pathogen ‘‘tragedy.of the
commons’’. Nature 442, 75–78.

146
life, as it’s a genius micro example of the process of destroying life, and furthest
from creating and preserving life. In the case of cancer, the tragedy of the commons
takes place because the gaining of profits overcomes the need of capital
investment (the minimum safety of the normal cells), the resources of this system
on which the system’s existence depends, and because there nothing separates
between the profits and the capital investment in reality, all what cancer knows is
that it’s competing the normal cells for food and place, and all the cells it destroys
in the process have the same qualities, and so cancer isn’t able to tell which of them
are profits and which are capital investment that it shouldn’t touch, or else, the
whole system collapses and all gains are lost.
The author of this book has a scientific paper published in a professional scientific
magazine, discussing the subject of cancer disease, as a practical example of the
tragedy of the commons, titled as “Invasive Cancer as an Empirical Example of
Evolutionary Suicide”)137(, and evolutionary suicide is a term that means the same
phenomenon we are discussing here, the tragedy of the commons.
6-2-2-4 In the Atlantic ocean, in front of one of the beaches in Canada, there is place
known to be a focal point for the gathering of cod fish)138(, known as Grand Banks,
which was abundant with this kind of fish, and then a great industry was established
to hunt these fishes with huge ships, and this caused a transgression of the
threshold (the minimum survival and proliferations needs of the fish) and all the
pressure of this hunt on the fish, caused the selection of the fish that reach puberty
and reproduction age faster, even though they reproduce less because of the
diminishing of their fertility, the result of which was the inevitable end of all the
cod fish there, and the collapsing of this industry within thirty years (1960- 1990).

Figure 37

(137( Ibrahim, A. (2014). Invasive cancer as an empirical example of evolutionary suicide. Network.Biology, 4(2).
(138( Olsen, E. M., Heino, M., Lilly, G. R. et al. (2004). Maturation trends indicative of rapid evolution preceded the
collapse of northern cod.Nature 428: 932/935.

147
This collapse was caused by the vicious competition among those huge companies
and ships, the inevitable result of which was the destruction of the very resource
they depended on, and because there is no physical mark distinguishing between
the profits and the capital investment that should have been preserved, all the
fishes look like each other, therefore the transgression happened, because such
distinguish can only be known through earnest studies to determine the minimum
limit the fishes need in order to proliferate, and by enforcing a law punishing those
who disobey it by making them pay fines, if they hunt more than that limit, which
would provide the desired protection for this resource to maintain its existence and
reproduction, and all this needs awareness and power imposition, as such an aware
intervention is the only solution to the problem.
So, what kind of a blind force, among those blind evolution mechanisms, can
surround these things with its knowledge, that can organize things if we are to
replace these huge ships with living predators who eat the same amount that these
ships hunt? The eco-system will just get rid of them, even if mutations and natural
selection bring them. This deliberate conscious handling of the delicate biological
system cannot be denied, or ignored and can never be conned, and those humans
with their big ships represent this predator that the eco-system could not support,
because humans have no special privilege among the living beings, from evolution’s
point of view, and it’s one of the species fighting each other for survival.
6-2-2-5 this example is an experiment conducted on the Japanese male Medaka
Fish)139( :

Figure 38

(139( Muir, W. M. and Howard, R. D. 1999. Possible ecological risks of transgenic organism release when transgenes
affect mating success: sexual selection and the trojan gene hypothesis./Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 96: 13853.

148
Where a transgenic modification was performed through planting the growth
hormone gene of the Salmons, which cause those fishes to increase in size, but at
the same time, it caused the diminishing of its fecundity. The females began to
favor bigger modified males to the normal ones, which caused a gradual decrease
in the numbers of this community, until it crossed its threshold and its existence
ended. Here also, mutations can’t prevent this problem because the size trait is
genetically possible, and it already exists, but only it has been transmitted from the
Salmons, and that’s why we say that the tragedy doesn’t happen because of new
traits, but it’s enough for a species to be replaced by another profiteer in a resource
that can’t handle it. The resource here being the minimum numbers of males and
females that a species can’t survive without. And natural selection represented in
sexual selection can’t prevent the tragedy, because the modified males have better
advantages (ornament advantage) which make them better candidates.
Taking a single trait from the Salmon fish and putting it in the Medaka caused the
absolute extinction of the Medaka, so, how great is this precision and organization
that the creator had put in His creation. And what kind of mind can say that billions
of years of random distribution of the traits by means of mutations, then
redistributing and refining them by means of natural selection caused all this, when
seeing that a minute change of the traits or its distribution causes total destruction
in the biological system?
6-2-2-6- competition among plants to reach for light and consuming all the energy
provided by light, which causes lack in the amount of energy necessary for the
processes of reproduction and producing seeds) 140( and consequently the
of the whole species. As, in the beginning, the exploitative individuals blocking light
from the others took over and destroyed the shorter cooperative breeds then the
exploitative breeds failed to preserve the species because they have wasted all
their energy in building longer stems, and then couldn’t find the means to produce
seeds, causing the whole species to get extinct, and here is another form of the
tragedy of the commons, even if the resource here (light) still exists, because light
is still there, but the ability to reach for it was destroyed, causing the same result.
And the same thing that happens during this competition to reach the light using
longer stems, happens in the roots as they compete for water, and all of this can
prevented by restraining the exploitative individuals from the beginning, like
stopping one or two of the football audience from standing during the game,
because if they do, then everyone will have to do the same so they can continue

(140( Falster, D.S. and Westoby, M. (2003) Plant height and evolutionary games. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18,.337–343.

149
watching. This doesn’t cause better vision of the game, but a big hardship for all
the audience and depriving those who can’t stand from watching the game, so
whether they all stand, or all sit, it won’t make a difference.
That’s why this behavior should be stopped from the beginning, so everyone can
watch without hardship, but mutations can’t tell the future, nor can it prevent one
of those possibilities, it just brings and allows everything for the sole reason that
it’s genetically possible, without exception. This necessitates the gentle
intervention of an all-knowing, and wise creator, who organizes everything and
creates as He wills, otherwise, the extinction of all plants with this manner would
have been a very legitimate possibility, and surely, if plants disappear, all animals
and birds and everything else will follow, because, as we all know, plants are the
source of storing energy on earth for the rest of the living animals, and they’re also
the source of oxygen on the planet, so how delicate and precise is the living system
that God created, that if the minutest manipulation takes place, terrible and
unimaginable consequences follow, and all this contradicts the current evolutionist
scenario, based on continuous manipulation of the biological system, and on the
premise that it can afford all these manipulations without collapsing. And what’s
worse, imagining that this continuous manipulation and random shooting is what
drives the evolution wheel forward.
6-2-2-7 cooperative insects like ants, bees and hives. Everyone knows that these
species are rampant with many different forms of cooperation, and each one of
these cooperative traits can lead to the tragedy of the commons if uncooperative
individuals appear. One of the most intriguing things on which experimental studies
focused, is the response of worker bees to a chemical that the queen secretes
called the pheromone, in order to suppress the ovulation in these worker bees’
ovaries, because the only female in the bees and ants colonies who has got the
right to reproduce is the queen, and this is in the good interest of the whole colony,
because the new generation have the best and strongest traits, and the workers
get to save the energy necessary to take care of these eggs, until they hatch and
everyone takes its own role inside the colony. The existence of a mutation that
doesn’t cause this response in worker bees is a very possible occurrence, and if this
happens, the whole colony gets destroyed, because the queen’s eggs won’t find
the necessary attention and care, and the worker bees’ offspring will inherit weaker
traits which won’t enable them to survive, especially with the escalation of the
conflicts between the offspring of each worker, and between the queen’s offspring
if they exist, and thus everybody loses, the tragedy happens, and the whole species

150
gets extinct. And here, a preventive mechanism was discovered that prevents the
tragedy from happening, that is Pleiotropy )141(, or the gene that influences multiple
phenotypic traits, meaning that the gene’s interpretation inside the body is two
traits, and not just one, and the two traits have no relationship between them
whatsoever. They found that the gene responsible for affecting this response in the
worker bees, which the queen secretes, is the same gene that stimulates the
workers’ ovaries, so, if a mutation that causes the loss of the ability of the workers
to respond to the pheromone, they will lose, at the same moment the ability to
stimulate their own ovaries, and bees avoid the occurrence of this tragedy because
of the existence of this additional mechanism)142( and instead of the evolutionists
asking themselves, why specifically these two traits binding to one gene, of other
infinite traits, they were happy and satisfied now that they know the reason why
the tragedy doesn’t happen to this trait in the bees, even though its something that
belongs only to these social insects, and can’t be generalized over all the
cooperative traits within bees themselves.
If they are intelligent, they would know that this is the work of a wise and
knowledgeable creator, who knows what would happen if the response is lost, so
He tied it to something that would make bees avoid this disaster. But these people
don’t understand, and in spite of that, we can attribute the existence of that
obstacle to god’s will, because organization and knowledge of the consequences of
things and this high precision clearly exist.
They attribute this to pure chance, and the blessings and support of the natural
selection, but unfortunately for them, mutations and natural selection support the
getting rid of this gene at the same time, and thus, the evolution mechanisms get
out of the scene completely, as I will show soon in detail- God willing.
To summarize, the tragedy of the commons is general in the biological system, and
its result is total extinction of the whole system, and this can be only prevented by
the intervention of a knowledgeable and wise being, and this lets us know that life
can only be explained by attributing it to the great creator.

(141( Foster, K.R., Shaulsky, G., Strassmann, J.E., Queller, D.C.&Thompson, C.R.L. (2004). Pleiotropy as a
mechanism to stabilise cooperation. Nature 431: 693–696.
(142( The “hindrance” or additional mechanism: is the biological system`s barrier between the threshold beyond
which the tragedy of commons occur, and the exploitative traits pushing the biological system towards annihilation.
It represents the savior of an entire biological community from extinction and the way the community should behave
in order to avoid total collapse.

151
6-2-3 The inevitable question : if the whole biological system is subject to the
tragedy of the commons, then why life still exists, and why didn’t everything get
extinct and that’s it?
I didn’t invent this question, but rather, it’s a central question in the science of
biology, and a challenge that will always remain in front of the evolution theory as
long as it lasts. It’s a well-known and a famous question that you can find in many
scientific papers, like this one for example)143(:
"What keeps competition from destroying the common good that could be created
by cooperating?’ Egbert Leigh Jr (Leigh, 1999)
This question is considered one of the fundamental problems in evolutionary
biology (Leigh, 1977, 1983, 1999; Buss, 1987, 1999; Frank, 1995; Maynard Smith &
Szathmáry, 1995; Wilson, 1997a; Michod, 1999a, b; Reeve & Keller, 1999; Foster &
Ratnieks, 2001a)".
Then the paper’s author lists an assortment of old as well as recent research)144( )145(
)146( )147( )148( )149( )150( )151( )152( )153( )154( )155(
, dealing with the same question.
This paper also asks the same question)156(:

(143( Foster, K. R. (2004). Diminishing returns in social evolution: the not‐so‐tragic commons. J Evol Biol., 17(5),
1058-1072.
(144( Leigh, E.G. Jr 1977. How does selection reconcile individual advantage with the good of the group? Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 74: 4542–4546.
(145( Leigh, E.G. Jr 1983. When does the good of the group override the advantage of the individual? Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 80: 2985–2989.
(146( Leigh, E.G. Jr 1999. Levels of selection, potential conflicts, and their resolution: the role of the ‘common good’.
In: Levels of Selection in Evolution (L.Keller, ed.), pp. 15–30. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.
(147( Buss, L.W. 1987. The Evolution of Individuality. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.
(148( Buss, L.W. 1999. Slime molds, ascidians and the utility of evolutionary theory. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:
8801–8803.
(149( Frank, S.A. 1995. Mutual policing and the repression of competition in the evolution of cooperative groups.
Nature 377: 520–522.
(150( Maynard Smith, J. & Szathmáry, E. 1995. The Major Transitions in Evolution. Freeman, New York.
(151( Wilson, D.S. (ed.) 1997. Multilevel selection. Am. Nat. 150: S1–S134.
(152( Michod, R.E. 1999. Individuality, immortality, and sex. In: Levels of Selection in Evolution (L.Keller, ed.), pp.
53–74. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.
(153( Michod, R.E. 1999. Darwinian Dynamics. Evolutionary Transitions in Fitness and Individuality. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, N.J.
(154( Reeve, H.K. & Keller, L. 1999. Levels of selection: burying the units of selection debate and unearthing the
crucial new issues. In: Levels of Selection in Evolution (L.Keller, ed.), pp. 3–15. Princeton University Press, Princeton,
NJ, USA.
(155( Foster, K.R. & Ratnieks, F.L.W. 2001a. Convergent evolution of worker policing by egg eating in the honey
bee and common wasp. Proc. Roy. Soc. London B 268: 169–174.
(156( Parvinen, K., & Dieckmann, U. (2013). Self-extinction through optimizing selection. J. Theor. Biol, 333, 1-9.

152
"The observation that evolutionary suicide can result from common evolutionary
phenomena, such as selection for higher harvesting intensity or for higher growth
rate, raises a fundamental question. If this phenomenon is widespread, then why
does life generally persist?".
All the solutions that have been presented for this problem are insufficient and
purposeless because they are partial solutions for a general phenomenon that has
infinite possibilities, which makes these solutions only a deviation from the right
answer, no more and no less. The truth is, the existence or the non-existence of
these additional partial mechanisms are equal, and they can’t save the evolution
theory from this problem. And this is what I will show in the coming section.
6-3- an example that shows the complete fallibility of the evolution theory’s
mechanisms (the fundamental as well as the additional ones) when it comes to
the tragedy of the commons:
There is a very widespread phenomenon among bacteria called the Stationary
Phase, because if bacteria proliferate in greater numbers than the available
resources, it will get extinct within a few hours, as a result of the tragedy of the
commons, and that1s why the creator instilled in it a very complex machine
consisting of chemical compounds which enable the bacteria to know the number
of other bacteria around, how much of the resources is available, and it determines
the rate of its proliferation accordingly, meaning that they willingly stop or carry on
with the reproduction according to its calculation of its share of the available
resources.
This behavior saves it from the tragedy of the commons (represented here by the
outside available resources) and this behavior is considered one of the additional
mechanisms I listed in the beginning, improvised to save the evolution theory,
which is the mechanism of Coercion, because restricting the growth happens
because of the activation of certain genes working on restricting the growth, and
this happens to the bacteria in a coercive way. In fact, it’s hard to imagine that such
a system can exist without previous knowledge and strict planning in its design, so
be He exalted, the creator who planted this orderly system in these creatures to
work forcefully in a bacteria that doesn’t have consciousness. This system governs
a lot of genes within the bacteria, and it’s called Quorum Sensing, which consists of
complicated interactions, as shown in figure 39.

153
 Figure 39
And this is mechanism earns to be called an irreducible complex mechanism,
because it can’t come to existence gradually.
Quorum Sensing organizes most of the cooperative traits in bacteria, and it can be
likened to a huge network between individuals of the same species and the
different species, and there is a language between gram-negative bacteria and
another language between gram-positive bacteria, there is a third universal
language, and an example of universal connection through this network, luminous
bacteria like the V. harveyi coordinates with massive numbers in the sea in order
for all of them to start emanating light at a specific time and end at a specific time,
to achieve a certain purpose, which causes the illumination of a vast area of the
ocean that can be seen by satellites, and this is what one research recorder for
three consecutive nights) 157( during which the satellite detected these bacteria
illuminating an area calculated to be 15 square kilometers of the Indian ocean (as
shown in figure 40)

(157( Miller, S. D., Haddock, S. H., Elvidge, C. D., & Lee, T. F. (2005). Detection of a bioluminescent milky sea
space. Proc. NATL.ACAD.SCI.USA, 102(40), 14181-14184.

154
 Figure 40
And of course, the presence of such high tech networks is in itself enough for any
truth seeker in order for them to know that this universe has an all-knowledgeable,
all wise creator, and that such high precision order is irreducible, because a network
of unfailing communication cannot have appeared into existence through chance,
nor can it come into existence gradually by means of natural selection. Yes,
primitive networks can develop into more sophisticated ones with the evolution
mechanisms, because the more strength they achieve, natural selection will select
them, but without the foundations that form something called “network”, the
evolution mechanisms have no function whatsoever, and whomever approves that
networks can formulate themselves in a haphazard and spontaneous manner, and
consecutive strokes of luck (like the thief and the electric elevator), they thus
contradicts reason, and sane people and joins the evolutionists, because they
approve this without any hesitation, and they regard this system as an additional
mechanism or a preventative method that stops the bacteria from destroying its
resources. They don’t find anything amazing or astonishing in this matter, and they

155
don’t find it a strange phenomenon that these complicated irreducible networks
exist, to them this matter doesn’t provoke them enough to stop and reconsider the
situation or look for a more suitable explanation. For them, it’s just like waking up
each morning to find complicated networks appear out of random beating around
in our cities.
But its okay, we will tolerant with the opponents and ignore all of this and accept
the existence of the fragmentary additional mechanisms or hindrances like the
Quorum Sensing ad others which save the biological system all the time and
everywhere from destroying its resources, and thus saves it from the tragedy, and
we will convince ourselves for a moment that is completely normal, and that there
not any madness in Darwinism.
But the biggest surprise is that the tragedy of the commons will destroy the
biological system, in spite of the existence of these hindrances and additional
mechanisms, that why any partial success of these can’t save the evolution theory.
That’s why this matter is amazing and worth our attention, and that’s why I say that
the tragedy of the commons is THE problem that the evolution theory can never
overcome or ignore.
If hindrances that would stop the individuals from transgressing the minimum limit
the resources need as a condition to survive, and this successfully resulted in
protecting the resources and keeping them (whether they are external common
resources like food and water and others, or internal resources like represented by
the individuals who have the cooperative traits that the community can’t survive
without), and the reason for the presence of these hindrances is random mutation
or chance, then natural selection will doubtlessly keep these hindrances, because
they save the whole community which was on the verge of collapse.
But the most intriguing point in this subject is :” that chance will also bring
exploitative individuals who can surpass these hindrances or additional
mechanisms (something that no evolutionist denies) and natural selection will
select them too (as we mentioned in the prisoner’s dilemma), as selfish exploitative
individuals are always favored by natural selection, and that’s the reason I said in
the beginning that evolutionists succeeded in extracting the cooperative traits from
the womb of materialism, but they completely failed to make materialism protect
this weak offspring of hers. The paradox here is that chance and natural selection
support the presence of these mechanisms and at the same time support
overcoming it. There is no evolutionist solution to the problem, because the

156
evolution theory is completely neutral in this case, therefore it can’t choose one
side and leave the other, these mechanisms can either be kept or overcome, one
can’t describe a thing as both neutral and not neutral in the same case. And a
neutral judge can’t make a conclusive decision on the case. If two people disputed
over the color of a car, or a house or shoes for example, it would be unimaginable
for this dispute to be resolved by a blind man, because he is totally neutral in this
case, he can’t prove which one of them is right. The evolution mechanisms
seemingly announce that they are neutral and have no conclusive decision about
this problem, or in other words that it should be completely gotten out of the scene
when trying to solve this problem because it won’t be useful and can have no effect
whatsoever. Reality on the other hand announces every moment and everywhere
that cooperative traits tips the scales of truth most of the time, or else the biological
system would have never existed.
We’re still with the same example and the system of Quorum Sensing as a
hindrance mechanism, and we now know that evolution mechanisms would
support and maintain it if happy chance brings it to the scene. Now we will see how
evolution mechanisms will also support overcoming this system, and that the
theory is completely neutral.
Experimental research on a type of bacteria called E-coli proved that the most
widespread strain of this bacteria is the wild-type, the original strain of which
enters into a stationary phase when resources and nutrients are depleted, as a best
adaptation technique to the situation at hand, and to postpone its reproduction to
better circumstances in the future, in this case it stops growing and proliferating
and it reduces its vital functions as much as it can, and to guarantee its supply of
the limited nutrients the longest time possible, thus it survives the tragedy of the
commons, which could have happened to it if it surpasses the minimum limit of the
resources by its continuous growth and reproduction, and bacteria regulates all
these genetic and environmental changes by using the Quorum Sensing, so it
becomes the hindrance stopping the bacteria from overconsumption of the
resources, and consequently, the extinction of both the resources and the bacteria.
But this hindrance, having supposedly appeared into existence by means of
mutations and continued to exist thanks to natural selection, is subject to violation,
also thanks to mutations and natural selection, by a selfish individual who doesn’t
respond to this system because of a mutation that happened to him, and
consequently, it exploits the fact that the original species stopped its reproduction,
so it can reproduce faster and consume all the resources, destroying the

157
cooperative kind, then it gets extinct because of its consumption of all its resources
and ignorantly trespassing the minimum limit, and here the tragedy of the
commons takes place on two levels (the general external resources and the
cooperative individuals “considering these as a common internal resource”) and
natural selection gets to support the exploitative individual mutant, because it’s
more vicious in acquiring profits, and this has been described in many researches,
including this one)158(.
It has also been observed in other kinds of bacteria and viruses, cancer, insects,
birds, fish and plants. It’s occurrence s possible in all of the biological system
without exception, and that’s why it isn’t possible to ignore or go around this
problem, and Darwinists can’t turn the blind eye to it, or postpone it to the future
like they did with many very obvious dilemmas, like irreducible complexity and the
emergence of the vast majority of the living beings all at once in the Cambrian
explosion, and the contradictions between the fossil records and the predictions of
the evolution theory, and many other dilemmas, and that’s because the tragedy of
the commons is not a historical event that ended, but a problem that renews itself,
anticipated each moment and everywhere and it can also be subjected to
experimentation, so where’s the way out?
So, it’s not possible to have a solution for this problem in an evolutionary context,
whether hindrances exist or not, and whether these are many or few, because
these additional mechanisms in reality can’t stop the fundamental mechanisms of
the evolution theory (mutations and natural selection) from supporting the selfish
who’s going to violate them, and thus it will always be breachable, just like the
common resources protected by these hindrances in the first place.
And there remains one approach that can provide us with a general and inclusive
and substantial solution, that is bringing the mechanism of “Conscious
Intervention” into the scene. Because it’s the only mechanism that can deal with
the mathematical existence of the minimum limit of the resources, which is the
essence of the problem.

(158( Vulić, M., & Kolter, R. (2001). Evolutionary cheating in Escherichia coli stationary phase cultures..Genetics,
158(2), 519-526.

158
6-4- Is the Conscious Intervention mechanism testable and can it be verified
experimentally?
Bacteria is the best candidate for studying all the evolution mechanisms in a
practical way, and choosing among the evolutionary scenarios )159(, and this due to
its short life span, its existence in great numbers, and the easiness with which its
environmental conditions can be controlled, and also because it’s easy to affect
genetic modifications within it in order to either make it acquire new traits or
eliminate its original ones, and that’s why the biggest battle field that can either
make the evolution theory victorious or totally destroy it is inside the labs of
bacteria and prokaryotic organisms.
And most of the fundamental conditions that the bacteria needs in its life are based
on cooperative traits, as bacteria only live in organized groups, and in addition to
that, they literally build cities, so they can live inside them, and these cities are
surrounded with strong walls from all sides, made of materials that have special
characteristics that protect what’s inside these cities from any external attack.
There are passageways inside those cities to take out the excretions and others to
allow the nutrients inside and distributing the oxygen, even work is distributed
among the bacteria by means of genetic orders determining the specialty of each
cell.
This city is called Biofilm and it includes 99% of the microbial life, and this biofilm
sticks to the surfaces of living beings’ bodies, or to the surfaces of non-living things,
and it gives the bacteria tremendous strength to cope with the surrounding harsh
conditions, and keeps it alive, even it’s boiled or if the liquids carrying the bacteria
is boiled, and it makes it 1000 times more resistant to antibiotics compared to its
resistance when it’s outside the biofilm)160( . This biofilm in its construction and
development is a group work and a perfect example of cooperation, therefore, it’s
subject to invasion by the uncooperative individuals as we previously explained,
and the biofilm is the cause of the chronic diseases that don’t respond to antibiotics
or to any medicines, and it could keep the patient chronically diseased with these
vicious ailments for tens of years, with symptoms that could be sometimes severe
and some other times less severe or vanish for sometimes, but soon these
symptoms return and the cycle goes on indefinitely.

(159( Elena, S. F., & Lenski, R. E. (2003). Evolution experiments with microorganisms: the dynamics and. genetic
bases of adaptation. Nat. Rev. Genet, 4(6), 457-469.
(160( Boles, B. R., Thoendel, M., & Singh, P. K. (2004). Self-generated diversity produces “insurance effects” in
biofilm communities. Proc.NATL. ACAD. SCI. USA., 101(47), 16630-16635.

159
That is why attacking this disease with injecting the patient with uncooperative
individuals modified genetically inside the labs will result in the destruction of the
original type, and afterwards it can be easy to kill the uncooperative individuals.
This means that we will deliberately create the tragedy of the commons inside the
patient’s body, which will result in the destruction of the whole microbial society
and the patient gets cured. Some evolutionists did begin to mention – timidly- this
remedial approach in many researches, while preserving the respectful façade of
the evolution theory until now, in this research for example)161(, the researchers
demonstrated the idea of invading disease causing bacterial biofilms by means of
injecting the patient with uncooperative individuals to eradicate the original type,
the latter of course is based on cooperation, and they called this model “The Trojan
Horse”, after the old Greek myth, in a metaphor that fits those matters which have
strong outer appearance but in actuality they’re lethal, because those
uncooperative individuals which will be injected will comfortably mingle with the
cooperative individuals inside their strong impenetrable fortress, then destroy
everything totally. Those who have written this research and similar researches are
evolutionists, this explains why there’s an obvious hesitation in the manner with
which they produced these researches, because releasing this idea completely
destroys the evolution theory, as the first obvious question that comes to the mind
is: if cooperative traits are dominant among the living species, and if they don’t
withstand the exploitative traits that lead to the destruction of all life forms, and if
the evolution mechanisms can’t stop this inevitable result, then who organizing and
brings such order to life? Restricting these exploitative traits from existing in the
amounts and degrees which can cause the extinction of life on earth?
Because this question has one answer, the evolutionists handle this subject with
extreme caution, because they know that elaborating on this subject will destroy
their theoretical foundations of understanding life in a Darwinian manner.
The medical benefits that can be acquired from this new remedial method are big,
because it can cure difficult bacterial diseases, and also viral infections, and maybe
even cancer, because cancer cells communities are based on cooperative traits
too)162(.

(161( Brown, S. P., West, S. A., Diggle, S. P., & Griffin, A. S. (2009). Social evolution in micro-organisms and a
Trojan horse approach = to medical intervention strategies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci., 364(1533),
3157-3168.
(162( Korolev, K. S., Xavier, J. B., & Gore, J. (2014). Turning ecology and evolution against cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer,
14(5), 371-380.

160
But each selfish genetically modified strain we take out from the laboratory
succeeding in wiping out the natural type, is an experimental evidence for the
mechanism of conscious intervention, because the lack of its existence in the first
place can only be explained by the presence of a provident One who intervenes to
stop it, just like its existence is an evidence for someone who wanted them to exist
(for medical reasons), because this selfish trait which was made inside the
laboratory, and its “non-existence” in nature reveals that there is previous
knowledge of the harmful effect it can have, and that its existence inside the
bacterial society will cause transgression of the minimum limit of the resources,
and consequently cause the tragedy of the commons and the wiping out of the
whole bacterial existence, and that’s why He wanted to prevent it. Because the
existence of this trait which we manufactured by means of genetic modification is
possible in nature, so why didn’t mutations bring this trait into the living world after
billions of years?
If it appears, no evolutionary mechanism can stop it as we previously mentioned,
ad the result would have been the extinction of all forms of life, because all living
beings will be subject to the same thing (the invasion of the selfish and the tragedy),
consequently, the evolutionary mechanisms don’t and can’t have a real explanation
for life unless we add to it the mechanism of conscious intervention, and it’s a
necessary mechanism that can be verified experimentally, but because it
contradicts the materialist atheist philosophy which the theory of evolution was
originally founded for the sake of strengthening and supporting it, and so, it won’t
be easy for the scientific community to admit the existence of this mechanism, in
spite of the obviousness of its theoretical and empirical supportive evidence, and
the author of this book has a scientific paper)163( (published in a pre-publishing
website, which is a website where researchers get to publish their papers for a
period of time until they’re verified by the experts and published in scientific
magazines), in this paper I gathered all these ideas I proposed in this book about
the dilemma of the tragedy of the commons, and I proposed the conscious
intervention mechanism, as a mechanism that fulfills the condition of experimental
verification, but I’m still suffering from the obstinacy of the evolutionists, and I
wasn’t able to publish it in a scientific magazine until now, but with God’s help, I
will not stop trying.

(163( Ibrahim, Ahmed (2015) The tragedy of the commons and prisoner's dilemma may improve our realization of
the theory of life and provide us with advanced therapeutic ways. Figshare.

161
6-5- Conclusion:
The tragedy of the common resources is a dilemma that kills evolution, and all its
fundamental or additional mechanisms with which the evolutionists tried to save
the theory will never work, because they all will remain subject to the tragedy itself
in the end. And there is only one solution for this dilemma : the presence of
someone who can preserve the minimum limit required for the maintenance of the
natural resources.
This limit is a mathematical calculation and doesn’t have a material existence
(meaning we can never know it unless if we do extremely intricate calculations) and
this is only in the power of someone who has great knowledge and awareness, and
this shows that the matter can only be solved by the all-knowledgeable, all-wise to
bring order to this matter, and this is what’s meant by the conscious intervention
mechanism. This is a mechanism that can be empirically verified by deliberately
creating the tragedy in the disease causing bacterial communities, by means of
growing genetically modified bacteria with selfish traits, which causes the wiping
out of the bacterial community altogether. If the occurrence of the tragedy in this
experiment proves the existence of deliberate creation of the selfish traits, then
the lack of occurrence of this tragedy in real existence proves that there is a certain
power that wants to stop the selfish traits from existing in enough numbers to
destroy life.

7. Comparison between Evolution and Intelligent Design

Statement Assessment
Evolution Theory Intelligent Design
1. The phenomenon of life Valid Invalid
is explained in a fulfilling
Because it’s an extra
and correct manner
hypothesis that’s not
with the materialist
needed and should be
evolution mechanisms
eliminated according
to Occam’s razor
principle

162
2. If there is a Contains an error or a It doesn’t have to be
phenomenon or many deficiency, or simply needs right, because if the
phenomena that can’t adjustment, and this evidence for its
be explained by adjustment is probably correctness is our lack
evolution mechanisms another materialist of knowledge of the
mechanism true explanation of
the phenomenon,
then this is a logical
fallacy known as
appeal to ignorance.
3. If there is a Invalid Valid
phenomenon or a
If Intelligent Design succeed in fulfilling
number of phenomena,
mechanisms succeed in the condition of
like: (The Cambrian
fulfilling the condition of experimental
Explosion, Irreducible
experimental verification, verification, and
Complexity, the
and there is no other there is no other
avoidance of the
experiment that refutes the experiment that
tragedy of the
Intelligent Design’s refuted the
commons,..) which
hypothesis Intelligent Design’s
can’t be explained by
hypothesis
means of evolutionary
mechanisms but can be
explained by Intelligent
Design or Conscious
Intervention
) 164(
4. Testability and Some mechanisms met this The mechanism of
empirical verification is condition, like mutations conscious
one of the conditions of and natural selection, these intervention meets
scientific theory, so are testable in regards to this condition) 165( , as
what is the position of their occurrence, but they it’s a testable
evolutionary and fail to meet this condition mechanism which

(164( A proposed mechanism can be empirically verified if the experiment clearly distinguishes between the presence
of this mechanism and its absence.
(165( A mechanism is the axiom or principle or law that governs a specific system, which enables us to know the
reason why the system behaves according to certain rules. A mechanism explains that system, and the presence of
material body to which we can attribute this meaning or principle is not necessary, for example we don`t know a
material body or object to which we can attribute the occurrence of mutations and natural selection, but we say that
they are accomplishing “it”, these are rather meanings, and we`re only tracking its traces. Likewise, Intelligent Design

163
 intelligent design when new complete organic hypothesizes that
mechanisms in regards functions of the living there are infinite
to this condition? organism appear, let alone possibilities of the
the emergence of a new existence of
living being. uncooperative
organisms which
have been
deliberately
prohibited from
existing in the first
place (and if these
organisms come to
life, they would be
supported by the
evolutionary
mechanisms instead
of prohibiting them,
causing a grave
disaster to the
balance needed for
these organisms to
live, which results in
destroying the
original cooperative
type and also the
selfish type. And this
didn’t happen in
reality) and this
empirical verification
will be affected by
means of genetic
engineering inside
the microbes and
using them to attack
the original kind,

= or conscious intervention is a meaning we can recognize by dealing with its traces, with direct experiments to prove
either its existence or absence.

164
 which causes the
extinction of both in
the end, therefore,
we can’t assume that
the evolutionary
mechanisms will
prevent those selfish
traits, because in fact,
they support their
existence and
proliferation, and we
can’t assume that
these infinite
possibilities of the
existence of selfish
individuals,
something that can
cause the extinction
of all life, and a very
real possibility in
every part of the
living kingdom, we
can’t say that we’re
lucky we’re still alive
because chance
prevented these from
appearing into our
existence in the first
place, and the only
reasonable
explanation is that
these have been
prevented on
purpose, because we
can reverse this
process and
deliberately create

165
 these selfish
individuals, in order
to verify this
mechanism
experimentally. So, if
the occurrence of this
tragedy in the
experiment is real,
then this proves
deliberate
intervention to create
these destructive
organisms, and
likewise, because the
tragedy doesn’t occur
in nature, then this
proves that there is a
power that wanted to
prevent the existence
of these selfish traits.
5. Falsifiability)166( is one of Contradictory phylogenetic 1-(Irreducible
the conditions a relationships in the complexity is
scientific theory must phylogenetic tree if we try falsifiable) because if
meet, so what is the to assemble it using similar an irreducibly
position of the genes or proteins by any complex organ or
evolution theory and means is a contradictory system
) 167(
intelligent design in observation and a refutation developed in
regards to this of the evolution theory, and accordance with the
condition? And are also the fossil record doesn’t evolutionary
there any refuting match with the scenario the mechanisms, this
theory predicts, especially in could be a refutation

(166( Falsifiability : Statements, hypotheses, or theories have falsifiability or refutability if there is the inherent
possibility that they can be proven false. They are falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an
argument which could negate them. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning to invalidate or "show
to be false".
(167( Irreducible complexity : certain biological systems cannot evolve by successive small modifications to pre-
existing functional systems through natural selection. They either exist as a whole or they don`t. otherwise they are
non-functional.

166
phenomena and regards to the phenomenon of the argument of
experiments? of the Cambrian explosion. irreducible
As the evolutionary scenario complexity.
is falsifiable in some of its
2-(Conscious
aspects, and this is in the
Intervention is
good interest of the theory
falsifiable) if there is a
and it fulfills this condition,
general materialist
but it’s certainly not in its
mechanism that can
good interest that the
prevent the selfish
contradictory observations
traits from destroying
are happening in reality, and
the biological system,
this is what happened.
and if such a
mechanism can cover
all the great many
possibilities
challenging life each
moment and
everywhere, then this
would be a refutation
of the conscious
intervention
mechanism, but such
mechanism simply
doesn’t exist in
reality, and it’s
improbable for it to
exist, as all the
proposed
mechanisms are
fragmentary, they
can prevent the
selfish traits, but only
in certain conditions
and it can’t deal with
all the possibilities.
And the reason for
that is that the key

167
 solution to the
problem, and the root
of the problem is
knowing the
minimum limit that
natural resources
need in order to
renew themselves,
(the threshold
beyond which the
whole living
community gets
destroyed), and this
limit has a
mathematical
existence and not a
materialist one,
which necessitates
the presence of
intelligence and
awareness.

***

168
 Chapter (4)
The Attributes of the Creator and their Requisites (what Is based and depends
on them) Which Can Be Deduced From the Previous Two Proofs

The evidence of causality and the evidence of high precision and perfection don’t
only prove the existence of the Creator, but they also demonstrate some of the
attributes of the Creator- be He exalted-; An honest contemplation of these proofs
leads one to believe in the existence of a creator, they cause many Atheists to
become Deists who believe in a creator. But the role these proofs play don’t end
there, as they are sufficient as well for bringing the Deist to the gateway of Islam,
because when Atheistic misconceptions are clarified and the belief in the existence
of The Creator starts to enter the heart, one would search for the qualities and
attributes of the Creator, and at this point, the Deistic misconceptions come along
and block his way. Deists believe in a Creator, but they don’t approve of any
religion, so, they’re also irreligious as the Atheists, and they believe that the Creator
didn’t send any messages to the world, and that He created the world then left it
without any further intervention, so, they don’t feel the need for any methods of
worshipping the creator, and there is no hereafter, or judgement, nor is there
reward and punishment, thus, they are similar to the polytheists in their denial of
the messages and the hereafter, despite their belief in the presence of the creator.
And they forget that the qualities of God have requirements and consequences that
are in complete disagreement with their delusions. In this chapter, we will
investigate some of these qualities And attributes in order to refute these
delusions.

1. Is there a logical proof for the absolute perfection of the creator?

Answer: Yes. On two aspects:
The First: absolute perfection can be inferred from the quality of self-subsistence,
which is proved by the Causality evidence. Because a self-subsistent being must be
perfect, and that’s because perfect subsistence within the self, and the qualities
and actions of such self indicate absolute self-sufficiency, and absolute self-
sufficiency is absolute perfection, as “lack” only exists within the circle of causality
and the domain of neediness and poverty. If you need something or a reason to do
something, or acquire a certain quality, then you lack such thing or quality, your

169
ability is imperfect and you are governed by causality. But if you don’t need
anything or any reason to do or be anything, then you are perfect, there is nothing
imperfect about you and you’re not subject to Cause and effect relationships, but
rather, you will prevail over everything. This is only realized by the self-subsistent,
the self-sufficient who doesn’t need anything or anyone- be He exalted, from this
aspect, self-subsistence is a proof of absolute perfection.
The Second: Absolute perfection can also be inferred from the action of creation,
and that’s because who creates everything without needing anything or for the
reason of learning or ability, must be capable of everything, and knowledgeable of
everything, or they wouldn’t create anything. And anyone who possesses such
qualities would be perfect in every action they perform, because imperfection in
action is caused by the ignorance of the doer of the manner with which they should
do things, so they are incapable of creating perfect things, or ignorance of the
beauty or ugliness of things, so they don’t know, and this is impossible for they who
are knowledgeable of everything, or the imperfection of action could be because
of lack of ability to accomplish the perfection they desire, or lack of ability to desire
creating perfect things, because they are overwhelmed by evil desires, and all of
this is impossible for who is capable of everything, as He – be He exalted- is perfect
in His names and qualities and actions.
Thus we can infer the perfection of the creator- be He exalted- from the qualities
demonstrated by the evidence of Causality, like: self-subsistence, creation, and
perfect capability and knowledge.

2. Why can’t there be more than one creator for the universe?
The presence of two or more creators will certainly cause corruption of the heavens
and earth, because these two or more gods:
3. If they have conflicting wills, then there will certainly be corruption of the
heavens and earth, imagine one of them desiring to create a sun while the other
god isn’t.
4. If one of them prevails over the other, the weaker one cannot be a god.
5. If both wills are in agreement, then one of them is a follower, and a follower
can’t be a god.

170
6. Even if they agree to the same things, and there isn’t a leader and a follower in
this relationship, then which of them gets to act, and which doesn’t? and this
god who’s will isn’t in effect: what aspect of perfection caused him to be
incapable of action? Is it humility for example?? Or does he let the other god
act, in order to avoid trouble with him?!
Such humility is never appropriate of a god, because he must be a great superior
king, not a frail and humbled god, as humility is expected from a servant of god,
and this would be a perfect attitude for a servant, because it demonstrates the
servant’s knowledge of God’s truth and their need of Him, because everything
this servant is or has in life is a gift from his creator, but to a god, it’s an
imperfection that doesn’t suit Him, because the truth of God is greatness. As for
fear, it contradicts with every aspect of perfection, and we can never imagine
the presence of two gods, unless we have a faulty perception of God’s qualities.
So, or knowledge of a single causal system governing the universe, is evidence
of the presence of a singular will behind it, and consequently, there’s only one
single God.

2. Is sending messages and messengers a requirement necessitated by the

creator’s attributes?
sending the messengers is one of the requirements of the creator’s qualities, and
one’s intellect recognizes that. as, just like we can intellectually deduce divine
qualities like the perfection and the oneness of the creator- be He exalted- we can,
in the same way, deduce that He would send the messengers and send down the
scriptures, and whoever thinks that the creator can leave His creation in vain and
without purpose after He had created them, they would be assuming evil nature of
God, or like Ibn Al-Qayyim said)168( :
“ Allah- be He exalted- said: “Then after distress, He sent down upon you security
[in the form of] drowsiness, overcoming a faction of you, while another faction
worried about themselves, thinking of Allah other than the truth - the thought of
ignorance, saying, "Is there anything for us [to have done] in this matter?" Say,
"Indeed, the matter belongs completely to Allah." They conceal within
themselves what they will not reveal to you. They say, "If there was anything we
could have done in the matter, some of us would not have been killed right here."
Say, "Even if you had been inside your houses, those decreed to be killed would
(168( Ibn Al-Qayyims` Zad al-Ma'ad

171
have come out to their death beds." [It was] so that Allah might test what is in
your breasts and purify what is in your hearts. And Allah is Knowing of that within
the breasts.”- (Surah Ali’ Imran : 154)
And whomever thinks that He leaves His creation in vain, without informing them
of the instructions to show them the purpose of their lives, that He doesn’t send
His messengers or send down His books, letting them live like cattle, whomever
thinks that assumes evil nature and intents of God, and whomever thinks that He
won’t gather His servants after their death in order to reward the good doers and
punish the evil doers, and show His creation the truth about what they’ve been
conflicting about, and show the whole creation His truthfulness and the
truthfulness of His messengers, and that His enemies were the liar ones, they would
assume evil nature of God.”- end of quote.
And God described the assumption that He can not to send messengers or books
as evil assumption that doesn’t fit Him, and only those who are ignorant of God’s
true nature and true appraisal- Allah- be He exalted- says: “ And they did not
appraise Allah with true appraisal when they said, " Allah did not reveal to a
human being anything." Say, "Who revealed the Scripture that Moses brought as
light and guidance to the people? You [Jews] make it into pages, disclosing [some
of] it and concealing much. And you were taught that which you knew not -
neither you nor your fathers." Say, " Allah [revealed it]." Then leave them in their
[empty] discourse, amusing themselves.”- (Surah Al-An’am : 91)
So, sending down the books and choosing the messengers of His books is a
requirement of His qualities, on many aspects:

7. A requirement of His merciful nature :

Because if you now that you are created by Him, then no one else has ever done a
greater favor to you than He who created you and gave you all the bounties and
gifts you’re enjoying inside yourself and everything around you, as He subjected for
you everything you need for your own comfort, and favored you among the rest of
all His creation, and provided for you everything you need and gave you of His
mercy, as He is the Beneficent who doesn’t need anything from you in return, the
most bountiful, the most wise, who put every minute thing in its perfect place. We
can understand all these qualities with our minds as we observe the traces and
marks in the universe. Can such a creator let you struggle by yourself in this life
without guiding you and teaching you to achieve the best quality of life on this
172
earth, or worse, can He deprive you of the messages to provide you with the best
answers for your existential questions He embedded within you, those questions
that you just can never ignore as long as you live “who created me?”, “why did he
create me?”, “what’s the purpose of life and where am I going when I die?”
Is this consistent with His mercy? You yourself are capable of mercy only because
He created mercy in you, and without this mercy, no one would ever be able to
mercy another, so how about His mercy- be He exalted?
Why did God teach us the meaning of mercy and made it part of our nature, and
the nature of everything inside ourselves and in everything in the universe, while
constantly depriving us from it? and we would never know mercy in our lives, as
long as we don’t know the meaning and the purpose of our lives, and the right path
we should take!!
Allah- be He exalted- says: “ He said, "Our Lord is He who gave each thing its form
and then guided [it]."- (Surah Taha: 50)
I’m mentioning these verses for the purpose of consolation, and not as supportive
evidence in this place, because these are saved for arguing with those who don’t
belief in Islam’s truth, but as for intellectual and intuitive evidence: it’s inside of us
all, as we all have deep natural knowledge that He who created us will guide us,
and that He who guided all creatures to their best benefits, will never leave the
creature He favored among all of them without guidance, or to be prey for his or
her whims and impulses, and the forms of His merciful guidance are too many to
be counted, but I’ll mention a simple example here: the good food which if you
smell and taste, you immediately like and eat a lot of it, but if the same food gets
decomposed by bacteria and fungus, they produce a nasty smell, and if you eat of
them you’d find a very rotten taste and you get it out of your mouth as soon as
possible.
The bacteria and fungus growth in the food could very well has given it a delicious
taste, and some beneficial fungus like yeast already does that. This is a natural
guiding system and a mercy from God, and every guidance and care human finds in
this world should remind them that God won’t let them live a purposeless and an
unhappy life, and this is called priority measure, as He who takes care of you in the
simplest matters of life, won’t leave you to face greater challenges without
guidance, and there is no question that the greatest wish of any human (if they are
human) is to feel secure, know the truth and know what does the future hold and
what is their destiny, and what are the best ways for them to survive destruction,

173
in the present and in the future. So, saying that the creator didn’t send down
guiding messages and messengers to inform people with them leads to one of two
options, both are invalid:
Either God knows that the human need for guidance in regards to the most
important aspect in their whole life: the purpose of life and their destiny, He knows
that this is a gift greater than all the other gifts He gave them (like food for
example), but He was incapable of guiding them, which is nonsense, because a
creator must be capable of everything.
Or, He’s not aware of this dire need. Also nonsense, because a creator should be
knowledgeable of everything.
To my best knowledge- God know better, this is the evidence the Quran used in
order to argue the polytheists of Quraysh who admitted that there is a creator, but
denied the message, so, the Quran reminded them of a guidance familiar to them-
as He says : “And if you should ask them, "Who has created the heavens and the
earth?" they would surely say, "They were created by the Exalted in Might, the
Knowing.", [The one] who has made for you the earth a bed and made for you
upon it roads that you might be guided.” (Surah Az-Zukhruf [9:10]), because they
travel using the guidance of the most famous mountains as marks, and they use
the roads and the pathways between these mountains, and the stars in the heavens
guide their directions, and if not for these visible marks, they wouldn’t have been
able to travel in the vast deserts, they would have easily died in the middle of the
road, and all their trades and lives would stop, so how can He give you this guidance
and deprive you at the same time of the most important one, in your lives and the
hereafter?
Some people would surely ask: if things are that obvious, then why can’t we expect
all God’s deeds and be able to predict what will happen in our lives beforehand?
My answer is that this is a useless comparison, because the person asking this
question confuses between the private guidance that a human gets to learn
throughout their life, and the guidance of his species and kind as a whole (the
greatest guidance, without which, all other forms of guidance would be useless),
and there is no way we can acquire this kind of knowledge, because as you can’t
use personal things to infer the existence of other personal things, you also can’t
use a general thing to deduce the details of the personal. And that’s why Allah- be
He exalted- says :” Or do they say, "He has invented about Allah a lie"? But if Allah
willed, He could seal over your heart. And Allah eliminates falsehood and
establishes the truth by His words. Indeed, He is Knowing of that within the
174
breasts.” (Surah Ash-shura: 24), in this example, we can know for sure that God
certainly eliminates falsehood, but we can’t know the details and the manner with
which He does that, and that’s why He attached it to a condition: He could seal over
your heart, or do anything else, according to his wisdom – be He exalted. Or like
the other retribution He mentioned in another verse: “[It is] a revelation from the
Lord of the worlds, And if Muhammad had made up about Us some [false]
sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand; Then We would have cut
from him the aorta. And there is no one of you who could prevent [Us] from him.”
(Surah Al-Haqqah: 43: 47), so be He exalted, He who sent down the Quran as
clarification for all things.
And here I mention another example: if I open a book without first looking at its
title, and I happen to be looking at page 35, I read it and find that it’s talking about
subjects and chemical formulas, then I can deduce that the book is mostly a
chemistry book (I used a detail to infer the general structure of a thing), but can I
similarly use the contents of page 35 in order to know what’s on page 210? The
answer is of course not. Very well. Suppose I didn’t open the book, but I only looked
at its title, and I found that it’s a chemistry book, will I be able to know what is
written in page 35 before I open the book? the answer is also no. That is the
difference between accurate and inaccurate inference.

3-3 Divinity:
Having the knowledge that God is the great creator rids the heart from clinging to
anything else, or loving anything else better than its love for God, or to humiliate
oneself or need anything greater than the need of God and humility toward Him,
because a human loves perfection and loves those who are kind and giving toward
them, and this isn’t possessed by any other than God alone, and humans show
humility toward someone if they know that their future lies in this someone’s hands
and has power over them, and this too should only be to God alone- be He exalted.
This is true servitude and nothing else, that’s why people have always been
servants, no matter how hard they try to deny this fact, they are in the end slaves
to those people whom they are always glorifying and asking for their approval, but
they might be guided to the true God who deserves this kind of servitude, because
He’s the only creator, or they might not be able to be guided, and they
consequently worship other gods than the true God, attributing to them some or
all His qualities, thus doing great injustice to themselves, by following their
whimsical wishes, either because they want to allow themselves to do whatever
175
they want to do, or because of ignorance, and Ibn Al-Qayyim eloquently describes
this situation in these poetry verses:
They escaped the servitude they were created for * So they were afflicted with
the slavery of the self and of satan)169(
As honest contemplation of the creator’s qualities and human’s true nature and
intuition leads one to the knowledge of one true God, because if the creator alone
is the one who’s absolutely perfect and absolute bountiful, He had thus embedded
within our nature love and humiliation toward Him, and this requires asking for His
approval and fearing His punishment, so how are we to know what brings God’s
love into our lives and what brings His wrath in each and every detail of our lives
without a clear and undeviating message?
It would be an impossible task. And even if we know- by means of our intellect and
intuition- that God loves goodness and despises evil, this would be insufficient for
us when we apply these concepts to our lives, because a human can unwittingly do
evil things thinking that they’re good, and they could mistaken good things for evil
ones, and minds can be various in their assessment of things, and natural instincts
can be perverted and changed, so, how would God let the human kind struggle
blindly without a clear message to which they can refer, in order to observe the
right path that leads to His contentment, which is the path of truth and goodness
for all human beings as well?

3-4- the requirement of the quality of wisdom:

If God didn’t send down the scriptures and didn’t send the messengers, He can
never hold us accountable for our deeds, because we didn’t have the chance to
know which things and behaviors He approves of and which He doesn’t, so how are
we going to be responsible if we are ignorant of these? Consequently, we would
think that this life of ours is the only life we have, and that everything ends with it,
without any accountability afterwards, and this means that all are equal: the
transgressors are equal with the victims, the killers are equal with their victims, the
builders are equal with the destroyers, and everything and every meaning in this
universe becomes meaningless and empty, and even attributing such foolishness
to God - be He exalted. As such horrible imperfection can’t be attributed to God,
and God inspired us- by means of intuition (our natural compass) with the ability to

(169( verse (22) of Ibn Al-Qayyim`s famous Nooniyyah

176
know that wisdom is not like foolishness, and corruption is not like reformation, as
He- be He exalted- says: “ And We did not create the heaven and the earth and
that between them aimlessly. That is the assumption of those who disbelieve, so
woe to those who disbelieve from the Fire, Or should we treat those who believe
and do righteous deeds like corrupters in the land? Or should We treat those who
fear Allah like the wicked?” (Surah Sad: 27:28)
And He also says: “ Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the
alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding. Who
remember Allah while standing or sitting or [lying] on their sides and give thought
to the creation of the heavens and the earth, [saying], "Our Lord, You did not
create this aimlessly; exalted are You [above such a thing]; then protect us from
the punishment of the Fire. Our Lord, indeed whoever You admit to the Fire - You
have disgraced him, and for the wrongdoers there are no helpers. Our Lord,
indeed we have heard a caller calling to faith, [saying], 'Believe in your Lord,' and
we have believed. Our Lord, so forgive us our sins and remove from us our
misdeeds and cause us to die with the righteous.”- (Surah Ali’Imran [190: 193])

***

177
 Chapter (5)
Why Islam?

If a human admits the existence of the creator, then they acknowledge that He sent
the messages and messengers, at this point they will start searching for the true
belief, and then you would probably hear those who say to you: which god is the
true god I should worship? Zeus or Krishna or Buddha or Marduk…etc. and also say:
there are thousands of religions out there, so how do I know which is truest? And
the answer for these questions is:
There are no thousand religions, or a thousand gods or anything, there are only :
Judaism, Christianity and Islam, those are the ones sent down from God, and all the
other religions never claim that they are messages from God, but rather, they are
positively human philosophies constructed by some individuals. But let’s assume
for a moment that there are indeed a thousand religions out there, what is our
criteria in our search for the true religion?
I will here summon the story of God’s prophet, Abraham (peace be upon him)
arguing his people- who did believe in a creator, but they were setting partners
with Him, and the beloved Abraham showed them- by being an example of a
genuine truth seeker- where they should begin their search, using- during his
blissful journey for the truth- his intellectual and intuitive faculties which naturally
seek for the true god, so, he was ready to worship any being or anything that
fulfilled the qualities he intuitively knew, and abandon everything that doesn’t
meet this criteria.
Allah- be He exalted- said: “So when the night covered him [with darkness], he
saw a star. He said, "This is my lord." But when it set, he said, "I like not those
that disappear. And when he saw the moon rising, he said, "This is my lord." But
when it set, he said, "Unless my Lord guides me, I will surely be among the people
gone astray”.And when he saw the sun rising, he said, "This is my lord; this is
greater." But when it set, he said, "O my people, indeed I am free from what you
associate with Allah. Indeed, I have turned my face toward He who created the
heavens and the earth, inclining toward truth, and I am not of those who
associate others with Allah.”-(Surah Al-An’am: 76- 79)
The first criterion then was (he said” I like not those that disappear”), which
indicates that we are naturally guided to worship God and be near Him, and ask for

178
His help each moment, one can’t be a servant to God half the day, and spend the
rest of the day without a need for Him, so, a god who would disappear and be
present only at certain times, a god who doesn’t see me all the time, who doesn’t
hear my calls all the time, and who doesn’t guide me, and be always present, is not
fit to be God (according to my intuition), and this is similar to what Abraham said
to his father :” [Mention] when he said to his father, "O my father, why do you
worship that which does not hear and does not see and will not benefit you at
all?”- (Surah Mariam: 42)
The second criterion : (But when it set, he said, "Unless my Lord guides me, I will
surely be among the people gone astray.").
Only a god worth worshipping can speak and clarify and guide, this is like His saying-
be He exalted: “And the people of Moses made, after [his departure], from their
ornaments a calf - an image having a lowing sound. Did they not see that it could
neither speak to them nor guide them to a way? They took it [for worship], and
they were wrongdoers.” – (Surah Al-A’raf : 148).
And also His saying : “Say, "Are there of your 'partners' any who guides to the
truth?" Say, " Allah guides to the truth. So is He who guides to the truth more
worthy to be followed or he who guides not unless he is guided? Then what is
[wrong] with you - how do you judge?"- (Surah Yunus: 35)
The third criterion: (rising, he said, "This is my lord; this is greater). Which means
that God should be greater than everything else, because if there is anything
greater than Him, surrounding Him, then that would be a terrible imperfection, and
intuition loves greatness and absolute perfection, and so perfect love and humility
can’t be achieved (which are true servitude) unless if they are directed toward the
greatest and the most perfect of all.
These intellectual and intuitive qualities never apply to any of the pagan or
polytheist religions, because it includes setting partners with God, and making
them equal to Him, which is nonsensical and putting God in an inferior position,
and the same thing applies to Judaism and Christianity, which were unfortunately
distorted, because when you read the Quran and the new and old testaments, you
will then be able to discern which contains the true words of an omnipotent and
all-knowledgeable God and through the distorted, obvious human intervention,
with lack of respect for God, and attributing terrible imperfections to Him- be He
exalted, like regret, fear, lack of ability, ignorance, stinginess, as shown in the
distorted old testament, where they detected Jacob (peace be upon him) as a

179
human being who physically struggles with God. Also, making Jesus a son and an
equal to God, as shown in the new testament, and this is an outright obscenity
toward God too, because if you say that God, who there is nothing like Him made
Jesus (peace be upon him) his own son, you then have created equals for God,
because a son is part of his father, God be exalted over all of these things.
Imagine being an employee at a bank where one day, you’re visited by a number
of people carrying personal checks, and each one asks you to cash from an account
that belongs to one of the sons of the original account holder, and as you look at
the checks you find many different signatures in all of the checks. The only option
you will have then is to match the signatures with the signature in the bank’s
records and then you will get to know which checks are authentic and which aren’t.
Honest and objective contemplation of the Quran lets us know that it’s indeed
Allah’s words, and not just the work of the sheer genius of a poet or a philosopher,
surpassing all his contemporaries. Because genius people in all walks of life do bring
into their societies knowledge in ways none of their contemporaries are able to
duplicate, but the source of the knowledge they bring remains the same one
everyone can take from, accumulated human knowledge and human intellect, but
the prophets’ messages (including the Quran) are totally different than what any
humans or jinn can ever produce, thus these words hold the signature of God, going
against the norms is but excellence over the contemporaries or some of them, but
in the end, it can happen with other people within a certain profession or certain
field of knowledge, and this genius person who surpassed others is but someone
who had to – intelligently though- benefit from the causes he needed to employ in
order to achieve the results they achieved, while a divine sign indicates that the
one who sent it possesses perfect capability and perfect knowledge and other
qualities of perfection possessed by none other than the creator, thus revealing the
qualities of the sender, so when people see it they’d be able to know that it came
from their God.
Quran is not the same as human words, but rather, its words indicate supreme
knowledge and capability surrounding everything, as Allah said:” Say, [O
Muhammad], "It has been revealed by He who knows [every] secret within the
heavens and the earth. Indeed, He is ever Forgiving and Merciful."- (Surah Al-
Furqan:6), and that is why no one ever could or ever can imitate it or produce
something like it, because it’s Allah’s words.
To have a clearer picture about the difference between Quran and human words,
let’s look at these examples:
180
1. The Quran’s style: I don’t just mean its eloquence, which indeed crippled the
most eloquent of Arabs. I mean the unique way it helps ingraining the meanings
in one’s psyche, whether these meanings constitute beliefs and great
argumentative skills, or meanings that help correcting and purifying deep
human feelings. If we investigate Islamic history, we’d find that correct Islamic
faith based on deep understanding of the Quran and Sunnah was and still
constitute the greatest resource of powerful answers for all kinds of questions
and arguments renewing themselves in different ages and different places, and
to have such ability to present firm arguments and evidence appropriate for
answering and refuting all kinds of arguments, indicates a dynamic
comprehensive approach fit for all times and all kinds of thought that nobody
can produce, as detailed explanations and arguments are always the best way
to narrow and reconcile the gaps in the human thought process, but at the same
time, this detail is restricted within a certain frame which it isn’t able to surpass,
as though it was previously designed only for this purpose, and one needs only
reassemble the argument in a new way so it can fit the new changes.
Quran’s arguments never mention details, they just mention the unchanging
basic foundation of the issue which will always exist, no matter how multiple
and varied are the ways the skeptics come up with. For example, (the
distinctive measurement method to prove the occurrence of events), what
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah used to call “the Quranic method to prove
occurrence”)170( answers many of the arguments of modern physics in this time
and age of ours.
Also (the distinctive measurement to clarify the meaning of causality and prove
the impossibility of nullifying it) is within Allah’s words: “Had there been within
the heavens and earth gods besides Allah, they both would have been ruined.
So exalted is Allah, Lord of the Throne, above what they describe.”- (Surah Al-
Anbya : 22), because if we assume the presence of something at anytime or
space which isn’t governed by causality and natural laws, this thing will surely
dominate everything else, and nothing would be able to stop it from overcoming
any other law or system or the very characteristics of its makeup, and it will be
just like another god who wanted to bring about a new system other than the
one Allah made to be governed by causal interactions. And knowing that this
never happened lets us know that there is only one system (as nothing actually
exists outside this system) and a single will (there are no two gods) and our

(170( Solving the Conflict Between Reason and Revelation (5-294)

181
 knowledge of the presence of a single system in this universe is sufficient to
prove that causality governs the existence of all living beings.
Also, the argumentative style of the Quran is far from being human, because
they are exceptionally deep and easy and devoid of any false premises, they are
also perfectly interactive and correlated, as each part needs the other in order
to present a complete and full picture of our existence, as the evidence for the
existence of Allah and the evidence of His wisdom and His perfect knowledge
and mercy necessitate justice and holding the human kind -endowed with
intelligence and free will- accountable for their deeds and require the presence
of a system of reward and punishment in perfect accordance with these deeds,
and previous information and warning through sending the messengers and
revealing the lies of those who claim to be divinely inspired.
Quran also has a unique style addressing the human self and purifying it. As
one’s able to perceive – in all the stories of the Quran- basic lines drawing and
depicting humanity with all its good and evil capabilities, stories that you can
relate to, and find your true position in life and the path you should take, and
also all the kinds of obstacles you could be confronted with along the path and
the ways and solutions you can use to overcome them. that is why most of these
stories always end with a verse that reminds all of us with the prophethood of
Muhammad (peace and praises be upon him), and because Quran stories are
not like humans’, one could read them again and again indefinitely without ever
getting bored, learning new things every time we read and contemplate them.
2. Quran’s laws are not the same as humans’, as they contain no contradictions at
all, and its laws are applicable to any human affair anytime anywhere, they are
comprehensive and wise and appropriate for all people. For example, the
Quranic order of preserving family bonds is a general one, it doesn’t tell you
how you can do it, nor does it tell you how many times you should do that, it
just leaves it open, after confirming that it’s a form worshipping on equal footing
with prayer and fasting, leaving it open to be determined by people according
to the traditions of their different societies, for example you could achieve this
by giving some of your money to family members, and other times you could
provide them with emotional support and good advice..etc., this is an extremely
wise manner of presenting an important instruction, because it expands the
things that should be expanded and restrict those which must be restricted.
Also, the easiness of the instructions in the Quran, and their ability to be flexibly
applied to people’s lives at all times and everywhere in forms and ways that can
182
 fill hundreds of books, and yet you find in the Quran and Sunnah, concise
descriptions of all the varying issues people can ever meet during their lives,, by
mentioning varying issues and the reason it could apply to you or anyone else.
3. The influence of the Quran over one’s heart (inner being) is not like the influence
of poetry at could cause boredom if repeated over and over. but rather, its
effect- known to every believing Muslim- is an evidence at shows that it wasn’t
made by any human, as after the Quran clarifies the truth and doing away with
falsehood in ways only befitting the most knowledgeable and wise Allah, instead
of matters ending at this point, paving thus the clear path for everyone who
wishes to succeed, we find the Quran ordering us with things like prayer, fasting,
preserving family bonds and supporting the orphans, and tells you that your
faith increases as you do these things. what do these things have to do with an
abstract thought in your head?
In addition, it tells you to stay away from evil things like adultery, lying, usury,
stealing, bad manners, breaking bonds with your parents or insulting them in
any way, and tells you that your faith decreases if you do these things, and
indeed, all these effects take place, and Muslims do feel the increase or
decrease of the light of faith inside their hearts.
The Quran tells us that whomever turn away from these instructions is subject
to be deprived of the gift of belief, no matter how intelligent they are, and they
won’t be able to see the truth and evidence again after they were able to
perceive the truth in the beginning, as Allah- be He exalted says: “O you who
have believed, respond to Allah and to the Messenger when he calls you to
that which gives you life. And know that Allah intervenes between a man and
his heart and that to Him you will be gathered.”- (Surah Al-Anfal: 24), and you
might even find this same person dying for a cow they were worshipping. Such
information can only be inspired by one who is knowledgeable and capable of
everything, otherwise, belief should have been only a fixed abstract idea, not
subject for any decrease or increase, and even if it did, this would be because of
the lack or availability of the causes of knowledge and not because of certain
behaviors totally independent of those causes.
4. The Quran tells us the future in totally ways different than the practices of any
kind of fortune tellers who could tell you one true thing about yourself among
a hundred lies in the same single information. As Quran extensively navigates
the past, the future and present of the world, every single thing it says is true,
and one famous example is the Quran’s prophecy that the Byzantines will be
183
 defeating the Persians in a few years (few traditionally meaning 3-9). As Allah
said: “The Byzantines have been defeated. In the nearest land. But they, after
their defeat, will overcome. Within three to nine years. To Allah belongs the
command before and after. And that day the believers will rejoice.”- (Surah
Ar-Rum : 2-4)
Which indeed happened during the period of time the Quran mentioned, and
that prophecy was very famous and was heard by everybody, and polytheists at
the time challenged the prophet’s companion Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (R.A) - making
a bet over the numbers of years it should take before it happens.
And because the Islamic library is rich with books about the different miraculous
aspects of the Quran, and the evidence of the prophethood of Muhammad)171(,
I shall stop at this point.

***

(171( For more knowledge, look up the Internet web-site of the International Committee of the Scientific Miracles of
the Quran and Sunnah :
http://www.eajaz.org/

184
 Chapter (6)
Post-Evidence Phase
Various Philosophical and Religious Questions

The subjects we will be discussing in this chapter aren’t directly concerned with
disproving the principle of evidence of belief, and that’s why I named the chapter
post-evidence phase. Because there could be something within a person’s heart
that is preventing them from believing, even though they know that the evidence
for faith is true, and that the doubt they still have in their heart doesn’t contradict
the fundamentals of belief. This is a condition called “emotional atheism”, and I
don’t mean by it that the person’s questions or skepticism are trivial or that they
don’t require attention. But rather, that anyone who has these questions or issues
should examine them in the light of the evidence of belief they’re already
convinced with, letting these be the judge, and consequently being able to hold on
to their faith despite the presence of such disturbances. But to do the opposite,
and start questioning the now established fundamentals of faith according to the
aforementioned doubts, is either emotional behavior, or yielding to whimsical
wishes, and can never be a correct logical behavior supported by reasonable
justifications. On the other hand, I will discuss subjects that demonstrate the real
ugliness and terrible contradiction of the irreligious thought structure, but I don’t
consider that this result can be solely relied upon as independent evidence for the
fallacy of irreligiousness.

185
 1. what is the answer to the problem of evil?
This diagram (41) demonstrates the meaning of the famous dilemma known as the
Evil problem:

Figure (41)
The answer to the problem of evil :
*The first question : Does evil exist?
The Epicurian’s diagram is : 1- if yes then… 2- if no then….
Our answer is : Yes, but God’s creating evil is not evil in itself, because it brings
about greater good. Which makes goodness the end result, and achieves higher
purposes, such as, people who deserve goodness gaining it through having patience
toward evil, resisting it, and struggling against it. Or people who deserve

186
punishment being subject to it through the sole means of their willful choice of
doing evil.
*The second question: Can God prevent evil?
The diagram’s answer is:
1. Yes 2-no
Our answer: yes, He can prevent evil, as He’s capable of everything, but He doesn’t
because evil contains necessary goodness as previously shown.
*The Third Question: Does God know about all the evil?
The diagram’s answer: 1- yes 2-no
Our answer: yes, as He is knowledgeable of everything.
*The Fourth Question: Does God want to prevent all evil?
The diagram’s answer : 1- if yes (why is there evil) 2- if no (then God is not good
and merciful)
Our answer: no, because if he prevented evil, those who deserve goodness
wouldn’t be able to gain the goodness contained in recognizing evil and resisting
and confronting it, and those who deserve punishment because of their choice and
ability to commit evil won’t be punished. Because if God holds someone
accountable for an evil deed this person never wanted or willed, He wouldn’t be
just, and this shows that leaving room for evil to appear and be recognized is the
way His mercy is given to people who deserve it, and his perfect justice is attained
by punishing those who choose evil, unlike the way the diagram puts it.
/Hence showing that his mercy towards people who deserve mercy, and his justice
towards punishment deserving evil doers, is attained through leaving room for evil
to appear and be recognized, unlike the way the diagram puts it.
*The Fifth Question: then why is there evil?
The diagram’s answer:
1. To test us (if God is all knowing, He would know what we would do if
we were tested, therefore (there is)no need to test us).
2. Because of the devil (an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good God
could and would destroy Satan)

187
Our answer: yes, to test us, and for the wisdom we mentioned. And God knows
what we would do because He is all-knowing, he did not test us in order to know,
as the diagram claims. But the reason for this test is to show/demonstrate/manifest
those actual deeds, in order to show us from what we know that we did out of our
true free will, that we deserve the assigned judgment, and not because of God’s
previous knowledge of what we would choose. So, the reason behind the test is to
establish in our eyes the merit of whichever assigned judgement, and not to help
an all-knowledgeable God acquire new knowledge which He didn’t have.
*The Sixth Question: Can God create a world without evil?
The diagram’s answer : 1- yes 2-no
Our answer: yes
*The Seventh Question: Why didn’t God create a world without evil?
The diagram’s answer:
1. To test us (if God is all knowing, He would know what we would do if
we were tested, therefore (there is) no need to test us).
2. To give us free will.
Our answer: both to test us and give us free will and for other wisdom too, and the
objection to the first answer was already discussed in question five’s answer.
*The Eighth Question: Can God create a universe and give us free will without the
existence of evil?
The diagram’s answer:
1. Yes (then why didn’t He create a world without evil?)
2. No (then God is not all-powerfull)
Our answer: no “yes”, and no “no”! because this is a meaningless play on words
(meaning that it’s an inherently impossible question, and that’s why they call it the
loaded question), because the true meaning of the question is :” Can God create a
world and give us free will to choose between good and evil, but without free
will to choose evil?”, so, the question proves the existence of free choice to choose
evil, then it denies the need for its existence, which makes the end result zero.
When these people bring a true question, then we can provide the answer.

188
And here is an open question for them : mention only one difference between good
and evil from your atheist materialist viewpoint?

2- The materialist solution for the problem of evil: is it atheism or sadism?

When a human watches the pain of the people and animals around them and their
mental or physical suffering, they naturally experience pain and bitterness
themselves (because of it), this is called sympathy. They would want to help
alleviate their suffering, even if it’s at the expense of their personal comfort, due
to the natural feelings of mercy and love of goodness God put in each human’s
heart. They might sometimes wonder why God didn’t prevent this when He could,
since He’s all-powerful and he is no doubt more merciful toward His
creatures/servants than they are themselves (he is no doubt the most merciful
toward his servants), for he is the one who instilled the mercy in our hearts?
The logical answer is that God has a natural will as well as well as a cosmic will. The
first one means what God loves, and the second one means what God willed to
happen in the universe. What happens in this world must have occurred in
accordance with God’s will, but not necessarily what He loves, because He could
cause things He doesn’t love to happen in order to achieve a certain wise purpose,
like shortages of money or food or health and well being in order for Him to test
these people, and give them the free choice to perceive the goodness contained
within those disasters, and to choose freely the ways to live good lives in this life
and hereafter, and other logical reasons, which are correct and very logical to us as
believers, but the atheist who loses their faith in God and goodness because of this
problem, and who doesn’t accept these solutions which Islam provide, falls into
terrible contradiction.
They on the one hand denies God because they persist on not trying to understand
what religion says, and insists that god loves evil, thus denying the existence of God
(even though the problem of evil doesn’t refute God’s existence in the first place)
and they refuse to worship Him, when they should have reconsidered looking into
the meaning of evil itself, because if we love goodness and hate evil because of our
instinctive nature which we know to be true, by first knowing that God is the one
who endowed us with this gift, and secondly because God did clarify in His
messages that He loves goodness and despises evil, and sent general and specific
instructions to do good, promising that He will reward us with the best rewards as
we do that. As for the atheist who lost belief in God and in his good intuition and

189
the judgement day, who believes in nothing other than the material existence, they
just have to look for better understanding of evil and the pain they themselves
suffer when watching other humans and living beings suffer, and the fact they
never want to hurt another, because this instinctive hatred of evil doesn’t have any
real meaning from a materialist point of view that they chose to adopt when they
decided to become an atheist.
Sometimes, “enjoying” watching these evils can be more appropriate for them and
they start seeing this enjoyment as a form of adaptation with nature, and that’s
because Darwinism tells you that individuals struggle and fight with each other in
order to achieve their personal gain, so, if the pain they experience when they
watching others suffering is genuine and deep, they are certainly more self-
defeated and less adaptive and competent than Sadists, who enjoy humiliating and
punishing people or watching them suffer, and these are certainly behaving in
perfect accordance with materialism and the Darwinian natural laws, because
conflict with others for personal gain, which is supposed to be the secret of life and
the reason for its existence, certainly have negative consequences for others, as
there is an association between personal gain and inflicting pain and harm on
others, and sympathy with other people’s suffering becomes an obstacle that must
be got rid of.
Sadism is considering the damage that happened to others is in itself a personal
gain, and this is surely a sign of healing in the materialist doctrine and remission
from meaningless metaphysical delusions. As Sadism is this materialist viewpoint
of life’s good son, and the correct materialist solution for the problem of evil,
because from this viewpoint, it’s meaningless to hate evil and feel pain because of
it. why feel pain while we can benefit from enjoy watching and even participating
in it?
I hope every atheist start to contemplate this matter well before they fool
themselves and others, trying to convince everyone that the reason for their
atheism is their excessive sensitivity and desiring the well-being of others, or what
is generally known as the problem of evil, because that would be a terrible
contradiction as we clarified. And maybe that’s the reason for the involvement of
communism in killing millions of people and the cruel horrors surpassing all
expectations as the iconic leaders of atheism practiced what they believed in on
real ground: people like Stalin, Mao Tse Tong and others.
When you experience genuine pain and you really despise the horrors and
tragedies happening around you, you have only two choices:
190
The first one is: you listen to your intuition and human nature that tell you that evil
is ugly, and recognize that those feelings you have were imbedded within you by a
power that also hates these things, and that is what Islam says.
The second choice: you see the world from the materialist point of view, and find
that there is no legitimate justification for the pain and despise you experience
when watching others suffer, and there might even be legitimate reasons for
inflicting this pain on others or at least trying to push away the personal pain and
replace it with enjoying and relishing these pains, and that is Sadism.
Either you become a materialist who feels pain when watching people suffer from
evil and agony (atheist because of the problem of evil) and this a meaningless
contradiction.
In other words, as each one of us contemplates evil, we are faced with two options
: either be a believer or a sadist, but there can never be an emotional sensitive
atheist, whose reason for becoming an atheist is the problem of evil.

3. Why are all the tragedies inflicting Muslims today? Isn’t there any one of them
worthy of empowerment?
When you contemplate Allah’s words- be He exalted- in Al-Qasas, saying: “And the
wife of Pharaoh said, "[He will be] a comfort of the eye for me and for you. Do
not kill him; perhaps he may benefit us, or we may adopt him as a son." And they
perceived not.”- (Surah Al-Qasas: 9), you begin to remember that there are other
places in the Quran where you read the same words, in Surah Yusuf: “And the one
from Egypt who bought him said to his wife, "Make his residence comfortable.
Perhaps he will benefit us, or we will adopt him as a son." And thus, We
established Joseph in the land that We might teach him the interpretation of
events. And Allah is predominant over His affair, but most of the people do not
know.”- (Surah Yusuf: 21).
And this might make you want to know what kind of relationship exists between
these two stories, and the location of the verses in these stories exactly. You soon
begin to perceive a great secret about the laws of Allah which govern victory and
enablement, this secret is the answer for the question: how is truth enabled to
become victorious over falsehood? Which is also the answer for the question: why
all these tragedies and hardships in the lives of Muslims?

191
In the story of Yusuf (peace be upon him) we see that Allah- be He exalted- wanted
to establish Yusuf in the land, and He did that by making him the offspring of one
of the great kings in the land?!
No, no, I beg your pardon please, this happened by making him a slave, not only a
slave, but also a prisoner, and when mentioning how he got to be a slave, Allah- be
He exalted- said: “ And the one from Egypt who bought him said to his wife, "Make
his residence comfortable. Perhaps he will benefit us, or we will adopt him as a
son." And thus, We established Joseph in the land that We might teach him the
interpretation of events. And Allah is predominant over His affair, but most of the
people do not know.”- (Surah Yusuf: 21).
He established Yusuf in the land and enabled him to be a leader by being an owned
slave?!! Yes, this is the means Allah chose to enable a human.
Then when you look into Surah Al-Qasas, you find that Allah tells us about the
criminal horrors committed by the pharaoh of Egypt, and He- be He exalted- wants
to establish those who were oppressed in the land, as He says:” Indeed, Pharaoh
exalted himself in the land and made its people into factions, oppressing a sector
among them, slaughtering their [newborn] sons and keeping their females alive.
Indeed, he was of the corrupters. And We wanted to confer favor upon those who
were oppressed in the land and make them leaders and make them inheritors.
And establish them in the land and show Pharaoh and [his minister] Haman and
their soldiers through them that which they had feared.”- (Surah Al-Qasas: 4-6).
Very well, so the next verse will surely be a confirmation that Allah will send to the
Pharaoh a prophet leading a great army behind him, to free these weak oppressed
people form his clutches?? Or to invite him for the truth, so if he refuses, he fights
him and ends these troubles and afflictions the Pharaoh was causing?? Especially
that Pharaoh used to claim that he is the true god, and exploit his authority and
power to propagate that, and consequently, ending his reign is a part of
establishing the truth over him and the ones who believed him??
Not exactly. As you continue reading, you find the next verses as thus: “ And We
inspired to the mother of Moses, "Suckle him; but when you fear for him, cast
him into the river and do not fear and do not grieve. Indeed, We will return him
to you and will make him [one] of the messengers. And the family of Pharaoh
picked him up [out of the river] so that he would become to them an enemy and
a [cause of] grief. Indeed, Pharaoh and Haman and their soldiers were deliberate
sinners. And the wife of Pharaoh said, "[He will be] a comfort of the eye for me

192
and for you. Do not kill him; perhaps he may benefit us, or we may adopt him as
a son." And they perceived not.”- (Surah Al-Qasas: 7-9).
How strange! Allah wanted to establish the Israelites in the land, so He sends them
a baby boy! In addition, He sends him in the year the Pharaoh decided to kill all
newborn boys, then He inspires Moses’ mother to cast him in the river if she fears
for his safety, in order to be picked up by none other than Pharaoh himself!! This
makes you stop and think. Everything is going in exactly the opposite direction of
our imagination and expectations.
Allah’s prophet, Lot (peace be upon him) also received victory in ways he never
expected, as he was visited one day by angles in the form of extremely handsome
men. Something which made him worry about the wicked ones in his people’s
terrible reaction if they see them, and the victory day was the same day he thought
it was going to be the worst day in his entire life, because this time, his people will
terribly humiliate his guests. Allah- be He exalted- says: “ And when Our
messengers, [the angels], came to Lot, he was anguished for them and felt for
them great discomfort and said, "This is a trying day."-(Surah Hud: 77)
The same thing repeats itself in prophet Muhammad’s story – Praises and peace
upon him. As in this example, he was enabled to enter Mecca, after which people
entered into the religion of Allah in multitudes, as Surah Al-Nasr depicts: “ When
the victory of Allah has come and the conquest. And you see the people entering
into the religion of Allah in multitudes. Then exalt [Him] with praise of your Lord
and ask forgiveness of Him. Indeed, He is ever Accepting of repentance.”- (Surah
An-Nasr: 1-3).
Entering Mecca was achieved with the treaty of Hudaybiyyah, which was a
shattering earthquake for all the great companions of the prophet- except Abu
Bakr- because of the terribly unjust conditions the prophet (peace be upon him)
consented to, and everyone who’d watch this event would think that it would be
the end of Islam and the declining of its light, but Allah named it victory, and sent
down Suarh Al-Fath (surah of victory), so, praised be Allah, He made the prophet
victorious and established him in the land the same way he established other
prophets before him, as if this is a basic divine law for strengthening and enabling
the truth to conquer falsehood. And Allah knows best.
Many benefits can be deduced from these lessons:
1. Allah shows His ability, because if victory and establishment in the land
happened according to normal causes, there wouldn’t be any miracle or sign
193
 in enabling the prophets and messengers and people of truth to be
successful leaders.
2. We have firm belief that Allah will eventually make truth victorious and
nullifies the falsehood, no matter how strong and great evil seemed, so we
never lose hope whatever the circumstances around us looked like. As the
day of victory might be the very day we think it’s going to be the worst day
of our lives. If not for Allah establishing this principle in the lives of the
prophets and good people, we wouldn’t have been able to benefit from that.
3. To realize patience as a way of worshipping Allah, which is the faithful
partner of certainty in a Muslim’s life, because patience is never an
exceptional quality, but rather, it’s a virtue that Muslims always practice, we
obey Allah patiently throughout our lives, and teach ourselves to be patient
by staying away from the things that displease Him, and we are also patient
through painful hardships which are Allah’s gifts for us. A Muslim’s life
fluctuates between many degrees of patience, and that’s why you find Quran
mentioning patience as a basic foundation in believers’ lives, never departing
them until they meet their Lord. The Quran also considers it the key to victory
as shown in the prophet’s hadith:” Know that with patience comes victory,
and that with adversity comes relief comes, and that with hardship comes
ease.”
This part is the answer for the question, why are there all these adversities inflicting
Muslims today, and the answer is: if there aren’t adversities in one’s life, we
wouldn’t know relief, and there wouldn’t be something worth while all the patience
we exercise in the face of these hardships, and if realizing patience is one of the
most important purposeful ways of life, then religion wouldn’t make it the faithful
friend of a believer in this way: “And the eminent among the people of Pharaoh
said," Will you leave Moses and his people to cause corruption in the land and
abandon you and your gods?" [Pharaoh] said, "We will kill their sons and keep
their women alive; and indeed, we are subjugators over them. Said Moses to his
people, "Seek help through Allah and be patient. Indeed, the earth belongs to
Allah. He causes to inherit it whom He wills of His servants. And the [best]
outcome is for the righteous."- (Surah Al-A’raf: 127:128).
Allah – be He exalted- says: “And We caused the people who had been oppressed
to inherit the eastern regions of the land and the western ones, which We had
blessed. And the good word of your Lord was fulfilled for the Children of Israel
because of what they had patiently endured. And We destroyed [all] that
194
Pharaoh and his people were producing and what they had been building.”-
(Surah Al-A’raf : 137) He also says: “Those will be awarded the Chamber for what
they patiently endured, and they will be received therein with greetings and
[words of] peace.”- (Surah Al-Furqan: 75)
And also says: “And We made from among them leaders guiding by Our command
when they were patient and [when] they were certain of Our signs.”- (Surah Al-
Sajdah: 24) "Peace be upon you for what you patiently endured. And excellent is
the final home."- (Surah Ar-Ra’d: 24).
“Or do you think that you will enter Paradise while such [trial] has not yet come
to you as came to those who passed on before you? They were touched by
poverty and hardship and were shaken until [even their] messenger and those
who believed with him said,"When is the help of Allah ?" Unquestionably, the
help of Allah is near.”-(Surah Al-Baqarah: 214)
“Or do you think that you will enter Paradise while Allah has not yet made evident
those of you who fight in His cause and made evident those who are steadfast?”-
(Surah Ali’Imran: 142)
“By time. Indeed, mankind is in loss. Except for those who have believed and done
righteous deeds and advised each other to truth and advised each other to
patience.”- (Surah Al-’Asr: 1-3)
And when Saul went forth with the soldiers, he said, "Indeed, Allah will be testing
you with a river. So whoever drinks from it is not of me, and whoever does not
taste it is indeed of me, excepting one who takes [from it] in the hollow of his
hand." But they drank from it, except a [very] few of them. Then when he had
crossed it along with those who believed with him, they said, "There is no power
for us today against Goliath and his soldiers." But those who were certain that
they would meet Allah said, "How many a small company has overcome a large
company by permission of Allah. And Allah is with the patient. And when they
went forth to [face] Goliath and his soldiers, they said, "Our Lord, pour upon us
patience and plant firmly our feet and give us victory over the disbelieving
people. So they defeated them by permission of Allah, and David killed Goliath,
and Allah gave him the kingship and prophethood and taught him from that
which He willed. And if it were not for Allah checking [some] people by means of
others, the earth would have been corrupted, but Allah is full of bounty to the
worlds."- (Surah Al-Baqarah: 249- 251)

195
“And how many a prophet [fought and] with him fought many religious scholars.
But they never lost assurance due to what afflicted them in the cause of Allah,
nor did they weaken or submit. And Allah loves the steadfast. And their words
were not but that they said, "Our Lord, forgive us our sins and the excess
[committed] in our affairs and plant firmly our feet and give us victory over the
disbelieving people."- (Surah Ali’Imran : 146-147)

4. Is atheism an enemy of paganism, or is it its righteous offspring?

For the first moment, some people would genuinely think that atheism is the
product of our modern age, and that it has nothing to do with paganism which was
widespread in ancient times, because paganism is the worshipping of multiple
deities, while atheism denies the existence of the creator, and any other gods, so
these two would seem to be totally contradicted.
There are those who propagate this idea as one of the advantages of atheism, and
portrays atheism as a necessary result and fruit of the increase in one’s knowledge,
and makes paganism parallel with the concept of religion and worshipping, so,
accordingly, as one gets to learn more about modern science, they naturally get rid
of the concept of religion and servitude, but the truth is different, because atheism
is a negative form of worshipping nature (by implicitly attributing all existence to
nature, and this veneration is, doubtless, a form of worshipping), or positively (with
the presence of feelings of veneration for the forces of nature in one’s mind, or
continuously mentioning and announcing it, which is a clear worship), and the
latter group of people is known as pantheists, or believers in the unity of existence,
and there’s almost no difference between Pantheism and Atheism, but one must
say, that pantheists add a touch of beauty on their bitter atheist belief, because,
instead of trying to commit suicide after you “find out” that life is meaningless and
that there is no creator, pantheism tells you not to do it, you’d better love and
celebrate this fact. This touch is surely beneficial to the atheists, because atheism
is a doctrine unfit for human consumption, and without a little beauty, things will
be really tough for atheists. So, atheism doesn’t really do away with servitude and
veneration for something, but rather, it’s one of its forms. But the interesting thing
about this is that this line of thinking has other different names, including sweet
names like Naturalistic Paganism, and these are also known as Pagan Atheists, and
this is how their slogan looks like- figure 42- which implies that atheism and
paganism are two sides of a single coin:

196
 Figure 42
An interested philosopher, Stifyn Emrys, says in one of his articles)172( titled as “Can
Atheists be Pagans?” that there is no problem for an atheist to be pagan, or for a
pagan to be an atheist, and he cites an online survey about the definition of
paganism, the result of whish was that 87% of people consider paganism a form of
veneration of nature, while only 10% think that it’s a worship of multiple deities.
The truth is, paganism in a deeper sense is really a veneration of nature, and
symbolizing of natural phenomena or our understanding of them, for example
symbols for the sun deity, the moon deity, the femalehood deity, and war
deity..etc., where all of these deities are involved in stories full of resentment,
rebellion, fear and greed and other things in a scene that couldn’t be further from
true veneration of any god, and nothing like Islam’s love and exaltation of God.
The polytheists of Quraysh used to insult God, even though they believed that He
was the creator and that He is one of the gods they worshipped, Allah- be He
exalted- said:” And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah, lest they
insult Allah in enmity without knowledge. Thus We have made pleasing to every
community their deeds. Then to their Lord is their return, and He will inform them
about what they used to do.”- (Surah Al-An’am: 108), and if you examine paganism
closely, you find that it’s a mixture of arrogance, weakness, rebellion and begging,
because as human knows that they are weak, subjugated and in need of help,
whether from the natural forces subjected to humans by God or his mind, or by
lucky chance, or anything else. At the same time, he’s very unhappy with his
situation and think that he shouldn’t constantly be so weak or humiliated.
Paganism is but a depiction for this epic scene, and the pagan human created those
multiple deities so he can describe his inner conflicts. So, it would be very naïve of
(172( An article titled “Can atheists be Pagans?” on the web-site:
humanisticpaganism.com

197
us to think that paganism is real veneration and worship of those deities, as these
deities’s share of veneration is only the share of human beings of weakness and
need for help.
Machines will play a significant role in this play afterwards, because a human gets
to find an object onto which he can pour his wrath if he doesn’t get what he wants,
and also the symbol which he can use to express his pride and arrogance if he does
get what he wants, as deities in paganism is but a mirror reflection of this human
pride and resentment, and this is the same as the atheist viewpoint of nature.
Nature conquer him and he gets angry and rebellious, then he gets to have some
of its bounties and he celebrates and venerates it, so his mind and knowledge
become great. Paganism and atheism are indeed two sides of a single coin, or you
could say that atheism is modern paganism. So, atheism is not getting rid of
authority and objects of veneration in reality, and also paganism is not the
realization of veneration and exaltation of nature with their true meanings. If you
look closely, you’d find that these two concepts are interrelated to a great extent,
and you would see that today’s atheism is but a repeated form of centuries old
paganism. The best figurative embodiment of this paganist atheist scene full of
resentment, pride, rebellion and humiliation at the same time, is depicted in the
words of O Fortuna, which is one of the first scripts of the poems of Carmina Burana
(figure 43)

Figure 43
198
Which are a group of anonymous paganist poems dating back to the 13 th century.
The poems are filled with debauchery, heresy, wine-imbibing, women and sex, but
the first part of these, called O’Fortuna, describes the problem of evil (the most
famous reason for atheism), in the form of addressing the deity of fortune
“Fortuna” of Greeks and Romans, and it’s a paganist speech directed from
worshippers to their deity, in it, the vast difference between the concept of worship
in Islam and the concept of worship in paganism, a speech filled with insults and
hatred and belittlement of that god and at the same time a depiction of the
problem of evil in the atheist manner. And many of us might recognize this poem,
but we never really searched for the meaning of its Latin words, as since Carl Orff
composed the music for some of the Carmina Burana’s poems in the thirties of the
last century, it has become one of the most famous cantatas of epic music in the
world.

5. Why do we say that there can be no morals without religion?

There can be a theist without ethics, but these ethics have no root in atheism, in
other words if there is a believer who has bad manners, then his behavior is
inconsistent with his religion, but if an atheist has good manners, then he’s
inconsistent with his philosophy in life, because there is no logical reason in his
philosophy for one to have good manners. And if each human is born with a great
reservoir of good manners embedded in their natural intuition, then an atheist
should get rid of this unjustifiable reservoir just like they get rid of any unjustifiable
primitive thought stuck in their head, because getting rid of primitive and
unjustified manners or thoughts is a requirement of atheism. And prophet
Muhammad never said that he was sent to make people start to have ethical
values, but he said: “ I was sent to uphold and perfect ethical values”)173( , as
religion justifies keeping these ethical values, it gives them purpose and deeper
meaning, and it’s the source that clarifies the details of general ethical values, and
encouraging them, and this fact has many facets:
1. If God didn’t exist, then there wouldn’t be perfect truth, everything will relative,
because there is no fixed reference for anything abstract.
2. If the day of judgement doesn’t exist, then commitment to ethical values can be
very understandably described as stupidity and foolishness, because then this
life will be everything we’ve got, and that’s why Allah-be He exalted- said of
(173( Al-Silsila Al-Sahihah – Al-Albani number 45 (1/75)

199
 those who don’t believe in the judgement day, that they won’t feed the poor
nor would they take care of the orphans:
“Have you seen the one who denies the Recompense?. For that is the one who
drives away the orphan. And does not encourage the feeding of the poor.”-(Surah
Al-Ma’un: 1-3)
And Allah- be He exalted- also said: “ And they give food in spite of love for it to
the needy, the orphan, and the captive. [Saying], "We feed you only for the
countenance of Allah. We wish not from you reward or gratitude. Indeed, We fear
from our Lord a Day austere and distressful."- (Surah Al-Insan : 8-9)
3. If a religious legislation that provides humans with detailed instructions for the
correct ethical behavior in a certain situation, or any application of life that they
don’t know much about, a person could unknowingly participate in the
destruction of the very things they want to repair, they might even kill and
destroy, thinking that what they’re doing is ethical or correct, and that they
doing the right things.

6. What did religion give to humanity?

1. They made them learn the difference between themselves and animals
governed by nothing but their instincts.
2. It ordered them to establish justice and with good conduct and giving to
relatives, and forbid immorality, bad conduct and any form of destruction or
oppression.
3. It gave them the only true way to gain the contentment and support of the Lord
of the worlds, and enter His paradise in this life and the hereafter.
4. It taught them the reason of their creation, who created them, and what destiny
is awaiting them, and saved them from the nihilist thoughts surrounding them,
which devoid life of any meaning, because the result is one: dying and turning
into a pile of dust, as there is no meaning to anything we could do in this life.
5. It gave them the Quran, which contains the medicine for every mental struggle,
and a cure for every destructive lust, turning humans from sick slaves of their
lusts into sound people who are able to see the truth.

200
6. It gave them everything they need in order for them to know the most
important truths, and the lack of need of any other source of information about
their inner worlds and what’s happening around them, and guided them for the
worshipping ways to solidify and increase faith, and forbid them from doing the
sins, because sins harden the heart, causing them to be blind from the truth.
7. It told them that if good things come to them, and they are thankful and humble,
then those good things will be increased, and if bad things happen to them, they
must be patient, and never lose hope, all the time consoling them and telling
them to expect good things if they are patient.
On the opposite side, what did atheism and irreligiousness give to humanity?
1. It told humans that they are animals just like the rest of all animals, and that
there is no real existence of things like mercy, chastity, abstinence, or good or
evil or any humane meaning, as these are empty metaphysical things.
2. It told us that there is no God who guides us or mercies us or listen to us or hold
us accountable for the deeds we chose to do, as both the killer and the victim
are equal, the unjust and the oppressed are equal, and the sane and crazy are
equal, and nothing in life has a meaning, nor is there support or help or
reference they could refer to.
3. It gave us a product that’s unfit for human consumption, which sound minds
and souls despise and shrink from, in all ages, some of them even had to worship
idols, rats and mice, running away from the harsh loneliness they experience,
after the devil drove them away from the path of the one God and the religions
of the messengers.

7- Which is more comprehensive: humanism or Islam?

Islam is doubtless much more vast and inclusive, as there is not a single virtue out
there which Islam didn’t encourage. Humanitarianism is part of Islam, but Islam has
much more to say and give. For example, it tells us that we are servants of our
creator -the greatest honor for humanity- and teaches us the best way we can
contact with our great creator and serve Him truly. Islam presents us with the best
principles to purify ourselves, physically and spiritually, to keep ourselves and our
societies safe and prosperous, preventing us from doing evil and destructive things
which we sometimes do, thinking that these things serve good purposes, while in
fact they open doorways for unimaginable horrors and destruction.
201
Without religion and the knowledge that we have lives after death, there would be
no meaning for humanity, or good or evil or life itself, because all life is meaningless
from a pure materialist point of view, and humanity and ethical values will turn into
valueless delusions.

8. Why would genius people and those who serve humanity be tortured in hell?
Most people who served humanity with their geniuses and achievements without
faith in God, did what they did, not for the sake of God and humanity, but out of
selfish desires to achieve personal gains: to be recognized among people as good
and intelligent, or to be popular and gain a lot of money and fame. And they indeed
had what they wanted, as Allah said:” Whoever desires the life of this world and
its adornments - We fully repay them for their deeds therein, and they therein
will not be deprived. Those are the ones for whom there is not in the Hereafter
but the Fire. And lost is what they did therein, and worthless is what they used
to do.” – (Surah Hud: 15-16)
He also said: “And for all there are degrees [of reward and punishment] for what
they have done, and [it is] so that He may fully compensate them for their deeds,
and they will not be wronged. And the Day those who disbelieved are exposed to
the Fire [it will be said], "You exhausted your pleasures during your worldly life
and enjoyed them, so this Day you will be awarded the punishment of [extreme]
humiliation because you were arrogant upon the earth without right and because
you were defiantly disobedient."- (Surah Al-Ahqaf: 19-20)
And even if these people have contributed to our progression and well-being, we
do owe them a lot, but, in front of God, they are more to blame than others,
because He bestowed on them and favored them with more knowledge and
understanding than all others, but they exchanged this favor for ingratitude and
refused to thank Him (and even denied His existence altogether!) and they
attributed these achievements to themselves out of pride and vanity.

9. Why does God create us for venerating and worshipping Him when He doesn’t
need anything? Isn’t He self-sufficient?
The error in this understanding is a result of the erroneous thought that the
purpose of any action is only either to gain a benefit or do away with harm,
otherwise, it would be a useless action. This is an erroneous measurement, because
202
in truth, actions are necessary requirements of the existence of a self, if the self is
perfect, then its actions are a necessary requirement and a result of its perfection,
and if the self is imperfect, its actions are a necessary requirement and a result of
its imperfection. And as imperfection always seeks perfection, the desired purpose
is refining the self by acquiring better qualities and getting rid of harmful ones,
anything else is just complete futility. A perfect self is always in a state of giving and
establishing goodness, the desired purpose here is not restricted to acquiring
personal benefits for the self, gaining benefits could never even be part of the
purpose.
So, why does God do things (like creation, giving, management, infusing life into
things, or taking lives and causing death)? The answer is that God acts in perfect
accordance with His best names and supreme qualities, and we act in accordance
with our qualities of imperfection and limited ability. For example, when I ask you
why you acted in a certain way, you would tell me that you did it in order to gain
something, a pleasure or a benefit, or to do away with a harmful thing (to us this is
perfection, but in actuality it’s imperfection, because needing something is lack of
this something in your life or self, and this is imperfection and limited ability), or
maybe you’d say that you did something just for the sake of it, without a certain
purpose (acting meaninglessly is imperfection in itself), that’s why I can describe
any action of any living creature as imperfect, because this creature is fluctuating
between two states, both of them are imperfect:
The First State: their action is purposeless. This is fooling around, and fooling
around is an imperfect quality.
The Second State: They do it for a purpose. And for any creature, that purpose is a
need of something, in order to either acquire something beneficial or do away with
harm, so they can fulfill a certain need, which is itself, lack and imperfection.
But when it comes to the creator, on which basis do we apply to Him the same rule,
and think that He’s acting for the same reasons we do? Is He a creature like us? Is
He weak and in need, like us?? (we already proved that He’s perfect and self-
sufficient). The answer is that He acts in accordance with His qualities and not ours,
and all these qualities are ones of perfection, for example He is generous towards
you and bestows on you good bounties, because He is bountiful, and is just towards
you because He is Just, and so on and so forth. These actions are not a fulfillment
of self’s needs, but they are extensions of His perfection, the influences and
requirements of His qualities. He created us so we worship Him, but it’s us who
need to worship Him, for our own well being and happiness, and He doesn’t need
203
us to worship Him, because He is the self-sufficient, the Laudable One, and it’s not
logical to think that a self-subsistent God needs anything, or needs this
worshipping, while He created both the worshipping and the worshipper. He
created us and the very capability and the willpower with which we worship Him.

10. Can God create a rock which He can’t lift? Or can He create another creator
like Him?
God is capable of every(thing), anything that can be inherently impossible (i.e.
impossible to exist in the first place) is not a (thing). It’s just an error in the
imagination of the one who asks this question, and it’s a meaningless question It’s
the questioner never did ask the question, and at the same time demands the
answer, because the question is meaningless in the first place. If a questioner asks
me: name something that’s both eternal and an event, I would say to him that their
question is illogical and meaningless, because the quality of eternity is in direct
contradiction with the quality of “occurrence”, and the two qualities can’t exist
together in anything in the world, as that is only an error in understanding, and
what you’re asking about is not a “thing” in reality, and it’s not even a “thing” in
the mind, that’s why it has nothing to do with God’s capability of every (thing),
because God is capable of every (thing).
So is the question: can God create something like Him?? the meaning of this
question is really: can God (the creator) (create) a God like Him (God is uncreated?)
truth is that this question has no meaning in the first place, and so answering it is
impossible, it’s like you are trying to prove something by negating it, and
consequently, the result is zero (1-1= 0), because how will the second god be a
creator like God, when he was created by God? And this is the same as our question
here: can God create a rock which He can’t carry? Because in order to be able to
carry it, his capability must have limits which it can’t surpass, despite the fact that
in order for him to be capable of everything, his capability must have no limits. The
meaning of this question is equivalent to: is God capable of not being capable?? It’s
like saying that he who is perfect is imperfect because he couldn’t be imperfect.
This is just a meaningless playing around with words in order to confuse the
meaning, because the inability to be imperfect is not an imperfection in the self,
but it’s rather, perfection itself.

204
11. How do we answer Euthyphro’s dilemma?
Euthyphro dilemma is proposed for the purpose of denying that God is the source
of morals and ethical values, it says: “ Is what is morally good commanded by God
because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?”,
if you say that God commanded it because it’s morally good, then things that are
morally good can be good in themselves, independently of God, and consequently,
God is not the source of morally good things, and if you say that what’s morally
good is good because it’s commanded by God, then this devoid good and evil of
their meaning, and they become delusional and untrue things, thus cancelling the
value of morals itself.
And our answer is: God commanded moral goodness because it’s good, and
because it’s beneficial and right and wise, because God’s actions and his will are in
accordance with His knowledge and wisdom, and with His qualities and names.
Allah said: “And you do not will except that Allah wills. Indeed, Allah is ever
Knowing and Wise.”- (Surah Al-Insan: 30), associating His will with His knowledge
and wisdom. As for the context of the dilemma, which implies that this means that
good morals are independent of God, and that God might not be the source of
them, or that He is the one who bestowed goodness on them, is a great confusion
between actual and abstract existence of things, as goodness and good qualities
are abstract meanings in the mind and not things that have material existence in
reality, and the dilemma in reality is a question that creates the delusion that there
is something that has a material existence which God didn’t create, and that this
thing is called goodness or morality, and anyone who wishes to be moral can do so
by taking a part of this material being, and this unquestionably a silly and futile
imagination.
There is no material being that needs to be created so we can wonder whether God
had created it or found it out there and so he loved it? but rather, the existence of
all meanings, whether they are good or evil or wise or meaningless, or beautiful or
ugly, the existence of all these qualities are established in God’s knowledge since
eternity, and not an existence of separate and material selves. This destroys the
notion that they have independent existence, because they have only real
existence in reality because of God’s knowledge of these meanings. As for the
embodiment of these meanings in reality, if this is of God’s qualities or His actions,
then it isn’t created, and if it’s not, then it’s a creation of God- be He exalted.
So: in our search for the origin or source of morals or meanings or values, we
shouldn’t fall into fallacies, deluding ourselves that we are searching for the cause
205
of the existence of a thing, a separate self called meaning and morality, because if
we did, the answer would be:
1. There is no reason. So this self is eternal and independent of God (God
is not the source of these morals).
2. This self has a cause, i.e. God created it, and so, its existence is
possible, and we can imagine that God could have created it differently (morals are
good because God commanded them)
Both options are wrong, because from the beginning, they fell in a fallacy we
created for ourselves, that is the imagination that we are speaking of a thing that
has external and independent existence, the correct approach is to firstly know that
the existence of morals is mental and abstract, then we look afterwards for its
source and find that morals are true in themselves, and that these meanings have
been established since eternity, inseparable from the creator and His attributes and
knowledge.

12. How can a disbeliever get punished for eternity based on a finite lifetime?
The questioner’s measure of justice is to make the period of sin equal to the period
of punishment, as if justice can only be established is the two periods are equal.
This is an erroneous assessment, because punishment has got nothing to do with
the period of time one spent doing a crime, and everything to do with the atrocity
and ugliness of the crime, and no sane person doubts that, because there are many
examples in our lives that show that it’s completely insensible to adopt such an
erroneous judgement by making the period of punishment equal to the period
during which the criminal was free to do the atrocious things they’d done, this is
even inapplicable in the relations between case and effect in general, and not just
punishment.
If a car driver whose attention to the road is distracted for a few seconds, this could
cost them their lives or the lives of their families and also others forever. A high
school test lasts for only a few hours, but it determines the entire course of the
students’ lives afterwards, also, when a man could kill another man in a few
seconds, can we put the killer in prison for a few seconds? Of course not, he could
spend the rest of his life in prison because of this crime that lasted for a few
seconds.

206
So what greater crime in this world that God created and ordered us to worship
Him, sending the messengers and the messages, than the crime of someone who
understands all of this then chooses to reject everything?

13. Why can’t the disbelievers just turn into dust and become nothing after they
die, instead of going to hell for eternity?
We can put this question differently as thus: isn’t it fair if a disbeliever’s life just
ends with their death, and they become equal to animals which will turn into dust
on the judgment day, or just become nothing, as any nothing else God didn’t
create?
The answer is: No, that is not fair at all, because the disbeliever committed a crime,
while animals and the uncreated things didn’t commit any crime, so, equality
between them can’t be justice.
But what about mercy?
Answer: no mercy for them, because they don’t deserve it. not because of lack of
God’s mercy, be He exalted, but because the disbeliever never asked for mercy at
the time they should have asked for it, that time being this lifetime. The disbeliever
doesn’t really want the mercy of the most merciful creator, otherwise, they would
ask for it, doing the things that were available to them which were in their capacity
to do. There is no wonder then, that those who refuse God’s mercy won’t find any
mercy, because there is no source for mercy other than God’s, which they missed
while they were equipped with perfect capacity and free choice.
This is really a great and fearful scene which when contemplated, makes one deeply
feel the meaning of : there is no god but Allah, He alone exists without partners.

14. Why do Muslim imitators (e.g. being born in a Muslim family) go to heaven,
unlike disbeliever imitators?
Firstly: the survivors are ones who die as Muslims, and not whomever was born in
an Islamic environment, and the difference is huge, because dying as a Muslim is
success bestowed by God upon those who have goodness in their hearts, and it
requires succeeding all temptations to disbelief in God during their lives, which
everyone is subject to. Allah-be He exalted- said: “Do the people think that they
will be left to say, "We believe" and they will not be tried? But We have certainly
207
tried those before them, and Allah will surely make evident those who are
truthful, and He will surely make evident the liars.”-(Surah Al-’Ankabut: 2-3)
That person who passed all trials, didn’t do that with the help of mere imitation as
the question portrays, implying that imitation caused the survival of others and the
doom of others at the same time. Imitation is never enough at times of trial. Those
survivors doubtless had other tools very different than imitation, and those tools
don’t have to be deep knowledge and intelligence, as restricting belief to abilities
of deep understanding is one of the sophistries of Al-Kalam philosophers.
Faith has many diverse paths, and the simplest of people can have faith because of
their pure and unperverted intuitive nature, or because of their true love and
veneration for their creator and refusal to set partners with Him, or because of the
gentle guidance that God puts in their hearts, or certain situations they encounter
in their lives which make them experience the presence of special care and
attention very closely, or by answering their prayers, or many other ways.
Deep study and intellectual knowledge of the evidence and inferential methods is
useful for one who’s engaged in discussions and answering arguments more than
it’s useful for filling one’s heart with faith and tasting the sweetness of belief, and
not all people get engaged in intellectual battles over religion, as God chooses to
each one of us the kinds of guidance and trials and challenges suitable to each one’s
nature. As prophet’s hadith says:” Tribulation will be presented to the hearts of
people like a reed mat woven stick by stick and any heart afflicted by them will
have a black mark put into it, but any heart that rejects them will have a white
mark put into it. Thus there will be two kinds of hearts: one is pure like a white
gemstone and it will not be harmed by any tribulation as long as the heavens and
earth endure, and the other is black and dusty like a worn-out vessel, neither
recognizing good nor rejecting evil, but rather immersed in its desires")174(
Secondly: no one will enter hell unjustly. Those who have no knowledge about the
message is pardoned, and they are tested on the judgement day, as shown in the
prophet’s hadith about those who are insane, deaf or too old, and those who die
very young and the people who weren’t alive when the messenger came, or
received distorted versions of the message, but as for those who receive the
message clear and undistorted – ad this means that they received it in a way that’s
suitable for them, not needing to imitate or get the support of anyone else- then
they reject it and choose to disbelief, for fear of confronting their people for

(174( Sahih Muslim 144, Grade: Sahih

208
example, or for fear of losing material gains or anything else of the worldly gains,
or for deep hatred for God or his religion, or any other reasons to disbelief: God
misleads them even more, because they refused the truth at the time they knew it
was truth. Allah-be He exalted- says: “And We will turn away their hearts and their
eyes just as they refused to believe in it the first time. And We will leave them in
their transgression, wandering blindly.”- (Surah Al-An’am: 110).

15. How can a person have free will when they only do what was already known
and predestined by God?
Firstly: there is no connection between knowledge and predestination, even in our
human lives and with our limited knowledge we are able to predict some of the
future events, and they indeed happen, even though we didn’t deliberately
influence their course. If we- creatures with limited ability and knowledge- can do
that, so how about the vast knowledge and arrangements of God?
Secondly: humans are possessed of free will and the faculty of distinguishing good
and evil, otherwise it would be unfair to address them with laws, nor would it be
just to hold them accountable for their deeds, to be rewarded with heaven or
punished by hell for deeds they weren’t able to choose. On the other hand, if a
human’s willpower and abilities are independent of God’s capability, humans
wouldn’t be subjugated to God, as everything God wills must happen and
everything He doesn’t will, can never happen, and nothing happens in His kingdom
against His will, because His perfect supremacy and sovereignty are perfect.
Combining between free will and God’s supremacy could seem contradictory if we
imagine that God (needs) to take away our free will, in order for us to act in
accordance with His will and wisdom, but if we remember that He’s capable of
everything, and that He doesn’t need anything in order for Him to do something,
we then know that He isn’t compelling us to do anything, and that He doesn’t take
away our true free will so His will be done, and this is perfect justice, and because
of His perfect capability, He was perfectly capable of creating free will in His
kingdom.
God is capable of fiving us free will and doesn’t need to take it away in order to
achieve His will, because He doesn’t need anything, and because He’s capable of
everything. If we rid ourselves from comparing God’s perfect capability to the
imperfect capability of His creation, the problem is then solved- God wills. And

209
maybe this is what made some of the first Muslim generation (salaf) say :destiny is
in God’s capability, and God knows better.

16. If God’s capability is manifested in His creation, then where was His capability
in eternity?
This is a confusion between epistemological knowledge and ontological knowledge,
and there is a big difference between the two.
For example, our knowledge of the law of gravity didn’t cause the law to exist. The
law exists, whether we know it or not. When we learned about gravity, our
knowledge increased, but the power of gravity didn’t increase, and our knowledge
didn’t cause it to appear suddenly. So are the qualities of the Creator- be He exalted
and to Him are the best examples. The existence of his attributes are as eternal as
His existence itself, and their perfection is self-inherited whether we see that or
not. The Creator is capable of creating and is capable of everything, even if He
doesn’t create anything.
The existence of creatures is manifestation and expression of this perfection and
an acquirement or bringing this perfection into existence. A car is called a car at the
moment it’s assembled, and before it moves one meter, because it can move, and
its movement is an increase in our knowledge and doesn’t increase its ability to
move. Likewise, a computer is called a computer at the moment it’s made, even if
it hasn’t done any mathematical calculations yet, and if we use it to do complex
mathematical calculations, this increases the benefit we have from the computer
but it doesn’t increase its capability of calculations. God-be He exalted- is absolutely
perfect, and this perfection is not something that increases, but rather, it’s people
who benefit from His perfection and their knowledge of His perfection increases as
they learn more about themselves, this human knowledge doesn’t increase His
perfection and doesn’t establish it.

210
17. Is there a conflict between Islam and experimental science?
In this figure below (44), we see:

Figure 44
The book cover of “Selenographia”, a book by the Polish astronomer Johannes
Hevelius, written in the year 1647, it symbolizes the rising of the sun of the
experimental scientific method in the middle ages, with its two extensions: on the
left is Rationality, as represented by the Arab scientist Alhazen, holding a

211
geometrical drawing, and on the right: Sensation, represented by Galileo Galilei
holding a telescope.
And even though experimental scientific method is considered a given fact, an
axiom in the minds, and its discovery can’t be attributed to a specific person. That’s
why we find in ancient Egyptian papyrus- for example- a diagnosis for various
ailments and the prescription of the suitable remedy for each ailment, like Ebers
papyrus (figure 45)

Figure 45
And also engravings representing medical and surgical tools on the temple of Kom
Ombo (figure 46):

212
 Figure 46
But Muslim scientists like (Alhazen Ibn al-Haytham, al-Khwarizmi, Ibn Hayyan, Al-
Razi, Al-Kindi, Al-Biruni and many others) had great contributions to the scientific
establishment of the modern renaissance of the experimental scientific method,
which can be denied only by the ignorant, or people with agendas, as admitted by
the objective western scholars themselves)175(.
This invalidates the illusion that implies that Islam contradicts modern
experimental science, or that modern science pioneers are exclusively atheists and
irreligious scientists.

(175( Robert Briffault. (1919). Making of Humanity. (pp. 200) London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
https://archive.org/stream/makingofhumanity00brifrich#page/200/mode/2up

213
18. What is the advantage of reliance upon God and not employing the necessary
means alone to reach our objectives?
You often hear someone says that if a human wants to do something, employing
the necessary means to reach their objectives and relying on God will certainly
succeed, but if they employ those means too, but without relying on God, they will
also certainly succeed, so what is the use of relying on God?
To answer this: the problem which some people fall into is their thinking that
relying on God is an alternative for employing the means necessary to reach a goal,
and that is untrue, as God ordered us to employ means, because He created a world
of cause and effect relationships, and He also ordered us to rely on Him, in order
for us to always remember that He- be He exalted- is capable of everything, and is
the owner of everything. The means could be available, but at the same time
useless, and other times, the means might not be available, but God wills an
unexpected source of help which might not even be so useful in ordinary times, but
they become useful at the time of need because God willed so.
This happened a lot, not only in the lives of the prophets, but also a lot of righteous
and good people, where victory or the solution to a problem appeared while the
necessary means are almost nonexistent. Islam encourages us to look for and
employ the right means just like all materialist doctrines do, but Islam added
something important that gives us the dominion over nature, instead of being
helpless slaves of nature, this addition- which is the difference between us and the
atheists- is that if the necessary means don’t exist, the means worshippers lose
every hope, unlike believers who rely on God, who don’t lose hope and never
despair, but they exercise the highest degree of patience.
The other problem related to this subject is that some people deal with reliance on
God and prayers as a given. Something that God has to do for His servant, not just
that, but also in the same way this person requested and without delay as well, and
this is a great mistake, because reliance upon God means the delegation of the
matter to God, the complete surrender to Him, seeking His help and gratitude for
His will. Prayer too is honest supplication to God, and a true servant is all the more
humble when the answer for their prayer is delayed, and not more angry and bored
whenever the answer is late.

214
19. Why do intelligent people go astray if religion is so clear and irrefutable?
This is the core of the hateful blind imitation and following of masters and authority
unfortunately, and it’s one of the greatest tests. Allah said: “And We did not send
before you, [O Muhammad], any of the messengers except that they ate food and
walked in the markets. And We have made some of you [people] as trial for
others - will you have patience? And ever is your Lord, Seeing.”- (Surah Al-Furqan:
20)
And God often gives us a glimpse of the kind of conversation that will take place in
hell between the masters- people of any authority: kings, presidents, religious
scholars and even science pioneers- and the ones who followed them blindly,
where the followers blame their masters and dignitaries because they rejected
God because they followed them. Allah- be He exalted- says:” The Day their faces
will be turned about in the Fire, they will say, "How we wish we had obeyed Allah
and obeyed the Messenger.". And they will say, "Our Lord, indeed we obeyed our
masters and our dignitaries, and they led us astray from the [right] way. Our Lord,
give them double the punishment and curse them with a great curse." – (Surah
Al-Ahzab: 66- 68)
It’s of God’s blessings upon people that the foundations of faith in God are
established at the core of all sciences and axioms and simple facts, and at this level,
everyone is equal, and they don’t each other’s advice, then, after that, they are
various in their capabilities and knowledge, as God gave the simplest of people the
ability to seek the truth for themselves without following anybody else in matters
of faith, even if they were followers of their masters and dignitaries in other worldly
matters. But there is a question: why disbelief is widespread among masters and
dignitaries and people of power and authority? And the answer is, because pride
and clinging to the worldly gains are some of the biggest reasons for oppression
and straying from goodness, and these are diseases of the heart which can afflict
everybody, but are rampant among people of power and authority. Allah-be He
exalted- said: “No! [But] indeed, man transgresses. Because he sees himself self-
sufficient.”- (Surah Al-’Alaq: 6-7)

20. Why does God care for the disobedience of an individual on a tiny planet in
this vast universe?
Answer: why would the person himself gets angry when God cares for their
disobedience, and doesn’t get angry when they see how God takes care of His
215
creation (as tiny as their size in the universe), bestowing on them His gifts of
magnificent bodies equipped with sound veins and arteries and hearts and brains,
livers, kidneys, lungs, and with sight and hearing, and ability to understand and
speak, then created for them bounties of delicious foods and drinks and made for
them spouses and children to enjoy with, then He sent down the books and the
messengers, and made easy for them the sciences that enable them to be masters
of this world!!
And why does this person get angry and bitter and makes of themselves an enemy
to God and denies His existence when a few of these gifts and bounties are taken
away from them? Doesn’t the same logic they follow tell them that the greater the
creator is, the more this creator should be neglectful of them?! And if praises are
given to God for His care and attention to each tiny creature, barely seen with the
eyes, when He gave them its most suitable structure to their environment and
arranged for that tiny minute creature their most suitable foods and life? Why isn’t
the same God be praised when He cares for the actions of humans?! And if God
said that it’s okay for the tiny negligible to kill hundreds and thousands and even
millions of other humans, as negligible and insignificant as he is, will God then be
praised too??
I put these questions in order to show the futile contradictions in this premise
which tries to imply that God holding humans accountable for their deeds is
something inappropriate for a great God. Because perfect greatness and capability
and knowledge and sovereignty entail that He doesn’t neglect anything in His
kingdom, small or big, and trying to portray the negligence of the tiny insignificant
human as a sign of greatness, and that His care for the deeds of humans is
imperfection in God, is a lame attempt that’s contradictory to one’s mind.
In addition, misdeeds like adultery, theft, killing and other deeds are not trivial
things, and humans are not trivial things in this universe, but they are creatures
who’ve been honored by God, and this materialist measurement of triviality and
greatness is certainly a kind of stupidity, because humanity and goodness and
morals and beauty and justice and everything that has meaning in people’s lives, if
we use the same measurement they use, the weight of al of all of these things will
be smaller than that of the tiniest atom in this universe, these are all trivial things
in the eyes of materialism.

216
21. Where is the wisdom in killing an apostate?
When a questioner asks: why does Islam order the killing of the apostate, when
Islam doesn’t rely on the number of believers, and never fears skepticism?
In order to answer this question, there are things that must be made clear first:
Firstly: who is an apostate? It’s the person who announces their disbelief, as
hypocrites are not killed even if their hypocrisy is obvious, as long as a hypocrite
doesn’t announce their rejection of the faith, they are still externally Muslim and
should be treated as one. As for the apostate, they don’t only announce their
rejection of the faith, but they also invite other people to do the same.
Secondly: does Islam kill someone because they are a disbeliever? No, the ones
who are born this way are just like anyone of different faith, and those who have
treaties with us, and those who come to us seeking refuge and safety, their blood
is forbidden, as the prophet’s hadith (peace be upon him) shows:
“Whoever kills a mu‘aahid (a non-Muslim living under Muslim rule) will not smell
the fragrance of Paradise, although its fragrance may be detected from a distance
of seventy years.”)176(
In another Hadith: “If anyone wrongs a mu‘aahid, detracts from his rights,
burdens him with more work than he is able to do or takes something from him
without his consent, I will plead for him (the mu‘aahid) on the Day of
Resurrection.”)177(
Thirdly: are the arguments of Islam weak? Never. It’s a religion that challenges all
humankind with the solidity of its arguments, and commands its followers to invite
people to Islam by means of intelligent conversations and debates. On the
condition that those who do that are well equipped for this purpose, and not lay
people who aren’t professional in the domains of discussion and debate and who
have good knowledge of the details of the religion.
Fourthly: Does Islam care about acquiring great numbers of believers, and compels
people to convert? No, as Allah says : “There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance
of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever
disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy
handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.”- (Surah Al-
Baqarah: 256). and it surely allows people of different faiths to practice their rituals
(176( Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 2995.
(177( Narrated by Abu Dawood, 3052; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.

217
and raise their children according to their religions, and there are many Christians
and Jews who live in Islamic countries until today.
Fifthly: is an apostate killed immediately? No. The state must provide for them
professional scholars who discuss the religion with them, and clarify everything
well, with good treatment, for a few days or more, if the apostate isn’t convinced,
they’re invited to keep their disbelief secret, but if they persist on announcing their
disbelief and inviting other people to do the same, they are then killed.
Six: who has the right to kill an apostate? The governor or a delegate of the official
state.
So why Islam orders to kill an apostate?
Islam ordered to kill them, to preserve the rights of others to survive, just like any
social system which cares for the well being of its individuals and the safety of the
community, that might take away the rights of some people which were originally
bestowed on them, but because of their transgression of other people’s rights, just
like a killer who’d be killed because they killed people, so is the same with those
who target simple people in order to make them skeptic of their religion,
announcing their apostasy and talk sweet poison to people in order to make them
reject their faith. These cause a lot of damage and destruction, so religious law is
protecting the rights of the community to avoid strife and turmoil, which are more
destructive than killing. Allah- be He exalted- says :” And kill them wherever you
overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah
is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight
you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the
disbelievers.”- (Surah Al-Baqarah: 191)

22. Why doesn’t Islam allow the freedom to invite people to polytheistic religions
in Muslim countries?
The answer for that question is based on the understanding of the true difference
between truth and falsehood first, as Islam is a religion that doesn’t fear discussion
or debate, because it’s the truth and it’s the fastest spreading religion in the world,
despite al the weakness and tepidity afflicting the nation, especially during the last
centuries, so, we rejoice if a non-Islamic country gives more freedom to Muslims or
allows the invitation for Islam in its land, but the opposite is incorrect, because how
can people who have the truth allow falsehood to be freely invited to I their land??

218
Let’s have an example to simplify this subject: if a country that legalizes prostitution
allows the building and establishment of Islamic preaching centers or mosques on
its land: can a sane person say that Islamic countries should do the same, by
allowing this country the freedom to invite for prostitution and build official
brothels?
So, it’s known that inviting to something = debates + means
As for debates, the doors are always open whether Muslims like it or not, because
they are ordered to invite all people to Islam, and this can’t be done except by
means of discussions and debates and for all parties to present their arguments,
but on the condition that the Muslims who do this be equipped with the necessary
knowledge as we said before, whether those preachers are present in Islamic
countries or other countries. As for the second requirement, the necessary means,
Islam obliges its followers to follow certain regulations of justice in their invitation
for God, and forbids them of using lies and cheating and deluding others or
engaging in fallacious arguments, or any other kind of injustice, in addition to that,
all people must be treated well, without the slightest attempt to coerce people into
converting to Islam, and it doesn’t ask non-Muslims to abide by the same rules,
even as many of them lie and cheat and speak ignorantly of our religion and curse
our sacred symbols, and if circumstances permit, they would establish for us
inquisition institutions as they did to our ancestors in Andalusia.

23. Does Islam degrade women?

This is one of the most incredible arguments, and I don’t know how did the enemies
of Islam propagate this idea, turning the truth upside down, by making honor and
veneration look like an offense.
Here are some concise answers for the most famous arguments they’re
propagating, exploiting the ignorance of Muslim lay people and others:
1. The general Islamic laws address both men and women equally, except for
things specific to women and their nature, so if Islam does injustice to women,
how come it didn’t do the same to men!!
2. Islam didn’t ask the woman to alter her kind emotional nature to turn into a
deformed rough creature as they do in west under the slogan of equality, and
that’s why it absolved her from the liabilities that need a lot of firmness and
resolve, and situations which might bring about hostility, like testimonies
219
 related to debt and money transactions and reconciliation between people, and
so on, so it required that the witness of two women be equal to one man’s, so
is this injustice or more comfort to her and mitigation of problems where she
could meet unnecessary challenges? Whomever thinks that this is an evidence
that Islam belittles women’s intelligence, we tell him that a liability which
requires great intelligence and memory skills like narrating Hadith is surely much
more important than testimony, as in this case, one woman’s memorization of
hadith is accepted, in Islam, the Mother of the Believers, Aisha (R.A.) is one of
the greatest Hadith narrators, as it was reported that she narrated and taught
more than 2000 Hadiths, and Allah- be He exalted- ordered the prophet’s wives
to narrate Hadith and narrate the Quran verses they exactly the way they are
inspired. Allah- be He exalted- said: “And remember what is recited in your
houses of the verses of Allah and wisdom. Indeed, Allah is ever Subtle and
Acquainted [with all things].”- (Surah Al-Ahzab: 34).
3. Islam didn’t deny a woman’s right to work and earn money, but it put regulating
conditions for it, like avoiding men’s congregations. while women in the west
continue to suffer from all kinds of harassment, so, is this protection of women
or injustice??
4. Islam obliges a man to fulfill all of a woman’s financial needs, and to take care
of her, whether she be an unmarried sister, a daughter, a mother or a wife, but
we don’t see the west taking care of women unless they are young, and when
the expiration date of the western women is finished, they are put in elderly
care homes or thrown out in the streets without any support, just like any
consumer product.
5. Islam ordered a woman to cover herself with hijab, in order to protect her and
her honor from the ill intentions of some men, it didn’t deprive her of her
natural love for makeup and beauty, but she is to show her beauty only to her
husband and certain relatives (who have close blood bonds with her), and not a
cheap exhibition for the mobs.
6. A woman can’t be married unless she consents and she has the right to ask for
divorce or she can even divorce her husband if necessary. Her inheritance
shouldn’t be touched, as it’s her personal right.
7. The prophet (peace and praises be upon him) said in his farewell sermon : (I
enjoin you to treat women well, for they are like captives in your hand. Verily,
you may not treat them otherwise unless they commit flagrant immorality. If

220
 they do so, then you may separate from their beds and strike them without
causing pain but if they return to good conduct, then you may do nothing
against them. You have rights over your wives and they have rights over you.
Your right is that they will not allow anyone you dislike to enter your home,
and their right is that you should treat them well regarding food and
clothing.))178(
8. Striking one’s wife by hitting her (erroneously imagined to be wife beating) is
only for the wife who abuses the marriage life and who doesn’t heed any advice,
but deviated people imagine that it’s the first thing a man has the right to do
when any conflict happens, as if all Muslim husbands are beating their wives all
day and all night, when God made it the third and last resort when no advice or
separating beds work, as Allah- be He exalted- says: “Men are in charge of
women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they
spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly
obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them
guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them;
[then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they
obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever
Exalted and Grand.”- (Surah Al-Nisa: 34)
The prophet even put conditions for this striking : it shouldn’t be beating -and
as mentioned n the farewell sermon- it shouldn’t be painful and it shouldn’t hurt
or leave a mark, because it’s a punishment, but only an action that warns her
against the danger of her attitude, and the fading away of the affection and
tranquility this attitude causes, which are the basic foundations of a Muslim
home.
9. A man will be held accountable for everyone he’s responsible for, as he’s obliged
to educate religion to his children and help everybody in the house doing good
deeds and live a good life. He’s also obliged to strife in the cause of Allah, and
to seek money in righteous ways, in order to fulfill his family’s financial needs.
But a woman’s path to heaven is much easier. The prophet (peace and praises
be upon him) said: “When a woman prays her five prayers, fasts her month (of
Ramadan), guards her chastity, and obeys her husband, then it will be said to
her: ‘Enter Paradise from whichever gate you wish’.” )179(, and this obedience to
the husband is associated with the obedience to God, but she has the right to

(178( Sunan At-Tirmidhi 1163, Grade: Sahih

(179( Musnad Ahmad 1664

221
 refuse anything he says that’s not in accordance with Islam’s teachings, as the
prophet said :” There is no obedience to the creation, in the disobedience of
the Creator.”
10. Islam ordered a man to treat his wife as part of him, to feed her of his food, and
buy her the clothes she needs, and never say a bad word to her. Not to strike
her face, or leave her in bed, as shown in Hadith: “What right can any wife
demand of her husband?" He replied, "You should give her food when you eat,
clothe her when you clothe yourself, not strike her on the face, and do not
revile her or separate from her except in the house".

24. False signal:

If a group of people agreed to do a secret mission and agreed to a starting signal:
that the boss scratches his head three consecutive times, but unfortunately for
them, the boss gets a real itch and he couldn’t stop himself from scratching his head
three consecutive times, which caused them to start the mission at the wrong time,
and consequently, the mission failed. This is a false signal. I called it signal, because
it’s not purposeful, it doesn’t have a real objective meaning by itself, just like all the
words and codes we use, as these’s no causal relationship between scratching one’s
head and starting secret missions, and I called it false, because it doesn’t convey
the desired message agreed between the parties.
An atheist perceives religion as something that doesn’t have a real objective
meaning, because- to them- if it wasn’t for the religious scholars and the religious
fools, there wouldn’t be any necessary need that calls for religion with all its
foundations and details and rituals. In their eyes, it’s a false sign that doesn’t
contain within it any real meaning or benefit, but it exists only because of the false
pretensions of the religious people, which they see as delusions, or mental
suggestions or anything else, but in the end, it’s something useless and valueless
which doesn’t contain any truth. But the biggest problem with an atheist is that
they continuously talk about the importance of knowledge, and work, and
civilization and human rights, or even talk about drugs and sex, forgetting that all
these things are also false signals, because what’s the use of knowledge and
studying this universe and harnessing the forces of nature?! Does this give us more
luxury? What’s the use of the existence or absence of comfort and luxury in our
lives? After all, these are all silly electrical signals in our brains, which were
haphazardly brought about by the blind mechanisms of nature during our

222
evolutionary journey? What is the objective difference one gets from having the
company of the most attractive women in the world or the ugliest, or to get nothing
at all? What is the meaning of beauty, and pleasure when everything is founded on
false signals, you could fall in love with a fly if your ancestors didn’t take a different
evolutionary course that made you love blue eyes instead of red ones, and soft hair
instead of harmonious antennas, and accumulated fats in the breast instead of the
slenderness and strength of wings.
A believer, on the other hand, sees all life with everything in it as a false sign. The
world just exists for us to enjoy its pleasures and there is nothing in it that’s
meaningful in itself, everything in life, whether big or small are destined to
nothingness, and the only true and meaningful life that exists is life after death, it’s
the only life we have, it’s even the only reason that gives anything meaning,
because if we are the children of this material life, the word of “meaning” itself
wouldn’t have a meaning in the first pace.
Both teams see that there is something worth living for, and that there’s something
that doesn’t have any meaning or worth living for. It’s a false sign, but the atheist’s
choice in fact makes both these things a false sign.

25. Can humans think that they are the product of a deterministic and materialist
process, led by Darwinian evolution, and at the same time think that they are
humans who both enjoy and are endowed with values and morals which
matter doesn’t possess?
I think the life of George R.Price answers this question well. George R.Price is an
American scientist who has important contributions to many different fields
(Physics, Chemistry, programming and Biology), to the point that he was nominated
for different Nobel prizes in four completely different fields. He was a very
ferocious atheist who vehemently opposed everything metaphysical or
supernatural, and a very loyal materialist. This caused the destruction of his family
and his divorce from his catholic wife, leaving her with their two daughters while
he left for London in 1957. During his stay in London, he read a short scientific
article written by W.D.Hamilton, and published in nature magazine. The article was
a foundation to the solution of one of the greatest dilemmas facing the evolution
theory: the question of how altruism appears and continues to exist, when it
contradicts natural selection?

223
Hamilton’s paper (who is considered to be the greatest biologist after Darwin) was
just a simple idea, and he didn’t even mention a single reference for his idea. So,
Price put a mathematical equation describing Hamilton’s idea about the natural
selection of close relatives, which even included the famous axiom of “survival for
the fittest”. That was the moment when the world began to speak of Price’s genius,
especially after he and Maynard Smith applied the game theory to the biological
systems in 1972. But what was even more incredible, is that right after Price, the
militant atheist, put his famous equation and as the world began to applaud his
genius for the first time, he surprised everyone with a strange announcement, that
is his equation could have been easily discovered by anyone else, and that it was a
wonderful inspiration and gift from “God”!!
Soon after that, Price converted to Evangelical Christianity.
In actuality, Price’s equation says that what we regard as pure altruism is in fact
selfishness that’s concordant with natural selection (and this is what Richard
Dawkins described later with colloquial language in his book “The Selfish Gene”,
and this means that ethical morals never existed, and that pure materialism
governs everything. This is a conclusion that price never accepted, and he spent the
rest of his life trying to overcome his equation but he unfortunately couldn’t.
Price used to go out into the streets of London, searching for homeless people in
order to give them food and money, and he even used to take them to his house,
until his house became filled with them, then he donated everything he had to the
poor and became homeless, sleeping on the streets and cleaning public toilets,
until he committed suicide in 1975.
Price did all that to prove to himself that he’s a human being, and that the
motivation that drives him is a non-materialist, ethical and spiritual one, and to
prove to himself that he’s much more than what natural selection and materialism
are saying about him. Today, atheists speak day and night of the perfect harmony
between materialism philosophy. Price must have misunderstood the materialist
natural selection theory, or is it possible that atheists don’t really understand what
humanity really means.

224
26. Does a disbeliever have a right to refuse going through this test, whose
outcome is eternity in hell?
The test itself is not the reason of the failure of those who failed, but rather, it’s
just a reason to show and reveal their failure. It’s like a criminal who would criticize
the police for revealing his crime and says :”I’m in prison because of the damn
police”, forgetting that the police only revealed his crime and it wasn’t the reason
why he committed it. As long as the test was suitable for the capacities of the
students, and as long as they were given absolute freedom to write what they wish,
without anyone forcing them, then it’s a fair test. And if it’s a fair test, and that the
test wasn’t in itself the reason of the failure of these students, so, where is the
injustice then?!
The test didn’t change anything in the results, but it only revealed those results,
and that’s why it can never be unfair. In other words, no one fails because they
were tested, but because of their unwillingness to seek and employ the available
causes of success, and just like a lazy student doesn’t have the right to refuse a test
that would reveal their failure, a disbeliever also doesn’t have the right to refuse a
test that will show their ungrateful and criminal attitude. And whomever thinks
that it’s unfair to come to this worldly test because they weren’t given the choice
in the beginning, and that that’s a good excuse for him in front of God, is just like a
man who’s presented at court with the charge of murdering all the passengers and
raping women on a train, and when the judge asks him why he committed all those
crimes, he says that he did because he didn’t choose to be on that train from the
beginning, because he was on the wrong platform, and that all the things he did
weren’t crimes, because he didn’t choose that train, and consequently he doesn’t
deserve punishment for the evil he did, or praised for the good things he did.

***

225