There is a story being sent around on the internet with a student apparently defending Islam against the attacks of an atheist professor. There are several serious mistakes, however, made by the philosophizing quasi-sophist student. I wish to make the following corrections as follows:
1. The student claimed that "darkness is just the absence of light". However, Allah said that He created darkness and light:
"وجعل الظلمات والنور"
We know then that darkness is not just the absence of light, it is something that Allah created. Water is the first creation, and before that nothing existed except Allah. It is also misleading to say that cold is the absence of heat; they are both attributes of the same creation: temperature. Allah said that He created everything:
"وخلق كل شيء".
Whether we say "it is hot"or "it is cold" is a matter of subjective judgement and people's habits.
2. The student was thrown off balance by the professor's question "is God good?" The correct response is: "to say that Allah is "good" is to make a judgement on Allah, Allah does not have a Creator, so he does not have a judge. The correct thing to say is that Allah is the creator of good and evil;
"من شر ما خلق"
"وخلق كل شيء"
Allah also said in the Quran,
"لا يسأل عما يفعل وهم يسألون",
which means that He is not asked about His actions."
3. The student claimed that death is just the absence of life. However, Allah said:
"الذي خلق الموت والحيوة",
which means that he created life and death. One cannot say then that "death is just the absence of life", since it is a creation of Allah. Death is actually an event that takes place and that Allah has created.
4. To argue in this student's way with non-muslims is to expose oneself to hellfire. Don't you see how the student encourages the professor to confirm orally his blasphemous beliefs? To intentionally make people say blasphemous things is in itself blasphemy (kufr/riddah), as has been stated by the scholars.
5. Unlike the student's claim of "taking it on faith," the belief of God's existence is provable, more so than any scientific theory. The belief if God is not based on faith alone. Islam is greater than that; as the scholars have shown in their answers to pagans and atheists throughout history. The proof of God's existence is mathematical, however, rather than experimental. One such proof is:
Premise a - We exist here today.
Premise b - Before we existed there were a series of events, one after another, leading up to our existence today. (The passing of such series of events is what we call time, and measure in minutes, days, weeks and years.)
-This series of events must have a beginning, before which there were no events. This MUST BE, because if someone claims that an eternal amount of events had to be concluded before his existence, then he is saying that eternity came to an end, which is a contradiction in terms. It is like someone saying "this car will only get to its destination after its wheels have spun infinitely many times." Would the car ever get to its destination if this was the condition for its arrival?
-Since this series of events MUST have a beginning, then we must also conclude that before this beginning there were no series of events (i.e. anything with a beginning). If someone claimed otherwise, then they would end up with the same contradiction (saying that infinity came to an end). Moreover there MUST BE a Creator that gave the series of events existence - since it was nonexistent before. It is now clear why muslims say that Allah must exist (waajib al-wujuud).
-Since it is impossible to be any events before the existence of this series (otherwise one would end up in the same contradiction in terms), then it MUST BE that the Creator is not attributed with events, i.e. any attribute or action with a beginning.
-Since all created attributes have a beginning, then it MUST BE true that the Creator does not resemble His creation.
The last point above can also be known by saying that since Godâ€™s existence MUST BE, then He cannot also be a POSSIBILITY (since they are incompatible concepts). Therefore, He must be clear of any attribute that belongs to the POSSIBLE category of things. For example, weakness, limits, boundaries and needs are attributes that may or may not have existence; their existence depends on them being created; their existence is a possibility, not a must. They need a Creator to specify their limits. We know that we need a Creator, because we know that our own attributes need specification. We know they need specification because they have limits, and limits must be specified. For example, if you pointed at a table in a room and said "who made it that shape?" and someone answered "noone, it is just there like that eternally!" would you accept this? Of course not, because we know anything limited needs someone to specify it.
This is what Ibrahim (peace be upon him) meant when he said about the star in the sky "I don't like those who go away." Going away is an event and an obvious sign the the star is a creation; it needs someone to specify its time, and it makes blatantly obvious its possibility of non-existence. He also said about the sun "this is bigger!". He was pointing out to his people that what is attributed with a limit (size needs a limit) is an event (something that has a beginning), because it needs someone to specify its size, like anything else with a size.
Therefore, Allah is not attributed with limits, since He is not created. We know from the above, by mathematical precision and necessity, that Allah exists and does not resemble His creation, which is the muslim creed. Even if the pagans disapprove.
... and Allah knows best,
--------------Quote of discussion between two ignorant people-------------------------
The author said:
> Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science
>says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
>Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.
>Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there
>is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing
>the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir,
>science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but
>has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a
>substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of
>it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved
>from a monkey?
>Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
>Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
>Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?
>Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?
>Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain,
>felt it, touched or smelt it?.....No one appears to have done so. So,
>according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable
>protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect,
>sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
> Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
>Student :That is it sir.. The link between man & god is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive.